True ROI of Top Players at the WSOP This year

[The Camel]

Interesting piece of research at 2+2.

A guy has looked at the total action of all the players who played the 50K.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/wsop-results-top-players-24-11-roi-1223086/

Worth a look.

[DMorgan]

Cliffs: Guy calculates ROI of some of the best players over a completely insignificant sample size.

By this method if the series had ended after event 50, christopher brammer would have been declared close to the nut worst poker player in vegas

Next case...

[mondatoo]

Cliffs: Guy uses incorrect information to calculate ROI's of some of the best players over a completely insignificant sample size.

By this method if the series had ended after event 50, christopher brammer would have been declared close to the nut worst poker player in vegas

Next case...

FYP

[skolsuper]

Cliffs: Guy calculates ROI of some of the best players over a completely insignificant sample size.

By this method if the series had ended after event 50, christopher brammer would have been declared close to the nut worst poker player in vegas

Next case...

It's not a league table, he's taking the players listed as a set of indistiguishable players and using that to take an roi over a more significant sample. At least that's how I read it.

[DMorgan]

Yeah but he has still just taken a mean average of everyones ROIs and used it to suggest that 30% is the ROI for the series that a 'top player' should expect. Its obv absolutely riddled with inaccuracies. There is some selection bias before it even starts because the list has been pulled from the picks in a high stakes fantasy league so whoever ran well in the last few years and won multiple bracelets is a lock to get in whereas the online sicko that has never had a live cash because he has only played 6 live events lifetime is never going to get picked when actually there is a decent chance that his true ROI is higher.

What we can infer with the highest degree of statistical significance is that the results of this study are insignificant when trying to calculate the 'true ROI' of players at the WSOP.

[The Camel]

Cliffs: Guy calculates ROI of some of the best players over a completely insignificant sample size.

By this method if the series had ended after event 50, christopher brammer would have been declared close to the nut worst poker player in vegas

Next case...

It's not a league table, he's taking the players listed as a set of indistiguishable players and using that to take an roi over a more significant sample. At least that's how I read it.

This.

Some of the mark ups being asked for in the 2+2 marketplace were LOL

For example Galen Hall asked for 1.61 in the 10k 6 max.

I'd be interested in this fields ROI in the 1k and 1.5k NLHE events.

[The Camel]

Not sure where I got that this was the field for the 50k from.

[Oxford_HRV]

id love to know the actual ROI of all wsop's for erik siedel

[skolsuper]

Yeah but he has still just taken a mean average of everyones ROIs and used it to suggest that 30% is the ROI for the series that a 'top player' should expect. Its obv absolutely riddled with inaccuracies. There is some selection bias before it even starts because the list has been pulled from the picks in a high stakes fantasy league so whoever ran well in the last few years and won multiple bracelets is a lock to get in whereas the online sicko that has never had a live cash because he has only played 6 live events lifetime is never going to get picked when actually there is a decent chance that his true ROI is higher.

What we can infer with the highest degree of statistical significance is that the results of this study are insignificant when trying to calculate the 'true ROI' of players at the WSOP.

Oh dear. Well in that case I'd say it was a nice idea but very badly executed.

[Rupert]

Yeah meaningless so much selection bias I don't know where to begin

[Rupert]

Would be cool if someone wrote out 300 sickos and then took lots of samples of like 50 or something then looked at their results in all the 1500s/1000s. I don't think the 5ks+ are especially interesting, everyone obviously has a small ROI in them IMO with the exception of the main event. This is partly what makes his numbers a heap of shit, it's all skewed by the bigger buyins - if he used average ROI instead of $ ROI then it might be a tiny bit more interesting (but still not really)

[Whollyflush]

i thought sharkscope tracked wsop events?

I wrote a few times in that Galen Hall thread. His markup was a joke and his attitude was even worse.

[George2Loose]

i thought sharkscope tracked wsop events?

I wrote a few times in that Galen Hall thread. His markup was a joke and his attitude was even worse.

link? He comes across as pretty cocky

[smashedagain]

Cliffs: Guy calculates ROI of some of the best players over a completely insignificant sample size.

By this method if the series had ended after event 50, christopher brammer would have been declared close to the nut worst poker player in vegas

Next case...

Yeah but if we had to have a decent sample size all the time then you could never come to any conclusions about live poker. This statement just let's young kids who don't have any flags spout shit about poker and get away with it. (obv don't mean you coz I respect your flags. Mean these idiots who think it's good to 5 bet jam light on grandad/women/ or people putting in there chips shaking like a shitting dog).

How's that for trolling coz they locked the Marc Wright thread before I could reply.

[Cf]

Let's assume a player has a large enough sample that we can say his ROI in a certain tournament is 50%. What would be a fair/good price for him to set for staking?