WSOP 2015: every event, every stat.

[The Camel]

Flatter is inheriently fairer

Says who?

Poker tournaments are about winning all the chips. The winner should get much, much more than 6%.

[Doobs]

Flatter is inheriently fairer

Says who?

Poker tournaments are about winning all the chips. The winner should get much, much more than 6%.

So they should make it winner takes all then? Given they haven't caught on, then nobody wants that. 

Two people play equally well, flip with 19 left, one gets 4k, the other ends up with 200k in SCOOP.  A lot of time the end of tournaments is a lot of variance between people who are similarly skilled.  Certainly on stars anyway.  People overrate themselves so will say they want the big prize, when the vast majority should want flatter and lower variance.  It really should be just the elite few with the big edges who want the skewed prizes. 

The rest are turkeys voting for christmas.

[The Camel]

Flatter is inheriently fairer

Says who?

Poker tournaments are about winning all the chips. The winner should get much, much more than 6%.

So they should make it winner takes all then? Given they haven't caught on, then nobody wants that. 

Two people play equally well, flip with 19 left, one gets 4k, the other ends up with 200k in SCOOP.  A lot of time the end of tournaments is a lot of variance between people who are similarly skilled.  Certainly on stars anyway.  People overrate themselves so will say they want the big prize, when the vast majority should want flatter and lower variance.  It really should be just the elite few with the big edges who want the skewed prizes. 

The rest are turkeys voting for christmas.

All that doesn't say why flatter is fairer.

Flatter is better for nits, skewed is better for good players.

Everyone should aspire to be the best player they can be.

[Doobs]

Flatter is inheriently fairer

Says who?

Poker tournaments are about winning all the chips. The winner should get much, much more than 6%.

So they should make it winner takes all then? Given they haven't caught on, then nobody wants that. 

Two people play equally well, flip with 19 left, one gets 4k, the other ends up with 200k in SCOOP.  A lot of time the end of tournaments is a lot of variance between people who are similarly skilled.  Certainly on stars anyway.  People overrate themselves so will say they want the big prize, when the vast majority should want flatter and lower variance.  It really should be just the elite few with the big edges who want the skewed prizes. 

The rest are turkeys voting for christmas.

All that doesn't say why flatter is fairer.

Flatter is better for nits, skewed is better for good players.

Everyone should aspire to be the best player they can be.

You should base your decisions on who you are right now, not on who you'd like to be, or who you could be if you did 2000 hours work on your game.   

Those who are going to average 50% in MTTs with big entry costs long run are a very small proportion of total players.  Most are going to be sat between -30% and +20%.  I guess most here will be better than average, but that doesn't mean their results in really big field MTTs are not going to be overwhlemed by variance.  Variance is the main difference between a top 3 and top 50 finish.  Nobody is going to play enough 22k entry tournaments to change that. 

Even amongst the elite MTT players, variance is such a big factor that many end up getting staked.  If you are merely good, the big skew in normal payouts in large field MTTs is never going to be in your interest.  It isn't just the reward that matters, it is the risk you need to take to get that reward.  Increasing the volatility without increasing your expected reward noticeably just can't be good for you.  This isn't anything to do with the difference between nits and good players, it is about an understanding of distributions. 

 

 

[The Camel]

Flatter is inheriently fairer

Says who?

Poker tournaments are about winning all the chips. The winner should get much, much more than 6%.

So they should make it winner takes all then? Given they haven't caught on, then nobody wants that. 

Two people play equally well, flip with 19 left, one gets 4k, the other ends up with 200k in SCOOP.  A lot of time the end of tournaments is a lot of variance between people who are similarly skilled.  Certainly on stars anyway.  People overrate themselves so will say they want the big prize, when the vast majority should want flatter and lower variance.  It really should be just the elite few with the big edges who want the skewed prizes. 

The rest are turkeys voting for christmas.

All that doesn't say why flatter is fairer.

Flatter is better for nits, skewed is better for good players.

Everyone should aspire to be the best player they can be.

You should base your decisions on who you are right now, not on who you'd like to be, or who you could be if you did 2000 hours work on your game.   

Those who are going to average 50% in MTTs with big entry costs long run are a very small proportion of total players.  Most are going to be sat between -30% and +20%.  I guess most here will be better than average, but that doesn't mean their results in really big field MTTs are not going to be overwhlemed by variance.  Variance is the main difference between a top 3 and top 50 finish.  Nobody is going to play enough 22k entry tournaments to change that. 

Even amongst the elite MTT players, variance is such a big factor that many end up getting staked.  If you are merely good, the big skew in normal payouts in large field MTTs is never going to be in your interest.  It isn't just the reward that matters, it is the risk you need to take to get that reward.  Increasing the volatility without increasing your expected reward noticeably just can't be good for you.  This isn't anything to do with the difference between nits and good players, it is about an understanding of distributions. 

 

 

You have this annoying habit of posting your opinions and portraying them as facts.

If you asked all 22,000 players what % of the prizepool should go to the winner, I doubt if more than one in twenty would answer 6% or less.

People like shooting for the jackpot, that's why so many people play the lottery. Why so many have a crack at Scoop 6 etc etc

We don't play events like this to make a 50% ROI. We play to get the lot.

10% for the winner is a pretty damn flat structure IMO.

[Doobs]

Flatter is inheriently fairer

Says who?

Poker tournaments are about winning all the chips. The winner should get much, much more than 6%.

So they should make it winner takes all then? Given they haven't caught on, then nobody wants that. 

Two people play equally well, flip with 19 left, one gets 4k, the other ends up with 200k in SCOOP.  A lot of time the end of tournaments is a lot of variance between people who are similarly skilled.  Certainly on stars anyway.  People overrate themselves so will say they want the big prize, when the vast majority should want flatter and lower variance.  It really should be just the elite few with the big edges who want the skewed prizes. 

The rest are turkeys voting for christmas.

All that doesn't say why flatter is fairer.

Flatter is better for nits, skewed is better for good players.

Everyone should aspire to be the best player they can be.

You should base your decisions on who you are right now, not on who you'd like to be, or who you could be if you did 2000 hours work on your game.   

Those who are going to average 50% in MTTs with big entry costs long run are a very small proportion of total players.  Most are going to be sat between -30% and +20%.  I guess most here will be better than average, but that doesn't mean their results in really big field MTTs are not going to be overwhlemed by variance.  Variance is the main difference between a top 3 and top 50 finish.  Nobody is going to play enough 22k entry tournaments to change that. 

Even amongst the elite MTT players, variance is such a big factor that many end up getting staked.  If you are merely good, the big skew in normal payouts in large field MTTs is never going to be in your interest.  It isn't just the reward that matters, it is the risk you need to take to get that reward.  Increasing the volatility without increasing your expected reward noticeably just can't be good for you.  This isn't anything to do with the difference between nits and good players, it is about an understanding of distributions. 

 

 

You have this annoying habit of posting your opinions and portraying them as facts.

If you asked all 22,000 players what % of the prizepool should go to the winner, I doubt if more than one in twenty would answer 6% or less.

People like shooting for the jackpot, that's why so many people play the lottery. Why so many have a crack at Scoop 6 etc etc

We don't play events like this to make a 50% ROI. We play to get the lot.

10% for the winner is a pretty damn flat structure IMO.

Just because people like doing something doesn't mean it is in their interest to do so. 

If you didn't just pull a small part of my post out and post off the back of that, I said right at the beginning that I didn't really get why they didn't pay a million for first.  I think it is good marketing to pay the million, I know it is better for most of the players in the tournament that they don't. 

If you don't believe it, that is absolutely fine by me.  The more the merrier I say.

Good night

[rfgqqabc]

Flatter structures do make a bit more sense, I do feel for the WSOP who have to cope with players that want more people paid and more money up top. I liked the payouts, they seemed pretty reasonable. At the same time, poker tournaments have never really made mathematical sense, at some point someone who had 20x starting and played well can receive 0, and someone else can scrape into the money and receive 1.x their buyin. Its never going to be perfect and as long as it is somewhat logical and publicised then I don't see the big deal. When you can post something on twitter and have the world give its opinion on it, it would seem fairly wise to do so instead of realising what a powerful tool twitter is just afterwards.

[cambridgealex]

Doobs wins thread

[TightEnd]

There are currently 44 left in the Colossus

no brits left as far as i can see, chip counts at http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/chipcounts.asp?grid=1136&tid=14205

brit finishers

66th laura cerisola

84th kerryjane craigie

184th simon deadman

220th mohammed suhail

310th kevin o'leary

[TightEnd]

Event #6: $1,000 Hyper Hold'em

Minnesota Poker Pro John Reading Goes Hyper, Wins First WSOP Gold Bracelet, and Pockets a Quarter Million

Fast-Structured Turbo Wraps Up in Lightning-Fast Time

http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/updates.asp?grid=1136&tid=14206

[TightEnd]

Event #7: $10,000 Limit 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball Championship

13 of 109 left

phil galfond, calvin anderson, tuan le, bruno fitoussi amongst those left

counts at http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/chipcounts.asp?grid=1136&tid=14207

[TightEnd]

Event #8: $1,500 Pot-Limit Hold'em

108 of 639 remain currently

in those 108

will mitchell

chris moorman

andrew teng

aaron virchis

survive for the uk

chip counts at http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/chipcounts.asp

[TightEnd]

168 entered Event #9: $1,500 Razz

168 remain, it says, but in fact its 70 or so

a who's who of mixed game names in this

can only see one uk entrant, adam owen from folkestone

[TightEnd]

Daily Deepstacks results can be found here. http://wsop.com/n/4tv 

[TightEnd]

i don't spot these every day, but its tattytats so when i see them i will post them