Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?

[CBorders]

Originally Posted by RedOak

I found my data for a reality check for ROR in playing the WSOP main event.
What I did was look at the situation where a player would shove allin preflop every hand. An average player would have a 50% chance to win a coin flop. If however, you got your money in on average as a 52.77% favorite, then your chance of winning the tournament would be twice that of an average player and your ROI would go from -6% for an average player to +41%. To have a 4 times better than average chance to win, you would have to shove with a 55.7% chance to win each time resulting in a 117% ROI.

I then took a look at how each type of skilled player's ROI would look if he failed to ever finish at selected high levels. For example, if your skill level was such that you would win the event 3 times more than an average player, your overall ROI would be 80%, but if you never finished in the top 18 spots, your ROI would fall to -15%!

Even a 4 times skilled player with an ROI of 117% would only have an ROI of 12% if he never made the final table! And he would only expect to make the final table once every 286 years!

The final table shows how often in years one can expect to make selected finishing spots based on skill level.

For example, an average player can expect to make top 18 once every 407 years (based on 7319 entries), but a player with 4 times the average skill level would make it once every 159 years.

Even with a skill level 4 times that of an average player (most likely a level only achieved by world class pros), such a player could only expect to make the top 36 once every 89 years on average! In otherwords, even a world class pro is a lifetime underdog to ever make the final 4 tables of the WSOP main event with 7319 players. And thus his ROI would be -16%. ( or -$160 per entry)

I suspect these numbers will be a surprise to many, but tournament poker has extremely high variance resulting in most players going bust, even very good players. An improvement would be to lower the variance by making payouts flatter and paying more places.

Many say payouts have already been flattened. While generally true, in the old days they started at winner-take-all and the flattening process still needs a long way to go. For example, the main event in 2009 paid 8.9 million to the winner, getting that to 6 million or even 5 million would be a much better situation, and expanding payouts from 10.2% of field to as high as 12.5% would help as well.




2010 Main Event $10,000 NL Holdem
Return on Investment (ROI)
All in % WSOP
50.00% Average Player -6%
52.77% 2x Average Player 41%
54.47% 3x Average Player 80%
55.70% 4x Average Player 117%

Average Player ROI If :
WSOP
No Top 3 Finishes -19%
No Top 9 Finishes -38%
No Top 18 Finishes -44%
No Top 27 Finishes -46%
No Top 36 Finishes -49%

2x Average Player ROI If:
WSOP
No Top 3 Finishes 16%
No Top 9 Finishes -17%
No Top 18 Finishes -27%
No Top 27 Finishes -31%
No Top 36 Finishes -34%

3x Average Player ROI If:
WSOP
No Top 3 Finishes 45%
No Top 9 Finishes -1%
No Top 18 Finishes -15%
No Top 27 Finishes -19%
No Top 36 Finishes -24%

4x Average Player ROI If:
WSOP
No Top 3 Finishes 70%
No Top 9 Finishes 12%
No Top 18 Finishes -5%
No Top 27 Finishes -10%
No Top 36 Finishes -16%

How often in years of expected finishing positions:
read as: 7319 Players Top 3 Top 9 Top 18 Top 27 Top 36
once Average Player 2440 813 407 271 203
every 2x Average Player 1329 482 255 175 134
x years 3x Average Player 931 356 194 136 105
4x Average Player 723 286 159 113 89

Originally Posted by RedOak

I didn't even mention the effect of taxes as well. In the 2010 main event, of the 68 million prize pool, (7319 entries), 19 million would go to pay taxes reducing payouts even further to only 49 million. This is an average tax rate of 28%. So you need to subtract this from the ROI as well. Thus we saw that for a 4 times better than average player with a 117% ROI, it now becomes a 89% ROI, and if they do not ever finish in the top 3 their ROI will be negative!

4x Average Player ROI If:
WSOP (assume 0% tax rate)
No Top 3 Finishes 70%
No Top 9 Finishes 12%
No Top 18 Finishes -5%
No Top 27 Finishes -10%
No Top 36 Finishes -16%

4x Average player:
After tax rate of 28% ROI becomes:
No Top 3 Finishes 42%
No Top 9 Finishes -16%
No Top 18 Finishes -33%
No Top 27 Finishes -38%
No Top 36 Finishes -44%

lol donkaments

[bef99hwk]

Zima summed up my thoughts exactly. However, we still go back to no one having a 100k roll, or any funds to begin with since BF and haven't moved/played. Sooooo yeah. OP just buy in yourself.

[TheBestInNAlb4lb]

Originally Posted by shredhead84

because they probably take a large portion of their B/R and put it into bonds and get paid off the interest. Then they sell shares in tourney buy-ins. Effectively lowering variance while still capturing the upside from any wins. If they make enough in interest they can offset any difference in potential profit they would have had by not selling the shares or selling them at a discount.

how much can u possibly make in interest?

[TheBestInNAlb4lb]

RedOak: "I suspect these numbers will be a surprise to many, but tournament poker has extremely high variance resulting in most players going bust, even very good players. An improvement would be to lower the variance by making payouts flatter and paying more places."

I completely disagree with flatter payouts/paying more places, it's great for the casino/site, but terrible for a good player. All tournaments should be 4-max WTA.

[oojoe24oo]

cause they dont have as much money as you think they do.....the backed players barely make 100k/yr even the top guys, and if your older you have a mortgage to pay....I mean if you're printing money in your moms basement and arent backed then give it a go, but for most winners 10k is still a lot of money.

[LeProtagonist]

Originally Posted by bef99hwk

Zima summed up my thoughts exactly. However, we still go back to no one having a 100k roll, or any funds to begin with since BF and haven't moved/played. Sooooo yeah. OP just buy in yourself.

wtf u talking about? No one who plays hsmtts has a 100k roll? That's pure speculation and utter nonsense.

[icantfoldsets]

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the massively +EV guys like Seidel and Elky, who play primarily 10K+ tournaments are always at least partially backed. Just because live MTT variance is lol. And I'm sure they can charge enough of a markup for selling shares to be worthwhile. So if tournaments are all you play, it's probably more important to reduce variance than if you're taking an occasional shot.

You could try swapping a little with other pros you know. There's a chapter in Bill Chen's book related to portfolio theory about why it's still optimal to swap with other players in a tournament, even if you think your EV is a little higher.

I think if you're more of a cash player and taking a "shot" you might actually prefer to have 100% of yourself, because a big score will really change your life, and losing your buy-in won't kill you.

I play primarily 2/5 live, just got started in occasional 5/10, and I know I'm playing some tournaments this summer without backing, that would by definition be poor bankroll management. But I know that as long as I'm taking shot sparingly, my bankroll will survive, and I have a few chances to make a score big enough to change my life.

[dirty.brasil]

Originally Posted by Zima421

people who are good at mtts should play the ME 100% on their own with like a 100k roll er something.

its the MAAAAAAAAAAAAIN EVENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNT

this.

[isuxatpokerbad]

one would have to define "large bankroll." if there's a tourney in the world you'd shot take in tho it's this one

[Chuck Bass]

No one has money

Spoiler:

except for zima and his stable

IT'S ALL AN ILLUSION

[gostatego]

Originally Posted by 663366

Anyone here experienced with staking for the WSOP main event on the pros and cons of it? Why do people with the bankroll & MTT/deepstack cash skill willingly sell 50% of themselves in the main.. apart from reducing variance? I would've thought if you can afford $5K then you can afford the $10K to just have 100% of yourself..

fwiw I'm a MSNL cash reg(6max/fullring & both deepstack/CAP) who also plays live cash anywhere up to $10/25 and a winner in all forms of poker online and live.. I've dabbled in tournaments and gone deep at least 50% of the time I've played large fields(final 2 tables from anywhere up to 1000 entrants) eg. Venetian deepstack/UKIPT/etc... I've read all the tourney books and believe that I have a huge edge in the ME with the deep starting stack structure..

I'm undecided as to whether I should spend $10K of my own money(which would be a decent chunk of my roll altho not unaffordable) playing the WSOP ME or trying to satellite through or getting staked on 2p2.. just need a little bit of advice thanks.

id sell some action, based on the fact that a lot of your op doesnt seem to add up.

like you've gone deep in 50% of the tournaments you've played...

or 10k would be a decent chunk of a person's roll who is a winner in all forms of poker including MSNL online and up to 10-25 live

[PokerZombie]

If you've gone deep in half the tournaments youve played you have probbaly played less than 10 tournaments? 4ish?
Get off your horse buddy .

Also- if you have 10k to take a shot then do it. 'Serious' 'professional' players shouldn't take shots with large portions of their roll, but if you only play 1 10k a year and use otherwise fine backroll management then take a shot if your roll is 10k and keep your own action.

[Zima421]

Originally Posted by PokerZombie

If you've gone deep in half the tournaments youve played you have probbaly played less than 10 tournaments? 4ish?
Get off your horse buddy .

Also- if you have 10k to take a shot then do it. 'Serious' 'professional' players shouldn't take shots with large portions of their roll, but if you only play 1 10k a year and use otherwise fine backroll management then take a shot if your roll is 10k and keep your own action.

lololololololol

[FatalError]

i played for all 10k once with an 80k roll, whoops

[fizix87]

everybody is broke