Quote:
Originally Posted by joeschmoe
I'd like to amend my question since it doesn't ask what I want to know. (too late to edit)
Instead of one year, take 10 years of WSOP performance. I don't see any reason why the results of that much larger sample size, and the ones in this chart should be markedly different.
Sure, if you include specialists playing only their specialties, results will be "better", but that is a biased sample.
This chart seems to be a totally random, average sampling and although it is small, it could accurately reflect average results obtained by an average group of very skilled MMT players.
seems like you don't understand what "sample size" actually means
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeJustin
Calculating ROI by gross cashes for players that play $1k buyins and $50k buyins in the same year really skews results towards the big buyins.
You should use relative ROI, I.e. # of buyins cashed for.
This, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickMPK
Just from this data, you can get a reasonable level of confidence as to "true" cash %. There were 2069 events entered and 304 cashes (if I didn't make any typos replicating the numbers), for an overall cash % of 14.7%.
Assuming each entry is an independent trial with a constant cash %, using the sqrt((p(1-p)/n)) formula, I get a 95% confidence interval of [13.2%, 16.2%].
Yes, but still you need to keep what "cashing" in the series means in context. Whatever the true cash # is, it's still lower than the cash % for players of equal caliber who are playing in such a way to maximize ROI.
During the series, the opportunity cost of playing many of these events is quite high, so a lot of people play a -EV style in 1ks and stuff to either try and run well and build a big stack or bust early to play other events, and also sit out of events or punt small stacks to go reg other stuff, etc.