actually, they show here, but the quadjacks site adds them up incorrectly. I believe they are understating them by $35,000.

http://wsopdb.quadjacks.tv/index.php...ayers&id=30557

Definitely a cool idea and thanks for the effort OP. Another really interesting spin off of this is to find a list of the top 50 NLHE tourney players, maybe something like the Epic Poker or GPI could help (F Annie Duke) and then do the same analysis. The only problem with the analysis you did is that it is very mixed game centric because that is how the 25K fantasy point system works and your list excludes a lot of the NLH tourney specialists. With so many NL events at the WSOP I would love to see how much they are really worth to the top players. The issue with creating a list of NLH tourney specialists now tho is that this years results in WSOP will skew many lists...

Great work!

Does the hourly surpass minimum wage?

I just did some real quick calculations using some very rough numbers and got $90/hr.

Noah sd blog about tournament variance:

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/

this proves that buying people at 1.2 or 1.3 markup is a winning proposition

Part of the problem is that a lot of these players think they're the nuts, and play in a lot of tournaments that have tough fields like the 10k preliminary events and the 50k. When the field consists of a couple hundred of the best players in the world, it's tough to have a big edge.

A lot of these guys would do better to skip the big events and limit themselves to the $1-1.5k events, where they would actually have a huge edge over the field.

Also consider this from Levitt's work:

yeah but then the field size 10x's and you'd have to play a tonne of them....

what?

make sure to reduce top finishers by 30% to account for taxes.

LOL!!

(interesting data OP!)

Yes and by the way it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from the data. While it is interesting to see how variance dominates even the best, you would have to have a lot of past data and a lot of future data after the subjects were chosen for it to have meaning. But even then the changes that come with time will obscure a lot of meaning.

It seems like staking players is the only good spot to be in. You just sit on your ass or do something engaging while they squirm to get out of makeup looking at card after card.

Looking at the coverage of the main event last year it seemed like everyone featured in a hand was a "professional" poker player. Is it some kind of hell or what? The more staking that happens, the more efficiency in the tournament market. That is obvious. Will pros just sit around and not make money until some of them leave?

I had crappy roi this year, but if a few hands swung the other way, could have been a much better outcome. 6 cashes and still down about the cost of the $50k 8 game. Such huge variance in a small sample of events. If you take past 75 events 2010-2012 numbers come out better.

if i would have won more hands my roi would be higher. also if you would count the years that i did better my roi would be higher.

for the pool of this its way better to take someone with a -10% roi in the bracelet hunting events than a 75% roi in all NLHE so this shouldnt be anywhere near the highest possible over a large sample

fyp

Why do Sabic and Kostritsyn have 0 under "Buy Ins" in the spreadsheet?

I admire your effort but these stats are super irrelevant and skewed because of the 50k results.

I appreciate the effort as well, and it's fun to see who did what, but for reasons already described as well as many others, i can't draw any conclusions from the chart..

however, by totaling the last two columns, # of entries and # of cash payouts, there may be something relevant..

(Added quickly and might be inaccurate)
Total events played 2070
Total cashes 303
Average number of events a top player must enter to expect to cash = 6.83

Players in the black required fewer entries.... 5.53 per cash
while losers required a bit more.. 7.6 entries per cash.

Sick Pwn.

Sam Tricket, $0. That's clearly wrong..

Good work OP, very interesting. Regarding the $50k, I'm not sure it skews it that much. Would it be easy to normalise the data for buyins? That might help.

No, it's not. OP states that One Drop wasn't included.