You can copy and past this data and create a new spreadsheet. I cut and pasted this info into excel.

Problem is that it's a small sample size and an arbitrary list of "top players" For example, I deleted the top two finishers and the top two losers to normalize the results.

That changed the ROI from ~30% to ~11%. Not saying that 11% is the answer. Just saying your sample size is too small to draw any significant conclusions.

Really nice work op.

29 MTTs that's variance

I wrote this article back before the 2012 WSOP started, based on all final tableists in the 2011 series:

http://www.mutantpoker.com/?p=562

The wsopdb didn't list me buying in to 2500 8game, or 2500 stud8/Omaha8 although if you go to the reports tab on wsop.com I am listed on the entrants list. I'm sure there are other errors like this if you're using wsopdb as your datapoint.

Interestingly, both wsopdb and the QuadJacks WSOPdb (different databases) are both missing entries for Allen Kessler in the events 37 and 42. It looks like the entrants lists for both events were posted as bitmapped PDF files rather than vector data, so they probably didn't work with their data parsers.

I'm probably posting in the wrong thread so my apologies in advance.

I have a quick question regarding staking. (total newbie as far as staking goes).

I have a private investor looking to stake me in an upcoming live $1100 MTT.

It's a 1 shot deal. Does he pay the entire $1100 buy-in and we split 50/50 on any winnings?

Is that the industry standard? Or am I way off? (Again, total noob, so if I'm way off, please don't laugh)

Sorry for the derail and thank you in advance.

Sigh. This is actually a problem. If my data source for buy ins is inaccurate (wsopdb.com), then there will be some significant errors. For example, David ODB Baker won event 37, but his buy in also was not picked up by wsopdb.com. I will look through this later and adjust the spreadsheet for the buy ins for events 37 and 42. One thing made clear by this thread is the need for better statistical recordkeeping in the poker community. However, the only thing that may serve is to alert the world how difficult it is to make money playing tournaments.

I just looked through the entire wsopdb database, and at least one player is being picked up for every event EXCEPT for events 37 and 42. I will manually adjust the buy in totals tonight for these two events using wsop.com records. I will update the spreadsheet on google docs and report here when complete. Ugh.

Unfortunately, there are errors and omissions even on the original source (WSOP.com). Entries and results from the Bracelet Bounty tournament haven't been posted. Neither have those from the Doubles tournament. I know that there were some bracelet winners in the former. I know that at least one bracelet winner (and myself) were in the latter. But without the data being posted at WSOP.com, they're never going to be included in the database.

At one point, a number of players' payouts were listed with different cities than their entries, which caused some confusion to the databases. I think the guys maintaining the QuadJacks database (which kept track of wins, unlike wsopdb.com) have tried to clear those issues up, but there are other problems introduced by the original data set.

Wonder how many x Average player Phil Ivey is ..

I'd like to know what your source is for this. This seems tremendously wrong. Limit poker is fairly solved in a heads-up setting only, and my understanding is no-limit, even heads-up, is far too complex to be anywhere near solved.

He's referring to the fact that effective stack sizes tend to be small in tournament play.

It's impossible but I'd like to know make-up and how much each player has of them self ect....

If you find this thread interesting, you should definitely read the Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) paper. It's a light read unlike most academic econ papers. The authors estimate a 30.5% ROI (remarkably similar to OP's estimate) for top players using various proxies for high-skill such as BLUFF Magazine rankings (a correlation matrix is provided to show how much the rankings agree with each other). In total, they track 720 high-skill players across 8,850 events in the 2010 WSOP.

Lol at there being 720 "high skill" players

Using any sort of short term results based rankings in a highly volitile game as an indicator for future success is going to cause huge issues too.

Anyone want to make a bet? I'll select 20 players for next years WSOP and buy action for them at 1.x across the board, and someone can take the other side of it, and pay me whatever portion of their winnings. Can negotiate how high X is

OK Gang. I have just completed updating the spreadsheet to account for the missing buy in totals for events 37 and 42. God I hope that is it. Thanks for everyone who helped proof this thing. These final numbers should be awfully close, if not exactly accurate. Once again, the updated spreadsheet is at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...mNTBzSUE#gid=0

To correct my page 1 post of highlights:

• Overall Combined ROI: 27.30%
• 27 players profitable for the series, 59 unprofitable (2 DNP)
• Most events played: 50, George Lind (also with the biggest loss, -$208,020)
• Most Cashes: 9, Joe Tehan (overall series loss of $16,400)
• Most Event Played without a cash: 13, Sam Trickett*
• Highest Cash Percentage: 36.4%, David ODB Baker (8 of 22)

* - did cash in the One-Drop

Combined Buy-Ins: $10,674,000
Combined Cashes: $13,587,661

Their definition of high skill is based on the top 250 positions in three POY lists, former WSOP bracelet winners, and top money winners for the revious year's WSOP.

Yah lol @ 2% of all WSOP players being classified as high skill. And they even admit that using past bracelet winners--the largest group--as a proxy is a poor indicator, as they suspected it would be. So throwing this one out probably cuts it down to 1% of the field in addition to raising the ROI.

4 or 5 years ago there were a lot more players that sat down that had no chance of winning a tournament. The bottom and middle level of players have improved which has taken the edge away from the better players and makes it more about luck. IMO anyway

pls can you try and do 2010 and 2011 from sharkscope for the same group?

thanks

To be honest, this "project" has now taken way more time than I anticipated. I will continue to update the 2012 WSOP spreadsheet in the event any more changes are needed. However, I am ready to pass the baton to the next runner if this study is to extend back into previous years.

Was every player missing from events 37 and 42. If so this would affect a lot of backers and players spreadsheets.

chainsaw you frequently forget to use question marks

interesting thread, brutal series for some of these guys. Love seeing people who sold packages at like 1.7 MU **** their pants. It makes for pure amusement as someone who does not invest ever.