Everyone knows that rule that says nl10 online cash games are equivalent to nl200 live. Is this for tournaments too? For example: "The Big $ 44 and has the same level of difficulty as pokerstars cup $ 440 live." Is this true?

Just as the player pool in live will vary from table to table, so to will the tournament player pool in live events. Some will be tougher than others. Some will be populated by people on vacation for whom a small entry is no big deal (and yes, $440 would be a small entry for many people).

You will get people at tables who may be competent and you may see final tables where you question how in the hell they managed to get to the window to buy-in much less survive to that stage of a tournament.

You mean the field of these $ 440 tournaments would be as weak as the nl200 live cash players?

If by "nl200" you mean a standard $1/2 cash game, then yes. You will see some that are good but many more who are so ABC that you could play without looking at your cards.

LMAO.... Absolutely priceless.

I just read thread title and LOLed.

I’d be more confident of accumulating chips at the 10k WSOP main event, than I would be at online 5c - 10c.

But...am I wrong?

No Michelle you are not wrong. I remember the WSOP championship where 99% of the entrants were not dead money. Now however I would say its swung 360 degrees. To me the WSOP main event is a donkfest with no prestige as it once was.

sure, donks with 10k to blow...

There are many ways to get into the main donkfest ( eg;online events, sponsors, sats etc.) as well as rec players finding the funds or just dipping heavy into their piggy banks. I sense you assume having 10k implies your a competent player .

crazy but true .

I think you meant 180 degrees.

Actually I loved DNuts original reference as it demonstrated his understanding of both basic Geometry and Modern Poker may be somewhat lacking.

Competency % is often a product of field size -- Are there +6000 players "worthy" of being the ME champ ? Realistically probably not. So if you want to go back just 20 years to 1998 and the field was something like 300 ....... okay Dnuts point might be superficially "valid" but the comparison is Apples to Oranges in my opinion.

In the field of 6K, how many people (given reasonable distribution) are capable of winning the ME?

yes

thats the wrong way of looking it. there is a group of players who primarily play tournaments for a living and they are tough whether online or live. if they all play a live event and see value in it that it will be tough, same can be said for online. if everybody and their grandma play an event than its soft or the regs choose to skip an event.

I only have 19 hours of college calculus and 6 hours of statistics classes in my background LOL I wouldn't even want to try and do that math LOL Actually trying to quantify any assumptions of various player skill levels is problematic IMO

We actually have seen a few individuals go deep in back to back years recently so one could argue that a skill set does exist to navigate the massive modern fields. An interesting question would be what number of players would you have to allow someone to PICK to win the main event for it to be an even money proposition.

Two tournaments is not nearly a big enough sample size to really say anything about the skill level of a player who has deep runs in those two years. If player x has a certain cash rate in typical tourneys with a few hundred entrants, and a larger cash rate in massive field events, then, assuming they have played a decent number of each, I think you could say that they have certain skills which are conducive to large field events.

if stu unger was alive he would of won it 10 times.

Not that they would all be playing in the ME in the same year, but if you looked at all the players who made the final table at any large regional event, WSOP Circuit event, etc. with a field of 2000+ in the past 5 years, the list would be pretty long, and any one of them could be considered "capable" of winning (OK, maybe making the final table?) at the Main Event. Would be at least 1000+ names.

What percent of players in the Main have never made a final table at a big local tournament? Sure, some of them, but more than half?

All depends on what makes someone "capable."

I don’t think this is the right question. Everyone who enters an event who is capable of physically playing cards for the duration has a chance to win it (ie > 0%). The better question is... for the person who has the best chance, based on skill and how they’re playing at the time, what is their likelihood of winning in a 6k entrant event. I’ll throw 1/100 out as a first stab.

Probably closer to 1 in 1000

you might be right

two very different games, but many more experienced players online due to the amount of hands played

Mathmatically the online guys might have an edge but the decent live players might have a greater edge in certain tricky spots were maths isn't as important as pyhcology and reads.

IMO another thing is that 'skilled' play is sometimes a misnomer as many weak plays are made due to survival desperation and due to financial circumstances and mindset. A player might know that its a good time to squeeze or tbb etc but might not play optimally due to fear and their buy in scarcity. Often the good online players don't have this problem as they are sponsered and/or win lots of sats. They will often be playing multiple events if live and multi-tabling online. They are fishing with a huge net rather than one rod and that takes the pressure off.