WSOP Main Event, +EV Gamble?

I am an OG.

DEAL

Of course its +EV for anybody that is halfway decent at poker. I think Harrington's book said something about how a top pro could expect to have a +300% ROI or something in this event. Is this true? Sounded crazy to me when I read it, but im probably wrong. Also Micon, are you getting put into this event, or are you using money from your recent score to put yourself in?

Man I am continually amazed at how many seem to be ignorant of variance.

I agree 99% with everything Micon said. But his optimistic numbers are off. There is ZERO chance that ANYONE one but God could have an expected 300% ROI in a tournament field of the size the ME has become. I don't care what any prominent author has seemingly pulled out of his ass to sound good. I have no doubt that a competent tourney player or super-pro has slightly +EV in the ME because of the super bad play, but this isn't the same type of ATM that a competent cash pro would have in a weak-passive cash game, which would offer a 300%+ ROI. The deeper stacks of the ME compared to prelims helps tame in the early levels of day but the idtiots that you mentioned willing to go all-in in the first level and such nullify it to an extent.

I would better equate the ME to a 50-sided die roll. But where as the typical donkey's get 48 collective sides (one each) the "pro" would get 2 (the upper elite may even get as many as 3-4). Do a roll for each "pro" and of course some of them will win their roll. These would be the ones we see cashing and the community talking about in a few weeks.

The amount of "random walk" occuring in any level across the Rio ME area for the next 14 days is mind boggeling, to say the least. And I would be willing to long term bet that if the fields were to remain over 6k that NO named pro* will ever win the ME again.


* By named pro I mean the popular media darlings that everyone knows. The Hellmuths, Iveys, Leferers, etc. The line is thin in my definition of name pro.
Daniel = yes, Jamie Gold = sure, durrr = iffy yes, Raymer when he won = no (although he is one now), Druff/Neverwin, sorry but no, Hoss = no. Etc.

Raymer has been playing tournaments since the old RGP days, I'd say 20 years. I would not consider him a pro. Jamie Gold is definitely not a pro. I don't think that he could beat a 20-40 game. Both of these guys are lucky to have freerolls into tournaments as spokesman IMO.

The fact is, there are very few pros. People that made money from other ventures and will never go busto, like Phil Gordon or Chow etc aren't pros. 90% of "name" players are backed and make varying %'s on their wins. The reason that the main event is +EV is because you have people that are willing to go broke with top pair, top kicker, or shove it all in with AK vs JJ. The goal of a tournament is to avoid being in for your tournament life if at all possible. When first place is going to be $10 million, this is especially what you should focus on. Even if you fold the best hand at that time, you can take solace in the fact that at a later juncture, you will be able to get in all your chips versus the same person as a much bigger favorite.

Internet wiz kids really take the cake on super aggro. You'll read many bust out hands where a guy moved it in for 14,000 in middle position with AK when the blinds are 400-800. It's really just pointless. You can only get called if you're behind, albeit sometimes you will be a coin flip. Most of the time when you are called you will be at least 2-1, if not 4-1. This is another reason why it's such a good spot to be in.

I would also advocate slow playing big hands, especially in a heads up situation. Hands like jacks and lower should be devalued a little more and IMO should never be reraised preflop for a large amount. (Obviously, there are situations in which it's ok, but I'm talking overall) Again, I think this is really what it boils down to for surviving a day one and day two. After that, you're going to have players that are much more informed of how to play, and respect the fact that if they go out, they lost their chance at $10million. You'll have a Dario Minieri type that made it through the minefield and raise raise raises everyone with anything north of Q-10, but you just adjust to them as needed.

Now for the bad news. There are so many people, that at some point, you probably won't be able to avoid that coin flip for your tourney life. This really makes it hard for the best player to win, and I agree with Budman that a name player will likely never win again if the fields are 5000+ every year. It's just too hard to walk through a minefield and not step on one. Since they bumped it up to 20,000 in chips (I don't know when they did this when I played it was 10k), I'd say if you played a solid game, you could probably make it to the middle of day 2 without too much trouble.

Most of the time it comes down to who's running the best for the week. It's a sad fact, but it's true. Now if you let a name pro run well, someone that has enough gamble in him and enough nerve that will call steal from you, that would be the best chance for a name player to win again. I'd like to wish everyone on here that's playing good luck, and play well.

You have absolutely no concept of how winning at poker works. It doesn't matter how much variance there is. That has absolutely nothing to do with ROI.

you are completely wrong. size of ME = greater EV = higher variance = more than 300% ROI for the Negranus, Iveys, Greenstiens, and Micons of the world.

Ill take some action...

Actually I'll just bet this year a named pro will win it. What odds will you give me considering you think that no named pro will ever win again? 50:1? realizing there are some gray areas on what is a "name pro".

EDIT: forgot day 1a was in the books. nm

I DONT THINK YOU CAN BE A WINNING PLAYER IF YOU THINK YOUR BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.AND THAT 10K HAS A BETTER ROI IN CASH GAMES IN THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.ANYONE HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING THE MAIN EVENT.BUT IN CASH GAMES IF YOUR GOOD EVERYDAY IS MONEY.HIS ANSWER IS SIMPLE PLAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE OR DONT PLAY AT ALL.YOU CANT TAKE THAT PERCENT OUT OF YOUR BANKROLL AND CALL IT GOOD MONEY MANAGEMENT.KEEP YOUR 25K THATS LEFT FOR CASH GAMES.10K TURNS TO 100K 100K TURNS INTO ANY AMOUNT YOUR SMART ENOUGH TO GET.BUT MICONS JUST TO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

YOu have this completely backwards. The larger the field of bad players, the more your ROI/EV goes up. Variance also goes up, which may cause this ROI hard to realize. You are confusing variance with EV somehow.

obv i should have read the thread. It just irked me how he started out his post... then went on to get it all wrong

Micon that pic you posted of the guy in a wizard costume has more live tournament winnings than you, so probably not the best example of dead money in the main event.

I think if someone is rolled for it, playing the main event is probably a better spot than most cash games. And he's backed, anyway, so he doesn't need to worry about bankroll concerns.

delaware thinks you can't you think you're the best player and be a winning player, i think you have to think you are the best player at your table. otherwise you are not confident enough.

So if i start thinking i'm the best player at the table, will that stop the 3 outers?

THE SECRET IS IAM THE BEST BUT I RESPECT THE REST