ROI is not relevant. Ability to win is.Druff did a good job breaking this down in other thread explaining that really only a few events mattered (low entry). The big question was trying to calculate Ivey and Daniel's ROI. All they really needed was to be 2-3 times (ROI 100-200) to make it an easy profitable bet for them. If they were 15x more likely this bet is like -1000 for them.
Too many factors to come up with true odds. How about, just keeping it simple. How many times in the last ten years has at least one of them won a bracelet?
Correct but ROI is used to estimate ability to win as they are highly correlated. If you assume even distribution of finishing place ROI of 100% equals twice as likely to win tournament. If you assume that top players have a more negatively skewed finishing distribution (which I believe) then ROI of 100% means they have roughly a 2.2 more chance than average player.Originally Posted by blueodum
But we have information directly relevant to each players "finishing ability". Coming into 2014, of Phil Ivey's WSOP cashes, he won about 17% of the time; for DN it was about 7%.
If you dial back Ivey's closing rate to 15% and assume 7 cashes for Dn and 6 for Ivey over the course of the 2014 World Series, DN/IVEY would win the bet approximately 77% of the time.
Everything is just guess work because we obviously don't know their true closing rates or expected cashes, but the above seem like reasonable assumptions.
I for one welcome our new overlord Phillip J. Ivey Jr.
Another relevant question is: How many WSOP events did Ivey & Negreanu enter each year during the past 10 years? What percentage of all events did they enter during these years compared to the "full-on, steam train, tournament machine" schedule these guys kept this year?
The calculations are skewed by the years DN & Ivey didn't have a big bracelet bet running because they can play events more at their leisure (hence, entering possibly fewer events each year in years past).
Although it's easy to see how many bracelets these guys won in years past, it's difficult to tell how many events they actually ENTERED during those years. If they entered comparatively fewer events during the years without bracelet bets, it drives up the historical percentage win rate of DN & Ivey.
It would have been very hard for Druff to calculate the %'ages accurately unless he had an accurate number of WSOP event entries tallied.
Yup.Except some events have 100 people, hence why averaging is bad idea here. You have to look at events individually.
Druff did a good job breaking this down in other thread explaining that really only a few events mattered (low entry). The big question was trying to calculate Ivey and Daniel's ROI. All they really needed was to be 2-3 times (ROI 100-200) to make it an easy profitable bet for them. If they were 15x more likely this bet is like -1000 for them.
Druff had been pinning them around 30-50% ROI I think. Hence why he took the bet
I respect Haralabob but -250 (or even -200) seems absurd to me.
I think what he's missing is the fact that the final table of the $10k+ events tend to be very good players. So Ivey/DN's edge is small at that point. Unfortunately, Ivey had a big edge at this final table because the buyin was only $1500, and it wasn't exactly an all-star cast against him at the end.
But this was kind of a fluke way to lose. 485 entrants, you're very unlikely to win, no matter how good you are. Honestly we were in very good shape coming into this week -- a big favorite at this point. I'm pretty sure Ivey/DN didn't offer this bet based upon their edge in 500-player fields. They thought they would bink one of the smaller field ones, of which they haven't (and probably won't).
I agree, with live poker who have to estimate because you will never have a decent enough sample size to calculate even basic ROI let alone closing rates at a final table. Just keep in mind that as a general rule regression to the mean applies for most top live players so you can generally expect future results to be less impressive than past. I'd suggest not a player exists who wins 10% of the time they cash (unless they only play fields 200-300). We've seen from online poker such statistics are near impossible long term.
BTW, to come up with a 50-50 chance, assuming the same 7 cashes for DN and 6 for IVEY, you would have to drop their closing rates to 4% DN and 7% for IVEY - that's way way below their historical norms.
DRUFF, you are way too results oriented. You are overly focused on the one event Ivey actually won and not on the overall statistical picture as regards closing ability.
I think you are wrong about this, especially in the case of Ivey since 85%+ of his cashes will be in under 500 player fields. The reason for this is that he excels at lesser played games and mixed games and these are the ones with small fields.I'd suggest not a player exists who wins 10% of the time they cash (unless they only play fields 200-300). We've seen from online poker such statistics are near impossible long term.
Once again why keep making this more complicated than it has to be? When they made all these bets you knew they would play as many tournaments as possible, lets say 75. Would you bet against Ivey or DN winning a tourney in any 75 tournament stretch? There's no way they're not the favorite.
That's exactly what they (DRUFF/PFA) did. While I agree with your conclusion, number crunching and analysis go a long way towards convincing skeptics.Would you bet against Ivey or DN winning a tourney in any 75 tournament stretch? There's no way they're not the favorite.
Favorite maybe, but these guys could have laid odds but just took a straight bet. Imagine the horror if they did this at 4:1?
If tomorrow Ivey says, in the next 75 tourneys I play I will win at least 1 is anyone going to bet against that? Same with DN. Instead of crunching number sometimes it's better to use common sense. Plus there's factors that are hard to quantify, like how much harder they will trying knowing all the bets they have on the line. With no side bets, it has to be very difficult for Ivey to take a 1500 tourney seriously.
Most people are not sure exactly how many WSOP events Ivey and DN actually entered during the past decade. If that information had been more widely available the calculations may have been redone more in DN & Ivey's favor. It seems likely now that they were counting on the fact that the public at large never really kept track of how many actual WSOP entries these two did over the years.
For instance....if they each historically entered 20 events per year (combined total of 40) with an average of 1% win rate it would only APPEAR they are only going to win a bracelet 40% of the time each year.
With a supercharged tourney schedule like this year in light of the bracelet bet, the sheer number of events entered would make their bet an overlay for them.
The # of bracelets won divided by the actual # of WSOP entries over the years as a ratio was critical information that never really came to light.
I think most of PFA, perhaps even DRUFF, now realize that they did not have the best of it. The real test will be if Ivey/DN offer the same bet next year - will DRUFF et al take the bet at even money again.
I think DRUFF did an excellent job in this regard - he assumed that both players would be playing every small field event they could plus a number of large field ones. I think his analysis tripped up in not accurately analyzing the "closing rate" for both players and possibly what effect the bet itself would have in motivating them.With a supercharged tourney schedule like this year in light of the bracelet bet, the sheer number of events entered would make their bet an overlay for them.
Most people are not sure exactly how many WSOP events Ivey and DN actually entered during the past decade. If that information had been more widely available the calculations may have been redone more in DN & Ivey's favor. It seems likely now that they were counting on the fact that the public at large never really kept track of how many actual WSOP entries these two did over the years.
For instance....if they each historically entered 20 events per year (combined total of 40) with an average of 1% win rate it would only APPEAR they are only going to win a bracelet 40% of the time each year.
With a supercharged tourney schedule like this year in light of the bracelet bet, the sheer number of events entered would make their bet an overlay for them.
The # of bracelets won divided by the actual # of WSOP entries over the years as a ratio was critical information that never really came to light.
Here's the fun part; they subsidized their broad tourney schedule with the money everyone put up with for the bet.
Not sure where the fuck you were prior to Ivey winning a bracelet, but yes I will make the same bet next year probably.
It all comes down to what u think the their edge is over the rest of the field, the rest is math. Haralabob thought their edge was higher than we did.
There are some intangibles also - the worse the structure, the better the NO bet is. There is the possibility of Ivey paying his opponent off as well. I have no idea what the percentage of the time this happens, but it is probably something to consider if you think it is part of his character (after the UK Casino thing, I'd say there is at least some chance of this happening).
Whatever. They won. He had to win a 1500 event to do it.
By the way, here was your sole contribution to this discussion prior to their victory
DN said on 2p2 podcast that he will have very little or possible zero of this bet. He only did it to help Ivey get action on the bet by promoting it on social media. He stated that he had zero action on last year's bet.
I never once said I thought it was a good bet for DRUFF. And during the show that Druff discussed why he thought it was a good bet for his side, I made remarks in the chat supporting the other side.
If DN and IVEY offer the bet again next year and they are playing a full sked, I will be happy to wager on their side against anyone here at even money.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
