Yoon, or others -- Odds on repeat champ at WSOP?
Manny
discussion, but just wondering what your thoughts are on the following
questions. maybe we could answer a couple using some simplifying
assumptions.
Questions:
1) If the field at the WSOP grows at a rate of 10% per year, what are
the chances that we see a repeat winner in the next 20 years? 50
years? 100 years? Ever?
2) If the field at the WSOP stays the same for the next 20 years, what
are the chances that we see a repeat winner? 50 years? Ever?
A few assumptions:
In both cases assume that the entire field from one year returns the
next year. That is, if the field goes from 600 to 660 one year to the
next, there are only 60 new players there. All 600 from the first year
returned. Make it harder by assuming only a fraction (say 50%) of the
players return.
For starters just assume equal skill of all participants, so chance of
winning is simply 1/(field size). Also assume independence from year
to year. Make it harder (or easier? by assuming a skill break down
like the actual tournament).
Assume for starters that entrants live forever. Make it harder by only
allowing people to enter 40 or so tournaments.
The answer to EVER should be either 0 or 1 in both cases. It's obvious
in question 2 with a returning field.
If I wanted to bet you that over the next 20 years, all 20 winners
will have never won one before, would you take that bet? [that
includes no repeat winners from the past -- chan, helmuth, nobody]
BTW, I think that would be a VERY good bet for me to make AND I think
I could probably get a lot of takers.
Mike Sexton
will have never won one before, would you take that bet?
I'll take it.
Mike Sexton
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
MS Sunshine
MS Sunshine
"Mike Sexton" <sext...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:661789ec678058b3d44...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Barbara Yoon
> If the field at the WSOP grows at a rate of 10% per year, what are the
> chances that we see a repeat winner in the next 20 years? 50 years?
Hey...that was not just "a few assumptions"...that was "a LOT
of assumptions"... The table below assumes your 10% increase
in 'entries' each year, with 15 'former champs' each having winning
chances of three times the average...
former cumulative %/odds
year entries champs no repeat winners
------ ------- ---------- -----------------------
2003 694 15 93.52% 14.42-to-1
2004 764 15 88.01% 7.34-to-1
2005 840 15 83.29% 4.98-to-1
2006 924 15 79.23% 3.82-to-1
2007 1,016 15 75.72% 3.12-to-1
2008 1,118 15 72.68% 2.66-to-1
2009 1,230 15 70.02% 2.34-to-1
2010 1,353 15 67.69% 2.09-to-1
2011 1,488 15 65.64% 1.91-to-1
2012 1,637 15 63.83% 1.77-to-1
2013 1,800 15 62.24% 1.65-to-1
2014 1,980 15 60.83% 1.55-to-1
2015 2,178 15 59.57% 1.47-to-1
2016 2,396 15 58.45% 1.41-to-1
2017 2,636 15 57.45% 1.35-to-1
2018 2,899 15 56.56% 1.30-to-1
2019 3,189 15 55.76% 1.26-to-1
2020 3,508 15 55.05% 1.22-to-1
2021 3,859 15 54.41% 1.19-to-1
2022 4,245 15 53.83% 1.17-to-1
2023 4,670 15 53.31% 1.14-to-1
2024 5,137 15 52.84% 1.12-to-1
2025 5,650 15 52.42% 1.10-to-1
2026 6,215 15 52.04% 1.09-to-1
2027 6,837 15 51.70% 1.07-to-1
2028 7,520 15 51.39% 1.06-to-1
2029 8,272 15 51.11% 1.05-to-1
2030 9,100 15 50.86% 1.03-to-1
2031 10,010 15 50.63% 1.03-to-1
2032 11,011 15 50.42% 1.02-to-1
2033 12,112 15 50.24% 1.01-to-1
2034 13,323 15 50.07% 1.00-to-1
2035 14,655 15 49.91% 1.00-to-1
As you can see, by these assumptions, by the year 2035, it becomes
more likely than not that there WILL be a repeat winner... But look
over this table, and perhaps you'd like to make some modifications
to the assumptions (especially the growth in number of entries)...OK?!
> If I wanted to bet you that over the next 20 years, all 20 winners will
> have never won one before, would you take that bet? [that includes
> no repeat winners from the past -- chan, helmuth, nobody] BTW,
> I think that would be a VERY good bet for me to make AND I think
> I could probably get a lot of takers.
Hmm...I think I'd be willing to be a 'taker'...
CSt1015577
>From: "Barbara Yoon" by...@erols.com
>Date: 06/19/2002 5:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <aeqstt$hu2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
Eddie Steele "The Road goes on Forever"---Robert Earl Keen
Barbara Yoon
> Shouldn't the number of former champs increase by one each year?
No.....because while each year might create a new champion,
it might also have former champions passing away too...OK?!
Dsklansky
repeat champion in 23 years. The birthday problem. It is ironic that Mike
Sexton thinks it won't happen in 20 years since it would indeed be a small
favorite if the best players had as good a chance as he thinks they do.
Manny
as another poster said, each year, you'd have more than 15 former
champs, so your '15' would have to increase and this would make your
odds creep to even money faster than what you have here.
I knew the number of entries would increase to an unrealistic amount
rather quickly. It was more just a mathematical exercise than
anything.
This table changes pretty dramatically if you don't give 15 people a
3x advantage over the others. What that number should be is, I'm sure,
rather debatable. If former winners only have a 1/500 chance of
winning in a year with 700 entrants, your 93.5% goes to about 97.0%
(first row).
A realistic model MIGHT have their chances fall off quite a bit in
time, with new players (or at least different players) moving into
that 3x chance of winning realm. That, too, would change the odds
greatly.
Here's a trickier one. Pretend that this year there's a field with 500
entrants. Each year the field size DOUBLES. Each contestant has an
equal chance of winning each year and all former winners returns every
year. What are the chances there will EVER be a repeat winner?
>
> > If I wanted to bet you that over the next 20 years, all 20 winners will
> > have never won one before, would you take that bet? [that includes
> > no repeat winners from the past -- chan, helmuth, nobody] BTW,
> > I think that would be a VERY good bet for me to make AND I think
> > I could probably get a lot of takers.
>
> Hmm...I think I'd be willing to be a 'taker'...
Maybe not a VERY good bet for me, now that I've seen a couple numbers,
but probably still better than even money for me with growing fields
and new talent entering the arena (a lot of the 150-1 or 200-1
favorites each year have never won one before.).
Thanks for answering to you and others.
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
Mike S. thinks it WILL happen, i am pretty sure.
his post contains a quote from the previous post, then his affirmation that he
will take the other side of that wager.
his quoting punctuation (actually, the lack thereof) is confusing, but i think
he means the opposite of what David S. states above.
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are....
Mike Sexton
20 years...." ????? Either I misunderstood the proposition or David
misunderstood my answer. I am willing to bet that a former WSOP
champion wins the event in the next 20 years - regardless of the number
of entrants.
Mike Sexton
"Dsklansky" <dskl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020619233814...@mb-mj.aol.com
Barbara Yoon
>>>> If I wanted to bet you that over the next 20 years, all 20 winners
>>>> will have never won one before, would you take that bet?
Dsklansky:
>>> If there were 365 equally good players it is about even for there
>>> to be a repeat champion in 23 years. The birthday problem.
>>> It is ironic that Mike Sexton thinks it won't happen in 20 years
>>> since it would indeed be a small favorite if the best players had
>>> as good a chance as he thinks they do.
Jonathan Kaplan:
>> Mike S. thinks it WILL happen, i am pretty sure. his post contains
>> a quote from the previous post, then his affirmation that he will
>> take the other side of that wager. his quoting punctuation (actually,
>> the lack thereof) is confusing, but i think he means the opposite
>> of what David S. states above.
Mike Sexton:
> Sklansky says, "It is ironic that Mike Sexton thinks it won't happen
> in 20 years...." ????? Either I misunderstood the proposition or
> David misunderstood my answer. I am willing to bet that a former
> WSOP champion wins the event in the next 20 years - regardless
> of the number of entrants.
'David misunderstood your answer'... But jeeez, Mike, look at it
again yourself from a reader's viewpoint, and I think you'll agree
that your wording of it IS very confusing, and quite easily could
be misunderstood -- I mean, it's like you're talking about betting
both sides of the proposition against yourself.....OK?!
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
Sexton says...
>
>Sklansky says, "It is ironic that Mike Sexton thinks it won't happen in
>20 years...." ????? Either I misunderstood the proposition or David
>misunderstood my answer. I am willing to bet that a former WSOP
>champion wins the event in the next 20 years - regardless of the number
>of entrants.
>
>Mike Sexton
wait a sec, Mike....dont sell the bet too short.
just to clarify somewhat, my understanding was, not just the former champs (from
this moment) are included, but also, any future champ that becomes a former
champ within the time frame is also included.
meaning (hypothetically), when i win in 2005, and then also in 2008, Mike S.
wins the bet?
is that the way the bet was phrased?
(and if so, i would probably be a (small) seller, except i hate making bets that
long-term...life itself is enough of a bet over that time frame.)
Jonathan
>
>"Dsklansky" <dskl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020619233814...@mb-mj.aol.com
>
>> If there were 365 equally good players it is about even for there to be a
>> repeat champion in 23 years. The birthday problem. It is ironic that Mike
>> Sexton thinks it won't happen in 20 years since it would indeed be a small
>> favorite if the best players had as good a chance as he thinks they do.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
no matter where you go, there you are....
James L. Hankins
years that I will bet $200 on it (that it will not happen). Probably not
major action for Mr. Sexton, but interesting action for me (as I watch the
main event in the coming years) if he will take the bet.
I am serious, not a welcher, expect to get paid if he accepts and I win,
and will pay if I lose. Let me know, Mike.
James L. Hankins
"Mike Sexton" <sext...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4815d465812f8f5922e...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Mike Sexton
years that I will bet $200 on it (that it will not happen). Probably
not major action for Mr. Sexton, but interesting action for me (as I
watch the main event in the coming years) if he will take the bet.
I am serious, not a welcher, expect to get paid if he accepts and I
win, and will pay if I lose. Let me know, Mike.
James L. Hankins
James,
I will gladly take your $200 bet. We are "in action" for 20 years (or
unless I win sooner :)). GO WSOP Champs!
Mike Sexton
Barbara Yoon
>>> I am willing to bet that a former WSOP champion wins the event
>>> in the next 20 years - regardless of the number of entrants.
James L. Hankins:
>> I think it's unlikely enough that a former champ will win in the next
>> 20 years that I will bet $200 on it (that it will not happen). Probably
>> not major action for Mr. Sexton, but interesting action for me (as I
>> watch the main event in the coming years) if he will take the bet.
>> I am serious, not a welcher, expect to get paid if he accepts and
>> I win, and will pay if I lose. Let me know, Mike.
Mike Sexton:
> James, I will gladly take your $200 bet. We are "in action" for
> 20 years (or unless I win sooner :)). GO WSOP Champs!
Complicating factors are that Mike could win the bet as soon as next
year, whereas James would have to wait 20 years...unless the WSOP
goes out of existence in the meantime -- or would there still be the
20-year wait in case it was revived?! Anyway, modified probability
table below, based on assumption of the 15 'former champs' each
having winning chances of three times the average...indicating James'
chances of winning the bet at only about 26.44%.....OK?!
former cumulative %/odds
year entries champs no repeat winners
------ ------- ---------- -----------------------
2003 637 15 92.94% 13.16-to-1
2004 644 15 86.44% 6.38-to-1
2005 650 15 80.46% 4.12-to-1
2006 657 15 74.94% 2.99-to-1
2007 663 15 69.86% 2.32-to-1
2008 670 15 65.17% 1.87-to-1
2009 677 15 60.83% 1.55-to-1
2010 683 15 56.82% 1.32-to-1
2011 690 15 53.12% 1.13-to-1
2012 697 15 49.69% 0.99-to-1
2013 704 15 46.51% 0.87-to-1
2014 711 15 43.57% 0.77-to-1
2015 718 15 40.84% 0.69-to-1
2016 725 15 38.31% 0.62-to-1
2017 733 15 35.95% 0.56-to-1
2018 740 15 33.77% 0.51-to-1
2019 747 15 31.73% 0.46-to-1
2020 755 15 29.84% 0.43-to-1
2021 762 15 28.08% 0.39-to-1
2022 770 15 26.44% 0.36-to-1
James L. Hankins
the event myself as many times as possible!
"Mike Sexton" <sext...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4b15d07484332d0e892...@mygate.mailgate.org...
James L. Hankins
Barbara Yoon
>>>>> I am willing to bet that a former WSOP champion wins the event
>>>>> in the next 20 years - regardless of the number of entrants.
James L. Hankins:
>>>> I think it's unlikely enough that a former champ will win in the
>>>> next 20 years that I will bet $200 on it... Let me know, Mike.
Mike Sexton:
>>> James, I will gladly take your $200 bet. We are "in action" for
>>> 20 years (or unless I win sooner :)). GO WSOP Champs!
>> ...on assumption of...15 'former champs' each having winning
>> chances of three times the average [and field size growing by
>> 1% each year]...indicating James' chances of winning the bet
>> at only about 26.44%...
James L. Hankins:
> Wanna bet?
OK...but how 'bout just for 'bragging rights'... Let's see...even if we
adjust some of the assumptions in your favor -- increasing the field
growth rate from 1% to 2%, and reducing 'former champs' winning
chances from 3x to 2x average, your chances rise from the 26.44%
to only about 45.24%...
former cumulative %/odds
year entries champs no repeat winners
------ ------- ---------- -----------------------
2003 644 15 (x2) 95.34% 20.45-to-1
2004 656 15 (x2) 90.98% 10.09-to-1
2005 670 15 (x2) 86.91% 6.64-to-1
2006 683 15 (x2) 83.09% 4.91-to-1
2007 697 15 (x2) 79.51% 3.88-to-1
2008 711 15 (x2) 76.15% 3.19-to-1
2009 725 15 (x2) 73.00% 2.70-to-1
2010 739 15 (x2) 70.04% 2.34-to-1
2011 754 15 (x2) 67.25% 2.05-to-1
2012 769 15 (x2) 64.63% 1.83-to-1
2013 785 15 (x2) 62.16% 1.64-to-1
2014 800 15 (x2) 59.83% 1.49-to-1
2015 816 15 (x2) 57.63% 1.36-to-1
2016 833 15 (x2) 55.55% 1.25-to-1
2017 849 15 (x2) 53.59% 1.15-to-1
2018 866 15 (x2) 51.74% 1.07-to-1
2019 884 15 (x2) 49.98% 1.00-to-1
2020 901 15 (x2) 48.31% 0.93-to-1
2021 919 15 (x2) 46.74% 0.88-to-1
2022 938 15 (x2) 45.24% 0.83-to-1
James L. Hankins
rights on the line.
"Barbara Yoon" <by...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:aetvfd$dua$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
MSA1213
>James,
>
>I will gladly take your $200 bet. We are "in action" for 20 years (or
>unless I win sooner :)). GO WSOP Champs!
>
>Mike Sexton
Mike,
I think that the bet is clearly in your favor. My reasons are many particularly
factors that have not yet been figured into the calculations. To help your
position further if you bet it with others, try to bet it with people who are
real old!
PLUSES:
1. $200 in 20 years has a PV, EV, or time value cost to you of probably only
$20 today. Yet you might collect the $200 next year if there is a repeater
then.
2. You both have to be alive, with memories, with money and with a way to find
the other one. This is far more likely next year than 20 years out.
3. The tourney is so large, they could decide to reduce the field:
A. They could raise the buy-in. A $25,000 buy-in would cut the field size and
greatly raise the likelihood of a repeater.
B. They could put in some prequalification (not too likely as dead money is
great; but possible). Past champions are likely to always be allowed in without
otherwise qualifying.
4. They could decide that NLHE is not the "best" test. If they switched to
PLHE, your odds of a repeater should rise. Or if they switched to multi-games
like TOC had, the likelihood of a repeater would also rise.
NEGATIVES:
1. Will the WSOP be played for 20 more years? Could Bellagio or someone else
set up a new tournament which takes over as the supreme one?
Could Binion's close or otherwise shut down the tourney? If the "name" were not
sold, there could be no "WSOP" repeater thereafter. If the tourney stopped for
a few years, a repeater becomes tougher (none those years; and then fewer
candidates to repeat in any later year).
Offsetting this negative is that if the tourney falls in stature due to
Binion's problems, there may be far fewer entrants; yet the old champs are
likelier than others to return and be a higher percentage of the field and
help your odds.
Overall: I'd definitely want your side.
marc (msa)
James L. Hankins
Those are all good points, and Mike may win the bet. But I still think
I am more likely to win (although I do think that I probably don't have the
"best of it" based upon the present value of the wager to Mike. That's an
interesting question in and of itself).
The money is more of a token to keep the question interesting to me.
Bottom line is that I think there is parity in the main event to such a
degree that a field of 15 former champs do not have a significant edge in my
opinion. True, the event may change, all champs may not necessarily play in
all of the next 20 events, weird stuff can always happen and I think Mike
Sexton is reasonable enough that we can work out any weirdness by modifying
the wager or calling it off.
I think a good analogy (althoug not perfect) is the match play in golf
where Tiger is obviously the superior player, but when the top 100 in the
world are matched up, anything can happen, although Tiger would probably
beat any one of them individually 7 out of ten times.
Mike Matusow made the most profound statement of the WSOP last year when
he lamented that you could be the best player in the world and never get
back here [to the final table]. Basically, I think there is too much talent
in the rest of the field and too much luck, even in the final event, for the
"best" player to win every time--and the "best" player doesn't have to be a
former champion, e.g. T.J., Juanda, Devilfish, Seidel, etc.
We'll see.
"MSA1213" <msa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020621125907...@mb-fc.aol.com...