Date: 3/05/2000
From: Jim Geary
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Will Badger win an Omaha event this Century?
This thread is probably officially dead once Badger replied, but I owed a followup. Lee's main premise is that while granting I could enumerate the names of stronger players, that they might be stronger players, but not stronger tournament players. (Lee probably erred in not knowing the name of the reigning WSOP O/8 champ -- I don't mention this to belittle Lee, but to underscore my point that there are more good players than any one person knows.) I think that he makes an error distributing his winners' equity state space to a few people whom he knows to be good players not leaving enough to those he doesn't know.
Daniel offers that the winning chances are bimodally distributed, some very strong chances, and many very nearly zero chances. I find this a more palatable objection, as at least I think the math will work out. I grant that in many cases there is plenty of dead money in these tourneys. I played in an O/8 tourney in LA last year where I honestly rated 70% of the field as clueless. The thing is with 70% of the field being clueless, it's like the Doors' song ".. they got the guns; we got the numbers.." Several of the booboisie couldn't help but make it to the final table. Now, I don't think that 70% of the field at the WSOP will be clueless; I only mentioned the above to emphasize that sometimes bad players can't help but stumble ahead of good ones in gambling situations.
So what's the difference between a $220 tourney in LA and a $2500 tourney in Vegas? On one hand, the longer rounds take out some of the crapshootness, giving the stronger players the time to make it to the long run. On the other, the people who are willing to part with $2500 in the middle of the week at the WSOP are probably a self-selected much stronger field. Call them deadmoney-plus. The members of dm+ will be many strong players who can play and aren't afraid of anyone. I don't doubt there will be some chokers and clueless among them, but I don't think it will be to the degree that one sees at the opening holdem event. It is for this reason that I think that no player is 30:1 to win this event. (Just as though I have tremendous respect for Huck Seed, I don't think he'd bet himself at 35:1 in the big one, as I understand that was the price for which he opened last year.)
In summary, I think people underestimate the equity of "the other guy."
JG
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Lee Munzer wrote:
> > "Jim Geary": > > > You have Badger at 30:1, and Daniel at 40:1 in, say, a 200-person > > field. That is they're starting off with the winning chance > > equity of 12 random competent players between them. And I say > > competent in that a lot of these guys against whom you're pitting > > them are very strong players. > > I stipulated 186 players 32-1 and 43-1 respectively at 200. Now, Jim, we > know bookies take 15% or so (that's what Megasports takes at the WSOP > final). How do you like that for backpeddlin'? > > Yes, some very strong competitors -- including our own Kathy Liebert who > plays O/8 as well as almost anyone. I agree. But, many (I'll guess 56) are > "almost no shot" entries. Others play too timid and have a chance to cash, > but will need incredible cards to win. If I played that event, I would fall > into the latter category. > > I don't think many would argue Badger is the best in the world and Daniel > won three O/8 events last year and he's 25 -- gets better every year. I'd > put TJ at 40-1 also. They are comfortable at the final table, expect to > win, and are playing to win. > > > How much equity does, say, Mike > > Wattel garner? > > Never saw him play at any of the final tables I've covered. I'll take > another "longshot," Nebraska's Lee Grove, to finish higher if both play in > that event (for a buffet dinner at Binions). > > Then again, I've never watched UK's Julian ... young, awesome, but this > isn't his game. > > > How bout Tommy Hufnagle? > I'd like Tommy over Badger at no-limit hold'em, but here I'd make him 55-1. > > Paul Sherr? > Dunno? Tournament tested? Plays against top pros at final tables > frequently? I'd consider that. > > Your other local Richard T. ... 55-1. I know his play pretty well. Now, > here's the dichotomy. Tommy is clearly a better all around player. Paul > and Mike can probably take his money throughout the year. But, Richard's > style is perfect for tournaments (a mix between a fearless, aggressive > player and Kevin McBride). > > > > I mention these guys only because they're locals I know and > > have played against who are very strong. And that's just > > from my hometown game. There's a lot of other strong players > > in other hometowns that I don't know. Once you start > > according certain players 30:1 in a 200-person field, they > > damn well better be Mozart-like geniuses ahead of their > > contemporaries. > > You doubt Badger is Mozart reincarnated? I would make the case that the > average tournament player's ability is comparable to the excellent pianists > who don't hold a candle to Mozart and Van C. Many play very similarly. I > believe Badger plays differently and much better. If others were to > critique him, I believe they would see flaws ... but, they are unaware of > what he's trying to do. > > I think a big thing is how well the format is designed to separate the great > players from the good players. > > Finally, as I recall, I did very poorly in your WSoP contest last year, so > maybe you're right. >
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
> > It takes a certain kind of player to finish at a final table, > especially in a game like Omaha H/L. If you look at past results in > that event you will see the same faces over and over in the winner's > circle, more so than in any other event with 200 players or so. > "Miami" John, Mike Matusow, Scotty Nguyen, Tommy Hufnagle, and a few > others would be in the range of 30-1 as well. Mark Gregorich is > considered by many(myself included) to be among the best in the world, > but he wouldn't be included on this list, because he hasn't yet figured > out how to finish a tournament. Along with Mark(no higher than 50-1), > you may have some "descent players" as high as 300-1, there isn't much > middle ground in Omaha H/L. Daniel Negreanu
Last Modified 1/18/01
Back to Poker Letters Page.
Back to Jim's Poker Page
Back to Jim's Main Page