The big game -- poker v. other skill "sports"
There is bound to be a $60 million of even $80 million dollar six player game filmed in Austalia. The players are putting up their own moey -- or getting a sponsor. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that they are putting up their own dough.
Could this happen in another "sport?"
Presumably, each of these players believes that they are the best. They believe they have an edge. If they are all equal then the chance of winning it all is 16.67%. Given the poker has an element of luck we will move that percentage for the six players to reflect what I think the actual edge might be.
The best player might get as high as 22%
Then, in order 20%, 16%, 16%, 14%, and 12%.
These are great players. Five of them are wrong about their skill, but even the one who is right doesn't have that great an edge. But, they are going to put $10 million in action.
Suppse you approached five basketball players with a skill based tournament. Presumably since there is a negligable effect of luck on basketball, the best player would have a more substantive edge. The actual percentage distribution might be:
60%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 4%
I have a feeling, though, that poker players are MUCH more likely to put their money into the game then basketball players.
Is this because poker players are gamblers? Or because the consistantly overate the effect of luck?
Could this happen in another "sport?"
Presumably, each of these players believes that they are the best. They believe they have an edge. If they are all equal then the chance of winning it all is 16.67%. Given the poker has an element of luck we will move that percentage for the six players to reflect what I think the actual edge might be.
The best player might get as high as 22%
Then, in order 20%, 16%, 16%, 14%, and 12%.
These are great players. Five of them are wrong about their skill, but even the one who is right doesn't have that great an edge. But, they are going to put $10 million in action.
Suppse you approached five basketball players with a skill based tournament. Presumably since there is a negligable effect of luck on basketball, the best player would have a more substantive edge. The actual percentage distribution might be:
60%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 4%
I have a feeling, though, that poker players are MUCH more likely to put their money into the game then basketball players.
Is this because poker players are gamblers? Or because the consistantly overate the effect of luck?
Comments
I am a golfer, and on golf forums you always see threads wishing that the top 5 or so players would play a skins match with their own money on the line. Which would make it a LOT more interesting than that snoozefest they put on every Thanksgiving.
Of course, I think only Tiger (because he thinks he's the best, by far), and Phil Mickelson (cuz, well, he likes to gambool) would show up.
BTW, how is the Planetpoker site. I have been to your website, and wouldn't mind playing with you in the occasional tourney. I have no illusions about knocking you out, however!!
I doubt any basketball player would put up that kind of coin since they need it to pay for their lifestyle, and proving to the world that they are the best doesn't thrill them (they already know it in their head). Â Poker players always want to prove they are the best, so this kind of shot is a great opportunity. Â
It's being proposed by the Crown Casino in Austrailia and I believe the buy in was supposed to be 10 to 14 million each. Â It will make one hell of a good tv show .
Advantages: nobody is using poker tracker or other software against you, but the site is small so you can remember which players are trouble.
Disadvantage: the interface is a little different than most and will take a little getting used to.
There are lots of others, both ways.
They were the first, however. And that is kinda cool.
Gambling in sport is relegated to "side games" and you don't hear about it. I am willing to believe that Tiger or Phil for example would put up a serious amount of their own coin to go head to head. The sponsors and a large chunk of the viewing public would be disgusted and it would be -EV in the long run for both of them. Look what happened to Pete Rose for doing what many poker players do as a matter of routine.
Oh, and IMHO poker isn't a sport. I have played sports competitively and poker just isn't one. No more then chess, backgammon, or even betting on the ponies. I think anything that is detrimental to my physical health the longer I play is not a sport.
One problem is that this format is very different from typical pro basketball. For poker, the tournament or heads up format is standard. I can't imagine many sports players going outside their standard comfort zone for big stakes. I would also expect their professional sports contracts disallow side games.
Here's the larger problem. You could play 1000 hands of poker and not break a sweat. The player with the marginal advantage will eventually pull ahead, and the luck factor will be smoothed out. Basketball is physical, which means the number of matches is limited over some period. Luck is a major factor in the short term. You could run the tournie for a few months or years but I'm sure the EV is quite small compared to what these players earn in a league. And the cost due to physical risk is quite high.
Could the Mathmatics behind Game Theory come into play here? for your above example with %'s. I.e the player who is really 12% could beat the 16% player by applying game theory correctly, therefore giving himself perhaps more EV situations, i.e (where your an underdog, but know your player well enough to correctly get him to narrow his calling range etc, giving you more equity)
Anyway, I may be misusing this
Cool fourm.