As you may know, I'm in Las Vegas right now for the World Series of Poker. It's actually been quite a productive trip: I've met a lot of extremely well-known poker players as well as Congressman Barney Frank, who was very impressive. More on those and other things, including the usual business of politics that we cover around here, later on. In the meantime, for of you who feel like indulging me, there's a bit more on my experience in the poker tournament below the fold.
* My experience yesterday can be broken down into three phases:
- In the first phase, I got poor cards but played pretty well, and made a little bit of money.
- In the second phase, I got poor cards and played poorly, and lost a fair bit of money.
- In the third phase, I got terrific cards and played well enough, and made a lot of money.
The bottom line is that things turned out pretty well. Everyone starts out the tournament with 30,000 chips. I finished the day with slightly over 61,000 chips -- fewer than Los Angeles Lakers point guard Jordan Farmar, who is apparently a very good poker player and was briefly among the chip leaders, but more than Ray Romano, who lost all his chips and busted out of the event. This means I'm currently in 441st place (or thereabouts) out of the 6,500 or so players who entered the tournament. Half the field continues play today; I have the day off and then resume tomorrow.
* Playing ten hours of poker -- with 2+ hours of breaks in between -- as I did yesterday, is absolutely exhausting. I'm not sure if that makes poker a "sport", but it's closer than you'd think. Physical stamina is more of a consideration in an event like the "Main Event" of World Series of Poker than is generally understood, the eventual winner of which will have played something like 90 hours or cards to claim his or her title.
* I know that I'm not the best player in the field of 6,500 or so that entered. I'm certainly not among the 100 best, and maybe not among the 1,000 best. My poker aptitude, mind you, is plenty high. But ability is the sum of aptitude and experience, and I just don't have very much experience at all in these live, big-money tournament settings. Nor is no limit hold 'em, the game played in this tournament, my best one; back when I was playing regularly, I made most of my money from another variant known as limit hold 'em, where all bets are of a fixed size.
But this is true in many aspects of life: the best player/person does not always win. What makes poker somewhat unique is that understanding one's limits can significantly affect (and improve) one's strategy. For instance, I'm willing to gamble chips in certain somewhat marginal situations that mostly boil down to luck, because those chips are less valuable to me than they might be to a world-class player who can find a better spot to deploy them. On the other hand, when I got myself in trouble yesterday, it was usually because I played my hand in such a way that forced me to try to "outplay" a top-level opponent. This doesn't mean that such confrontations can be entirely avoided -- in spite of what it might seem like if you watch the the (highly-edited) version of the tournament on ESPN, you can't win a tournament like this one just by pushing all-in every hand. And there are times when I feel like I definitely have an edge -- even against great players. But I have to be realistic about the fact that, when there is a point when a superior player and I each think we are outplaying one another, I'm going to be the one getting pwned more often than not.
The point is, though, that of the 6,500 people who entered the tournament, I'd guess that as many as half of them really do think deep down that they're the best (or one of the best) poker players in the world. Of course, only one (or a few) of them can be right. But the rest are liable to take the wrong sorts of opportunities against the wrong sorts of opponents.
7.07.2009
Poker Update: I'm #441
@ 3:37 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments
Have a great time in Vegas. I need to figure out a way there
and hurry up and get back to writing articles, I'm going stir crazy reloading this page
how many players finish in the money?
I'm so proud of you for using pwned Nate! Best of luck!
Thanks for thinking of us - now forget about us and play poker!
Have a ball!
@Joe: I'm pretty sure that the top 10% of players cash -- so about 650 players in this tournament.
Everybody knows Phil Helmth is the best. Phil told us, after all!
I look forward to meeting you at the final table, Mr. Silver.
Mule Rider: Do you have to check your mule at the door, or are they a mule-friendly establishment?
Yeah I looked it up and 648 players finish in the money.
My money is on Mule Rider.
petekent01 (on twitter and a contrarian on most htings!)
Best of luck keeping humble and focused. Sit out a round of blinds and sign some autographs if you ever feel the least bit on tilt. Also, if you find yourself in the final three and you flop an open-ended straight flush draw and some fool like Jamie Gold pushes all-in, call.
Pretty jealous. I want to play the world series by 35.
Hopefully you can avoid too many bad beats.
Apparently, Jamie Gould has already been eliminated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_World_Series_of_Poker
Poker certainly is a "sport" as far as the Eternally Showing Poker Network is concerned.
I use a 2-part test to determine whether or not an activity qualifies as a sport - the Gender Test and the Sweat Test. Both are more easily illustrated in the negative.
1) The Gender Test: if adult men and women of roughly equal skill level beyond rank beginner can compete against each other without the men having a significant advantage, the activity is not a sport.
2) The Sweat Test: if you play a normal session of the activity (9 innings, 60 minutes, 18 holes, etc.) at normal indoor temperatures, and you are not sweaty afterwards, the activity is not a sport.
An activity must pass both tests to be a sport. Golf, for instance, is not a sport; while men have a natural advantage over equally skilled women, due primarily to drive length, playing a round does not make one sweaty unless the temperature is high.
Peter
Umm, if you walk the 18 holes at "normal indoor temps", I think you would sweat. So golf with a cart, not a sport, but golf walking is.
Sweet! I think you're doing pretty well.
Nate is obviously either dripping in dough, or like playing expensice lotteries because if he doesn't think he can outplay people, then it's a waste of 10K. I don't think I'm the best player, because I don't think there is truly such a thing. Just look at the "best player" this year, Lisandro, who has won 3 bracelets already. It took him 2 major suckouts, including runner, runner broadway cards, to not be severely shortstacked in the M.E. Obviously, there is some skill involved, and there are some people who are going to, over long amount of time with vast resources, be more successful. but at the end of the day, it is a circle of luck, but since some people find some very successful people getting consistently luck (like Lisandro has) to be a antithesis to what they believe about luck (that over time it equals out for people) as opposed to the true nature of luck (some people truly have it, and some don't for some reason). Again, you have such a strong mathmatical background, and it sounds like you know when to play tight or loosen it up, so you have a chip and a chair, same as an Ivey...It's really that simple, which is why you consistently see guys far less talented win this event every year (Moneymaker, Yang, Gold, etc.). But to be honest, you thinking you're not as good WILL be the reason you lose, as people will eat you alive. Look at the big names, they are all gamblers who are willing to put it on the line with nothing or everything, it's just knowing when to call them.
Roughly 10% is about right. Last year 666 players made the money, out of some 6844 entrants in the main event. I'm sure the exact breakdown is publicly posted somewhere.
Making it past the first day is a pretty big achivement. You'd be amazed how many pros and tournament winners don't. This is partially a statistical argument - only a minority can move on to the next day - and partially because they have to face aggression from unknown amateurs. In any case, congratulations.
But a question: If limit hold-em is your best game, why did you enter the main event instead of a limit event? The average person may not be aware, but the "World Series of Poker" is actually fifty-odd individual "events" (tournaments) of different size and different poker variants (and mixes thereof), culminating in the "Main Event", the big no-limit hold-em tournament. So, why not play to your strengths?
Meanwhile, your site is plastered with "Send Money to SarahPAC" ads - you may think you're gambling, but in my mind, Palin's the one going all-in on a losing hand.
NINATING: When Nate plays Nines and Eights.
@John
I hardly think Nate is paying full price. He is blogging it here, and in such a way to make it interesting to read about for a potentially new audience.
I'd say he's either a) getting subsidized in some way. c'mon, he's a pop-culture statistician, how perfect is that for WSOP. If I were ESPN, I'd "arrange" to have him at the final table. or b) enjoying the new-found wealth is popular status has brought. How much does CNN pay for 1 visit from a stats geek?
Semper Fi,
Terry
Go Nate! Do it for the rest of us who got sucked out by Frist and the UIGEA!
According to ironrailsironweights criteria, rock climbing is not a sport:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Hill
According to Ernest Hemingway (a figure who I hold in somewhat higher esteem):
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games."
Nate's minimal goal here has to be to cash -- and win back his entry fee. I'm guessing he doesn't have a sponsor at this time, but if he does reasonably well he may be able to "cash in" on some of his past fame. He knows many people in ESPN already; he's written for them, he's been a commentator for them.
Obviously Nate thinks he's smart enough to play with the best -- he's said that in this post. But experience -- how to play the game and your opponents (reading tells, etc.), as opposed to reading the cards and knowing the odds -- does matter. And that's what he's acknowledging.
In the end although though this is a game of skill, it's also a game of chance and exogenous factors -- what cards you get, what your opponents do, how you're feeling at the moment. And partly for the latter reason, and partly because there are many many talented and experienced players out there, even the well recognized "best" poker players don't win big tournaments very often.
What Nate's background as a statistician gives him is a kind of patience to recognize the difference between long run odds, skill, and short-term factors including atruly random effects of how the cards fall.
The best baseball hitters get on base only about 40% of the time; the best teams every year typically win only about 60% of their games. But the performance of hitters, pitchers, and teams is also situational or contextual. And being familiar with the opponent's capabilities and tendencies, the game situation, the stadium, can give a player a small edge that allows him to succeed and win in critical situations. Poker is like that too.
@Tomas:
Don't go stir crazy reloading the page. Click here to subscribe to 538 via RSS. You'll see the headline for each new entry (on your homepage or feedreader)shortly after it is posted.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/538dotcom
Best of luck, Nate! I'll be thrilled if you make it to the final. Looking forward to your updates regardless.
Good luck, honey-bunny. I'm still eking it out in the online world, but perhaps in a year or two I'll be able to go to the main event and try to make it to day 2 too.
P.S. As others have said, you ought to step up and be a civilian leader for UIGEA. We need you.
I really doubt -in fact I'm sure-- that as many as half the players think they're among the best players in the world. No more than several hundred should be under that delusion. Perhaps it might be better to say that half the players actually think they could win given the right set of circumstances (ie getting lucky at just the right times, or conversely, avoiding getting very unlucky at other times). A Chris Moneymaker or a Jerry Yang come to mind as weak players who've won recently through some serious luck at just the right times.
The hardest part about poker for me was never the math or statistics, which is actually relatively straightforward, but rather tracking all of your opponents (tightness/looseness/passiveness/aggressiveness) and modifying play accordingly. The truly great players can do this instinctively.
I've been coming to 538 for a long time and I never knew that it was run by NateThaGreat, whose posts I used to study on 2+2. Nate, if you run into BicycleKick (who I went to college with and got me into poker, not sure if you knew him from 2+2), tell him Aaron says hi. I know he made it past the first day as well. The best of luck to both of you!
re: Jeffrey Lisandro
Lisandro won two of his three bracelets in 7 Card Stud. He was well-known before this year's WSOP as one of very best Stud players in the world.
I don't think your "circle of luck" comment carries much weight considering the top players consistently make the final tables, especially noticeable in their better games. The main problem with the main event are the sheer numbers. someone like Phil Ivey might be 50-1 against winning it whereas Joe Blow might be 20,000-1. Ivey would still be considered a longshot.
Oh, man, you did not just write "somewhat unique", Nate. Come on.
Guys, is this the same event as the one Nate Silver is participating in:
http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/tourney/tournament-chip-counts.asp?tid=7283&grid=607&curpage=1
I find it funny when people act like pokers not a game of luck...The same people make the final tables??? Really, maybe you need to study more...This year has actually been a rare exception over the past few years with multiple bracelet winners. And yes, if playing a good amount of clowns, most with good math skills can consistently beat those without them, so it's not entirely luck, but come on, I've sat at tables with pro's a few times, and not once was I afraid of playing them, it was all card dependent as long as I didn't do anything dumb. And the main event (as with most large tourneys, are like an educated lottery (similar to how you hear about pro Blackjack players and pro Keno players, most of which turn to poker). I know people who watch movies and hear stories like to think somehow it's entirely skill, and that idea is BS...Any donkey can win big with the right luck...If big money guys like Elky and Darius Minieri played like they do in your house game, you laugh at them...But they've gotten lucky enough to turn it into a career, so more power to them, but let's not act like it's on par with other skills, because that's a joke...PS, I've won more than I've lost playing overall, so it's not bitterness, it's a fact.
Nate, I check back briefly every couple of weeks after following you obsessively last year, like everyone else. I think you're bloody terrific.
From Fremantle, Western Australia.
To John,
Your "argument", such as it is, goes off the rails. No one is denying luck doesn't play a role in the outcome of poker but far less than you make out. If a pro gets his money in with the best hand on a consistent basis he'll do far better than the amateurs who won't. Over time skill wins out. It's not simply a matter of being "lucky" either. You have to avoid being unlucky, making proper laydowns and so on.
Also, your comments about blackjack tournament players shows how little you know about that also. There are optimal ways of playing which gives a large edge to any professional over someone who is just playing willy-nilly, trying to catch cards. I suggest you read some work by Stanford Wong or Anthony Curtis.
While the WSOP is the most prestigious tournament, and the Main Event is its premier and best known event, the level of skill in a WSOP event is pretty low. There are a lot of horrible players throwing their money away. You could be +EV even if there were several 100 people who were significantly better than you.
And even if you are the best player in the world, your odds of not making the money in the main event is at least 75%. And the big money comes from the final table, not surviving into the money or day 2.
Are you at least beating Jason Calacanis?
I never mentioned tournament Blackjack, which is a relatively new item...My comment is throughout history, there has always been professional regular BJ players...But thanks for clarifying that part of the "skill" is avoiding being unlucky, now there's a solid skill to behold...Look at this tournament, take a look at every player that is in the top 10 right now in the POY standings, Lunkin needed a huge suckout to stay alive just 3 hours ago...Beleive what you will, I will mine, but Nate, good luck and remember, just play your game and good things will happen
Avoiding being unlucky as in knowing when you're beat, throwing away those big hands when a larger hand has you,etc. The big laydown is a skill in itself as tournament poker is about survival, above all.
As with any gambling game if you know the proper odds you have a huge advantage over players who play against the odds on a consistent basis.
There's an old truism that better poker players are "luckier". There's a reason for that also.
The luck part is that it is pretty hard even for the top pros to not find themselves stuck in a "race" situation (e.g. mid-level pairs against two overcards) at some point in time. The only way to avoid it is to let other players push you around.
It is rare when the ultimate winner hasn't had one or two big hands when they sucked it out on the river.
Good can get you into the money. To get the big money takes being good plus some luck.
Great meeting you Nate on July 4th! You've already outlasted lots of pros, including me and our favorite paradigmatic degenerate gambler!
How about tweeting updates?
#441 is fabulous, Nate. Andy's right, there are LOTS of pros who don't make it into the final 500. I'm expecting to see your face on ESPN or wherever they sell the rights!
I'm pretty sure that's #441 in his bracket, not overall.
In any case, the Day 2 competition is brutal. In Day 2a yesterday, there was only a 50% survival, and there are some pretty big winners. Day 2b today should be similar. I think many players have to learn how to "supersize" their bets, and this scaling up, too, can take some adjusting.
I have trust that Nate is learning a lot as things proceed and will adapt appropriately. But there's gambling in that casino!
It might help if you don't write about your strategy etc in a well known blog ;-)
@Juris:
"This means I'm currently in 441st place (or thereabouts) out of the 6,500 or so players who entered the tournament."
Ugh. I hate it when poker players wear sunglasses. If you're so good, why are you covering up your biggest tell?
If I enter on of these things, I'm going to play with a paper bag over my head.
I'm rooting for you, Nate! Let us know how day 2 goes.
http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/tourney/tournament-chip-counts.asp?tid=7283&grid=607&curpage=1
How come I can't find his name on either page1 or page2.
Does this mean that he's now out.
John, in response to your original comment:
No, Nate isn't playing the lottery in a luck-based crapshoot. (If I may mix my gambling metaphors...) Why? He's writing a book about poker, and his playing in the WSOP is surely worth more than $10,000 to the story and book sales. If he happens to finish in the money, that's great for the book and for the cash-in-pocket. If not, it's just research and publicity.
Win-win.
I love Barney Frank. At election time, he had the best TV ad ever: a ringful of elephants - you get the picture.
This off topic, but I thought anyone reading might be interested:
"Massachusetts sues feds over definition of marriage"
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20090708/4a5427d0_3ca6_15526200907081222709802
jdk - i think there is some serious lag time to the chip count updates. i assume if someone is eliminated today it will be updated real time, but don't know quickly they are updating the rest.
oh, and payout structures have been updated.
http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/tourney/tournament-payout.asp?tid=7283&grid=607
Looks to me like Nate's doing well. Latest update has him at $110,000+ chips. Seems like a very good day thus far. Go, Nate.
He has 68000 chips now, which means he's about 2/3 below the average chip amount of people in right now. [There are about 1800 people out of 6500 left, so the mean amount each player has (since everyone started with 30,000) is ~100,000.] To get any payout he needs to out-survive about 1200 out of the 1800 remaining people. Not saying he can't or won't finish in the money, but he's not in particularly good shape right now. [Especially as people often try to weed out the lower chip stacks at this point, so they can get finish in the money.]
The chipstack counts provided on WSOP.com aren't necessarily all that accurate. During Day 2 of my PLO8 event this year, they rarely had mine accurate much within a factor of 2...and that was even after i told a couple reporters who were eyeing my stack my exact chipcount. They did get it correct after i busted out in 17th (though they minorly biffed the hand details a bit).
Anyway, with 68K chips, Nate is certainly healthy enough where he's not in bad shape and has plenty of time left at these blind levels.
I've got nate @ 61550, putting him in about 940th place. Alttile way to go for a cash, but doable.
Through two days (12 hours per day) of competition, Nate has 68,000 chips (compared to a starting stack of 30,000 and the current average stack of 113,000). Three-fourths of the players have been eliminated from the tournament already, and 5/8ths of those left will be eliminated and lose their entire $10k buy-in. The final 648 will at least double their money and the prizes climb expotentially until the final survivor, who wins $8.5M or so.
Good luck, Nate -- we're all cheering for you!
I'm guessing Nate will finish in the money - at 538th overall.
Are you really NateThaGreat? Wow. Never would have believed that from the way you butchered that 99 to bust, but I guess you'd play it for a cap in limit, so meh.
自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,情趣,情趣,視訊交友,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment