2025 World Series of Poker May 27th - July 16th
Yes, under your example, player 1 would have a higher average finish percentage and it is a more impressive result. He won $900k while the other only won $490k. Keep in mind, our POY formula does not award points based on average finish %, but rather I just show that stat so people can more easily see who had better results. ROI is not a relevant metric as it would simply awar
You're missing the point. Your average finish metric is meaningless if you don't factor in entries when the players don't cash. Like someone said, a min cash shouldn't count against you.
By your metric a min cash would lower your number but firing 100 times and never cashing would not lower the number.
You're basically saying a single is worse than a strikeout.
No player has ever had a slugging percentage over 1.000 over a full a season so actually it wouldn't in the grand scheme of things.
yes, I was waiting for someone to mention this. To counter, Glaser had 3 bracelets won in the first 4 events that he cashed! So any reasonable comparison to slugging % would likely have his % over 1.000 thus making a future min-cash (ie single) an event that would lower his slugging %.
You're missing the point. Your average finish metric is meaningless if you don't factor in entries when the players don't cash. Like someone said, a min cash shouldn't count against you.
By your metric a min cash would lower your number but firing 100 times and never cashing would not lower the number.
You're basically saying a single is worse than a strikeout.
If all players have 10 scores, then posting their average finish is another eyeball check to see who had better overall results. In our rankings, the top 5 all had 10 or more scores, and 12 of the top 13 also had 10 or more scores. Only 6th place Linde had 6 cashes, and yes, he had one of the higher average finishes at 97.02% but he was still beaten by Bohlman 4th at 97.19% and Deeb 1st at 97.59%.
Again, this metric is not part of our POY formula. And a min-cash is also counted in total cashes of which only 10 count. But having 20 cashes is more impressive than having 8. And a min-cash also earns points for one's POY total, so they do not count against you.
If all players have 10 scores, then posting their average finish is another eyeball check to see who had better overall results. In our rankings, the top 5 all had 10 or more scores, and 12 of the top 13 also had 10 or more scores. Only 6th place Linde had 6 cashes, and yes, he had one of the higher average finishes at 97.02% but he was still beaten by Bohlman 4th at 97.19% and
So if Linde entered another event and min-cashed he would fall in your average finish rankings, but if Deeb entered another event and min-cashed his ranking would not change since he has 10 better results so the min-cash would be excluded. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
So if Linde entered another event and min-cashed he would fall in your average finish rankings, but if Deeb entered another event and min-cashed his ranking would not change since he has 10 better results so the min-cash would be excluded. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
Again, the average finish metric is NOT part of the POY scoring formula. It is simply shown as a stat to better clarify why someone is ranked higher or lower. If Linde entered another event and min-cashed, his POY score would actually INCREASE and he would move UP in the POY rankings if it increased enough to edge out a player ranked above him. Deeb's min-cash would NOT increase his lead so it would be meaningless to him, whereas in the past, when all events were ranked, even a new min-cash would increase Deeb's POY score.
Firing and not cashing should lower your average finish, but you're not measuring that, are you? A guy like Mizrachi will have a higher average finish (once in the money) because he fires more aggressively and gets knocked out more often before the money. When he does survive and make the money it will be with a big stack and he's likely to run deep. That doesn't necessarily me
A singles hitter like Rod Carew, Bert Campaneris, Tony Quinn, not going to be judged by and paid for slugging %, nit extra base hits, not on homers, not on RBIs,etc. He will be judged on and paid based on batting average, OB%, Runs scored, etc.
What makes your formula total bullchit, and with laughable "results" this year, is the massive points discrepancy between Deebs bracelet win, and Glaser's 3 bracelet wins.
Deeb: 1,567.36 pts, field size 121
Glaser:
1121.99 pts, field size 1,239 (-28.4% less pts than Deeb's bracelet win)
1037.35 pts, field size 463 (-33.8% less pts than Deeb's bracelet win)
969.99 pts, field size 597 (-38.1% less pts than Deeb's bracelet win)
This just shows what a ridiculous argument it is to give Deeb hundreds of more pts because OMG buyin was $100K! The buyin amount factor has completely led to a bastardized outcome, which everyone can see. Your formula sucks bro, you're weighting factors that shouldn't even be weighted.
I think the actual POY formula does a pretty good job balancing the weights between field size and buy-in. And it already gives double the points for 1st compared to 2nd, which if anything is too extreme given that the discrepancy isn’t even that large in the prize pool.
If I was going to make one change, I would just say that online results shouldn’t count at all. This ended up making the difference in Deeb’s win over Glazer and Mizrachi, but they don’t really factor in to the public narrative of the event.
What makes your formula total bullchit, and with laughable "results" this year, is the massive points discrepancy between Deebs bracelet win, and Glaser's 3 bracelet wins.Deeb: 1,567.36 pts, field size 121Glaser:1121.99 pts, field size 1,239 (-28.4% less pts than Deeb's bracelet win)1037.35 pts, field size 463 (-33.8% less pts than Deeb's bracelet win)969.99 pts, field size 597
Not ridiculous at all to give a few more points for a $100,000 buyin event win vs a $1,500 buyin event win. Deeb's buyin was 66 times bigger than Glaser's $1500 buyin, and the prize pool was 6.5x times higher, but he only got 1.39x more points. His win of just under $3 million was also 4.8x higher than all of Glasers 3 bracelet wins combined! Yet he only got only 1/2 as many points of Glaser's 3 wins for his 1 win. Deeb got 2nd in a 1700+ entry event and 2nd in an 1800+ entry event. That is mathematically more difficult than winning in either of Glaser's 463 player win and 597 player win. DUCY?
I just won my first $2, 385 on Betfeeq! Someone told me you can get a $100 bonus if you enter the code "august100"
Not ridiculous at all to give a few more points for a $100,000 buyin event win vs a $1,500 buyin event win. Deeb's buyin was 66 times bigger than Glaser's $1500 buyin, and the prize pool was 6.5x times higher, but he only got 1.39x more points. His win of just under $3 million was also 4.8x higher than all of Glasers 3 bracelet wins combined! Yet he only got only 1/2 as many po
I guess it's the wealthy backer friends bonus, since almost no one is buying in to $100ks with their own money. I'm not saying higher stakes shouldn't count for something, but I would think a 10x field size is also relevant.
Previously posted:
Deeb: 1,567.36 pts, field size 121
Glaser: 1121.99 pts, field size 1,239 (-28.4% less pts than Deeb's bracelet win)
If you really only factored in field size without factoring in buy-in in the point formula, the POY almost every year would be some rando who won the Colossus (or one of the other half-dozen 10,000+ field tournaments) and had a bunch of other mincashes. Maybe Mizrachi manages to win it this year, but that was a really freak accomplishment.
If you really only factored in field size without factoring in buy-in in the point formula, the POY almost every year would be some rando who won the Colossus (or one of the other half-dozen 10,000+ field tournaments) and had a bunch of other mincashes. Maybe Mizrachi manages to win it this year, but that was a really freak accomplishment.
That's not accurate, it's only because the "formula" wildly over-exaggerates the impact of the delta of buyin and field size. And buyin seems most egregious.
Should Glasers bracelets receive -28%, -34%, and -38% less points than Deeb's 1 bracelet just because of buyin amount?
Or alternatively, should Deeb's 1 bracelet receive +62%, +51%, and +40% MORE points than Glasers 3 bracelets because of buyin amount?
Any difference in points due to buyin should be capped at 10% delta, max. Anything more is just absurd.
And that's supposedly with field size working against Deeb and for Glaser. If anything Glaser's field sizes of 1,239, 597, and 463 should've equalized the points vs. Deeb's 121 field size.
It's obvious buyin amount weighting in formula is creating a completely bastardized result. It's a massive flaw in the point formula and has resulted in a laughable result that no one takes seriously.
That's not accurate, it's only because the "formula" wildly over-exaggerates the impact of the delta of buyin and field size. And buyin seems most egregious.Should Glasers bracelets receive -28%, -34%, and -38% less points than Deeb's 1 bracelet just because of buyin amount?Or alternatively, should Deeb's 1 bracelet receive +62%, +51%, and +40% MORE points than Glasers 3 brace
Deeb won about 5 times as much money for his bracelet as Glaser did for all three of his bracelets combined. And yet Glaser got more than double the points for his bracelets as Deeb got for his. This result seems just as “laughable” as the “flaw” you point out.
Deeb won about 5 times as much money for his bracelet as Glaser did for all three of his bracelets combined. And yet Glaser got more than double the points for his bracelets as Deeb got for his. This result seems just as “laughable” as the “flaw” you point out.
C’mon, I appreciate the discussion, but let’s be intellectually honest. A $100K buyin will of course payout way more money. So you’re arguing most money won should be POY? Your argument doesn’t even make sense.
If they ever bring back $1M One Drop I guess whoever wins is automatically POY because they’ll have won maybe more than 80% of ALL bracelets combined.
C’mon, I appreciate the discussion, but let’s be intellectually honest. A $100K buyin will of course payout way more money. So you’re arguing most money won should be POY? Your argument doesn’t even make sense.
If they ever bring back $1M One Drop I guess whoever wins is automatically POY because they’ll have won maybe more than 80% of ALL bracelets combined.
Yes, a $100k buy-in will of course pay out much more than a $1500 buy-in.
And a $1500 buy-in will of course have a much larger field than a $100k buy-in.
Both of these factors should be balanced in the point formula, and I think the WSOP POY does a decent job of this.
The winner of the One Drop shouldn’t automatically win POY, but neither should the winner of the Colossus (or the Gladiators event or whatever got the biggest field for the smallest buy-in).
Deeb didn’t win POY just because he won the $100k. He won because he has consistently excellent results over the course of the entire series. Glaser also had excellent results, and ended up with almost the exact same point total. And if you exclude the online events, Glaser winds up on top. But either one would have been deserving.
Yes, a $100k buy-in will of course pay out much more than a $1500 buy-in.
And a $1500 buy-in will of course have a much larger field than a $100k buy-in.
Both of these factors should be balanced in the point formula, and I think the WSOP POY does a decent job of this.
I guess we disagree on this, as I think WSOP POY does a horrible job of “balancing factors”, as evidenced by Deeb getting 40%, 50%, even 60% more points than Glaser’s bracelets. The buyin factor is out of whack, maybe Red Oak can actually release the actual formula for peer review.
Yes, both field size and buyin are key inputs in our POY formula. We accurately balance the two. So 100k vs 1.5k buyin is 66x more for the 100k, 121 vs 1121 field size is about 9.5x in favor of the larger field. When you combine the two to get total pool, then Deebs win in the 121 field 100k has a pool 6.5x higher than Glasers 1121 player $1500, yet Deeb did not get 6.5x more points than Glaser, he only got 1.39x as much. That is a very modest bonus, and therefore does not prevent a player who only plays in $1500 or under event from winning POY.
Yes, both field size and buyin are key inputs in our POY formula. We accurately balance the two. So 100k vs 1.5k buyin is 66x more for the 100k, 121 vs 1121 field size is about 9.5x in favor of the larger field. When you combine the two to get total pool, then Deebs win in the 121 field 100k has a pool 6.5x higher than Glasers 1121 player $1500, yet Deeb did not get 6.5x more p
1.39x more points for winning a 121 player field vs. 1121 player field? I guarantee you it is magnitudes more difficult to win a tournament with 10x more players, regardless of buy in. And yet Deeb is getting more points for this? It seems like this formula was written by wealthier/staked high stakes pros.. I'm fine with higher buy ins getting a slight bump but the formula seems off.
Not ridiculous at all to give a few more points for a $100, 000 buyin event win vs a $1, 500 buyin event win. Deeb's buyin was 66 times bigger than Glaser's $1500 buyin, and the prize pool was 6.5x times higher, but he only got 1.39x more points. His win of just under $3 million was also 4.8x higher than all of Glasers 3 bracelet wins combined! Yet he only got only 1/2 as many
It seems you think field size should be the main weight. This is wrong. Buyin need to have a say in the point system as well. As I pointed out in previous posts, Deeb's 100k buyin is 66x bigger than a $1500 event Glaser won. Did Deeb get 66x more points? No. He got 1.39x more. Should Glaser get 10x more points since the field size was 10x bigger? No. Combining the factors, the total pool in Deeb's win was 6.5x bigger than Glaser's win. Did Deeb get 6.5x more points? No, he only got 1.39x more. A very modest and accurate bump.
LMAO
Sad bump I know, but I did want to say that’s it one thing to read about the hero folding and WillK—and a couple of other clowns—but seeing it is something else.
I thought the PPC, 10K LHE, and PLOs have been very good broadcasts with some fascinating plays. I thought Esther played extremely well in the PPC aside from the one bad hero fold in PLO; from the closed captioning the announcers seemed very condescending. And on the final hand Kenney made an alltime hero break of a pat hand in lowball.
But it’s always easy when you can see everybody’s cards.
