|
A few days ago I was lurking the HSNL thread and as zeejustin was looking trying to sell action, he estimated his ROI in the range of 35-50+%. That seemed absurdly high so I thought I'd see if it was plausible.
There are 48 players, 29 listed as pros and 19 amateurs. Of the 1MM buy-in, $111,111 is raked (donated). Making initial assumption all players are equally skilled, they each have an -11% ROI right off the bat. Next I listed the players in rough order, from weakest to strongest. From here I redistributed their EV (don't know if that is the proper term) making a few extra assumptions. Let's say each pro has at least 0% ROI (maybe generous for "Malibu"?) and I gave a 10% ROI to the top ten pros. This already forces the amateurs to be particularly bad, and there's still a bunch of b/e pros. I rounded off the worst six amateurs to an even -50% ROI. I decided to redistribute that back to the stronger amateurs (not unreasonable as a few went deep) with a little extra for the best pro. Results:
Richard Yong 50
Paul Phua 50
Frederic Banjout 50
Guy Laliberté 50
Bill Perkins 50
Phil Ruffin 50
Bob Bright 67
Ilya Bulychev 67
Cary Katz 67
John Morgan 67
Paul Newey 67
Chamath Palihapitiya 67
Brandon Steven 67
Talal Shakerchi 67
Mikhail Smirnov 67
Rick Salomon 92
Bobby Baldwin 92
David Einhorn 92
Dan Shak 92
Giovanni "Malibu" Guarascio 100
Roland De Wolfe 100
Antonio Esfandiari 100
Philipp Gruissem 100
Mike Sexton 100
Jens Kyllönen 100
Haralabos Voulgaris 100
Daniel Negreanu 100
Jonathan Duhamel 100
Vivek Rajkumar 100
Tobias Reinkemeier 100
Andrew Robl 100
Eugene Katchalov 100
Nick Schulman 100
Noah Schwartz 100
Michael Mizrachi 100
Justin Smith 100
Sam Trickett 100
Phil Hellmuth 100
Gus Hansen 110
Erik Seidel 110
Tom Dwan 110
Phil Galfond 110
Bertrand Grospellier 110
Brian Rast 110
Ben Lamb 110
Tom Marchese 110
Jason Mercier 110
Phil Ivey 112
Note that in the second column 100 = 0% ROI, 110 = 10% ROI, etc. Even though I remember sharkscoping people at my table and fist pumping when I find out they're -20%, these numbers may actually be too high for the amateurs (and thus too low for the pros) since the prize structure seems skewed towards first/second places.
|