2001 World Series of Poker: What are the Odds?

by Nolan Dalla | Published: Mar 30, 2001

What are the odds of a player winning the main event at the World Series of Poker? Theoretically, if there are 500 entrants, the unbiased odds of any player winning would be 499-1 (against). However, some players are superior, while others are inferior, to the average entrant. This means that the actual odds on most players would deviate from the base figure. The vast majority of entrants face very long odds – perhaps 1,000-1, 2,000-1, or even higher. But what about top players? What are the odds of a world-class player winning the championship? We are likely to agree that the chances are substantially better than 499-1, but by how much?

A few years ago, poker theorist David Sklansky addressed this question. He assessed the odds of a top player winning at no greater than 50-1 (based on 300 entrants). Sklansky published his estimate in the official brochure of the 1998 World Series of Poker. "Even a superstar is at least a 50-to-1 underdog," Sklansky wrote. "Excellent players (as opposed to superstars) are about 100-to-1 to win a championship with the current fields."

Sklansky's figure seemed plausible at the time. In fact, I used the 50-1 benchmark when I published my "Odds to Win the World Series of Poker," just prior to the main event in 1998. The following year, I raised odds on the favorites to 60-1. I based my adjustment on the increase in the number of entrants (from 350 in 1998 to 393 in 1999). Both lists were posted to the Internet newsgroup rec.gambling.poker, and were subsequently reprinted at various gambling-related websites.

When I posted the odds – which ranged from 50-1 to 100-1 for the top players – some observers took issue with the numbers. A few players were offended. "How could you make so-and-so an 80-1 choice?" I was asked. Other players were upset because they were listed at 200-1, or 300-1 (or worse – were not listed at all). They took these seemingly long odds as a personal insult. Those who disputed the numbers (as being too high) failed to recognize one brutal fact: Winning poker's world championship is becoming more difficult every year. This is occurring for two reasons. First, the number of entrants continues to increase each year. Second, the main event has become extremely competitive – much more so than just 15 or 20 years ago when the fields were still limited to approximately 100 entrants and the elite players were easy to identify. Clearly, the disparity of years past will be blurred by the sea of bodies that will pack Binion's Horseshoe on May 14 – making this year's task even more challenging.

Despite the notion that no player should be listed at odds lower than 50-1 – no matter how talented he or she is – that doesn't stop a few "unofficial" odds lists from circulating around the Horseshoe poker room prior to the WSOP main event. Most of these lists are way off the mark, because they grossly overvalue the tournament favorites. For instance, in the past, some of these lists posted the favorites at 40-1, 30-1, and even as low as 25-1. One year, the "favorite" was listed at 12-1. But not all odds lists have been as erroneous.

About 20 years ago, Jackie Gaughan used to calculate his own odds and took action from players and spectators. When Gaughan was booking bets, the opening odds were much easier to calculate, since all of the top players knew each other and could easily fit around a table or two. It was a simple task to determine which players were the favorites against the rest of the field. Some may even recall that the side action wagered between the players on Gaughan's lists was sometimes equal to the prize pool. Of course, those days are long gone now, although I do think most players are just as interested in seeing a speculative list of the favorites, and the approximate odds that a top player will win. This brings us to the main point of this column – which is to try to determine the true odds for a player to win the WSOP.

If the 50-1 benchmark was appropriate given a field of 300 players a few years ago, what are the odds of favorites based on an estimated 525 entrants today? In other words, how much of an impact does an additional 225 players have on the main event? There is serious debate on this question. Some poker elitists believe that the additional 225 players are largely comprised of "dead money." That is, most of these players have little or no chance of winning the main event. Conversely, others suggest that even if this is true, a significant number of the top players are going to be eliminated by these "inferior" players – if for no other reason than many will get lucky and draw out on the better players. However, the top players who survive the initial flurry of unpredictability may find themselves in a better position to accumulate chips in the middle rounds, thus making the task of survival easier as the event progresses. Since this question cannot be resolved here, let's agree that the additional 225 players have some measure of competence. Many may not have much of a chance to win the tournament (while some do!), but many of these players are at least knowledgeable enough to bruise the egos and bust the buy-ins of many favorites. That's for sure.

Based on a 75 percent increase in the number of entrants since 1998 (through 2000), and Sklansky's 50-1 estimate, the odds of a top player winning are probably no greater than about 87-1. This estimate also affects the odds of an "excellent" player winning – which is probably no better than about 175-1 in today's fields. Therefore, superstars are about six times as likely to win as an average entrant. An excellent player is about three times as likely to win. A very good tournament professional might be 300-1 or higher.

Now, let's set some parameters for the favorites. I estimate that about 10 percent of the field – or roughly 50 players – would fit into either the "superstar" or "excellent" player category (this too is debatable). Of course, the decision as to exactly which players should be ranked in the top 50 is highly prejudiced, since there are no clear distinctions between talent levels in poker, and every observer is likely to have a different opinion.

That's not the only problem. The major defect in odds calculation is proven by history. In the past 12 years (since Johnny Chan's back-to-back wins in 1987 and 1988), at least seven winners have come from the "field" (the figure could be as high as nine players, depending on the source). A look back at the five previous final tables at the WSOP also finds that about two-thirds of the players would not have been ranked in the top 100 prior to the event. Of course, winning a world championship changes everything. A player who was in the field one year suddenly becomes one of the favorites the next. So, there is usually an overreaction in the other direction, as well.

Another reason why the "field" consistently produces favorable results (in terms of in-the-money finishers) is the increasing success of foreign-based competition. Many years ago, the WSOP was primarily an American event. This is much less so today. Consequently, many American players are not as familiar with their foreign counterparts – which means many of these outstanding players who live overseas are terribly undervalued when they come to Las Vegas every April. Just ask Noel Furlong for his opinion on that subject.

This brings up other questions. If you were wagering on the event, would you rather have one superstar player to win it all or two "excellent" players? What about three very good tournament pros? Or, would you prefer six average players? A good odds list makes these decisions difficult to make, as there is an appropriate "balance" between the various classes of players. This is the real objective when listing the odds of players to win the event.

Hence, this will be my goal in the next issue, when I post the "Opening Odds of the 2001 World Series of Poker." I will add my comments on each of the favorites and explain why they merit inclusion. To assist me with this task, I have assembled a committee of what is perhaps the most talented group of no-limit hold'em players in the world. They have agreed to offer their feedback for the column with this year's odds. Naturally, there is certain to be controversy about which players should be listed as favorites and the precise order of ranking. Then again, what would poker be without controversy and debate?