The Best Players in the World are Probably Not Who You Think

Editor's note: Mike Caro is generally regarded as being today's foremost authority on poker strategy, psychology, and statistics. In his books, videos, and seminars, his unique method of communication has earned him the title "Mad Genius of Poker," or "America's Mad Genius." He is the founder of Mike Caro University of Poker, Gaming, and Life Strategy.

As I'm writing this, the World Series of Poker main event is heading into its last two days. Many observers find it hard to believe that out of the 613 entrants, so many top names have not made the final five tables. Not I.

Before the tournament began, I stated that there's not one single player whom you should rate better than 200-to-1 against winning. Fifteen years ago, when the fields were much smaller, I wagered even money that you couldn't name the winner in 25 guesses. As the field grew, I expanded it to 50 guesses. Three years ago, I laid Mike Sexton 7-to-1 against any previous main-event world champion repeating. None made the final table! The result seemed to unnerve Sexton so much that he paid me the $200 twice, and I had to remind him the second time that I had already collected. Sexton, by the way, is truly one of the greatest tournament players alive, with results — although enviable — that I believe don't match his expectations.

What separates Mike Sexton's recent results from Phil Hellmuth's is mostly luck. Both are tremendously skillful tournament players. But there are several hundred players in that category, and the difference between, say, the 17th best in that group and the 117th best is much smaller than you might imagine. We're talking about the top 200 players out of 20 million — the best one out of 100,000. Put this group in a volatile tournament that needs to conclude in a day, two days, or even the ridiculously, agonizingly long and tedious five days of the current main event, and you've got a situation where the winning player needs to be extremely lucky.

Does the winning player need to be extremely skillful? No — but it helps. Extremely skillful players have a much better chance of winning than semiskillful ones. And those with light skills have very little chance at all. Some players scoff when I say it's probable that no player is better than 200-to-1 against winning. But, wait! Let's examine this.

If each one of the 613 entrants had equal skills, the result would be pure luck. Each player would have an equal one-in-613 chance of winning, and it would be 612-to-1 against any individual player claiming the title. So, when I say it's 200-to-1 against a player winning, that's a huge compliment! That player, over eternity, would win more than three times his fair share of tournaments. Every time he slammed down $10,000 to enter a tournament, his expected return would be greater than $30,000, and the value of his expected profit would be greater than $20,000. Argue if you want, but I'm saying that's the best you can hope for.

I have used computers to simulate real-world tournament results, both by giving everyone equal skills and by giving some players advantages. Out of groups of thousands of players, entering various numbers of events, some win a lot of tournaments and become the focus of attention. They are the great ones. But what's strange is that occasionally they are not even the players with the most skills. And often the players with the best prospects don't win for years! Think about it.

Nonetheless, the World Series of Poker is the greatest promotional event in the history of our game, by far. And it is perhaps the very notion that everyone has a chance of winning, however slim, that brings $6,130,000 to the table.