After reading the rants regarding freerolls

I'd be interested in your answer to this question.

Does Sklanksky's theorem of poker apply to freerolls?

If your answer is no, please explain why.

If your answer is yes, support your local donkey!

I whould think the anwser is yes.
Might not pay to play but u play to win money,so why should it be any diffrent then any other tournement?

Yes, it would apply as the buy-in amount is irrelevant in his theorem: Fundamental theorem of poker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theorem is all about how hands are played if you knew each others' hole cards (perfect information) vs how they are played when you don't know each others' other cards (imperfect information).

If we accept the theorem to be both correct and applicable to freerolls, what factors cause a world class player like Chris Ferguson to take months of play before cashing enough to go on to micro during his zero to 10k run.

Somewhere in my head I've failed to account for a part of the equation in free and micro limit MTT's. I understand that I benefit from a bad play, and that this benefit may not be in the moment but will be realized over time.

But something is still missing to account for a vastly superior player having trouble cashing. And somehow my spidy senses tell me that whatever I'm not considering is important to my progression and future success.

JD... you've been generous with your time in helping this beginner learn and I want to thank you for it.

Yeah, its called "gee, there are 5000 players in this free roll and only 20 get paid." That's why you have trouble cashing :P

I know that's why I have trouble cashing, but Ferguson taking that long baffles me

then you're overestimating the edge of a good player over a small sample of online MTTs that don't have a deep structure. the in-the-money % of the world's greatest tournament player and a merely average tournament player don't differ drastically. in fact, the average player may even cash more often. the difference is when the great players cash, they go deep significantly more often. but the "greats" go cashless the majority of tournaments just like mere mortals and can easily go on a run of 20 MTTs without a single cash

Well say the numbers are true, 5k people and 20 cash. The average player will then cash 0.4% of the time, which is one in 250 times. Because I'm assuming Ferguson is better than the average player he was able to cash far before that I believe. Freerolls are just such a long-shot in general that even someone with superior skill will find it tough to cash. Of course someone who's bad may as well play the lottery, it costs a buck but they may have a better shot at cashing .

Now that does surprise me, I had assumed that there would be a noticeable gap between avg. and elite. Then for the player looking to maximize his hourly rate do MTT's become time not well spent in comparison to a ring game?

well no, there's certainly a gap between the average and elite as far as earnings and return on investment. i just meant that gap doesn't really manifest itself as in-the-money %, which is overrated in MTTs. far more important than the percentage of the time you make the money is how often you go really deep, because the structure of MTTs is so top-heavy and rewards final tables and top 3 finishes so highly. the best are the best because they get wins, top 3 finishes, and final tables much more often, which catapults their earnings and ROI

that being said, most pros, including tournament pros, have agreed that if one was equally proficient in cash games and MTTs, being a cash game pro offers much more potential for earnings and a better hourly rate. there's also the fact that those earnings will be much more consistent, whereas playing only large tournaments for income means most of your winnings will come in large chunks and you have to be prepared for long break-even/losing droughts between those big scores