Originally Posted by Xavier
BS back to you. I have taken the luck factor into account by saying the best player will double up 75% of the time. If there was no luck involved tehy would just double up 100% of the time.
I'm not sure your assumptions are well founded.
Given that your assumptions are correct, then the answer you derive is also correct.
However I'm not sure how accurate your assumptions are. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying that in order to use this line of reasoning you have to show that your assumptions are accurate.
That in itself is quite difficult. How do you rate and rank players? How do you first identify the strongest player in the world? How do you compare him to the second strongest player, and the third and so on? Can you simply assign points to their ranking or is the difference in skill between the third and fourth player, for instance, different to the difference between the 9th and tenth?
So firstly how do you identify the strongest player?
How do you then take into account the strength of the field?
Thirdly how do you aproximate the luck throughout the field? For instance, if the weakest player has a very good run of cards, would that have as much impact as the second strongest having the same run?
Position, seats are randomly assigned, however how many tournaments are required before seat allocation enters into the long run?
There are other things to consider too.
I just think its too complex a situation to accurately model and sweeping approximations make the results a bit meaningless.