>In other words, the events are independent events. The a priori
>probability of an entrant ending up in position X or better is X/N.
>Whomever achieves the joint result with the lowest probability has
done the
>best.
>
I agree totally, and I think the reason is clear from ATLARGE results.
I was first in one event and almost last in another <blush>. Oddly I
won the event in which I slept in. If I had chosen to "sleep in", ala
Bozo, for the 7-stud tourney I would have ended around 20th place of
48, putting enormous pressure on Jerry and JP to get to the final table
or beyond. It' pretty obvious they both played better than I for the
two games combined, not to mention Jerry's 1st in the prayer meeting
(more on that in TR). Of course that's because they are much better
players!!
For me to luck into 1st overall because they were 12th or 13th or
something is a lttle over the top. This seems a little better. I sorta
think the way they do it at bridge would be good (and pretty much the
same as JP suggests):
You get one point for each player you beat and 1/2 for each you tie.
Divide total by total possible and get percentage: best one wins.
e.g.
There were 54 Hold'em & 48 stud players, so:
foldem 53 for holdem + 2 for stud = 55
JP 51 for holdem + 46 1/2 for stud = 97 1/2
Divide by 53+47=100 (convenient huh?).
JP had a 97.5% game & I had a 55% game. Notice you now could include
BJ, Craps or any other game for a best of ATLARGE!
Other issues could come into play: minimum size of event, entry
eligibility, etc.
Well?