I compiled this interesting statistic recently, comparing 2003 PGA winners to 2003 World Series of Poker winners.

The 2003 PGA tour consisted of 48 events. Only 8 players were repeat winners across those events, and there were a total of 31 unique winners. Of those winners, 5 of the 31 were previous winners of the PGA championship event.

The 2003 WSOP consisted of 35 events. 10 players were repeat winners across those events, and there were a total of 25 unique winners. Of those winners, 6 of the 25 were previous winners of the WSOP championship event.

I'd like to do some more research into past years and other events, but the parallels are pretty interesting. Some more statistical analysis could lay down at least a statistical basis for arguing to a court or legislature that tournament poker is a game of skill.

In Michigan's case, it wouldn't matter. Michigan Compiled Law 350.301 (pardon the ellipses):

Any person ... who ... takes ... any money or valuable thing with the agreement ... that any money or valuable thing will be paid ... to any person where the payment ... will be contingent upon ... the happening of any event not known by the parties to be certain, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00.

There isn't even an exception for "if you don't take a rake," although there's an exception for old people.

Posted by: LordGeznikor on March 23, 2004 08:33 PM

More interesting would be to include the number of particpants in each event. Might be higher for the poker events.

Also, the key stat would probably be "in the money" rather than winners

Then run stats tests on the significance of the results (probability that for say 1000 competitors, each would have 1/1000 chance of winning, given the results)

you'd need a decent number of years worth of results for both too to build a solid case.

course everyone's a critic. I wish I still had the knowhow from college stats to do this -- it sounds interesting.

Posted by: eYuppie on March 23, 2004 09:26 PM

LordGeznikor: yeah, that's a pretty Draconian law. Texas law (and several other states) make exceptions for "bona fide contests of skill". I'm curious, though, how competitions like chess or golf tournaments are allowed? The outcome of those events are not known by the parties to be certain.

eYuppie: I agree, that was one of the next things I was going to do although it will take quite a bit of time (even compiling these stats took a while). As it stands, if the outcome of the WSOP was truly random, and every player who won one event had entered all events, the probability of 10 repeat winners is about 4 times 10 to the power -70. Very small indeed.

Posted by: jeremy on March 24, 2004 09:51 AM

good work. i like your site. in a small saucepan: http://www.vespaquest.com/2005/10/post.html , in a small saucepan

Posted by: richard allison on October 8, 2005 06:28 AM