$ 600 + 200 No Limit Hold'em - Ultimate Bounty (Event #65)
NLHE Tournament at The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino
Entrants
308
Prize Pool
$100,000
1st Place Prize
$24,872
% of Field Paid
12.7%
| Player Tier | Cashed % | Full Field % | ROI % | Edge | Profit/Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recreational | 30.8% | 46.9% | -78.8% | 0.48x | -$682 |
Amateur | 7.7% | 16.6% | -65.9% | 0.77x | -$571 |
Semi-Pro | 15.4% | 11.6% | -55.0% | 1.02x | -$476 |
Professional | 20.5% | 11.8% | -42.6% | 1.30x | -$369 |
Elite Pro | 10.3% | 6.5% | -28.4% | 1.62x | -$246 |
World Class | 10.3% | 4.9% | -21.8% | 1.77x | -$189 |
Superstar | 5.1% | 1.6% | -15.2% | 1.92x | -$132 |
Understanding Our Field Analysis
Our field analysis uses a proprietary methodology that combines observed cashed players with series-level data to extrapolate the complete tournament field composition.
For this tournament, we have data on 13% of the field (players who cashed). We use this data, along with series trends and buy-in level characteristics, to model the likely skill distribution of the entire field.
Field Softness ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating softer fields. Tournaments with softness above 0.6 offer excellent value, those between 0.5-0.6 are average, and those below 0.5 are considered tough fields.
Skill Gap measures the ratio between top and bottom quartile players, indicating how wide the skill disparity is within the field.
Our ROI Confidence rating of 72% indicates our level of certainty in the extrapolated metrics. Higher confidence comes from larger sample sizes and more complete data.
Tournament Comparison
Tournaments with buy-ins ±20% of $600
Comparison of all tournaments in this series
ROI Analysis
| Player Tier | ROI % | Edge | Buy-in | Expected Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superstar | -15.2% | 1.92x | $800 | $668 |
| World Class | -21.8% | 1.77x | $800 | $611 |
| Elite Pro | -28.4% | 1.62x | $800 | $554 |
| Professional | -42.6% | 1.30x | $800 | $431 |
| Semi-Pro | -55.0% | 1.02x | $800 | $324 |
| Amateur | -65.9% | 0.77x | $800 | $229 |
| Recreational | -78.8% | 0.48x | $800 | $118 |
These ROI projections are calculated using our extrapolated field model and analysis of payout structures. ROI is shown both as a dollar amount and as a percentage of buy-in.
Edge Multipliers quantify how much advantage each skill tier has over the average player in this specific tournament. A multiplier of 1.0 represents break-even against the average field, while values above 1.0 indicate an advantage.
Our system takes into consideration
- Field softness:The overall skill level of the tournament field.
- Payout Variance:To determine how shallow the tournament structure is. Ie: high variance in payout = less skill advantage
- Distribution of bad players:The most complex part. Mimics natural tournament psychology. Common edge cases: Many bad players then the edge multiplier is lower to mimic less aggresive isolation plays. A few bad players then all stronger players have a higher edge multiplier against weaker players to mimic scarcity. No bad players then super strong players have more edge versus medium strength players to mimic advanced play.
| Player Tier | % of Field | GPI Range | Edge | Expected ROI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Superstar | 1.6% | 2,500+ | 1.92x | -15.2% ($-132) |
World Class | 4.9% | 1,500-2,500 | 1.77x | -21.8% ($-189) |
Elite Pro | 6.5% | 1,000-1,500 | 1.62x | -28.4% ($-246) |
Professional | 11.8% | 650-1,000 | 1.30x | -42.6% ($-369) |
Semi-Pro | 11.6% | 400-650 | 1.02x | -55.0% ($-476) |
Amateur | 16.6% | 200-400 | 0.77x | -65.9% ($-571) |
Recreational | 46.9% | 0-200 | 0.48x | -78.8% ($-682) |
Tournament Structure
Prize Distribution
Structure Analysis
The payout structure was balanced with 24.9% to first place, providing good value across the final table.
The tournament paid the standard 12.7% of the field, creating a balanced risk/reward structure.
The payout variance of 0.97 indicates that this tournament has high variance, with results influenced significantly by luck alongside skill.
Tournament Results
| Place | Player | Country | Prize | GPI Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Shane Klasnimi | - | 24,872 | 133.43 |
| 2nd | Ashish Ahuja | - | 17,616 | 109.29 |
| 3rd | Matthew Lambrecht | - | 12,691 | 96.00 |
| 4th | Arron Pointon | - | 9,303 | 87.10 |
| 5th | Christopher Fournier | - | 6,942 | 80.55 |
| 6th | Kevin Law | - | 5,274 | 75.47 |
| 7th | Zhiqin Zeng | - | 4,080 | 71.37 |
| 8th | Kevin Wang | - | 3,217 | 67.98 |
| 9th | Vasil Veselinov | - | 2,585 | 65.12 |
| 10th | Mikhail Zavoloka | - | 2,117 | 62.67 |
| 11th | Ramana Epparla | - | 2,117 | 60.54 |
| 12th | Alexandru Vasilescu | - | 1,769 | 58.67 |
| 13th | Yordanos Mebrahtu | - | 1,769 | 57.01 |
| 14th | Hayato Kitajima | - | 1,509 | 55.53 |
| 15th | Robert Natividad | - | 1,509 | 54.20 |
| 16th | James Mcnurlan | - | 1,509 | 52.99 |
| 17th | Noam Muallem | - | 1,509 | 51.90 |
| 18th | Phuong Ngoc Nguyen | - | 1,313 | 50.89 |
Advanced Metrics
Field Composition
Tournament Structure
Event Details
Metrics Explanation
- Extrapolated Field Softness
- Calculated using our proprietary model combining observed cashed players with series-level data to estimate the entire field composition.
- Buy-In Value Rating
- Field softness adjusted for buy-in level. Higher values represent better value for your investment.
- Payout Variance
- Measures correlation between player skill and final placement. Lower values indicate skill is more reliably rewarded.
- ROI Confidence
- Our confidence level in ROI projections, based on sample size, field completeness, and data quality.
- Field Completeness
- Percentage of the tournament field for which we have direct data, affecting model accuracy.
- Tier Edge Multipliers
- How much advantage each player tier has in this specific tournament structure and field composition.
Related Resources
View complete information about the Venetian DeepStack Championship Poker Series tournament series, including other events, analytics, and more.
Explore The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino, including venue information, upcoming events, and historical tournament data.