Can Mark Newhouse use his experience to win the 2014 WSOP?

Can Mark Newhouse use his experience to win the 2014 WSOP?

By Gary Wise Aug 14, 2014

Tweet

Ahead of the 2014 WSOP final table, the biggest story to emerge was Mark Newhouse’s second consecutive appearance. He talks about his experience, while Pinnacle Sports explain how this may impact your WSOP final table betting.

2014 WSOP final table chip counts & odds

Player

Chip Count

Chip %

Odds To Win

Implied Probability

Jorryt van Hoof

38,375,000

19.1%

4.290

23.31%

Felix Stephensen

32,775,000

16.3%

5.830

17.15%

Mark Newhouse

26,000,000

13.0%

5.790

17.27%

Andoni Larrabe

22,550,000

11.2%

7.480

13.37%

Dan Sindelar

21,200,000

10.6%

9.090

11.00%

William Pappaconstantinou

17,500,000

8.7%

10.960

9.12%

William Tonking

15,050,000

7.5%

12.990

7.70%

Martin Jacobson

14,900,000

7.4%

8.120

12.32%

Bruno Politano

12,125,000

6.0%

15.900

6.29%

The value of experience on the final table

Some have called Mark Newhouse’s feat of consecutive Main Event final tables the greatest in WSOP history, but how much should his experience edge matter to your betting?

Newhouse entered the 2013 final table amongst the short stacks and was the first player eliminated. Still, he sees an edge for this year’s event coming out of that experience.

“I wasn’t at the final table for very long last year, but, just having been through the experience before, I think it gives me a slight advantage. I’m not sure if I can quantify the specifics though.”

“I’m actually very interested in watching the coverage this year…the last few days of the tournament, I was playing similarly to how I played Borgata (his first big win, for $1.5 million in 2006)…. playing every single hand, going with instincts as opposed to caring too much, which can actually set you back.”

Does a disappointing 2013 finish add pressure?

Newhouse was amongst the most-recognisable names at the 2013 final table, a fact that made him a popular choice in our WSOP markets. Despite the expectations, as stated earlier, he was eliminated first. Bettors should wonder whether this adds pressure?

“You’d think last year’s result would add pressure. Going into day 6 or 7 (in 2014), the stakes were much bigger for me. People were talking about how big an accomplishment two final tables in a row would be. I’m in a better chip position this year though; last year, ninth was a real possibility; this year it’d be a disaster. I’m confident though and I won’t think about it much. I’m just going there to play poker.”

Newhouse is right about the 9th place possibility a year ago. He went in with a low percentage of the chips and a game plan that would either eliminate him quickly or double his stack to give him a more realistic chance of winning.

The possibility of one of the small stacks taking the same approach this year may be more remote, due to a more even chip distribution, allowing the smaller stacks more time to implement a conservative strategy

TV, momentum and the break

The single most unique feature of the Main Event is the four-month gap in play between the penultimate day of play and the final one. How does Newhouse see the break affecting him?

“Momentum is big, but the break allows players to make adjustments. However, it is a disadvantage to any player trying to run the table. It resets things, clears everyone’s mind and you have to start afresh. A lot of people get coaching, so it’ll be a different dynamic going into the final table than on day 7.

Other players will watch the coverage and see how I was playing in this tournament and having played with me, they’ll have an idea that I was playing loose, gambling quite a bit, making it harder for them to play against me. That crazy image will let me start off playing a little tighter and adjust. It might take them time to realize when gears shift.”

The loose game Newhouse referenced in this article is very likely gone. The reset makes chip leader Jorryt van Hoof the big favourite. That’s not to say Newhouse can’t find the rhythm again, only that it won’t automatically be available to him at the start of play, especially with his opponents better-educated about his tendencies.

Does fame have any bearing?

Fame has had an important influence on recent WSOP main event betting. Newhouse’s odds of winning are at 5.79, on par with Norway’s Felix Stephensen despite Stephensen having roughly 25% more chips than Newhouse. This is presumably because Newhouse’s past tournament successes have made him a known entity. Does that really make a difference though?

Last year, in this article, we looked at the role fame played in past WSOP main event final table betting and came up with this list that highlights that fame has no correlation to winning:

Year

Player

Final Position

2004

Dan Harrington

4th

2005

Mike Matusow

9th

2006

Allen Cunningham

4th

2007

Alex Kravchenko

4th

2008

David “Chino” Rheem

7th

2009

Phil Ivey

7th

2010

Michael “Grinder” Mizrachi

5th

2011

Ben Lamb

3rd

2012

Greg Merson

1st

2013

JC Tran

5th

In poker, fame can be as much a product of accomplishment or even good TV exposure as it can of skill, while bettors should be aware that a single tournament is a miniscule sample size.

We’ve seen with recent examples like Tran, Mizrachi and Ivey that even the biggest stars face long odds at the final table, likely longer than the markets shape them out to be. Does this mean Newhouse won’t win?

Not necessarily, Newhouse is a talented player who is a proven tournament winner. The question bettors need to ask however, is whether they feel what may be superior talent is roughly equivalent to the stack size-to-odds ratio advantages held by Stephenson et al. History suggests it isn’t.

Click here to see the latest 2014 WSOP odds.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.