I have no affiliation with this oddsmaker and I am not trying to spam... just found some of these odds funny:

http://www.pokertropolis.com/wsop/WSOPFinalOdds.htm

For example, Chan(50-1), Lederer(66-1) and Hellmuth(70-1) seem awfully low. The size of the field alone should cause that to be higher.

Or, Paul Phillips (275-1) with a better chance than Chris Ferguson and Layne Flack (both 280-1)? Layne might make sense because of his agression, but seriously - Paul Phillips has a better chance than Jesus?

Or Esfandiari so far down this list at 380-1, or Kathy Liebert(365-1) and Jennifer Harman (390-1) so far behind Annie Duke (290-1)

I'm sure this wasn't done scientifically or anything, just interesting...[/url]

the size of the field should make Chan, Hellmuth and the rest be higher, but players as good as them will have a good shot to win if they can survive the early rounds and get rid of all the fish,

I think thats why surviving the first day is important....to me at least....a lot of the bad players you depend a lot on luck go home early and if you can survive the 4000 of those wholl sign up this year, itll make it much more easier for the pros.....even with the big number I still say at least on semi-big named pro makes it to the final table

....my pick personal...I dont think I have to say....

Odds are not determined by the players chances of winning. The betting action sets the odds. Also the book maker gets his cut. No matter who wins the WSOP main event the bookies will win.