The above analysis is a waste of reading time. It's comical.

You'd have to define "sports pick tournament player" -- LOL -- as if all sports are lumped together. As if you know whether the results someone got in a prior contest were their selections as opposed to someone else's. Impossible to tell. Impossible to tell who is bearding whom. Impossible to tell, as in poker, who is colluding and part of the same competing organism, in a sense. Impossible to tell how many entries are under one aegis. In old poker lingo, hard to tell how many horses are from one stable.

It's stupid to go through exercises like this. Serves zero purpose except one. It gives some anonymous dingbats the feeling that they know what they are talking about and gives them some ridiculous, totally inappropriate chance to work out some first-grade masturbatory math in service of pretending they have a handle on gambling.

Why would anyone with zero experience decide they have a grasp of things they know nothing about? It's just flat-out silly. Like using the math of random events and trying to apply it to non-random events. That's fundamental moron territory.