Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

"I have a proposition bet for anyone interested: You pick who you believe are the 10 best players in the world, and I'll give you even money that none of them makes the final table of the main event by the time the 2012 London Olympics conclude."

Any takers. The full article is:

HERE

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I have a proposition bet for anyone interested: You pick who you believe are the 10 best players in the world, and I'll give you even money that none of them makes the final table of the main event by the time the 2012 London Olympics conclude."

Any takers. The full article is:

HERE

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd take that bet in a second.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

As would I.

Interesting that only 8% of the players make money.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

I call

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

Joe deposits $50, Joe loses $50. Joe never plays online poker again.
Ok so we have 10 players who will play 7 main events. thereby a great player will play the main event 70 times. Thereby Jackpot Jay is right. Dont take the bet.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
Joe deposits $50, Joe loses $50. Joe never plays online poker again.
Ok so we have 10 players who will play 7 main events. thereby a great player will play the main event 70 times. Thereby Jackpot Jay is right. Dont take the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confused.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
As would I.

Interesting that only 8% of the players make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I found that interesting as well, though I wonder how much that is skewed by the people who decide to give online poker a try, lose their deposit and never come back. There really is no opposite side as we all know the guy who gives it a whirl and doubles (or more) his stake won't quit until it's all gone or he's world champion...

What would be more interesting is percentage of winning players that played more than say 400 hours a year (or some other arbitrary number that makes you a regular player.) It's just hard to believe that at a full ring game on average less than 1 person is making money...

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

First of all, I love how people are responding to this like it is an obvious call. Lets do some math before we jump to any conclusions. There are 7 world series between now and then, so there are 63 final table seats. Lets be conservative and say that only 5,000 people play on the main event every year.

For a second lets assume that the 10 pros are just as likely as the field to make the final table. In that case the probability that none of the ten pros makes the final table is (4990*4989*4988*4987*4986*4985*4984*4983*4982) / (5000^9) = 0.975. The probability of this happening 7 years in a row is (.975)^7 = 0.838.

Onviously in order for the bet against Jackpot Jay to be correct, this number has to be lower than .5. The key variable to play with is the probability of those pros making the final table. If we assume that the pros are twice as likely to make the final table, then the probability of none of them making a final table is still .738. If the probability of them making the final table is three times as likely, the probability of none of them making the final table is still .669. Four times: 0.573.

So anyone who thinks betting against Jay is a good bet needs to believe that those pros are greater than 4 times more likely to make a final table than an average player. Especially considering that fields may get bigger and that some of the pros you pick now may die, not play, be in jail, etc., I'll take Jay's side of the bet.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, as it turns out, there is one group that can -- and does -- track this kind of stat, though they are not about to publicize the results. That group consists of online poker site management, two members of which revealed to me at the WSOP that what intuition suggests must be true -- only 8 and 7 percent, respectively, of all players on their sites finish the year in the black. And I'm not talking about deep in the black, either. The vast majority of those winners are not about to give up their day jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just stunning to me. I suddenly feel like I am much better at poker than I originally thought [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would have guessed closer to 30% or so.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

Knowing how much more likely a pro will make it to the final table than an amateur is almost impossible to quantify. It seems like a aure thing that a pro ought to be more likely to make it, but how much more is anyone's guess. I would guess five times as likely, but it's just a stab in the dark.

If it is true, then the bet is about even money. However, as mentioned, there's no telling what can happen between now and then. Gambling for a living isn't exactly an easy living; you could easily pick ten pros and have only eight or none still alive by 2012.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is just stunning to me. I suddenly feel like I am much better at poker than I originally thought [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would have guessed closer to 30% or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would've thought it was a little higher, but not much--maybe 10% or 12%. I wish they added stats about how many people could live off of poker, like maybe what percent is earning >$30,000 a year.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I have a proposition bet for anyone interested: You pick who you believe are the 10 best players in the world, and I'll give you even money that none of them makes the final table of the main event by the time the 2012 London Olympics conclude."

Any takers. The full article is:

HERE
[ QUOTE ]
I'd take that bet in a second.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I know nothing about prop betting butthis seemed like an extrmely easy bet to take if it were for real.

I wonder how many e-mails Jackpot Jay is getting this week.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

I usually browse 2+2 and feel that the posters are of a much higher intelligence than the average population. However, this thread (maybe because it's in the damn WPT forum) has me thinking the opposite. Why is everyone jumping to take the bet so quickly? Do some math; it's probably a very bad bet to take (I don't care what you tell me, a pro is not more than 4x the field, probably between 2x and 3x in actuality).

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

A HUGE factor is what size you think the WSOP ME will be. What if the poker boom cools and the buyin increases to 25K? If fields get back down to 2002-2003 levels, it should be a pretty good bet. As is, in 2004 and 2005 a player likely to be included made the final table. Who would others take as their 10 if forced?

I take: Raymer, Harrington, Ivey, Lederer, Negreanu, Hansen, Juanda, Flack, Hellmuth and Chan.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]

I would have guessed closer to 30% or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have GOT to be kidding.

nearly a third of all online players are winners????

How in the world did you arrive at that?

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

One element of the bet that certainly helps Jay's chances:

Most of the pros arent trying to simply make the final table. You could easily have someone "pull an Ivey"... in other words, a pro that could fairly easily coast into the final table will be overly aggressive because they are actually trying to win the tournament rather than simply move up the ladder

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[/ QUOTE ] As is, in 2004 and 2005 a player likely to be included made the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

????
You're saying that you pick 10 pros and you're likely to have both harrington and matusow on it?

However, it is true that the bet would be much better if the buyin is raised. As is, it is a losing bet.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
One element of the bet that certainly helps Jay's chances:

Most of the pros arent trying to simply make the final table. You could easily have someone "pull an Ivey"... in other words, a pro that could fairly easily coast into the final table will be overly aggressive because they are actually trying to win the tournament rather than simply move up the ladder

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah you're completely right here, Ivey (or any pro) could just coast to the final table, they just don't because they want to have enough chips when they make it there to actually win.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I love how people are responding to this like it is an obvious call. Lets do some math before we jump to any conclusions. There are 7 world series between now and then, so there are 63 final table seats. Lets be conservative and say that only 5,000 people play on the main event every year.

For a second lets assume that the 10 pros are just as likely as the field to make the final table. In that case the probability that none of the ten pros makes the final table is (4990*4989*4988*4987*4986*4985*4984*4983*4982) / (5000^9) = 0.975. The probability of this happening 7 years in a row is (.975)^7 = 0.838.

Onviously in order for the bet against Jackpot Jay to be correct, this number has to be lower than .5. The key variable to play with is the probability of those pros making the final table. If we assume that the pros are twice as likely to make the final table, then the probability of none of them making a final table is still .738. If the probability of them making the final table is three times as likely, the probability of none of them making the final table is still .669. Four times: 0.573.

So anyone who thinks betting against Jay is a good bet needs to believe that those pros are greater than 4 times more likely to make a final table than an average player. Especially considering that fields may get bigger and that some of the pros you pick now may die, not play, be in jail, etc., I'll take Jay's side of the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good analysis, and we could probably come up with several reasons why the odds are even tougher. First, the main event is only getting larger, unless they raise the entry fee; second, someone on the list could easily drop out of poker between now and 2012. I'm sure we could come up with others.

I think it's likely Jay did at least some math before he made this offer. I wonder how many of the people who leaped at it did the same.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

Howard Lederer told press that he thought Phil Ivey's fairest parlay would be 500:1 to win the main event this year and that he had the best chance. The means an over 10:1 favorite.
He didn't seem as confident in anyone else though. Howard seemed to think a number of players were between 5:1 and 8:1.

Based on what he told the press, I think Howard may take this bet (obviously uncertainty being size of future fields).

More interesting thought. I wonder which players he chooses. Besides obviously Ivey.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
If fields get back down to 2002-2003 levels

[/ QUOTE ]

What's that like a 2-table Sit-n-Go?

[ QUOTE ]
...if the poker boom cools and the buyin increases to 25K

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's doubtful BOTH will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
Who would others take as their 10 if forced?

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking into account youth, health and the likelihood they'll still be around in 2012 (I think Gus is a bad pick because he doesn't seem to take the WSOP too seriously), I'd take:

Phil Ivey, Rob Mizrachi, Michael Mizrachi, Daniel Negreanu, John Juanda, Scott Fischman, Chris Ferguson, Allen Cunningham, Tuan Le and David Pham.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

If i took this bet when he proposed it I would've won it already by choosing matusow. there was a 2+2 thread about this before this year's main event and I thought to myself that he was a staple

/not good at math, Just sayin

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know nothing about prop betting butthis seemed like an extrmely easy bet to take if it were for real.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why people offer prop bets.

My favorite is: pick 20 people at random. I'll lay you even money that at least one of them was born within one day of your birthday.

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know nothing about prop betting butthis seemed like an extrmely easy bet to take if it were for real.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why people offer prop bets.

My favorite is: pick 20 people at random. I'll lay you even money that at least one of them was born within one day of your birthday.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain the logic behind this bet, why its a good or bad one?

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]

can you explain the logic behind this bet, why its a good or bad one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the poster might have the details of the bet wrong, because by my calculations you'd need 87 people to have a 51% chance of one of them being born the day before, the day after, or the day of your birthday.

Since it's these three days that qualify, the odds of a random person being born within one day of your birthday are 3/365, so the odds of a random person not being born within one day are 362/365. (362/365)^87 ~= .49, so you'd have a 51% chance that someone in that group of 87 was born within that three-day period.

However this does sound similar to a bet of "Pick 22 people at random and I'll bet you even money that two of them have the same birthday", which is a bad bet to take (good bet for the person proposing it), since the odds of that happening are approximately 51%

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

Jordan your not doing the math right, if u have 30 people there is a 70 percent chance two will have b-day on the same day. Somebody else can chime in with the math, but i promise u did it wrong

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

Sorry i only read the first part of your post, and my reading comprehension is evidently lacking tonite

Re: Jackpot Jay\'s Prop Bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

can you explain the logic behind this bet, why its a good or bad one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the poster might have the details of the bet wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops! I did get the details wrong. You can find the answer, along with all of the math, here. I was talking about the "almost birthday" problem, which comes up at the end of the page. The bet should be that two people were born within one day of eachother (not, as I said in the original post, within one day of you). Pretty dumb mistake on my part .. sorry about that! For what it's worth, I did remember that 20 people is way more than you need to make this bet.