Jackpot Jay's Prop Bet

[Quicksilvre]

[ 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.

[colgin]

[ 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.

[DrunkIrish05]

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).

[Black Aces 518]

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.

[coyote]

[ 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?

[mtdurham]

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

[DrunkIrish05]

[/ 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.

[DrunkIrish05]

[ 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.

[fnurt]

[ 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.

[benkahuna]

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.