Greg Raymer at 500-1 to win ME

[Eder]

Dont know if this post belongs here but this is WSEX line on Raymer. I'm thinking he might have a larger edge than this. Daniel is about 120-1 and the fav it appears. Good bet on Greg?

[Nez477]

I also heard you can get 150 to 1 on a meteor hitting the earth tomorrow. Good bet?

[BigPoppa]

I honestly don't think there is any player with that good a chance of winning the Main Event. Even giving him a 5x normal chance of winning is still worse than 1000:1.

....and 120:1 is insane.

[slogger]

I'm pretty sure no one is better than 4,000-to-1 to win this thing. People specualte all the time about the "edge" that certain players have, but the fact is, if your starting point is 7,999-to-1, it would have to be an enormous edge to even be 4,000-to-1.

500-to-1 would be correct odds if you believe that Greg Raymer would finish first at least twice if the same field played the tournament 1,000 times. I'm not particularly skilled when it comes to math and probability, but this seems like a stretch.

[Eder]

I wonder what fair odds would be to pick a winner out of say top 200 entrants...field bet was 1-6 over about 150 players...

DS is at 1000 - 1 ...longer shot than Jen Tilley at 950-1 lol.

[dcviperboy]

You could take you money, piss on it, and throw it off a building. This would pobably be more entertaining than betting on Greg Raymer 500 - 1. Dont get me wrong or misquote me, Greg Raymer is a superb player, I think one of the best, but If he has pocket aces every hand, he is only 80% to win preflop each time. To win 3 of those in a row, you are then 49%. So mathmatically, it was a increadible that the year after he won (last year) he did so well. In a field of probably 10,000 players, cmon, no one knows who will win, or if some internet kid will spike one and two outers to make the FT. Taking a 500-1 bet on anyone to win the main event is dumb. A 1000 to one bet...dumb. No one knows who will and way to variable to place a descent bet.

[ QUOTE ]
You could take you money, piss on it, and throw it off a building. This would pobably be more entertaining than betting on Greg Raymer 500 - 1. Dont get me wrong or misquote me, Greg Raymer is a superb player, I think one of the best, but If he has pocket aces every hand, he is only 80% to win preflop each time. To win 3 of those in a row, you are then 49%. So mathmatically, it was a increadible that the year after he won (last year) he did so well. In a field of probably 10,000 players, cmon, no one knows who will win, or if some internet kid will spike one and two outers to make the FT. Taking a 500-1 bet on anyone to win the main event is dumb. A 1000 to one bet...dumb. No one knows who will and way to variable to place a descent bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This 80%^3 = 49% analysis of how lucky you need to be in a large field tournament is highly misused.

[Solitare]

These posts never cease to amaze me:

1. These odds are set so the house has an edge. They are -EV by design. If you are considering betting on them for entertainment value, fine, but that is all it should be.
2. Unless the folks setting the odds suck and you know more than they do. But you have to ask yourself -- am I better at judging odds than people who do it for a living? The answer is no.
3. The odds are also adjusted like the odds at a racetrack -- the more people betting on a particular person, the lower the odds are. This means that any name player will have particularly bad odds.
4. All this on top of the arguments above about how a player would have to have an enormous edge on the field just to get down to 4000-1.

I guess chasing down -EV propositions is why they call it gambling.

[dcviperboy]

[ QUOTE ]
1. These odds are set so the house has an edge. They are -EV by design. If you are considering betting on them for entertainment value, fine, but that is all it should be.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, which is why people appal me when they place several hundred/grand on one number in roulette.

[T_Nasty]

Your analysis makes no sense at all.
- I'd take Raymer at 500:1 over DN at 120:1 any day, even though they are both horrible odds

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. These odds are set so the house has an edge. They are -EV by design. If you are considering betting on them for entertainment value, fine, but that is all it should be.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, which is why people appal me when they place several hundred/grand on one number in roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't knock 'em. If you play poker profitably, it's mostly due to those same people.

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. These odds are set so the house has an edge. They are -EV by design. If you are considering betting on them for entertainment value, fine, but that is all it should be.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, which is why people appal me when they place several hundred/grand on one number in roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't knock 'em. If you play poker profitably, it's mostly due to those same people.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I want to discourage them from these sort of bets so they bring their $$ to the poker table.

[Jazzy3113]

i hope this post was more of an observation and fun topic post. Please do not put up any money on any of the pros to win. yes daniel and ivey are great players, but we all know that in a massive MTT luck and timing outweighs skill. is daniel really 120 to 1?

[Eder]

It is just looking for a few fun longshot bets to make following the ME more enjoyable. I am curious though what for instance true odds would be on Raymer in a field of 8-9k players....3000-1 ?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
It is just looking for a few fun longshot bets to make following the ME more enjoyable. I am curious though what for instance true odds would be on Raymer in a field of 8-9k players....3000-1 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of dead money and Raymer has gone deep twice in a row. There is some juice on these odds, so the real odds might be 600-1 for Raymer and 150-1 for Negreanu.

If there are 8000 entries, there are probably only 2000 who are better than 40000-1 to win the ME.

With all the dead money, if I suceed in satelliting in, I would put my odds at about 5000-1.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure no one is better than 4,000-to-1 to win this thing. People specualte all the time about the "edge" that certain players have, but the fact is, if your starting point is 7,999-to-1, it would have to be an enormous edge to even be 4,000-to-1.

500-to-1 would be correct odds if you believe that Greg Raymer would finish first at least twice if the same field played the tournament 1,000 times. I'm not particularly skilled when it comes to math and probability, but this seems like a stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it a good bet to take an enormously long shot bet if the bet is slightly plus EV?

Say we could figure out that Greg's odds of winning were actually 450-1 (just as a hypothetical, I have no idea what his true odds of winning are) and you were offered 500-1 on the bet.

Although this is a plus EV bet, since you will only get to make it once and are almost guaranteed to lose (If my math is right, aprox 99.8% chance of losing), and you don't get to make the bet thousands of times...is it a good or bad bet?


--Zetack

[Woody09]

What is the "Anyother" odds?
I'd Tkae that, considering the last 4 years it was essentially an "Anyother" Who won
Thoughts?

[Eder]

The field bet on WSEX is 1-6 ... this covers any winner other than about 150 names.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]

True, which is why people appal me when they place several hundred/grand on one number in roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

Black 11 bought my new house.

Black 11 never loses in the long run.

Regards,
Woodguy

[UATrewqaz]

These are huge sucker bets.

You might be able to find a decent wager when the field starts to narrow and you see some chip counts.

IE if there are 1,000 players left or 500, etc.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious though what for instance true odds would be on Raymer in a field of 8-9k players....3000-1 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess around 4000-1.

Raymer at 500-1 is clearly better than Negreanu at 120-1.

I think that all these bets are really -EV, and that the least -EV bets would be guys you know are really good NL players but haven't had much TV exposure.

[chev9]

I'd bet on Raymer at 3000 to 1 or better. That's my quick estimate of his true odds. This is obviously an impossible thing to quantify, but I think less than 1500 to 1 on any one person is really a terrible line (which, as others have said, is to be expected on these types of bets).

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Dont know if this post belongs here but this is WSEX line on Raymer. I'm thinking he might have a larger edge than this. Daniel is about 120-1 and the fav it appears. Good bet on Greg?

[/ QUOTE ]

Highly doubtful, but it IS interesting to think about the edge he might have.

1.) The ME is SLOOOOOOWWW and DEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. Slower and deeper than any other event AFAIK. Therefore skill plays a larger factor than usual, and there is more dead money than usual.

2.) People just GIVE their chips to well-known TV pros. You really have to see this to believe it. It is an ENORMOUS advantage. Raymer's chances post-ME win are FAR larger than his chances pre-ME win, even given that his skill has remained constant. This is one of the reasons his deep finish last year was no huge surprise to me.

3.) Greg is good. Really, really good.

Overall, I'd guesstimate that his expectation is something like 6x the buyin. How that translates to actually winning the thing, who knows. But if you divide 8000 by 6 you get... um... well, you get more than 500. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[slogger]

Based on my understanding of gambling theory and expectation (ultra basic), it is technically a "good' bet (getting 500-to-1 for 450-to-1 proposition) in that it is +EV, but it is only a wise investment if you're risking a sufficiently small percentage of your bankroll.

Just to throw a number out there, I don't think you'd want to risk more than say 1-2% of your bankroll on such a longshot occurrence.

[ohkanada]

I am guessing that Greg or Daniel wouldn't make a bet with those odds on themselves. Somewhere between 1000 and 3000 to 1 should be the lines on the favorites.

Ken

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that Greg or Daniel wouldn't make a bet with those odds on themselves. Somewhere between 1000 and 3000 to 1 should be the lines on the favorites.

Ken

[/ QUOTE ]
How could it be 1000-1 on the favorites? I just explained that 3/4 of the field has practically no chance of winning.

[Trencherman]

Anyone who likes Raymer in the Main Event should consider getting him to last longer than Chris Moneymaker at BetWWTS for -125. There's a $750 to win $500 maximum. Other fun bets are also available - see the recent Sports Betting thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6590440&an=0&page=0#Post 6590440).

[XxGeneralxX]

Does this mean that if you bet 120 on DN to go bust in the ME you would win $1? if so you could put $120,000 on DN -to lose- you could win 1k?

[dcviperboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that if you bet 120 on DN to go bust in the ME you would win $1? if so you could put $120,000 on DN -to lose- you could win 1k?

[/ QUOTE ]

Second level of thinking.

[ohkanada]

Well I remember hearing Greg answer this question last year about his odds of repeating. From memory I thought he mentioned 1500 to 1 or so. So this year we are talking an extra 2k or so.

If he gets time and notices this thread I am sure he will give his opinion.

Ken

[kyro]

Why aren't we talking more about the 1-6 odds. Surely the listed 150 players don't win more than 14% of the time.

[BogusRogus]

"True, which is why people appal me when they place several hundred/grand on one number in roulette. "

Actually that is the correct strategy for a negative ev game. All in one big bet gives you the best chance of comming out ahead.

[THEOSU]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that Greg or Daniel wouldn't make a bet with those odds on themselves. Somewhere between 1000 and 3000 to 1 should be the lines on the favorites.

Ken

[/ QUOTE ]
How could it be 1000-1 on the favorites? I just explained that 3/4 of the field has practically no chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]


varkonyi and moneymaker say hi.

sincerely, 3/4 of the field.

[Grumbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that Greg or Daniel wouldn't make a bet with those odds on themselves. Somewhere between 1000 and 3000 to 1 should be the lines on the favorites.

Ken

[/ QUOTE ]
How could it be 1000-1 on the favorites? I just explained that 3/4 of the field has practically no chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve Danneman could have won last year. Luck is also a factor.

[bearly]

it's nice to read a post from someone who actually knows and can articulate how prop-bet gambling is structured...............b

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
It is just looking for a few fun longshot bets to make following the ME more enjoyable. I am curious though what for instance true odds would be on Raymer in a field of 8-9k players....3000-1 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like that seems reasonable. Perhaps a little bit lower than that.

[KOTLP]

Slightly OT, anyone know of sportsbooks that have other (not just who will win) WSOP prop bets besides Bodog?

[nath]

I might take like Phil Ivey at 1500-1. Anyone else at anything lower would be crazy talk.

[kasey2004]

[ QUOTE ]
I might take like Phil Ivey at 1500-1. Anyone else at anything lower would be crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nath what are your odds ?

id probably throw like $5 down

[ QUOTE ]
I might take like Phil Ivey at 1500-1. Anyone else at anything lower would be crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil Hellmuth would take Phil Hellmuth at even money.

[CardSharpCook]

Betgo has a reasonable post, except the part where he gives himself 5000:1, 75% of the field is probably 40K:1 against. All that equity has got to go somewhere. I think Raymer at 500:1 is a reasonble line. DN at 120:1 is a bit much. Personally, I think GR's chances are better than DN's. Also, I think it is obvious that Jen Tilly is a better player than Skalansky. Do you see why?

[Eder]

[ QUOTE ]
I might take like Phil Ivey at 1500-1. Anyone else at anything lower would be crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the line on Ivey was 140-1 or so....2nd fav to win.

[kasey2004]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I might take like Phil Ivey at 1500-1. Anyone else at anything lower would be crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil Hellmuth would take Phil Hellmuth at even money.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol... this made me giggle... probably cuz its true

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
Betgo has a reasonable post, except the part where he gives himself 5000:1, 75% of the field is probably 40K:1 against. All that equity has got to go somewhere. I think Raymer at 500:1 is a reasonble line. DN at 120:1 is a bit much. Personally, I think GR's chances are better than DN's. Also, I think it is obvious that Jen Tilly is a better player than Skalansky. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

If 75% of the field has NO chance, that still puts the odds of any single person at 2000-1. So for Raymer to be 500-1 he has to be 4 times better than the remaining 2000, after saying that 75% of the field has no chance.

[foldmasta]

Maybe you guys shouldn't exactly try to find soft lines at WSEX... WSOP or anything else doesn't really matter... there are soft betting lines, yes... but don't search them at wsex/olympic/cris/pinnacle... try someone who doesn't really know how to book...

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I remember hearing Greg answer this question last year about his odds of repeating. From memory I thought he mentioned 1500 to 1 or so. So this year we are talking an extra 2k or so.

If he gets time and notices this thread I am sure he will give his opinion.

Ken

[/ QUOTE ]
Raymer may have been 1500-1 last year. Since he made the final 3 tables 2 years ago, his odds have probably improved to 600-1. You only get 500-1 when you bet because the house has to make some money.

[fluorescenthippo]

link to these silly WSEX odds plz?

[Eder]

[ QUOTE ]
link to these silly WSEX odds plz?

[/ QUOTE ]

www.wsex.com/ (http://www.wsex.com/)

[betgo]

Interesting. Negreanu, Ivey, Jesus, Grinder.

Yeh, I would bet on
MEL JUDAH 800-1
DAVID SKLANSKY 1000-1
AMARILLO SLIM 1000-1

Rather than
JENNIFER TILLY 950-1
MAUREEN FEDUNIAK 1000-1
JERRY BUSS 1100-1
CECILIA REYES/MORTENSEN 1000-1
JONATHAN ZUCHOWSKI 1300-1
ERIC FORD 1300-1


[ QUOTE ]
DANIEL NEGREANU 120-1
PHIL IVEY 135-1
CHRIS FERGUSON 170-1
MICHAEL MIZRACHI 170-1
PATRIK ANTONIUS 200-1
PHIL HELLMUTH 200-1
DAN HARRINGTON 200-1
TED FORREST 225-1
JOHNNY CHAN 250-1
ALAN GOEHRING 250-1
GUS HANSEN 250-1
MARCEL LUSKE 260-1
TUAN LEE 260-1
ERIK SEIDEL 260-1
DOYLE BRUNSON 260-1
ALLEN CUNNINGHAM 280-1
BARRY GREENSTEIN 280-1
CARLOS MORTENSEN 300-1
ERIC LINDGREN 300-1
GAVIN SMITH 300-1
SCOTTY NGUYEN 300-1
MIKE MATUSAW 300-1
JOHN JUANDA 310-1
DAVE DEVILFISH ULLIOT 320-1
TODD BRUNSON 320-1
HOWARD LEDERER 320-1
T.J. CLOUTIER 325-1
AMIR VAHEDI 350-1
MARK SEIF 350-1
NAM LE 350-1
CHIP REESE 350-1
JENNIFER HARMAN 350-1
DAVID CHIU 375-1
JUHA HELPPI 375-1
MEN NGUYEN 375-1
JAMES VAN ALSTYNE 400-1
JOE BARTHOLDI 400-1
TONY GUOGA 400-1
JOHN DAGOSTINO 400-1
ANTONIO ESFANDIARI 400-1
PAUL PHILLIPS 400-1
ROLAND DE WOLFE 400-1
HUCK SEED 400-1
HASAN HABIB 400-1
DAVID PHAM 400-1
PAUL DARDEN 400-1
JOSH ARIAH 400-1
SAMMY FARHA 400-1
ERIK SAGSTROM 425-1
SHAHRAM SHEIKHAN 425-1
CHAU GIANG 450-1
DEWEY TOMKO 450-1
ROB HOLLINK 450-1
JOE SEBOK 450-1
HARRY DEMETRIOU 450-1
LAYNE FLACK 450-1
JOHN PHAN 450-1
SCOTT FISCHMAN 450-1
RAM VASWANI 450-1
PHIL GORDON 450-1
FARZAD BONYADI 500-1
JEFFREY LISANDRO 500-1
DAVID DANESHGAR 500-1
CHAD BROWN 500-1
KENNA JAMES 500-1
DAVID WILLIAMS 500-1
DAVE COLCLOUGH 500-1
ROBERT MIZRACHI 500-1
FREDDY DEEB 500-1
ERIC MIZRACHI 500-1
GREG RAYMER 500-1
JAMES HOEPPNER 525-1
SURINDAR SUNAR 550-1
PRAHLAD FRIEDMAN 550-1
JAN SORENSEN 550-1
JOHN HENNIGAN 550-1
MARTIN DE KNIPFF 550-1
MACIEK GRACZ 550-1
VINNY VINH 550-1
JOE AWADA 550-1
MAX PESCATORI 550-1
QUINN DO 575-1
JAN SJAVIK 600-1
CHIP JETT 600-1
LEE WATKINSON 600-1
JOE TEHAN 600-1
THOMAS KELLER 600-1
LIZ LIEU 600-1
JOHN MURPHY 600-1
CHRIS BIGLER 600-1
JOE BEEVERS 600-1
TOTO LEONIDAS 600-1
KIRILL GERASIMOV 625-1
WILLIAM EDLER 625-1
LEE SALEM 625-1
PASCAL PERRAULT 625-1
NICK SHULMAN 625-1
RUSS HAMILTON 650-1
JOHN DUTHIE 650-1
PHIL LAAK 650-1
PETER COSTA 650-1
DAVID RABBI DANHEISER 650-1
PAUL ESKIMO CLARK 650-1
MIAMI JOHN CERNUTO 675-1
YOUNG PHAN 700-1
V.S. SENTHIL KUMAR 700-1
REHNE PEDERSEN 700-1
NOAH BOEKEN 700-1
JOHN BONETTI 700-1
SIROUS BAGHCHEHSARAIE 700-1
JOSEPH HACKEM 700-1
ROSS BOATMAN 700-1
TOM FRANKLIN 700-1
JIM BECHTEL 700-1
KEN LENNAARD 700-1
JULIAN GARDNER 700-1
DANIEL LARSSON 700-1
CHAD LAYNE 700-1
JOHN GALE 700-1
ANDREW BLOCH 700-1
ANNIE DUKE 700-1
MINH LY 725-1
PETE LAWSON 725-1
REZA PAYVAR 725-1
JOHAN STORAKERS 725-1
ALEX BRENES 725-1
MATT LEFKOWIZ 725-1
HOYR CORKINS 725-1
MELISSA HAYDEN 750-1
CONNIE KIM 750-1
KARINA JETT 750-1
BILLY GAZES 750-1
PARAMJIT GILL 750-1
BENGT SONNERT 750-1
ANTHONY REATEGUI 750-1
JUSTIN CUONG VAN J.C. TRAN 750-1
TONY BLOOM 750-1
ELI ELEZRA 750-1
ORLANDO MALDONALDO 750-1
NOLI FRANCISCO 750-1
CAN KIM HUA 750-1
PADRAIG PARKINSON 750-1
ALEXANDER STEVIC 750-1
JOHN SPADAVECCHIA 750-1
MICHAEL WOO 750-1
BO SEHLSTEDT 750-1
RAUL PAEZ 750-1
JAMES WOODS 750-1
MARIA STERN 750-1
HUMBERTO BRENES 750-1
THEO TRAN 750-1
TOBIAS PERSON 775-1
GIOI LUONG 800-1
SIMON TRUMPER 800-1
STEVE ZOLOTOW 800-1
DAVID PLASTIK 800-1
MARK DICKSTEIN 800-1
BILLY BAXTER 800-1
JIM MEHAN 800-1
JASON STERN 800-1
BARNY BOATMAN 800-1
BARRY SHULMAN 800-1
CHRIS TSIPRAILIDIS 800-1
ROBERT WILLIAMSON III 800-1
JOHN KABBAJ 800-1
HOWARD ANDREW 800-1
HARALABOS VOULGARIS 800-1
MEL JUDAH 800-1
JOHN STOLZMAN 800-1
ISABELLE MERCIER 800-1
JEFF SCHULMAN 800-1
CHRIS KARAGULLEYAN 800-1
BILLY DUARTE 800-1
DUTCH BOYD 800-1
CHRIS MONEYMAKER 800-1
BEN AFFLECK 800-1
PAUL WOLFE 825-1
DAN ALSPACH 850-1
RAJA KATTAMURI 850-1
EVELYN NG 850-1
CLONIE GOWEN 850-1
DAVID LEVI 850-1
AMNON FILIPPI 900-1
RALPH PERRY 900-1
JAY MARTENS 900-1
MICKEY APPLEMAN 900-1
LINDA JOHNSON 900-1
JEAN-ROBERT BALLANDE 900-1
KATHY LIEBERT 900-1
MIKE SIMON 900-1
MIMI TRAN 900-1
WARREN KARP 900-1
MIKE CARO 900-1
ALEX ESFANDIARI 900-1
TEMPERANCE HUTTER 900-1
RICHARD BRODIE 900-1
TRACEY PHAN 900-1
YOHANNES MURUZ 900-1
BLAIR RODMAN 900-1
VINCE BURGIO 900-1
WILLIAM THORSON 900-1
AARON KATZ 900-1
CHRIS BJORIN 900-1
BRUNO FITOUSSI 900-1
GARY BUSH 900-1
SEAN MCCABE 900-1
BUDDY LAVASSANI 900-1
DAVID BAKER 900-1
BARBARA ENRIGHT 900-1
ASHLEY ALTERMAN 900-1
ALEX JACOB 900-1
CYNDY VIOLETTE 900-1
LEONARDO DI CAPRIO 900-1
ERIC BRENES 900-1
STEVE PAUL AMBROSE 900-1
JOHN ESPOSITO 900-1
KEVIN SONG 900-1
DANIEL QUACH 900-1
CHAMPIE DOUGLAS 950-1
ANTHONY COUSINEAU 950-1
CHRIS HINCHCLIFFE 950-1
MAX STERN 950-1
LYLE BERMAN 950-1
DANTE PUGLIESE 950-1
MARCO TRANIELLO 950-1
LUCA PAGANO 950-1
JENNIFER TILLY 950-1
ROBERT BINELLI 1000-1
ROLF SLOTBOOM 1000-1
AMARILLO SLIM 1000-1
ALAN SMURFIT 1000-1
DAVID GREY 1000-1
BEN ROBERTS 1000-1
SAMMY ARZOIN 1000-1
ERIC WINSTEAD 1000-1
PAUL MAXFIELD 1000-1
SAM GRIZZLE 1000-1
ALLYN SHULMAN 1000-1
SUSIE ISAACS 1000-1
DAVID WEISBERGER 1000-1
VAN NGUYEN 1000-1
DAN HEIMILLER 1000-1
CUONG HUYNH 1000-1
ALEX BALANDIN 1000-1
DAVID WELLS 1000-1
YOSH NAKANO 1000-1
TERRY FLEISCHER 1000-1
XUYEN PHAM 1000-1
HANS LUND 1000-1
DAVID MATTHEW 1000-1
JOSEPH CORDI 1000-1
JOHN SHIPLEY 1000-1
DAVID KIM 1000-1
DAVID MINTO 1000-1
DAVID SKLANSKY 1000-1
TOM MCEVOY 1000-1
DOUGLAS CARLI 1000-1
TOMMY VU 1000-1
MIMI ROGERS 1000-1
PAUL NEPA 1000-1
MIKE SEXTON 1000-1
CECILLA NORDENSTAM 1000-1
NICHOLAS FRANGOS 1000-1
CECILIA REYES/MORTENSEN 1000-1
DAVOOD MERMAND 1000-1
LUCY ROKACH 1000-1
NICHOLAS GONZALEZ 1000-1
MARK GREGORITCH 1000-1
JERRY YOUNG 1000-1
LOU DIAMOND PHILLIPS 1000-1
BRENT CARTER 1000-1
EUGENE TODD 1000-1
RENE ANGELIL 1000-1
MARIO ESQUERRA 1000-1
MARIAELENA CALABRESE 1000-1
PAUL DARPINO 1000-1
ANDY MILLER 1000-1
MIKAEL WESTERLUND 1000-1
RANDY HOLLAND 1000-1
LEE NELSON 1000-1
HUNG NGUYEN 1000-1
MAUREEN FEDUNIAK 1000-1
KAELAINE MINTON 1100-1
RON ROSE 1100-1
CHRIS GREGORIAN 1100-1
MATT MATROS 1100-1
CHARLES HARTMAN 1100-1
MILLIE SHIU 1100-1
AL KRUX 1100-1
BOBBY BALDWIN 1100-1
JOHN MYUNG 1100-1
ALAN SCHEIN 1100-1
JERRY BUSS 1100-1
ASHER DEREI 1100-1
JOHN DEFRANCIS 1200-1
DENNIS DE RUITER 1200-1
RANDY JENSEN 1200-1
STANLEY WEISS 1200-1
COREY CHERESNICK 1200-1
PAUL TESTUD 1200-1
MARTIN WILSON 1200-1
CHARLIE SHOTEN 1200-1
ANDY GOETSCH 1200-1
STEVEN BRECHER 1200-1
VALTER FARINA 1200-1
BOB STUPAK 1300-1
JONATHAN ZUCHOWSKI 1300-1
ERIC FORD 1300-1
VICTORIA COREN 1300-1
FIELD (ALL OTHERS) 1-6

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is just looking for a few fun longshot bets to make following the ME more enjoyable. I am curious though what for instance true odds would be on Raymer in a field of 8-9k players....3000-1 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of dead money and Raymer has gone deep twice in a row. There is some juice on these odds, so the real odds might be 600-1 for Raymer and 150-1 for Negreanu.

If there are 8000 entries, there are probably only 2000 who are better than 40000-1 to win the ME.

With all the dead money, if I suceed in satelliting in, I would put my odds at about 5000-1.

[/ QUOTE ]


you are REALLY off.

Negreneau is not even close to 'really' being 150-1.
The 'juice' that they get doesn't come from some magical 'real' odds of the event happening. It comes from what the market dictates. Evidently, people actually WILL bet on Negreneau at 120 or 150-1 which is just terrible.


I would bet on Raymer at 3,000 to 1.
I might even place a bet on him for fun at 2,500 to 1. But I don't think much lower than that.


Varkoni and Moneymaker have actually been there and I would put them in the 7,000 to 1 range.
A lot of the other theoretically dead-money out there would be in the 10,000 or 15,000 to 1 range.


there is just no possible way that Negreneau is even close to 120 or 150 out of a field of 8,000.
He's not even 1,000-1.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
LEONARDO DI CAPRIO 900-1

STEVE PAUL AMBROSE 900-1

[/ QUOTE ]
i laughed

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I might take like Phil Ivey at 1500-1. Anyone else at anything lower would be crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nath what are your odds ?

id probably throw like $5 down

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure i'm still "field"

[THEOSU]

all,

there is not a single good bet in that list. unsurprisingly, the best one is the field.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LEONARDO DI CAPRIO 900-1

STEVE PAUL AMBROSE 900-1

[/ QUOTE ]
i laughed

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess these are based on the betting like horse races.

I was really impressed by Jennifer Tilly in the PSI3 minireraising with A3o and checking the flop when she needed 4th place to advance. I guess she got herself into that to get exposure for her acting career.

The real dead money is not playing in the tournament but betting on her, Leonardo Di Caprio and some of those.

[CardSharpCook]

yeah... I wish I could book this kinda of action /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[RoundTower]

All,

there is plenty of value on betfair in laying players to make the final table. Don't think Ivey has a 1 in 28 chance of making it? Lay him at that price, you'll get takers. Last time I checked there was even some arbitrage possible between BF and some regular bookmakers on this market.

Obviously the main problem with laying here is you are locking up part of your bankroll for the next 3 weeks+, and you can see the odds are getting longer on all players every week as more punters are willing to lay. Also there aren't huge amounts of money being traded on this market, unlike major sports. But if you have the capital, you can probably get a better return on your money there than leaving it in a savings account.

[betgo]

Yeh, people may want to check out the betfair site for odds of making the final table. It makes more sense than the odds of winning on the other site.
Ivey 24-1
Negreanu 30-1
Hellmuth 40-1
Hansen 46-1
Ferguson 55-1

[UATrewqaz]

If Ivey or Raymer were offered at 3000 : 1 I would gladly plomp down $50 on each.

Anyone who thinks better than 500 : 1 is a reasonable line for anyone in a tourney of 8,000 has no idea of the variance of a single MTT.

[Dromar]

What would people take on Lance Funston? 20K:1? 30K:1?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
If Ivey or Raymer were offered at 3000 : 1 I would gladly plomp down $50 on each.

Anyone who thinks better than 500 : 1 is a reasonable line for anyone in a tourney of 8,000 has no idea of the variance of a single MTT.

[/ QUOTE ]
The odds for these guys in based on the betting and are not way off. Sure there are Danenman, Moneymaker, Varkonyi, and Furlong, but they are way better than most of the players at the ME. There is easily 3/4 of the field that is a combined 20-1 to win it. Of the remaining 2000, maybe 500 are reasonably strong pros who are good tournament players. It is not that hard for Ivey and Negreanu to be less than 200-1 to win.

If you don't believe that odds, bet against all thes guys making the final table on betfair.

[chev9]

I wish we could somehow define 3/4 of the field so you could give me 10 or 15-1 on them

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish we could somehow define 3/4 of the field so you could give me 10 or 15-1 on them

[/ QUOTE ]
There are a zillion players there who have pretty much no chance of winning but i cant give you a list of them

[chev9]

Wouldn't Hachem have been on that list last year, along with Dannenman and Kanter? I'd have loved to have all of them at 10-1 at the end of that tourney.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't Hachem have been on that list last year, along with Dannenman and Kanter? I'd have loved to have all of them at 10-1 at the end of that tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hachem is a professional player. Kanter appeared to be a fairly weak player who was very aggressive. He didn't win it or come close to it.

Most of the final table players the last two years were reasonably good players and about half were pros, even if there weren't a lot of big names. Kanter and Dean were pretty weak, but even they had strengths to their games.

I saw the final 4 with Raymer, Williams, Arieh, and Harrington, and they all appeared to be better players than the average WSOP entrant.

If you listed 500 players that you thought had a decent chance, the probability would be that one of the 7500 other players would win. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of real dead money out there. All those people think they have a chance to win because of Moneymaker and Varkonyi, but a lot of them are really dead money. Some of these fish have some chance to cash, but practically none of winning. A lot of them are so bad, they almost certainly bust out day 1.

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh, people may want to check out the betfair site for odds of making the final table. It makes more sense than the odds of winning on the other site.
Ivey 24-1
Negreanu 30-1
Hellmuth 40-1
Hansen 46-1
Ferguson 55-1

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are only off by at least an order of magnitude.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeh, people may want to check out the betfair site for odds of making the final table. It makes more sense than the odds of winning on the other site.
Ivey 24-1
Negreanu 30-1
Hellmuth 40-1
Hansen 46-1
Ferguson 55-1

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are only off by at least an order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are odds to final table, not win. You can go to betfair and lay money against all of them.

There is no way they are off by an order of magnitude. That's like saying the odds for a horse race areway off.

Harrington has made the final table two of the last three years, so is 60-1 unreasonable for him to make the final table?

[Solitare]

The average chance of anyone making the final table is 800-1. So Ivey at 24-1 would mean he is 33 times more likely than the field to get to the final table. Not likely.

Is he better than 3.3 times the field? Maybe. So an order of magnitude is a slight exaggeration. But not nearly so innacurate as thinking that 24-1 odds of reaching the final are reasonable.

These odds are a complete joke. And at the risk of repeating myself, I continue to be amazed that seemingly smart poker people on this forum are supporting these sucker bets.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
The average chance of anyone making the final table is 800-1. So Ivey at 24-1 would mean he is 33 times more likely than the field to get to the final table. Not likely.

Is he better than 3.3 times the field? Maybe. So an order of magnitude is a slight exaggeration. But not nearly so innacurate as thinking that 24-1 odds of reaching the final are reasonable.

These odds are a complete joke. And at the risk of repeating myself, I continue to be amazed that seemingly smart poker people on this forum are supporting these sucker bets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, I think Ivey is 33 times better than the field, not 3.3 times better than the field.

So Ivey is 33 times more likely than average to final table and Negeeanu is 27 times. Doyle Brunson is listed at 10 times more likely, Tuan Le at 9 times, and James Van Alstyne at 4 times.

Ivey is listed at way above an average name pro. With all the dead money, I don't see why the odds are unreasonable.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that odds created by the betting are off by an order of magnitude.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeh, people may want to check out the betfair site for odds of making the final table. It makes more sense than the odds of winning on the other site.
Ivey 24-1
Negreanu 30-1
Hellmuth 40-1
Hansen 46-1
Ferguson 55-1

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are only off by at least an order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are odds to final table, not win. You can go to betfair and lay money against all of them.

There is no way they are off by an order of magnitude. That's like saying the odds for a horse race areway off.

Harrington has made the final table two of the last three years, so is 60-1 unreasonable for him to make the final table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, quite unreasonable.

60:1 to make the FT is roughly the same as 600:1 to win (which would make the FT odds on Ivey the same as 240:1 to win).

As stated earlier, I don't think anyone is better than 1000:1 (and that's a stretch).

[Jackie Onassis]

[ QUOTE ]
Kanter and Dean were pretty weak, but even they had strengths to their games.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeh, people may want to check out the betfair site for odds of making the final table. It makes more sense than the odds of winning on the other site.
Ivey 24-1
Negreanu 30-1
Hellmuth 40-1
Hansen 46-1
Ferguson 55-1

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are only off by at least an order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are odds to final table, not win. You can go to betfair and lay money against all of them.

There is no way they are off by an order of magnitude. That's like saying the odds for a horse race areway off.

Harrington has made the final table two of the last three years, so is 60-1 unreasonable for him to make the final table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, quite unreasonable.

60:1 to make the FT is roughly the same as 600:1 to win (which would make the FT odds on Ivey the same as 240:1 to win).

As stated earlier, I don't think anyone is better than 1000:1 (and that's a stretch).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not correct. Ivey is 24-1 to make the final table but better than 240-1 to win. The other site had him as 120-1 but there was some juice in that. A top players chance of winning is less than 1/10th of his chance to make the top 10.

[betgo]

The last 4 years, the WSOP ME has been won by unknowns and twice by apparently fairly weak players. However, that doesn't mean that known strong players don't have a decent chance. Some of this is due to the large fields but there is also random fluctuations. Getting 150-1 on Ivey winning is a reasonably fair bet.

[waldo027]

DAVID SKLANSKY 1000-1

Least bad bet out of all the players listed?

Edit: Definately not betting on it, but just found it interesting how he has better odds than Leo DiCaprio and Jennifer Tilly.

[mlagoo]

betgo,

you appear to be a prop bet fish. i would look into fixing this leak before investing any significant amount of money in these ideas.

[waldo027]

Ivey finished 10th in 2003 and was 12th or so last year. I predict he'll be gone on the first day this year.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
betgo,

you appear to be a prop bet fish. i would look into fixing this leak before investing any significant amount of money in these ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never have had any interest in gambling. I don't consider poker gambling.

Tell you what though. If you will give me 8-1, I will bet that one of the 52 players listed in the "Card Player" article wins the ME.

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
betgo,

you appear to be a prop bet fish. i would look into fixing this leak before investing any significant amount of money in these ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never have had any interest in gambling. I don't consider poker gambling.

Tell you what though. If you will give me 8-1, I will bet that one of the 52 players listed in the "Card Player" article wins the ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone take away this guy's shovel, the hole he's digging is getting too deep.

Those odds are off by 3-4x.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
betgo,

you appear to be a prop bet fish. i would look into fixing this leak before investing any significant amount of money in these ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never have had any interest in gambling. I don't consider poker gambling.

Tell you what though. If you will give me 8-1, I will bet that one of the 52 players listed in the "Card Player" article wins the ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

omg done.

anything up to $100 works for me.

edit: and i haven't even looked at this cardplayer article yet.

edit: found it (http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15506) . thx for the $$$ <))))-<

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
betgo,

you appear to be a prop bet fish. i would look into fixing this leak before investing any significant amount of money in these ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never have had any interest in gambling. I don't consider poker gambling.

Tell you what though. If you will give me 8-1, I will bet that one of the 52 players listed in the "Card Player" article wins the ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give mlagoo the first shot, but will be happy to lay $800 to your $100 on this.

[chev9]

Just to show you how terrible that line is, Bodog was offering 30-1 on one of the top 200 money winners (presumably all on that list) to win the main event.

While I'm taking the opposite opinion of betgo on the odds for specific players, I actually liked this bet at 30-1. Giving these 200 guys a 2-1 edge over the rest makes this +ev and I have $50 on that bet. Heck, it should be 35 or 40-1 if it's just any 200 random players.

However, taking just 52 guys at 8-1 is not a good play IMO

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to show you how terrible that line is, Bodog was offering 30-1 on one of the top 200 money winners (presumably all on that list) to win the main event.

While I'm taking the opposite opinion of betgo on the odds for specific players, I actually liked this bet at 30-1. Giving these 200 guys a 2-1 edge over the rest makes this +ev and I have $50 on that bet. Heck, it should be 35 or 40-1 if it's just any 200 random players.

However, taking just 52 guys at 8-1 is not a good play IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

stop tapping the glass pls k thx

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Your analysis makes no sense at all.
- I'd take Raymer at 500:1 over DN at 120:1 any day, even though they are both horrible odds

[/ QUOTE ]

can't you bet on both sides of the odds? I know nothing about this type of betting. in other words, can't you bet 120 and win 1 if daniel busts? this seems like a good bet.

[BarronVangorToth]

Theoretically they could run both sides of the odds, but it wouldn't be even as they obviously need to make a profit.

However, even though Daniel Negreanu is my favorite poker pro, say they let you bet $125 to win $1 if he busts ... I don't think it would be the best wager.

[deankeaton7]

hunh.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to show you how terrible that line is, Bodog was offering 30-1 on one of the top 200 money winners (presumably all on that list) to win the main event.

While I'm taking the opposite opinion of betgo on the odds for specific players, I actually liked this bet at 30-1. Giving these 200 guys a 2-1 edge over the rest makes this +ev and I have $50 on that bet. Heck, it should be 35 or 40-1 if it's just any 200 random players.

However, taking just 52 guys at 8-1 is not a good play IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

stop tapping the glass pls k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

OK since everyone thinks 8-1 is a bad bet, I think I can get a better deal. I will bet on the "Card Player" 52 to win the ME if I get 12-1 odds. I still think 8-1 was in my favor, but if I can get a better deal, I'll take it.

[mlagoo]

jesus christ guys stfu

edit: btw its kinda funny that after 80 posts saying how terrible the bet he was about to propose was, it took actually making the bet to realize how terrible it was.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically they could run both sides of the odds, but it wouldn't be even as they obviously need to make a profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression they make money off some sort of juice they charge, and the odds are supposed to be as close to correct as possible. am I stupid?

[ QUOTE ]

say they let you bet $125 to win $1 if he busts ... I don't think it would be the best wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said before, seems like a good bet to me.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to show you how terrible that line is, Bodog was offering 30-1 on one of the top 200 money winners (presumably all on that list) to win the main event.

While I'm taking the opposite opinion of betgo on the odds for specific players, I actually liked this bet at 30-1. Giving these 200 guys a 2-1 edge over the rest makes this +ev and I have $50 on that bet. Heck, it should be 35 or 40-1 if it's just any 200 random players.

However, taking just 52 guys at 8-1 is not a good play IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

stop tapping the glass pls k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

OK since everyone thinks 8-1 is a bad bet, I think I can get a better deal. I will bet on the "Card Player" 52 to win the ME if I get 12-1 odds. I still think 8-1 was in my favor, but if I can get a better deal, I'll take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, betgo. Are you playing in the ME? If so, I propose a combination LL/prop bet.

IF you outlast me in the 2006 WSOP main event, I will lay 12 to 1 on your bet of up to $100 that one of the 52 players in the CP article wins the ME.

IF I outlast you, you will accept 4 to 1 odds on your bet of up to $100. I'll even toss in me if I outlast you, so you're getting 53 players for the price of 52.

This averages to the 8 to 1 you agree is fair, with a skew higher since you're obv. a better player than I. Capische?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically they could run both sides of the odds, but it wouldn't be even as they obviously need to make a profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression they make money off some sort of juice they charge, and the odds are supposed to be as close to correct as possible. am I stupid?

[ QUOTE ]

say they let you bet $125 to win $1 if he busts ... I don't think it would be the best wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said before, seems like a good bet to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your offer is too confusing. Besides, I have put about $3K in and haven't won a seat. I don't think I will put up the $10K for the ME even though I think it is $EV+. If I play, I am not making LL bets anyway. If I play, I am playin gfor the FT not to LL.

[Black Aces 518]

How is it confusing? Whoever lasts longer sets the odds. But if you're not playing, it's kind of moot. LOL though at playing for the FT not to last longer. NO [censored]. Considering every level of pay increase would be larger than our $1200 maximum bet, I don't think I'm gonna sacrifice too much EV.

Well, I reiterate my offer of my $800 against your $100 with you taking the CardPlayer article's 52 to watch (plus me!) and me taking the field, to win the 2006 WSOP main event. You think it's fair and I think it's fair. Accepting or backing out?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically they could run both sides of the odds, but it wouldn't be even as they obviously need to make a profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression they make money off some sort of juice they charge, and the odds are supposed to be as close to correct as possible. am I stupid?



[/ QUOTE ]



no, the odds are NOT as close to correct as possible.
Plus, the juice is already IN these odds. They don't take another 10% out when you make the bet or anything like that. The odds are already so hideously awful that they don't need to.

That's the point on these prop-bets and that's why everyone thinks betgo is way wrong.
Just because the sportsbook can actually get idiots to bet on Negreneau at 125-1 doesn't mean it's anywhere close to correct.

Even a great player like Negreneau would optimistically be in the 2000 or 3000/1 range in reality.

So no, they will not allow you to bet the other side of this line.


If people are taking these bets (and I think they are) then the sportsbooks are making a killing (which they do).

[sunrise]

[ QUOTE ]
Ivey finished 10th in 2003 and was 12th or so last year. I predict he'll be gone on the first day this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

no way. There's no way I can knock him out at the FT this year if he's gone on the first day ;-))

Anyway I think the "field" bet would be the best, especially since I'm betting on myself...and I'm certainly the field.

GO FIELD!!!!!

Yeah I am taking this [censored] down. And no you can't bet on me....that wouldn't be fair.

[BarronVangorToth]

If I silently cheer you on, will you cut me in for 0.01% of your first prize?

[deankeaton7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is just looking for a few fun longshot bets to make following the ME more enjoyable. I am curious though what for instance true odds would be on Raymer in a field of 8-9k players....3000-1 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of dead money and Raymer has gone deep twice in a row. There is some juice on these odds, so the real odds might be 600-1 for Raymer and 150-1 for Negreanu.

If there are 8000 entries, there are probably only 2000 who are better than 40000-1 to win the ME.

With all the dead money, if I suceed in satelliting in, I would put my odds at about 5000-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to weigh in, I think its unreasonable to place anyone at less than an 800:1 favorite. That means theyre better than the avg. ME participant. Not 10 times better than the worst, 10 times better than the avg. I could go slightly lower, but I have a hard time thinking that anyone is too much better than 10 times better than the avg ME player.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
How is it confusing? Whoever lasts longer sets the odds. But if you're not playing, it's kind of moot. LOL though at playing for the FT not to last longer. NO [censored]. Considering every level of pay increase would be larger than our $1200 maximum bet, I don't think I'm gonna sacrifice too much EV.

Well, I reiterate my offer of my $800 against your $100 with you taking the CardPlayer article's 52 to watch (plus me!) and me taking the field, to win the 2006 WSOP main event. You think it's fair and I think it's fair. Accepting or backing out?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like Black aces is confused. He seems to think it is Betgo's $800 to his $100. Dude, you got it backwards.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is it confusing? Whoever lasts longer sets the odds. But if you're not playing, it's kind of moot. LOL though at playing for the FT not to last longer. NO [censored]. Considering every level of pay increase would be larger than our $1200 maximum bet, I don't think I'm gonna sacrifice too much EV.

Well, I reiterate my offer of my $800 against your $100 with you taking the CardPlayer article's 52 to watch (plus me!) and me taking the field, to win the 2006 WSOP main event. You think it's fair and I think it's fair. Accepting or backing out?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like Black aces is confused. He seems to think it is Betgo's $800 to his $100. Dude, you got it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Check the first sentence of my second paragraph "my $800 against your $100". I was pretty sure I wasnt' getting 8 to 1 on the other 7950 players!

Unless your post is some second level sarcasm. In which case, /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

[CardSharpCook]

no, I am the one who is confused.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is just looking for a few fun longshot bets to make following the ME more enjoyable. I am curious though what for instance true odds would be on Raymer in a field of 8-9k players....3000-1 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of dead money and Raymer has gone deep twice in a row. There is some juice on these odds, so the real odds might be 600-1 for Raymer and 150-1 for Negreanu.

If there are 8000 entries, there are probably only 2000 who are better than 40000-1 to win the ME.

With all the dead money, if I suceed in satelliting in, I would put my odds at about 5000-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to weigh in, I think its unreasonable to place anyone at less than an 800:1 favorite. That means theyre better than the avg. ME participant. Not 10 times better than the worst, 10 times better than the avg. I could go slightly lower, but I have a hard time thinking that anyone is too much better than 10 times better than the avg ME player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree there is some juice in the odds from that sportsbook. However, a large percentage of the 8000 entrants have practically no chance. There are atleast 3000 who will be 40,000-1 or worse. Of 8,000 entrants, how many are pros? How many are decent players?

It really isn't that hard for a top tournament player to have more than 10 times the chance of an average entrant. An average grinder pro who is good at NLHE tournaments is probably 4000-1. It is easy to see from that that Ivey or Negreanu is a lot less than 800-1.

[CardSharpCook]

Oh, and I've played with Aaron Kantor. He's decent. Just remember that he is a 15-30, 20-40 limit player who got lucky. He's a good player, just not worldclass yet.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and I've played with Aaron Kantor. He's decent. Just remember that he is a 15-30, 20-40 limit player who got lucky. He's a good player, just not worldclass yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I mean. The players at the final table were mostly pretty decent, even if only about half were pros and one big name.

There is a lot of real dead money out there, so what it takes for a name pro to be 800-1 in an 8000 player field is not as much as you might think.

[slogger]

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Here are a just 90 of the 7948 players you're up against in the absurd 8-to-1 to win bet below:

Joe Awada
Bobby Baldwin
Joe Bartholdi
Jim Bechtel
Joe Beevers
Jean Robert Bellande
Lyle Berman
Chris Bigler
Andy Bloch
Barny Boatman
John Bonetti
Russ "Dutch" Boyd
Alex Brenes
Eric Brenes
Humberto Brenes
Tony Bloom
Chad Brown
Todd Brunson
John Cernuto
David Chiu
T.J. Cloutier
David Colclough
Hoyt Corkins
Peter Costa
Tony Cousineau
Paul Darden
Martin DeKnipff (sp?)
Harry Demitriou
Roland deWolfe
Annie Duke
Eli Elezra
Sammy Farha
Amnon Filippi
Noli Francisco
Tony G
John Gale
Julian Gardner
Bill Gazes
Kirill Geraimov
Chau Giang
Phil Gordon
Clonie Gowan
David Grey
Gavin Griffin
Russ Hamilton
Dan Harrington
John Hennigan
Chip Jett
Mel Judah
Chris Karagulleyan
Thomas Keller
Senthil Kumar
Phil Laak
Howard Lederer
Toto Leonidas
Jeff Lisandro
Ming Ly
Jim Meehan
Isabelle Mercier
Chris Moneymaker
Greg Mueller
Lee Nelson
Evelyn Ng
Young Phan
David Plastik
Chip Reese
Blair Rodman
Joe Sebok
Huck Seed
Mark Seif
Mike Sexton
Shawn Sheikhan
David Singer
David Sklansky
Amarillo Slim
Surinder Sunar
Dewey Tomko
An Tran
Mimi Tran
Devilfish Ulliott
Amir Vahedi
James VanAlstyne
Ram Vaswani
Vinny Vinh
Cyndi Violette
Lee Watkinson
David Williams
Robert Williamson, III
Paul Wolfe
Steve Zolotow

This list obviously does not include handfuls of players who have played at major event final tables, including the Main Event final table, or any of the hundreds of this year's Joe Hachems and Greg Raymers (previously unknown). I'm sure I've also made at least 25 "notable" omissions.

[Black Aces 518]

1) so are you taking it or going back on your claim?

2) in the field of difficulty advancing through big tournaments, would you say you or Greg Raymer is more credible?

[almostbusto]

i notice some sites have last longer props but they are no action if neither player cashes. does anyone know what percentage of the field cashes at the WSOP main event? i know it used to be close to 10% but there has been a lot of talk of widening the structure. anyone have a link? i couldn't find it on pokerpages or cardplayer

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
OK since everyone thinks 8-1 is a bad bet, I think I can get a better deal. I will bet on the "Card Player" 52 to win the ME if I get 12-1 odds. I still think 8-1 was in my favor, but if I can get a better deal, I'll take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you 12-1.

[cdutilb]

This is still a suckers bet but I couldn't resist throwing down 10 bucks with how well he is playing. WSEX has Chip Reese 100-1 to make the top 10.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to show you how terrible that line is, Bodog was offering 30-1 on one of the top 200 money winners (presumably all on that list) to win the main event.

While I'm taking the opposite opinion of betgo on the odds for specific players, I actually liked this bet at 30-1. Giving these 200 guys a 2-1 edge over the rest makes this +ev and I have $50 on that bet. Heck, it should be 35 or 40-1 if it's just any 200 random players.

However, taking just 52 guys at 8-1 is not a good play IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

stop tapping the glass pls k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

OK since everyone thinks 8-1 is a bad bet, I think I can get a better deal. I will bet on the "Card Player" 52 to win the ME if I get 12-1 odds. I still think 8-1 was in my favor, but if I can get a better deal, I'll take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, betgo. Are you playing in the ME? If so, I propose a combination LL/prop bet.

IF you outlast me in the 2006 WSOP main event, I will lay 12 to 1 on your bet of up to $100 that one of the 52 players in the CP article wins the ME.

IF I outlast you, you will accept 4 to 1 odds on your bet of up to $100. I'll even toss in me if I outlast you, so you're getting 53 players for the price of 52.

This averages to the 8 to 1 you agree is fair, with a skew higher since you're obv. a better player than I. Capische?

[/ QUOTE ]
Incidently, everyone who made this bet with me lost at pretty steep odds. Alan Cunningham was one of teh Card Player 52.

[NapHead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to show you how terrible that line is, Bodog was offering 30-1 on one of the top 200 money winners (presumably all on that list) to win the main event.

While I'm taking the opposite opinion of betgo on the odds for specific players, I actually liked this bet at 30-1. Giving these 200 guys a 2-1 edge over the rest makes this +ev and I have $50 on that bet. Heck, it should be 35 or 40-1 if it's just any 200 random players.

However, taking just 52 guys at 8-1 is not a good play IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

stop tapping the glass pls k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

OK since everyone thinks 8-1 is a bad bet, I think I can get a better deal. I will bet on the "Card Player" 52 to win the ME if I get 12-1 odds. I still think 8-1 was in my favor, but if I can get a better deal, I'll take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, betgo. Are you playing in the ME? If so, I propose a combination LL/prop bet.

IF you outlast me in the 2006 WSOP main event, I will lay 12 to 1 on your bet of up to $100 that one of the 52 players in the CP article wins the ME.

IF I outlast you, you will accept 4 to 1 odds on your bet of up to $100. I'll even toss in me if I outlast you, so you're getting 53 players for the price of 52.

This averages to the 8 to 1 you agree is fair, with a skew higher since you're obv. a better player than I. Capische?

[/ QUOTE ]
Incidently, everyone who made this bet with me lost at pretty steep odds. Alan Cunningham was one of teh Card Player 52.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad he didn't win the ME. Other than that slight detail you would have won. GG.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to show you how terrible that line is, Bodog was offering 30-1 on one of the top 200 money winners (presumably all on that list) to win the main event.

While I'm taking the opposite opinion of betgo on the odds for specific players, I actually liked this bet at 30-1. Giving these 200 guys a 2-1 edge over the rest makes this +ev and I have $50 on that bet. Heck, it should be 35 or 40-1 if it's just any 200 random players.

However, taking just 52 guys at 8-1 is not a good play IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

stop tapping the glass pls k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

OK since everyone thinks 8-1 is a bad bet, I think I can get a better deal. I will bet on the "Card Player" 52 to win the ME if I get 12-1 odds. I still think 8-1 was in my favor, but if I can get a better deal, I'll take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, betgo. Are you playing in the ME? If so, I propose a combination LL/prop bet.

IF you outlast me in the 2006 WSOP main event, I will lay 12 to 1 on your bet of up to $100 that one of the 52 players in the CP article wins the ME.

IF I outlast you, you will accept 4 to 1 odds on your bet of up to $100. I'll even toss in me if I outlast you, so you're getting 53 players for the price of 52.

This averages to the 8 to 1 you agree is fair, with a skew higher since you're obv. a better player than I. Capische?

[/ QUOTE ]
Incidently, everyone who made this bet with me lost at pretty steep odds. Alan Cunningham was one of teh Card Player 52.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, wait, am I to understand that you're going to welsh on your crazy-donkey bet?

[VarlosZ]

Bump.

Seriously, are you paying out or no? Or did you guys never officially bet?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump.

Seriously, are you paying out or no? Or did you guys never officially bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't actually bet. Would have if anyone had PMed me. Would have lost, but AC came close.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bump.

Seriously, are you paying out or no? Or did you guys never officially bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't actually bet. Would have if anyone had PMed me. Would have lost, but AC came close.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at this. I asked you 4 times in this thread if you wanted to bet. You clearly set terms and backed out (before the event, I'm not claiming you're backing out of paying).

Yeah, you had 1 horse in the final 200 or so. You were right and I was wrong, huh? Oh wait no. And you would have lost the bet if you had taken it.

[wiper]

probably why you shouldn't make bets with random screennames off the internet...

i'll give anyone right now 1,000,000:1 odds that if i flip a quarter, it'll end up heads. i will flip the quarter right here in front of my computer, and i'll let you know what came up...

takers?

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
probably why you shouldn't make bets with random screennames off the internet...

i'll give anyone right now 1,000,000:1 odds that if i flip a quarter, it'll end up heads. i will flip the quarter right here in front of my computer, and i'll let you know what came up...

takers?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, well no bet was finalized because betgo backed out. Besides, betgo is not a "random name", the guy has 9K posts and everyone knows who he is, he's not gonna kill his rep by welshing a damn 100 dollar bet. If we had made an agreement, I would have exchanged names/phone with him prior to the ME.

Also, your analogy is really awesome, except for the TINY detail that we were betting on something that EVERYONE could confirm the outcome of, and you are discussing something that ONLY YOU can confirm. Close, though.