My prop bet: 100k in 1 month at 3/6 NL

[Lyric]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys,

Those of you making fun of Zeebo's "girlfriend" pic are dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, really, really dumb.

[mrcoughman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guys,

Those of you making fun of Zeebo's "girlfriend" pic are dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, really, really, really dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[KaneKungFu123]

diabo is turning into a [censored] porn expert in his old age.

[Post-Oak]

Put me down for $10K.

I agree with the people who say it is not feasible to police the terms of this wager. For example, you could recruit some buddies to play on your account in order to get an ungodly number of hands in.

Maybe it would be possible if we based the bet on a winrate (verified by pokertracker) in a certain minimum number of hands?

These rules would be a good start:
1. you can play only 1 site (2 at most)
2. we will know your screenname(s) before hand
3. the onus is on you to provide the proof (from a pokertracker file) of your wager winning winrate
4. if anyone finds more than a handful of hands in their own pokertracker which you did not submit (in other words, you just didn't log a bad session), then you lose
5. there must be at least 5 players in a hand for it to count (I don't play 6-max - is that at all feasible?)
6. you must play the minimum number of hands in a certain time period

You said "assuming 12 PT BB/100" in the other thread.

I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't have a 12 PT BB/100 winrate if we put both a minimum number of hands and a fixed time period. For example, 100K hands minimum and you have 30 days to do it (so you will have to multi-table). We could put a cap of 200K hands. If at any point you reach > 12 PTBB (which is 24BB), and you have between 100K and 200K hands played (within the specified 30 days), then you would win.

12 PT BB/100 hands * 100K hands = $144,000, so maybe now would be a good time for you to revise your estimate of your 3/6 NL winrate.

And just to clarify, you are talking about 6-max, right?

I don't know much about 6-max, but for full ring games I believe it would be impossible to have such a high true winrate (though variance could allow it to happen in a 100K stretch).

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
You said "assuming 12 PT BB/100" in the other thread.

I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't have a 12 PT BB/100 winrate if we put both a minimum number of hands and a fixed time period. For example, 100K hands minimum and you have 30 days to do it (so you will have to multi-table). We could put a cap of 200K hands. If at any point you reach > 12 PTBB (which is 24BB), and you have between 100K and 200K hands played (within the specified 30 days), then you would win.

12 PT BB/100 hands * 100K hands = $144,000, so maybe now would be a good time for you to revise your estimate of your 3/6 NL winrate.

And just to clarify, you are talking about 6-max, right?

I don't know much about 6-max, but for full ring games I believe it would be impossible to have such a high true winrate (though variance could allow it to happen in a 100K stretch).

[/ QUOTE ]

put me down for this bet, if zeebo wants to take it.

[ahnuld]

I doubt its possible but if he somehow managed to play his A game I think he could make 10ptbb/100 easily but this would require 83000 hands which would result in severe burnout and alot of B,C and D games thereby failing the bet.


5k against.

[yvesaint]

ill put up some money too...maybe like 5k. i dunno, id like to see the rules laid out in concrete first.

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
ill put up some money too...maybe like 5k. i dunno, id like to see the rules laid out in concrete first.

[/ QUOTE ]

[greg nice]

[ QUOTE ]
ill put up some money too...maybe like 5k. i dunno, id like to see the rules laid out in concrete first.

[/ QUOTE ]

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ill put up some money too...maybe like 5k. i dunno, id like to see the rules laid out in concrete first.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]