ZeeJustin Prop Bet

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody has over an 800% roi in the Main event IMO. It is easily the softest 10k of the year but 800% is too high.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think u mean 700

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
Justin I challenge you to crossbook me against any of your picks giving me 3-1. If you decline I assume that means you are interested in buying my action at $266 for 1% and I'll be happy to sell you a nice chunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, please stop taunting ZeeJustin until you have at least 10% of his career tournament winnings.

[bogey]

I think $400 is about the right price By the way, how did the bet and acceptance go, was it instantaneous and ZeeJustin just felt like he had to accept to save face, or could he have haggled there?

[ZeeJustin]

I was going to make this bet at $600 per player with my friend Barry Goren, but I forgot to officially pick my team before the event started. I wasn't trying to haggle over price with Mike since the ME is now a year away. I doubt this bet will ever happen.

FWIW, here are some of the players I had decided on picking (I never decided on all 20):

Phil Hellmuth, Phill Ivey, Barry Greenstein
Daniel Negreanu, Brian Townsend, Mike Mizrachi
JC Tran, Alan Sass, Justin Bonomo
Sorel Mizzi, Mike Matusow, Alex Jacob
Carl Olson, Allen Cunningham, David Pham
Jon Little.

If I had to guess, I would say Hellmuth has the highest ROI at roughly 1400%. Ivey would be close, and Barry wouldn't be that far behind. I think 4th would be a significant amount behind those three though.


Think about it this way. What is the 5000th best player's equity in this tournament? $1,000? Maybe?

What about the 3000th best player? $2500?

The 1,000th best player in the field is probably around the worst player to have a 0% roi, or a $10,000 expectation.

Where does all that equity go? Straight to the best players. The 200th best player won't actually be that much better than the 1,000th player. It's really the few at the top that can do more than play their cards that will shine.

There is so much more play in this tournament than virtually any other tournament.

You can have a 100% ROI in the 180 man sit-no-gos online, right? Think about how much longer this 6000+ person field is.

Obviously these numbers are just made up off the top of my head, but does anyone want to say these specific numbers are way off?

[ZeeJustin]

1-20 - 8x
20-100 - 5x
100-200 - 4x
200-500 - 3x
500-1500 - 1.5x
1500-3000 - .7x
3000-4000 - .5x
4000-6000 - .3x
6000-6350 - .1x

What do you guys think of that equity distribution? Where does it seem off? Am I underestimating the equity of a terrible player? I think that adds up to about 5600, although technically it should be slightly less because the juice is so ridiculous.

I guess I should clarify that I did this with last year's pay out structure in mind. The bad players will do slightly better with this year's payout structure. How much of a difference does that make though?

Edit: The above was meant to be a conservative distribution. I really doubt the players that are 1500-3000th would actually have an equity that high.

[Daddy Warbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has over an 800% roi in the Main event IMO. It is easily the softest 10k of the year but 800% is too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doug Kim?

[Ship Ship McGipp]

I think it's probably more like

1-50 = 6x
50-200 = 4.5x
200-500 = 3x
500-1250 = 2x

and so on.

My reasoning is basically that you've got the top teir- and there's just no way that Hellmuth has that much more equity than Ivey, or that either of them have that much more equity than X big name tournament pro, or that any of the previous players have that much more of an advantage than high stakes cash game pro, or midstakes cash game player with tournament experience, live experience, etc.

The second level from 50-200 are the 6m online guys, the tournament regulars, some of the standard pros, the too aggro online tournament pros, guys that maybe shine too much in one area, and have small leaks in others, etc.

The next level is your random winning online player, but not very big; or your average mid stakes (5-10, 10-20) live pro; or your v marginal tournament regs online, small stakes cash players; people who frequent and play well in tournaments, even if perhaps too tight, etc.

The rest is pretty self explanatory.

My real reasoning for grouping the top 50 together instead of the top 20 is primarily because although each player has a different ROI, there is just no way that you can factor in enough things like tilt, table assignment, seat assignment, and just hidden random luck (coolers, hitting/missing draws, etc).

Also, there is no [censored] way that Hellmuth has that high of an ROI. I don't even know if his is the highest, but if it is, 1000% would be the absolute ceiling, despite the softness. Now, take his midstage and table talk game and apply a half decent game with 40bbs+, maybe the skills of a winning 6m online player, and you've got someone who is potentially a beast in a bet like this.

Also, I know it's obvious, but we're going to come so far from ever coming near the long run that bets like this are ridiculous and variance always wins.

[gehrig]

Wow those two completely arbitrary sets of numbers sure are pretty

Can anyone come up with even prettier completely arbitrary sets of numbers and settle this debate??

[jaroot]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's probably more like

1-50 = 6x
50-200 = 4.5x
200-500 = 3x
500-1250 = 2x

and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's probably even a bit broader when you consider all the pros, all the top internet players, then all the REALLY good unkown players that nobody knows about.
**Except for Hellmuth of course. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

1-Phil Hellmuth 6.5x
2-200 = 6x
200-1000 = 3x
1000-5000 = 1x
5000-to infinity.. = .0000001x

[Admo]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to haggle over price with Mike since the ME is now a year away. I doubt this bet will ever happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZJ,

Awesome idea. Want more action?

Let's work this out and book a big one for next year's ME.

-A