Durrr in process of losing 60k+ in a chess bet.. good month for raptor

[rothko]

ah, sorry. i missed that.

[LonesomeFugitive]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have to say, though a great poker player, durrrr is one of the biggest prop betting fish I know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe he needs to take lessons from Sklansky on never taking bets you don't have an edge in.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
Also Curtains said he can reconstruct the entire match(es) from memory so maybe he would do that for everyone if there is interest (not sure if he would spend time on that or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be real easy for him and I for one am interested.

edit: oops didn't see it was done. And I'm pretty sure I could beat an IM down a knight. Definitely if he's down a rook. And I'm not very good.

[blah_blah]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading through these posts, it's amazing to me how people
can be so unappreciative of experts who have worked for
years to develop their skills. If you've heard of Johnny
Morton, the NFL wide receiver, who tried to fight in the
UFL after training in martial arts for 2 months... He
got knocked out in under 2 minutes.

Imagine if the prop bet was basketball; a chess grandmaster
is the chess equivalent of an NBA player ( or maybe even
all-star ) at the worst. The average "good" chess player,
( ie less than 1700 rating ) would be analogous to a
weekend gym rat who loves basketball.

Would anyone in their right mind bet on the gym rat no
matter HOW good the odds ? ( 10 point handicap to 20,
NBA player can only shoot from 3 point land... etc... )

Probably not... unless the NBA player had to play in
showshoes, or blind-folded, or something utterly
ridiculous...

Or imagine the gym rat vs. an NFL player, one-on-one,
a la those old American Gladiator events. How often
did the average Joe beat the Gladiator ???

My point is: non-experts tend to completely trivialize
the skills of experts in their field to their own
detriment; especially in games of skill or athletic
endeavors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you are missing the point a little. I have played chess while drunk before and beaten a (sober) near GM with a queen handicap. I am sure that I could train myself to win in this situation (with a rook handicap) in less than a week. There is a rating cutoff point in which all players with ratings > X can beat a GM of Curtains' level with > 90% probability. X is almost certainly a lot lower than you think.

A small perturbation in 'game fairness' can only be measured in the context of the game.

For example: I play Garry Kasparov right now with a handicap of bishop, knight, rook on one side of the board: I crush him.

I play Tiger Woods with 4 clubs in his bag that he gets to choose: he absolutely crushes me and I am about a 12 handicap.

I play TLK in HU LHE and only get top 33% hands: I should be a winner.

I play PA in HU LO8 and only get top 33% hands: I probably am a loser.

[Victor]

"I play PA in HU LO8 and only get top 33% hands: I probably am a loser."

ok, ive never played this game and will take this bet any day.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
Durrr would have been much better off with a 2 hour clock.

if he was a better prop better he could have likely gotten himself a 2 hour clock and Curtains a 5 min clock.

Curtains was saying he thought he would still win in the down a knight bet with a 2 min clock, not sure how he feels about the down a rook bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also durrr should have gotten odds on the knight bet if he was taking even money on the rook bet.

[BustoPro]

[ QUOTE ]

edit: oops didn't see it was done. And I'm pretty sure I could beat an IM down a knight. Definitely if he's down a rook. And I'm not very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're truly "not very good", how can you have any idea what it takes to beat somebody who is very, very good, and therefore how would you know what handicap is fair? Or did you not bother reading the rest of the thread, and notice that durrrr lost a bit of money because he thought the same thing?

[muxplust]

durr is smart

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Sick. There's a reason people don't gamble on chess. Well.... normal people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing could be further from the truth. Go to Washington Square Park or any warm moist spot where deviant chess players congregate and you'll find folks gambling on chess.
(Yes you did say normal people but with that bar who gambles?)
It's small stakes compared to a poker player's prop bets but just the same chess players gamble. Asa Hoffman use to offer weak class players time odds and mating square. The "fish" could pick the square before the games started, like d4 (middle of the board) and Asa would have to "mate" the on d4 or else he's lose the bet.
I’ve watched IM Skirazi play GM Dzindzichashvili, in speed chess losing like $5,000 in about 20 minutes of play.
I guess the major difference in chess gambling is if you can put your ego aside you should be smart enough to know the outcome before the bet starts.

[Bronstein]

Some facts:
I've played countless blitz-games (5 minutes) vs guys who played 1 year, giving a queen or both rooks. Always winning them. Main reason: the time-pressure. So don't think a knight or rook is an awful lot. Sometimes it is, but most players are so weak (compared to an IM) that it hardly matters.

The average club-player will have the worse of it with knight-odds as the IM has great chances for a draw when things go wrong.
I guess players around 2200 FIDE easily beat the IM with knight-odds (it's the level that make IMs sweat in regular games).
But any unschooled player has no chance whatsoever with knight-odds. Whether it's vs 2200 or 2400 also doesn't matter, as long as his opponent is flexible enough to realize he shouldn't play the theoretically best moves but those who offer the best chances.

Btw: curtains would have beaten him blindfold too, seriously. His level would hardly drop.