Revisiting the Gigabet Challenge

[Guthrie]

A year ago the Gigabet Challenge was all the rage, both the one actually attempted by Gigabet with a large prop bet, and lots of people doing it on their own. Gigabet dropped out when the structure changed, and although there were a lot of posts about others trying it, there really weren't a lot of final results posted.

For those who don't remember, the challenge was to start at the Party 11s with 15 buy-ins, and move up to the next level after 100 SnGs. If you bust out at any level, you're done.

At the time of the original challenge, I really believed it was some sort of inside joke that everybody but me was in on. I found it inconceivable that any player could be so skilled that he could avoid a 15 buy-in downswing. A lot of people who put up $100 really believed Gigabet would win and they'd lose their $100, but they wanted the hand histories to discover his magic bullet.

Well, a year later, I still don't believe it's possible to complete the challenge without a huge helping of luck. Actually, after analyzing 7,000 SnGs, I'm even more convinced. If you play a push/fold game, you're going to get called, and there is no amount of math, or skill, that will prevent you from losing to a better hand, a worse hand, or the same hand, 15 times in a row, or even enough times over a small sample to drop 15 buy-ins.

Anybody want to try the Gigabet Challenge at Stars? Start with 15 buy-ins at the 6.50s ($97.50) and play 100 at each level, or until you bust out. Post your results and show us how easy it is.

[wiggs73]

I could possibly be interested in this, although I'll be honest, if I ended up in the 315s or higher where I'd almost certainly be -EV, I might say to hell with the gigabet challenge and take my money and go play my regular games with it.

Maybe I'd stick it out if I were getting insane odds in a prop bet but otherwise I don't know. I'd love to say "oh sure I'll play 100 2ks" but realistically I know that's a losing play for me so it'd be tough to start playing those just for the sake of some silly challenge.

Also I wouldn't cash my account down to $100, although I doubt that would matter much since it would be easy to set up a separate PT database and just quit playing SNGs if I go to net -$100 at any point.

[curtains]

Much tougher today because games are tougher.

[wiggs73]

also yeah what curtains said. stars games today don't even come close to comparing with party games a year and a half ago.

[Hercules]

I`d be interested in a prob bet, just for fun. But it shouldnt cost to much time...maybe we can deviate from it and invent some kind of other challenge.

[zacd]

i think you should change it to 20 buyins -- you should get spacegravy to try it, he could get through the first 3 or 4 levels in 2 days if he doesnt bust

[spacegravy]

Ya this sounds really fun, but once i got above the 114s i would have a hard time playing the higher stakes where i'm -ev.

[Madd]

I did both. Though at party I played 100 tourneys in each limit (11s to 215s) in no special order. As I didn't have a big downswing I would have needed only 8 buy-ins to start and succeed.

At stars I started with 20 buy-ins at the 16s where I broke even (+20$ to be exact), then went on a heater in the 27s (+788$) and had a pretty normal result at the 60s (+683$) afterwards. This was pre-Frist, so a double-digit roi was still possible. At the 114s my bankroll went up and down until I finally hit a downswing of 15 buy-ins which barely let me survive, and I soon (after 3 sitngos) busted out of the challenge at the 225s (my personal final limit because the 335s didn't exist yet and the 555s didn't start often enough/were too expensive).

[fluorescenthippo]

lol good luck at the $2100s!!

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya this sounds really fun, but once i got above the 114s i would have a hard time playing the higher stakes where i'm -ev.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it wasnt for the rake youd probably be ok until the $215s.