Exactly. Because you know he had such a horrible year last year running fairly much the same schedule.Originally Posted by TheXFactor
Exactly. Because you know he had such a horrible year last year running fairly much the same schedule.
Daniel got very lucky last year winning events in Australia and in Europe.
Shit is not going to happen this year.
By the end of the WSOP, Daniel will be down at least -$3 million dollars.
put me down for $200 in the pool.
I have received $2250 so far.
If you haven't shipped yet, please ship now. If I get $3000 received, I will assume that I will get enough to feel comfortable covering the difference myself, and will contact Negreanu about booking this.
$250 sent
bracelet winner Todd Witteles
Put me down for $100. I will ship via paypal ASAP Druff once the money clears my account.
Druff sorry if you already covered this but can I mail you a check? I'd like $150 please.
This is a bit concerning that one drop counts since it is a capped event not open event but I will stick with my nice bet for a good summer sweat, I still think this bet is +EVYeah. I think it's pretty close now, and may be slightly +EV, but certainly not the slam dunk I originally thought it was. I think I'm gonna pass.
-Allergic to the struggle
There is a recent interview of Daniel on a podcast ("The Rundown" -- search for it, I can't post a link right now) where he says that Phil Ivey is the one who is bankrolling this bet and that Daniel "may" take a piece of it this year. (The Daniel N. interview is at about minute 11 of the podcast if you can find it).
Wonder if that changes anything? Since Daniel put the bet out there and since Todd would be booking the bet thru Daniel (or Daniel's personal assistant), I feel pretty strongly that Daniel will be on the hook for all debts related to the bet and that "waiting for Phil Ivey" to pay up is not a valid excuse. Between Todd and Daniel, I'm assuming that there will be no escrow by either side. Am I right about that?
The One Drop changes the odds significantly. One of them has a good chance to win. Combined with Daniel playing every event possible, they are probably slight favorites IMO.
In for $250 if the one drop does not count...Otherwise no.
True no escrow by either side but this is the last thing you have to worry about, DN put this out there so regardless of what ever deal him and Ivey have DN will pay all bets if they lose, I think it is obv if we lose druff will pay faster then DN but thats just because dn will have a lot of bets to settle, 0 worries here I wouldn't have snap shipped 2k if I had any worries about either side. Both sides are solid gold IMO.
-Allergic to the struggle
That's the podcast I produce for Bluff. It's a pretty entertaining interview overall.
Doing some "back of the envelope" calculations, I'm starting to agree with those who are saying it's pretty neutral EV with the One Drop included, although I’m still thinking it is +EV to take the Anti- Bracelet side.
I’m curious as to what some of you poker-minded and math-minded people think about the following:
By my count, there are thirteen 10k events that they will both likely play (#5, 10, 13, 18, 22, 28, 32, 38, 40, 46, 52, 61 and 64). I'm not even including the Main Event in this because imo they are such long shots to win that. Besides 10k events, there is Event #2 25k Mix Max, Event #57 Million Dollar One Drop, and some amount of random smaller buy-in larger field events sprinkled throughout that they will likely play, especially if their incentive to win a bracelet is large enough.
(1) I'm giving them each a (very conservative) 60:1 shot at winning a bracelet in Event #2, 5, 10, 13 ,18, 28, 38, 52 and 61. These are mostly the 10k events that I think have the best chances of being “small field” events. (Maybe this is a gross over-estimate of their chances in any one of these nine events?)
(2) I'm giving them each a 120:1 shot at winning a bracelet in the 10k HORSE, the 10k NLHE 6-max, the 10k Heads Up NLHE event, the 50k Players Championship and the 10k PLO Event. I think these events will have substantially larger fields, and so 120:1 seemed fair, yet very conservative, factoring in skill level and anticipated field size.
(3) I'm giving them a 40:1 shot each to win the One Drop. There is a 56 player cap on this event, and a fair number of rich businessmen play.
(4) With regard to the smaller buy-in large field events, considering their propensity to "multi-table" and try to run up their stacks, as well as larger field sizes, but also considering that many of the events listed above are three, four and five day events, which limits their ability to go deep in and play concurrent tournaments, I'll allow for FOUR random large-field events each (so 8 total), at a 480:1 shot for each event... (so, Eight 480:1 shots). Here I am probably under-estimating the number of events they will play, but probably over-estimating their chances to win in one of these events, considering large field size and their general concentration levels at the earlier stages of these events.
Again... back of the envelope type calculations.... doing some simple arithmetic and algebra.... To summarize, between both Daniel and Phil:
(1) 18 total 60:1 shots (or 36 total 120:1 shots)
(2) 10 total 120:1 shots
(3) 2 total 40:1 shots (or 6 total 120:1 shots); and
(4) 8 total 480:1 shots (or 2 total 120:1 shots).
.... for a grand total of 54 total 120:1 shots. Not a landslide “bet the farm” by any means, but still +EV to take the Anti Side.
Comments and persuasive criticisms welcome before PFA collectively pulls the trigger on this bet.
I might be in for some if one drop is not counted. That changes everything substantially.
One Drop odds seem high if it is only 56 players IMO. I think it should be in the 30-1 or even less range considering field and how good both are compared to some rich whale who doesn't give a shit really about the $. But I am no capping expert just what I thought off top of my head.Doing some "back of the envelope" calculations, I'm starting to agree with those who are saying it's pretty neutral EV with the One Drop included, although I’m still thinking it is +EV to take the Anti- Bracelet side.
I’m curious as to what some of you poker-minded and math-minded people think about the following:
By my count, there are thirteen 10k events that they will both likely play (#5, 10, 13, 18, 22, 28, 32, 38, 40, 46, 52, 61 and 64). I'm not even including the Main Event in this because imo they are such long shots to win that. Besides 10k events, there is Event #2 25k Mix Max, Event #57 Million Dollar One Drop, and some amount of random smaller buy-in larger field events sprinkled throughout that they will likely play, especially if their incentive to win a bracelet is large enough.
(1) I'm giving them each a (very conservative) 60:1 shot at winning a bracelet in Event #2, 5, 10, 13 ,18, 28, 38, 52 and 61. These are mostly the 10k events that I think have the best chances of being “small field” events. (Maybe this is a gross over-estimate of their chances in any one of these nine events?)
(2) I'm giving them each a 120:1 shot at winning a bracelet in the 10k HORSE, the 10k NLHE 6-max, the 10k Heads Up NLHE event, the 50k Players Championship and the 10k PLO Event. I think these events will have substantially larger fields, and so 120:1 seemed fair, yet very conservative, factoring in skill level and anticipated field size.
(3) I'm giving them a 40:1 shot each to win the One Drop. There is a 56 player cap on this event, and a fair number of rich businessmen play.
(4) With regard to the smaller buy-in large field events, considering their propensity to "multi-table" and try to run up their stacks, as well as larger field sizes, but also considering that many of the events listed above are three, four and five day events, which limits their ability to go deep in and play concurrent tournaments, I'll allow for FOUR random large-field events each (so 8 total), at a 480:1 shot for each event... (so, Eight 480:1 shots). Here I am probably under-estimating the number of events they will play, but probably over-estimating their chances to win in one of these events, considering large field size and their general concentration levels at the earlier stages of these events.
Again... back of the envelope type calculations.... doing some simple arithmetic and algebra.... To summarize, between both Daniel and Phil:
(1) 18 total 60:1 shots (or 36 total 120:1 shots)
(2) 10 total 120:1 shots
(3) 2 total 40:1 shots (or 6 total 120:1 shots); and
(4) 8 total 480:1 shots (or 2 total 120:1 shots).
.... for a grand total of 54 total 120:1 shots. Not a landslide “bet the farm” by any means, but still +EV to take the Anti Side.
Comments and persuasive criticisms welcome before PFA collectively pulls the trigger on this bet.
Overall I agree with you Not a landslide but +EV, I have always said any 2 players would be a dog in win a bracelet in any given year and I still believe that, The one drop does make this a tougher bet and I think their odds may be a bit lower then you figured, While I do think the one drop may be their best chance still very hard to get past the 20-30 Top NL players in that field , Anyway this is all about the gamble for me not saying this is a lock just a good sweat.Doing some "back of the envelope" calculations, I'm starting to agree with those who are saying it's pretty neutral EV with the One Drop included, although I’m still thinking it is +EV to take the Anti- Bracelet side.
I’m curious as to what some of you poker-minded and math-minded people think about the following:
By my count, there are thirteen 10k events that they will both likely play (#5, 10, 13, 18, 22, 28, 32, 38, 40, 46, 52, 61 and 64). I'm not even including the Main Event in this because imo they are such long shots to win that. Besides 10k events, there is Event #2 25k Mix Max, Event #57 Million Dollar One Drop, and some amount of random smaller buy-in larger field events sprinkled throughout that they will likely play, especially if their incentive to win a bracelet is large enough.
(1) I'm giving them each a (very conservative) 60:1 shot at winning a bracelet in Event #2, 5, 10, 13 ,18, 28, 38, 52 and 61. These are mostly the 10k events that I think have the best chances of being “small field” events. (Maybe this is a gross over-estimate of their chances in any one of these nine events?)
(2) I'm giving them each a 120:1 shot at winning a bracelet in the 10k HORSE, the 10k NLHE 6-max, the 10k Heads Up NLHE event, the 50k Players Championship and the 10k PLO Event. I think these events will have substantially larger fields, and so 120:1 seemed fair, yet very conservative, factoring in skill level and anticipated field size.
(3) I'm giving them a 40:1 shot each to win the One Drop. There is a 56 player cap on this event, and a fair number of rich businessmen play.
(4) With regard to the smaller buy-in large field events, considering their propensity to "multi-table" and try to run up their stacks, as well as larger field sizes, but also considering that many of the events listed above are three, four and five day events, which limits their ability to go deep in and play concurrent tournaments, I'll allow for FOUR random large-field events each (so 8 total), at a 480:1 shot for each event... (so, Eight 480:1 shots). Here I am probably under-estimating the number of events they will play, but probably over-estimating their chances to win in one of these events, considering large field size and their general concentration levels at the earlier stages of these events.
Again... back of the envelope type calculations.... doing some simple arithmetic and algebra.... To summarize, between both Daniel and Phil:
(1) 18 total 60:1 shots (or 36 total 120:1 shots)
(2) 10 total 120:1 shots
(3) 2 total 40:1 shots (or 6 total 120:1 shots); and
(4) 8 total 480:1 shots (or 2 total 120:1 shots).
.... for a grand total of 54 total 120:1 shots. Not a landslide “bet the farm” by any means, but still +EV to take the Anti Side.
Comments and persuasive criticisms welcome before PFA collectively pulls the trigger on this bet.
-Allergic to the struggle
$400 sent
The One Drop should NOT count; it's an "invitational" event, not a "bracelet" event.
That being said, my degenerate ass still thinks the bet is +EV and my money is still on the table. It is REALLY hard to win an MTT over 100 people, even for world class players, because of the variance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
