She posted $2m vs dmitry $10,000 that he couldn't win three bracelets this summer at wsop.

That's 200-1 odds.

Couldn't this happen once in 200 series of 60+ events?

http://f5poker.com/poker-news/2016/1...poker-central/

There are probably about 100 players each year that play almost every WSOP event. If the odds were 200:1 against this, we should see one of these players winning three bracelets at least once every other year, right? But it's only happened once in the past ten years (assuming you are only counting the Vegas WSOP). So I imagine Selbst is getting the better of this deal.

Is there anyone with a better chance at the prop?
End-boss high stakes mixed games online, decent live experience with sun-run at holdem the last couple of years. Doubt he'd take this that seriously though without other side action on bracelets, but I'd argue he's got the best chance at hitting multiple bracelets (assuming he doesn't burn out playing 1ks)

.995^100=0.605770436

So 40% chance of someone winning 3 in a given year if they're all equally skilled. 100 players sounds high to me but I don't really know, and I'm guessing Urbanovich thinks he's better than most of those people as well. 200-1 does sound like a good bet for Vanessa IMO though.

betting 2 mil to win $10000 is dumb no matter what the odds. just pointless. 10k is meaningless to risk the one time you lose being out 2 million.

This.

(Unless of course the odds are 201-1 or higher)

Selbst talked about it on JCarver twitch. She's not thinking about it in the terms you guys are, she's a little more practical. If you run deep in a bracelet event, the schedule works against you because the events are stacked. One final table can be up to 4 other events missed on the schedule. So even a player on a heater can only really play about 20 events and even then you'd need great timing, near perfect stamina, diet, etc. She's probably getting the best of it just based on scheduling alone.

this. she will win 99.24565467% of the time but it be lol if he luckboxed harder than anyone ever =)

If you can afford the variance and you are decently +EV, it's completely sensible and reasonable to make the bet. Just because you add some extra zeros, maths doesn't suddenly become not maths.

Well, im sure 2 mega is a lot for vanessa but its +ev and selbst has big balls.

Sick freeroll Dzmitry I wonder how much of that $2 million his backers would get from the action he sold on this prop bet.

Doesn't sound like she put up any of that 2MIL as he gave her the $10K and she only gave him a promise to pay if she loses.

Unless she puts up the 2MIL in-trust to some lawyer's Trust account before the WSOP, I would not count on ever getting paid if the history of poker players paying off on these million dollar plus bets is any guide.

Wouldn't you agree Jungle?

Relative utility of wealth is a real thing. Let's say her total net worth were $2.5M, then her five-hundred-thousandth dollar through her five-hundred-and-ten-thousandth dollars are worth much much more to her than her two-point-five-millionth dollar through ... you know this is getting tiring to type out and I think you get the idea.

That applies to a much smaller degree if her net worth is $20M+ obviously, but the same concept still applies.

So the bet needs to be +EV by a very comfy margin for it to be worth adding $10k of wealth.

I agree, though, that just saying all those extra zeros makes the small gain irrelevant. The opposite is the case when you're buying Powerball tickets, btw (your money is worth much more dollar-for-dollar when you just have $10k in your savings than all those extra hundreds of millions of dollars are worth to your newly minted billionaire ass. So when people are saying "Yeah, but it's just $10 which is like nothing, whereas I could win a billion," they have it backwards).

selbst getting the better end of this without a $1 million one drop

Imagine the deal making possibilities if he's got two wins and makes a third ft.

Sounds like a Deal or No Deal scenario haha

It's donkaments!
Anything is possible.
Why risk 2 mill for basically no reward?
Any nerd supporting this 'bet' wouldn't do it and you all know it.
Idiocy really.

No way he could win 3 bracelets.If he can do it,many other people like Seiver,O'Dwyer,Mercier can do it-a thing,which neither of them have achieved yet.You overrate too much Dmitry-yes,he is super good but without much luck he cannot win 3.

LOL. Great comment and observation! I would love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.

of all the ways to earn a 0.5% roi on 2milly...

pretty much guaranteed 10k but when you lose its going to hurt. Odds are way over that

Imagine the dramatic possibilities if they both end up at that third final table.

agreed, the reward ain't worth the risk imo

reminds me of Joe Cassidy's story about playing golf with Phil Ivey: Ivey talks him into betting $1,000 at 200-1 on whether Ivey can hole a shot from 100+ yards out and Ivey makes the damn shot. Cassidy said he almost puked on the spot, great story from the old PokerRoad podcast days

Those of you who say 2mil vs 10k is stupid no matter the odds are the actual ******s here. You don't even agree with that statement yourself, you just disagree with the actual odds at hand.

What if I gave you $10 to your $2k for a bet with actual odds of 10k:1? What if I offered to put up $10k to your $2mil and I win if Elvis Presley wins the next WSOP, if he doesn't you get the $10k?

See, it's not the odds themselves that are stupid, its your idea of the odds of the bet, so argue those instead of pretending like the bet is inherently a bad idea for the one ponying up 2mil.