how good is this guy?
his hendon mob says he has 4.1mil in mtt earnings.

I play like 6 mtts a year so I have no idea who he is or how long he's been playing so hard to put that 4.1 figure in perspective.

edit: stinky I generally just trust whatever u say wrt math but why uare assuming a he's world class player?

Imo Including all forms of mtt's yeah hes 1 of the best right now(In Europe) & brimming with confidence which makes a difference, he may not be as good as fedor holtz(but he ain't far off) at Nlh but he makes up for that in his mixed games, without looking at his hendon mob profile dmitry is a beast.
And also playing some of the best at mixed games in cash on stars last year Dmitry has done well. Obv if someone has PTR then they can post some results.

I'm not, just saying I like his side of the bet under the assumption that he is. I knew nothing about him until today.

Anyone have any thoughts on how much ignoring ICM and playing for the win increases your chances of winning relative to the field? I'd imagine it's significant on the bubble and at the final table, but I don't have a clue how you'd begin to estimate whether it's a 5% edge or a 30% edge.

The reason no one has answered, nor acknowledged your question is that it has zero relevance to the true odds of Vanessa and Dmitry's bet.

DUCY?

When nobody is trying to win 3 bracelets, it's not gonna happen very often.

Cheeseburger guy had 2 bracelets by event 39 last year and if he'd really gone for a third after that point he easily would have been >10%. Or maybe he would already have won it in an earlier event.

Simulation with reasonable assumptions is the only way to estimate this.

It's pretty hard to estimate because there are so many variables. Sometimes ICM barely has any effect at all on your play, sometimes it's huge. But you have to run so good to even get to a spot where ICM really matters (e.g. getting to the final table with one of the bigger stacks) that I don't think the overall effect is very large at all.

Regarding the prop bet, my guess is that it was some sort of pissing contest. Assuming some level of risk-averseness on both sides, there's really no good reason otherwise for either one of them to make this bet at any kind of reasonable odds.

You're missing the point. When you're playing for first and don't care about the other pay jumps, you can safely get it in when you're +chip EV with any stack size instead of taking it up the bum because correct ICM strategy tells you you have to. That's true for both final tables and the money bubble. It's not about abusing the shortstacks when you're a big stack, it's about not getting ICM abused yourself. It comes into play to some degree in almost any tournament when you go deep so it's definitely significant.

(As a side note, that's why bets like this are ethically somewhat questionable. I don't see a problem if they're disclosed though.)

It's perfectly feasible that they both thought the odds were unreasonable.

If he wins 4 does he lose the bet?.

I did the math and it really surprised me, Vanessa is in more trouble than I thought (and probably than she thinks)

I dont think you can play 30 events on series, but lets suppose he can play 30 and that he will play only the 30 smallest fields

422
308
109
143
128
474
319
157
219
91
77
111
84
327
117
135
175
108
204
454
387
357
380
462
639
660
319
493
480
388

(i think its correct, did it manually based on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_W...eries_of_Poker)

The average player that plays all these events has 85,606% chance of not winning a bracelet

Winning exactly 1 bracelet is 13,354%

winning 0 = 85,606%
winning 1 = 13,354%

So you have 1,040% of at least 2 bracelets!

So 1,040% of Vanessa have a sweat! lol

At least 3 bracelets is 1,040% - odds of exactly 2 bracelets

Odds of exactly 2 bracelets is = 0,4696%

So at least 3 bracelets = 0,5704%

Odds to be 0 EV = 175 to 1



Something is wrong with my math?

If my math is correct and if someone can play 30 tournaments on series (need to check this) Urbanovich just owned Vanessa :lol:

Um, thanks, but I get the point completely.

You GET abused when you are one of the larger stacks near the end, just as I said. But the strategy to reach that point is generally the same, ICM or not, and involves running very good, as much as MTT players might not like to admit it, by playing your cards exactly as you would have without ICM.

If you DO get to that point, NOW you MAY gain some significant edge by not letting yourself be bullied. But even if you do reach the final table, you might just as likely get there as the biggest stack, or as a short stack, or with a series of other situations where where ICM just doesn't change your EV very much because the decisions you face aren't marginal.

So, overall, the influence isn't very large IMO. Over the years at the WSOP there have been plenty of situations b/c of prop bets, bracelet chasing, etc. where one player was motivated to play for first-only, but I recall very few instances where it was the deciding factor in whether or not they won.

Sure, but we're talking about a thousand or 2 in EV changing hands over a truly PITA wager, so why bother if there wasn't some sort of pride involved?

this isn't right

What are the odds of exactly 2 bracelets?

I was thinking more like an EV of $5k+ when I said unreasonable.

i think it should be around 0.9% with your assumptions

exactly zero and exactly 1 are correct?

I really didnt know how to make exactly 2 because you need to consider all possibilites of 2 events to be won so I assume this was a good aproximation:

Avg field = 290

So I did

435*100*(((1/290)^2)*((289/290)^28))

435 = C(30,2) = 30!/28!*2!

math is hard, simulation is easy

also if you want to approximate, you shouldn't take the average of the field size, but rather its inverse (ie. the average of the win probabilities for each tournament)

thats right

so my aproximation would be

435*100*(((0.15484196619/30)^2)*((29.8451580338/30)^28))

which is 1.00253072303

so 1,040 - 1.00253072303 = 0.0374%

2668 to 1

Now its reasonable

So how do you consider edge?

What are the odds of winning a tour if you are on top 20% players?

Hanging on my refrigerator door right now is a betting slip I bought in Vegas last summer (from William Hill). I bet $10 to win $2010 (200 to 1) that The Fighting Illini will win the NCAA men's basketball tournament this Spring.

Of course the books will lay 200 to 1 if the true odds are much greater, making their bet +EV.

He should give her 200 to 1 on a prop bet that she can't eat out for a year.