I'd watch two random bums play for $5 before I'd watch Jungleman play for play money.

This is a very long post so if you hate long posts, especially mine, please do not read it.
It is long as it contains a lot of analysis. Thank you.

Taking a rational look at who is favourite in this HU match and how winning or otherwise a player each player is in live tournaments, I think we can broadly extrapolate some figures from their Hendon Mob listed cashing results.

I agree with some previous posters that Hendon Mob should list all results, cashing and non cashing, for a true reflection. (I keep a record of all my live results and I post the lot if I am ever looking for backing and therefore show my true ROI)

When extrapolating the ROI the most important variable to get a handle on is the number of comps the player has played. I think estimating their average buy in is easier because of visible buy in data patterns of their cashing tournaments.

As a base average I am going to use 12.5% as the average amount of players paid in any given field. This means that an average player will have played 8x (100/12.5) times more tournaments than the amount showing as cashed in on The Hendon Mob.

No disrespect to Mike, who I think is a good player, I am going to plug in a figure of 16.66% as the percentage of times he cashes, so 1 in 6 times, and for Cate I am going to plug in 22.22%, so 1 in 4.5 times that she cashes. I think it is a reasonable assumption that Cate, over a much smaller sample than Mike, does have a higher ITM rate than him in live MTTs.

Cate Hall: estimated ROI.

She has 40 cashes listed on The Hendon Mob, so using a 22.22% ITM rate, she has played an estimated 180 live MTTs.

Her total buy ins for the 40 ITM comps are ~$100K, so I am going to multiply this figure by 4.5 and add an extra 15% to account for rebuys/re-entries and the possibility that there is a high roller or maybe two that we cannot see that she didn't cash in that would skew the average buy in upwards.

So estimated total buy ins for Cate are $100K * 4.5* 1.15 = $517K
Tournaments played 180
Average buy in $2900
The total amount she has cashed for is $808K
Her ROI is therefore = 56%

Mike Dentale: estimated ROI.

He has 116 cashes listed on The Hendon Mob, so using a 16.66% ITM rate, he has played an estimated 696 live MTTs.

His total buy ins for the 116 ITM comps are ~$185K, so I am going to multiply this figure by 6 and add an extra 10% to account for rebuys/re-entries. I am only adding a 10% adjustment for Mike, because I think on balance he has probably entered less high rollers, as a percentage of his total entries, than Cate.

So estimated total buy ins for Mike are $185K * 6* 1.1 = $1220K
Tournaments played 696
Average buy in $1750
The total amount he has cashed for is $1383K
His ROI is therefore = 13%

This is still a good ROI for Mike over a large sample, bareing in mind it includes the effects of rake, so over a big sample he is beating the game by about 23%.

Cate according to my estimates is beating the game by effectively 66% (including the effects of rake) over a smaller sample size.

Overall their results indicate they are both winning players in MTTs, Cate at a higher ROI but Mike sustained over a bigger sample and over a longer period of real time.

To cover the question of, "well okay how much has she actually made if she has been partly backed?" Again, using guesstimates....... if she has been backed on average for 60% equity and sold it at a mark up of 1.15 it means she has paid 31% of all buy ins = $160K and retained 40% of her winnings = $323K, equaling a profit for her of $163K.

Her cashes date back to 18th Jan 2015, so 710 days or 1.945 years, so she has made a profit of $84K per year. This does assume she sold 60% at 1.15 on average and naturally does not include the impact of expenses on one side and the benefit of any sponsorship on the plus side.

It is interesting that for live MTTs at least, you can go on what people are terming/guessing is "a heater" for nearly 2 years playing big buy in comps and still not be making chunks of money, if you are being backed for around 55% to 65% of your action.

Of course as a player becomes more successful they may be able to sell less equity in themselves and gain better sponsorship deals, meaning the same set of results as previously net them a higher net profit than before.

Mike it is fairly certain is a winning player in live MTTs. However, with the effect of expenses, perhaps more likely he is a break even player in live MTTs. But importantly he is in the game, playing medium and big buy in comps so retains the ongoing upside potential for huge scores, as indeed does Cate.

Cash game ability for each player:

For me personally this is harder to quantify as we have less data, unless you have personally played them, and we have to go mainly on anecdotal "evidence".

Known facts:

Cate has a very good table presence and appears not to give any physical or timing tells. Fellow players who know her and/or have played against her say she is a good cash game player. In interviews she has given she states, as have others, that she is/was a cash game grinder. It is not known if in the cash game environment she has "street smarts". In other words if the game pattern or other peripheral factors to the game move away from log normal, if and how quickly she will react and adapt to this.

Mike by all anecdotal evidence is a regular cash game player. Players who have played against him have said he is solid. You would think he knows most/all cash game environments like the back of his hand, and he certainly has street smarts as a consequence of this. I think he may be more likely to give off live physical tells and timing tells than Cate, purely because he is not a full time pro and is therefore generally not as bothered by if he does or not and has not put as much time or attention as her into refining that part of his game.

Coaching in the run up to the challenge:

This is the area where I think Cate has a big potential advantage. She appears to move in the circles and the clique of many top full time pros, so no doubt there is already an organised or soon to be organised group of pros who are gathering info on Mike's playing tendencies, including possible live tells, as well as giving her some coaching advice.

Mike you would think is, perhaps to a lesser extent, doing the same, with poker buddies who support him also doing some pre-challenge opponent research and coaching with him.

From Mike's point of view I think the potential research and coaching gap there is/might be between Cate and him should be his biggest area of concern. Indeed he did Tweet something like, "you want to play in March so that you can get 3 months coaching", so he certainly is aware of coaching as a factor.

My overall analysis is that Cate is a favourite right now as it stands. Sorry I don't know the US format of betting odds, but expressed as UK: Cate 1/2 (67% favourite) Mike 2/1 (33% underdog), but if Mike takes the battle of the research and coaching seriously and steps a little more into the technical theory side of cash game poker with this HU battle in mind I think he can make the odds 50/50 by the time the match actually starts.

If he can make himself a 50/50 shot, then whether he can go on to win I think will depend on variance/luck naturally and also on whether his edge in street smarts comes through.

My betting advice is bet on Mike at odds against now and watch the odds move closer towards 50/50 as the match nears.

Good luck to both players and good luck to anyone who is speculating on the result.

P.S. I don't bet with people on 2plus2 so please don't ask me to take bets.

Is there anyone else who thinks after all of this that there is pretty much no chance it's even going to happen?

Sage, will you plz learn how to consolidate?

Mentale

Thank you for the compliment.

(I am not great at condensing my posts, so I admit that is a weak area of my posting game that needs work)

Yes I think Tweeting regular updates is a decent indicator of a backed player. However, how much equity she has in herself is pure guesswork on my part, it could really be anything from 10% to 100%.

Tweeting updates also would not solely be for backers, but also for fans and followers, as it's content that they want to see and that in turn raises her poker profile so benefits her going forwards.

I agree that players who don't Tweet updates of live comps are more likely to have 100% of themselves, because if you do have 100% then why would you want to post info on how you played, sometimes it can be playing badly, or if you tilted or just plain fancied a -EV gamble that luckily paid off.

You also may not want non poker playing Twitter following friends or random people to know about your financial business and how much you are risking and winning or losing.

I'm still skeptical

Bravo.

Jmo offering Cate an opportunity to play HU4Rollz while he's on molly and acid lololol

Is that the poker equivalent of spotting someone 20 points? JMO could look at one card and still win.

this, hasnt been a good HU grudge match in a minute

This is gold

http://www.captiongenerator.com/2587...-Cate-Hall-Ato

Cate blocked me on twitter because I fav'd one of Mikes tweets


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lolll... A+

Video was amazing.

Epic, thread delivers

That's a stretch.

I know the Monthly 30k GTD at Mohegan Sun in CT does not get reported to Hendon/GPI. Top spots earn 10k-13k, but never get reported to Hendon (while $360 min cashes in WSOPC do)

I am pretty sure (but not positive) the local competitive tourney at Foxwoods (a monthly 25k GTD) does not get reported either........and so would guess....there are surely other (non daily tournaments) that don't get reported all across the Poker World.

Having said that......I am sure most of the MAJOR Tournament Scores are recorded in Hendon/GPI.....

While I like the concept of Hendon/GPI.......tracking live tournaments is a DATA CAPTURE/MANAGEMENT nightmare. They clearly capture the big tournaments, and give an idea of how players perform in those, it's far from a complete picture.

Without also capturing all buyins (even in events you dont cash-which are most) + #of BuyIns + #ReEntries you can't come close to understanding true ROI.

Nothing will ever come close to online poker for tracking real results.

#RIP OnLine Poker

All this drama because someone made a call w/ AT, and another player said "you're a donkey".......?

What has poker come to ?

Petchulant children aruguing on social media.

to be fair, the people travelling the tournament circuit have always acted like high schoolers

pretty much this...






Grats Cate... you've risen to same intellectual heights as many of Jerry Springer Show's most famous guests in how easily you were manipulated.

Grats Matt... you're creativity and genius in producing entertaining content is now on par with the great Mr Springer himself. Be proud.

Grats Dentale... you've shown that... nah.... Springer Show seems to be right in your lane. you are right at home. Carry on.

Grats NVG Mob eagerly awaiting... you all watch The Jerry Springer Show.

yep, because 2 of 8 million poker players are currently doing it. yet, here we are reading about it. both of you guys probably read the entire thread lulz

really good

jerry springer format could safe the gpl and would be a perfect use for the cube ... it could also generate a 2nd boom #comeonletsdothis

From a train wreck sort of perspective, very entertaining, but I'm pretty embarrassed for both of them.

Cate will obviously destroy Dentale HU in any real sample size.

I have heard from people who played at MD Live that it was known fact that Cate was a huge loser in cash games even accounting for a recent string of run good recently. I've heard that she's rude to a lot of the rec players, sometimes berating them and is constant seat jumping. When people say something she doesn't like she regularly storms off in a huff. I've heard she is not well liked by people at her former home casino and started to play tournaments to avoid playing in deep stack cash games.

Same stories about Dentale, minus the seat jumping, though not as much of a loser in the cash games.

But since she's obviously smart, she's probably improved.