Yes I would pay for $1.5k if he gets 10k games plus 37.9% EV ITM for $500

I can bet $600 @ 3.5:1

Booked.

I'm betting against him he needs to finish with these results

10k Games
37.9% EV ITM

Correct?

update?

Correct so we just need an escrow.

Good luck. Will be interesting to follow!

I can escrow if you guys want.

TDS is correct the challenge is for +10k games +37.9% EV ITM. I decided that I will need a few more days to prepare for this so I am rescheduling the start of the challenge until January 10th. Also NO I am not quitting hu hypers for spins after the prop bet is over I will go back to my normal grind.

Interesting, gl sir!

We don't need an escrow, jeffrey didn't know my sn on Stars. Thanks though

Still willing to take on more action if anyone else is interested.

I will. My 200$ to your 700$ is ok? Me betting on him to make it

8.00% ev roi at 5% rake is 68.42 ev chips per game with 37.89 evitm (unless im mistaken)

if you guys are betting on this you should have your figures exact

and id think the against is a pretty solid bet even in a typically soft month but im sure the op feels he has reason to make the wager

subbed

GL

sorry buddy, but u'll definately fail

In for the ride

im very much with you in that estimation, ainec



but, if this is the direction poker is headed.... its even sadder if he doesnt fail



if hes somehow sick enough to manage to generate $24k in ev in a month at sick volume..... there will be 20 dudes around the world who aspire to do the same

and that is well more than it would take to make it impossible for anyone to be able to replicate what he is attempting ever again

^ Very short sighted, jeeze.

If he does it, there will be 200 dudes that try it, and like 4 that succeed.

When Moneymaker won, it wasn't like "oh man, no!!!! now there will be tons of great people that try to play MTTs and MTTs will die, damnit!"

It was like "yessss, making these MTTs more popular will result in way more money in them."

Sure, some of the old pros that didn't adjust did worse as a result, the game does always evolve, you cannot freeze improvement. But the people that worked hard made out like bandits due to the popularity.

This challenge is good for poker, especially if he wins. People are hesitant to play this game because certain people were saying how this game was pure luck and automatically horrible for poker when it came out, despite having no real evidence to back that up.

It's the less intelligent people that buy into that crap, and the less intelligent people that stay away from the game due to that.

If Rush Limbaugh tells people to stay away from being CEOs of companies, do you think intelligent people are going to stop trying to be CEOs?

I'll admit I was hesitant at first, but I didn't have info one way or another so I stayed quiet, had no opinion of value. And sure, there's always a concern for the future of a game, but the answer is not to "stay quiet and try to freeze improvement." That does.... not... work... ever. The answer is just to work smarter, to adjust to new times. The answer wasn't to try to freeze hyper improvement, it was to be ready for the next opportunity and maximize the current one as long as you could (turns out it's on 4 years and counting for hyper husng, when many pros predicted it would quickly kill husngs, and it did the opposite). Maybe spin and gos are the next opportunity, we'll see. They look quite good right now.

Nice reply! Subbed!

I'm interested, 200$ on him against your 700$!?

responding only up to this point so far, since we find ourselves here often consistently disagreeing...

if you can answer these questions that would highlight why (possibly change your mind and/or mine):

how much ev are you making off a fish/game on average in spins?
how much ev are you making off one of the 200 additonal regs you hope get added to the player pool in lieu of having a fish there?


and perhaps more pointedly, how much ev are you making or losing to the 20 guys who get v good at the format that you see day in day out that i originally imagined being a bad thing


not so random fact for the day: the first 27 chips of ev you generate per game pays the rake*

So that's the way you argue right? Saying that the opposition is less intelligent because they have a position on something? That's called attacking the person and not the argument, it means you automatically lose.

Good day sir.

the following is currently and forseeably a true statement

you do worse if we play the same spin and go than you do on average

there is no amt of work you can do to improve enough for that statement to become false, (the player base can be made tougher, but you cant improve your results vs me enough to make me preferable to a random seat fill)


you need to make 27 chips a game to pay rake, and what you make beyond that is what leads to (theoretical) profit and ev winrates (at volume) are capped at some level yet to be agreed upon


how is it you want me in that seat with you instead of someone you have a decent (relative to that 27 chips in rake that needs to be covered) edge on?

No, I wasn't talking about riverrat's statement in the bold.

Many visible people said that spin and gos were the death of poker, pure gambling and not profitable when they came out.

They howled and circulated petitions and stirred trouble.

I am saying that they had no evidence, and it's the less intelligent poker players that are going to follow the visible people that spout aggressive stances without evidence.

It's not about people disagreeing with me (those people stating things without evidence at the time weren't opposite of me, I had no opinion either way at the time).

Now that we see guys doing very well at these, we can at least factually state that they are currently quite profitable.

We can certainly speculate that they will become less profitable, but history shows us that nobody really seems to know anything as far as consistent future predictions (myself included.)

TLDR, people that spread negativity without evidence are more likely to be taken seriously by less informed players. Spins are currently quite profitable. Nobody likely knows if they will get more or less profitable and by how much. Unpredictable things like country legislation has proven time and again to matter so much when it comes to liquidity/profitability.

In short, I would say to look at the history of other games to at least balance your fear.

I can't guarantee you that these won't get reg infested and die. But I would argue that if they do, the game wasn't very deep and wasn't going to last long anyways.

But if they are like hyper HUSNGs, or turbo HUSNGs, players actually got better AND the games got more profitable. The reason had to do with popularity, the games got more popular and the regs improved faster and had many more new players to feed off of. That lasted years.

Also, I meant that 200 would try it, not 200 regs specifically. Many bad players will foolishly try to replicate the heroes in these games. Some will succeed with hard work, talent, whatever else goes into making a winning professional. But many will try to take short cuts, will hope to succeed without hard work, etc. That's dead money.