He says he would do it without coaching although I have no idea how you possibly police that. Charlie has vods on his youtube channel of him playing 500z from within the last year




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS26lYZRD-E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNAZGZkc1qE


I would say with his playstyle that he also uses during his micro bankroll challenge and his years of having a strange vendetta against solvers it would not be in his plans for this

This is how I see it. Charlie gets **** on by MMA in a stream while beating $.50/1 in a 10k speed run. He comes up with a bet that says he can win $.01+ playing 500z. A guy responds and says any moron can beat 500z, when I like 90% of people can't, including some very good players. He crapped all over them. Then he says I will bet you 100k+ that you can't beat it by more than 2bb/100, which isn't the bet that was offered, he didn't need to comment at all. By inserting his comment he perhaps killed action for other people that wanted to bet the line charlie wants because he made it seem that beating it by 1bb/100 is easy. So, his comment was WAY out of line, in multiple ways. So he deserved all the minor **** he got for that comment and he deserved potentially way more.

ymmv

Indeed i was thinking the same thing. First thing i thought was anyone who feels the need to proclaim how easy 500z is can't beat 5nl.

That's a bit of a stretch. More likely the guys who can't beat 5nl think it's because 5nl is solid.

likely reduces chance of the bet. i don't mean to make fun of the deceased, but this isn't radically different from Mark sitting alone at denny's waiting for hu. if you are crazy enough ppl won't do business.

Watched one of his streams to see how he plays. He's a fish reg at best and his game is all over the place so no wonder MMA wants a piece of this action.

Charlie would get buried at 500z. I'm confident he couldn't beat 100z over a large sample.

You got these sentences backwards. Must be a Charlie fanboi

lol this

and also lol @ z500 being easy

People who think that Charlie is the one that comes out of this looking bad are delusional

posted on twitter but imo by far the best method for such a bet is to cross-book, i.e. allow charlie (or ppl bullish on charlie) to buy x % of him at an agreed mark down/up (could be 0). this way it is very clear to both sides what the winrate the player needs to make the action +/- ev. for example person a thinks charlie wins at less than 1bb, person b thinks over, then person b could pay 1bb/100 to buy any amount of action

problem with bets/sample sizes is that it becomes more a "battle" of the terms of the bet, e.g. who can calculate the math behind the bet more (e.g. the value of being able to fold into the money if already up) and other lame stuff, rather than the 'spirit of the bet', which imo is clearly if the player is good/bad (relative to the game/handicap, if any). or which of the players are better at strategising for bet ev. we have seen that different players are better/worse than that, clearly, in previous challenges such as polk/galfond/etc.

so if ur goal of betting is to "out bet" ppl with terms, fair enough (esp if both sides think this) but if you wanna bet on how good/bad player is def go with xbook.

there are other benefits too, time isnt as much of an issue (dont have to play x amount in x time, dont have to be tilted waiting for player to play or not), can easily settle anytime (can ofc agree in adv how many hands min or quitting clauses).

in general with few exceptions i think the ppl who say 500z is tough, slightly overrate the toughness, partly cause of the reputation of it (and this compounds)
but the ppl who think it is "soft" with few exceptions (e.g. top hs regs saying this, where its true relatively) are 99% either clueless or they have won at soft higher games, so dont realise that z500 stars toughness >>>> 5k on usa sites or 5k on private apps or live games or 2k stars 6 years ago or w/e.

Maybe dumb question but how can you make sure a friend of his isnt in the pool and donates to him like 5 buy ins or something over the course of the challenge?

Typically there are judges for such a bet who are allowed to access players HHS. In the past at least one person has been caught cheating in this method fwiw. Similarly there are typically clauses where bettors can’t play themselves (unless they already play regularly maybe)

That being said, imo if u have doubts the person who do such a thing then a bigger concern is stuff like no coaching allowed.

The size of the 500z pool tells it's own story. All recs get eaten up in a short space of time. Most regs that move up from 200z move back down to 200z pretty shortly afterwards.

It's a tough pool.

Its more likely he can beat 500z than not. I'd take the bet at evens. Not saying I think its guaranteed, but if he plays at the right times and the requirement is he needs to be up one BB in AIEV after 50k hands. Gets a lot more unlikely over a bigger sample and bigger winrate requirement, once the pool adjusts to some of his unorthodox lines.

As annoying as he can be, he's a smart **** that can probably beat those games. If you watch Ginge streaming 500z, you see enough recs donating to mean a tiny win rate is possible for a smart player that knows how to hammer recs.

Charlie is tired of people talking trash about his poker ability so says he can beat a game that these same people have always claimed is extraordinary tough.
He puts his money where his mouth is and is willing to bet 6 figures.
The same people now claim the game is easy and anybody can beat it, therefore he has to achieve a certain winrate for them to bet.
Somehow 2+2 twist this into Charlie looking bad.

Really man, there's WAY better ways to make money online than doing this. I think when you're in the Poker bubble you just don't realise that sitting grinding 30+ hours a week for $75-100k a year isn't that great of a life at all.

Yes, it would be so humiliating not to know Carrel's story; perhaps he can request his post be deleted.

Are they?

I don't know if it's easy or not, but if it is, that seems to be a pretty reasonable requirement, doesn't it?

It's a ****ing amazing life.

Classic GazzyB one tuu trii xD

Like what? Genuinely curious.

If I could make my current take home pay, adjusted for holiday pay and pension, I'd happily swap my 60-hour weeks. As an experienced bean counter, the ideal would be part-time grinding with 1-2 days consultancy work per week to balance the risk and smooth out the poker variance.

You could make the argument that guys good enough to make $75-100k a year playing poker are not optimizing their skill set or lifestyle, but if you are insinuating that it is objectively or comparatively average then I can only assume you have lived in a cushy ****ing bubble your entire life. The average wage in the UK is £32k pre tax, obviously somewhat lower for people of the usual poker playing age.

As much as the job plays a large part in the quality of life of any working person, how you choose to spend the time in between has a huge impact as well. The idea that 500z grinders playing 30 hours a week are homogeneous is obviously a flawed one. On top of that, people do not derive utility in a uniform fashion. What may appeal to one will often be anything but appealing to another.

Or perhaps more simply put; give it a rest fella

Only reply worth reading in the whole thread. Gazzy!

Yup.

And what's even more screwed up is that some streamers are getting far more rakeback from the chests than others.

So Stars are able to adjust chest rewards based on marketing potential.

Hearing 55% rakeback for some.

The only thing Charlie Carrel consistently beats is himself, off.

So you guys are always criticizing Charlie but don't put the 200k where your mouth is it seems...

Also want him to put significant volume but wanted to back off playing 50nl with 10evbb in significant volume. Bunch of Pusy guys as limitless would say