Treating legitimate points by a poster with disdain and sarcasm is not a good look.

There is still a risk of people being freerolled who have bet on Mike to lose, and Pokershares adopting a margin system as described by me would mitigate this risk/lower the monetary amount of freeroll risk.

Sagedonkey gonna sagedonkey. Maybe time to impose another 100 word limit or whatever it was.

It wasn't a solution. I stated that there was no right or wrong answer. I merely offered a suggestion of how it could be done, how I would do it if I was asked to arbitrate. And I don't see anyone else putting forward an alternative or a better system to that particular backing situation.

Mikey_d, can you maybe just go away now? Not wanting to be mean here, but your extremely long replies to every post is getting to be a little much. Thanks in advance, you have made your perspective unbelievably clear.

No, it's not. But I'll stand by treating a thread with disdain and sarcasm when it was created to suggest a "big being Freerolled risk for backers", relying on little more than your own speculation centered around a Tweet, and later the T&Cs of Pokershares, especially when you subsequently write thousands of words attempting to justify those suggestions, even going so far as to say you were doing a "good and valuable service" for your target.

I will restrict any of my future posts ITT to 50 words or less and don't intend on making frequent posts from now on, albeit this will likely mean me not being able to defend myself from any future attacks on me, which I expect to happen.

I stand by my initial point that there was a big freeroll risk. Over the last ~24hrs the risk of this has most likely reduced due to Mike's answers on Twitter, on here and in the podcast.

This is bogus. He made prior media posts that negate the fictitious risk you speak of.

I said I and others were doing a good and valuable service for people who are betting against Mike. The target as you put it (not a term I would use) is Mike, so your point doesn't make sense.

do we need a non views and gossip for this thread too?

just bc you're OP doesn't mean u have to respond to every post

Not sure how prop bets like this work - can you bet after a month of him starting? He may only be 40% now but I just don't see him not getting to 75-80% after a few weeks to a month (assuming he's practicing everyday for at least a few hours). From there it would be about going on hot streaks to get over the hump. Is he allowed to use a rebounding device or setup to allow balls to roll back to him?

I shoot hundreds of set-shots every time I hit the court. Usually suck in the beginning and after 10-15 minutes start to fully warm-up. There's a time though where every shot is dialed-in and I'll make 15-20 in a row. Normally do 3-point drills where I can't move to the next mark until I hit 10 straight so I'm used to the high % requirements (rebounding myself).

IMO, he'll be in the 70s% range within a couple weeks, 80s% within 1-2 months and from there just needs some hot streaks with lucky bounces to put him into 90%.

Imagine betting against a nitty bookmaker who designed his own bet...

There's some good analysis on the math itt, but I went a bit further and built a random walk simulator to mimic this contest with some additional strategy. The problem with using straight-line probability assumptions is that it implied that Timex knows exactly when to start a winning run or end a losing one (i.e. he knows to start a 90/100 run on the 1st shot or ends losing runs only when he's drawing dead). In reality, there is likely a major advantage or disadvantage to be found in Mike's "reset" strategy.

I tested several strategies just for the sake of argument. Base assumptions (I am in no way saying this is the optimal strategy. I just wanted to try something):

1) Mike resets if he misses the first shot.
2) Past the first shot, Mike resets anytime his remaining FT% needed to clear exceeds 93% (i.e. the floor would be that Mike makes the 1st and misses the next 4, then he'd need to finish 89/95 = 93.6%, so he resets after the fifth shot).
3) The 93% rule is aborted if Mike is within 20 shots of winning. So if Mike is 70/80 and needed to finish 20/20, the 93% reset rule is waived and he keeps going until a miss. I call this the YOLO rule because he's surely wasting plenty of shots but he probably won't make it this far very often, so YOLO.

I tested every free throw percentage from 70% - 90%, 20,000 times each. Here are the win percentages and shots per winning attempt (you'll note that there were no winning simulations at 74% shooting or lower. Not saying that's impossible. Just saying that it didn't happen in the first 20,000 trials):




But I then took this even further and tinkered with rule #1. I tested each FT% where the reset comes after having to make up to the first 10 shots. In other words, if I set the threshold to 5, then he immediately resets if he misses any of the first 5. If the threshold is 10, then he has to make the first 10 to continue. If he makes it out of the initial period only then does he proceed with the other rules. Just to quickly visualize what the results showed:




At a 5 shot reset rule, there are now no winning trials below a 77% shooter. However, the shots per win for a 77% shooter went from 111k in the base case, 96k with the 5 shot reset, all the way down to 59k at a 10 shot reset. Also note that the average shots per sequence (SPS) predictably also goes way down. The 77% shooter averages 14.8 SPS in the base rules, 9.6 SPS with the 5 shot reset, and 6.0 at the 10 shot reset. His win percentage per sequence will go way down but he'd churn losing sequences at a much faster rate.

I could probably go further with testing other ideas, but I've certainly come away with a greater sense that the math supports Timex's side. Of course this is way easier to take millions of shots on a computer than it is in practice. The question really is how quickly he can get up to being a regular 77% shooter. If he can do that by say October, then I think he's way live to beat this by the end of year. But I have absolutely no idea how feasible that is or isn't

Judging by form alone, he’s drawing dead

On the surface, if you were being laid any odds it looks like a good bet. However, Mike is a smart, deliberate, guy who is also a poker player. That means he would never knowingly create a bad bet or a situation he could lose a lot of money. Therefore, it is quite likely he is withholding some information or leveling in some way. Either way, he is rich, driven guy with a lot of money and a lot of time. Bad bet IMO.

From his twitch stream today





Also when asked of his basketball experience he said he played it in gym class a few times

This is such a suckers bet. If you are betting against him, you have no control as to how often he practices or what frequency.

I think most people if they practice enough and with the right motivation could achieve this if they tried a few thousand times. He only has to get 90/100 once.

ding ding ding

He did a another bet years ago where he thought he could beat 500z on stars. Got destroyed, there was no withholding info, no angle. I don't think he's as much of a nit at prop betting as people are saying.

I would like to hear Joey Ingram's thoughts on this prop bet given that Joey plays a lot of basketball and has done many prop bets in his time, so is very well placed to analyse it. A YouTube video on it would be a real treat.

Lol I kinda miss sagedonkeys ridiculous long winded posts.....but ya 100 word limit seems good idea.

Any able-bodied adult can achieve this bet.

There are three ranges to consider. The sum of action against which sits from 0-X. This is the range where you know he can do it, but the money is not enough to make him work hard enough and put in the time and practice to do it. Without knowing his financials, we cannot know X, and this also caps the amount we'd want to bet, since every additional dollar moves him beyond X, into the second range of X-Y. In this range, he has the financial motivation to put in the time and practice and achieve the bet in as timely a manner as possible. Given that it will take a few months of practice to get to a state where he CAN do this, he won't be worrying about harshing his action by not getting enough money down. At some point there is a third range of Y-infinity. In this range the amount of money bet is more than enough to make him consider winning "necessary" but actually too much for him to comfortably practice. This range is the amount of money that makes Timex nervous. Nerves and pressure are the only thing that can keep him from completing this bet if he wants to.
So what is X, what is Y. We cannot know. So if you were in a vacuum, you'd only want to take this bet for a small sum, to keep it from being worth it for him to try. If it's only for a small sum, it's not really worth tying up the money for a 8 month period. The middle range of wagers obviously work against you, as people have already outlined how simple free-throws are to learn and complete at a high %. A large sum wagered requires you to actually be certain that pressure will affect him. Of this you have no guarantee, and while pressure seems a theoretical issue when you imagine the task in your head, you'll find that there is very little pressure when you are actually good at a skill. Surgeons are not quivering. Djokovic is not shortening his swing and hitting the net. Billiards pros are not rattling balls just because they are on tv. Imagining things you cannot do always seems tough. The things you do regularly do not even require thought.
The reason I point this out is because the only path to him completing this challenge is to learn the proper technique, and then practice until the task is completed. There is no route to success that doesn't lead down an easily achievable path. The only investment required is time and effort.
Bringing up past prop bets that he lost is neat, but is one of the biggest flaws in human cognitive thinking and debating. Every event is wholly static, and barring an elaborate history of careless behavior and lack of effort, you have to evaluate this as a standalone challenge. Can he do it? Yes. It's an interesting discussion, but as for putting $ on it, there is literally only "sweat value" (which is the most sinister lie gamblers convince themselves), and the bet is akin to paying someone to do something. Timex is saying "if you pay me I will do this". Bettors are saying "haha ok i will watch it here's money".

Last note, the NBA chart is interesting, but you can be sure that NBA players are not concentrating and trying to make 90/100 when they are taking free throws in practice. They are largely just going through the motions, like MLB players taking batting practice. Professional athletes train very hard, but shooting free throws in the gym is one of areas where they're going to be concentrating the least, outside of a few fairy tale athletes like Kobe/Jordan.

Nice.

I actually wish he had given it to a professional writer before posting because there are some interesting discussion points in that post.

I agree with RP1's take, especially from the Timex side of things. To me, it's similar to the various weight-reduction bets we've seen in recent years. Unless it has an absurd result (in which case, the subject wouldn't offer the bet at all), they are all doable. Winning the bet ultimately just comes down to having the discipline to do it, and having money on it certainly motivates.

From the bettors' side, however, the question isn't just "can he do it," but rather "will he do it," and more specifically, "will he do it under the terms given." A healthy person being able to get to a point where he/she can achieve the feat is a when, not an if. But the "when" is the part that has some doubt, due to the time limit of the bet.

I'm in the camp that likes Timex's side of it, so much so that I would have no interest in betting against him.

But yes, the bettors against him effectively become small versions of Bill Perkins. I remember when Adam Schwartz was doing his weight bet and giving the listeners updates on the 2+2 PokerCast. They had Perkins on as a guest. I can't remember the exact words, but Perkins' take was pretty much what RosaParks1 said: he wanted to see Adam accomplish something, and the money was the price he was willing to pay for it to happen.

I'd bet a lot of money that the first time he gets to 89/99 that he misses the 100th shot. Imo to win his on his first real run he will need to be 89/98, I would also bet against the 99th shot but obv he is a favorite to make 1/2.

I hope it gets to both of those scenarios, that would be a great sweat.

If a mod wants to go in and break up my post with more spacing I wouldn't object. If the tab key doesn't work, I don't bother much with formatting.