So if 55 people give proof, you're out $57,000. But so confident that isn't the case you're willing to take that risk.

Wow. This is getting juicy. I think Don Juan would cap at 50 people since 50 would lost the bet. The $1k incentive is predicated on StinkyPete and Don Juan coming to agreement on terms and escrow.

lol, offer a bet that's in the same universe as the claim i made and i'll consider booking it

Oh, DonJuan. Que la chinga estas haciendo?

Don't think 2k is worth your time so give me the max amount you willing to give.

The prop: Over 50 players made +1 mill 2004-2007 at 50:1 odds. Players make money from lhe and use those money to invest in stocks. Poker+Equity= made over 1 mills. Doesn't have to make money from stock obviously. Proof w tax return and hhs from sites. If site no long exist I can take PTR.

I am sharing wealth Stinkypete is multi-millionaire and he giving back and obviously yes it cap at 50.

edit: There probably 30 guys that can proof. Something like 2:1 odds.

2004-2011 is 7 years. There must have been > 50 people that averaged 143k per year playing LHE during that timeframe. That doesn't seem like a particularly high income. I would assume the number of people that made that playing live was > 50.

I was basically a rec that only played live and my hourly would have gotten me there if I thought it was a good use of my time to grind poker.

proving it is a whole other story I guess, otherwise I would take that bet.

Edit: anyone that interested to take his side pls pm me

exactly. for every person that can prove they made a milly via tax returns and hand histories, there's probably another 100 who did who couldn't easily prove it.

This is certainly correct

How about you guys give me 20:1 odds on over 50. I will provide taxes return and hhs forward by sites. I love how the people that saying it under or over dont even negotiate odds. This is like the one time that people scream no way XX team can beat XX team. Then you jump in "alright give me 10:1 odds." ."Nah bro I don't want to take your money." It espcially funny considering the guy seem super rational. "You guys should all retire by now since loading up on stock at 04 through 12 at xx rate would of give you xx return."

At least negotiate it ok it not set in stone by Moses. I can refuse but I won't make excuse I will just say no thanks it not worth that price.

Honestly this is so convoluted that it’s hard to follow. But I think what people are saying to you is that yes - it’s probably the case that there are over 50 people in the world who made $1M+ from LHE + return derived from investing those winnings. But the point that SP is making (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is that it’s a sucker bet, because you are never going to find 50 who are going to give you the data to prove it (if your burden of proof is their hand histories + their tax returns).

Does that help to clarify?

- HF

Exactly. Estimating that at least 50 people who achieved that level of success exist is not even close to the same as claiming that I can find 50 people who are able (and willing) to prove it.

Most people don't have their hand histories from seven computers ago. Most people didn't win all their money online. Most people don't have tax records from 15 years ago, if they even owed tax on it. Most people who have that much money aren't going to go out of their way to provide that level of private information for only $1k.

If you want to offer a serious bet I'll gamble, but lol @ calling me out for refusing action on a level of proof that's <1% to happen even if I'm right.

That is why i am offering you guys a counter bet. Give me 20 to 1 on over 50 mills. Min 20k. I will find these guys w tax infor and hhs. There no such things as a bad bet only bad odds.

Stop. No mas. Fin.

I know this is going back a few pages but wtv it's my first post since reactivation. I was a fish during most of the boom. I blew college loan money on deposits to Party, hoping to eventually intuit whatever elusive skills I lacked (this worked for me in the past with Go and Gin so it was my 'formula.') At some point I realized for sure that poker was a completely different animal, so I read, studied, reviewed my HHs and all that good stuff. By the time being a winner in SSLHE AND SSNL was on the horizon, Party closed. Of course the subsequent learning curb was tough (as it was for many of us) but ultimately it wasn't until 2008 with FT and Stars that I could really say with confidence that I was a winner. Relating this seemingly pointless story to the prop bet being discussed? Well, my first (out of very few) million dollar years were made possible because of collosal losses in the past. The price of learning to play. Shouldn't this count? Shouldn't this bet only apply to someone who's had quite a few net 1 mil + years? I'd say it should only apply to be people who are 'there' and have been there for some time. None of us can say our first true successes were unrelated to our development. We were all losing players once, right? (Albeit some for a much much shorter time then others)

Is take that if we had a more relaxed standard of proof then tax returns. Maybe even some guesswork. It's easy enough to get gross wins. Do that, and apply the SD of the person's bread and butter game, and if we roughly know their volume that year, there's an educated guess. Ok that's real sloppy and flawed for many reasons, but my point is the standard of proof expected in the vet right now is just too much, and many 1 mil +/year players couldn't provide it. If they can't, those of us on the action here can't either. So I guess an easier standard of proof and I'd take you up.

So what you are saying is that beside me paying people 1k to help the side I am betting against. You guys now want easier standard of proof. Why don't you guys give me your bank information I will wire over 50k right now.

Alright I have some milk money I am willing to gamble with since you guys seem really nitty. 1k max bet. Give me 100 to 1. My odd only increase by 1% chance of winning. I won't need taxes information. Only HHs forward from stars/full tilt. 50 players from 2004-20011 made over 1 mils from online lhe. Find me within 3 months. I won't be giving out 1k to proof your side though.

Willing to risk over 50 and now it's down to 1. That just speaks to how sure you were that your previous proof requirements were impossible to meet by conventional methods. And as for taxes, maybe I missed this, but is the million after taxes or before?

No anyone dumb enough to offer 50 to 1 at 98% need win rate surely wouldnt mind 100 to 1 since it only 1% more.

You do realize I am willing to take the opposite bet right? Give me 20 to 1 and I will proof there are over 50 players with taxes return.

I caught that, but I'm more inclined to the initial bet (although I won't offer 100 to 1. Yeah, it's 1% more but the law of diminishing returns has it's effect, and that one percent more makes up more then 1% more of my BR. Again, is the mil before or after taxes? if you're really requiring tax returns, the mil should be before. Donyoue tax returns accurately represent your net? Mine don't. That's the nature of capitol gains as opposed to W2. I guess I'm saying what every ele on this thread had already been saying, that your standard of proof doesn't justify to odds (which is obvious as you're laying them)

Say somebody doesn't make proper use of rakeback and write offs. Does his net mil then not count? What about somebody who spent most of the year in make up, and 400k went to their backer? Still a net mil in winnings, no different then if they paid off all their debts come years end. How do tax returns show that?

How does the opposite bet work anyhow? You obvoously arent betting that you could find 40 players who made less. Anyone could do that. You're betting on whoever takes your odds falling short? That's essentially just 'double down.' so how does the counter bet work exactly?

Wait, after this year's WSOP, you're dead money on this. The ME, One Drop, and PPC pay at least a mil to every final table finisher. Several events pay more then a mil for 1st and 2ns, ànd some even 3rd. Add to that the WPT coming back to the Bellagio, and that's several more prizes of over a mil. And high stakes side game both there and at the Arya during these tourneys. Too winners in any on if those games would end up over a mil even if they'd been in the red all year beforehand. Add that the the usual suspects, and it's a sure thing.

I'll take the Nets to win the NBA championship at 100 to 1. But if you don't like those odds I'll offer the opposite bet. Give me 20 to 1 and I'll take the field.

Whoa I TOTALLY missed the initial description of the bet that includes that investment aspect. Damn, and Im almost willing to take the exact same odds for those years with it being PURELY POKER. HONESTLY, I couldn't say if the trading element really changes the equation. Not that many poker players speculate that I know if, and those who do so so ina more typical middle class family way like bank insured mutual funds. Even if I'm very wrong and lots of poker players trade, I'd still rather take the bet for poker winnings only. Day trading has such high variance computers generate trends in the neighborhood of 70 standard deviations and no amount of diversification affects this. What else could it be? Bond trading? Common. This is almost as bad as saying 'x amount of poker players used their winnings to shoot craps. Poker + even money on the pass line made a 50 millionaires!"

Really, I'll take your 50 to 1 on just poker winnings, or another competitive card game of mostly skill like Gin or contract Bridge (neither is played regularly for high enough stakes anymore). I'll take 50:1 for those years mentioned if you lower the standard of proof. Tax returns are not necessary to learn one's yearly net, and can also paint an incomplete picture. There are easier ways to prove a players net win. Chose one and I'll take your action.

Except I didn't randomly offer "But I'd still smash over 50 and lay 50:1 if you only count money won from LHE and the returns from investing that money directly."

But yes pls keep offering these. I will be randomly sitting until something else dumb comes up.