Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ The $60 million game, Is it unique to poker

[DaveScharf]

There is bound to be a $60 million of even $80 million dollar six player game filmed in Austalia. The players are putting up their own moey -- or getting a sponsor. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that they are putting up their own dough.

Could this happen in another "sport?"

Presumably, each of these players believes that they are the best. They believe they have an edge. If they are all equal then the chance of winning it all is 16.67%. Given the poker has an element of luck we will move that percentage for the six players to reflect what I think the actual edge might be.

The best player might get as high as 22%
Then, in order 20%, 16%, 16%, 14%, and 12%.

These are great players. Five of them are wrong about their skill, but even the one who is right doesn't have that great an edge. But, they are going to put $10 million in action.

Suppse you approached five basketball players with a skill based tournament. Presumably since there is a negligable effect of luck on basketball, the best player would have a more substantive edge. The actual percentage distribution might be:

60%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 4%

I have a feeling, though, that poker players are MUCH more likely to put their money into the game then basketball players.

Is this because poker players are gamblers? Or because the consistantly overate the effect of luck?

[QKiLL]

QUOTE: "I have a feeling, though, that poker players are MUCH more likely to put their money into the game then basketball players.

Is this because poker players are gamblers? Or because the consistantly overate the effect of luck?"
*****

1] No other "sport" makes it's players PUT UP MONEY to play ,... as a matter of fact, they are paid in advance. So this creates a mindset, within the players, not to "gamble" ,..... and why should they?

2] BUT, you have individuals [I think Michael Jordan] who would gamble on ANYTHING ,..... he would take piece of a 10 million $ FOUL SHOT contest, winner take all.

And, I theorize, that BOXERS and GOLFERS would be much more likely to "gamble" ,..... as they are not team dependent sports. They believe, as POKER PLAYERS, that they "control" their own destiny, despite "luck".

And that gets back to luck - some days "MJ" can make 35/50 ,.... other days 45/50. Barring injury, why??? Not luck, I presume.

I can play poker, and have a great chance to beat "MJ" ,... never could I compete anything in his sport ,....

Do athletes, and their physical prowess, replaces "luck", to some degree.

LUCK is the great equalizer ,..... I think.

Sorry Dave, not any answers, just random thoughts and comments.

[mbh316]

I think it is at least a little bit of both. No matter what some people say, poker players are gamblers. We don't always take huge risks, depending on each person's style of play, but we all gamble. Have scientists discovered a gambling "gene" yet??
I think the action of putting up your own money to even compete in the activity separates poker from other sports. A person could put up money to compete in a game of basketball or golf, but you HAVE TO put up money to compete in poker. Otherwise there is really no point. Having money at stake is an intergal part of poker. Not so for other sports.
In response to the question about players overrating the effect of luck. I think most player do, myself included, at times. I heard a pro say one time (I think it was Chris Ferguson) that in the long run, skill is the determining factor, but in any individual hand, luck determines the outcome.
So to answer your questions--I don't know. It is funny to think that the basketball player should be more willing to put up money, but the poker player would be. I love it!!
Great inquiry, Dave. What do the rest of you think?

[Rags2Riches]

Luck is the motivater behind money being put on poker. The reason no one will put money on a free throw contest against MJ is because there is less variance at a free throw then a poker hand, or a poker game. Phil Ivey once said "My sister could beat me in poker one day, and she doesn't even know how to play." With that being said, we know that it is a bad move in EV to play Phil Ivey heads up, but some people might think of it as "Well anything can happen, it's poker" Not so in most sports.

[zach jiganti]

Luck is the motivater behind money being put on poker.  The reason no one will put money on a free throw contest against MJ is because there is less variance at a free throw then a poker hand, or a poker game.  Phil Ivey once said "My sister could beat me in poker one day, and she doesn't even know how to play."  With that being said, we know that it is a bad move in EV to play Phil Ivey heads up, but some people might think of it as "Well anything can happen, it's poker" Not so in most sports.

Absolutely true. In other "sports", amateurs simply cannot compete with the likes of the professionals because there is very little luck involved. If Tiger Woods played an amateur golfer (let's say a guy with a ten handicap) in a game of 18 holes of golf, he would win 100 times out of 100. If they played only one hole, he probably win 98 or 99 times. If they both hit one drive, Tiger would probably hit the longer one 95 times out of 100. In golf, and other physical sports, there is little luck, much unlike poker, where the game is widely at the mercy of the deck.

[mkpoker2]

Semi-hijack. First, yes. It could happen in any other sport in which the participants are rich enough. I doubt there's been a private golf game so rich, but it's possible. Second, for God's sake stop calling poker a sport! Any game which can be played the optimum level while simultaneously drinking a beer and chain-smoking isn't a sport!

Finally, I'm going to play a bit of the doubting Thomas and will posit that the player have an agreement between themselves to cut the stakes, through some kind of save agreement. I don't believe these player have $10 M sitting around they can blow without severely affecting bankroll.

[DaveScharf]

Second, for God's sake stop calling poker a sport!

You will note that I call poker a "sport." I do not believe it is a sport.

The more I have thought about this the more I conclude this:

In poker, A, B, and C each believe they are the greatest player on the earth. And, because of the element of luck, the are VERY convinced that they are because luck makes it really hard to prove one way or the other. So, when asked to put up the money, they REALLY believe they have an esge.

In basketball, A, B, and C each believe they are the greatest player on the earth. But, since there is no luck they are not keen to put themselves in a position to find out since there is a tiny little bit of doubt in their minds.

[wayne_84]

Second, for God's sake stop calling poker a sport!  Any game which can be played the optimum level while simultaneously drinking a beer and chain-smoking isn't a sport!

As a Canadian we play a sport all the time where people do this.......

What is this sport.......curling.

[wlgolfpro]

As a Canadian we play a sport all the time where people do this.......

What is this sport.......curling.

In the United States we call it bowling or golf depending on the season.

[telfordtart]

In the United States we call it bowling or golf depending on the season.

In the UK we call it Darts and in the close season Pool and Snooker!

[JLenart]

Dave,

Poker players are more likely to put up their own money than basketball players simply because thats how poker always has been.

But here's the thing. I doubt any single player will be putting up his/her entire buy in on their own. I'm just about certain that anyone who buys into this tourney will be putting up some of their own cake but they will also have numerous backers. The buy in is just too much to risk on your own.

Poker greats are also great money managers and they all realize that $10MM is too much for one to risk on their own.

There is bound to be a $60 million of even $80 million dollar six player game filmed in Austalia. The players are putting up their own moey -- or getting a sponsor. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that they are putting up their own dough.

Could this happen in another "sport?"

Presumably, each of these players believes that they are the best. They believe they have an edge. If they are all equal then the chance of winning it all is 16.67%. Given the poker has an element of luck we will move that percentage for the six players to reflect what I think the actual edge might be.

The best player might get as high as 22%
Then, in order 20%, 16%, 16%, 14%, and 12%.

These are great players. Five of them are wrong about their skill, but even the one who is right doesn't have that great an edge. But, they are going to put $10 million in action.

Suppse you approached five basketball players with a skill based tournament. Presumably since there is a negligable effect of luck on basketball, the best player would have a more substantive edge. The actual percentage distribution might be:

60%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 4%

I have a feeling, though, that poker players are MUCH more likely to put their money into the game then basketball players.

Is this because poker players are gamblers? Or because the consistantly overate the effect of luck?

[casino_help]

I have a feeling, though, that poker players are MUCH more likely to put their money into the game then basketball players.

Is this because poker players are gamblers? Or because the consistantly overate the effect of luck?

its my view that poker players would be more liekly to put up the money, not just because that the nature of the poker world (risk takers) but in other sports such as basketball it is far easier to see the lines of skill. you can easily tell in sport if someone has more skill than you, whereas in gambling, skills not 100% of the deciding factor. with top players its far harder to tell if someones more 'skilled' than you.

[Andrew W]

I just remembered the first time I saw televised poker, well before I even considered playing the game, or had any concept of how a tournament worked. This was probably at least 8-10 years ago. All I knew was I switched onto ESPN where some people were playing cards and there were bets like $50,000. I thought they all came with that much cash to the game. Really had no clue what was going on.

Ten grand is still a lot to me, but knowing the prize pools, it's a good bet in my mind.

But $10 million, with "only" a $60 million prize pool? One in six shot at winner take all? I cannot wait to see what 6 players take this on. If I were putting together this table, it would be:

Eric Seidel
Doyle Brunson
Johnny Chan
Phil Hellmuth
Jen Harman
Scotty Nguyen

I could see Ferguson and Lederer in this league, but I don't see them taking those odds.

[wlgolfpro]

I just remembered the first time I saw televised poker, well before I even considered playing the game, or had any concept of how a tournament worked. This was probably at least 8-10 years ago. All I knew was I switched onto ESPN where some people were playing cards and there were bets like $50,000. I thought they all came with that much cash to the game. Really had no clue what was going on.

Ten grand is still a lot to me, but knowing the prize pools, it's a good bet in my mind.

But $10 million, with "only" a $60 million prize pool? One in six shot at winner take all? I cannot wait to see what 6 players take this on. If I were putting together this table, it would be:

Eric Seidel
Doyle Brunson
Johnny Chan
Phil Hellmuth
Jen Harman
Scotty Nguyen

I could see Ferguson and Lederer in this league, but I don't see them taking those odds.

No way Hellmuth is putting up his money to play against that lineup. Hell he won't even sit down with them in Bobby's room.

[Iolaus]

No way Hellmuth is putting up his money to play against that lineup.  Hell he won't even sit down with them in Bobby's room.

Yeah, take away Hellmuth and add Ted Forrest. Ted is sooo underrated.

[losetoabadbeat]

put daniel neg in there, he is likely to gamble and barry
ted forrest is so bad at poker.
jen harman is too poor to play that amount

[wlgolfpro]

put daniel neg in there, he is likely to gamble and barry
ted forrest is so bad at poker.
jen harman is too poor to play that amount

Forrest has the same leaks that TJ Cloutier does, but to say he is bad at poker is really not a very intelligent statement. I don't know if any of them have a bankroll to put up $10m on a 1 in 6 shot. Daniel was playing those heads up matches for 100k for awhile and there was talk that it was above his bankroll.

[Rags2Riches]

put daniel neg in there, he is likely to gamble and barry
ted forrest is so bad at poker.
jen harman is too poor to play that amount

I agree with u on DN and greenstein.

Ted Forrest is one of the most successful players out there, as well as harmon. As for the level of stakes, both played in Andy Beal's big limit game of 100,000/200,000 stakes. So the buy in is the equivelant of 50 BB at the highest level they have played. If anyone is qualified to play at these stakes, these 2 should be included.

To agree with WL, saying that these 2 are bad and poor are very unintelligent statements.

As for DN's heads up matches the minimum challenge is $100,000 and the max is $500,000. To add to the stakes, you can challenge him at 9 different games. I have not checked his website in a while, but last time I checked, his hourly rate from these is in the thousands. That's crazy.

[QKiLL]

A couple comments:

Back in the late 60's, golf tried some HU matches, such as Nicklaus VS Trevino ,....

This had never been tried on TV, and was almost a novelty, until viewers saw the purse for the winner [it was "huge" for purses, back then]. It smacked of gambling, EXCEPT the players didn't put up money, SHELL Gasoline did. Well, people couldn't believe how cool, calm, and collected they were on the course ,.... playing for ALL that money ,..... it was great TV!

Then, somehow, it got out, that the two-somes playing every weekend had agreed to chop the purse, BEFORE THE FIRST TEE. It never aired again.

20 years later, they tried the Skins Game, which still isn't much of a hit.

NEXT:

I have been a Reds fan since I was an infant [Crosley Field] ,.....

When PETE ROSE was first rumored to have gambled on Cincy while managing, I had a revelation --- DON'T PAY THE MANAGERS - MAKE THEM BET ON THE TEAM. That's their only stipend. [but you have to bet ON YOUR TEAM, there would be a minimum amount, and it would be made public]

Same format for the players ,..... no salary - you get paid by the single, double, homer, etc. Extra bucks for DP's, stolen bases, SO's [lose a little for walks] or any play that makes SPORTSCENTER [I just thought of that].

Big bonus's [boni ?] for .300+ AVG, AllStar Game, etc.

OR pay one guy a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS to play shortstop.

[wlgolfpro]

I agree with u on DN and greenstein.

Ted Forrest is one of the most successful players out there, as well as harmon.  As for the level of stakes, both played in Andy Beal's big limit game of 100,000/200,000 stakes.  So the buy in is the equivelant of 50 BB at the highest level they have played.  If anyone is qualified to play at these stakes, these 2 should be included.

To agree with WL, saying that these 2 are bad and poor are very unintelligent statements.

As for DN's heads up matches the minimum challenge is $100,000 and the max is $500,000.  To add to the stakes, you can challenge him at 9 different games.  I have not checked his website in a while, but last time I checked, his hourly rate from these is in the thousands.  That's crazy.

In the big game they all played Andy heads up with POOLED money from each player in the conglomerate. Not sure how many there were, 6 to 8. I my understanding is that at one point Beal almost busted them. So, again $10m would be more than any of them would put up. I would, after more thinking put Andy Beal on the list of people that would play in this game. Probably one or two from the conglomerate, and not sure after that.

Maybe I could win a spot online in a $10 satellite with a million players.