The "Million Dollar Article" by Jerry Forsyth
- Thread starter CJ Wiley
- Start date
you win some, you lose some and some you don't even get to play.
I'm not sure why it even matters that much, but out of ALL the tournaments in the world, it's only happened once......when you add up ALL the tournament matches you must get in the millions, even in the United States only.
Anyway, it really didn't matter if it was 78,000 to 1 , 780,000 to 1, or 7.8 Million to one the premium would have been the same, they booked it at about 300 to one, so they had WAY the best of it no matter how you do the math. They just really unlucky he did it right away..
We all did looking back. This could have changed the course of Professional Pocket Billiards forever. We had 10 tournaments scheduled and all of them had TV coverage....the "Million Dollar Tour" would could have really been something, with TV coverage EVERY month for an entire year. Oh, well, you win some, you lose some and some you don't even get to play.
Well, Mark, that would be a much easy task to find out. I'll bet it's several orders of magnitude less than 7.8 million tournament matches, though.
Then, you have to look at how many of those matches had races to ten or more. Who knows what Medina might have run if the race went beyond nine games. I think it's safe to say that in all of the history of professional pool there have been nowhere near 8 million matches played. Besides, one would need the data on several times that many matches to get a statistically significant answer.
My guess is that they simply used a readily available B&R tournament percentage taken from a rather statistically small number of tourneys that kept accurate records and ran that for the probability of it occurring during one event (an event being defined as a single isolated attempt by one poayer). From the scanty records I've seen there is usually about a 20% B&R average during the first round of a 9-ball tourney. If they used that figure they would have gotten a number pretty close to 8 million to 1 against it happening.
That would have been a very careless error. Let's use a simple game of Russian Roulette as an example. If we put one round in the revolver cylinder, spun it and pulled the trigger, there would be a one in six chance of dying. If we did it again, the chances would be the same. But if we were told we had to do it over and over again until we did it a hundred times, would we think our chances of dying were still only six to one?
If you factor in all of the matches played during the Million Dollar Challenge, with two players in each match, and the odds of success increase astronomically. I'd guess that given a B&R average of 20%, the chances of one player running a 10-pack during the course of the tourney are between 5-10,000 to 1, depending on the format and the size of the field. Why haven't we seen it at another time? Have there really been 5-10,000 individual 9-ball tournaments with races to 10 or beyond since accurate records have been kept? If not, there's the most likely answer.
I'm not sure why it even matters that much, but out of ALL the tournaments in the world, it's only happened once......when you add up ALL the tournament matches you must get in the millions, even in the United States only.
Anyway, it really didn't matter if it was 78,000 to 1 , 780,000 to 1, or 7.8 Million to one the premium would have been the same, they booked it at about 300 to one, so they had WAY the best of it no matter how you do the math. They just really unlucky he did it right away..
We all did looking back. This could have changed the course of Professional Pocket Billiards forever. We had 10 tournaments scheduled and all of them had TV coverage....the "Million Dollar Tour" would could have really been something, with TV coverage EVERY month for an entire year. Oh, well, you win some, you lose some and some you don't even get to play.
Point of reference: a 64-player double-elimination event played every week for 50 years would amount to about one-third of a million matches.
That's a great point-of-reference.
So if Earl played in a match every week, it would take him 150 years to hit 1 million matches.
And it would take 4200 years to fulfill the 1:28 million odds.
We've only been playing pool for the last 200 years and it has been accomplished at least once.
Was it a fluke or have we clearly over estimated the odds?
I tend to believe the latter.
So if Earl played in a match every week, it would take him 150 years to hit 1 million matches.
And it would take 4200 years to fulfill the 1:28 million odds.
We've only been playing pool for the last 200 years and it has been accomplished at least once.
Was it a fluke or have we clearly over estimated the odds?
I tend to believe the latter.
The insurance company believed the odds were adequate to fund the challenge
The insurance company believed the odds were adequate to fund the challenge....even if there were 12,000 to 1 they probably would have done it.....that's what "hole in ones" in golf are, about 12k to 1.
Just so it's clear, Earl indicated he'd played 8 million games (any of those games could have led to a 10 rack run was what his point was, not literal of course), not 8 million matches. Only Earl would know how much he's actually played,and I'm sure he's played a few million games of pool in his life.....is it 2 million or 7 million? We have no way of knowing, he does practice 8-10 hours a day for long periods of time.
I've probably played 10% of the games that Earl has and I've played quite a bit too.
The insurance company believed the odds were adequate to fund the challenge....even if there were 12,000 to 1 they probably would have done it.....that's what "hole in ones" in golf are, about 12k to 1.
Just so it's clear, Earl indicated he'd played 8 million games (any of those games could have led to a 10 rack run was what his point was, not literal of course), not 8 million matches. Only Earl would know how much he's actually played,and I'm sure he's played a few million games of pool in his life.....is it 2 million or 7 million? We have no way of knowing, he does practice 8-10 hours a day for long periods of time.
I've probably played 10% of the games that Earl has and I've played quite a bit too.
CJ
Is the documentary out now. Because I know I want to buy it if it is.
Is the documentary out now. Because I know I want to buy it if it is.
Er, no, that is not what I said at all. A 64-player double-elimination event has 126 matches.
And one match per week for 150 years would be just 7,800 matches, not 1 million.
[But this is not really on point to what Earl apparently said.]
I'll let you know asap.
We're doing the post production/editing now and it will be out the first of December, we may take some early orders, with some additional incentives. I'll let you know asap.
We're looking forward to the release, I've been holding on to this story for over 17 years and the time has finally come to fruition - doing the interview, and going through the magazines, and legal papers is bringing back a lot of great and not so great memories......it was "almost" pool's biggest breakthroughs with 12 events, (televised) and the biggest prize in pocket billiard's history....oh, well, such is life, maybe the timing was not quite right......although now it my be,
We believe pool's "down-cycle" is fixing to change, of course to make any changes in life we must first be "willing to believe" or change will never occur. "anything the mind can believe, the will can conceive, the Game can achieve"
We're doing the post production/editing now and it will be out the first of December, we may take some early orders, with some additional incentives. I'll let you know asap.
We're looking forward to the release, I've been holding on to this story for over 17 years and the time has finally come to fruition - doing the interview, and going through the magazines, and legal papers is bringing back a lot of great and not so great memories......it was "almost" pool's biggest breakthroughs with 12 events, (televised) and the biggest prize in pocket billiard's history....oh, well, such is life, maybe the timing was not quite right......although now it my be,
We believe pool's "down-cycle" is fixing to change, of course to make any changes in life we must first be "willing to believe" or change will never occur. "anything the mind can believe, the will can conceive, the Game can achieve"
Looks like you guys got over on the insurance company, because there is no way that is an accurate figure on the odds of that happening. I don't know how any pool players could make a dime gambling with such a lack of understanding of basic probability.
If the statisticians were given average B&R stats for several tourneys, they could use those stats to determine the chances of ONE guy with ONE TRY ONLY running ten racks in a row. If the probability of a random player breaking and running a single rack was only .205, then yes, the chances of him being given only one try and having him succeed at running ten in a row are 1/(.205^10) to 1, or 7,628,890 to 1. Sounds good, right?
But there's a fly in that ointment.
There were hundreds of matches occurring that week (maybe you can tell me exactly how many?), with each match having two guys both capable of breaking and running a rack out at any time.
Take, for example, a full field at the U.S. 9-Ball Open. In the first round alone there are 256 players who have a chance at running 10 racks. To get a single success after 256 individual attempts, the chances have increased tremendously.
Now, take the original probability (.205) and ask yourself how accurately that number reflects the best players in the field. If you look at the B&R stats from the 2012 Open streaming table, you can see that on the final day the B&R percentage was 43%. That's not all that much worse than a coin flip. The odds of flipping a coin ten times in a single attempt and having it come up heads ten times is 1 in 2^10, or 1024 to 1. The odds of one guy with a 43% B&R average having only one attempt at running ten in a row are 1/(.43^10) to 1, which is......
4,627 to 1, not hardly 8 million to 1.
lol this is so wrong that it's hilarious.
Or 127.
Last edited:
My dad shot a hole in one on a par 3 course. He was the world's biggest duffer, and that was probably the longest drive of his life, but it went in the hole, with plenty of witnesses. Even made the local newspaper.
Now, if you were to ask anyone who knew my father, they'd say the odds of him getting a hole in one at any point in his entire like were about 7.8 million to one. But he loved to play, and that's the main thing, isn't it? :smile:
Yes, 127 if it is true double elimination, and the finals goes to the second set, and you want to count that second set as a separate match.
you guys are no good at the maths.
the odds were based on someone doing it within the 12 tourneys they were going to have that season...
i believe that many of you think that actuaries are people they find off the street who can pick football games well....lol
i commend CJ for not getting frustrated.
as an example....how many kickoffs have there been in any football game in history at any level?
how many were returned for 100+ yards at any level?
how many have been returned for 100+ yards in the NFL?
how many have been returned for 100+ yards in the nfl for the first 12 weeks of the 1996 season?
all are very different answers
the odds were based on someone doing it within the 12 tourneys they were going to have that season...
i believe that many of you think that actuaries are people they find off the street who can pick football games well....lol
i commend CJ for not getting frustrated.
as an example....how many kickoffs have there been in any football game in history at any level?
how many were returned for 100+ yards at any level?
how many have been returned for 100+ yards in the NFL?
how many have been returned for 100+ yards in the nfl for the first 12 weeks of the 1996 season?
all are very different answers
You are very wise my friend, the game is still their teacher
You are very wise my friend.....the odds were only for one season. You have to admit it's fun seeing all the wild guesses though, they just didn't take into account the key component in the odds making process. 'The Game is still the Teacher'
You are very wise my friend.....the odds were only for one season. You have to admit it's fun seeing all the wild guesses though, they just didn't take into account the key component in the odds making process. 'The Game is still the Teacher'
Great read. I have some of those American Cuest mags somewhere. How cool is that!
Thanks for sharing, C.J.
You are very wise my friend.....the odds were only for one season. You have to admit it's fun seeing all the wild guesses though, they just didn't take into account the key component in the odds making process. 'The Game is still the Teacher'
Oh, I didn't know it was for an entire 12-tourney season. That makes the odds of someone making 10 B&Rs in a row 12 times more likely than if it was during only one event like I assumed. It's like Russian roulette. Play the game once and the odds are 6 to 1 in your favor. Play it a dozen times... better have ordered your casket ahead of time.
Anyway, what's fun to me is seeing how much energy you put into refuting statements that are actually in support of your case. The odds I quoted are only for the likelihood of random outcomes occurring. They were just some numbers ("guessed" at from looking at typical tournament stats that are readlily available these days) plugged into an online probability calculator.
Pool playing, however, is hardly random. Only the table rolls are random, the players themselves and their results vary widely, from day to day, based on their current performance level. You are right, trying to determine the odds that the greatest 9-ball player of all time will or won't run a 10-pack at any given time is futile. When a player like Earl in his prime hits his highest gear, who know's? He may never stop running them. It's no longer a probability issue, it becomes a will and heart issue. Last I knew, these two qualities cannot be assigned a specific number, leading to a major bean counter fail. Which, in a backhand way, is what I've been alluding to all along.
Good luck finishing the film. Count me as a future customer for it.
LOL
gamblers fallacy....i cant tell if you are trolling or seriously trying to argue stats here. play russian roulette 100 times and if you are successful 99 times its still 1 in 6 on try #100. they are independent trials, past performance does not influence future results. but i will digress now, i can be more productive moving pebbles from one spot to another so ill go do that for a while....
