7.8m to 1 Odds

Black-Balled

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Does anybody have any idea how the odds CJ claims came to be?

CJ Wiley said:
is the odds 7.8 Million to 1 to play again? Hmmm, I'll take that bet.



...it was 7.8 Million to 1 that Earl would run 10 racks in a row for a MILLION and we all know what happened.......
Click to expand...

I Would Not Be the Mosconi Cup Captain Again! - UNLESS...............

I had a great time being the Mosconi Cup Captain in London last year. We came within one match of winning and went up against "all odds" getting into that position. imho We could see the first day that we were "outrunning the nutz" in the Mosconi Cup....the "deck" was stacked against us in...
forums.azbilliards.com
 
Black-Balled said:
Does anybody have any idea how the odds CJ claims came to be? ...
Click to expand...
I think CJ said that the company insuring against the occurrence of 10 in a row, or a local college professor, told him that the odds were 7.8 million to 1. If that is true, then I think they did some poor figuring.

Suppose you had some event with a 20.45% probability of occurring on every trial of the event. Maybe think of rolling a highly biased die that, because of some quirk of production or some "doctoring," has a 20.45% probability of coming up with a six, and every roll is independent of the others. Well, then the probability of rolling a six 10 times in a row would be .2045 to the 10th power, which works out to odds of 7.8 million to 1 against that occurring.

But the pool situation was not like that, even if we assume a 20.45% probability of a single-game break-and-run. The early matches in that tournament were to 15, not 10. So the players had multiple opportunities to run 10 in a row in each match. And the event had many matches, not just one. And the plan was to have multiple events on CJ's new Professional CueSports Asssociation tour, not just one tournament. So the opportunities for running 10 racks in a row some time on that new tour were far more than one, reducing the odds against it happening to far less than 7.8 million to 1. It would also be questionable to assume that the probability of running each rack in a match is independent of what has already happened in the match. For example, the pressure might get a little high in that situation once you had run 6 or 7 in a row.

Anyway, we do not really know how the 7.8 million to 1 odds were determined, or even if that really was the insurance company's determination in setting their price. But if you were to ask in advance of that tournament, what are the odds against Earl doing it in his first inning of his first match of the first PCA event, the answer would have to be pretty darn high.
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
I think CJ said that the company insuring against the occurrence of 10 in a row, or a local college professor, told him that the odds were 7.8 million to 1. If that is true, then I think they did some poor figuring.

Suppose you had some event with a 20.45% probability of occurring on every trial of the event. Maybe think of rolling a highly biased die that, because of some quirk of production or some "doctoring," has a 20.45% probability of coming up with a six, and every roll is independent of the others. Well, then the probability of rolling a six 10 times in a row would be .2045 to the 10th power, which works out to odds of 7.8 million to 1 against that occurring.

But the pool situation was not like that, even if we assume a 20.45% probability of a single-game break-and-run. The early matches in that tournament were to 15, not 10. So the players had multiple opportunities to run 10 in a row in each match. And the event had many matches, not just one. And the plan was to have multiple events on CJ's new Professional CueSports Asssociation tour, not just one tournament. So the opportunities for running 10 racks in a row some time on that new tour were far more than one, reducing the odds against it happening to far less that 7.8 million to 1. It would also be questionable to assume that the probability of running each rack in a match is independent of what has already happened in the match. For example, the pressure might get a little high in that situation once you had run 6 or 7 in a row.

Anyway, we do not really know how the 7.8 million to 1 odds were determined, or even if that really was the insurance company's determination in setting their price. But if you were to ask in advance of that tournament, what are the odds against Earl doing it in his first inning of his first match of the first PCA event, the answer would have to be pretty darn high.
Click to expand...
You took the words right out of my mouth>😌
 
Poolhall60561 said:
Insurance companies rarely place bad bets.
they have a whole stable of people like AtLarge that understand probability and risk.
and then when they lose, they fight like hell not to pay out
Click to expand...
The insurance company certainly put up a good tussle to avoid paying Earl. I think the problem was that no one in the insurance company understood pool, or at least not how the matches would be played.

Another factor that reduces the odds is that in a case like Earl's, the shooter figures to have a total lock on the match and will shoot at shots he might otherwise duck, especially if he is on a 4-pack.

And Earl made more than one nine ball on the break.
 
If anyone would lay that price against Earl running 10 back then, they would lose a ton of money.

Fast forward to today, on full pockets. Earl is still a great bet getting that price to break and run 10.

Idk what the right price would be, but it’s at least 10X less than 7.8M.

$780,000 to my $1 , I’d pay Earl $1000/day to play and chop 50/50 with him every time we win. He could out run that right now. One good day he might do it 2-3 times in one day.

7.8M to 1 😂😂😂 sure

They don’t know Earl
 
I wonder what the premium for the coverage was. I'd guess several thousand. From the actuary's viewpoint, and for a lump sum payment amount of maybe $600,000, that would cover tens of thousands of attempts, assuming the 7.8M odds were correct.

There are companies that specialize in hole-in-one insurance at golf. One I found seems to offer coverage for about 3% of the cash value of the prize, depending on conditions of the tournament that is running the promotion.
 
all you have to know is the chances of running just one rack while trying at all costs to run the rack. then bring it to the tenth power.
5th grade math for the math hindered.

if for instance it was even money then the chances would be 1023 to 1. a little short of millions to one.
 
AtLarge said:
He said he ran 10 racks just once before that, in 1979. And I haven't heard of it since then. So that would be twice in maybe 50 years or so of playing. Must be hard to do.
Click to expand...
But strategy changes when their is 1 million possible. In 50 years, there was only one time that a million was on the table. Every other time, Earl might have played better odds to win the match by playing safe.
 
SlateMan said:
But strategy changes when their is 1 million possible. In 50 years, there was only one time that a million was on the table. Every other time, Earl might have played better odds to win the match by playing safe.
Click to expand...
You're saying Earl played safeties in the 70s, 80s, and 90s?;)
 
AtLarge said:
He said he ran 10 racks just once before that, in 1979. And I haven't heard of it since then. So that would be twice in maybe 50 years or so of playing. Must be hard to do.
Click to expand...
He said the month before the event he practiced nonstop, brushing the table, cleaning the balls. He put in an extreme effort.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I wonder what the premium for the coverage was. I'd guess several thousand. From the actuary's viewpoint, and for a lump sum payment amount of maybe $600,000, that would cover tens of thousands of attempts, assuming the 7.8M odds were correct.

There are companies that specialize in hole-in-one insurance at golf. One I found seems to offer coverage for about 3% of the cash value of the prize, depending on conditions of the tournament that is running the promotion.
Click to expand...
I had a friend buy a policy for a perfect NCAA bracket which is super long odds. It was WAY more expensive than you mite imagine, I can’t recall the price. Since I never make things up, I won’t guess at a price but I know it was over $75,000 and less than $150,000. I remember that much. The odds were insane anyone would hit it.

Was with a insurance firm in NYC that specialized in that product “hole in one” policies
 
Fatboy said:
I had a friend buy a policy for a perfect NCAA bracket which is super long odds. It was WAY more expensive than you mite imagine, I can’t recall the price. Since I never make things up, I won’t guess at a price but I know it was over $75,000 and less than $150,000. I remember that much. The odds were insane anyone would hit it.

Was with a insurance firm in NYC that specialized in that product “hole in one” policies
Click to expand...
If I understand the math properly, if you are 75% to pick the winning team in each game, which would be amazing, you are a little better than 1 in 75 million to have a perfect bracket. I know a lot of people play those but most of them are way below 75%.
 
tomatoshooter said:
If I understand the math properly, if you are 75% to pick the winning team in each game, which would be amazing, you are a little better than 1 in 75 million to have a perfect bracket. I know a lot of people play those but most of them are way below 75%.
Click to expand...
It was over a billion to 1 for a perfect bracket, I think the final 4 you had to pick perfect scores as well. It was crazy high. He had to have the policy to satisfy regulatory requirements. Zero chance anyone would ever hit it.
 
They also didn’t know that he would be playing with clean balls. I watched the documentary and Earl obsessed about cleaning the balls while practicing and every rack he was cleaning all the balls. I have a two platter diamond polisher and I polish the balls and it’s so much easier to make them when they’re clean and of course less skid.

But the biggest factor which I’m sure has been mentioned is that people don’t play safe like they normally do with that kind of incentive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top