Earl and the truth about the "Million Dollar Challenge"

T

texasexpress

Guest
The truth about:
The " Million Dollar Challenge" where Earl ran the racks.
I, Robin Adair and Jay Helfert were the tournament directors at the event at CJ's.
The stipulation in the ( payment ) rules were instituted by the insurance company underwriter: SDS ... as follows:
the last 5 racks had to be racked by a neutral racker and filmed/taped. The reason Earl had to run 11 racks is that the tournament format was "rack you own" and he simply would not stop at 5 .. and racked his own at 6 and ran out; then, I forced him to stop by stating that he would have to run 11 and Jay Helfert then began the racking for racks number: 7,8,9,10 & 11 ( the last 5 racks ); and the filming/taping began.
Every spectator and every player in the event witnessed .. as tournament play completely halted when it became apparent that Earl had a chance to complete the run.
I assure you that nothing was rigged in this event .. particularly the tables .. they were all triple shimmed crowns with new Championship tournament grade cloth.
The reason for the delay in payment to Earl was due to lack of communications between the following 2 parties; The Marketing Continuum ( the PCA hired them as their marketing company ); and: SDS underwriters.
The insurance had been "bound" pursuant to Texas State Law, but the insurance company wanted to fight .. but in the end settled with both Earl and the PCA.
Incidently, in order for SDS to underwrite the event .. statistical information had to certified as to how difficult running 10 racks in tournament play would be; that information was provided by the PHD and Department of Statistical information at the University of Texas and his/their department concluded that the odds were 1 in 6.5 million attempts.
By the way .. Earl was playing Nick Mannino in the match and the final score was 15-1.
If you ( readers' ) bad information came to you via the rumormill about this event .. then you can use this information in the future to inform others that this is the real-deal about the "Million Dollar Challenge".
Lastly, Earl had an option ( when this was settled with SDS ) to accept either the annuity ( $50k per year x 20 years ); or, a lump sum settlement ( of the principle ) .. which was less ( in total ) to the annunity .. he accepted the lump sum payment.
John McChesney
CEO
Texas Express
 

blud

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks John, Good post,

I was wondering how long it would be, before you steped in and defended all parties invloved.
Thanks for the truth.
god bless
blud
 
F

fti

Guest
haha. I can just imagine the faces on the people from SDS when Earl potted that last ball.
 

jjinfla

Banned
I now imagine that all the people who posted about Earl and this challenge in a negative way will now be prepared to eat some humble pie. Since Earl took the lump sum a lot of people were quick to assume that something was wrong and that was why Earl just "settled" for less. But that is the common practice in lottery winners. they can take a lump sum which is considerably less then if they take it spread out over 20 or so years. But it is good to have it finally cleared up. Jake
 

justnum

TesticularCancer Survivor
Silver Member
Delay in payment

Sanctioning bodies have difficulty ensuring the terms of tournament are carried out, for insurance purposes.
 

paksat

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
should have took the annuity.. looking at it I didn't even think twice
 

justnum

TesticularCancer Survivor
Silver Member
should have took the annuity.. looking at it I didn't even think twice

It makes sense if a person has outstanding debts. And needs the cash in a hurry.

Ever see the movies where gangsters "rough people up" to give them incentive?
 
Last edited:

cleary

Honestly, I'm a liar.
Silver Member
Earl had an option ( when this was settled with SDS ) to accept either the annuity ( $50k per year x 20 years ); or, a lump sum settlement ( of the principle ) .. which was less ( in total ) to the annunity .. he accepted the lump sum payment.

OH BOY! what a pool player!
 

DallasHopps

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I wanted to post in the 9 year old thread, too, so my take on the lump sum vs. annuity:

I would take the lump sum. It's considerably less than the annuity, but the odds of me enjoying the lump sum in it's entirety are better (and in my opinion, significantly better in Earl's case) than the odds of me sticking it out for the whole 20 years. Pool players in general have irresponsible streaks that make them prone to fast cars, chemicals, and innumerable other potentially death-rendering situations.
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
Oh, is this thread 9 years old? I hadn't noticed...

Sure is timely, since there is a thread wishing Earl a happy birthday today. What a great idea, bringing this thread back on Earls birthday.

What?

Really? It isn't?

Oh. My bad. I guess I'm just confused.
 

JDB

Idiot Savant
Silver Member
I wanted to post in the 9 year old thread, too, so my take on the lump sum vs. annuity:

I would take the lump sum. It's considerably less than the annuity, but the odds of me enjoying the lump sum in it's entirety are better (and in my opinion, significantly better in Earl's case) than the odds of me sticking it out for the whole 20 years. Pool players in general have irresponsible streaks that make them prone to fast cars, chemicals, and innumerable other potentially death-rendering situations.

The reason to take the lump sum instead of the annuity is a smart decision if you can invest wisely. The theory goes, you can take the lump sum and invest it and, with interest, make much more than the annuity.

The annuity is "cash basis", they pay you the sum of the annuity over a long time period without interest. Most mutual funds could provide a much better return than the lump sum.

However, with the stock markets over the last 4 years, nothing is guaranteed.

I would take the lump sum, myself.
 

dabarbr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where did they get these odds of 1 in 6.5 million attempts? With today's players these odds wouldn't hold water.
 

ironman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where did they get these odds of 1 in 6.5 million attempts? With today's players these odds wouldn't hold water.

i don't think they would either but think the odds would be higher. i can't remember i saw anyone stringing racks together. I think if todays players had to go for 50 consecutive balls they would go into some sort of seizure.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Where did they get these odds of 1 in 6.5 million attempts? With today's players these odds wouldn't hold water.

If the probability of a B&R is .208 (20.8%) for every game, the odds of running 10 in a row are approximately 1 in 6.5 million.

According to a study by Phil Capelle, Earl was well above 21% B&R in the 90's, but can you imagine how the pressure would affect a normal pro as the game count mounted toward the magic 10 (or 11)?
 

thrash attack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If the probability of a B&R is .208 (20.8%) for every game, the odds of running 10 in a row are approximately 1 in 6.5 million.

According to a study by Phil Capelle, Earl was well above 21% B&R in the 90's, but can you imagine how the pressure would affect a normal pro as the game count mounted toward the magic 10 (or 11)?

Using your b&r probability the odds of earl making the 11th rack was just over 1 in 31,500,000

Edit: finishing the entire set not one rack
 

wahcheck

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
the legendary Earl

I have said this before; this was one of the greatest feats in pool history.....
and along with his early display in the Hong Kong Color of Money match with Efren, the many instances of 5, 6, and 7-pack runs against professional tournament competition, there is no doubt he is one of the greatest if not the greatest 9-ball player in history. But I guess you already knew that.
 

TSW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I once read somewhere that Earl had a large number of 9 balls on the break in that run. Something like 5 out of the 11 racks. Can anyone confirm that? That certainly would change the odds, especially in a "rack your own" format.

Also, on the lump sum vs annuity payout: If you take the annuity, you're subjecting yourself to credit risk of the entity guaranteeing the payout. How many entities are still alive and kicking 20 years later? They may have certain protections, such as segregated assets, but you're still taking on counterparty risk that you don't have if the money is in your account.
 
Top