The "Million Dollar Article" by Jerry Forsyth

markgw said:
But that wouldn't be under the heat of professional tournament conditions. I'm sure the tournament atmosphere was factored in their calculation. Locking someone in their basement on a home table with no outside pressure or distraction would be a complete differen't set of circumstances, which I am sure would increase the odds....Earl did this in a professional tournament stop with a million dollars hanging in the balance. The pressure of shooting that combination on the case 9 the length of the table that was a foot from the pocket, is something I doubt any pro could handle, but him.
Click to expand...

Of course, no one is disputing that fact. The point has been made several times, however, that the insurance company made a realistic risk assessment before quoting an insurance premium based upon that risk, and that that risk was determined to be 7.8 million to 1 against anyone running 10 racks in a row.

Actuaries are rather anal retentive digit heads by default, and they ALWAYS base their estimates on actual numbers derived from existing data. How on earth would they ever come up with a "Tournament Pressure Factor" to compute this unknown without simply using some arbitrary number? Can anyone demonstrate a specific risk factor of, say, "5.689" as the established difficulty factor related to tournament play?

7.8 million to 1 is a very specific number and it was not pulled from thin air. Every factor that could in any way affect the outcome would have to have been given to the underwriters before the policy was issued. I can't see any actuarial service just guessing at any of these numbers. They must have been provided by the industry itself because I doubt they are to be found in any existing tables. So, what were the numbers fed to the underwriters, and how exactly we're they determined? It all sounds very fishy to me, and I'm sure that is part of the reason the insurance company refused to just hand over the dough without a fight.
 
this is a forum and the use of hyperbole is fairly common.

TX Poolnut said:
Thanks for the attempt at clarity. Do you think I don't know what the word means? I appreciate it anyway. lol

I understand that you're trying to generate sales. I completely understand. And I don't mean to derail your momentum. If the trope you prefer to use is hyperbole, by all means, knock yourself out. My only suggestion was that it cheapens your descriptions by not being genuine in your descriptions. You were there. You witnessed it. Telling the world it was the greatest thing since sliced bread (figuratively speaking) does nothing to describe what you actually witnessed. It just makes people roll their eyes.

So when is this thing coming to fruition? I'm ready with my credit card. :)
Click to expand...

That's cool, this is a forum and the use of hyperbole is fairly common.

I didn't call that quote from Earl Strickland hyperbole. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. You will fail everytime friend. As far as I know, Mr. Strickland has never used hyperbole to describe his accomplishment, but you have.
Click to expand...
 
the odds of him doing it had absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit,

Sloppy Pockets said:
So, what were the numbers fed to the underwriters, and how exactly we're they determined? It all sounds very fishy to me, and I'm sure that is part of the reason the insurance company refused to just hand over the dough without a fight.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'll put your mind at ease, the odds of him (or anyone) running the racks had absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit - completely irrelevant....it was not even mentioned.
 
CJ Wiley said:
I'll put your mind at ease, the odds of him (or anyone) running the racks had absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit - completely irrelevant....it was not even mentioned.
Click to expand...

Well, you wouldn't expect them to come out and admit they effed up right there in court, would you? ;)
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
No, that's all part of the statistical chances of breaking and running any single rack. After all, making a ball on the break and getting a clear shot on the next ball in rotation usually leads to a runout when players of this caliber are in dead punch.

On the last day of the 2012 U.S. Open 9-Ball, Shane made the wing ball 23 out of 23 times. He scratched twice, so running a 10-pack was not possible, but his break was certainly dialed in to the max.
Click to expand...

No? You're looking at breaking and running a single rack. I'm not multiplying that by a factor of ten. I'm looking at making a ball ten times in a row. That alone rarely happens!

Best,
Mike
 
Jay Helfert racked the last few breaks and he tried very hard

Mikjary said:
No? You're looking at breaking and running a single rack. I'm not multiplying that by a factor of ten. I'm looking at making a ball ten times in a row. That alone rarely happens!

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

You're right, and Earl wasn't making the corner ball every time like Shane does. And Jay Helfert racked the last few breaks and he tried very hard to "hold him" on the rack.
 
Everything's Bigger in Texas

TX Poolnut said:
Yes, it's very common. Too common among some. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, you know what they say. ;)

everything-is-bigger-in-texas-camiseta-de-kaitlyn-kaitlynwwe.jpg
 
Mikjary said:
No? You're looking at breaking and running a single rack. I'm not multiplying that by a factor of ten. I'm looking at making a ball ten times in a row. That alone rarely happens!

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Define "rarely". The U.S. Dept. of Health defines a rare medical condition as 1 in 2500. 1 in 7.8 million is a lot rarer. Over 3000 times more rare. Think about that.
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
Define "rarely". The U.S. Dept. of Health defines a rare medical condition as 1 in 2500. 1 in 7.8 million is a lot rarer. Over 3000 times more rare. Think about that.
Click to expand...

Rarely...not really cooked and kinda red in the middle? to_grill.gif

I realize the 1 in 7.8 million could be in that...hyperbole ballpark, but playing experience tells me it's a fairly large number. Not many current pros are capable of doing this especially under pressure. These are real world factors that I think need to be included in the formula.

You hear about a 200-300 ball run, but how many failed attempts came with them? 3531a34faafcd3d5ab8749a94f57319e.gif Years ago when I played 14.1, I had about a dozen centuries. Sometimes I would play every day and go for 3-4 months without having one. Then I would get a couple in a few days. The balls laying good or the pressure...I don't know. I do know playing 9 ball, if I make a ball on the break 5 times in a row, my nose is open!

Best,
Mike
 
Last edited:
Sloppy Pockets said:
Of course, no one is disputing that fact. The point has been made several times, however, that the insurance company made a realistic risk assessment before quoting an insurance premium based upon that risk, and that that risk was determined to be 7.8 million to 1 against anyone running 10 racks in a row.

Actuaries are rather anal retentive digit heads by default, and they ALWAYS base their estimates on actual numbers derived from existing data. How on earth would they ever come up with a "Tournament Pressure Factor" to compute this unknown without simply using some arbitrary number? Can anyone demonstrate a specific risk factor of, say, "5.689" as the established difficulty factor related to tournament play?

7.8 million to 1 is a very specific number and it was not pulled from thin air. Every factor that could in any way affect the outcome would have to have been given to the underwriters before the policy was issued. I can't see any actuarial service just guessing at any of these numbers. They must have been provided by the industry itself because I doubt they are to be found in any existing tables. So, what were the numbers fed to the underwriters, and how exactly we're they determined? It all sounds very fishy to me, and I'm sure that is part of the reason the insurance company refused to just hand over the dough without a fight.
Click to expand...

That would be interesting to know how they came up with a specific number to calculate the odds of doing it. Because there was no record of anyone running 10 racks in a pro tournament, had to be a factor. How they got that exact number, who knows??? I have never heard of it being done in a pro tournament before or since though, so how many games is that:-). I have heard of 9 rack runs twice, one by Medina and one by Morro. Of course the Archer's 13 rack run gambling with Busty in Toledo. I actually saw the table Archer did that on in the 90s, he signed it...I also heard Francisco beat him 2 out of 3 sets in that match up...
 
11 racks would have been even more than 7.8 Million to 1!!!

markgw said:
That would be interesting to know how they came up with a specific number to calculate the odds of doing it. Because there was no record of anyone running 10 racks in a pro tournament, had to be a factor. How they got that exact number, who knows??? I have never heard of it being done in a pro tournament before or since though, so how many games is that:-). I have heard of 9 rack runs twice, one by Medina and one by Morro. Of course the Archer's 13 rack run gambling with Busty in Toledo. I actually saw the table Archer did that on in the 90s, he signed it...I also heard Francisco beat him 2 out of 3 sets in that match up...
Click to expand...

Johnny won the first set and Francisco won the second one, (but offered to double the bet on second set - Johnny declined). When someone runs that many racks it's virtually impossible to do it again, that's why Bustemante wanted to double the bet. imo

What's so amazing about Earl's run is certainly the 10 racks, although I think it was strange that he ran the 11th one.....and come to find out he had to.....go figure that one out, so the odds of 11 racks would have been even more than 7.8 Million to 1!!!
 
Since talent and skill is at the heart of this "statistical" debate let's look at it from another view.

Suppose that it was statistically improbable that anyone of the 6 billion people on this planet could throw a football 100 yards.

Therefore it is at best 6 billion to one that even one person might accomplish the feat if it could be done.

If there was anyone who could throw a football that far, then it would likely be a professional quarterback.

If a professional quarterback was able to accomplish this feat just once in 10000 attempts, is it really 6 billion to one.

Isn't it really more like ten thousand to one since clearly only those who possess the talent have a real likelihood of accomplishing the task and it was accomplished one time in 10000.

I only throw this correlation out for consideration because I suspect they conducted their statistical analysis based on data that was not limited strictly to professional performance standards. If they had they would have realized their number was way to large.

After all, we have numerous examples of pros running 5 consecutive racks or more. What are the odds of stringing together 2 consecutive runs of 5 racks.....or 2 runs of three and a run of four. At the pro level the number may be high but certainly not the outrageous number the bean counters placed upon it.

It's like pool......string together three consecutive sets of three ball runs and you've run a rack of 9 ball.

Ask yourself this....what are the odds of a pro player running 3 balls in a row and doing it 30 times consecutively. That's 10 racks. There are probably some pros who do it in their sleep. Given the number of times the 9 is pocketed early then the pro may only have to perform this task 23 times.

One aspect that makes the odds higher is that we can't guarantee that a ball will be pocketed on the break and that's where I think the consistency of the racker influenced the outcome.
 
Last edited:
markgw said:
That would be interesting to know how they came up with a specific number to calculate the odds of doing it. Because there was no record of anyone running 10 racks in a pro tournament, had to be a factor. How they got that exact number, who knows??? I have never heard of it being done in a pro tournament before or since though, so how many games is that:-).
Click to expand...

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.
 
The "Triple Crown" - win three PCA Tournaments $30,000

rrick33 said:
Since talent and skill is at the heart of this "statistical" debate let's look at it from another view.
After all, we have numerous examples of pros running 5 consecutive racks or more. How difficult is it then to string together 2 consecutive runs of 5 racks. At the pro level the number may be high but certainly not the outrageous number the bean counters placed upon it.

It's like pool......string together three consecutive sets of three ball runs and you've run a rack of 9 ball.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The difference between running 5 and 10 is like the difference between making one, "hole in one" in golf and two of them.....it's a vast difference.

I've ran a lot of racks and I've only run over 10 once in my life.....I've ran 9 on a few occasions....there's something about "10" that is extremely difficult.....so many things have to go right, making a ball on the break, getting a shot on the 1, and having a runnable rack.....etc. - Willie Mosconi, Ralph Greenleaf and even Efren Reyes have never run over 9 racks.

I had three other "challenges" insured as well:

1) 8 Racks in a row won $25,000
2) 9 Racks in a row won $50,000
3) The "Triple Crown" - win three PCA Tournaments $30,000

These were on top of the 10 Racks in a row for the Million Dollar Annuity.....so there was a lot of momentum going to develop if Earl hadn't won the biggest challenge on the first day.

I won the tournament, so if I had won two more (out of 12) PCA tournaments I would have picked up an additional $30,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top