Originally Posted by
DSchles
I agree. First of all, he is averaging $75,000 per game for 15 wins. If 74.5 is the "correct" over/under, and he truly has a 50% of winning 75 games, he would have amassed well over $5 million by that point! So, the 3:2 line (he's the underdog) to beat Jennings seems incompatible with the total.
I also agree with taking the under, but he could go way under and STILL beat Jennings's total winnings, because, at $75K a pop, it would take only 33 games to do that.
Finally, I do think that his aggressive style will eventually be his undoing, but by that time, he will have won a mind-boggling amount. He'll lose when he wagers all on a DD and misses it and/or when he doesn't get all the DDs for himself, which is often the case. The show could "rig" things, to limit his winnings, by putting all the DDs at the bottom of the board, since they know that he always starts from the bottom up, for the very reason of trying to amass more money before he hits one of the DDs. If they put them low on the boards, there's a greater likelihood that he'd have less money when he finds one.
I doubt that you can truly bet on this, as the event is already over, and the results are known by many people. Who would be dumb enough to accept wagers on a past event?
Don
Bookmarks