Running prop bet

Running Bing

Any poker fans will probably be familiar with Huck Seed and I thought his latest prop bet might be of interest.

He's 40, 6 foot 7 inches tall, makes his living sitting at a poker table and he's just bet 2 grand (very small by his standards it must be said) that he can run a 4:39 mile.

More info here:

http://www.poker-prop.net/news/propbet-huckseed-mile-1687.html

http://news.parttimepoker.com/2009/03/31/huck-seed-i-can-run-a-439-mile/

Personally I dont think he has a chance but it would be interesting to follow.:D

shels4ever

Running Bing wrote: »

Any poker fans will probably be familiar with Huck Seed and I thought his latest prop bet might be of interest.

He's 40, 6 foot 7 inches tall, makes his living sitting at a poker table and he's just bet 2 grand (very small by his standards it must be said) that he can run a 4:39 mile.

More info here:

http://www.poker-prop.net/news/propbet-huckseed-mile-1687.html

http://news.parttimepoker.com/2009/03/31/huck-seed-i-can-run-a-439-mile/

Personally I dont think he has a chance but it would be interesting to follow.:D

not a chance.

Lex Luther

I agree it is unlikely but given his past PB and experience and the time he has to dedicate to the task the odds against wouldn't be as high as 33 to 1 I think. So at that stake its a very good bet from Seeds point of view.
I wouldn't give him anymore than 10 to 1.
LL

limerickleader

I dunno, if he were willing to train for 9 months, it's not as long as a 33/1 shot. 4x70second laps and he has it nailed, no bother...

Depends on his motivation though, the article says he's only put $2,000 down...so he stands to win $66,000...By pro poker standards, that's probably not a whole amount.

Although, by pro T&F standard, that's great money...

Racing Flat

I think he has a good chance. Considering he has run 4.38 before and his brother ran 4.13.

shels4ever

Racing Flat wrote: »

I think he has a good chance. Considering he has run 4.38 before and his brother ran 4.13.

Just seen that now, i'll have to change my reply.

Irishathlete_1

Would he be drug tested? Serious question. If he juiced he could quite probably do it with the right training

Krusty_Clown

The question about drug testing was asked already, but again, with only a $2k stake, would it really be worthing taking performance enhancers? No gold medals at stake here, just half an hour's worth of gambling money. Don't forget, he quit 3 hours into his last 18 hour challenge. He's got 9 months of quitting time for this challenge. Interesting to see Brunson thinks he could do it.

shels4ever

for 66k i'd prob give it a good shot myself anyone willing to offer me that to run sub 5

myflipflops

Wow, he's getting 33/1 on what is maybe a 2/1 shot.

If he is doing any form of running or aerobic work that keeps him reasonable fit then he has a great chance to do it. A (relatively) young, physically fit male should have no problem knocking out 69's or 70's for 4 laps.

Screw it, I'm about 4 stone overweight but give me a year and 33/1 and I'll do it!!

Running Bing

pwhite587 wrote: »

Wow, he's getting 33/1 on what is maybe a 2/1 shot.

If he is doing any form of running or aerobic work that keeps him reasonable fit then he has a great chance to do it. A (relatively) young, physically fit male should have no problem knocking out 69's or 70's for 4 laps.

Screw it, I'm about 4 stone overweight but give me a year and 33/1 and I'll do it!!

What do you run for the mile now?

Its a lot harder than it sounds, you just have to look at the results from masters competitions. These are guys running their whole life who are good at what they do and they are'nt running much faster than that (a lot of them wouldn't be 6'7either).

myflipflops

Running Bing wrote: »

What do you run for the mile now?

Its a lot harder than it sounds, you just have to look at the results from masters competitions. These are guys running their whole life who are god at what they do and they are'nt running much faster than that (a lot of them wouldn't be 6'7either).

I ran a 3.56 1500 a fair while ago (and a lot of weight ago!!). The reason i think that he has a good chance to do it is that there is no real speed ability needed to run a mile at this pace. You just need to be in shape to do so. If Huck Seed already runs 2/3 times a week (even just a couple of miles) or goes to the gym regularly then 6 months of specific training could definitely get you there. I'm not saying he WILL do it and i believe it's more likely that he won't but at 33/1, it's a big piece of value!

Running Bing

pwhite587 wrote: »

I ran a 3.56 1500 a fair while ago (and a lot of weight ago!!). The reason i think that he has a good chance to do it is that there is no real speed ability needed to run a mile at this pace. You just need to be in shape to do so. If Huck Seed already runs 2/3 times a week (even just a couple of miles) or goes to the gym regularly then 6 months of specific training could definitely get you there. I'm not saying he WILL do it and i believe it's more likely that he won't but at 33/1, it's a big piece of value!

So if you took a poster of here, average 40 year old male (discounting for a minute the fact that 6 foot7 is not average) who runs for fitness a half hour three times a week you reckon you could have them running 4:39 by next January?

The problem I see with this is that the person cant get injured so first your going to need to gradually increase the days they are running, then you'll need to increase mileage, then you'll need to gradually introduce speedwork and faster running, that all eats into six months and I just could'nt see it happening.

up to now I've bee assuming mile means a mile and not 1500. 1500 might happen but I cant see the mile happening.

Lex Luther

I think everyone is agreed that this would be unlikely but not absolutely impossible. The only debate is about HOW unlikely. Personally I wouldn't bet against him at 33 to 1 because I dont like the odds and the payout to me wouldn't be worth the risk. (The converse arguement is why its a god bet for him in my opinion).
If he offered anything below 5 to 1 it would definately be worth a punt - because of my relative poverty I wouldn't take it at 10 to 1 even though I still think its a good bet at those odds.
LL

myflipflops

Running Bing wrote: »

So if you took a poster of here, average 40 year old male (discounting for a minute the fact that 6 foot7 is not average) who runs for fitness a half hour three times a week you reckon you could have them running 4:39 by next January?

The problem I see with this is that the person cant get injured so first your going to need to gradually increase the days they are running, then you'll need to increase mileage, then you'll need to gradually introduce speedwork and faster running, that all eats into six months and I just could'nt see it happening.

up to now I've bee assuming mile means a mile and not 1500. 1500 might happen but I cant see the mile happening.

No, i presumed the mile too (1609 meters).

I think it's possible to train the described person to run a 4.39 mile in that time frame depndant on current fitness. I am of course presuming a certain level of current fitness and also a familiarity with running (thus decreasing the likelihood of injury greatly). One of my main reasons would be that i reckon basically no real speedwork would be necessary. 70 second laps aren't particularly fast. I would guess that if the time required was 10-15 seconds quicker, the challenge would become close to impossible even witn a much larger time frame.

Maybe the wrong reason that I think this isn't a far fetched as others is the age factor. Admittedly, I have no real idea what a 40 year old male would be capable of and am possibly just getting into the mindset of dealing with somebody in my own age range. I am making the (potentially very wrong) assumption that due to the relatively slow pace required, the 40 year old isn' at a significant disadvantage to somebody 7-10 years his junior.

Running Bing

pwhite587 wrote: »

No, i presumed the mile too (1609 meters).

I think it's possible to train the described person to run a 4.39 mile in that time frame depndant on current fitness.

Well Im in my early 20's, I run the mile in 5:16 and if you could get me running 4:39 by January you'll be my friend for life:D

Honestly though looking at my own training I plan to get my mileage up to 60 mpw over the winter with some pretty tough sessions (2-3 sessions a week and a 15 mile long run) and I would'nt be expecting to run that fast by January (and thats after a summer of doing a lot more than three short jogs a week;)). Maybe Im just naturally crap (Im certainly no stud) but I cant imagine the average 40 year old male could be that much better.

On the flip side its the equivalent of about a 2:40-50 marathon. That requires no natural speed but look how hard that is to do.

myflipflops

Running Bing wrote: »

Well Im in my early 20's, I run the mile in 5:16 and if you could get me running 4:39 by January you'll be my friend for life:D

You could definately get your time down to 4.39 with the right training. I guess that most coaches would agree with me (I amn't a coach, just a geek!).

In my opinion, with distance running, a persons talent only becomes a factor when you get to a certain point. Whether you are potentially the most talented miler this country has ever seen or just a normal runner, you will have the potential to get sown to running a 4.40 mile or a 4.20 1500.

Running Bing

pwhite587 wrote: »

You could definately get your time down to 4.39 with the right training. I guess that most coaches would agree with me (I amn't a coach, just a geek!).

In my opinion, with distance running, a persons talent only becomes a factor when you get to a certain point. Whether you are potentially the most talented miler this country has ever seen or just a normal runner, you will have the potential to get sown to running a 4.40 mile or a 4.20 1500.

Oh I agree with you 100% there. I have absolutely no doubt that I am capable of running 4.39 I just dont feel 6 months is a realistic time frame to accomplish that without taking on excessive injury risk. (and like I said Im young,have some experience and I am certainly not 6 foot 7 inches tall:P).

shels4ever

Running Bing wrote: »

Oh I agree with you 100% there. I have absolutely no doubt that I am capable of running 4.39 I just dont feel 6 months is a realistic time frame to accomplish that without taking on excessive injury risk. (and like I said Im young,have some experience and I am certainly not 6 foot 7 inches tall:P).

I would say an average male should be capable of sub 5 with 18-12 months training , but then again how many average men want to run 2 miles, it seems the the marathon is the primary goal for people. I told people in work i ran 2 mile in under 13 mins, but they are still more impressed with a sub 5 hour marathon.. (i'm not)