Never bet more than you can stand to lose.
Chess master vs pro poker player with rook odds.
Sort:
I'll bet I can beat the poker player if he's not allowed to have aces.
That's what arrogance brings you :D.
I heard that it was called a sign that he dares to make big gambles blablabla. It isn't, it's just plain stupitidy with arrogance.
There seems to be a lot of interest recently in chess from professional poker players. I would not really expect that to spur any kind of major public boom, at least not until Matt Damon and Ed Norton make a movie about chess, and ESPN invents the "kibitz cam". 
Nonetheless, it's gratifying to see that the best of them recognize the appeal of our game.
Your right cffndncr.... My mistake.
Know this is old but stumbled upon it. To give a little background Tom is every bit as much a hustling gambler as a poker player. It's likely he made the bet at least in part to set up larger future bets in which he would expect to have a large edge. $60,000 is not a very large bet in the circles he runs and it is always good for a gambler to get a reputation as a guy who will give action without having a great chance to win. To give some perspective Tom made a seven figure bet over whether or not another guy would not eat meat products for a year.
Just figured it might be worth trying to give a little perspective to anyone who views it as pure arrogance. A guy like this may be a terrific shooter in basketball. He'll make a $60K bet on the golf course and lose, bet $200K he can throw a football 70 yards and come up well short, bet another $100K he can run a marathon in a good time, and then clean up betting half a million on a seamingly difficult shooting bet that he can't lose. At least something like this almost certainly came into play with this bet or at least the mindset that goes into making bets like this for Tom. It's more a case where he was probably happy to lose and get some reputation than a thing where a typical person bet their year's salary on a chess match because they were so full of themselves and then came short. That's not to say he's not a confident guy who likes taking on challenges just to say the emphasis is a bit different in his circumstances.
acesholdup wrote:
Know this is old but stumbled upon it. To give a little background Tom is every bit as much a hustling gambler as a poker player. It's likely he made the bet at least in part to set up larger future bets in which he would expect to have a large edge. $60,000 is not a very large bet in the circles he runs and it is always good for a gambler to get a reputation as a guy who will give action without having a great chance to win. To give some perspective Tom made a seven figure bet over whether or not another guy would not eat meat products for a year.
Just figured it might be worth trying to give a little perspective to anyone who views it as pure arrogance. A guy like this may be a terrific shooter in basketball. He'll make a $60K bet on the golf course and lose, bet $200K he can throw a football 70 yards and come up well short, bet another $100K he can run a marathon in a good time, and then clean up betting half a million on a seamingly difficult shooting bet that he can't lose. At least something like this almost certainly came into play with this bet or at least the mindset that goes into making bets like this for Tom. It's more a case where he was probably happy to lose and get some reputation than a thing where a typical person bet their year's salary on a chess match because they were so full of themselves and then came short. That's not to say he's not a confident guy who likes taking on challenges just to say the emphasis is a bit different in his circumstances.
I fully agree. He could be setting up his "table image" right now.
Too bad it wasn't Dan Harrington who made the bet.
Dan Harrington vs Tom Dwan in chess would be fun 
acesholdup wrote:
Know this is old but stumbled upon it. To give a little background Tom is every bit as much a hustling gambler as a poker player. It's likely he made the bet at least in part to set up larger future bets in which he would expect to have a large edge. $60,000 is not a very large bet in the circles he runs and it is always good for a gambler to get a reputation as a guy who will give action without having a great chance to win. To give some perspective Tom made a seven figure bet over whether or not another guy would not eat meat products for a year.
Just figured it might be worth trying to give a little perspective to anyone who views it as pure arrogance. A guy like this may be a terrific shooter in basketball. He'll make a $60K bet on the golf course and lose, bet $200K he can throw a football 70 yards and come up well short, bet another $100K he can run a marathon in a good time, and then clean up betting half a million on a seamingly difficult shooting bet that he can't lose. At least something like this almost certainly came into play with this bet or at least the mindset that goes into making bets like this for Tom. It's more a case where he was probably happy to lose and get some reputation than a thing where a typical person bet their year's salary on a chess match because they were so full of themselves and then came short. That's not to say he's not a confident guy who likes taking on challenges just to say the emphasis is a bit different in his circumstances.
Yes, and the chess player should be careful to know his man too. For example, Ken Smith was one of the old school of poker players and also over 2300 USCF. And if Dwan happened to be an unrated player but have say 1800ish strength...well, rook odds may be enough. Basically, betting with these guys is a bad idea unless you are really sure of your ground.
acesholdup wrote:
Know this is old but stumbled upon it. To give a little background Tom is every bit as much a hustling gambler as a poker player. It's likely he made the bet at least in part to set up larger future bets in which he would expect to have a large edge. $60,000 is not a very large bet in the circles he runs and it is always good for a gambler to get a reputation as a guy who will give action without having a great chance to win. To give some perspective Tom made a seven figure bet over whether or not another guy would not eat meat products for a year.
Just figured it might be worth trying to give a little perspective to anyone who views it as pure arrogance. A guy like this may be a terrific shooter in basketball. He'll make a $60K bet on the golf course and lose, bet $200K he can throw a football 70 yards and come up well short, bet another $100K he can run a marathon in a good time, and then clean up betting half a million on a seamingly difficult shooting bet that he can't lose. At least something like this almost certainly came into play with this bet or at least the mindset that goes into making bets like this for Tom. It's more a case where he was probably happy to lose and get some reputation than a thing where a typical person bet their year's salary on a chess match because they were so full of themselves and then came short. That's not to say he's not a confident guy who likes taking on challenges just to say the emphasis is a bit different in his circumstances.
Yes, and the chess player should be careful to know his man too. For example, Ken Smith was one of the old school of poker players and also over 2300 USCF. And if Dwan happened to be an unrated player but have say 1800ish strength...well, rook odds may be enough. Basically, betting with these guys is a bad idea unless you are really sure of your ground.
Or, for that matter as AndyClifton referenced...I do believe Dan Harrington is also rated above 2200 USCF...
Chess and poker are totally differente games. Chess is an intellectual activity, poker is a gamble. I don't see the link.
There is no gambling in poker long term. You get the same cards and the same patterns of things happen to those cards as everyone else over time. The skill is in how you handle your cards, how you handle your opponents while they handle their cards, and how you handle yourself while your opponents handle you. It's a lot of skill. Not quite like poker, but more like than you might guess.
rdecredico wrote:
RCMorea wrote:
There is no gambling in poker long term. You get the same cards and the same patterns of things happen to those cards as everyone else over time. The skill is in how you handle your cards, how you handle your opponents while they handle their cards, and how you handle yourself while your opponents handle you. It's a lot of skill. Not quite like poker, but more like than you might guess.
hahahaha
It's actually best if most people think this. Makes it easier to take their money.
Let's play 500k hands rdecredico
Tony G should have made the bet. He's the world's most irritating pro poker player. Closely followed by that poker pro whose name escapes me who dresses like the unabomber so nobody can see his face.
But seriously if Joe Hachem took this bet Joe would win the bet even if he had to learn how to play chess in a week
Joe Hachem to do it. Or Phil Ivy
K4rbon wrote:
Chess and poker are totally differente games. Chess is an intellectual activity, poker is a gamble. I don't see the link.
As RCMorea put it: "It's actually best if most people think this. Makes it easier to take their money." 
Dwan played ok.You can tell he's not a complete beginner I've seen worse.Also alot of players here probably think they can beat a gm with rook odds, let me tell even if you're 1900 you can't play carelessly. You might blunder/sac a pawn to open a file figuring 'hey im a rook up I can afford to sac" then maybe give up the exchange cause he's got a knight on d6 and all of a sudden he outplays you in a tricky bishop and 3pawns vs rook endgame.Believe me egos can be bruised if you overestimate your ability. It's one thing to be a clear rook up in the endgame and quite another in the opening when there's still plenty of material on the board.
For inexperienced players, Rook odds is not easy to play with. The extra Rook really does not come into play until the late middlegame. It was obvious that this guy was not a strong chess player. He didn't develop his pieces in a organized manner - in game 1 he had both knights on their starting square 11 moves into the game! He also missed some basic tactics, such as discovered attacks along an open file.
Some people might have heard about the poker player who bet he could beat a chess master provided the master started down a piece. Professional poker player Tom "durr" Dwan made a 60 thousand dollar prop bet that he could beat a chess master with rook odds. He could not. Here is game one of the bet.