|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On September 07 2014 02:58 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 01:39 itsjustatank wrote:On September 07 2014 00:34 sc2isnotdying wrote:
A couple of notes: A system like this should have a maximum bet in place so not any one bettor can swing the odds too much.
Why would this betting system allow for bet canceling? All bets should be final.
The odds should remain hidden (bettors could be given projected odds, a la horse racing opening lines) until a minimum number of bets have been made. If that minimum is never reached all bets would be canceled.
Edit: note that my proposed changes depend on having the administrator of the betting system to be decent at projecting odds, a skill which can be learned. This is the thing about sports betting. The handicapper is important. No way around it, IMO.
if you read the OP, the system described does not use handicappers or house odds. the 'odds' are generated based on the ratio of commitment each option gets and is thus set by the players themselves. if 90% of the money goes to option a and 10% to option b, the 'odds' are 9:1. if it's 50/50, odds are 1:1. I got that. It's very similar to parimutuel betting used in horse racing, except without a vig. You can still use projected odds. Your handicapper predicts where the money is going to be placed and thus generates the opening line, an approximation of the true odds. Once enough money is in the pool, the actual odds can be released. The early money is an unreliable indicator of what the bettor can expect his odds to be because each bet that comes in is going to swing the odds too far. This is why you still need a handicapper. Most of the money will be coming in last minute and the bettor needs to be able to approximate what his/her odds will be at the time they place their bet. The addition of the handicapper, all bets being final, and a maximum bet all make the system harder to game. People have been betting on sports for centuries and this is the proven system.
unless the house is tossing in money into the pot, i see no reason why this is any different from people signalling to each other what they think the odds will be in a blind odds system; except the false signalling is being done by the system itself in your case.
the creation of odds really only makes sense in you versus the house betting, a la vegas. it also works in person-to-person negotiated bets, a la sidebets in fighting games.
|
On September 07 2014 03:15 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 02:58 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 07 2014 01:39 itsjustatank wrote:On September 07 2014 00:34 sc2isnotdying wrote:
A couple of notes: A system like this should have a maximum bet in place so not any one bettor can swing the odds too much.
Why would this betting system allow for bet canceling? All bets should be final.
The odds should remain hidden (bettors could be given projected odds, a la horse racing opening lines) until a minimum number of bets have been made. If that minimum is never reached all bets would be canceled.
Edit: note that my proposed changes depend on having the administrator of the betting system to be decent at projecting odds, a skill which can be learned. This is the thing about sports betting. The handicapper is important. No way around it, IMO.
if you read the OP, the system described does not use handicappers or house odds. the 'odds' are generated based on the ratio of commitment each option gets and is thus set by the players themselves. if 90% of the money goes to option a and 10% to option b, the 'odds' are 9:1. if it's 50/50, odds are 1:1. I got that. It's very similar to parimutuel betting used in horse racing, except without a vig. You can still use projected odds. Your handicapper predicts where the money is going to be placed and thus generates the opening line, an approximation of the true odds. Once enough money is in the pool, the actual odds can be released. The early money is an unreliable indicator of what the bettor can expect his odds to be because each bet that comes in is going to swing the odds too far. This is why you still need a handicapper. Most of the money will be coming in last minute and the bettor needs to be able to approximate what his/her odds will be at the time they place their bet. The addition of the handicapper, all bets being final, and a maximum bet all make the system harder to game. People have been betting on sports for centuries and this is the proven system. unless the house is tossing in money into the pot, i see no reason why this is any different from people signalling to each other what they think the odds will be in a blind odds system; except the false signalling is being done by the system itself in your case. the creation of odds really only makes sense in you versus the house betting, a la vegas. it also works in person-to-person negotiated bets, a la sidebets in fighting games.
The difference between bettors signaling each other what they think the odds will be versus a dedicated handicapper is that the handicapper has no incentive to send false signal. In a parimutel type system, the bettors are competing against each other. The addition of a handicapper makes everything much more accessible. Players are given some idea of the price of their bets. How many people do you know who would place a bet on an underdog if they had no idea what their odds might be?
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
if they play their own system or tell the odds to their friends, yes they do
as for your last question, lots. they dont need to see odds to wager.
|
Yeah, this described is an issue with Gosugamers, but can't really be abused in big betting websites.
When max bets are $100-$1000 (the upper bound for big events), a $1000 bet wont be able to swing the $50,000-$1,000,000 in bets placed. All that needs to be put into place is have a betting limit of a certain percentage of the current money bet.
Anyway, I much prefer the system that Pinnacle uses, and it works well and can't really be abused.
|
Surely the simplest way to make sure all these workarounds aren't effective or simply do not work is to apply a small 5min or so cooldown on bets under the initial betted amount after a bet has been withdrawn giving the other players time to adjust their bets?
|
On September 07 2014 02:58 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 01:39 itsjustatank wrote:On September 07 2014 00:34 sc2isnotdying wrote:
A couple of notes: A system like this should have a maximum bet in place so not any one bettor can swing the odds too much.
Why would this betting system allow for bet canceling? All bets should be final.
The odds should remain hidden (bettors could be given projected odds, a la horse racing opening lines) until a minimum number of bets have been made. If that minimum is never reached all bets would be canceled.
Edit: note that my proposed changes depend on having the administrator of the betting system to be decent at projecting odds, a skill which can be learned. This is the thing about sports betting. The handicapper is important. No way around it, IMO.
if you read the OP, the system described does not use handicappers or house odds. the 'odds' are generated based on the ratio of commitment each option gets and is thus set by the players themselves. if 90% of the money goes to option a and 10% to option b, the 'odds' are 9:1. if it's 50/50, odds are 1:1. I got that. It's very similar to parimutuel betting used in horse racing, except without a vig. You can still use projected odds. Your handicapper predicts where the money is going to be placed and thus generates the opening line, an approximation of the true odds. Once enough money is in the pool, the actual odds can be released. The early money is an unreliable indicator of what the bettor can expect his odds to be because each bet that comes in is going to swing the odds too far. This is why you still need a handicapper. Most of the money will be coming in last minute and the bettor needs to be able to approximate what his/her odds will be at the time they place their bet. The addition of the handicapper, all bets being final, and a maximum bet all make the system harder to game. People have been betting on sports for centuries and this is the proven system.
And Horse racing kicks ass. I won 140 bucks on that this weekend.
|
This is why in the stock market, they have some called open interest.
|
Can you only bet for one team or the other?
I could imagine a way of splitting your bet so you can't lose money. There might also be holes depending on how you round the pay outs if things aren't exactly even.
|
Regardless, if you're wrong, you're wrong
This is more like 60:40, and there is an outside chance someone will predict what you're doing
I'd bet you're only gaining about 25% profit versus what you'd be making anyways
|
On September 14 2014 02:45 Artisian wrote:
Can you only bet for one team or the other?
I could imagine a way of splitting your bet so you can't lose money. There might also be holes depending on how you round the pay outs if things aren't exactly even.
I did the math on that, though, and it really balances out, because if the team with the better odds wins you're winning (say you're betting 15 on both) 5, and if the team with the worse odds wins you're winning 39
You spend 30$ and you either pull 20$ or 54$ with the more likely pull being 20$ (because people will bet on the favorite) sure winning 24$ would be 1.8x your money which is great but losing 33.3% sucks
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
