Congratulations to all winners (and everybody who overcomed themselves).

We're twiddling with some ChessBookie parameters right now. Changing include the betting caps, the credit-score system, and the Loanshark policies.

The most notable change is that there are a few more betting levels. It used to be that your maximum bet was one of: 200, 500, 1000, 2500, 5000, or 10000. Now we've added 1500 and 2000 to that list, to smooth out the transition from pauper to prince.

As during the last leg, a strong credit score will raise your betting limit. However we've adjusted it so that you require a bigger credit score to receive the same benefit. For example, you used to require a credit score of 50,000 to raise your max-bet to 5000 but now you need 100,000. The details of how the credit score works takes place behind the scenes, so don't worry about the details: all you need to know is that your maximum bet will be a bit less than what it was last leg, at least at the outset.

There is also a new rule added to prevent people in the "cellar" from escalating their debt out of control. The rule is this: "If your net worth is negative, your betting cap will never exceed 1000." Therefore people with -50,000 c$ can still play the game but can only wager 1000 c$ on any single ticket.

The biggest change of all is that the Loanshark will be a lot stingier when giving out what we call "hard luck loans." These are loans to people who have very little cash on hand and very little net worth. Depending on your credit score, these hard luck loans will range from 100 to 1000. Last leg the Bookie was fronting as much as 2500 daily to some people who were broke. For the summer leg, his generosity is capped at 1000 c$, and that limit is twice as hard to attain.

We have decided not to change the policy which allows people to make enormous bets when they become rich. The rule is that if your net worth exceeds 10,000 c$, you can place 10,000 c$ wagers. This allows people to "go crazy" at the end of a leg to attempt to double-up. It could be argued that this takes away some of the skill factor, but it's just more fun when you can go "all in".

If all of this sounds overwhelming, let me try to explain it in simple language: When you're new to the game, the Bookie and the Loanshark will set your limits very low. These limits include the most you're allowed to put on a single ticket, and the biggest loan you can receive. However, as you play the game more, these limits will increase. Even if you are broke, or in the negatives, you'll be able to borrow up to 1000 c$ daily and place large wagers.

We still have a few days before the Summer Leg, so none of the above changes are 100% committed yet. If we change the parameters again we'll let you know.

All looks good <ChessBookie> ! :) Looks like you keyed on all of the major concerns and then some! <grin> So, you keep <'twiddling'> when it suits your fancy if and when you find it neccessary... ;)

<The new leg will start this Tuesday, the 24th. All accounts have already been cleared out, reset at 1000 chessbucks, and loans have been forgiven.>

As, I've said all along again and again... The "Loanshark" is a wonderful chap with a <'Heart of Gold!'> ~lol~ :^) - Mal

Thanks Annie! :) Think I'll GO for IT! ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...

Whatever <IT> is? ~lol~ ;p Cheers, - Mal

No coincidence since he was also silver winner of the final standings prediction contest Baku GP WCC tournament this season!

That isn't exactly true, because ChessBookie players cannot employ the Martingale strategy profitably without getting extremely lucky. There are several limits they face: (1) They are limited in time; there is only a certain amount of bets that they can place before the leg ends. (2) They are limited by their betting-cap, which this leg will be somewhat smaller than before, especially for those in the "cellar", (3) they are limited by what the loanshark will front them, again this is also limited in the summer leg relative to previous amounts, (4) they are limited by the simple fact that you cannot win money that other players don't lose. You might LIKE to double your money by betting on the draw, but unless you can find people willing to take up the other side of that bet, you'll be stuck with worse than 1:1 odds.

In short, I think between the new limits and ones already inherent in the system, we'll be alright. Some craziness will occur at the end, but we think that most people want to see it that way.

That's how real brick-and-mortar parimutuel houses do it, but I don't do it that way. Instead I propose to simply refund all bets, since that's the easiest policy to implement, and nobody can claim that they got ripped off. This means that I make no juice on that particular bet, but I'm not worried, I make a good living anyhow.

"Two out of three ain't bad", all right, but if anybody HAD gotten the right combo, it would be "close but no cigar". ;) Why should it be any different just because nobody did? You bet on something that doesn't happen, you lose your bet, that's the normal way of gambling. What business of yours is it who, how many, or WHETHER somebody else does win it?

Since we're pretty much between legs I don't feel guilty giving away some of my secrets. Here are four ways to build up your chessbucks account.

<1> First of all, no matter how clever you are, it takes a lot of luck. To win by getting lucky, you put money on a reasonable looking pick-three (daily double, whatever) and just cross your fingers and hope for the best. This method is not likely to work, but for a few people it does. And when it does work, it works GREAT.

<2> A second way is a method which I tried several legs in a row that I call the "contrarian approach." I borrowed this technique from the stock traders who always buy companies who's stocks are in the dumps, and always sell stocks that are soaring on huge public confidence. The method is really very simple: It's based on the premise that whatever the "crowd" believes is going to happen, won't happen. So take Dortmund, for example. Everybody is convinced that the winner will be either Kramnik or Ivanchuk. So to be a contrarian, put a small bet on everybody except Ivanchuk and Kramnik. As long as unexpected things end up happening (and they often do) you'll lose a lot of bets but then hit one huge jackpot that makes up for all your small losses.

<3> A third method is to spread your money around on reasonable bets at good odds. For example during Aerosvit last leg I would run through the bets and look for situations where the odds were really good. If Black winning a game paid off at better than 10:1, I'd take it. If the draw was better than 1:1, I'd take it. If White winning was better than 3;1, I'd take it. The players hardly even matter! If it was a mismatch, all the better--because let's face it, on any given day, anybody can beat (or draw) with anybody. Then I would make a large number of small bets and hope that at the end of the day I show a profit.

The key here is to always look for good odds. It's a lot like contrarian investing except that you don't necessarily have to find bets that have been totally shunned by the public--just bets with odds a little better than they should be. And you can't bet too much on any single ticket, or you'll ruin your own odds.

<4> Then there is a fourth method, which I have never personally used, but it can work if done correctly. This is what I call "betting the obvious." It especially comes into play when betting on moves in the Chessgames Challenge games. The analysis hounds often can take a move which may look reasonable at first blush and conclude that it's absolutely unplayable. And yet we see money wagered on Timmerman playing those moves. So that's "dead money" and the wise better should be able to bet against it and eke out a small profit. Sometimes this means wagering 4000 chessbucks to win 5000 in return, not very good odds--but if you are almost positive it's going to work out that way, then go for it!

Lets say that you are going to bet to odds 5,00. That means that you have to win every five times to get on your own. If you think that you will hit every third time, then you really should be betting. But if you believe that you can hit one time of five, its no use.

And lets say there is game Topalov - Kramnik and the odds are: Topalov wins: 3,25 - Draw: 1,50 - Kramnik wins: 6,00. At first clance this wont tell you much if you're not used to play. If you want to see what you should bet, you have to open those odds little bit.

You think that if Topalov and Kramnik plays (these colors) 10 games and you think that Topalov will win 3, 6 will end in draw and Kramnik will win one game. Then you can do some math what you shoud be betting.

If you put those ten times 100 c-buck to Topalov, you have bet 1000 c-bucks and won 975 so you may not want to place Topalov winner with those odds. By betting to draw, you will lose 1000 and win 900.

This is not something that is sure or good way to be betting (as you can see when you think it) but rather shows the way you may want to think. An this is not so good strategy this kind of games. Kramnik may draw or lose 99% of his games, but if you know wich game he will win... yeah, lots of c-bucks coming your way. :]

But, one good advice is really... you don't have to bet all the time and every game. Look the odds, the odds are everything, thou it may be quite hard sometimes when you are betting on changing odds (eh, what the term in English?).

And something that I don't recommend is betting very hard on "sure" bets. You will not win that much but if you lose, you lose badly.

I remember last Ice Hockey World Cup when Finland played against Norway (if I remember correctly). finland had odd 1,02, I don't remember what was draw or Norways win. Few guys put huge loads of money to Finland, after all it was so sure win that hell would be froze before Finland would not win. Well, it ended draw. :D Finland won at over time but extra time does not count.

If I have understand correctly.