|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 269 OF 501 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-30-12 | | brankat: For last 2 days there has been no betting on the games from the Tashkent G.P. tournament. Is it being "over-shadowed" by the one in London? The Carlsen thing? Which will fade away in a matter of weeks, no matter the outcome. The tournament in Tashkent is just as interesting (and strong) as the other one. |
|
Dec-01-12
 | | moronovich: And couldn´t we please get the pick 3
back again !? |
|
| Dec-01-12 | | technical draw: After weeks of betting this is what I have:
FUNDS: 1,000 chessbucks |
|
Dec-02-12
 | | Chessgames Bookie: We not only have a pick-three but also this interesting proposition bet: London Chess Classic rd 3: Kramnik-Carlsen OVER/UNDER |
|
Dec-03-12
| | moronovich: <Chessgames Bookie>
Thanks for the pick-three.Much appriciated.Also because it gives a bigger chance for those in the cellar to make a comeback ! May the pick-three last the whole London Classic. |
|
| Dec-04-12 | | sushijunkie: Keep the trifectas coming! |
|
Dec-04-12
 | | Sneaky: SensibleHippy: did you hit a pick three, or are you Ushenina's biggest fan? |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | bubuli55: < Chessgames Bookie > there are 3 winners in Tashkent. How is the payout on that? |
|
Dec-05-12
| | Chessgames Bookie: It's possible to have three winners: FIDE Grand Prix Tashkent: WINNER ... in fact we often do this, as we often explicitly ignore tiebreak protocol. If you are curious about the math: our software merges the losing pools together then splits it into thirds and distributes it to the three winners normally. So people won't get the same odds they were promised, but on the other hand there are lots more winners. In short: it's all perfectly fair, let the software do its magic, there will be lots of happy winners! |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | bubuli55: Thx < Chessgames Bookie >. Just curious :) I was just thinking maybe the divies would be decreased still proportionate to all winner's odds. Because if one of the winners was an outstanding favorite, the dividend may end up more than the initial dividend. The number of winning bettors is still the same. If there is validity to the point then maybe the rule can be changed for the future. If none, then forgedahbowdit :) I always support your decisions. Just looking for game improvements :) |
|
Dec-05-12
 | | WannaBe: Let me see if I get this math correct. =)
If there are 3 (A, B, C) winners, and the pool of the losing tickets amounts to 30,000 chess bux, then each pool for the winner would be 10,000 chess bux. If, Player A had 2 members who wagered, (Say, 10 chess bux and 40 chess bux) then each winner would get a proportional payback. (2,000 & 8,000 respectively) If, Player B had 10 members who wagered, each equally (2 chess bux) each would get 1,000 chess bux. If, Player C had only 1 lucky member, (regardless whether this is a 2 C.B. wager the minimum, or higher) this would result in the whole (1/3) share? Or 10,000 C.B.? |
|
Dec-05-12
| | WannaBe: Or, is it distributed evenly? Take the above prize pot, of 30,000 C.B. from the losing tickets, after vig. If there are a total of 30 members who won and they placed the following bets: Player A: 25 tix (everyone placed 5 C.B. per tix)
Player B: 4 tix (10 C.B. 5 C.B. 5 C.B. 5 C.B.)
Player C: 1 tix (10 C.B.)
Are the payouts then proportional to C.B.s wagered initially? |
|
Dec-05-12
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <WannaBe> Your first post is right :) It's all explained in detail here: Chessgames Bookie chessforum |
|
Dec-05-12
| | WannaBe: <SwitchingQuylthulg> That (almost) doesn't seem fair. I can understand the final pay-out odd(s) can be askewed due to multiple winners, but for one winner who wagered on player C to get back 500x (if only 2 C.B. tix) is kinda 'out-ra-geous'! I think the second way/method is better, more 'fair-er'. =)) |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | bubuli55: The system is perfectly fine then. Thx :) |
|
Dec-05-12
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <WannaBe: I think the second way/method is better, more 'fair-er'. =))> No, <definitely> not. This way, longshots will remain longshots; using your second method, all winners would be paid off at the same odds, regardless of the original odds. Consider the following scenario:
<Chessgames Invitational 2013 - Winner> TOTAL HANDLE: 47,801
Winner Pool Odds
Carlsen c$31,579 1.48
Aronian c$12,442 3.69
Hosea c$3,778 12.07
Yu c$2 22706.00
Aronian, Hosea and Yu tie for 1st.
Scenario 1: Aronian pays off at odds of 1.80, entirely reasonable. Hosea pays off at the higher odds of 3.65, far from what her backers were hoping for but still OK. Yu pays off at 5000:1, and the guy who predicted his victory in this tournament quite frankly deserves just that. Scenario 2: Aronian pays off at odds of 2.85 (13:7), so his backers are much happier this way. Hosea also pays off at odds of 13:7, and her supporters can't help but wonder what the point of betting on a longshot was in the first place... The one person who saw the impossible happening and placed 2 chessbucks on Jimmy Yu to top this super-tournament will hear that sorry, you won't get odds of 22705:1 today, oh no sir - it's better and fairer if you only get 13:7, same as the Aronian backers. He wins a whopping c$3 for his trouble and likely won't be very pleased :) |
|
Dec-05-12
| | WannaBe: What kind of idiot would place 2 C.B. on moi, anyway?! =)) Okay, I see your point. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | bubuli55: It just occurred to me. Is the math the same if the initial dividend is divided by the number of winners? |
|
Dec-06-12
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <bubuli55> That would depend on what you mean by "initial dividend" :) |
|
| Dec-06-12 | | bubuli55: Hello < SwitchingQuylthulg >. Thx for responding. The projected payoff on a bet after bettings close. Is it the same if divided by 2 if there's 2 winners. And divided by 3 if there's 3 winners. |
|
Dec-06-12
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <bubuli55> No, it's not the same, not even particularly close. Longshots are hit harder than more expected outcomes. For instance, in our example above:
c$100 on Aronian - projected payout: c$369 - actual payout: c$180, almost half of the projected payout. c$100 on Hosea - projected payout: c$1206 - actual payout: c$364, less than 1/3 of the projected payout. You can get a bit closer if you only divide the projected <profit> by the number of winners, but even then it won't be accurate (in fact, the result will always be an overestimate, sometimes by whole orders of magnitude): c$100 on Aronian - projected profit: c$269 - 1/3 of that: c$90 - actual profit: c$80 c$100 on Hosea - projected profit: c$1106 - 1/3 of that: c$369 - actual profit: c$264 c$2 on Yu - projected profit: c$45,410 - 1/3 of that: c$15,137 - actual profit: c$10,000 |
|
| Dec-06-12 | | The17thPawn: Can one buy a premium membership with chess bucks or is it a prize for finishing at a certain level in the standings? |
|
| Dec-06-12 | | bubuli55: I see. Thx < SwitchingQuylthulg >. Just like < Chessgames Bookie > said ... let the software do it's magic :) |
|
Dec-06-12
| | Chessgames Bookie: <The17thPawn: Can one buy a premium membership with chess bucks or is it a prize for finishing at a certain level in the standings?> No sorry, chessbucks themselves are worthless (and get reset at the end of each leg anyhow.) The free membership comes at the end of each leg to the absolute #1 winner. Then, during the championship (winter) leg we stop being so stingy and give away several memberships, plus free t-shirts, plus a special extra prize for the "World Champion." Even though we don't announce prizes in advance, they tend to get better each year. Last year the prize was a $100 gift-certificate for The Chessgames Store in addition to a free year's membership. Expect something similar for the next leg. |
|
| Dec-07-12 | | The17thPawn: <Chessgames Bookie> - Thanks for the reply. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 269 OF 501 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
