|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 298 OF 501 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-21-14
 | | Chessgames Bookie: It appears that there was a late change in the pairings for Abu Dhabi rd 2: TOP SIX SPECIAL, so that they differed from those originally given; most likely this occurred because one or more round 1 results were initially recorded incorrectly and were later fixed, requiring new pairings. The same thing happened during the early rounds of the Politiken Cup, but in that case the error was fixed before betting on that round was opened and thus thankfully didn't affect ChessBookie in any way. Unfortunately the same did not happen here. Considering the relevant wording ("How many points in total will the rating favorites score on the top 6 boards this round?"), a very good case could be made for '5.5' being the winning ticket; however, I have decided that <all bets will be refunded>. Undoubtedly some (namely, those backing 5.5) would have preferred to see that ticket paying, and I completely understand if they feel hard done by; I offer my apologies, but when even informed bettors are basing their bets on bad information, a refund is the fairest solution. For any future markets of this type I'll try to remember to include an additional note about what will happen if there's an unexpected change in the pairings. I hope that won't come in necessary any time soon, but since this is the second time this leg the pairings have changed from what was originally announced, it's clearly something I have to be ready for. |
|
| Aug-22-14 | | wordfunph: arghhh!
this my 2nd time i failed, Rapport tooooo slippery but next time i'll catch him :) <Riga rd 7: Rapport-Melkumyan: FIRST MOVE : 1.e4 [info] 100 LIVE BET 5:1 6.05 605 Aug-22-14> <Riga rd 7: Rapport-Melkumyan: FIRST MOVE : 1.Nf3 [info] 100 LIVE BET 11:2 6.73 673 Aug-22-14> <Riga rd 7: Rapport-Melkumyan: FIRST MOVE : 1.c4 [info] 100 LIVE BET 11:1 11.46 1,146 Aug-22-14> |
|
| Aug-22-14 | | wordfunph: GM Molner, thank you.
<Riga rd 7: Molner-Shirov : Draw [cash in ticket] 1000 YOU WIN! COLLECT 1975 1:1 1.98 1,975 Aug-22-14> |
|
| Aug-24-14 | | TheTwelfthKnight: Hello all! My first ever post to Chessgames.com is just a quick question about the Sinquefield Cup WINNER event. How will the payoffs work in the event that more than one player wins the tournament? Usually, the bookie pools all the points from losing bets, takes a 5% cut, and then distributes the remainder among the winners along with their stake. The odds which are displayed reflect this process. But in the Sinquefield Cup event, the description specifies that <If two or more players tie for first on points, all of them will be considered winners; any tie-breaks will be ignored.> Let's say there are two winners at the end of the tournament. If the bookie pools the points from losing bets, takes a 5% cut, and redistributes them among the winners, each winner would receive less than half as many points as they would have had their pick won the tournament outright. Is the bookie going to just add points to the losing pool so that the payoff to the winners for all the tied players would be exactly what it would have been had each player won outright? If the bookie doesn't do that, then it seems to me that the posted odds indicate only the maximum possible odds given the current bets, and are therefore incorrect. Thanks very much for the help in advance. Please let me know if I need to make my question more clear. This is a really great site, and I'm looking forward to writing many more comments! |
|
Aug-24-14
 | | chessgames.com: <it seems to me that the posted odds indicate only the maximum possible odds given the current bets, and are therefore incorrect.> I can take this question, I've answered it at least twice before. What you wrote is pretty much a good summary of the situation: it is possible to win less than the posted odds if more than one ticket wins, and how much less depends on the exact pools. Perhaps to make it truly 'correct' we should put an asterisk to a footnote that clarifies this nuance. In case you don't understand how multiple payoffs work, let me give a quick example. Suppose a tournament sees a favorite tie with a longshot. Say, Carlsen and Rapport share a trophy. Both betters on Carlsen and Rapport will receive less than the posted odds, but Rapport bettors will still get better odds than the Carlsen betters. The math is not too hard to follow: all of the losers' money is split evenly into two piles (after the bookie takes his cut) and then those piles are distributed, one to the Carlsen bettors and one to the Rapport bettors. Because there is presumably less money on the Rapport bettors they will enjoy better odds. I hope that example explains it good enough to at least show the overall idea. Also I concur with the bookie's decision to refund that bet, but it's ultimately his call. |
|
Aug-24-14
 | | jessicafischerqueen:
QUESTION:
Will the imaginary money the bookie makes from his "cut" be reinvested in imaginary game infrastructure? Or will he fritter it away on an imaginary private jet or an imaginary beach house in Bali? Either way is fine with me, I'm just curious. |
|
| Aug-24-14 | | WinKing: In the Sinquefield Cup you should have a ticket:
Carlsen vs. The Field(all of the other players).
Right now there is more money on him than all of the other players combined. I'm sure this will change a bit as the tournament date approaches but by how much really? |
|
Aug-24-14
| | Chessgames Bookie: <WinKing> If I open too many whole-tournament markets, by the time the actual games begin quite a few players won't have any chessbucks left! Besides, those interested in backing the field can simply bet on all players other than Carlsen (and, obviously, those interested in backing Carlsen can bet on Carlsen). The idea is good, and all suggestions are appreciated, but in this case there are too many other things to bet on. Besides, I also want to have some non-Carlsen markets; while Carlsen is the most popular player around right now, you can have too much of a good thing. |
|
| Aug-24-14 | | MarkFinan: <Which of the six players will lose the most games as White?> I understand.
<If two or more players tie for most losses as White, all players involved in that tie will pay, with the exception of a six-way tie with zero White losses each (that is, no Black wins in the tournament), in which case the 'No Black wins' ticket will pay.> I don't understand. ✌ |
|
Aug-24-14
| | Chessgames Bookie: <MarkFinan> Basically, what it says is this: • If Topalov loses two games as White, Nakamura and Vachier-Lagrave both lose once as White and Carlsen, Aronian and Caruana lose no games as White, then the 'Topalov' ticket will win. • If Topalov, Nakamura and Vachier-Lagrave all lose two games as White while Carlsen, Aronian and Caruana lose no games as White, then the 'Topalov', 'Nakamura' and 'Vachier-Lagrave' tickets will all win. • If all six players lose one game as White, all six player tickets ('Carlsen', 'Aronian', 'Caruana', 'Nakamura', 'Topalov' and 'Vachier-Lagrave') will win. • If none of the six players loses any games as White, the 'No Black wins' ticket will win. |
|
Aug-24-14
 | | Penguincw: < Will the imaginary money the bookie makes from his "cut" be reinvested in imaginary game infrastructure? > In my opinion, it should! The bookie has probably made over 20,000 cbs via. juice alone this leg (and probably thousands more due to rounding), so it can't possible hurt to fork over a few hundred chessbucks (he should also do that so that when more than one ticket wins, payouts aren't so low). :) |
|
| Aug-24-14 | | WinKing: < Chessgames Bookie: The idea is good, and all suggestions are appreciated, but in this case there are too many other things to bet on. Besides, I also want to have some non-Carlsen markets; while Carlsen is the most popular player around right now, you can have too much of a good thing. > Gotcha. Maybe in a future event you could try the idea. |
|
Aug-24-14
 | | OhioChessFan: I would suggest there be some point at which a negative balance ends a person's participation in that round. Much like the person who jimmies up <YouRang> prediction contest by picking all black wins once he falls way behind in hopes of hitting a jackpot and winning the Betting Ranker by that insincere effort at picking, so too does the efforts of people many thousands of dollars in the hole hoping to score one big win on borrowed money sort of reflect poorly on the integrity of the game. IMPO. |
|
| Aug-25-14 | | MarkFinan: <Chessgames Bookie: <MarkFinan> Basically, what it says is this:
• If Topalov loses two games as White, Nakamura and Vachier-Lagrave both lose once as White and Carlsen, Aronian and Caruana lose no games as White, then the 'Topalov' ticket will win. • If Topalov, Nakamura and Vachier-Lagrave all lose two games as White while Carlsen, Aronian and Caruana lose no games as White, then the 'Topalov', 'Nakamura' and 'Vachier-Lagrave' tickets will all win. • If all six players lose one game as White, all six player tickets ('Carlsen', 'Aronian', 'Caruana', 'Nakamura', 'Topalov' and 'Vachier-Lagrave') will win. • If none of the six players loses any games as White, the 'No Black wins' ticket will win.> I'm not trying to complain I'm just pointing out that this leg things are more complicated. The usual suspects are at the top of the table because they know how to gamble. I just think that if it isn't broke then there's no need to fix it. ✌ |
|
Aug-25-14
| | chessgames.com: <Will the imaginary money the bookie makes from his "cut" be reinvested in imaginary game infrastructure? Or will he fritter it away on an imaginary private jet or an imaginary beach house in Bali?> We don't specifically funnel his juice back into the game, but with the new "payday rule" it could very well be that the economy has enough stimulus to make up for his inevitable taxation. The payday money doesn't come directly out of his account, though. It is created out of thin air, just like the Federal Reserve does. |
|
Aug-25-14
 | | WannaBe: Take the imaginary money and go on an imaginary vacation to Tahati!! =)) |
|
Aug-25-14
 | | Annie K.: <just like the Federal Reserve does> LOL!!! Um, you wanna be careful, if this goes on, you may just find yourself posting to the Rogoff page one of these days. ;p |
|
Aug-26-14
 | | Sneaky: The bookie is obviously libertarian :-) |
|
| Aug-27-14 | | centralfiles: Carlsen rating special:
It would be interesting to compare the odds of Carlsen's rating going down in a 9 game event versus a 10 game event like ours.
The point is that Carlsen expected performance against these opponents (average elo 2788) is 6.14/10 meaning if Carlsen doesn't win 3 more games than he loses his rating will almost certainly go down but in a 9 round event his expected performance is just about 5.5/9 meaning if he wins only 2 more games than he loses the effect on his rating is up in the air (it would depend on exactly whom he lost to and whom he won).
Which seems to mean that the odds of him losing rating points in a 10 Round tournament is significantly higher. |
|
| Aug-27-14 | | centralfiles: Of course an 8 round event would give the greatest odds for UP as then even a 5/8 performance would see his rating go up. This is easy to see as 5/8 is smaller than 6.5/10 (In sinquefield cup 6.5/10 is needed for a higher rating). |
|
Aug-27-14
| | Penguincw: Semi-jackpot!
Yaroslav the Wise: NEPOMNIACHTCHI SPECIAL : 7.5 or more [cash in ticket] 3 YOU WIN! COLLECT 917 305:1 305.67 917 Aug-27-14 Would the person with the other half of the jackpot please come forward, so that you and I can celebrate together. Thanks. :) |
|
| Aug-27-14 | | WinKing: Any live betting during the game today 'Mr. Book'? |
|
Aug-27-14
| | Chessgames Bookie: <WinKing> Probably not, though I may change my mind if Carlsen sacrifices half his pieces. |
|
| Aug-27-14 | | WinKing: < Chessgames Bookie: <WinKing> Probably not, though I may change my mind if Carlsen sacrifices half his pieces. > lol Count me in if that happens. |
|
| Aug-27-14 | | centralfiles: Based on the net worth fluctuations my guess is <sneaky> bets on long shots and <wordfunph> bets on favorites. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 298 OF 501 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
