that's good news general, but I don't like the idea of only 3 games a night.. there will be a lot of angry men here when they hear of this rule. why not have 5 games, or even 6, like last year.. seeing we'll have an official scorer now who will get paid for it too..
There's a lot of games to choose from every night,including totals, sides, moneylines, and all we can pick is 3 games??? That will force me to leave out 2 or 3 good totals a night General. Anyways, see what you can do, and whatever you agree to, we will be happy.. Thanks..
There's a lot of games to choose from every night,including totals, sides, moneylines, and all we can pick is 3 games??? That will force me to leave out 2 or 3 good totals a night General. Anyways, see what you can do, and whatever you agree to, we will be happy.. Thanks..
Who's the better handicapper?
Player A:
5 plays a day, 900 for the year
Record of 450-370-80 +75 units
Player B:
2 plays a day, 360 for the year
Record of 200-120-40 +62 units
The way this contest would be judged, Player A would win and, my friends, that's ABSURD.
I don't care if some guys want to make 40 plays a night, betting on how often Pierre Maguire makes a comment on TSN as if the viewers have never seen a game before, or how often Fleury throws a tantrum, or how often Mario comes back into his own zone. But let's come up with a fair scoring system.
Player A:
5 plays a day, 900 for the year
Record of 450-370-80 +75 units
Player B:
2 plays a day, 360 for the year
Record of 200-120-40 +62 units
The way this contest would be judged, Player A would win and, my friends, that's ABSURD.
I don't care if some guys want to make 40 plays a night, betting on how often Pierre Maguire makes a comment on TSN as if the viewers have never seen a game before, or how often Fleury throws a tantrum, or how often Mario comes back into his own zone. But let's come up with a fair scoring system.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jam:
Who's the better handicapper?
Player A:
5 plays a day, 900 for the year
Record of 450-370-80 +75 units
Player B:
2 plays a day, 360 for the year
Record of 200-120-40 +62 units
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jam,
Your logic here is way off.. You're not doing it right at all..First of all, it's Player B that would win here, not Player A.. You have to go by every game being a pick em to start to make it fair. It's the only way to figure it out by using your example. And if we go by each game being a pick em, Player A would end up +43 units, while Player B would end up being +68 units. It is totally opposite of what you are saying that is true. It's not the more games you bet that the player has the advantage, it's who's bet lesser games, as you can see in your example. Just remember that the more games you bet, the more likely you'll be around 50%, and thus costing you more juice, and winning less units..
So bottom line jam, the more games you bet doesn't mean that you have a better chance at winning it. There is no difference here if you bet 300 games this year, 600 games this year, or 900 games...
But one thing for sure, is that the guy that only bets under 100 games has NO chance of winning it, because if a guy hits 70% by going 70-30, he only ends up +37 units. And if we end up with 150 participants, DEFINITELY the winner will have to end up with more than a +37 unit score.. It has to happen.
Who's the better handicapper?
Player A:
5 plays a day, 900 for the year
Record of 450-370-80 +75 units
Player B:
2 plays a day, 360 for the year
Record of 200-120-40 +62 units
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jam,
Your logic here is way off.. You're not doing it right at all..First of all, it's Player B that would win here, not Player A.. You have to go by every game being a pick em to start to make it fair. It's the only way to figure it out by using your example. And if we go by each game being a pick em, Player A would end up +43 units, while Player B would end up being +68 units. It is totally opposite of what you are saying that is true. It's not the more games you bet that the player has the advantage, it's who's bet lesser games, as you can see in your example. Just remember that the more games you bet, the more likely you'll be around 50%, and thus costing you more juice, and winning less units..
So bottom line jam, the more games you bet doesn't mean that you have a better chance at winning it. There is no difference here if you bet 300 games this year, 600 games this year, or 900 games...
But one thing for sure, is that the guy that only bets under 100 games has NO chance of winning it, because if a guy hits 70% by going 70-30, he only ends up +37 units. And if we end up with 150 participants, DEFINITELY the winner will have to end up with more than a +37 unit score.. It has to happen.
jam,
It don't matter if you play 600 games or 1000 games, your chance of winning it is just about the same here..
As long as you don't play less than 250 games, then your chances are just as good as anyone else to win this thing.. And 250 games is equivalent to about 9 games a week, or a little over 1 game a day on average, which shouldn't be too hard to accomplish..
It don't matter if you play 600 games or 1000 games, your chance of winning it is just about the same here..
As long as you don't play less than 250 games, then your chances are just as good as anyone else to win this thing.. And 250 games is equivalent to about 9 games a week, or a little over 1 game a day on average, which shouldn't be too hard to accomplish..
