[raiders72002]

I like this forum but it's home to the worst cappers of all the forums. I'll give anyone, besides JJGold, 2-1 that they can't win 56% of their games over 100 plays.

[Wheell]

so would I assuming they were betting against 50-50 lines. The odds of a coin being tails 56% or more in 100 flips are about 13.56%. Even if you were only giving 5-1 you'd still be well ahead if they were only slightly above 50%.

[Ganchrow]

so would I assuming they were betting against 50-50 lines. The odds of a coin being tails 56% or more in 100 flips are about 13.56%. Even if you were only giving 5-1 you'd still be well ahead if they were only slightly above 50%.

Yes. For this to be a "fair bet" at +200, the player would need to be able to pick with 53.341% accuracy.

At +500, the player would need to be able to pick with 50.663% accuracy.

A 50% (i.e., coin-flip) bettor would need to receive odds of about +637.32 to make this a fair bet, and odds of about +603.80 for the vig to be equivalent to -110 line set vig.

[Ganchrow]

I like this forum but it's home to the worst cappers of all the forums. I'll give anyone, besides JJGold, 2-1 that they can't win 56% of their games over 100 plays.

I'll also point out that a 60% picker would win the bet with probability 82.11%, corresponding to edge of 146.33%. This relates to a Kelly stake of 73.1648% of bankroll. Expected bankroll after the bet would be 207.0616%, and median bankroll would be 165.6792%.

If instead the player were to simply bet the proper Kelly stake on each of the 100 bets at odds of -110 and an edge of 14.545%. This would relate to a Kelly stake of 16% of bankroll per bet. Expected bankroll after 100 bets would be 998.0216% and median bankroll would be 323.4767%.

So in other words a Kelly bettor who had the opportunity to either participate in Raiders' challenge, or to simply bet the 100 games on his own at -110, would choose to forgo the +200 odds and bet on his own.

This is true for bettor of every skill level. There's never a time that such a bettor would strictly prefer Raider's bet to making his own bets at -110.

Now that doesn't mean that Raider's bet is worthless. I haven't yet done the math myself, but what you'd probably find if you did (ignoring opportunity costs and bets outside of this series) would be that the optimal bet allocation would include a very small amount on the Raiders bet, which very slightly reduced the allocation for the 100 game bets.

[bigboydan]

I'll give anyone, besides JJGold, 2-1 that they can't win 56% of their games over 100 plays.

Nothings wrong with the coach's money Raiders. Just admit it that your chicken

[Dark Horse]

If SBR put up this challenge I would immediately accept.
Raiders money, with all due respect, is no good to me.

I also disagree with his assessment of this forum. This place has probably the sharpest players of all forums, but hardly anyone posts their picks. For that you'll have to go to other forums.

[bigboydan]

If SBR put up this challenge I would immediately accept.
Raiders money, with all due respect, is no good to me.

I don't have a problem with it at all, but you have to ask SBR_John for approval.

[raiders72002]

Nothings wrong with the coach's money Raiders. Just admit it that your chicken

You are correct.

[Dark Horse]

If SBR organizes this is a new contest, make it a bit more interesting. See if you can get 200 players who are willing to pay a few hundred dollars each. Payouts start at twice your money back at 56%, and increase from there. Time frame: start of football until the end of the NBA regular season (to give everyone a fair chance).

[bigboydan]

You are correct.

Then I wanna hear ya cluck for me then

[raiders72002]

Raiders money, with all due respect, is no good to me.

Darkhouse- First, it's a post up contest. Second of all, I've been involved in as many money challenges as any poster on these boards going back to 2002 including at least one at SBR that I can think of.

[raiders72002]

This place has probably the sharpest players of all forums,

percentage wise, only the RX is worse than SBR.

[Starbuckibm]

I've done it all summer in baseball. Picked almost 70% for the season in baseball this year. Believe it was about 68% to be exact. Done with baseball for this year. Taking a few weeks off for vacation and a break. All plays were posted and recorded on another forum.

[Starbuckibm]

Just went over and got my record....might not be able to do it ever again. Was a great season.

2007 MLB: 64 - 29 - 1 (+81 units)

[Dark Horse]

percentage wise, only the RX is worse than SBR.

Hardly anybody here posts there plays. But since you're keeping track of percentages, please show them.

Let's see if SBR can set something up. I feel that players who exceed 56% should win more than twice their money back, so some sort of pay scale should be agreed upon. Something like 57% = 3x, 58% = 4x, 59% = 5x, 60% = 6x.

Most likely, it would be more interesting to enter the Hilton contest than accept your challenge.
What's the max you're willing to put up?

[raiders72002]

Darkhorse- I like your payouts.

SBR has great book info but the cappers suck.

[raiders72002]

Most likely, it would be more interesting to enter the Hilton contest than accept your challenge.
What's the max you're willing to put up?

I use to enter the Station's Contest instead of the Hilton. The Hilton is more prestigious but the Stations has softer competition.

You name the amount and I'm in. Remember, it's post up.

[Dark Horse]

Let me give it some thought raiders. So basically you agree to the pay scale outlined above for up to 60%? What about over 60%? You would have to post up a lot more than me.

[raiders72002]

The same would have to go the other way. If you hit 40% then I get more.

[Dark Horse]

Not interested. Sorry. If I play the Hilton I lose 1500 max. If I should happen to hit 65% there, I make a whole lot more than you are paying. If I want to double my money I may as well place it on a single bet. A whole lot quicker.

[Ganchrow]

Now that doesn't mean that Raider's bet is worthless. I haven't yet done the math myself, but what you'd probably find if you did (ignoring opportunity costs and bets outside of this series) would be that the optimal bet allocation would include a very small amount on the Raiders bet, which very slightly reduced the allocation for the 100 game bets.

Actually, after doing a few quick back-of-the-envelope calculations even at odds up to about +275, the optimal allocation for a Kelly bettor on this particular would be zero.

I found that pretty interesting.

[imgv94]

Too bad I didn't do this challenge last season as I hit 58%..

Anyway I'm down, but here are my conditions...

4-1 odds

55%

NFL PLAYS ONLY

and someone (trustworthy) holds the money before hand..

Let's do this.

[Ganchrow]

Too bad I didn't do this challenge last season as I hit 58%..

Anyway I'm down, but here are my conditions...

4-1 odds

55%

NFL PLAYS ONLY

and someone (trustworthy) holds the money before hand..

Let's do this.

With a bet such as this all you're saying is that you're at least 50.291% handicapper, which is an unprofitable gambler who loses 3.991% per bet placed at -110.

I don't think that that's what raiders is trying to test.

[imgv94]

With a bet such as this all you're saying is that you're at least 50.291% handicapper, which is an unprofitable gambler who loses 3.991% per bet placed at -110.

I don't think that that's what raiders is trying to test.

Raiders said 56%, I said 55%.. You are saying 50.291%?

[Ganchrow]

Raiders said 56%, I said 55%.. You are saying 50.291%?

You're misunderstanding.

You said 55% paying out at +400.

For that to be a positive EV bet, the player would only need a win probability of 50.291% per bet.

In contrast, at +500 for ≥55 winning picks, a player would only need a win probability of 49.663% per bet, for the Raider bet to be +EV.

[imgv94]

Ganchrow with all due respect and you know I admire you.

You are making this harder than it has to be.

If I can go 55-45, I want $400
if I do anything less I'm completely willing to give $100 to him.

[Ganchrow]

Ganchrow with all due respect and you know I admire you.

You are making this harder than it has to be.

If I can go 55-45, I want $400
if I do anything less I'm completely willing to give $100 to him.

And what I'm saying is that for that to be a good bet for you (positive EV) ... your win probability for any given game would only need to be a rather unimpressive 50.291%.

To put it another way, if you had a biased coin that landed heads 50.291% of the time, and someone offered you +400 saying that you couldn't flip 55 or more heads out of 100 flips, you'd be correct f(rom an EV perspective) to take the bet saying you can.

[raiders72002]

your win probability for any given game would only need to be a rather unimpressive 50.291%

img couldn't hit 56% if I gave him the half time score.

[imgv94]

img couldn't hit 56% if I gave him the half time score.

Hit 58% over 166 plays last season.. So you are already proved wrong..

C'mon actions speak louder than words. 55% @ 4/1 Bill or SBR_JOHN holds the money before hand..

YES or NO?

[imgv94]

img couldn't hit 56% if I gave him the half time score.

oh really...

http://forum.sbrforum.com/nfl-handic...on-ending.html

[raiders72002]

56% I'll give you 2-1
58% I'll give you 4-1

Final offer Mr. 58%

[Ganchrow]

56% I'll give you 2-1
58% I'll give you 4-1

Final offer Mr. 58%

Once again, imgv, for the 56% bet to be +EV you only need to be a 53.341% picker.

For the 56% bet to be +EV you only need to be a 53.297% picker.

So forget 56% and forget 58%. If you think you're on average a better than 53.5% picker then (from a pure EV perspective and ignoring cost of capital) you should take one of those bets.

[imgv94]

56% I'll give you 2-1
58% I'll give you 4-1

Final offer Mr. 58%

55% and 3-1..

[Ganchrow]

55% and 3-1..

What about 48%?

[tacomax]

img couldn't hit 56% if I gave him the half time score.

Then I'm sure you'll snap his hand off for 3/1 for hitting 55% without him having the half-time score, right?