Poll

No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (33.33%)
2 votes (66.66%)
No votes (0%)

3 members have voted

SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 109
  • Posts: 7680
May 28th, 2020 at 1:08:04 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Also, bet the minimum on the losses and bet the max on the wins. Or if you don't expect the offers to last long, just bet the winning side for the max nine times and cash out.

If they have the authority and willingness to steal someones money, and we're just guessing on what might cause them to do that, then it's just gambling no matter how it's played.



I'd bet you would get $0 if you tried to cash out after being 9-0.
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 909
May 28th, 2020 at 1:50:51 PM permalink
Thanks for all the posts so far,

Also, I would have voted: "I think the betting limits would have to be small ### "

###: If I was "forced" to run this "gimmick", I would have made the betting limits either "$10 down" or "to win $25" (whichever amount is less).

Quote: ksdjdj

(snip)
Assumptions:
(snip)
. The 'book will ban you and confiscate your winnings from any of the "classic matches" if your win/strike-rate is above 2/3 (66.66..%***) after 10 (or more) games.
(snip)


Instead of the above, I was tossing up whether to write something more vague, like this: "The book MAY ban you..., if they think you are "too good" or "cheating", managements' decision is final"

On a related note (I wish I spent the extra effort doing this last night, Australia time): The chance of a "random picker" winning 7-10 games after betting on 10 games is about 5/29. If I had known this before writing this thread, I would probably have used a different "assumption" (like the "vague" one , above)

  • Jump to: