[ArunSh]

I tried to make a reply about this in the Outkick the Madness Contest, but it wasn't going through, maybe was too long. But this seems like a better place to debate it anyway so wanted to know what others think.

Personally, I prefer contests not allow $ lines to be bet (or maybe restricted to small $ lines like between -200 and +200). I don't know if the software makes the latter possible but again just wanted people's views.

Why do I think so? Well if say 100 people in the contest each bet two underdogs at +1000 or so odds, statistically at roughly one of those 100 will get both right and be +20 units (assuming base of one unit bet). And someone who bets only spreads/totals will have to win at least 20 more picks than they lose to equal that feat - which obviously, whatever the sport, is extremely difficult.

So in essence, the person who does the big $ line dog play will occasionally strike it lucky in two games and get a lead which is nearly insurmountable to those who are betting -110 lines. And that seems silly to me, because I always though the contests were about overall handicapping skills, doing well over a large sample size of picks - not getting very lucky in a couple games and riding that through.

Obviously if one were making actual bets that would not necessarily be a good strategy, but in these contests whether you finish in the middle of dead last makes absolutely no difference so why not take this very high variance approach and see if you strike it lucky and finish high?

I presume that's part of the reason why Beat the Prick (obviously SBR's biggest contest) does not allow $ lines - I have a feeling this same thing would happen there, there would be likely be a few +20 or +30 units early on (considering over 1000 people enter that, imagine several hundred tried that strategy especially with the double best bet), and +30 is roughly what won the whole contest last year! Just feel like that would be silly, take the long-term skill out of it. Perhaps SBR agrees with this and thus does not allow $ lines there for that reason. But if so, why allow them in any contest? I mean sure allowing them in baseball, hockey makes sense since the $ lines are pretty much always between -300 and +300. But why allow them in sports with +1000 or even higher underdogs?

Just my opinion again, but would like to here others' views on this.

[ArunSh]

Sorry noticed a lot of typos in the thread and it didn't let me edit it so here is the proper version. Admins: please delete the first post if you can, thanks!



I tried to make a reply about this in the Outkick the Madness Contest, but it wasn't going through, maybe was too long. But this seems like a better place to debate it anyway so wanted to know what others think.

Personally, I prefer contests to not allow $ lines to be bet (or maybe restricted to small $ lines like between -200 and +200). I don't know if the software makes the latter possible but again just wanted people's views.

Why do I think so? Well if say 100 people in the contest each bet two underdogs at +1000 or so odds, statistically at roughly one of those 100 will get both right and be +20 units (assuming base of one unit bet). And someone who bets only spreads/totals will have to win at least 20 more picks than they lose to equal that feat - which obviously, whatever the sport, is extremely difficult.

So in essence, the person who does the big $ line dog play will occasionally strike it lucky in two games and get a lead which is nearly insurmountable to those who are betting -110 lines. And that seems silly to me, because I always thought the contests were about overall handicapping skills, doing well over a large sample size of picks - not getting very lucky in a couple of games and riding that through.

Obviously if one were making actual bets that would not necessarily be a good strategy, but in these contests whether you finish in the middle or dead last makes absolutely no difference so why not take this very high variance approach and see if you strike it lucky and finish high just based on a couple of big hits?

I presume that's part of the reason why Beat the Prick (obviously SBR's biggest contest) does not allow $ lines - I have a feeling this same thing would happen there, there would be likely be a few +20 or +30 units early on (considering over 1000 people enter that, imagine several hundred tried that strategy especially with the double best bet), and +30 is roughly what won the whole contest last year! Just feel like that would be silly, take the long-term skill out of it. Perhaps SBR agrees with this and thus does not allow $ lines there for that reason. But if so, why allow them in any contest? I mean sure allowing them in baseball, hockey makes sense since the $ lines are pretty much always between -300 and +300. But why allow them in sports with +1000 or even higher underdogs?

Just my opinion again, but would like to here others' views on this.

[LT Profits]

You may have noticed we eliminated MLs from SBR sponsored contests for football/basketball, as well as lowered the ratings range from 1-5 to 1-3. The only time you will now see MLs in ATS sports is during the annual All Sports Contest in December-January.

You CAN still find MLs in the weekly pool contests, as those are not sponsored but rather pure pools with payout based on participation. But even there, the ratings are the RISK amount so nobody can get fat on huge ML faves.

[ArunSh]

You may have noticed we eliminated MLs from SBR sponsored contests for football/basketball, as well as lowered the ratings range from 1-5 to 1-3. The only time you will now see MLs in ATS sports is during the annual All Sports Contest in December-January.

You CAN still find MLs in the weekly pool contests, as those are not sponsored but rather pure pools with payout based on participation. But even there, the ratings are the RISK amount so nobody can get fat on huge ML faves.

I did not notice that LT - thanks for mentioning it! I think that's a really good idea. I agree with lowering the rating range as well.

Personally (again just my opinion), I would eliminate the rating range altogether. Why? Because basically everyone bets the highest number in the range early on since again the entire goal is to get a huge score, getting a medium score or very low score is no difference in terms of winning a prize. But then if you happen to do really well, you can just lower your bets from 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 (whatever it happens to be) in order to reach the minimum number of picks in a "safe" manner. And personally I don't think that should be permitted - forcing everyone to make the same number of picks with the same risk is a better long-term test of skill again (very easy to get lucky early then lower your risk after you have a big score). Again, just my opinion.

[convick]

Get rid of best bets too.

[OVAKUL]

Isn't winning a big tournament supposed to be all luck?

[LT Profits]

Isn't winning a big tournament supposed to be all luck?

Preferably not, we are trying to cater the rules such that there is much more skill involved than luck, at least rules-wise. Of course, there will always be luck involved in regards to how the games actually play out.