Venditto's contest idea is the best

[fearless]

Pat Venditto made the following recommendation for contests:

1. Give everyone a bank roll (say $10000).

2. You have to make a minimum # of plays (say 50 in a month).

3. You control your bankroll. If you want to bet $9755 on one game and $10 per game on the other 49, this should be allowed.

This would be a realistic contest. I would love to try it.

I think SBR should try such a contest rather than doing another 128 man competition. Why?

1. All contestants can compete throughout the contest.

2. We wouldn't have to have exactly 128 or 256 people, any number would do.

3. It's extremely realistic. This is a true test of handicapping abilities. Knowing what plays are stronger than others is critical in real life.

4. There will be no injustices (like diogee going 10-2 and being knocked out in the first round) and the contest will be fair to all.

[pat venditto]

I never made this kind of recommendation the guy who made this thread is hitting the reefer hard.

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

very good idea, i like this , we would actually use money management vs a toss up. But wouldn't the person who bets big and wins almost be guaranteed to win?

[Robust]

great idea.. but i see myself going 50% bank on my first an losing.. lol

then 100 at a time and never even being close to the lead.. but i'll do it anyway

Robust

[reno cool]

#3 would entail strategies of betting huge % of bankroll to have a chance of winning. Might be interesting..... wouldn't call it realistic however

[pico]

i am going all in on the first bet. if i win, i'll be in very good shape for the contest.

maybe all in parlay

[Robust]

ok.. just thought a bit on this.. use a bank of $20.. or something really small.. this prevents all-in guys from stealing it early (or late).. to make any real headway, you MUST be a good capper or you lose your bank and are kicked off the contest.

with 10g's you can go in thousands at a time and stay alive for way too many plays...

oh.. minimum bets should be set like $5 if the bank is $20.. unless the player ends up with less than 5, then the next play is all in.. whatcha think?

Robust

[fearless]

I never made this kind of recommendation the guy who made this thread is hitting the reefer hard.

I thought this was your idea but you may as take credit for it. Your name on this thread will get it more publicity.

[diogee]

The basic strategy would be to go all in or at least 75% on bet #1. Most wouldn't actually do that with their real bankroll but it would be the best way to give a shot at winning. I'm mostly a flat bettor at a high volume outside of a few monster bets I made on some of the worst teams in the nfl over the season and personally suck when I have to choose x amount of plays.

[fearless]

ok.. just thought a bit on this.. use a bank of $20.. or something really small.. this prevents all-in guys from stealing it early (or late).. to make any real headway, you MUST be a good capper or you lose your bank and are kicked off the contest.

with 10g's you can go in thousands at a time and stay alive for way too many plays...

oh.. minimum bets should be set like $5 if the bank is $20.. unless the player ends up with less than 5, then the next play is all in.. whatcha think?

Robust

Good thinking. I like something along those lines.

In order to keep everybody in it for the whole time though, how about this:

25 bets minimum, $5 minimum per bet, $125 bankroll

[fearless]

The basic strategy would be to go all in or at least 75% on bet #1.

I don't agree. At least not for me personally. I see like one play per week that I love and I would wait for one of those to go big on. I would tread water until one of those came along.

[Robust]

Good thinking. I like something along those lines.

In order to keep everybody in it for the whole time though, how about this:

25 bets minimum, $5 minimum per bet, $125 bankroll

that sounds good!

Robust

[diogee]

I don't agree. At least not for me personally. I see like one play per week that I love and I would wait for one of those to go big on. I would tread water until one of those came along.

Ok I guess I said that wrong...maybe not the 1st play but at some point in the round everyone would be pressured into doing that just to have a chance.

[VegasDave]

I don't agree. At least not for me personally. I see like one play per week that I love and I would wait for one of those to go big on. I would tread water until one of those came along.

Yeah while you were doing that, most posters in the contest would go all-in on bet 1. Those that lost would say "whatever" and not participate anymore... Those that won put themselves in position to win it all. They could even go for a double or nothing... win 2 straight bets, win the contest.

It is a very flawed contest as written in your first post.

[Robust]

I don't agree. At least not for me personally. I see like one play per week that I love and I would wait for one of those to go big on. I would tread water until one of those came along.

i would go 10% on -500 MLs and tread slowly.. monitoring others bankrolls.. if one shoots up fast, do a 50% on a pick i love and tread once more if i win it and see if others are going up or down..

basically wait to see if players are increassing dramatically and if they are posting large bets.. coz 1-2 large bets lost and they come tumbling down.. strategy.. that's why a small bank would be more ideal imo.. and would negate all -500 ML wagers like i just posted..

Robust

[fearless]

Yeah while you were doing that, most posters in the contest would go all-in on bet 1. Those that lost would say "whatever" and not participate anymore... Those that won put themselves in position to win it all. They could even go for a double or nothing... win 2 straight bets, win the contest.

It is a very flawed contest as written in your first post.

You're right. How about this idea:

25 bets minimum, $5 minimum per bet, $125 bankroll

[fearless]

i would go 10% on -500 MLs and tread slowly.. monitoring others bankrolls.. if one shoots up fast, do a 50% on a pick i love and tread once more if i win it and see if others are going up or down..

basically wait to see if players are increassing dramatically and if they are posting large bets.. coz 1-2 large bets lost and they come tumbling down.. strategy.. that's why a small bank would be more ideal imo.. and would negate all -500 ML wagers like i just posted..

Robust

Yes. This would be a very interesting contest on so many levels. Strategically it's like chess on steroids. Gambling wise it's a great challenge. This would be fun and great entertainment.

[ElCapitan]

You know, you could just make a max bet and solve the whole "all-in" problem.

Start with $10000 and make the min $100 and the max $2500 - or something like that.

[fearless]

You know, you could just make a max bet and solve the whole "all-in" problem.

Start with $10000 and make the min $100 and the max $2500 - or something like that.

Excellent. I love it.