US Open Contest Ideas thread

[SBR Lou]

Since this contest is so far out, and the early announcement thread seemed to be unpopular, I have removed that announcement and am surveying what structure would you think is most appropriate for a 2 week contest?

Should there be a limit on # of picks?

Limit on the chalk?

Any other thoughts appreciated.

[yisman]

Thank you for starting this thread.

I think there should be a max limit of about half the possible plays and a minimum limit of about 1/5 the possible plays. This allows a lot more possibilities and we won't end up with a leader sitting on his lead because no one has enough plays left to catch him.

Chalk limit I don't feel is necessary, but if there is going to be one, set it at about -999 maximum. That just cuts out the extreme early round mismatches. If someone wants to try to win by betting a lot of -700s and -800s, be my guest.

[shhhhh22]

Another way would be to start with X Units... say 50. Then if you go negative units you're out. But no chalk limits at all. and I like yisman's minimum idea... 1/5 of all possible plays.

[smitch124]

Make it like Beat the Prick, all who beat Lou win! given $ amount X # of units...

[SBR Lou]

Make it like Beat the Prick, all who beat Lou win! given $ amount X # of units...

I'd love to give away that kind of cash for a tennis contest, but unfortunately I think we need to be realistic, and weight this tournament relative to the approximate amount of entries.

I know the cash is cool but I really feel like, for the tennis handicapping evaluators we do have here, this is more about the skill and fun factor than necessarily padding the bankroll.

Keep the ideas comin'.

[tacomax]

Make it like Beat the Prick, all who beat Lou win! given $ amount X # of units...

That might bankrupt SBR.

[SBR Lou]

That might bankrupt SBR.

Prizing is pretty much set, but we can most certainly shape the structure and format of the contest around the consensus opinions.

[RogueScholar]

Thank you for starting this thread.

I think there should be a max limit of about half the possible plays and a minimum limit of about 1/5 the possible plays. This allows a lot more possibilities and we won't end up with a leader sitting on his lead because no one has enough plays left to catch him.

Chalk limit I don't feel is necessary, but if there is going to be one, set it at about -999 maximum. That just cuts out the extreme early round mismatches. If someone wants to try to win by betting a lot of -700s and -800s, be my guest.

Thank you from me as well, Lou. I really take my hat off to you for seeing that we needed to take a step back and hash out some details before everybody would sign on. Very good piece of decision making.

Now, Yisman and I seem to be on the same page. Out of 254 matches for the entire main draw for men and women, it seems to me that the minimum has to be somewhere around 50 and a maximum of no less than 100, preferably 125 if you ask me. This is a big tournament, and it should be a big contest for people who can really win at tennis.

Likewise with the chalk limit, -999 sounds great by me. We all saw how James Blake started some off poorly at Wimbledon, playing chalk is by no means safe in tennis. Let people bury themselves, and if someone can beat me by just playing the heavy favorites, then I will truly salute them. It's a hard business playing long odds as straight bets.

I'm also troubled by the fact that if you go on a hot streak all of this effort may be for naught. Could we instead attach a bounty or bonus system to how people do with respect to your units. Say, 1st through 3rd get paid, plus $20 to anybody who beats you by 5 or 10 units? That way you're still the benchmark to be measured against, but we're gonna have some winners rewarded for their efforts regardless.

The only other thing is that I would like to see how everybody feels about plays of 1-3 units. I would probably make the limit be 5 units, but I'm flexible on that. I mention it because I'm using a 10-unit scale for risk currently and having a limit that's a multiple of 10 would be convenient, but only if all the other tennis guys agree.

You were good at getting the standings out regularly when we mentioned it with Wimbledon, so that concludes the things I wanted to see changed.

Thanks for listening and I now look forward to participating once a concensus is achieved.

[yisman]

I'm with Rogue. The bounty thing would be good, but apparently there isn't enough money for that.

I also like the unit limit being bumped up to 5 instead of 3.

[SBR Lou]

Thank you from me as well, Lou. I really take my hat off to you for seeing that we needed to take a step back and hash out some details before everybody would sign on. Very good piece of decision making.

Now, Yisman and I seem to be on the same page. Out of 254 matches for the entire main draw for men and women, it seems to me that the minimum has to be somewhere around 50 and a maximum of no less than 100, preferably 125 if you ask me. This is a big tournament, and it should be a big contest for people who can really win at tennis.

Likewise with the chalk limit, -999 sounds great by me. We all saw how James Blake started some off poorly at Wimbledon, playing chalk is by no means safe in tennis. Let people bury themselves, and if someone can beat me by just playing the heavy favorites, then I will truly salute them. It's a hard business playing long odds as straight bets.

I'm also troubled by the fact that if you go on a hot streak all of this effort may be for naught. Could we instead attach a bounty or bonus system to how people do with respect to your units. Say, 1st through 3rd get paid, plus $20 to anybody who beats you by 5 or 10 units? That way you're still the benchmark to be measured against, but we're gonna have some winners rewarded for their efforts regardless.

The only other thing is that I would like to see how everybody feels about plays of 1-3 units. I would probably make the limit be 5 units, but I'm flexible on that. I mention it because I'm using a 10-unit scale for risk currently and having a limit that's a multiple of 10 would be convenient, but only if all the other tennis guys agree.

You were good at getting the standings out regularly when we mentioned it with Wimbledon, so that concludes the things I wanted to see changed.

Thanks for listening and I now look forward to participating once a concensus is achieved.

I like the idea of adding extra incentives for out-capping me but not necessarily winning, but I'd be afraid that 95% of the contestants might out-cap me.

As to the number of picks, a minimum of 50 might be a tough sell. I know us tennis handicappers relish the extra opportunity to exhibit our skill, but we need to focus on making this contest also appeal to the observers, those that might not really follow tennis year round but want to jump in and have some fun, without being too overwhelmed.

I like the idea of the higher max though. I agree with the idea of raising the juice limit I was just afraid this would be received negatively, but if the consensus wants to be able to bet up to -999 I won't stop 'em.

How about minimum 25 picks, Max 100? I think if anyone makes more than 100 picks it would be more about "chasing" and not necessarily indicative of quality selections, and I think the concept of this tournament is more to demonstrate ones prowess by pouncing on value rather than just mass-picking. There are definitely not 100 picks that will have immense value, any tennis handicapping evaluator worth his salt would attest to this.

Keep the ideas comin' with regard to the bet sizing, min and max, and anything else that might have went untouched.

[yisman]

I like the idea of adding extra incentives for out-capping me but not necessarily winning, but I'd be afraid that 95% of the contestants might out-cap me.

What's this now? You always talk so tough! You should be saying that we don't have to worry about a lot of people out-capping you because there's no chance of it happening.

As to the number of picks, a minimum of 50 might be a tough sell. I know us tennis handicappers relish the extra opportunity to exhibit our skill, but we need to focus on making this contest also appeal to the observers, those that might not really follow tennis year round but want to jump in and have some fun, without being too overwhelmed.

The higher the minimum, the greater the chance of the winner(s) being people who exhibited actual handicapping skill. More picks means a better result.

If you don't want to go to 50, how about a compromise? 40? I think for a contest with 254 possible picks, we should be encouraging more picks, not someone who makes 25 picks, hits a few lucky ones, and winds up +20 units.

I like the idea of the higher max though. I agree with the idea of raising the juice limit I was just afraid this would be received negatively, but if the consensus wants to be able to bet up to -999 I won't stop 'em.

-999 it is, then, unless anyone disagrees.

How about minimum 25 picks, Max 100? I think if anyone makes more than 100 picks it would be more about "chasing" and not necessarily indicative of quality selections, and I think the concept of this tournament is more to demonstrate ones prowess by pouncing on value rather than just mass-picking. There are definitely not 100 picks that will have immense value, any tennis handicapping evaluator worth his salt would attest to this.

No, but I think half is fair that it prevents anyone from just trying to snow everyone by picking every single match, but it allows handicappers to pick every match that has value.

I won't quibble with 100, but I do think I could find 100 matches that have value (in my opinion, of course). When I find time to go through the whole slate, I often pick half the possible matches, with varying unit sizes.

[RogueScholar]

I can support a 100 play max with a 5 unit limit, absolutely. You're right as well, if you want to get the looky-lous (pardon the pun) involved, you have to have a low minimum. The minimum didn't bother me at all last time, so I say let's ditch it all together and let anyone play at any participation level they see fit. If somebody can make more units off one play than I can off of 80, then I have bigger problems than losing the contest, ya know?

And we're agreed that if you are concerned that 95% of the field could outcap you, then it's a little disrespectful to the entrants to tell them they won't get paid if you go on the run of your life?

I just want to see us play this with a few constraints as possible. Everybody should be allowed to play their own style, within reason. That's how we learn who's really on top of their game, as opposed to making people play a certain way that may not suit their style. My style is medium chalk with medium dogs and varying the stakes depending on my confidence, and I'm averaging a 9% ROI that way. I'd like to see how that method which works for me stacks up against others and maybe learn something while I have some fun.

[RogueScholar]

I won't quibble with 100, but I do think I could find 100 matches that have value (in my opinion, of course). When I find time to go through the whole slate, I often pick half the possible matches, with varying unit sizes.

I just had to add my assent to this part. I know I could find at least 100 matches where I felt one side had value and could make them work for me by varying my amount risked commensurately with my confidence. You don't need huge value to make a profit, you just have to assess value accurately.

[j0hnnyv]

i agree with all of this. my biggest thing is more plays. 100 plays max is perfect. 5 unit max thats OK i wasnt really thinking about that. as long as the max plays gets changed im good to go.

[SBR Lou]

i agree with all of this. my biggest thing is more plays. 100 plays max is perfect. 5 unit max thats OK i wasnt really thinking about that. as long as the max plays gets changed im good to go.

Consider it changed.

[EaglesPhan36]

I think if you want a true contest of who is the best capper, blah de blah. Why not have an exact number of picks that has to be made by everyone. Whether it's 50, 75 or 100 or whatever. That way you actually do get to "out cap" everyone if you participate vs. someone winning because they made 22 more picks than someone, etc. Just a thought. Other thought would be setting a max # of picks that can be made each round for the first 4 rounds, maybe 20-25 per round or something and then you have to pick each match from the QFs to the Final.

[ijustwant2bpaid]

whats up with a nacar contest by the general, maybe for the chase? I could help promote it for u guys..

[yisman]

I like the idea of adding extra incentives for out-capping me but not necessarily winning, but I'd be afraid that 95% of the contestants might out-cap me.

I can see why.

[EaglesPhan36]

Another thought for a contest would be to do it NCAA basketball tournament style. Have everyone pick the matches through to the final and you get points per correct pick.

[RogueScholar]

That's a unique idea EP, but honestly I think it'd be a little overwhelming considering we have a main draw of 128 men and 128 women for a Slam, quadrupling the field that you see for March Madness. I do believe though that you've stumbled onto something here. Why couldn't we implement your idea for the Rogers Cup in early August? It's the third oldest tennis competition in the world (Wimbledon and the US Open are older), and two weeks before the Bash, so I think the staff wouldn't run into scheduling conflicts. The main singles draw of just 56 players makes it almost identical to the NCAA bracket.

It's also close enough to the US Open that we could tie them together. Say offer a 5 unit (equal to one winning play with a max stake) advantage to the top 3 finishers should they enter the US Open contest. Of course it would be nice if this were in addition to a reasonable cash prize at a sportsbook. I would totally support your idea for a tournament of this size and magnitude (the Rogers Cup always brings a highly ranked field and being held in Montreal is widely televised in North America) and would be elated to participate.

What does everybody else think?

[EaglesPhan36]

The other thought I had with the NCAA-style thing because I do agree that picking 128 on each side would be overwhelming is to start it in the 3rd round, so it'd be 32 players left per side.

[RogueScholar]

Hey, can we use the same contest software for this bracket contest that was used for the March Madness contest? If it were that easy I bet we could get at least 30 people to fill one out, maybe even 50. And I still think it would be better with a singles draw from a 1000-level tourney as opposed to the third round on of a Slam. For the US Open I really like the format we have which truly emphasizes handicapping, evaluating prices and prudent staking.

[SBR Lou]

Loving the ideas. You guys know me, I'm a tennis junkie. If I were able to, we'd have a tennis contest running every dang week.

I think right now though with all the contests goin' on, football and the US Open approaching, we're probably limited to the Major 4 Slams for the time being. I am optimistic that the more we continue to grow and handicap together the bigger our tennis community will become, and more contest offerings will surely follow.

[RogueScholar]

Come on Lou, a bracket contest would grade itself using the contest software and be a great way to get people involved that wouldn't join a traditional tennis handicapping competition. Tell Bill to get rid of one of those omnipresent poker freerolls and sink the dough into the Rogers Cup bracket. Poker players don't hang out at sports forums, they take their money to PStars or Full Tilt. We can advertise at menstennisforum.com and Tennis Warehouse and get some fresh faces that'll actually stick around and post.

You have the influence, Lou. Show us who really runs things at SBR.

[Chi_archie]

great business acumen Pete!!!!


I like it