(04-28-2020, 05:27 AM)Jangorhino Wrote:The thing no one is talking about is how unfair of an advantage the the big bettors would have in effecting the lines. When someone with a 300 million bet changes the landscape of a betting line it becomes unfair. Handicapping games would be a Pandora’s box situation.

(04-28-2020, 07:27 AM)Jangorhino Wrote:The thing no one is talking about is how unfair of an advantage the the big bettors would have in effecting the lines. When someone with a 300 million bet changes the landscape of a betting line it becomes unfair. Handicapping games would be a Pandora’s box situation.

(04-28-2020, 04:50 PM)iStegosauruz Wrote:The first problem with this is that it rests heavily on the assumption that someone is allowed to make a $300m bet. That is a big assumption.

(04-28-2020, 04:14 PM)Vorshayla Wrote:You realize this happens EVERY day right?
You just don't get to see the line move because if you bet with an online sportsbook and you've been identified as a sharp player you will see different lines than your buddy who probably isn't a sharp player.

It's the same as anything, the sooner you get your bet in, the sooner you locked in the line so you don't care if the line moves, you've already locked in your bet

(04-28-2020, 11:25 AM)Jangorhino Wrote:Cool. You only listed one thing and said first. So are you gonna keep adding stuff later or was the first thing so good you just mic dropped and rolled out?


Ok. So my next assumption based off your response is that betting will be capped. So, with betting capped and with artificial handicaps, what do you really have going?
To me it sounds a little like a state sponsored neighborhood numbers game. Hard pass

(04-28-2020, 09:33 AM)Jangorhino Wrote:You realize when you say, you realize this happens EVERY day” you come off as a pretentious person right?

With fake money where some people have WAYYYY more money than other people good luck trying to get people into anything more than a lottery. Unless the people involved are desperate or not paying attention.

(04-28-2020, 07:18 PM)iStegosauruz Wrote:I'm unsure why you're getting aggressive over this topic. You posed a point, I responded you a counterpoint. I'm completely fine having a discussion about this, however there isn't a need to be hostile.

I addressed in my original post that for the purpose of the experiment I operated under the assumption that betting would be capped. I also addressed my reasoning for why I believed this: conceptually I believe the casino serves as a way to allow players to use excess money while also providing a way for the league office to siphon money out of the economy. Recently there have been a variety of discussions in league circles about how in the status quo the economy is overinflated. Players can acquire substantial sums of money in fairly easy ways. This depresses the amount of money given in contracts and lowers the excitement of a true free agency period. The only true incentive to change teams in an overinflated economy is because you don't like your current one, for whatever reason that may be. There's an argument that if you created a competitive contract system you could incentivize a stronger free agency period. Essentially, if contracts were a primary way to earn money in the league it would be more important to get a larger contract, meaning some players might leave their teams to chase that bigger payday.

One of the roadblocks to getting to a world like that is that the economy is already overinflated. You have to decrease the wealth gap and the overall amount of money in the economy some how. There isn't a clean or pretty way to do that, however the casino offers a potential route. It provides a way for players to add excitement to their gameday experience, potentially win money if they're a savvy gambler, and allow the front office to slowly siphon money out of the economy.

Now - to address the content of your response. Handicap betting isn't inherently a problem. Go to any sportsbook and you're going to find various betting options on games. It provides a way for the casino to incentivize betting on each side so that one doesn't have a potential clear advantage. I fail to see your argument how providing spreads, over/unders, or prop bets is a problem. Second, the entire point of the original post was that I was looking to mathematically find a way to have the handicaps not be artificial. They aren't being conjured out of thin air.

Third, I fail to see how this is a "state sponsored neighborhood numbers game." You drop this loaded phrase at the end of your comment, however I don't follow the logic for how you're getting there. Its obvious you disagree on face with the premise thats been laid out in this post, but you don't give me any concrete reason as to why any of its a problem. There's little I can engage with on this to give a response. In general though, as I addressed in the original post, the goal of the casino in my eyes - and as such how I operated in the study - is to provide players a fair chance to win but also pull some money from the economy. Players won money in the world I laid out, but the league office is capable of pulling money out of the economy as well. This is not dissimilar to how some sports books operate in real life. It is not uncommon for percentage odds to add up to past 100%. This allows the book to pull a premium from the bets being placed. Players can still win money, the book just hedges its losses in some ways. For the purpose of the league that allows it to give the players something fun to do, allow them to win money, and slowly pull excess currency out of the ecosystem.