The Fargo Ratings are from FargoRate.com. I calculated the odds/line.
$100,000 Match - It Will Be Legit
- Thread starter Fast Lenny
- Start date
The Fargo Ratings are from FargoRate.com. I calculated the odds/line.
If a little match between 2 nobodies up in the DCC action room can go for 5-10K entry, 50K each shouldn't be too difficult.
Just not the 25K coming from Dennis.
Before watching the Ko/Dennis match, I thought Team Shane was stealing. Even after, I feel very comfortable with Shane.
Shane had a BNR rate of 40%+ at the MIH event.
Just not the 25K coming from Dennis.
Before watching the Ko/Dennis match, I thought Team Shane was stealing. Even after, I feel very comfortable with Shane.
Shane had a BNR rate of 40%+ at the MIH event.
I did too and it said even race between the both.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes they are the #2 and #3 ranked players, with Shane getting 51-49 in a single game. But even the small difference between them becomes huge in such a long race, to the point that it's over 2-1 in a race to 140.
But at that point I wonder if it's an illusion of false precision of the Fargo numbers. They're 5 points away on a 900 point scale. They're even as far as I'm concerned. I just think Shane is in Dennis's head more than the other way around, and so I think Shane is a big favorite, but not because of their Fargo ratings.
Its a race to 160 so its even longer. This match is even but like you said Shane has some mental stuff going on with Dennis.
In a race to 80
Shane 62%
Dennis 38%
80-76 makes it pretty even 50.7% Dennis
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I wish someone would run a book for a weekend and let me pick my side based off the Fargo rate numbers. I think I would bust it even paying 20% juice.
Edit: I'm not knocking fargorate, I like it and use it a lot. But it's not definitive like some people make it out to be. It's definitely proven me wrong more than twice.
Edit: I'm not knocking fargorate, I like it and use it a lot. But it's not definitive like some people make it out to be. It's definitely proven me wrong more than twice.
Sorry, but if you assume Fargo Rate is correct, 823 v. 816, it is NOT close to an even match in a race to 160. It's 2-1.
Of course if you disagree with Fargo Rate (either the player's ratings or the model itself), then it's simply garbage in-garbage out.
However, in any case, a 2-1 moneyline in a race to 160 is consistent with an 8.5 game line, and a 15 game spot to 160 is a bigger spot than 2-1 on the money.
Last edited:
I'm not on GAL, but I'd offer you that proposition on the next major tournament for reasonable (read small to moderate) stakes.
Well I would certainly give up the 8.5 games before 2-1 in a race to 160.
Correct, without some estimation of standard errors, it is difficult to create accurate odds for very long races.
You have to be a lunatic to bet against Shane on a Diamond in a race to 160 right now. I'll be surprised if Dennis gets to 140.
You may be incorporating additional priors (perhaps based upon experience) that a standard probabilistic model does not.
On the other hand, would you give someone 15 games if they gave you 2:1?
Last edited:
I would take Shane and give 15 games if I got 2:1 but feel it might be closer then the 15 games but the money odds I like. I don't go off of statistics much as players have highs and lows from time to time with their play over the year and even over the course of a week, month or even day.
I think the basic problem with applying Fargo Rate to long races is that we don't know how statistically signficant these ratings are. When we say that Shane has a rating of 823 (and Dennis 816) do we mean 823 plus or minus 3 points or 300 points? If the former, then I am pretty confident in the 2-1 moneyline, however, if it's the latter, than it begins to look closer to an even race.
Similarly, if on some days Shane plays like an 823 but other days like a 623 and on other days like a 1023, this produces the same issues as statistical uncertainty.
Last edited:
As a final point, as your intuition seems to confirm, if you truly believe that players have extreme ranges of highs and lows, then yes, it is generally better to give games on the wire vs. odds on the money.
I admit I am not a gambler. However, if I were, I would take this bet.
Kudos to you for offering real action.
If it's a bucket table Dennis is 20 game underdog tight table it's Shane by 8
1
1
If I'm playing someone to 160 and I think it's even, then absolutely. You're talking about a 10% spot. Think of a race to 10 against someone who is dead even with you.
If he was going to get to 10 first, then you lose anyway--that's 50% of what can happen.
The other 50% of the time, you reach 10 first. With the spot, if the score is 10-9, then you still lose. If you win 10-8 or better, then you double your money.
Thus, the question is, conditional on getting to 10 first, are you more likely to win (1) exactly 10-9 or (2) by 10-8 or better? Working quickly, if the odds of winning a game are 50-50, I think the chance of a final score of 10-9 is about 18%. It's certainly below 50%.