|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
TCHS 4O 2000 [4o's nonsense] alvinny [2] - csq - edchong jenming - joseph - law meepok - mingqi - pea pengkian [2] - qwergopot - woof xinghao - zhengyu HCJC 01S60 [understated sixzero] andy - edwin - jack jiaqi - peter - rex serena SAF 21SA khenghui - jiaming - jinrui [2] ritchie - vicknesh - zhenhao Others Lwei [2] - shaowei - website links - Alien Loves Predator BloggerSG Cute Overload! Cyanide and Happiness Daily Bunny Hamleto Hattrick Magic: The Gathering The Onion The Order of the Stick Perry Bible Fellowship PvP Online Soccernet Sluggy Freelance The Students' Sketchpad Talk Rock Talking Cock.com Tom the Dancing Bug Wikipedia Wulffmorgenthaler       |
|
bert's blog v1.21 Powered by glolg Programmed with Perl 5.6.1 on Apache/1.3.27 (Red Hat Linux) best viewed at 1024 x 768 resolution on Internet Explorer 6.0+ or Mozilla Firefox 1.5+ entry views: 1349 today's page views: 238 (15 mobile) all-time page views: 3241431 most viewed entry: 18739 views most commented entry: 14 comments number of entries: 1213 page created Sat Apr 5, 2025 12:59:07 |
|
- tagcloud - academics [70] art [8] changelog [49] current events [36] cute stuff [12] gaming [11] music [8] outings [16] philosophy [10] poetry [4] programming [15] rants [5] reviews [8] sport [37] travel [19] work [3] miscellaneous [75] |
|
- category tags - academics art changelog current events cute stuff gaming miscellaneous music outings philosophy poetry programming rants reviews sport travel work tags in total: 386 |
| ||
|
The first season of my personal $100 Challenge has concluded, with not-too-stellar results: 
Weak finish
It began decently enough, with a profit being shown between the seventh and tenth weeks, and held firm until approximately the halfway mark, from which it all went pear-shaped. Though no real-life bank accounts were harmed in this study, the question of why a net loss was incurred, and how to rectify this issue, remains. A few seconds of thought by a team of one provided some possibilities: 1. Temporal Freedom of "Investment" The strict rules of the $100 Challenge force a constant sum to be wagered each week, regardless of whether the punter would actually be happy with the matchups on offer. In reality, when faced with a hodgepodge of unsavory bets, wise punters should keep their wallets firmly in their pocket, and not blow it on some Wigan vs Sheffield United roll of the dice. This has some parallels with the stock market, where it likely is easier to cash in on clear bull or bear markets than in times of uncertainty. Revisions for Season Two: Taken to the extreme, there is nothing to stop someone from accumulating his betting capital until the final week, and then blow it on an all-or-nothing bet - which wouldn't make for much interesting reading. Therefore, a compromise system is adopted - for the next season, there will be an inflow of $100 each week, as with now, but I can opt to use any sum from $0 to $200 (drawing upon past reserves, if available). 2. Heart over Head There have been a few too many unprofessional "Man Utd (-1.5) pwnage" and consolatory "reverse bets" in this edition of the Challenge. Sentiment really shouldn't come into it, and too often I've used it as an excuse. Revisions for Season Two: I considered putting a hard cap on how much I could wager on United or their immediate rivals, but that would be an artificial handicap, considering that those are some of the teams about which I know the most. Therefore, no action other than a reminder not to fall into the same trap again. 3. House Wins Or more bluntly, "Suckage at Betting". Actually, there isn't a need to be too worked up at this, since the odds guarantee that only the bookmakers laugh their way to the bank eventually. However, the laws of probability also ensure that there will be some big winners, and on the flipside, some bigger losers; This holds even when the game in question is of pure chance, which football punting arguably is not. I recall an episode in the Kingdom of Loathing when a player claimed to have a winning strategy for the Meat-Making Game, which is simply a coin-flipping game, and he did in fact have the record to back it up. However, he claimed that it was due to a "secret system". Barring a highly-improbable defect in the industrial-quality random-number generator that the game uses, it would be a coincidence, no more or less, and with sufficient participants even outrageous outcomes become extremely likely. Consider flipping ten coins, and getting heads on all of them; Granted that statistically a coin comes up in the same orientation slightly more often (~51%), the chances of getting ten heads out of ten is approximately 1 in 210, or ~0.1%. With ten people trying, the chance that one (or more) of them gets ten heads is already about 1% (1-0.99910). With a hundred people, the chance is about 10%, with a thousand people about 63%, and with ten thousand people a virtual certainty (99.995%). Someone will hit the jackpot, and may have any number of theories on why he did; Without sounding too dismissive, the major reason would be the favour of She of Green Eyes - Lady Luck. Revisions for Season Two: Take over Singapore Pools. No seriously, it's part and parcel of this industry, so just suck it up. But are the bookmakers always infallible? Generally, no - in theory, any old punter can make a guaranteed profit from the big bad betting houses. This is a consequence of there being multiple bookmakers, who often have slightly different odds on sporting events, and has its roots in economics. Wikipedia (as usual) has a short overview of arbitrage betting. Responsibly enough, Wikipedia warns of the very real risks of default, and in practice pretty large sums have to be wagered to bring about a respectable return. Using the 2% quoted as "typical", an initial outlay of $5000 is needed to take in $100. Doubtless there will be more "invisible" cuts in the form of fees and taxes, so the final gains could be even lower. Caveat bettor! Next: A Man, A Pen, A Tablet
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
