Gladiators + Betting

[warrioman]

Rigging matches can be averted by instituting a multiplier based on previous matches won. For instance, 3 to 1 means contestant A is 3x more likely to beat B based on previous performance. This means to bet on A you must pay 3x more than B. Here is a scenario:

A: Win/Lose Ratio: 10 wins / 5 losses = 2
B: Win/Lose Ratio: 5 wins / 10 losses = 0.5

A is 4x more likely to beat B.

To bet on A you must pay 20pp
To bet on B you must pay 5pp

100 people bet, 80 bet on A, 20 on B.
20 x 80 + 20 * 5 = 1600 + 100 = 1700 pool

Scenario 1: A wins
Every better for A receives 1700/80 = 21.25pp, a small gain. Will be larger if betting size is larger. However, A was 4x more likely to win thus payout is smaller.

Scenario 2: B wins
Every better for B receives 1700/20 = 85pp, a comparatively large gain. Will be larger if betting size is larger. Since B was more likely to lose, the payout is larger.


Now, you might be saying, this is still not rig-proof. Yes, but players are now aware of odds so if there is a huge payout due to difference in winning chances more people will either bet on the lower probability contestant or opt not to bet cause they think the game might be rigged.

Further, at first while the win/lose ratios are being established we might see rigging. But if players follow the gladiator games they'll start to figure out who knows who and who is rigging and who is not.


You might ask further, what about a wife/husband combo where the husband purposely throws a game while wife bets on the other player. Well, if a husband throws the game enough he'll get a lower ratio which will make the winnings less for betting on the person with a higher ratio. He's better off trying to win at this point and have the wife bet on him.


A website can be established for regulation/rules of the games with the person running it as the mod. They can keep track of winnings/losing for gladiators/announce upcoming games/etc.

[Gawain]

Originally Posted by warrioman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rigging matches can be averted by instituting a multiplier based on previous matches won. For instance, 3 to 1 means contestant A is 3x more likely to beat B based on previous performance. This means to bet on A you must pay 3x more than B. Here is a scenario:

A: Win/Lose Ratio: 10 wins / 5 losses = 2
B: Win/Lose Ratio: 5 wins / 10 losses = 0.5

A is 4x more likely to beat B.

To bet on A you must pay 20pp
To bet on B you must pay 5pp

100 people bet, 80 bet on A, 20 on B.
20 x 80 + 20 * 5 = 1600 + 100 = 1700 pool

Scenario 1: A wins
Every better for A receives 1700/80 = 21.25pp, a small gain. Will be larger if betting size is larger. However, A was 4x more likely to win thus payout is smaller.

Scenario 2: B wins
Every better for B receives 1700/20 = 85pp, a comparatively large gain. Will be larger if betting size is larger. Since B was more likely to lose, the payout is larger.


Now, you might be saying, this is still not rig-proof. Yes, but players are now aware of odds so if there is a huge payout due to difference in winning chances more people will either bet on the lower probability contestant or opt not to bet cause they think the game might be rigged.

Further, at first while the win/lose ratios are being established we might see rigging. But if players follow the gladiator games they'll start to figure out who knows who and who is rigging and who is not.


You might ask further, what about a wife/husband combo where the husband purposely throws a game while wife bets on the other player. Well, if a husband throws the game enough he'll get a lower ratio which will make the winnings less for betting on the person with a higher ratio. He's better off trying to win at this point and have the wife bet on him.

Is that a boxing joke?

[Dr4z3r]

Originally Posted by warrioman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Scenario 1: A wins
Every better for A receives 1700/80 = 21.25pp, a small gain. Will be larger if betting size is larger. However, A was 4x more likely to win thus payout is smaller.

Scenario 2: B wins
Every better for B receives 1700/20 = 85pp, a comparatively large gain. Will be larger if betting size is larger. Since B was more likely to lose, the payout is larger.

Don't forget the prize-money for the winner, and the cut Kavanah takes (don't start thinking this is for entertainment or charity; the primary goal for this as described would be profit for Kavanah regardless of outcome). Even assuming small cuts taken (5% of gross bets each), you're down to 1530p in the pool, which means everyone betting on A takes a loss even when A wins.

For this to come close to working, the cuts taken cannot be more than the total amount bet on the side with less money overall.