Amateur Predictamancy Thread (BETTING)

[drachefly]

Okay, putting that down. I'll take 97 this time.

Eh, you are betting on the page that is up now?

Umm... I fail at counting. No, I'm not doing that. 100, then.

[Nnelg]

Okay, putting that down. I'll take 97 this time.

Eh, you are betting on the page that is up now?

Umm... I fail at counting. No, I'm not doing that. 100, then.

Well, I'll take the 100 slot of the new pool, then.

Fail at reading, too...

[Nnelg]

I'll bet anyone 2q that if Parson ever learns of Charlie's old "man behind the curtain" schtick, he'll never let Charlie live it down.

[drachefly]

Fail at reading, too...

Yes, apparently so. I'll sit this one out, then. 101 seems pretty freaking unlikely.

[Nnelg]

All the more for me then, when it turns out to be right!

[bladestorm]

Came up with a new pool idea.

That idea got scrapped. Forget I even mentioned it.

[Nnelg]

If the buy-in was less steep (maybe 1-5q) then I'd put some Quatloos down.

[bladestorm]

Buyin is however many qualtoo you are willing to throw down. If you want to throw in 2Q, then that makes the pot at 12 so far. You just only get one buyin, so I put down enough to make it at least semi-worthwhile.

[Whispri]

In that case I'll put one Quatloo down on it being a Shockamancer.

[effataigus]

Buyin is however many qualtoo you are willing to throw down. If you want to throw in 2Q, then that makes the pot at 12 so far. You just only get one buyin, so I put down enough to make it at least semi-worthwhile.

1 on predictamancer.

[drachefly]

You only get one buyin, and can't increase it? Fine. To discourage people from offering such piddly stakes, I'll put 3q on predictamancer, on top of effataigus' 1.

[bladestorm]

You only get one buyin, and can't increase it? Fine. To discourage people from offering such piddly stakes, I'll put 3q on predictamancer, on top of effataigus' 1.

I kinda view you as the local bookie, so if you want to make a minimum bid of 3Q to enter, that's fine by me. Or if you want to add in that your bid can increase, but you still only get the one option (So some boop-monkey doesn't go through and bid 1Q on each of the disciplines to automatically win). the more people and the higher the bids, the better the end result is for everyone.

[drachefly]

It looks like Bladestorm's running this one out of that post, so I think I'll let him run it.

[effataigus]

So, curious... if a predictamancer were named tomorrow, Drache and I would split the winnings 3:1? As I understood it before, we'd have split the pot evenly, so I thought you were mad to bet 10, but this makes more sense.

I ask because I see potential for this model. One could throw out a question like "Will Ace get killed by GK before the end of book 2 or he next leaves Jetstone?" ... and people could throw as many Quatloos as they want on either side, allowing the final pot to be divvied up based upon the amount bet. This would give us an organic community-based odds determination.

The downside to this is that, unlike normal betting, your odds/payout can change considerably after you make your bet. Consider that if a predictamancer were named before drache posted, I'd have been up 11 Quatloos. Afterwards I'd be up either 2.75 or 5.5... depending on which interpretation is right. In other words, it provides even more incentive to be that vulture that waits as long as possible until just before you think we're going to meet a new mancer, then throw your bet out there.

Man, quatloos are serious business.

[bladestorm]

So, curious... if a predictamancer were named tomorrow, Drache and I would split the winnings 3:1? As I understood it before, we'd have split the pot evenly, so I thought you were mad to bet 10, but this makes more sense.

I ask because I see potential for this model. One could throw out a question like "Will Ace get killed by GK before the end of book 2 or he next leaves Jetstone?" ... and people could throw as many Quatloos as they want on either side, allowing the final pot to be divvied up based upon the amount bet. This would give us an organic community-based odds determination.

The downside to this is that, unlike normal betting, your odds/payout can change considerably after you make your bet. Consider that if a predictamancer were named before drache posted, I'd have been up 11 Quatloos. Afterwards I'd be up either 2.75 or 5.5... depending on which interpretation is right. In other words, it provides even more incentive to be that vulture that waits as long as possible until just before you think we're going to meet a new mancer, then throw your bet out there.

we'd have to round, since I don't think we work in fractions of quatloo. So you'd get 4Q (3.75 rounded), and drachefly would get 11Q (11.25Q).
The other down side is that people will usually only make the minimum risk. In this case 1Q at a chance for 15Q; it relies heavily upon someone else adding more than the minimum and choosing a different caster type. If I ad left my initial bid at 20Q and set the minimum at 5Q for the buyin, we'd have at current 35Q in the pot, so your minimum bid would bring in 8.75, for a gain of 3.75.

In the current setup, if you were to increase your bid to 2Q, then your split would be 6 (6.4 rounded) to drachefly's 10 (9.6 rounded), for a gain of 4. There's a definite benefit to choosing a caster that no one else has chosen. Your same 2Q on a caster no one else had chosen would net you the same gain as if you had bet 1Q. There's a numbers game to be played with this, and I'm sure someone else has the time and patience to sit down and figure out the best odds to bet ratio. Then again, the more people betting, the more complicated the numbers get.

An alternative would be to have bids on a grid, where no choice is given based upon the final outcome. 1Q gets you one square, and that gets filled in at random after all of the squares are purchased. In this instance, 23 boxes, so 23Q up for grabs, and each q that you bet gets you one randomly assigned discipline. Bet 5Q, and five of the disciplines are assigned to you.

Also, this particular bet doesn't lend well to waiting, since a new caster can be named and linked to their discipline in either Book 0 or Book 2, and can be as easy as Marie chiding Phillip (a known predictamancer that we were merely guessing his name) for goading the carnies. In the next Book 2 update, if Jojo calls one of his carny buddies by name, that counts. If Wanda tells Jillian that Tina was the most recent turnamancer for Haffaton, but it was Bootstrap Bill that was the turnamancer that made the box, that counts. If the dude in the brown coat and the glasses that everyone thinks is a predictamancer turns out to be Hubble, that counts. This whole thing could be over with very quickly. I'm hoping it's at least four comics away, and there will be more people jumping into the betting.

[effataigus]

Understood.

You only get one buyin, and can't increase it? Fine. To discourage people from offering such piddly stakes, I'll put 3q on predictamancer, on top of effataigus' 1.

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Your three quatloos have decreased my theoretical returns while keeping my investment the same, and pushed the returns below the threshold of what I would consider a bad bet... meaning I'm now especially glad I didn't invest more than one. As for everyone else, you have increased their theoretical returns regardless of how much they have bet. Gaming this system suggests that you should put 1 quatloo if the space is unoccupied, and more than that only to the degree that you think that your bet has a greater fractional probability of being right in excess of the quatloo total on that square divided by the total number of quatloos in play... no?

[bladestorm]

Understood.

You only get one buyin, and can't increase it? Fine. To discourage people from offering such piddly stakes, I'll put 3q on predictamancer, on top of effataigus' 1.

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Your three quatloos have decreased my theoretical returns while keeping my investment the same, and pushed the returns below the threshold of what I would consider a bad bet... meaning I'm now especially glad I didn't invest more than one. As for everyone else, you have increased their theoretical returns regardless of how much they have bet. Gaming this system suggests that you should put 1 quatloo if the space is unoccupied, and more than that only to the degree that you think that your bet has a greater fractional probability of being right in excess of the quatloo total on that square divided by the total number of quatloos in play... no?

total quatloo in play divided by the total for that square times your bid.

The factors involved are your own investment, the investment of others on that same square, and the total pot. Multiple bids on the same square invalidates the safe bet of 1Q, since it completely diminishes the return for the investment.

And decreasing your returns is, I think, kinda why drachefly did that. Everyone bidding 1Q makes for a very low pot, so very little return upon investment. Had we all bid 1Q, the pot would only be 4Q, which you admit is below your threshold for a bad bet. Under the current setup, had drachefly big 6Q, that would have tanked your returns down to 2Q (2.57 rounded up to 3, less your investment of 1). If anyone else jumps on predictamancer, that 1Q investment returns less and less. Had you picked lookamancer, your 1Q investment would have returned 1.36, which would round down to 1.

It's an organic system growth, so more aggressive bids will overshadow less aggressive bids when competing for the same environ. The only place the non-aggressive 1Q bids have a chance is where there is no competition for that space.

[effataigus]

Multiple bids on the same square invalidates the safe bet of 1Q, since it completely diminishes the return for the investment.

Not quite...

One of two things can happen... either someone picks my spot or they don't. If noone does, then my safe bet of 1 is golden, awesome, and excellent... I risk one and gain everything.

OR

Someone does pick my spot in which case my expected quatloo return per quatloo bid is maximized by my picking as few as possible.

Right now I'm risking 1 quatloo for a possible net gain of 2.75. Had I bet 2, my possible net gain would be 2 per quatloo bid... the more you bid, the less you earn relative to the amount you risk. Therefore it is always optimal by this metric to bet 1 quatloo until you get into rounding errors... and rounding errors don't always punish the meek 1 quatloo betters, and they also bring up the possibility of quatloos simply disappearing or appearing out of thin air! If this is allowed, then I'd like to register 1000 bets with the following scheme:

Person A proposes a pool like this one with a yes or no outcome where the "yes" condition is utterly implausible. They bet 1 quatloo. Person B and C each bet 1 quatloo on no.
Person B does likewise with A and C, and person C follows suit for person A and B.

Bets are resolved. Everyone loses 1000 quatloos and gains 2000.

I'm not really proposing this, but you get the idea. I think we're going to have to allow fractions if we go this route... also, I'd suggest a standardized bet amount for pools like this in the future.

[Nnelg]

This is why I'm staying out of this pool.

I think there should be a rule that all future pools must have set buy-ins.

[bladestorm]

Multiple bids on the same square invalidates the safe bet of 1Q, since it completely diminishes the return for the investment.

Not quite...

One of two things can happen... either someone picks my spot or they don't. If noone does, then my safe bet of 1 is golden, awesome, and excellent... I risk one and gain everything.

OR

Someone does pick my spot in which case my expected quatloo return per quatloo bid is maximized by my picking as few as possible.

Actually, it is like that. If no one picks your square, then it's not multiple bids on the same square. And any argument involving ratios is always going to favour the minimum investment, but that also yields the minimum actual gain. drachefly's ratio may be less, but his net gain would be triple what yours would be. Also, if someone else bids on your same 'mancer, it kills your precious ratio from 15:1 down to a max of 7.5:1, with more bids reducing that ratio even further.