PDA

View Full Version : Official "2+2 NFL Challenge- 2004" rules, revised- suggestions?


Easy E
09-10-2004, 09:52 AM
Since we'll be moving the Challenge over here next week, I thought I'd move the rules over here as well, see if anyone had proposed changes.
<font color="red">(By the way, if you are interested in getting involved in Week #1, jump over to the Other Gambling forum and place your picks. You must post by Saturday morning at the latest) </font>

Two suggestions that have been suggested (by suggesting suggestors, that were suggested in a somewhat suggestive manner):
1) Allow less than 4 mandatory bets (affecting Rule #3)
2) Allow betting on totals as another option, rather than just teams/point spreads.

#####
Okay, here are the official rules for the "2+2 NFL Challenge- 2004" handicappers contest. Feel free to make suggested changes and I'll take them under advisement- but do it quickly


1. Each week, I will post the official contest line in 2+2, in this forum (the Sports Betting forum, starting 9/14/04 or later). Primarily I will take the lines from the Stardust sports book online. I may make up missing lines myself to beat the game-posting deadline. I will wait as long as is feasible in order to get as many Stardust lines as possible.

Once I post the line for the games, they will NOT change, even if the outside lines change. Feel free to take advantage. Occasionally I may post the 2+2 lines with some games missing, catching up when the sports books do.

2. Similar to last year, your picks should be listed in the following manner:
$400 Buffalo -7
$300 Eagles +4
$200 Raiders + 7.5
$100 Chiefs even

The official 2+2 line is the only correct point spread. If your list is incorrect, it will be ignored /corrected for you in the master ledger. The team chosen will be the corrected choice, regardless of the correct point spread.

3. Each contestant MUST post 4 games, listing the team they are choosing, along with the amount of the bet on that game. There must be one $400 bet, one $300, one $200 and one $100

Unlike last year, I will not be guessing as to the bet values or order, or looking throughout any forums for posts that might qualify as your picks. If your post isn't clear and you don't correct it in time, your picks will be assumed to match up with the lowest bet at the bottom.

So, if you post " Jets +3, Lions -4" and nothing else, you will have a $200 bet on the Jets, a $100 bet on the Lions <font color="red"> AND you will have two automatic losses for the $400 and $300 picks </font>

4. Your picks must be posted in the official "2+2 NFL Challenge- 2004: Week XX" thread that I will start each week. Your post must be time-stamped at least 1 hour EST prior to the network-listed start time of the game. The 2+2 forum timestamp is the official time for determining this.

I will sometimes post a "Challenge now closed" reply to indicate this deadline, but not always

That means that, if you want to get involved in Week #1, your picks post must be time-stamped on the 2+2 server by 12 p.m. EST on Saturday 9/11/04.

Any changes to your picks must be posted by the same deadline. If your picks included an early game, any revisions to ANY of your games chosen MUST be posted by the deadline of the earliest game!

<font color=" blue"> ALL of your picks must be posted together. Do not post for early games individually and then add a second post with your last 3 games later on in the week. </font>


5. Scoring- you must beat the point spread to "win" your money points that you "bet" on the game. Ties against the official 2+2 line's point spread are worth $0. Losses subtract from your bankroll, which starts at $0.

6. I will post the updated standings by the following week, usually the day after the last game.

7. This process will repeat throughout the year for each week of the regular season. When we get within a few weeks of the end of the regular season, we will work out some method of PM the picks for the leaders, so no advantages can be lost by your posting before the others. <font color="green">(we'll call this the "Big Al" rule /images/graemlins/grin.gif)</font>

8. Any tiebreakers needed for the end of the year to determine the final 2+2 champ for 2004, will be as follows:
a) Total wins
b) Some secondary tiebreaker- possibly a playoff game challenge.

9. I will finalize all arbitration decisions that are required. Appeals must go through me (bribes are encouraged- compliments don't count).
<font color="purple">If the conflict involves me, no whining when you get screwed over.
Do not be surprised if I use my unfettered power to cheat my way to victory at the end of the year. Don't try to claim that I didn't warn you /images/graemlins/cool.gif </font>

10. The only prize won by the champion is the satisfaction of victory and the ability to list themselves as the 2+2 Master NFL Handicapper. Don't come looking for your gold crown and WSOP-level cash.

#######

Make any suggested changes that you'd like, by Sunday.

SossMan
09-10-2004, 01:29 PM
I don't like rule change #1.
I like rule change #2.

-sossman

Easy E
09-10-2004, 03:36 PM
<font color="red"> I don't like rule change #1.
1) Allow less than 4 mandatory bets (affecting Rule #3)

<font color="green">I like rule change #2.
2) Allow betting on totals as another option, rather than just teams/point spreads. </font></font>

Why, for the first one?

Are you looking for 4 mandatory bets, with a mix of totals and teams/spreads possible?

bugstud
09-10-2004, 04:36 PM
yeah, 4 bets but allow O/U to be mixed in

Easy E
09-10-2004, 05:12 PM
First, should we encourage (we can't require) people to provide a short reason for each of their picks? Or would the resulting debates clutter the thread up too much?

Second, handicappers don't really need to list the point spread with the team chosen- since the official 2+2 lines aren't going anywhere, just make sure you have team name and bet amount correctly posted.


Third, if you make revisions, post them in the thread and then PM me that you changed things... just to be safe. I transfer them all to a spreadsheet and may not look back at the posts to determine results.

SossMan
09-10-2004, 05:22 PM
Are you looking for 4 mandatory bets, with a mix of totals and teams/spreads possible?



Yes...I think the 4 mandatory bets makes it easier to track and the totals gives us more options.

WHOO HOO! I'M IN 2ND PLACE!!

Easy E
09-10-2004, 05:25 PM
"WHOO HOO! I'M IN 2ND PLACE!! "

huh?

thomastem
09-10-2004, 05:27 PM
So where are the 2+2 lines?

Easy E
09-10-2004, 05:57 PM
so I'm going to assume you're yanking my chain here, rather than being extremely lazy, extremely stupid or incredibly poor at reading comprehension.

However, I will do this anyway, just in case your eagle was smoking crack again:
<font color="red">(By the way, if you are interested in getting involved in Week #1, jump over to the Other Gambling forum and place your picks. You must post by Saturday morning at the latest)</font>

Mason Malmuth
09-11-2004, 04:32 AM
Hi Everyone:

This is a post I have to make every now and then.

While we have no objection to the challenge, keep in mind that this is not an official Two Plus Two function.

best wishes,
Mason

Easy E
09-11-2004, 08:36 AM
I won't be writing the "NFL Handicapping for Advanced Players- Millenium Edition" anytime soon...

[i] {though, if I could get Big Al and maybe some others involved...hmmmm.... ) [i]

jwvdcw
09-11-2004, 12:51 PM
so am I good since I already posted in the other thread on the other forum?

Easy E
09-11-2004, 04:44 PM
yes

Easy E
09-13-2004, 02:36 PM
based on Week 1's results so far. It's a telling adjustment to "breaking even".

Anyone think that we shouldn't ??

Also, I need more comments on whether to allow o/u bets or not. If we do, is there ever a time where the o/u isn't at -$110 (or, in our case, betting $100 to win $90?)

SossMan
09-13-2004, 04:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"WHOO HOO! I'M IN 2ND PLACE!! "

huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

i posted that on Friday...my picks didn't include the NE/IND game.

Big Al
09-13-2004, 04:34 PM
yes to including the vig, no to over/under betting...Big Al.

MrDannimal
09-14-2004, 01:15 AM
Wouldn't it be "better" to just go to $440, $330, $220, $110?

Either way, I don't think there's a need to include the vig. We're dealing with 4 specific bets/week, which is already unrealistic. Trying to apply another realistic factor doesn't make sense.

Would it even impact the standings? If I lose the $400 and win the rest, I'm either at $600 or $160 (-$440, +600). If someone loses the $200 but wins the rest, they're $800 or $580). If we swap results the next week, we're still tied either way. It's just another layer of work, IMO.

Oh, and no O/Us.

Easy E
09-14-2004, 10:03 AM
Wouldn't it be "better" to just go to $440, $330, $220, $110?

I just did 10% vig, rather than 9% (betting $110 to win $100 is 9.1%), so that I could keep the bets the same as the points. That might mitigate using the vig after all, now that I think about it.

We're dealing with 4 specific bets/week, which is already unrealistic.

Okay, this has been said several times. Yes, it's contrived. But unrealistic to the point of not being anywhere close? No one bets more than 1 unit per game, or ONLY bets one game, maybe two?

Actually, the tiered bets make some important points clear (but you'll see that in my results post)


Trying to apply another realistic factor doesn't make sense.
It might, just to make clear the cost of the vig each week and what "breakeven" really means. Yes, we should all know that, but it never hurts to remind people...?

Would it even impact the standings? It shouldn't

<font color="red"> If I lose the $400 and win the rest, I'm either at $600 or $160 (-$440, +600). If someone loses the $200 but wins the rest, they're $800 or $580). </font>

What? If you lose the $400 and win $600 in other bets, you net $200 or $140v (with my vig = (600- 10%) -$400 loss) and that is your bankroll "position" for next week (started with $0- should have more accurately said start with $5K). Lost the $200? You're at $600 or $540v.

If your numbers were based on adding the 10% in to your bet, as you would in the real world, then you'd have $1100 on the line each week. Lose the $440 or $220 bet, you net $160v and $580v as you said. but no vig would make it $200 or $600, not $600 and $800 (don't forget you have to pay your losing bets)

What am I missing here?