|mutantsushi said: |
Just gotta say I don't understand the fixed pay-out ratio thing. If somebody bets on 10:1 long-shot the payout should be better than a 50:50 purely random event.
I also don't think bets should be cancellable, which goes along with above idea of amount of bets determining the odds which is how betmaking normally works AFAIK.
I mean, you can always bet the opposite direction later to cancel it out, but if the odds aren't symmetrical you can only stem the losses not negate them completely.
Really the idea of making long term bets like "PS5 will sell more than 150m by 2021" is undermined by any bets being cancellable until the last minute before bet is tested.
Maybe I'm missing something, what is actual benefit or advantage of ignoring the above? I don't get it.
1 - as far as payouts go, this was something that's always been negotiable - I made that fairly clear in the OP that this is only Version 1, and that I was open to (and frankly, expecting) changes based on community feedback.
2 - I disagree with your objection to the ability to cancel bets. What's the difference between my entering a bet and then canceling or adjusting before the game ends, and simply waiting on the sidelines until the very last moment before the game closes to start placing bets? I honestly don't see any harm in providing flexibility for users to adjust bets as they wish... ...convince me that I'm wrong.
1) OK, this is my first feedback on this. Really fixed ratio feedback just doesn't appeal to my logic of betting, if I make a bet on a long-shot that nobody believes then it makes sense to get better pay-off than the vast majority making a safe bet would get if they win. I mean, that's just economics for real money bets, if you tried to allow fixed 50% ratio pay-off for betting the temperature doesn't drop below freezing in August, the system pretty much goes bankrupt right away. If it's desired to avoid early betters getting better ratio, put limit on amount bet per day (possibly lowest for first day or 8hrs etc, smoothly increasing?), so they can add later but at whatever ratio it is later. That kind of cultivates more persistent involvement too IMHO.
2) With bettor ratio determined payoff, the existing ratio of bettors is critical context to making a bet, so somebody cancelling is like pulling rug out from under your position. Even without direct effect of pay-off ratio, the amount of bettors for or against you still is important context in establishing what "consensus" position is, people still make bet with understanding it is for or against consensus... And ultimately, the idea of cancelling seems to negate the purpose of these bets which is "real" consequence for predictions. If you change your mind, you can make another bet the other way whose winnings would cancel losses of the first bet (or more), but if that is wrong then you would suffer consequences for losing that.
3) Somewhat independent of either 1) or 2), I think betting should be able to be closed arbitrarily far in advance of when the topic is resolved. There is just entire classes of topics which aren't really intersting to bet on if you can do so up until the final result is absolutely known. Let's say console sales predictions, what PS4 sales look like in 2 years is kind of silly to keep open all the way until 2 years. The tension of bet prediction is distance of time & knowledge to the result, and what is attraction of betting early if you know people can bet when sales are 99% known up until result is known? Since every topic might be different, this seems reasonable to allow setting as variable for each bet topic.
Last edited by mutantsushi - on 31 May 2019