i need everybody's help, please
- Thread starter MadJack
- Start date
Hey Jack, Great Job this rocks. Question how many games should we be taking? I mean you know some people on Sat. are going to take every c'fball game on the board to try and get a big lead or a big loss. Just confused about how many to take.
Jack, I just made a pick in NCAA Football, and when i went back the same game are open again. But I tried to made the pick again but the system don't allow me to do it again, congratulations.
This is awesome, thanks for your effort.
jyapur
[This message has been edited by jyapur (edited 11-06-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jyapur (edited 11-06-2001).]
This is awesome, thanks for your effort.
jyapur
[This message has been edited by jyapur (edited 11-06-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jyapur (edited 11-06-2001).]
zorba...... ARGH it bugs me when things give webtv problems, as i used one of them for YEARS..... don't currently have service on any of my webs at home, but will have my dad try and go in and sign up to see if he gets the invalid e-mail addy, also. do you have a classic, plus, or whatever the newer model is called?
(one other thing to try, if it IS letting you into the site, and letting you try and sign up, only to tell you it's a faulty e-mail addy, is to sign up for a hotmail account, and use that e-mail for your registration.)
(one other thing to try, if it IS letting you into the site, and letting you try and sign up, only to tell you it's a faulty e-mail addy, is to sign up for a hotmail account, and use that e-mail for your registration.)
skinar--what's wrong with the option of betting 100 or 200 as opposed to the stars? maybe i didn't understand your question.
skinar--confirmation screen is a good idea. i will check into it for sure.
yyz--i will see about the 5 character minimum. i don't see any problem fixing that.
jcjrbowl--you do not have to enter the site thru the forum. just bookmark it.
kosar--some people got the email and some didn't. i'll have them check that.
juice--all you have to do is check the "players" link. all players are listed alphabetically
Barako--it won't be sluggish when i get it on this server. 2 more weeks
yyz--i'll look into adding the option of betting more units. i forgot why i limited it to 200. i'll check on the vig thing too. if it's a big pain to change, i think we can live with it.
mr--yes, we can have cfl, golf, any sport if there is interest.
Sports Junkie--i'll check on the puck lines too.
Zorba--they are checking your problem as i type. i'll let you know in this forum when i find out.
Padre--i think the plays are included in the consensus whether you can see them or not. i'll look into it.
wareagle--hopefully people will bet the same games they bet for real money. i can't limit what people bet on.
jyapur--you can only bet the game one time. if you try a second time you will bet an error.
i'll get the rest later.
thanks!!!!
skinar--confirmation screen is a good idea. i will check into it for sure.
yyz--i will see about the 5 character minimum. i don't see any problem fixing that.
jcjrbowl--you do not have to enter the site thru the forum. just bookmark it.
kosar--some people got the email and some didn't. i'll have them check that.
juice--all you have to do is check the "players" link. all players are listed alphabetically
Barako--it won't be sluggish when i get it on this server. 2 more weeks
yyz--i'll look into adding the option of betting more units. i forgot why i limited it to 200. i'll check on the vig thing too. if it's a big pain to change, i think we can live with it.
mr--yes, we can have cfl, golf, any sport if there is interest.
Sports Junkie--i'll check on the puck lines too.
Zorba--they are checking your problem as i type. i'll let you know in this forum when i find out.
Padre--i think the plays are included in the consensus whether you can see them or not. i'll look into it.
wareagle--hopefully people will bet the same games they bet for real money. i can't limit what people bet on.
jyapur--you can only bet the game one time. if you try a second time you will bet an error.
i'll get the rest later.
thanks!!!!
B'Mama - Thanks again for your help. I have the model 150 and am using the same username and email address as I use here. Bill Gates sucks!
MJ,
Regarding the 'star' system, sorry I didn't communicate very well.
First, I think the idea of limiting plays on the site to $100 or $200 is a good idea for contests, etc. When I talk about a star system, however, I'm trying to find a way to determine if cappers who use such a system are really getting better results on their higher rated plays. If you changed the site to allow higher dollar plays I don't think it would yield the information I'm seeking. For example:
Player A makes 8 plays, half for $100 and half for $200. He goes 3-1 on the 100 plays and splits the 200 plays. Net result - +170 bucks.
Let's assume that Player A is JT Sneaks and he actually posts 2 1 unit plays (1 star), 2 2 units plays, 2 3 unit plays and 2 four units plays. His actual results in this case were:
1 - 1 on 1 unit
2 - 0 on 2 units
0 - 2 on 3 units
2 - 0 on four units
5 winners, 3 losers, same as above. However, because of his rating system, he came out ahead by 5.3 units or $530.
or let's say the results were
2 - 0 on 1 unit
1 - 1 on 2 units
2 - 0 on 3 units
0 - 2 on 4 units
5 winners, 3 losers, but a net result of -1 unit, because of the star system.
If you changed the site so that people could bet up to $400 per game, this of course could correspond to a star system. If we could then analyze the results based upon the size of the wager that would give the answers I'm looking for. It's just that I don't personally like the idea of increasing the max wager because I think that people in contests will just keep increasing their wagers to catch up and max out real early, not really yielding a factual result.
Sorry to ramble. I'm not sure I'm making sense to myself either after the doubleBIG anal probe I received from the OVER in last night's game.
:O
Regarding the 'star' system, sorry I didn't communicate very well.
First, I think the idea of limiting plays on the site to $100 or $200 is a good idea for contests, etc. When I talk about a star system, however, I'm trying to find a way to determine if cappers who use such a system are really getting better results on their higher rated plays. If you changed the site to allow higher dollar plays I don't think it would yield the information I'm seeking. For example:
Player A makes 8 plays, half for $100 and half for $200. He goes 3-1 on the 100 plays and splits the 200 plays. Net result - +170 bucks.
Let's assume that Player A is JT Sneaks and he actually posts 2 1 unit plays (1 star), 2 2 units plays, 2 3 unit plays and 2 four units plays. His actual results in this case were:
1 - 1 on 1 unit
2 - 0 on 2 units
0 - 2 on 3 units
2 - 0 on four units
5 winners, 3 losers, same as above. However, because of his rating system, he came out ahead by 5.3 units or $530.
or let's say the results were
2 - 0 on 1 unit
1 - 1 on 2 units
2 - 0 on 3 units
0 - 2 on 4 units
5 winners, 3 losers, but a net result of -1 unit, because of the star system.
If you changed the site so that people could bet up to $400 per game, this of course could correspond to a star system. If we could then analyze the results based upon the size of the wager that would give the answers I'm looking for. It's just that I don't personally like the idea of increasing the max wager because I think that people in contests will just keep increasing their wagers to catch up and max out real early, not really yielding a factual result.
Sorry to ramble. I'm not sure I'm making sense to myself either after the doubleBIG anal probe I received from the OVER in last night's game.
:O
skinar--makes a lot of sense. i'll look into that too
Zorba--so far, 7 people with webtv have registered sucessfully. the problem must be on your end. i have no way of testing it from here. sorry
Zorba--so far, 7 people with webtv have registered sucessfully. the problem must be on your end. i have no way of testing it from here. sorry
Fading Consensus theory..
Always a popular one around here, right?
So now, do we fade our own consensus??
Check out the Portland/Utah game as an e.g ...
Always a popular one around here, right?
So now, do we fade our own consensus??
Check out the Portland/Utah game as an e.g ...
anders--as soon as we get this thing established and have a few thousand players....well whatever
we have the feature on the bottom left called "best picks". you can get a consensus of the top 10, 20, 50 or bottom 10, 20, 50, etc cappers. it might be a good tool?
jack,
looks great. there is another site that i've been using for a couple years now (i won't list it as I know how everybody hates it) that is very similar to this. Might be good to check out for ideas, but I'm sure you've seen it already. if you haven't drop me a line and i'll email it to yas.
in the shorttime, more sportslines,
i like adding in the vig on a loss so if you win you get 200 instead of 181.1 or whatever. easier to keep numbers that way is all.
use some color to differentiate between sports.
like the idea for a seach option for people. saves time.
still looking through it but again, looks great. thanks for the hard work to you and whoever else was involved.
g
looks great. there is another site that i've been using for a couple years now (i won't list it as I know how everybody hates it) that is very similar to this. Might be good to check out for ideas, but I'm sure you've seen it already. if you haven't drop me a line and i'll email it to yas.
in the shorttime, more sportslines,
i like adding in the vig on a loss so if you win you get 200 instead of 181.1 or whatever. easier to keep numbers that way is all.
use some color to differentiate between sports.
like the idea for a seach option for people. saves time.
still looking through it but again, looks great. thanks for the hard work to you and whoever else was involved.
g
MJ,
If you go to CONSENSUS and look at the details for the UTAH/PORTLAND game there are four lines of information given. I'm assuming these correspond to line moves. However, the numbers in the wagers columns don't seem correct to me, it could be interpreted that there have been 28 picks on the OVER and 8 on the UNDER, 42 on PORTLAND yet only 4 on Utah. These numbers don't correspond with the summary data given on the main CONSENSUS screen.
If you go to CONSENSUS and look at the details for the UTAH/PORTLAND game there are four lines of information given. I'm assuming these correspond to line moves. However, the numbers in the wagers columns don't seem correct to me, it could be interpreted that there have been 28 picks on the OVER and 8 on the UNDER, 42 on PORTLAND yet only 4 on Utah. These numbers don't correspond with the summary data given on the main CONSENSUS screen.
skinar--the total never moved so 8 overs and 2 unders is correct on both screens.
on the side, 22 took at -1.5 and 1 took at -2 for 23 bets and 5 took +1.5, so both screens check out correctly.
on the side, 22 took at -1.5 and 1 took at -2 for 23 bets and 5 took +1.5, so both screens check out correctly.
