The obvious approach is that the winners get a percentage of the take, and only people who put in can win money. Everybody who doesn't put in money can still play and win, they just can't win money.Z-Man wrote:Nobody knows We're just speculating what 2020's new idea is. And it wouldn't have to be a dedicated wager tournament. It's perfectly possible to plug betting optionally on top of any tournament in a fair way without inconveniencing those who just want to play for fun (apart from the inevitably slightly longer delays in case of disputes).
statement of unease
- Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8640
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Re: statement of unease
- 2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
Re: statement of unease
You're going along the right lines. Just think of the simplest way this can be done, and that's basically it.
I am trying to get something happening in the real world which complements this. I will either get the result I want by the end of the month, or I won't. That will determine whether my proposal will be substantiated with some kind of funding, or it will be merely a suggestion. Feel free to contact me before then, but otherwise I am generally out of the picture. I'll be interested in any developments you may make in this direction in the mean time, and won't be surprised if you hit on a close variation or indeed exactly what I would propose.
Good luck to all of us!
I am trying to get something happening in the real world which complements this. I will either get the result I want by the end of the month, or I won't. That will determine whether my proposal will be substantiated with some kind of funding, or it will be merely a suggestion. Feel free to contact me before then, but otherwise I am generally out of the picture. I'll be interested in any developments you may make in this direction in the mean time, and won't be surprised if you hit on a close variation or indeed exactly what I would propose.
Good luck to all of us!
hold the line
Re: statement of unease
Yeah, I was thinking along the simplest lines: just let teams bet on their individual matches. Like, "I bet 8$ that we win the octafinal and $4 that, if we make it that far, we win the quarterfinal." Then, when two teams meet, the minimum of the two numbers is the one that is actually put down.
You can emulate other systems with that. Say you want a 'winner takes all' model and you have full brackets; then you bet 1$ in the first round, 2$ in the second, 4$ in the third, and so on. Net result: everyone but the final winner loses 1$, the winner gets it all. Or you bet an equal amount on every round; then only those who lose their opening round lose that, those eliminated in the second round get out neutral, everyone else wins something, more the further they get.
That's the base. The thing I'd to to make the tournament not be interrupted by bet negotiations is that teams have to state their bets in advance before the brackets are randomised; after the brackets are made (and before the tournament starts), they can only increase their bets.
I'd restrict bets to power of two US Dollar amounts so you can optimise the cashflow later so that transfer fees are minimised. And I hope Luke doesn't see this or he'll suggest to make it dyadic bitcoin based.
I'm trying to think of a way to make it work even if participation is sparse (beyond the obvious solution that then no money changes hands). That's a bit tough. The basic idea is that if you lose to someone, they turn into your proxy for the following rounds. But... it's slightly complicated. And maybe not needed.
You can emulate other systems with that. Say you want a 'winner takes all' model and you have full brackets; then you bet 1$ in the first round, 2$ in the second, 4$ in the third, and so on. Net result: everyone but the final winner loses 1$, the winner gets it all. Or you bet an equal amount on every round; then only those who lose their opening round lose that, those eliminated in the second round get out neutral, everyone else wins something, more the further they get.
That's the base. The thing I'd to to make the tournament not be interrupted by bet negotiations is that teams have to state their bets in advance before the brackets are randomised; after the brackets are made (and before the tournament starts), they can only increase their bets.
I'd restrict bets to power of two US Dollar amounts so you can optimise the cashflow later so that transfer fees are minimised. And I hope Luke doesn't see this or he'll suggest to make it dyadic bitcoin based.
I'm trying to think of a way to make it work even if participation is sparse (beyond the obvious solution that then no money changes hands). That's a bit tough. The basic idea is that if you lose to someone, they turn into your proxy for the following rounds. But... it's slightly complicated. And maybe not needed.
- 2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
Re: statement of unease
Just got a notification that this thread received a post, but can't see it. Serves to remind me to give an update, something I've been wanting to do over the past two weeks. I am not in a position to forward my proposal as I had hoped with some well-deserved cash, nevertheless I would still like to submit it, together with a variation that may still work. Depends, of course and as usual, on collabouration, on the good will of others.
Does anyone object to this?
And has this thread laid to rest some rather negative dynamics (spam, hijacking, etc etc), so the proposal has a reasonable chance of surviving? The intention is to have a relatively serious engagement because discussions about money adds flamability and without sufficient self-discipline or scrupulous admin, things may get out of hand far too rapidly for anyone to control... and this would be a shame.
Does anyone object to this?
And has this thread laid to rest some rather negative dynamics (spam, hijacking, etc etc), so the proposal has a reasonable chance of surviving? The intention is to have a relatively serious engagement because discussions about money adds flamability and without sufficient self-discipline or scrupulous admin, things may get out of hand far too rapidly for anyone to control... and this would be a shame.
hold the line
Re: statement of unease
'twas genuine spam.2020 wrote:Just got a notification that this thread received a post, but can't see it.
And yeah, as promised earlier, pointless bickering will be kept out. Here's my future summary of posts that will be removed: "This can never work." If a post can be condensed to that (with a possible addition of "and you're a twat"), don't bother pressing "Submit".
Re: statement of unease
REAL MONEY AUCTION HOUSE!
Its a good thing loot drops are already complete shit in this game.
Its a good thing loot drops are already complete shit in this game.
Re: statement of unease
Someone's been playing WoW/Diablo./dev/null wrote:REAL MONEY AUCTION HOUSE!
Its a good thing loot drops are already complete shit in this game.