Re(5): Erik & Ladutxe 11-30-18 Tonight Posted on December 2, 2018 at 10:38:02 PM by Craig G
Looks like I can count on you for an intriguing response.
Re bridge-jumper, I wonder if there are archived newspaper stories from real life?
That link was tough to finish. Nice patch in the middle with a Camus reference (no 'Stranger' to this topic) followed immediately by 'Joe vs the Volcano'. Can't beat that - just ask the Waponi Woo. But then the comes the buzzkill about Monique Snowden.
Those column headers denote point-winning %, W-L for 5-pt tiebreak, and W-L for 15-pt partido.
A quick takeaway from that might be that in a 15-pt partido, you can reach 98% prob if your pt% is about 68, but to achieve 98% in the tiebreak you have to be at 80%, which would be ultra-rare.
The crappiness (IMO) of the 5-pt tiebreak makes me wonder if there are betting opportunities wherein the underdogs are undervalued. Meaning that if a team or player that is overmatched can somehow split sets, the tiebreak gives them a much better chance to get lucky than the betting public would expect.
As for What does it tell you when a team wins 15-0, they will win 99.9% of the time? What about 15-1, 15-2, 15-3, etc. , I wouldn't completely trust a mindless formula. IMO, it is necessary to be empirical / pragmatic. You've got this outlier idea, the 'New York Times rating formula collapses runaway scores' idea, then regression to the mean, and so on. In my day-to-day reckonings I always use a 'floor' and 'ceiling' for ratings - even for Baller or Nate at the low end.
Even with a look-up table I devised to convert G:WPS records to campeonato points to point-win-percentages, I still only use a range from 20% to 80%. (Aritz?!)
Finally, I am not attracted to this kind of sure-thing bet at all, but I did want to support the partidos at least at a token $20 level and also wanted to try to not lose. (5-0 so far, but I snoozed on the $3.40 Zulaika gift.)
However, I would like to point out that if some here think that anything beyond 5% consistently is impossible, or that you can't win at all, then 3% doesn't look so negligible. Hypothetically, if there were hundreds of partidos going on, then a 1/9 bet would just seem like a routine transaction instead of a possible bridge-jumper event. Assuming that the hcap analysis justified the wager, of course.