NWGI - Sports Betting Play With Incoming US Market
NWGI is a sports and video game betting company based in Rome. Newgioco also has a variety of casino games like Blackjack and Texas Hold em’. The company operates various betting platforms including AI integrated betting systems. Newgioco was founded in 2000 (per their website.)
They have a betting engine that “thinks like a bookmaker by assessing bet risk at point of sale.” The betting engine is unique to other sports betting websites because of the AI.
Their betting software provides users with: Self-Exclusion registration and Responsible Gaming filters Adaptive Business Intelligence and Big Data algorithms Fraud Detection and Anti-Money Laundering Monitors Artificial Intelligence learning bots and CRM modules Dynamic risk management algorithms Player Account Management System Geofence technology
They accept all forms of payment, so they can take everyone's money easily. From their website: cash e-credit e-wallet all credit and debit cards bank wire / money order
As of September 30th 2019 they have $25,357,856 in assets Their assets have appreciated close to $3,000,000 since December 31st 2018.
“Mobile use have been growing exponentially” they state in their Investors Presentation Below I show what their mobile experience looks like.
In 2019 Newgioco began a pairing with Northern Winz. A casino in Montana. This gives Newgioco access to the US Market. The CEO had this to say after the event “We look forward to working with the many tribal gaming commissions throughout the U.S. to bring wagering on traditional games to a safe and entertaining environment.” In their Investors Presentation they say “A disruptive transaction between DraftKings and Sb Tech puts the US market in play.”
NWGI has just begun accessing the US market in 2020. Now is a great time to buy while they are still oversold.
This is a very similar play to AESE. Similar chart, similar industry, hopefully similar resaults.
Position: 75 shares at 1.59 Scaling in now
Edit: all credit of this post belongs to u/dlamm10

If there was some machine or computer program that psychologically altered anyone who engages with it to have a 95% chance of committing murder, rape, or other NAP violations, or at least giving the individual an increased drive to commit such acts, within the next 24 hours, would Libertarianism still allow it?
The interaction with the machine/computer program is completely voluntary, but the acts of one voluntary interaction may put another person, of whom is completely unoccupied to it, significantly at added risk of getting murdered, raped, etc.
​
Another situation similar to this are Assassination Markets where people are completely engaged in voluntary actions, they bet on when a particular person will die, and if they get the timing right they win money, but this betting system could also incentivize people to assassinate that person for a quick buck.
You also might hear about the "video games cause violence", which is also similar.

Hello again - I recently posted data I scraped from whoscored, understat, and oddsportal for the EPL, and I have now updated the google drive (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nBejV2S9ojNp3OxtoAxhTTtojSbuvot5?usp=sharing) with data from Serie A and La Liga.
I first created a model for the EPL since I collected that data first. I'll outline the model pretty thoroughly below. Happy with the results of the EPL model, I began scraping data for other leagues and was really surprised that the same dependent variables used in the EPL model did not have much predictive power in Serie A or La Liga. Just to be clear, the model is trained and tested separately for each league, but the variables were the same. I would love to see some thoughts about why this would be the case.
My model uses Poisson regression to get the predicted probability distribution of goals for each team. I used a leave-one-out process (train on n-1 observations, test on 1 observation, repeatedly). The following variables were used:

• "Ball Winning" - interceptions / opponent passes
  
• "Chance Efficiency" - xG / possession
  
• "Shooting Efficiency" - score / xG
  
• "Key Pass Percent" - key passes / passes in the final third
  
• "Pass Success" - accurate passes / total passes
  
• "Dribble Success" - dribbles won / dribbles attempted
  
• "Tackle Success" - tackles won / tackles attempted
  
• xG
  
• xPts
  
• "Deep Percent" - deep / accurate passes
  
• "Pass-to-touch Ratio" - passes / touches
  
• "Foul Rate" - Fouls / opponent possession
  
• "Clear Rate" - clearances / opponent's passes in the final third
  
• "Long Pass Percent" - long passes / total passes
  
• "Forward Pass Percent" - forward passes / total passes
  
• "Forward Pass Aggressiveness" - Forward Pass Percent * possession
  
• "Defensive Third Percent" - passes in defensive third / total passes
  
• "Final Third Percent" - passes in final third / total passes
  
• ppda
  

Note: In practice, the variables regressed on were the expected values for each side of a game. For example, if team A averaged 2 xG throughout all previous games during the season and team B's opponents on average had 1 xG, then team A's xG value for the game was 1.5. Additionally, the variables "Ball Winning" : xPts had an alternate instance included where they were adjusted based on the Elo of the teams that were played in the past (only these variables since these are more related to skill differences while the rest are related to match pace).
After getting the predicted probability distributions for each team in a match, I assumed that the scores were independent so that I could simply multiply the probabilities of certain goals for each team to get a score line. For example, if team A has a 50% chance to score 0 goals, and team B has a 50% chance to score 0 goals, the probability of a 0-0 game was assumed to be 25%. I don't think this assumption great, but I did not see the same issue that Dixon and Coles saw with the low scoring games being predicted inaccurately that required an adjusted model.
By this point, it is possible to get the probabilities for 1x2, asian handicap, and over under bets. My model, as was the case in the other sport I have built a model for, typically had exaggerated probabilities for the games which hurts the Kelly criterion betting system. So, I run a binary logistic regression with the bet result (win or loss) as the response and my model's probability for winning the bet as the predictor. It seems like this reduces the volatility in betting more so than only using smaller Kelly bets. After doing this, I also use smaller Kelly bets (almost 1/10th size) to obtain the following results from the EPL (1000 simulations of a possible season's worth of betting):

• Average Seasonal Return: 0.2992753433324833 (30% ROI)
• Standard Deviation: 0.36709723501455005
• Lowest Observed Return: -0.44445295318805444 (-44% ROI)
• Highest Observed Return: 2.090945854293048 (209% ROI)
• Average Bet Size: 0.011425432070466961
• Percent of Seasons Ending with less than 100% of bankroll: 0.214
• Percent of Seasons Ending with less than 75% of bankroll: 0.034
• Percent of Seasons Ending with less than 50% of bankroll: 0.0
• Percent of Seasons Ending with less than 25% of bankroll: 0.0

So there is a solid overview of my model. Like I said, it only is useful for the EPL - it does not produce anything meaningful for Serie A or La Liga.
In general, I think there should be more of a willingness to share what goes into your model, what steps you took, etc on forums like this. It is silly to keep it a secret since the information being out there doesn't realistically hurt your edge. More sharing would help us all along.
2 big questions if anyone can help:
1) Why is there such a significant discrepancy between leagues? Since such a discrepancy exists with my model, does that take away from the reliability of the EPL model to predict EPL games?
2) Are there any other crucial aspects to a soccer game that you think I need to account for that are missing in my variables?

I tried to find out if this has been asked but couldn't find anything.
So I'm trying to become successful with FC because I know I could get some NP again that I've donated to a few people, and also lost trying to learn how to restock from main shops (Still working on it).
The problem is, I'll place the bets and still come up short? I never win. I've won one time and that was before the years long hiatus I took. I check the Food Club bets page on here and try to idk...figure it out, sometimes use some of the bets, but again nothing.
I've even read some of the articles I could find and am still just lost...Embarrassingly, I'm generally confused by everything and it takes a lot of explanation/reading for me to understand even some simple things unfortunately. So I'm hoping someone out there can maybe explain the betting system a bit better? What is the trick?
I apologize ahead of time if this seems like I'm more dense than I actually am eventhough I practically just said I was above xD

Platform(s):
It must have been PC 386 / 486 or Amiga (500?) was playing it at a friends house when i was around 8 years old, so can't remember the machine.
Genre:
Car road racing (actively) / Car tuning simulation (point and click)
Estimated year of release:
Before 1994
Graphics/art style:

• 2D
• I remember the non-animated garage, from where you could do the tuning stuff
• Maybe animated: the scene where you challenge your opponent to race

Notable characters:
-
Notable gameplay mechanics:
These details are stuck to my head:

• Buying a car (not 100% sure)
• Tuning the car in the garage via buying parts over the newspaper (100% sure)
• You had to read the ads, and the car parts had to match your car
• Start a race on the street against an opponent (maybe a betting system?)
• Unfortunately no clear picture on how the race went
• BUT: Permadeath when crashing (100% sure)

The gameplay was in englisch, my friend and i were from germany and in 2-4th grade, didn't speak a word englisch. the racing part was quite difficult, the permadeath when crashing was obviously frustraiting, but we kept playing for some time.
I have big faith in you guys!

I’ve gotta say the Dino race betting system as described in the module is disappointing and doesn’t make much sense. I’d hyped up “race day” to my players and they were excited to place some bets but when it came time to race it didn’t do much for anyone. The rules for the actual racing seem good but it appears for bets you just roll to see if they won or not? My players all picked different dinos to win so when we did the rolling we had multiple winners and despite my race announcer commentary it didn’t feel like the big event I had hoped for.

I've been self-learning about transfinite ordinals lately, and I've come across two great examples where they naturally appear. One is for the description of ordered trees (those which branch upwards into levels and where each non-root node has only a single parent; also pardon my terminology, it's a bit lacking when it comes to graphs):

• Every "leaf" (a node with no children) has a value of 0.
• To transcend downwards (towards the parent node) means to take the first transfinite ordinal, ω, and raise it to the power of the child; so ω⁰ (= 1). And then, to calculate the final value of the parent node, add all these results up (one for each child). So for n childless children, their parent node will have a value of n*(ω^0) = n.
• The value of the tree is then the value of the root node.

Using this system, all sorts of transfinite ordinal values can be created: natural numbers for trees where it's just n leafs attached to the root node, ω for branches of height 2, ω*m+n for a mix of both (m branches of height 2, n of height 1), ωⁿ for branches of height 2 with n sub-branches leaving the middle node, ω^ω for branches of height 3, and so on. In fact, the largest possible ordinal, the largest possible tree constructable overall, is an endless power-tower of ω (writable as ω↑↑ω using the Knuth arrow notation), commonly referred to as ε_0.
The second example comes from the world of board games. There is a game called Revolution, where the players blindly bet on various townspeople who offer them various advantages, which propel them forward in the game. The betting system utilizes a currency consisting of three types of tokens, but unlike what you might think, the tokens are not comparable, it's not like 100 copper = 1 silver, 100 silver = 1 gold. No, it's rather that a single token can overpower any number of weaker tokens. (The tokens are "gold", "blackmail" and "force", the metaphor being that for example a single piece of force will always overpower any number of gold coins).
Naturally, this smells of transfinite ordinal arithmetic. We can assign "1" to gold, "ω" to blackmail, and "ω^2" to force. Unlike in the previous example, the next "tier" jumps only from ω to ω^2, not from ω to ω^ω, which is very interesting to me. It shows that the complexity of this game is far smaller than that of ordered trees. And in fact, the limit for this game, assuming we can have even more token types and more tokens per type, is ω^ω, which represents a token combination that is the supremum of anything we could ever possibly hope to construct. It essentially represents the value of the "ω-th" token, which obviously cannot physically exist.
So we have two relatively understandable examples of concepts or scenarios, where transfinite counting comes useful, and I found that the two examples differ in "magnitude", that is, one terminates at ε_0, and the other at ω^ω. But the ordinals don't end there, obviously. There's more after ε_0, in particular the Veblen ordinals, or Γ_0.
My question is, are there any easily imaginable concepts, where the "limit of construction" is bigger than ε_0? Or really, not even bigger, but just anything else with a limit other than the two examples I gave? (Aside from the trivial ω, which is the limit of the natural numbers.)

This is going to be a complaint thread, and I apologize ahead of time for that. I understand that for thousands if not millions of people, the Battle Pass is a fun way to engage with a game that they really love. I don't think the basic concept of a Battle Pass or Compendium is inherently a bad thing. Many other games have copied Dota's system, because it's fun to have a time-limited event where you can purchase access to additional content. However, there are some serious flaws with the system as it stands, and I think we all need to take a closer look at the horrible design decisions Valve has made with the 2020 Battle Pass.
FLAW NUMBER ONE: Exponential Leveling Experience
The primary way to level up your Battle Pass is by paying for it directly. This is a great system, and I have no complaints with it. But there are other ways to get Battle Points. Here is where we run into our first and most glaring design flaw: The higher your level is with the Battle Pass, the more levels you get for free.
Many people claim that it's greed that drives Valve to stretch out the Battle Pass rewards to greater tiers and levels, but it's actually this effect, which I'll call "exponential leveling." While each level is a static 1000 battle points (good), each level becomes easier to gain than the previous, due to things like additional treasures, additional portals, additional spins, higher points cap, more tokens for betting on match outcomes, more token multipliers, etc.
Exponential leveling creates a bad experience for two reasons. The first is that players who buy a lot of levels quickly run into a situation where they are spoiled with far more levels and rewards than they could ever need or want, and the second is that players who buy no levels quickly run into a situation where grinding the battle pass for free points feels like a chore. It's not fun either way.
In the 2021 Battle Pass, I hope to see level-up content be available to ALL players at level 1. NO battle points from treasures, NO high roller point increase, NO aghanim's labyrinth point cap increase, NO tip increase, and NO point tribute bonuses.
FLAW NUMBER TWO: Obligate Grinding Experience
This one might be specific to me. The Cavern Crawl system is fun, and justly beloved, and this year's system was a marked improvement on the previous, thanks to the inclusion of categories like female, nice pecs, bad teeth, and fuzzy. I would certainly like to see it return (though I hope they rename it appropriately for 2021). But even so, it still represents a massive win-grinding experience, in a game that regularly takes over an hour from "Find Match" to the results screen. This year's Battle Pass, in my opinion, had an inappropriate focus on winning hundreds of games in order to engage with the Battle Pass in a way that most people would find satisfying. From the pre-match betting system to the Guild quest system, the Battle Pass demanded 1 high-quality win per day, with additional restrictions on that victory that might require you to start the queue up again to try for another win.
Alongside the time-locked guild quests and weekly betting tokens, the Aghanim's Labyrinth weekly point cap created a strange perverse incentive to interact with the mode. Rather than simply play the game in an attempt to win, players were encouraged to stop playing once they'd reached their weekly point cap and resume their attempts next week. A similar incentive exists with high roller and guild quest rewards, to a slightly lesser extent. The 2020 Battle Pass forced you to play the game on its terms, and that's not necessarily a good thing.
In the 2021 Battle Pass, I hope to see a removal of time-limited rewards that disappear at the end of the week/day/month. High Roller tokens that don't disappear when the week ends. Quests that are available whenever, to be completed at a player's leisure. I think these systems really contribute towards making the BP feel fair and rewarding, instead of a constant grind to get as many points as you can before they disappear.
FLAW NUMBER THREE: Accessory Reward Experience
The consumable system was once again...pretty scuffed. On top of the exponential leveling experience listed above (players who bought levels felt oversaturated with consumables, while players who didn't quickly ran out), portals felt inappropriately important and nothing else mattered. The soccer and pepper minigames were okay, and the disco ball was occasionally interesting, but at the end of the day, the consumables didn't interact with gameplay OR the Battle Pass in a way that players find satisfactory. Of the four consumables, only the portals granted rewards if you don't count the soccer achievements. Only the portal and the pepper were usable outside of the pregame. The entire experience of the consumables and the side shop was lackluster and frustrating, particularly for people who bought a lot of levels and thus had HUNDREDS of these stupid things lying around. (This is another example of the exponential leveling/reward experience I listed above.)
In the 2021 Battle Pass, I hope to see an equalization of consumables across all battle pass levels, especially if they're going to give points and rewards. Something like +35 per week. I also hope to see better integration of consumables into gameplay and Battle Pass rewards, though not in a way that encourages people to get in lobbies to grind them out. For example, all consumables could have an equal chance of granting levels or treasures when they're placed, and they could be designed in such a way that using them when making plays would be considered style points.
I know that's a big ask, but I personally believe that the consumable system is FAR more important to people's enjoyment of the Battle Pass than anything else, even the quality of the rewards you get.
FLAW NUMBER FOUR: FOMO Arcana/Persona Experience
The FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) flaw is well documented above, but I believe it to be particularly egregious in the case of Arcanas and Personas. It is one thing to offer something to Battle Pass owners as a bonus for purchasing and interacting with the Battle Pass. It is quite another to not only lock permanent content behind a Battle Pass but also to lock it behind a level that could be considered an extreme investment. The Windranger Arcana will never be available, ever, to anyone who didn't buy the Battle Pass and level it up to 575. A similar problem exists for the Invoker persona and Io arcana.
Exclusive rewards are definitely not a bad thing. But demanding over a hundred dollars for the Windranger Arcana is enough to make anyone cock an eyebrow. It doesn't matter that you also get the QoP and WK arcanas and the AM/Pudge personas, because you CANNOT get the WR arcana without paying that money.
This is my one and only direct address to Valve: Put the arcanas and personas on the market. $35 each. I know that some people will be frustrated that they shelled out for an exclusive set only to find that the set became non-exclusive, but that number will only increase with time and you have to fix your mistake ASAP while it's still fresh. Make them "not tradeable, giftable, or marketable," make their only point of access be your store directly as a direct skin purchase (or purchase-as-gift), and make that your precedent going forward. Please.
FLAW NUMBER FIVE: Ending the Battle Pass/Moving Forward
Listen. I know this is a lot of complaining. I do want to say here that I really enjoyed the Battle Pass. Even though there is some stockholm syndrome, quarantined all summer with nothing to do but play video games, I had a ton of fun and the rewards from the Pass were very high quality. Voice lines, taunts, sets, seasonal effects, achievements, even the fun little ping upgrades were all great to use and just made this summer feel different and exciting. And I understand to a degree why stuff like the voice lines aren't available year round. But it's extremely jarring to have content just...disappear forever. Especially paid content. Especially especially paid content that's just going to pop back up next year, at cost.
The Guild system and Aghanim's Labyrinth both represent content that should be a permanent part of Dota. Removing it once the Battle Pass ends is evidence of a certain kind of myopia from Valve. I'm not going to sit here and bullshit to you that "Valve doesn't care about their game" or "It's all greed" because I can tell that the amount of love, time, and energy put into the Battle Pass is enormous. I have zero doubt that the devs and designers work extremely hard to bring us a fresh new Battle Pass every single year that they hope will be worth the money we spend on it.
Many people complain that the BP "isn't worth it" or "provides less every year," but that's not true. If anything, the Battle Pass provides too much. Hundreds of hours of time from devs and artists goes into creating and balancing these alternate modes and systems at scale, and they all disappear forever once the Battle Pass ends. It's disrespectful to the hard work of these skilled professionals for Valve to remove their content from the game completely. Granting Battle Points for playing these alternate modes is one thing, but surgically joining them to the Battle Pass is quite another!
I hope to see a return of alternate modes and systems from previous years (perhaps SiltbreakeUnderhollow/Aghslab/Diretide and the like can go into a separate tab on the Arcade page for "official" modes? Or a new "Arcade" tab above "Custom Lobbies" in the Play Dota menu?).
I also hope to see Guilds become a permanent feature. I don't want to distract too much from the main point of this post, but Guilds was a fantastic new-player-experience system. It's shocking and frustrating to see it leave, as if meeting new Dota players to befriend is a premium feature that is unimportant to the health and staying power of the game. If this is how the year of the "New Player Experience" ends, it's hard to feel optimistic about the future of Dota.
CONCLUSION
These are my complaints. There is certainly more to be said about the Battle Pass system, but I think a lot of that veers into personal opinion and very minor quibbling (ex. I didn't know the BP was going to hard-end yesterday lol, I thought that you just weren't going to be able to buy points for the last week - ended up level 556). I think the flaws I listed are both serious enough to merit discussion and specific enough that you could reasonably expect Valve to address them with improvements to the 2021 Pass.

I know, I know... Customer surveys are boring.
But please take five minutes out of your life to improve on this institution that is DFGT.
Here I expect people to bring their honest opinion about everything related to the tournament. We are not very sensitive, so don't hold back.
What is good? What is bad? What would be more interesting if changed?
Are the number of fights ok? Too many? Too few?
The last years the amount of admissions have been a bit shy of 128, and I'm not sure anybody would be able to run that many fights unless the team was expanded, but I still want feedback on it.
The points, are they uneven? Skills or items that needs adjusting? Limit the amount of points that can be saved? Limit the bonus for saving points?
The betting system, any changes wanted? Is it still impossible to undrestand?
The Discord server. Was it good to have? Did it take the discussions away from Reddit? Did you not even know about the discord server?
This year the participation was a bit lower than earlier. Why do you think that is, and how can it be improved?
​
Do you want to be the Organizer next year, or do you want to officially contribute in any way?
I might be stepping down and not doing one next summer, as my work situation will be different, and I might not have enough free time. And I won't be doing any tournament before next summer.
If you want to run a tournament during the winter, I will be sure to help out in any way I can to get the tournament started, but I will not contribute.
​
Thank you all for this year, especially u/Black_griffin23 and u/Devilingo!

• There is a project called KittieFight, which is a Mortal Kombat Battle between 2 Cryptokitties.Recently, got reviewed by CMC which is really going to be a very small cap coin.https://coinmarketcap.com/headlines/news/defi-lending-platforms/
• 65% of total supply will be completely locked & team's tokens will be covested which leaves only 9% out of which the unsold tokens will be locked in with the reserve of 65% as well further constricting the circulating supply. More info in WhitePaper.
• Has a Non-ANON team!

Main features of the project:

• Yield Farming
• Betting system with dividends & utility for token
• Open Contracts with audits

Here's also 2 reviews on YouTube that will give plenty of info:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXE3PM_1Eo&app=desktop
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xO4jeQrGi0&Now IDO or The DUTCH AUCTION is open for 28 days

For more info.. go to the Announcements channel & Join the Telegram community to get your doubts & queries answered. Reached sale Soft Cap with 70 ETH in 3 days & closed the Private Sales.
Listing after IDO on #UniSwap immediately i.e. 4 weeks after #YieldFarming & Game Launch on the Ethereum mainnet.

My friends and I wanted to place some bets on some possibilities for the US presidential election, and I've thought up a system which intuitively makes sense to me, but I'm not sure if it's a "fair" system or not.
Some background:
In normal American-style betting, you wager some amount of money and receive a return on that based on the probability of that bet happening. Typically they are displayed as a negative number for likely events and a positive number for unlikely events (probability greater and less than 50%, respectively). If a bet is +200 for example, it means if you place a wager of $100 and win, you will make a profit of $200. If it is -200, you would need to wager $200 in order to profit $100.
You can convert these to implied probabilities fairly easily: 100/(100+X) for positive bets and X/(X-100) for negative bets.
So normally, whenever you want to bet on something, you basically just put some amount of money at risk to the house, and your potential payout depends on these betting odds. For all intents and purposes, the house functions as a limitless reservoir of money.
The problem:
So, normally when betting without a house, it occurs between 2 people for a single bet, and then one party pays the other depending on what ended up happening. Most times, it's implied that the betting odds are 50/50 (i.e. both parties wager the same amount in the pool), but not always.
But what if you want to do something more complicated? What if you have multiple people wanting to place bets on more than one event? Say one person wants to bet on candidate A, one person wants to bet on candidate B, and one person wants to make a more specific bet about something happening (e.g. that there won't be a smooth transition of power).
In order to proceed fairly, I suggested we would either need to agree on setting odds for these scenarios, or (if available) we could pull the odds from an external source. Let's say for the sake of argument that all the possible events we wanted to bet on have probabilities assigned them one way or another.
My system:
Basically how it would work is you choose a scaling factor (say something like $1 per % chance of the bet happening), and for each bet people put some amount of money in the pool based on the % of it happening.
Then you count up how many bets won, and divide the pool by that amount, distributing equally among each bet that won.
Ex: 3 bets placed in the pool for 3 different scenarios, 25%, 80%, and 3% chance. Each person contributes that amount to the pool ($25, $80, and $3). If the 80% and 3% scenario both happen, then they equally split the pool (so each gets $54). So if you don't select an option you're kind of implicitly betting against it.
Intuitively this makes sense to me. It's something that kind of just popped in my head and it "feels" right, but I'm not sure. There are definitely some oddities though, such as you can lose money even if the bet that you placed is correct. In this case, essentially what it seems you're doing is not only betting for your own bet, but betting against any other bet in the pool.
So OK, that's not necessarily an issue. But it's also weird that you can choose ALL winning bets and still lose money. Let's say you decided to place 2 bets instead, one for the 80% event and one for the 3% (there are still one 25% bet and one 3% bet in the pool, so $111 total). In this case, you end up winning $74 (111/3 * 2), which is less than what you contributed to the pool ($83), even though all the bets you chose won, AND you chose all of the winning bets.
So that seems to be a scenario one could argue illustrates this betting system is unfair. But I'm not letting it go yet, since it still "feels" fair to me. I would argue that it's a little complicated, and by not betting exclusively on the 3% event, and "hedging your bets" by placing a large more sure bet, you are in some sense "betting against" the 3% event, since only a small portion of your total money wagered is going towards it.
Any thoughts by the smart people in the community here would be appreciated. I don't need a mathematical proof, just kind of putting this out there to see 1) if this is something that there's already a known solution to (perhaps an entire subfield even), or 2) if not, just wanting to get a feel for other people's thoughts. Maybe there's a much simpler way to implement a better betting system that just hasn't crossed my mind as well.

Openings in Xbox league y2 wk5
Gotten lazy with replacing users but great league. Same group of guys went 6 seasons for last few months of m20 up until the end. Still early enough on to make the most of these teams that are still largely stock roster. All-madden comp, 48 hr advance. betting system with offseason camps for player upgrades, bonus for weekly and yearly awards.
Open teams
Cowboys, panthers, dolphins, titans, pats, rams, broncos, texans, bengals, bears, broncos
Uses discord to communicate
https://discord.gg/cVaeVC

Openings in Xbox league y2 wk5
Gotten lazy with replacing users but great league. Same group of guys went 6 seasons for last few months of m20 up until the end. Still early enough on to make the most of these teams that are still largely stock roster. All-madden comp, 48 hr advance. betting system with offseason camps for player upgrades, bonus for weekly and yearly awards.
Open teams
Cowboys, panthers, dolphins, titans, pats, rams, broncos, texans, bengals, bears, broncos
Uses discord to communicate
https://discord.gg/cVaeVC

Okay guys, so I’m pretty much exasperated by now! An hour ago, I implemented the Martingale betting system on online roulette, which for anyone who doesn’t know is when you start off with $1 and double your stake each time you lose. When you win, your stake returns to $1. I wagered on red every time. The first time I placed a bet, red came up. Then, red came up again. Then, black came up a few times on the spin until eventually red came up. Phew! It was a bit of a near miss.
THEN something inexplicable happened - black came up 14 times on the spin!!! Wtf!? That’s surely insane and mathematically improbable, right? Anyway as you can imagine, it knocked me clean out and I lost a lot of money. I’m trying not to think about that right now but come on - seriously - is online roulette rigged? It has to be. This is total BS.

​
The D'Alembert Roulette Betting System is one such approach that may show useful in availing much better opportunities of obtaining returns on wagers made in the rulet strateji video game. In a regular video game, a system is taken into consideration as a type of an initial upholding component for this technique. http://ruletstrateji.com/

I havent seen any working flat betting systems, but I am guessing that they are out there.

Hi everyone, the title says it all. I am trying to build a betting system for NBA for next season, and I am trying to see what are some of the most important, tangible, statistics that you use.
I think the best way to bet NBA is to target games where teams perform wildly different in different situations. For example, Philly and Miami both had amazing home record, and horrible Away records. So betting against them during away games won me a lot of bets this year. I want to try to find more stats that compare different situations similar to this, where I can compare 2 different stats, such as HOME/AWAY. Where are great places to start?
Some stats I am currently looking at are:
- HOME/AWAY Offence/Defence
- How they perform VS Top/Bot Offence and Top/Bot Def
- Tracking their eFG% by month throughout the season to see which teams sustainably improved or worsened their shooting
- Their Usage by position and the opposing teams Defence vs this position to predict which teams top guys will be neutralized or will feast on a given night

My code(not finished):
​

#6 deck Blackjack import random #deck and hand creations deck=['A',2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,'A','A','A','A']*24 def deal(deck): hand=[] for i in range(2): random.shuffle(deck) card=deck.pop() hand.append(card) return hand def hit(hand): card=deck.pop() hand.append(card) print(hand) return hand def total(hand): total=0 for card in hand: if card=='A': if total<11: total=total+11 else: total=total+1 else: total=total+card return total def results(dealerHand, playerHand): print("The dealer's hand is",dealerHand,"for a total of",total(dealerHand)) print("Your hand is",playerHand,"for a total of",total(playerHand)) def bets(bet,bal): go2='y' while go2=="y":#betting bet=input("How much would you like to bet: ") if bet.isdigit(): bet=int(bet) if bet<5 or bet>bal: if bet<5: print("You need to bet more.") go2='y' if bet>bal: print("You don't have enough money") go2='y' else: go2='sdfdah' else: print('Invalid bet') go2='y' return bet def win_lose(playerHand,dealerHand,bal,bet,x,y): if x<=21 and yx: print('Player Wins!') bal=bal+bet*2 if x>21 and y<=21: print('Dealer busts, Player wins!') bal=bal+bet*2 if y>21 and x<=21: print('Dealer busts, Player wins!') bal=bal+bet*2 print('New Balance: ',bal) return bal go='y' bal=10 bet=0 while go=='y': playerHand=deal(deck) dealerHand=deal(deck) x=total(dealerHand) y=total(playerHand) print(playerHand) print(dealerHand) bets(bet,bal) results(dealerHand, playerHand) bal=win_lose(playerHand,dealerHand,bal,bet,x,y) go=input('y:') if len(go)==0: go='y' Please ignore the while loop at the bottom because I was just using it for testing, that will be the general gist though. 

My question is why the betting system doesn't work. After winning/losing, the balance doesn't change. I got it from one of the other games I made and it worked fine there, so I don't think that is where the problem is. I think the problem is in win_lose, but I can't figure out what it is.

Pls Help 

​