Ball spots equating to money line wagers

[unoperro]

I used to play a lot of guys who wanted spots and didn't need them. It was frustrating to get them down because they were "nut hunters." So I used to tell them I'd give them any spot they wanted if they laid me the same price on the money. If they asked for 8/6 I'd say lay me $80-$60 on the money. That money line changed everything. I even had a guy who played the same speed as me ask for 8/2 and he laid me $80/$20. I won two in a row and he quit. Spots in One Pocket are mostly psychological and can either make you look stupid or a hero by out running the nuts. Add in the money line feature and the game changes entirely.

Spots are incentive to gamble. They can turn Spot into RinTinTin , but most often the loser is preordained.

 

[Bob Jewett]

fargo must not be using game by game odds, but using odds on a race. two entirely different scenarios for the probability.
...

FargoRate calculates the odds of a match based on the single-games odds. Like, if Shane is expected to win 63% of the games against Joe, he is a 70% favorite if he gives two games on the wire going to nine. (actual calculation).

When used for one pocket calculations as above, you need to think about it as single-ball basic odds like 55%-45% and a match of so many balls, like 8-6.

I think the calculations are accurate -- no math mistakes -- and reasonable until someone points out data or an overlooked item that causes them to be wrong.

One thing to consider is that in an even game with money odds the better player has longer to get the balls into a favorable position. If that's a factor, it should lengthen the money odds even farther.

 

[BRLongArm]

If I am playing someone getting 9/8 and usually breaking even, or going back and forth, and we decide to play even, 8/8, you're saying he will win 6 out of 10 games(that is 3/2 on the money). I will only win 4 out of 10 games. I don't think that is out of line or crazy at all, after all, one more win for me is 50/50. I wouldn't bet I could attain a 50/50 outcome playing even with that opponent.

What am I missing?

I think 9-8 is a 7% spot. In other words, it changes the winner in about 1 out of 14 games.
8-7 is about a 15% spot. Which means it will change the winner in 3 out of 20 games.
9-7 is about a 25% spot. Which means the weaker player will win 5 more games out of 20 than if he played even.
Anything more than that depends on the speed of the players. Too many variables to consider.

I would say though, that if I can give a guy 11-6, then anything less than that will probably not help him at all. He is at such a beginner stage that he can't protect himself and he will likely lose most if not all the games. So there is a certain threshold where the player is helpless and weight really doesn't help him much.

 

[poolboy79]

I think 9-8 is a 7% spot. In other words, it changes the winner in about 1 out of 14 games.
8-7 is about a 15% spot. Which means it will change the winner in 3 out of 20 games.
9-7 is about a 25% spot. Which means the weaker player will win 5 more games out of 20 than if he played even.
Anything more than that depends on the speed of the players. Too many variables to consider.

I would say though, that if I can give a guy 11-6, then anything less than that will probably not help him at all. He is at such a beginner stage that he can't protect himself and he will likely lose most if not all the games. So there is a certain threshold where the player is helpless and weight really doesn't help him much.

 

[darmoose]

I think 9-8 is a 7% spot. In other words, it changes the winner in about 1 out of 14 games.
8-7 is about a 15% spot. Which means it will change the winner in 3 out of 20 games.
9-7 is about a 25% spot. Which means the weaker player will win 5 more games out of 20 than if he played even.
Anything more than that depends on the speed of the players. Too many variables to consider.

I would say though, that if I can give a guy 11-6, then anything less than that will probably not help him at all. He is at such a beginner stage that he can't protect himself and he will likely lose most if not all the games. So there is a certain threshold where the player is helpless and weight really doesn't help him much.

OK, so if we normally play me getting 9/8 and we decide to play even, per your numbers you will win 1 more game in a 14 game set, so, instead of each of us winning 7 games out of 14, you will win 8 and I will win 6 games. The money odds for us to break even at that game (8/8) then is $133 to $100.

 

[Billy Jackets]

if someone gives me 8/5, I think I need more than 3 to 1 on the money playing even, I am not sure 5 to 1 is even in my comfort range, but that may be just me.

I think a lot of those numbers are good for 9/7 and above when its more evenly matched, but when you get into the bigger spots, then you try to play a guy even, you may not win a game ever, they are so confident that they are playing you even now, it will show up on the table.

The inherent problem with the odds on money spot is that as long as the spotter is winning the majority of the games , he will want to keep playing , but, if they lose a couple of games early and are playing 5 to 1 most are heading for the exit at a dead run.
Although this might be where you make a big score because it may be a guy who keeps trying to get his money back.

 

[LSJohn]

OK, so if we normally play me getting 9/8 and we decide to play even, per your numbers you will win 1 more game in a 14 game set, so, instead of each of us winning 7 games out of 14, you will win 8 and I will win 6 games. The money odds for us to break even at that game (8/8) then is $133 to $100.

I think the even number 14 is what screws it up. It forces a margin of 2 games. Make it race to 13 or 15 and it makes more sense for 7% edge winning by one game.

 

[baby huey]

Here is another method to look at spots. If two players are of equal caliber, the player who wins the game has held his opponent to no more than seven balls or about 13% atvangage at a minimum. So, playing even up and you have won, you have held your opponent to less than 50% of the available balls made each game on average. I would say that if the game is even and you are breaking, you should be spotting your opponent 9/8 to really be an even game. The same should be when your opponent breaks.

 

[catkins]

in go (Asian strategy game) they have Komi witch you set at the beginning of the game to adjust for the player who goes first.

 

[Skin]

Let's check it out.

Bergman's Fargo rating this morning is 791; Busty's is 790. A statistical wash. Effectively 1:1 odds for each to win a game by the Fargo ratio calculation. (ratio = 2^(1/100) = 1.007)

However, in the two true 8-8 games (8 ball and one pocket) they just played, they finished like this:

8 ball: Bergman 25 / Busty 21 (expected = 23 / 23)
one pocket: Busty 8 / Bergman 2 (expected = 5 / 5)

The even money odds for each based on the empirical results would have Bergman giving 1.19 : 1 on the money in 8 ball and Busty giving 4 : 1 on the money in one pocket.

The real world results differed significantly from the expected results by Fargo (8.7% error and 60% error). Although the 8 ball predictions came somewhat close if 5% is an acceptable error, the one pocket difference is massive.

Moral of the story... it's more-or-less a crap shoot to rely on statistics - no matter how technically correct the method - to predict the outcome of single events, or a series of them. The same problems exist when converting ball spots to money odds, especially when the calculation tends to compound errors like this: [ball spot] > < [Fargo ratio] > [money odds].

 

[BRLongArm]

Fargo's flaw in one pocket is the player is not always trying to make the ball. His knowledge and strategy can swamp a player who shoots just as straight, but doesn't have the tactical knowledge or moving ability.

 

[unoperro]

Fargo's flaw in one pocket is the player is not always trying to make the ball. His knowledge and strategy can swamp a player who shoots just as straight, but doesn't have the tactical knowledge or moving ability.

Fargo only counts wins and loses so this moving arguement only concerns whether
It led to a win or loss.

 

[johnnytronic]

This may or may not offer some insight as to a way to contrast those odds.
http://www.onepocket.org/forum/inde...ket-handi-cap-rating-comparison-system.15648/

 

[johnnytronic]

I decided not to weigh in on this, because if someone believes strongly enough, that they want to bet using a formula predicated on any of the systems presented so far , I might want to stick my big fat nose in it. They might be perfectly correct , I don't know , I have hardly heard of anyone giving money odds in my 60 years of pool.
But , I don't think so, and I might be willing to blow some of the kids inheritance, to help prove or disprove some of these formulas.

There is a guy at Chris's in Chicago who loves playing with odds. He doesnt like to be spotted at all. It's a little scary, you lose that first game--It's daunting to play the next hour or two just in hopes to break even. He wants 3/1 from me. I play 12/8 better than him. He's also reckless and can win with shooting the wrong shot or smashing into the stack.

 

[Bob Jewett]

There is a guy at Chris's in Chicago who loves playing with odds. He doesnt like to be spotted at all. It's a little scary, you lose that first game--It's daunting to play the next hour or two just in hopes to break even. He wants 3/1 from me. I play 12/8 better than him. He's also reckless and can win with shooting the wrong shot or smashing into the stack.

Well, if you follow my FargoRate method above, if 12-8 is a fair spot then the correct money odds for 8-8 are about 4-1 so you're stealing.

 

[vapros]

Be careful not to mistake performance, and the variables that attend it, for arithmetic. For example, if two players are equal and one gives the other a 9/8 game, he is taking on a burden of 12.5 % - the value of each ball. Mathematically, he should get a similar adjustment in the bet. On the table, maybe not . . . .

 

[Bob Jewett]

Be careful not to mistake performance, and the variables that attend it, for arithmetic. For example, if two players are equal and one gives the other a 9/8 game, he is taking on a burden of 12.5 % - the value of each ball. Mathematically, he should get a similar adjustment in the bet. On the table, maybe not . . . .

That's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but can be horribly wrong. When the difference is small, it is probably not too far off, but when you go to an extreme, it's very, very obvious the numbers don't work like that.

Suppose we play even. Let's play you go to 100 and I go to 10. I'll give you ten to one on the money. Your $10 to my $100.

The correct math is more complicated than most people think. It is not a simple proportion.

 

[vapros]

This is a great thread! My example assumes that it takes 8 balls to win a one-pocket game. When you leave that behind you encounter the variables that I mentioned, and it becomes a crapshoot, but I'm not convinced that it isn't a simple proportion. If it is not, then we need a genuine 24 karat expert. Dr. Dave Alciatore comes to mind, but maybe he's not a math guy. In a practical sense, it's two guys trying to agree on a game, whether they get it clinically correct or not.

 

[Billy Jackets]

There is a guy at Chris's in Chicago who loves playing with odds. He doesn't like to be spotted at all. It's a little scary, you lose that first game--It's daunting to play the next hour or two just in hopes to break even. He wants 3/1 from me. I play 12/8 better than him. He's also reckless and can win with shooting the wrong shot or smashing into the stack.

That's what I'm talking about, you lose the first game and now you are up against a lot of pressure. Also him smashing the stack is actually a smart move, he has a better chance to get lucky, than to win a moving contest with you. Sounds like he might be smarter than people think!
I can't make a ball in the ocean on my good days and I don't have many of them but I'm always going to be the one getting the odds on the money.{ or I'm not playing}
I think Scott Frost gave Dippy Dave 17 to 3 and won.
Now a lot of people I have met think Dave was helpless and they could have beaten Scott with that spot {I told most of them if they would post at least 5 grand I would get in touch with Scott and see if he wanted to come and get the money} I doubt he would have come for that cheap but nobody ever accepted anyway lol} but most of them would have lost playing Dave even, he wasn't a real good player but he wasn't dead money either. I'd say he was a low to mid B shooter but he moved balls to his hole pretty well and defended reasonably. I wonder what everyone thinks the correct money odds should be, for that . {This should be good for some chuckles.}
Billy I, may have already figured this out , Take a stab at it guys , we might learn something valuable.

 

[vapros]

BJ, I imagine the bet was even money between Scott and Dave, the skill difference being addressed in the 17-3 game. You must be asking for a money adjustment for a similar game between equal players - is that correct? I wouldn't even guess, as the correct bet between Joe Blow and John Doe might not be the same for Pete Gomez and Leroy Johnson. Variables, man. At the table, in the poolroom, it's not all arithmetic.