This gives you a good idea about the real odds and how they compair to the odds in our game.
Joseph Lauzon -650
Brandon Melendez +450
Cole Miller -650
Andy Wang +450
Gray Maynard -575
Rob Emerson +375
Leonard Garcia -800
Allen Berube +500
Matt Wiman -625
Brian Geraghty +425
Thales Leites -600
Floyd Sword +400
Roger Huerta -850
Doug Evans +525
Manny Gamburyan -115
Nathan Diaz -115
BJ Penn -350
Jens Pulver +275
So our odds are way better than a real bookies
Except for Geraghty Wiman which is quite odd that they have it like that.
But that manny diaz one cant be right can it? doesnt there always have to be a +?
I don't think there needs to be a favorite or an underdog if the bookie views the two fighters equal. They make money if 50% bet on Diaz and 50% bet on Manny.
50 bet on Diaz
50 bet on Manny
They all place wagers of 100
Diaz betters: 50 people= (186x50) -(100x50)= loss for bookie of 4300
Manny betters: 50 people= (100x50)= gain for bookie of 5000
Total gain for bookie = 700
It is still profitable if they believe the odds are truly even(and thus the betters will spread their picks evenly)
Roger Huerta -850
Doug Evans +525
how can that be right?
Huerta is a huge favorite so you have the -850
Evans is the underdog so he gets the +525
No reason to put Evans at +850 because in case he does win then the bookie would be out a lot of money. +525 is a pretty large amount.
its right, its just not good. The large gap indicates a large house advantage and/or a large mismatch. On this site the money is fake so we get a player advantage. Bodog is real money so the house gets the advantage. The goal of setting the odds is so that overall the same amount of money is wagered on both fighters. The casino sets and moves the odds so this will happen. If they are successful then they are guaranteed to make money. The odds may move to encourage betting on one side or the other so the casino can spread the money evenly. For example, The odds on Wiman Geraghty have changed since my post. They were Wiman -625 and Geraghty +425. A lot of people have put a lot of money on Geraghty, so the odds have move so that people will put more money on Wiman. The odd currently are at -500 and Geraghty +300.
Does that make sense?
Actually I don't like that. Why favor the player? If you kept the odds similar to real bookie odds, you'd still have an even playing field but increase the realism.
Honestly I would much prefer if the odds were posted as close to reality as possible. The ideal situation would be to offer the best odds on any given fighter that you can find at a real bookie. So if bodog had Manny +125 and Diaz -145, and sportsbet had Manny even and Diaz -120, you would post Manny +125 and Diaz -120. This would emulate a real MMA fan shopping for the best bet and allow us to learn not only who can make the most (since we're all still on an even playing field) but ALSO what we theoretically could have made betting real money.
There's another advantage there as well, which is: right now, where you're giving a player advantage to all bets, you're requiring player-to-player bets be even further skewed in order to be compelling. If a player is offered a bet that's set more lucrative than your in-house system, somebody is almost definitely getting srewed. At least if you were to emulate real bookie odds, there would be cases where a player who believed they had a line set wrong could make a reasonable bet that matched or improved upon the 'house' odds, without putting themselves on the wrong side of the odds.
Another note, that may or may not be worth considering. An inexperienced player might not realize the player-bias in the odds being offered. The way you have your lines set, even random, uninformed bets should consistently generate a small return. Such players might be duped into believing that they can make a reasonably small but also reasonably safe return on their money in the real world, and end up losing a lot of money.
Basically, I don't agree with the idea of player-advantaged bets. If your goal is truly to even the playing field, why not simply be realistic? I don't think you're serving this community by setting the bias in their favor. I assume that your underlying motive is preventing players from going totally broke and thus diminishing the enjoyment of the game. Nevertheless, I think moving the bias into the house's advantage would be a huge improvement. You could even have a fund bar somewhere on the site where you indicate how much fake money the 'house' has made, something I for one would find interesting.
Is this post long enough yet? One final point, and I do apologize for my failure at brevity. If you attempted to keep in line with the bookie-posted odds, such that the house odds here at MMAPlayground changed as the fight approached, you could begin to educate players on the potential advantages of getting in early - a wager posted early would be locked in at a potentially more favorable rate. Educating yourself on not only how to stay on the right side of the odds (i.e. betting on a justified underdog when they're being given less of a chance than they should), but how the trends will tend to change the odds as a fight approaches could give players a real advantage.
Sorry. Rant over.
we don't have real odds here, the odds are based on picks (I think) and bets are not locked in at the time they are made. For these reasons we can not have house advantage.
I like player advantage because it keeps everyone in the action and encourages you to bet.
i like how they coem up with the odds and i think even if you lock in your wagers if the odds change closer to the fights then i think everyone has to use the odds that they lock in the event with. and yes why not give players cash then they will have more to play with and make not as hard to gain cash back. don;t wnat to take ppl right out of it after the first event or two and make it so they can;t catch up.