Big $$ experts league

[joshturin]

Surely, throughout the length & breadth of Rotoland, ESPECIALLY on this website, there is a Roto expert willing to play for meaningful stakes! The Masters' league has ONE vacancy. The vacant team has a very competitive freeze list, likely 4th or 5th best by BHQ's current projections.

Auction is LIVE in Las Vegas, Sat Apr 3. EF is $2000 & it costs between $2000-$3500 more per annum in transaction costs. This league RETURNS ~ 95% of its proceeds to the prize fund, unlike the "so-called" NFBC which, by definition, can't produce a 'champion,' since EVERYONE who participates has a negative expectation, given the 35% rake.

This contest is exceedingly well-run & has run smoothly for 15 yrs. The format is Waggoner, with separate AL & NL auctions & Standings based on combined total of both leagues.

Surely SOMEONE reading these posts has more than a mincing interest in Roto & is ready to step up to the challenge of a high stakes contest. Contact me if interested: josh_75247@yahoo.com

[RAY@HQ]

Perhaps you would fare better with your solicitation if you managed to not disparage other formats in the process of advertising your own format?

For the record, your statement of the NFBC rake is incorrect.

[joshturin]

Ray, you & I seem to agree on very little. Big world, lots of people in it. I don't have "inside info" on the NFBC rake, to be sure; however, to be fair to your post, I'll look at their add & try to estimate it based on publicly available info. I will be STUNNED if participants have anything OTHER than a very negative expectation, regardless of their skill.

In the casino world, which from a mathematical standpoint is an apt paradigm, my guess is that one has a MUCH better chance to win at a craps table than in NFBC. However, again to be fair, I'll try to quantify this here, shortly.

Prior to ..., we had something in the US called "the First Amendment." I permitted freedom of expression of one's opinion--even if that opinion were stupid. Any gambling contest--& NFBC is a gambling contest--which does not offer its participants a 'reasonable' chance to win (deferring for a moment the definition of "reasonable") should be avoided by any intelligent gamblers.

This said, "entertainment" is a valid purpose to play--and I've played in NFBC before--& it WAS entertaining. My personal statement (here) that it is "silly" to play in NFBC if your goal is to WIN (as opposed to being entertained) is not "disparaging" if my statement is accurate. I will shortly seek to prove that it is accurate. If I'm enlightened by info not known to me, proving my error, I'll apologize immediately for my statement.

[RAY@HQ]

My point was that you've posted your ad twice, and gotten no responses. I was suggesting that your tone of superiority may have been a factor in that.

I figured out the NFBC rake myself before your post. I calc'd it at repaying 75% of gross revenue. If that's not acceptable to you, that's fine, you're clearly already voting with your feet. However, I thought it only fair to other readers to point out your error.

[joshturin]

Ray....okay. I participated in NFBC in 2006 @ Las Vegas. There were only 2 other venues that yr. (The contest has grown & so has the entry fee, like at new Yankee Stadium. The EF is now $1300--a nice touch in tough economic times!) Back then it cost $1000 to play. That yr, there were ~ 300 participants in the Main Event in LV & another ~200, total at the 2 other venues. So ~ $500,000 was collected.

Back then, 1st place paid $100,000 & there were small pmts for a # of places down through, if memory serves, 10th place. I believe that these add'l pmts totalled another ~$100,000. There were ~ 500/12 = 41.67 12-team leagues. Since I believe there were slightly < 500 participants, I'll round this # down to 40.

If you won your 12-team win, you'd get $5000. So 40 X $5000 = $200,000.

SO, YOU'RE RIGHT, RAY, THE RAKE WAS NOT 33% or 35%, and I APOLOGIZE for mistating this. It appears that the rake was only ~ 20%.

You are RIGHT that I mistated the amt of the rake, for which I apologize. However my statement is not rendered "disparaging" despite this overzealous statement.

The rake at a decent slot machine is 3%. The rake in blackjack is 0.5% if you find tables with decent deck penetration & Vegas strips rules. The rake at a double-0 roullette wheel is 5.12%. The rake at a paramutuel track is ~ 17%. The only contest of which I'm aware which has a lower EV than NFBC is a state lottery!

My statement stands: anyone who plays--even Ron Shandler--has a VERY negative expectation. Since this is a mathematically correct statement, it is not "disparaging." In add'n, since in the Main Event it is a draft and not an auction, a skillful participant has an even lower expectation than otherwise.

The NFBC contest is the ANTITHESIS of BHQ, which Mr. Shandler has developed through an amazing amount of honest and intellectually groundbreaking labor & what you guys charge for people to join BHQ is a TRIVIAL price to pay for the information. Last week I refused to disclose BHQ info to a Roto friend because it is copyright protected & I gravely respect intellectual property.

Instead of playing in a CRAPSHOOT, why SHOULDN'T I challenge someone to participate in a much more skill-intense contest, NOT run for profit??? And mind you, I am advertising for ONE Roto devotee to join Masters League. ONE. ONE. Not 500.

If you're going to censure my posts, let me know. Otherwise, let me express my opinions, errant or otherwise. I reply with respect and aplomb to any who contest my statements.

[RAY@HQ]

Thanks for reminding me of our past discussions. I'd forgotten about them, but I just went back and refreshed my memory. Express your opinions all you want, but I will continue to correct you when they are errant.

[joshturin]

Fair enough, Ray! 20% is still alot to pay, so we can let others decide if I err. Anyway, if anyone reading these posts is interested in the Masters League, pls reply to me: josh_75247@yahoo.com

& Ray--CONGRATULATIONS on your Managing Editorship @ BHQ! You do a great job, which thousands of us appreciate.

[RAY@HQ]

Thanks Josh, and peace!

[RJM713]

Ray, you & I seem to agree on very little. Big world, lots of people in it. I don't have "inside info" on the NFBC rake, to be sure; however, to be fair to your post, I'll look at their add & try to estimate it based on publicly available info. I will be STUNNED if participants have anything OTHER than a very negative expectation, regardless of their skill.

In the casino world, which from a mathematical standpoint is an apt paradigm, my guess is that one has a MUCH better chance to win at a craps table than in NFBC. However, again to be fair, I'll try to quantify this here, shortly.

Prior to ..., we had something in the US called "the First Amendment." I permitted freedom of expression of one's opinion--even if that opinion were stupid. Any gambling contest--& NFBC is a gambling contest--which does not offer its participants a 'reasonable' chance to win (deferring for a moment the definition of "reasonable") should be avoided by any intelligent gamblers.

This said, "entertainment" is a valid purpose to play--and I've played in NFBC before--& it WAS entertaining. My personal statement (here) that it is "silly" to play in NFBC if your goal is to WIN (as opposed to being entertained) is not "disparaging" if my statement is accurate. I will shortly seek to prove that it is accurate. If I'm enlightened by info not known to me, proving my error, I'll apologize immediately for my statement.

Josh, it is my experience that comments of a politically-slanted nature such as this are frowned upon in the Forum setting, as Administrators have rightly taken other posters to task for having done so. Perhaps it has a place in another venue where it would be more appropriate?


I'd appreciate your adhering to those same guidelines that we are all expected to abide by. Thanks.

[RAY@HQ]

Edited the reference out of Josh's post, and your response. Thanks Rich, I missed that the first time through.

[rodyk]

Go get 'em Josh!

[PD@HQ]

I've often wondered why NFBC hasn't had more competition from an organizer willing to do it with a commission structure friendlier to players. I know NFBC has a significany first-mover advantage, but you'd think someone could step to the plate with a pitch (I know, muddy metaphor) that offered bigger payouts for the same entry fees.

On the other hand, maybe there are costs for which josh's post might not be accounting.

[RAY@HQ]

I don't want to sound like an NFBC fanboy (although I am exactly that), but they're paying out something around 75-80% of their gross in prizes. Throw in the expenses to host the leagues (which had been done with Stats Inc, now it's apparently going in-house at Fanball) and logistics (ballrooms, etc., aren't cheap, and until this year they had always just rolled that cost into the entry fee... this year they've added events fees at some of the pricier venues), and it's never been my impression that their bottom-line rake was anything egregious.

[PD@HQ]

...(I)t's never been my impression that their bottom-line rake was anything egregious.

Your impression notwithstanding, I was only wondering if it could be done cheaper.

[RAY@HQ]

And don't get me wrong, it's a fair question...