"we're all big boys and girls"
You, sir, do not seem to have spent very much time on these forums.
Eh, then again, maybe you have a point there :p
"we're all big boys and girls"
You, sir, do not seem to have spent very much time on these forums.
Eh, then again, maybe you have a point there :p
Well when you play for money in real life you play for odds (based on rating). Roughly, if your opponent is 200 ELO points higher than you, he has to wager three times your wager (3:1 odds), and so on based on the ELO probability/ratings scale.
Therefore playing for odds is 100% fair and mathematical and isn't "throwing money away."
Interesting. I didn't know this. I just play in a little local league. The only money I spend is on a pint of beer to accompany the game :)
USCF has $$ tournaments $$ I'm currently in the golden knights email tournament. $25 entry fee fur a chance to win up to $700
@OP: Small amounts would quickly add up to large amounts. People addicted to gambling would have extreme difficulty stopping the betting.
To deny that this is gambling is delusional. The game of Chess is purely skill, but many agree that some luck is involved, nonetheless. Factors beyond either player's control remain. If one player is having a good or bad day, this is an intangible that, from the point of view of the other player, is lucky.
Accidental disconnections also diminish the focus on skill, consequently raising the luck factor.
Disconnections: Chess.com's answer to chance in chess.
Well when you play for money in real life you play for odds (based on rating). Roughly, if your opponent is 200 ELO points higher than you, he has to wager three times your wager (3:1 odds), and so on based on the ELO probability/ratings scale.
Therefore playing for odds is 100% fair and mathematical and isn't "throwing money away."
What about those who purposelly keep their rating low?
The problem with playing chess for money even in USCF tournaments is that people are sneaking smart phones into the tournaments and using them to tell them what moves to make. Pretty soon they're going to have to put hidden cameras in the rest rooms to terrorize cheaters and people with small p-ps. That's why I was talking about OTB because betting on horses is a game akin to chess, many different theories and ideas about how to bet and its harder to cheat except maybe if you're a rich gangster who can pay off the jockeys to hold back their horses.
We'd have two separate ratings: One rating for non-betting games and one rating for betting games. If a player wants to "sandbag" and lose intentionally to keep his betting game rating low, at least he'd be losing money as well.
It would be a good idea to have a player's wagering history available for inspection. So if you see a player has wagered $10 per game and lost ten games in a row but for the eleventh bets $1,000 and wins, then loses twenty in a row at $10 each, then bets $2,000 and wins, you know he's sandbagging.
And what of the poor sap who loses $2,000 to the sandbagger? Honest players--patsies--must be casualties of cheaters' callous techniques, perhaps multitudes of times, until the dishonorable players are caught.
Gambling is for people who think, "Hey. I have $2,000 I don't want anymore. Someone, please take it!"
Well, is someone bets $2,000 after losing that many in a row at a lower bet...um, just don't be a sucker! Take your winnings and leave...make him the sucker!
Yes, just like poker, got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away...when the dealings done...lol
Someone could even make a new account, starting at 1200, and challenges people who are lower rated then their actual rating. Imagine if a 2000 created a new account and betted against the 800's? It'd be like Jaws. Then IM pfren will come along with his new account and be the air tank.
@Whaleeyeman: I was referring to the individuals who are the first to make the sizable bets. If they do their "homework," they will find only meager or paltry bets that all went for losses, finding no real reason to be suspicious.
If the same player who won small bets agrees to a sudden large bet, then that would be a different story. That player should be wary for such a common trick. But the hustler may pretend to be a poor player to a number of players for the purpose of building up a poor record versus easy opposition. The next player would then be unsuspecting prey.
Well
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Someone could even make a new account, starting at 1200, and challenges people who are lower rated then their actual rating. Imagine if a 2000 created a new account and betted against the 800's? It'd be like Jaws. Then IM pfren will come along with his new account and be the air tank.
Well, that's why when you do a tournament, credit cards are used. Would be nice if they used social security numbers...but that's a scammers dream! Credit cards, that's the best thing to keep track of. Or membership, USCF you get a membership, but they know EVERYTHING about you. Not like any old site that just allows anyone sign up and have a paid tournament...that's nuts! You need to be careful when entering one. Reputation is the key.
I am in favor of those in the pro-gambling camp breaking ground on a new chess website with any gambling provisions, regulations, and accommodations they wish to institute. They are free to do as they wish. I am fully confident that Chess.com will remain untainted from gambling.
Yes VERY true! I used to do the same with playing handball lol. Let then think they have me, even raise the bet in the middle of the game when he has an outstanding lead and the serve! Then come back & demolish him!
Hustlers... A couple of months ago I played a game in which I promoted a pawn and was sure to win. What I remember the most is that when we got to the K&Q vs. K endgame, the person finally typed their first message of the game and it was something like "Nice playing. Care to play a rated game to see if you can't win some of my points?" It seemed like Chess.com hustling! I declined, by the way. I remember that I was meeting someone for dinner and didn't have time for a whole 30 minute game, should it run on for an hour.
Oh, and why do some people get chatty at the end?
Many children play in this site....including mine.....I would not like to have feature available...
I was talking about the children who are in their 40's.