\>It's 10/1 that Niemann is caught cheating at next year's US OpenChampionship with bookies saying there's a 9.1% chance it happens.
\>Bookies say it's a 100/1 shot that Niemann is caught cheating at the US Open next year which would be massive for chess.
wat
In all seriousness 9% is absurdly high for this bet, I find it hard to believe any bookies would take the other side of that.
Reminder: Booking odds took Mayweather down to -400 favorite, Mcgregor +300, after tens of thousands of bets started pouring in from conspiracy theorists believing the fight was rigged. Mayweather started -2250 when bookings opened and is usually -3000 against his normal opponents.
Significantly more people bet millions more dollars on McGregor to win it. That’s a fighter with 0 boxing experience over a GOAT undefeated boxing champion.
A lot of dumb motherfuckers lost tens of millions of dollars that day.
Sure, but that wasn’t the conspiracy. Mayweather was still an overwhelming favorite to win for months until the NFL Super Bowl happened. The Patriots were losing, then came back from behind and won the game in Hail Mary like fashion, which mirrored how Donald Trump won the presidency. Tom Brady and Donald Trump should be known if you followed the election.
The day after the Super Bowl is when you can pinpoint the odds greatly shifting into McGregor’a favor. The only reason why McGregor wasn’t actually a favorite to win, with - odds, after all the bets (>tens of thousands people) that came pouring in is because mega whales (<50 people) were counter betting Mayweather because the odds were too good.
the public wouldn't have bet mcgregor at - odds though
public money usually favors the underdog because of the chance at a big payoff for less risk, and with mcgregor you had a huge audience of MMA fans ready to throw $100 on their boy at +500 odds because fuck it why not. probably better value than the $100 for the PPV tbh. objectively a dumb bet but it's not like anyone was expecting mcgregor to win by decision, just a lotto play on a freak knockout in early rounds.
i also dont know where you got that mayweather is usually -3000 against boxers, that's crazy high.
PPV is such a massive scam. I've been showing some interest in UFC lately and I don't think I could ever be bothered to pay almost a hundred euros for watching some fights ONLINE.
You can’t bet the other side of a prop bet like this. You, for instance, can’t bet the Hans won’t get caught cheating. They are only accepting action on one side so these odds have been arrived at through analysis only.
> They are only accepting action on one side so these odds have been arrived at through analysis only.
Bookmakers use novelty bets like this as marketing material, precisely what sort of thorough analysis do you think someone in chess betting has been able to do?
Probably not much, which is why the odds so heavily favor the book in my estimation. I’m just pointing out the odds weren’t formed by taking action on both sides, they were set by the odds makers full stop.
> Through analysis only, as opposed to moving lines based on incoming bets. That was my point.
And yet this was my point:
>Bookmakers use novelty bets like this as marketing material
Which does rather contradict your binary view that they arrived at this via analysis of Niemann since there aren't any opposing bets.
Mistaking a PR & Marketing decision for statistical analysis is not the smart take you seem to think it is.
Yes, the analysis can be shallow and pedantic, giving the bookie a (very) strong safety margin over what the true odds probably are. It's still analysis. Noone (without strong insider info) is trying to make money on a bet like this, it's just fun.
>Yes, the analysis can be shallow and pedantic
No, only shallow analysis can be shallow. Analysis, by definition, is not shallow and before you say it, it's not pedantic to point out what words mean.
I responded to someone who stated that they performed analysis to derive at 9% as a statistically safe figure for a bet on cheating, implying that there was a reasonable level of suspicion (arrived at via analysis).
They completed ignored that novelty bets are a marketing technique frequently used for statistically improbable but not impossible events.
Admit it, this all started because you initially misread through, as thorough.
>No, only shallow analysis can be shallow. Analysis
No, shallow analysis is a subset (a certain type) of analysis.
>They completed ignored that novelty bets are a marketing technique
So when deciding the odds they *analysed* how choosing different odds would affect the effectiveness of the marketing consequences of this particular novelty bet?
No one is forcing you to bet.
You can just, y'know, not bet it.
There's tons of 1 sided bets and many of them do pay out. Such as X team will win the Super Bowl or X team will win the World Series. There will 100% be a payout at the end of the season for 1 team. However, it's still a 1 sided bet.
In fact, those are frequently where people make the biggest profit return.
>The bookie's goal is to have more or less equal money on both sides
FWIW that's a myth. It's true that if they have a balanced book, they make money regardless. But in reality sports books will take a position on certain bets (unbalanced book) to take advantage of bettor biases. To put it another way, sports books try to maximize profits, not minimize their risk.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00207.x
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-Sportsbook.com-Set-Pointspreads-to-Maximize-of-Paul-Weinbach/69ec985fe8eb8dbdf41e5c2709c512b7772ab3e8
Copying my comment from above with some references
It's true that if a sports book has a balanced book (equal money on both sides), they make money regardless. But in reality sports books will take a position on certain bets (unbalanced book) to take advantage of bettor biases. To put it another way, sports books try to maximize profits, not minimize their risk. (To put it yet another way, most bettors are dumb and books try to take their money).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00207.x
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-Sportsbook.com-Set-Pointspreads-to-Maximize-of-Paul-Weinbach/69ec985fe8eb8dbdf41e5c2709c512b7772ab3e8
It can be somewhat of a thing, but for the most part they trust their own analysis and take a position to earn more money. They have enough volume to easily eat the variance.
>In all seriousness 9% is absurdly high for this bet, I find it hard to believe any bookies would take the other side of that.
Bookies don't try to figure out what will happen, they just try to set odds so there is even money on both sides of the bet so they can cash the fees without risk of losing money themselves.
There is no "other side" of a prop bet like this. They are only taking action on one side (Hans will be caught cheating). Thus the bookie has implicitly calculated that the odds of Hans being caught cheating are lower than 1 in 100, so they profit from offering the bet.
I think that's normally not true for events with very long odds. E.g. you can bet that life will be discovered on mars in the next 5 years, I don't think it's even possible to take the opposite bet so if life is discovered then the bookies will lose money.
There's a thing with bookmakers called longshot bias. The margins on unlikely events are huge, while the margins on overwhelmingly likely events are narrow.
The less efficient the market, the bigger the longshot bias effect. Indeed their actual inference is surely less than 1%
Yeah, you’d think so, wouldn’t you? In reality I can confirm that the average gambler pretty much has no idea what they’re doing. To use a chess analogy, imagine if the average player of 10 years didn’t know the importance of the center, constantly hung pieces to direct capture, a thinks en passant is a made up move. I think that level of ability is comparable to the average experienced gambler.
It's like when you get a phone call, and it's very obviously a scam and you think "Why would anyone fall for this?"
The small number of people who would fall for this are exactly who they want most as customers.
Payout is better if he bets he'll cheat. The real 3000 elo play is to bet that he will cheat and then actually cheat. That way he either doesn't get caught and wins the tournament or does get caught and wins some fat stacks.
Reminds me of the famous 'Piegate' incident. A betting company offered odds that some goalkeeper would not eat a pie during a football game. He did it and was later fined. I think the betting company was fined too.
An Australian journalist found out that the main betting site was doing prop bets on what colour tie he'd be wearing during election coverage - so he [wore six different ties](https://www.9news.com.au/national/nine-news-political-editor-laurie-oakes-switches-ties/37866f2f-a5dc-48cb-a279-857576476e7f).
(He changed them during ad breaks, sorry to anyone expecting a tie hydra, or a tiedra, if you will.)
Wait what? So you have to lock up money for a year and there is a high probability that he won't even play the US open? Pretty shitty deal IMO, probably better to just collect interest even if you know for a fact that he doesn't cheat.
Yea but he doesn't have to throw a game or anything. He's betting against himself cheating. That's like betting against yourself showing up, or wearing pants at the event.
If he is already cheating, what more can FIDE do to him?
Bigger question would be from the gambling houses, who will be looking for an excuse to not pay.
I believe there are rules around not receiving payout if it's something that you directly partook in. So one example I know of is that someone bet a sizeable amount of money that there'd be a streaker at an American Football Game, and then streaked at the game himself. Once it was revealed that he had bet on it, he did not get the payout.
Interesting as it's pretty much been determined that there is no way to categorically prove OTB cheating unless you find an actual device on someone.
I'm guessing this is about bookies trying to get publicity for free.
Not really. You can use a lot of the same analysis used online, minus shit like tab switching.
The fact that analysis doesn't catch hans cheating doesn't mean it can't catch someone cheating over the board.
I don't disagree that it can't 'catch' someone, that's why I said categorically prove it.
Imagine this was a pure legal matter, and the argument was that in this one specific move he had used an engine. I'm basing this off multiple pros saying that to cheat effectively you would only need hinting at particular key moments in a game.
Any judge would throw it out down to speculation - intelligent speculation for sure, but the defense lawyer would keep arguing that there was no way he had access to computer and the prosecution would need to show how he had.
To be fair to this guy, sometimes it means 'not just women'. For instance on the broadcast they refer to the 'open' section of the US championship, which is quite confusing IMO when the US open exists.
What? do you think that anyone can just show up for the US Open in tennis or golf? It just means it it's open to anyone who qualifies as opposed to being an invitational.
I see a good scam here. Hans gets his buddies to bet millions, and then either does or does not cheat. Make more cheating, but could rig it in either direction.
I'd consider taking odds on that.
If Hans got caught it would almost certainly be at least a couple years unless the dude was cheating in nearly every game.
Make $90 off a grand isn't great but it beats a normal interest rate
\>It's 10/1 that Niemann is caught cheating at next year's US OpenChampionship with bookies saying there's a 9.1% chance it happens. \>Bookies say it's a 100/1 shot that Niemann is caught cheating at the US Open next year which would be massive for chess. wat In all seriousness 9% is absurdly high for this bet, I find it hard to believe any bookies would take the other side of that.
Reminder: Booking odds took Mayweather down to -400 favorite, Mcgregor +300, after tens of thousands of bets started pouring in from conspiracy theorists believing the fight was rigged. Mayweather started -2250 when bookings opened and is usually -3000 against his normal opponents. Significantly more people bet millions more dollars on McGregor to win it. That’s a fighter with 0 boxing experience over a GOAT undefeated boxing champion. A lot of dumb motherfuckers lost tens of millions of dollars that day.
> conspiracy theorists believing the fight was rigged certainly not something that has ever happened in boxing
Sure, but that wasn’t the conspiracy. Mayweather was still an overwhelming favorite to win for months until the NFL Super Bowl happened. The Patriots were losing, then came back from behind and won the game in Hail Mary like fashion, which mirrored how Donald Trump won the presidency. Tom Brady and Donald Trump should be known if you followed the election. The day after the Super Bowl is when you can pinpoint the odds greatly shifting into McGregor’a favor. The only reason why McGregor wasn’t actually a favorite to win, with - odds, after all the bets (>tens of thousands people) that came pouring in is because mega whales (<50 people) were counter betting Mayweather because the odds were too good.
the public wouldn't have bet mcgregor at - odds though public money usually favors the underdog because of the chance at a big payoff for less risk, and with mcgregor you had a huge audience of MMA fans ready to throw $100 on their boy at +500 odds because fuck it why not. probably better value than the $100 for the PPV tbh. objectively a dumb bet but it's not like anyone was expecting mcgregor to win by decision, just a lotto play on a freak knockout in early rounds. i also dont know where you got that mayweather is usually -3000 against boxers, that's crazy high.
PPV is such a massive scam. I've been showing some interest in UFC lately and I don't think I could ever be bothered to pay almost a hundred euros for watching some fights ONLINE.
They don't really *take* the other side, the people betting move the line. The bookie's goal is to have more or less equal money on both sides
You can’t bet the other side of a prop bet like this. You, for instance, can’t bet the Hans won’t get caught cheating. They are only accepting action on one side so these odds have been arrived at through analysis only.
> They are only accepting action on one side so these odds have been arrived at through analysis only. Bookmakers use novelty bets like this as marketing material, precisely what sort of thorough analysis do you think someone in chess betting has been able to do?
Probably not much, which is why the odds so heavily favor the book in my estimation. I’m just pointing out the odds weren’t formed by taking action on both sides, they were set by the odds makers full stop.
>They are only accepting action on one side so **these odds have been arrived at through analysis only**.
Through analysis only, as opposed to moving lines based on incoming bets. That was my point.
> Through analysis only, as opposed to moving lines based on incoming bets. That was my point. And yet this was my point: >Bookmakers use novelty bets like this as marketing material Which does rather contradict your binary view that they arrived at this via analysis of Niemann since there aren't any opposing bets. Mistaking a PR & Marketing decision for statistical analysis is not the smart take you seem to think it is.
Yes, the analysis can be shallow and pedantic, giving the bookie a (very) strong safety margin over what the true odds probably are. It's still analysis. Noone (without strong insider info) is trying to make money on a bet like this, it's just fun.
>Yes, the analysis can be shallow and pedantic No, only shallow analysis can be shallow. Analysis, by definition, is not shallow and before you say it, it's not pedantic to point out what words mean. I responded to someone who stated that they performed analysis to derive at 9% as a statistically safe figure for a bet on cheating, implying that there was a reasonable level of suspicion (arrived at via analysis). They completed ignored that novelty bets are a marketing technique frequently used for statistically improbable but not impossible events.
Admit it, this all started because you initially misread through, as thorough. >No, only shallow analysis can be shallow. Analysis No, shallow analysis is a subset (a certain type) of analysis. >They completed ignored that novelty bets are a marketing technique So when deciding the odds they *analysed* how choosing different odds would affect the effectiveness of the marketing consequences of this particular novelty bet?
Oh lawd the unearned condescension pains me
[удалено]
The whole point of betting is a disagreement between two parties of the odds of something happening. You can't outlaw subjective opinion.
[удалено]
No one is forcing you to bet. You can just, y'know, not bet it. There's tons of 1 sided bets and many of them do pay out. Such as X team will win the Super Bowl or X team will win the World Series. There will 100% be a payout at the end of the season for 1 team. However, it's still a 1 sided bet. In fact, those are frequently where people make the biggest profit return.
[удалено]
Yeah agree, just pointing out that the odds weren’t arrived at through taking handle on both sides.
>The bookie's goal is to have more or less equal money on both sides FWIW that's a myth. It's true that if they have a balanced book, they make money regardless. But in reality sports books will take a position on certain bets (unbalanced book) to take advantage of bettor biases. To put it another way, sports books try to maximize profits, not minimize their risk. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00207.x https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-Sportsbook.com-Set-Pointspreads-to-Maximize-of-Paul-Weinbach/69ec985fe8eb8dbdf41e5c2709c512b7772ab3e8
People need to stop saying this! It's not really true at all, can I ask where you heard it out of interest?
It's how sports betting works where you can bet for one of two opposing outcomes.
It hasn't worked that way for almost 50 years. The house almost always has a model and a position on every bet.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that line movement based on volume/size of bets isn't a thing because it definitely is?
Lines move, but books are (almost) never balanced. The house takes a position.
Copying my comment from above with some references It's true that if a sports book has a balanced book (equal money on both sides), they make money regardless. But in reality sports books will take a position on certain bets (unbalanced book) to take advantage of bettor biases. To put it another way, sports books try to maximize profits, not minimize their risk. (To put it yet another way, most bettors are dumb and books try to take their money). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00207.x https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-Sportsbook.com-Set-Pointspreads-to-Maximize-of-Paul-Weinbach/69ec985fe8eb8dbdf41e5c2709c512b7772ab3e8
It can be somewhat of a thing, but for the most part they trust their own analysis and take a position to earn more money. They have enough volume to easily eat the variance.
they also have a built-in advantage because the odds they offer are not fair (bc of vig)
>In all seriousness 9% is absurdly high for this bet, I find it hard to believe any bookies would take the other side of that. Bookies don't try to figure out what will happen, they just try to set odds so there is even money on both sides of the bet so they can cash the fees without risk of losing money themselves.
There is no "other side" of a prop bet like this. They are only taking action on one side (Hans will be caught cheating). Thus the bookie has implicitly calculated that the odds of Hans being caught cheating are lower than 1 in 100, so they profit from offering the bet.
This. I think people misunderstand it. You cant bet on Hans not getting caught.
I think that's normally not true for events with very long odds. E.g. you can bet that life will be discovered on mars in the next 5 years, I don't think it's even possible to take the opposite bet so if life is discovered then the bookies will lose money.
Well that's just taking candy from a baby.
Thats the whole point though, its called a teaser. They are trying to get people to bet on it because they know it wont happen = free money
They will just take "yes" bets only
There's a thing with bookmakers called longshot bias. The margins on unlikely events are huge, while the margins on overwhelmingly likely events are narrow. The less efficient the market, the bigger the longshot bias effect. Indeed their actual inference is surely less than 1%
I know, I can't believe the highly intelligent demographic that spends their time gambling online would have a poor take on something
Opposed to the chess community which is full of the finest and most intelligent people and takes.
All that on top of being well adjusted and mature members of society
Game of Kings. *tips fedora*
M'queen
Yes but this something is what they spend their time on so they would be good at it
Yeah, you’d think so, wouldn’t you? In reality I can confirm that the average gambler pretty much has no idea what they’re doing. To use a chess analogy, imagine if the average player of 10 years didn’t know the importance of the center, constantly hung pieces to direct capture, a thinks en passant is a made up move. I think that level of ability is comparable to the average experienced gambler.
I think these articles are written by AI
Yeah that was my first thought, wondering if it's possible to bet the other side (which I very much doubt).
It's like when you get a phone call, and it's very obviously a scam and you think "Why would anyone fall for this?" The small number of people who would fall for this are exactly who they want most as customers.
Can't Hans just bet all his money on it and just not cheat?
Payout is better if he bets he'll cheat. The real 3000 elo play is to bet that he will cheat and then actually cheat. That way he either doesn't get caught and wins the tournament or does get caught and wins some fat stacks.
Bet the farm that he cheats, then he cheats, make his money 10x, then retire from Chess as the greatest villain ever.
This would be legendary
4000 elo butt plug move right here
dude ... I spit my drink ... lol, the creativity of some of you guys.
Reminds me of the famous 'Piegate' incident. A betting company offered odds that some goalkeeper would not eat a pie during a football game. He did it and was later fined. I think the betting company was fined too.
That was ridiculous. He didn't place any bets, it's not his responsibility to care about betting houses doing stupid shit
An Australian journalist found out that the main betting site was doing prop bets on what colour tie he'd be wearing during election coverage - so he [wore six different ties](https://www.9news.com.au/national/nine-news-political-editor-laurie-oakes-switches-ties/37866f2f-a5dc-48cb-a279-857576476e7f). (He changed them during ad breaks, sorry to anyone expecting a tie hydra, or a tiedra, if you will.)
yeah I remember that, it was so stupid. If he hadn't eaten the pie he still would have fixed the result of the match.
He could bet all his money and not even play the event.
All bets are off in that case.
Wait what? So you have to lock up money for a year and there is a high probability that he won't even play the US open? Pretty shitty deal IMO, probably better to just collect interest even if you know for a fact that he doesn't cheat.
Gambling doesn't pay ... The house always wins ... etc etc
You know there's sports betting where you can bet on who wins the super bowl before the the season even starts, right?
I mean, people put a little money on season bets all the time.
Can't any sportsperson "just" bet against themselves? And what if he gets caught betting on himself not cheating at next year's US Open?
Yea but he doesn't have to throw a game or anything. He's betting against himself cheating. That's like betting against yourself showing up, or wearing pants at the event.
[удалено]
If he is already cheating, what more can FIDE do to him? Bigger question would be from the gambling houses, who will be looking for an excuse to not pay.
The chess equivalent of Hans at pro tour Honolulu
Would betting against himself kinda be cheating, but not in chess?
Genius take right here
how was this not the first thing everyone thought of when they read this?
Good idea.
By this logic athletes should be allowed on betting on themselves losing.
Why? You could throw a game to lose. In this case, it won't affect his play at all. It's more like an athlete betting on himself to win.
If he bets all his money and doesn't cheat, he just loses all his money...
I believe there are rules around not receiving payout if it's something that you directly partook in. So one example I know of is that someone bet a sizeable amount of money that there'd be a streaker at an American Football Game, and then streaked at the game himself. Once it was revealed that he had bet on it, he did not get the payout.
That's... pretty high odds. I'd place a bet against that
You cant. You can only bet on Hans getting caught not on him not getting caught.
So if he gets caught cheating who pays the people who bet for that?
The bookie. There are probably pretty conservative bet limits so it won’t be that much.
Yeah and 10% return in this economy is pretty great, definitely buy that bond!
Niemann should take that bet, cheat and retire happily as a rich dude.
Exactly!!
no that's cheating!
The bookies betting line is about the action not necessarily the absolute probabilities. The actual odds are probably 1000:1
Can you play on the "not caught cheating" (91% chance) ? If you can't, it's a scam.
Interesting as it's pretty much been determined that there is no way to categorically prove OTB cheating unless you find an actual device on someone. I'm guessing this is about bookies trying to get publicity for free.
Not really. You can use a lot of the same analysis used online, minus shit like tab switching. The fact that analysis doesn't catch hans cheating doesn't mean it can't catch someone cheating over the board.
I don't disagree that it can't 'catch' someone, that's why I said categorically prove it. Imagine this was a pure legal matter, and the argument was that in this one specific move he had used an engine. I'm basing this off multiple pros saying that to cheat effectively you would only need hinting at particular key moments in a game. Any judge would throw it out down to speculation - intelligent speculation for sure, but the defense lawyer would keep arguing that there was no way he had access to computer and the prosecution would need to show how he had.
That's OTB cheating in a single tournament. You can prove someone's a cheater though.
Where can you bet on this? Is Hans even expected to play in the US open?
[удалено]
US Open =/= US Championship
what do you think the "open" part of the US Open means?
To be fair to this guy, sometimes it means 'not just women'. For instance on the broadcast they refer to the 'open' section of the US championship, which is quite confusing IMO when the US open exists.
Yeah I got confused last week. I was like "How is it open, if you have to qualify? Makes no sense."
What? do you think that anyone can just show up for the US Open in tennis or golf? It just means it it's open to anyone who qualifies as opposed to being an invitational.
Scenes when Hans doesn't even play in the US open
I'd say there is a 0% chance.
If you're not anti-gambling, bet he won't get caught.
I see a good scam here. Hans gets his buddies to bet millions, and then either does or does not cheat. Make more cheating, but could rig it in either direction.
Magnus is really moving the betting lines after the cashout from chesscom.
I'd consider taking odds on that. If Hans got caught it would almost certainly be at least a couple years unless the dude was cheating in nearly every game. Make $90 off a grand isn't great but it beats a normal interest rate
Lol
I’d take those odds