Betting compo 15-16

Prize? I gave you £56 back in August, so I make it that you owe me £51.90!

Just our of interest...
Do you have a receipt for the £56 you 'gave' me?

Rules

1) each member starts with £1 for each match day remaining from the day of their first bet - allowing for 42 league matches, a run to the 3rd round of the cup and the trophy final, there are a maximum of 56 match days, so you will receive £56 if you start on the 1st match, £55 on the 2nd etc

If you hear a knock on the door tonight, it will be the bailiffs...

comrade powell wrote:final table after Margate...

£3.10 C roman mike
£3.00 ma gibbons
£2.00 rudi
£0.10 chris
£0.05 steve
£0.03 powell
£0.02 sean
£0.00 roman joshua
£0.00 terrie
£0.00 snakebite fernandez
£0.00 steve white's missus
£0.00 yuffie

So on a final day, when £216 was chucked away placed on a variety of unlikely outcomes, the title goes to Roman Mike. Congratulations!

This compo will return in August (and I might even try something for the Euros beforehand) but in the meantime, please post any suggestions for improvement. All ideas will be considered!

One suggestion would be an amendment to the rules so that no-one can place the same bet as someone else, e.g. Only one person can predict both teams to score, or City to come from behind and win or draw, etc.

I would second what the right honorable lady has proposed.

AGM

Ahem, welcome members to the AGM of the Roman Forum Betting Competition.

Chairman's Report

There were 12 entries in last season's competition, which was won by Roman Mike.
The largest number of wins was 12 by Sean.
The largest win was Rudi's £64
445 bets were placed in total, 48 of which were wins - an 11% success rate.
The biggest individual loss was an irresponsible £80 by Roman Mike on the last day of the season.

Motions
'no-one can place the same bet as someone else' (ie on the same outcome eg Margate to win by 3 goals)
proposer - Ma Gibbons
seconder - Comrade Powell

Members are invited to vote on this motion - 'yes' or 'no' - by  6 pm Wednesday (3 Aug)

AOB

The new season will start on a new thread as soon as the odds for Margate appear.
May Comrade Powell the best person win.

Meeting closed

comrade powell wrote:AGM

Ahem, welcome members to the AGM of the Roman Forum Betting Competition.

Chairman's Report

There were 12 entries in last season's competition, which was won by Roman Mike.
The largest number of wins was 12 by Sean.
The largest win was Rudi's £64
445 bets were placed in total, 48 of which were wins - an 11% success rate.
The biggest individual loss was an irresponsible £80 by Roman Mike on the last day of the season.

Motions
'no-one can place the same bet as someone else' (ie on the same outcome eg Margate to win by 3 goals)
proposer - Ma Gibbons
seconder - Comrade Powell

Members are invited to vote on this motion - 'yes' or 'no' - by  6 pm Wednesday (3 Aug)

AOB

The new season will start on a new thread as soon as the odds for Margate appear.
May Comrade Powell the best person win.

Meeting closed

I vote 'yes' for this motion.

so do I

comrade powell wrote:AGM

Ahem, welcome members to the AGM of the Roman Forum Betting Competition.

Chairman's Report

There were 12 entries in last season's competition, which was won by Roman Mike.
The largest number of wins was 12 by Sean.
The largest win was Rudi's £64
445 bets were placed in total, 48 of which were wins - an 11% success rate.
The biggest individual loss was an irresponsible £80 by Roman Mike on the last day of the season.

Motions
'no-one can place the same bet as someone else' (ie on the same outcome eg Margate to win by 3 goals)
proposer - Ma Gibbons
seconder - Comrade Powell

Members are invited to vote on this motion - 'yes' or 'no' - by  6 pm Wednesday (3 Aug)

AOB

The new season will start on a new thread as soon as the odds for Margate appear.
May Comrade Powell the best person win.

Meeting closed

aye
(dammit)

I take it that it is quite in order to give you my opinion openly on this thread, as you and Alison have already done so!


I will be most disappointed if this motion is passed, for the following reasons:

You have suggested the motion be passed but have not stated any reasoning behind it. The only thing I can think of is that you are trying to eliminate/reduce the possibility of someone, who finds themselves leading the competition near the seaon's end, submitting a prediction that is identical to that of their nearest rival, thus stopping them from overtaking them at the death. I cannot think of any other reason for this motion. If I am correct in my assumption, may I say that, although the reasoning is with good intent, there are so many circumstances that would enable someone to be able to do this, that I think your plans to snuff out a 'chancers' intentions are far outweighed by stifling the free choice that we all make each week, regardless of whether it is the same as anyone elses.

Personally, I enjoy this competition, but it is a 'trivial pursuit' after all is said and done. I can tell you that Chris and I do not look over each others shoulders when we make our predictions - ours are often the same simply because we have agreed that we have chosen the same. They are not always the same - but they are genuinely our personal choices. Furthermore, sometimes time is tight, and I cannot always look at the betting web page, and pour over the countless number of betting options; so I simply look down the postings of predictions that have already been made, and if one of them looks attractive I will do the same bet - saves time!

I do not know if Chris will have the time to respond to this thread by your imposed deadline - she is away this week, but I have e-mailed her about it and she will be as disappointed as I am if you take away the democracy of an absolute free choice of betting selections, so please make it 2 'Nos' for the suggested motion. Thanks.

I vote Yes

However, I assume there will be exceptions when there are instances with a limited number of betting options - e.g. cup and trophy games.

To answer Sean's question first, yes that would be the exception as there are often only 3 possible choices.

Steve, I cannot answer for Alison, but I support the motion because I feel it will add more interest each week. With respect, the two most popular bets were for opponents/City for ht/ft outcome! With only a maximum of 12 bets made last season, it reduced the number of outcomes one was competing with. For me, the attraction of this competition is finding an interesting bet.

Yes, the temptation for the leader to place an identical bet as a challenger to prevent being overtaken is there, although I can't ever remember it being used.

I'm sorry that you think that it is undemocratic to take away free choice. To be fair, Alison made her suggestion back in April and there were no objections. It's a pity some of the members didn't vote this week, but perhaps they were happy with what was being suggested.

Anyway, the votes were 4-2 in favour of the motion so it is carried. I hope that you and Chris will accept that and join us in battle come Saturday!

Ah well - it will be more interesting for you, but less interesting for us if we cannot make our first choice bet just because someone else has already placed the same bet. At least it snuffs out the scenario I described concerning someone who is leading the comp'.
I vaguely remember Alison raising a proposed motion last season, but as it was not going to be put forward until now I suppose there were no objections to it at that time.
The attraction of this comp' to me is to find the best value bet, based on the price offered and consideration of the reality of the outcome using your knowledge of the teams that are playing, especially their current form. We grew to like the HT/FT range of bets even though they were long shots; so, as I indicated, when time is short on a Friday night, we tended to stick to that bet rather than search for anything else.
Yes, I expect we will still join in - it is all part of the fun during the season. We will just have to quicker out of the blocks in order to have the desired selection.

Why did you give everyone until 6pm on Friday to vote and then announce the result yesterday ?

I was going to vote against it. I think people should be allowed to do the bet they want.

I can see it being a mad scramble in our house now to get to the computer to  do our bet before the other one does it !

I suggest you read what I posted on Monday again, Chris - it clearly states that the deadline to vote was Wednesday. And people are allowed to bet what they want - there are usually at least 100 to choose from - the only change is not to bet the same as a previous one. If we get more members than options, I'll admit Alison's motion was a poor one. In the meantime I'll remind you of what is stated in the opening post of the new thread - it's supposed to be fun! Frankly there are far more important issues about our club which we should be getting worked up about.

Martin, in your PM to me you said . . . . .

Please see the AGM post on the betting thread and cast your vote before 6 pm Friday!

But don't worry . . . . . . I enjoy the competition but I don't take it THAT seriously !

Ah, I see. I'm afraid that was a typo, but if any of those who haven't already done so wish to vote before 6pm tomorrow, I will include their choice. So the decision could be overturned. And before you add yours, it was included in the 2 against as requested in Steve's post!

Martin - I have reconsidered this motive, in the light of what you have said, and the subsequent response from Chris, and my stance on it has hardened.
For a start you have quoted two deadline dates for this motion to be accepted or rejected. OK, in your latest reply to Chris, you have acknowledged this, but I noted that you appeared eager to apply the earlier date! So now, with over a day to go, there may well be further response from the thusfar silent majority - people who may not read this thread until they are fairly certain that the bookie's link is available to access, especially as it is in respect of the first game. I am assuming that you PM'd all 12 or so previous participants so they will know they still have time to 'vote'!
I think that your reason for backing the motion is so trivial, and it bears no relationship with the original intent of the compo'. Despite my hitherto reasons why I find the comp' interesting to participate in, surely the main ideal is to win - it is a betting compo! If I was to walk into a betting shop to place a football related bet on, and was told that I could not do it because someone else had already done an identical bet, I would laugh out loud, and then create merry hell I should think.
Your little betting compo' should be based on selections throughout the season that that are attempting to win.The motion is farcical in that it would possibly take away people's first choice of bet - just because somebody else has done the same bet first.I don't know how many hours a week you spend on the Forum - surely it would be easier for you if one or more people put the same bets on! Look right through the bookie's choices yourself, as you appear to do - that should give you all the kicks you need to maintain your interest, but please do not impose a restriction on our rights to select what takes our interest the most. If you do, that would definately dilute the pleasure some of us get from it.

I urge you to throw this motion out before you possibly lose the interest of other previous participants too!

Steve, to be honest I can hardly be bothered to answer your post as there are more important things in my life than a stupid spat about a competition which is supposed to be fun!

But briefly, back in April i invited members of last season's compo to suggest any changes, which Alison did. You have had 4 months to argue with her about what she was proposing but didn't. I thought it was a good idea but rather than simply introducing it (which as organiser I could have), I gave members the opportunity to vote on it. 6 did, 4-2 in favour. Unfortunately the pm I sent to members had a different deadline so I extended this until tomorrow. If you look at the 16/17 thread you will see that because of this, the new ruling will not apply. Does that meet with your approval?

If it doesn't I welcome you to take over the running of the competition. Please let me know if you're interested.

Beau Nash wrote:Whilst I can understand the reasoning behind the new rule...which is sound, I cannot support it as during the season a "bet" could be disqualified if it has already been used by a previous poster.  

The rule will only apply to a particular match. There is nothing to stop A betting on a City 1-0 win on Saturday and B choosing the same outcome for Tuesday. But B can't place this bet on Saturday if it has already been selected by A for that same match.

i vote yes to the new rule change

comrade powell wrote:Steve, to be honest I can hardly be bothered to answer your post as there are more important things in my life than a stupid spat about a competition which is supposed to be fun!

But briefly, back in April i invited members of last season's compo to suggest any changes, which Alison did. You have had 4 months to argue with her about what she was proposing but didn't. I thought it was a good idea but rather than simply introducing it (which as organiser I could have), I gave members the opportunity to vote on it. 6 did, 4-2 in favour. Unfortunately the pm I sent to members had a different deadline so I extended this until tomorrow. If you look at the 16/17 thread you will see that because of this, the new ruling will not apply. Does that meet with your approval?

If it doesn't I welcome you to take over the running of the competition. Please let me know if you're interested.

Martin - I didn't expect you to answer my post as I didn't ask you any questions. I was just putting the case for the opposition to the motion. I agree fully with the rest of your first sentence. I must take issue with you regarding the first part of your second paragraph though. I did not give Alisons proposed change a second thought when I saw it mentioned in May - we were not invited to agree or disagree it then. I will ignore the question at the end of that paragraph, and also your third paragraph, as you have over-reacted. By writing to people like this I think you display great displeasure at being challenged about something, instead of stepping back and understanding more that people may have different views. Anyway, there is no need to fall out about something so trivial as the Betting Compo'. We will agree to differ on this one Martin - as you say there are far more important issues to get our teeth into in the near future. We work together at our best then, as has been proved over recent years. Going back to my initial post - if this motion eventually gets voted in then I will strive to get my bet in first - unless Chris disables the PC until she gets in from work.

I can assure you that I was not overreacting in my final sentence, something which I would certainly accuse you of in this ridiculous argument. If you have the time to write such lengthy posts criticising a simple, democratic process then you will have time to run the competition. So the offer is still there.

Well, well, well - what a reaction from you - and I was trying to calm the waters too.

Just to say - comrade - that I was not criticising the democratic system (in fact I was intimating just the opposite). Once again, all I was doing was expressing my opposition to the motion which you were defending. Sorry if my explanation was too wordy. Now, excuse me for this short reply, as I have to do my predictions first and it is now late (for a six o'clock awakening in the morning). Good job I can copy someone else's today as there is no time to wade through the betting spreadsheets!