General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Jan 12
13:56
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jul 05
if you invite 30 people to your house and ask them to guess the distance from your back door to your fence,average their guesses then you guess(remember you ve lived their for years,and walked your garden many times so your best placed to guess right)their guess will beat yours every time,
betfair should have more of these polls,as group think will be more accurate.
just back what the majority think in these polls ,will win nearly every time,saves all the hard work studying,theres always someone who knows more,use the knowledge of everyone on here.
betfair should have more of these polls,as group think will be more accurate.
just back what the majority think in these polls ,will win nearly every time,saves all the hard work studying,theres always someone who knows more,use the knowledge of everyone on here.
Show More
Well done for coming up with a theory. It just so happens that the theory is bunkum
Imagine the 30 people arrive at an aveage and then ask you to go higher or lower than their average. With your better knowledge of you garden you should easily be able to estimate correctly more than 50% of the time whether the actual distance is higher or lower than their estimate. That is where profit is made.
I think this is rubbish advice and as I make up 66% of the thread at this moment acording to you I must be correct.
so basically you've recapitulated the wisdom of crowds, a bestselling popular science book from, er, 7 years ago.
and you haven't even got it right, because 30 is way too small a sample size for what you say to be true.
even with much larger sample sizes, this stuff only works in very specific conditions.
and you haven't even got it right, because 30 is way too small a sample size for what you say to be true.
even with much larger sample sizes, this stuff only works in very specific conditions.
I belong to a betting group in the states. 200 people. We each contribute ten (repeat ten) bets a month offering up an assortment of plays to look at.
They used to have polls but don't have them anymore since people in the group always felt they had to give their 'click' to contribute towards the poll. Thus why you have to post your own pick.
OLBG.com has plenty of events that people that put up their selections that are hilited.
I had a criteria on voting that I filtered, scanned and put into a spreadsheet.
The mob mentality on certain sports that went heavy on odds on plays is obvious. And the summary: it gives a bit of insight on how the bookies stay in business.
However, what the 'wisdom of crowds' at OLBG does create is a 'list' of events on the day. Some I would be aware of. Others not.
From there, I would research the event and find the value on the play (an example is that if the mob were heavy on a 3/10 team playing at home, I would research it and look at -1.5).
So, for me there is a profit to be made from 'wisdom in crowds' but not by simply following.
They used to have polls but don't have them anymore since people in the group always felt they had to give their 'click' to contribute towards the poll. Thus why you have to post your own pick.
OLBG.com has plenty of events that people that put up their selections that are hilited.
I had a criteria on voting that I filtered, scanned and put into a spreadsheet.
The mob mentality on certain sports that went heavy on odds on plays is obvious. And the summary: it gives a bit of insight on how the bookies stay in business.
However, what the 'wisdom of crowds' at OLBG does create is a 'list' of events on the day. Some I would be aware of. Others not.
From there, I would research the event and find the value on the play (an example is that if the mob were heavy on a 3/10 team playing at home, I would research it and look at -1.5).
So, for me there is a profit to be made from 'wisdom in crowds' but not by simply following.
it most probably is true that the average estimate for the lengthe of a fence by outsiders is better than the house owner. This is because the acuracy of the measurement depends only on someones ability to percive the length and to compare it to a refernce length. this process improves based upon ur experiance of such activtiesrathere than staying there for long.
if u take this to fotball market it will not work.
if u take this to fotball market it will not work.
In addition there's equal weighting to each vote regardless of whether it's a well informed football fan voting or somebody who barely knows anything about the game.
Wisdom of the crowds is a great book by the way.
I'll go into a few peoples comments. The OP should at least have the person who lives there guess FIRST (or without being given info on the other people's guesses. Obviously the Clydebank strategy will work otherwise of averaging their guess and going higher or lower.
viva el presidente!
When: 24 Jan 12 17:36
so basically you've recapitulated the wisdom of crowds, a bestselling popular science book from, er, 7 years ago.
and you haven't even got it right, because 30 is way too small a sample size for what you say to be true.
even with much larger sample sizes, this stuff only works in very specific conditions.
What very specific conditions do you mean? I think it would work fine in the conditions stated if done properly. By which I mean, a few thousands people guessing independently without being given information on each other's guesses. And of course it has to be stated that the person that lives there has never actually measured the distance, or seen it in a layout etc.
SHAPESHIFTER
When: 24 Jan 12 22:23
[...]
The mob mentality on certain sports that went heavy on odds on plays is obvious. And the summary: it gives a bit of insight on how the bookies stay in business.
[...]
So, for me there is a profit to be made from 'wisdom in crowds' but not by simply following.
The 'wisdom of the crowd effect' only works if people make decisions independently and without knowledge of the choices of others. Once they start adjusting their opinion based on what everyone else is doing, it becomes completely worthless. This is illustrated by the example of people guessing the amount of mables in a jar. If you have 100 people stand in line and guess, but the first four or five are instructed to deliberately give a number significantly lower than what's in there, the rest will adjust downward too, and the whole thing is inaccurate.
letsalldance
When: 25 Jan 12 00:59
In addition there's equal weighting to each vote regardless of whether it's a well informed football fan voting or somebody who barely knows anything about the game.
That should be fine though. Theortically the effects of people who are clueless should cancel because they estimate too low and too high.
There's no real data on this, but in working out the number of marbles in a jar independently, it's pretty much a given that the guesses of a large group will be normally distributed. This may not be the case for predicting what the odds will be at kick off for a Match Odds football market. There could well be a systematic bias in the guesses of a large randomly selected group of people, and it is not necessarily the case that the distribution of guesses would be that neat. There's also no definitive answer as to what the odds should be as there is with the marbles in a jar problem.
I remember from the book some very complex problems were solved with wisdom of the crowds though, locating a missing submarine 'somewhere' in the ocean was one if I remember correctly.
I'll go into a few peoples comments. The OP should at least have the person who lives there guess FIRST (or without being given info on the other people's guesses. Obviously the Clydebank strategy will work otherwise of averaging their guess and going higher or lower.
viva el presidente!
When: 24 Jan 12 17:36
so basically you've recapitulated the wisdom of crowds, a bestselling popular science book from, er, 7 years ago.
and you haven't even got it right, because 30 is way too small a sample size for what you say to be true.
even with much larger sample sizes, this stuff only works in very specific conditions.
What very specific conditions do you mean? I think it would work fine in the conditions stated if done properly. By which I mean, a few thousands people guessing independently without being given information on each other's guesses. And of course it has to be stated that the person that lives there has never actually measured the distance, or seen it in a layout etc.
SHAPESHIFTER
When: 24 Jan 12 22:23
[...]
The mob mentality on certain sports that went heavy on odds on plays is obvious. And the summary: it gives a bit of insight on how the bookies stay in business.
[...]
So, for me there is a profit to be made from 'wisdom in crowds' but not by simply following.
The 'wisdom of the crowd effect' only works if people make decisions independently and without knowledge of the choices of others. Once they start adjusting their opinion based on what everyone else is doing, it becomes completely worthless. This is illustrated by the example of people guessing the amount of mables in a jar. If you have 100 people stand in line and guess, but the first four or five are instructed to deliberately give a number significantly lower than what's in there, the rest will adjust downward too, and the whole thing is inaccurate.
letsalldance
When: 25 Jan 12 00:59
In addition there's equal weighting to each vote regardless of whether it's a well informed football fan voting or somebody who barely knows anything about the game.
That should be fine though. Theortically the effects of people who are clueless should cancel because they estimate too low and too high.
There's no real data on this, but in working out the number of marbles in a jar independently, it's pretty much a given that the guesses of a large group will be normally distributed. This may not be the case for predicting what the odds will be at kick off for a Match Odds football market. There could well be a systematic bias in the guesses of a large randomly selected group of people, and it is not necessarily the case that the distribution of guesses would be that neat. There's also no definitive answer as to what the odds should be as there is with the marbles in a jar problem.
I remember from the book some very complex problems were solved with wisdom of the crowds though, locating a missing submarine 'somewhere' in the ocean was one if I remember correctly.
Surely a householder knows the dimensions of their property? It's one if not the biggest investment they will ever make in their lives.
"just back what the majority think in these polls ,will win nearly every time"
would this have been the case when sunderland beat city, blackburn beat united, bolton beat liverpool, swansea beat arsenal, stoke beat spurs and qpr beat chelsea? I would guess not.
would this have been the case when sunderland beat city, blackburn beat united, bolton beat liverpool, swansea beat arsenal, stoke beat spurs and qpr beat chelsea? I would guess not.
QUESTION: so if I was to:
a) offer up three football matches for people to choose from (they can choose one)
b) they have to do their own research from their own angle
c) submit their selection by 9AM match day (note: before final line ups announced, though. A factor that any punter needs to put into play before putting down their bet)
d) compile and post results shortly after
this could work?
My view is yes.
a) offer up three football matches for people to choose from (they can choose one)
b) they have to do their own research from their own angle
c) submit their selection by 9AM match day (note: before final line ups announced, though. A factor that any punter needs to put into play before putting down their bet)
d) compile and post results shortly after
this could work?
My view is yes.
@investor
"What very specific conditions do you mean? I think it would work fine in the conditions stated if done properly. By which I mean, a few thousands people guessing independently without being given information on each other's guesses. And of course it has to be stated that the person that lives there has never actually measured the distance, or seen it in a layout etc."
--------
that about sums it up - ie, the independence of individual guesses and their equal individual weight - plus a large sample size. large enough for the wrong guesses each way to randomize out, which is basically what all this stuff comes down to.
30 is way too small, and the OP saying their averaged guess will beat yours every time is just wrong. plus, if you don't specifically set it up so they don't discuss it amongst themselves, the whole thing's completely fecked.
the best analogy in the book is the C19th(?) "guess the weight of the prize heiffer" contest, imo.
"What very specific conditions do you mean? I think it would work fine in the conditions stated if done properly. By which I mean, a few thousands people guessing independently without being given information on each other's guesses. And of course it has to be stated that the person that lives there has never actually measured the distance, or seen it in a layout etc."
--------
that about sums it up - ie, the independence of individual guesses and their equal individual weight - plus a large sample size. large enough for the wrong guesses each way to randomize out, which is basically what all this stuff comes down to.
30 is way too small, and the OP saying their averaged guess will beat yours every time is just wrong. plus, if you don't specifically set it up so they don't discuss it amongst themselves, the whole thing's completely fecked.
the best analogy in the book is the C19th(?) "guess the weight of the prize heiffer" contest, imo.
I don't suppose everyone could post their predictions for all the FA Cup games this weekend. I really would like to make a big juicy profit.
Many thanks.
Many thanks.
For a 'filler' in a team meeting I once arranged for half the group to guess the calories on a plate containing a ready meal ( lasagne-full fat ) plus 3 sticks of celery, and on a plate containing chicken kievs.
The other half guessed the calories on a plate containing chicken kievs plus 3 sticks of celery, and on a plate with the full-fat lasagne on it.
Unknown to them the lasagne had equal calories to the kievs.
There were no conclusions either way about group-estimating being better than any given individual.
However, it was possible to conclude that people thought celery had a negative calorific content and its presence on the plate actually reduced the total calory count of what was on the plate.
The other half guessed the calories on a plate containing chicken kievs plus 3 sticks of celery, and on a plate with the full-fat lasagne on it.
Unknown to them the lasagne had equal calories to the kievs.
There were no conclusions either way about group-estimating being better than any given individual.
However, it was possible to conclude that people thought celery had a negative calorific content and its presence on the plate actually reduced the total calory count of what was on the plate.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539