Possible NFBC Main Event-Online Championship Incentive

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:47 am

Originally posted by eddiejag:

Could i live another twenty years for the free ultimate.This would give me insentive to live,YES.

NOT A GOOD IDEA for the guys 60 and older.Can you pass it on or it end's if you do. That might be a first, "willing" your remaining ultimate entries to a trusted friend, a son or a grandson. That might even get the NFBC some publicity, in the sad case were it to occur.

[ January 28, 2009, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Joe Sambito ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:48 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:

Can someone have two main event teams? Make the prize big enough, and Eddie, Shawn, Mark, Dan, John, Rick, Kent and Andy will be drafting the main event under the name "Team Srebro"

(Along with 100 online teams with said name)

~Lance (kidding...but think about it.)

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:50 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:

Can someone have two main event teams? As Todd said, in these tough economic times, have THREE.

The bottom line is that you still need to perform with your main event team and it wouldn't be fair to NOT include scores from other online championship teams. Why have those teams count nothing. And unfortunately, we are only rewarding the top overall team in the Combined Standings ($5,000). Hopefully as this concept grows we can expand down to the top six teams in the Combined Standings and really give folks a reason to buy multiple online teams.

Right now this is a low-level entry to grow our presence online and yet still try to grow our live events. May the best owner in both formats win.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:04 am

Greg with the bad economy other companies are trying different way's to hit their number's.

It's tough to get the new players as i would say about 80 to 85 % are return player's.WCOFF has come up with two main event's this year in football.They will have drafts friday and saturday which will give the shark's and junkies two team's.This could be another 200 to 300 more entries that they wouldnt have had with out this concept.I know this stirred up the WCOFF boards with some liking and other's hating.Either way it will bring in more entries which is what they want.Would you consider this andi would think you would get quitea few who would double.You have to be there to do two drafts i dont know how anyone can send a friend with a cheatsheet to be able to do two.Anyway's would like to hear what you think.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:10 am

This time I'm NOT trying to simply stir the pot.

Just my opinion...

With the evolution of openly legalizing having multiple team ownership in most all main events now...it has moved from the realm of prestige to the realm of money/investment.

If that is what has become of all main events now...and there are no stipulations in place to stop it (with the lawyer speak to enforce)...what is there to stop 10 top players from pooling their money and all using one main players name as the principal owner?

It could become simple investing...and hedging risk by spreading risk out over multiple cities and draft spots and leagues would be quite logical and practical.

A fairly simple signed document could take care of the legal splitting of the money won, and you run the risk of not having really any new owners drafting multiple times...just syndicates of top players playing under one name.

The prestige of "one owner, one chance to be King for a year" is what stopped players from doing this in the past...but that prestige is gone when you change the rules.

Just a commentary.

~Lance

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:14 am

Greg, could one person have legal ownership over all 390 teams in the NFBC main event? Same for the online championship?

This may be taking it to an extreme, but I think you get my point.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:17 am

It could evolve into a team competition.

It may already have secretly...but now it could do so openly.

"Team Gekko Headquarters"

"The Northeastern Syndicate"

"Team Baseball HQ"

"The Chicago Mob"

"The L.A. Alliance"

Actually...it could be fun!

~Lance

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:31 am

Originally posted by eddiejag:

Greg with the bad economy other companies are trying different way's to hit their number's.

It's tough to get the new players as i would say about 80 to 85 % are return player's.WCOFF has come up with two main event's this year in football.They will have drafts friday and saturday which will give the shark's and junkies two team's.This could be another 200 to 300 more entries that they wouldnt have had with out this concept.I know this stirred up the WCOFF boards with some liking and other's hating.Either way it will bring in more entries which is what they want.Would you consider this andi would think you would get quitea few who would double.You have to be there to do two drafts i dont know how anyone can send a friend with a cheatsheet to be able to do two.Anyway's would like to hear what you think. No, I'm not in favor of this concept Eddie. I understand the reasoning, but we don't even start New York at a different time on Saturday than Las Vegas because we want everything to be fair to everyone on Draft Day. I'm all for what the WCOFF is doing to grow their event; I'm just saying that concept isn't for me. I'd rather have two different events with two different formats like we did in football than two days of the same thing to grow the pot. Again, this is no slight to any format anyone else is doing, it's just not in my planning at all.

One main event for baseball is fine and what we get on Saturday is what we get. Hopefully we'll be fine.

The multiple teams are possible with the online championship and I think people are doing multiple teams because they hope to win multiple league titles in that 12-team format. If we can add to our one overall Combined Standings prize and create more enthusiasm for this that will be good for everyone. Well, I guess not everyone.

[ January 28, 2009, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:31 am

For clarification, my comment was not about multiple teams in the same event, but the linking of teams between two events.

Multiple teams in one event opens it up for hedging certain picks or strategies, but the nature of roto-baseball with DRAFTS is this is very difficult to pull off, so I purposely did not include this in my argument. I stopped playing the CDM games as this hedging was a very viable strategy for those that can afford multiple teams, especially in their playoff games.

If you own 3 main on-line teams, you have a 3x greater chance (all things being equal) of winning, but you are paying 3x as much for this.

If you own 3 on-line teams linked to one Main Event team, you also have a 3x greater chance to win, again all else being equal, but you are not paying 3x as much for this opportunity.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:36 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

This time I'm NOT trying to simply stir the pot.

Just my opinion...

With the evolution of openly legalizing having multiple team ownership in most all main events now...it has moved from the realm of prestige to the realm of money/investment.

If that is what has become of all main events now...and there are no stipulations in place to stop it (with the lawyer speak to enforce)...what is there to stop 10 top players from pooling their money and all using one main players name as the principal owner?

It could become simple investing...and hedging risk by spreading risk out over multiple cities and draft spots and leagues would be quite logical and practical.

A fairly simple signed document could take care of the legal splitting of the money won, and you run the risk of not having really any new owners drafting multiple times...just syndicates of top players playing under one name.

The prestige of "one owner, one chance to be King for a year" is what stopped players from doing this in the past...but that prestige is gone when you change the rules.

Just a commentary.

~Lance I think I've read this somewhere else Lance.

As a clarification, nobody has ever had two NFBC main event teams before and I don't see that trend starting now. If it does, hmmmmm, I'll ask for everyone's permission to allow it.

But the person with the most money isn't winning this Combined Standings from what I can see. They still need their one main event team to do well and that's no given with the pool of players I see on the signup list right now.

Hold the Lexus. Maybe that was a bad idea after all.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:36 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Greg, could one person have legal ownership over all 390 teams in the NFBC main event? Same for the online championship?

This may be taking it to an extreme, but I think you get my point. Nope, I don't get your point Glenn. Next.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:42 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

For clarification, my comment was not about multiple teams in the same event, but the linking of teams between two events.

Multiple teams in one event opens it up for hedging certain picks or strategies, but the nature of roto-baseball with DRAFTS is this is very difficult to pull off, so I purposely did not include this in my argument. I stopped playing the CDM games as this hedging was a very viable strategy for those that can afford multiple teams, especially in their playoff games.

If you own 3 main on-line teams, you have a 3x greater chance (all things being equal) of winning, but you are paying 3x as much for this.

If you own 3 on-line teams linked to one Main Event team, you also have a 3x greater chance to win, again all else being equal, but you are not paying 3x as much for this opportunity. You have 3x the chance to win the $20,000 grand prize, so I think that's where your argument should start. To win the $5,000 Combined Standings prize, you don't have 3x the chance to win. You still need your main event team to do well, leaving your chances in that competition still at 1:390. And there is ONE prize in the Combined Standings now.

The topic of the thread was to give a prize for winning BOTH events. Buying multiple online championship teams improves your odds of winning that event, but does nothing to help you in the main event.

Bama · Post by **Bama** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:11 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

For clarification, my comment was not about multiple teams in the same event, but the linking of teams between two events.

Multiple teams in one event opens it up for hedging certain picks or strategies, but the nature of roto-baseball with DRAFTS is this is very difficult to pull off, so I purposely did not include this in my argument. I stopped playing the CDM games as this hedging was a very viable strategy for those that can afford multiple teams, especially in their playoff games.

If you own 3 main on-line teams, you have a 3x greater chance (all things being equal) of winning, but you are paying 3x as much for this.

If you own 3 on-line teams linked to one Main Event team, you also have a 3x greater chance to win, again all else being equal, but you are not paying 3x as much for this opportunity. You have 3x the chance to win the $20,000 grand prize, so I think that's where your argument should start. To win the $5,000 Combined Standings prize, you don't have 3x the chance to win. You still need your main event team to do well, leaving your chances in that competition still at 1:390. And there is ONE prize in the Combined Standings now.

The topic of the thread was to give a prize for winning BOTH events. Buying multiple online championship teams improves your odds of winning that event, but does nothing to help you in the main event. [/QUOTE]If my math is right. Chances of winning with 1 main and 1 online is 1 in 117,000 and with 1 main and 3 online is 1 in 39047. Not very good either way. That does not factor the skill level of individual players, but a longshot at best.

[ January 28, 2009, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: KLN ]

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:17 am

Sorry, my clarification was not very clear. I won't belabor, I just want to re-clarify.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

You have 3x the chance to win the $20,000 grand prize, so I think that's where your argument should start. To win the $5,000 Combined Standings prize, you don't have 3x the chance to win. You still need your main event team to do well, leaving your chances in that competition still at 1:390. And there is ONE prize in the Combined Standings now.I am not referring to having 3x the chances to win the $20,000 on-line grand prize, because you paid 3x as much for that chance. Even-Steven.

I am referring to the fact you have 3 chances (assuming buying 3 teams) at the combined standings prize and the potential bonus, but you are not paying 3x as much since the same $1300 Main Event investment gets linked to 3 different teams.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The topic of the thread was to give a prize for winning BOTH events. Buying multiple online championship teams improves your odds of winning that event, but does nothing to help you in the main event.

Obviously, if I did imply the chances in the main were improved, it was in the unclear naming of the event I was commenting on.

I'll just leave it that in my opinion, the fairest way to have the combined standings prize and the bonus is to ask the owner of multiple on-line teams to designate one team to be linked for the combined prize and the possible bonus.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:51 am

Greg,

I think this is a great idea, whatever form the prize takes. Personally, I think the free Ultimate entry for x-number of years is the best idea. Not only will the annuity provide cost savings vs a lump sum prize, but your insurance could be for only 80% of the nominal annuity value since that is your true cost of providing the entries.

As for Todd's concern, I disagree with him from the standpoint of a game operator - encouraging multiple satellite teams is EXACTLY what you want to do, just like WCOFF did with their online championship. You will have guys buying more of those teams than they otherwise would, which is what will give you some payback on the bonus you're offering.

That said, I think those online teams need to be paired with one and only one main event team (which fixes KOQ's concern), and that should be stated explicitly in the rules.

[ January 28, 2009, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:54 am

As KLN's numbers dictate the math Greg was using of everyone having a 1/390 is not correct because it only takes one side of the occasion in to account.

You have one of 2 choices- you do Todd's choice or you have to acknowledge the more teams you have in the online the better your chances are...

With that said is that a bad thing? You are spending the money to grow revenue and acknowledging that premise may exactly do that.

You only IMO have an obligation to keep it a level playing field if you are advertising a level playing field. Keep in mind it is an added bonus and that can be treated differently...

My 2 cents would be Brian and Dan's ideas make more sense. It is clearly enough to entice someone on the fence to pay more. I would rather have a future reduction in cash flow rather than pay it out now all things being equal.

In the end I am not sure I would spend too much additional money on promotions etc. In this economy you either have the money to play or not. Those of us who can should just be thankful-it is brutal out there.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:58 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Greg,

I think this is a great idea, whatever form the prize takes. Personally, I think the free Ultimate entry for x-number of years is the best idea.

As for Todd's concern, I disagree with him from the standpoint of a game operator - encouraging multiple satellite teams is EXACTLY what you want to do, just like WCOFF did with their online championship. You will have guys buying more of those teams than they otherwise would, which is what will give you some payback on the bonus you're offering.

That said, I think those online teams need to be paired with one and only one main event team (which fixes KOQ's concern), and that should be stated explicitly in the rules. No problem. As I've said before, nobody has ever taken multiple NFBC main event teams and I guess if they do we'll let them know how we'll hook up those teams with their online championship teams. Easy to do.

Giving away $5,000 in credit for 10 years to anyone who wins both overall titles is an easy giveaway from my standpoint. It may cost me nothing and it's still a good promotion. But I'm not sure it has the luster of a physical item. We'll see. I'm hoping a contact or two will be able to reach out to a car manufacturer and help us make this a reality. The company that sells the insurance likes this idea and may be able to come through, so let me keep exploring this for the next week or so and then get something done. We'll have something more, that's for sure. Despite the objections, I still think it's a win-win for everyone.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:00 am

How about 5 Ultimate years and a cheaper car!

I wasn't planning on doing the online game, I had too many lges last yr - but you throw something like this into the pot I won't be able to help myself.

[ January 28, 2009, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:05 am

To quote myself, it's OK, I google myself too, in my initial post, I said...

Personally, I think the FAIREST method would be for owners of multiple teams to pre-determine which on-line team they want linked, but I realize this is not realistic given the economy and the need to get as many sign-ups as possible. But then, we all have different levels of money to spend on preparation, or time to spend, etc, so that is an inequity as well.

[ January 28, 2009, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:13 am

Todd, now when you google Todd Zola, you will find Todd Zola quoting and googling himself - you've created an infinite loop.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:20 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Todd, now when you google Todd Zola, you will find Todd Zola quoting and googling himself - you've created an infinite loop. It's one thing if I google myself -- I'd appreciate it if others at least bought me dinner first.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:51 am

Greg, the car is an excellant idea.

However, I will not settle for anything less than bubinga.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:59 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Greg, the car is an excellant idea.

However, I will not settle for anything less than bubinga.

If you win the NFBC Main Event this year, I'm going to pay the difference to ensure your trophy is made from African bubinga wood.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:36 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Greg, the car is an excellant idea.

However, I will not settle for anything less than bubinga.

If you win the NFBC Main Event this year, I'm going to pay the difference to ensure your trophy is made from African bubinga wood. [/QUOTE]The first word that has to come from our lips upon seeing that we have won.

BUBINGA!!

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:37 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Greg, the car is an excellant idea.

However, I will not settle for anything less than bubinga.

If you win the NFBC Main Event this year, I'm going to pay the difference to ensure your trophy is made from African bubinga wood. [/QUOTE]The first word that has to come from our lips upon seeing that we have won.

BUBINGA!! [/QUOTE]What is this Bubinga obsession about? I'm partial to cocobolo.