I think this quote can mean many things. It's a very interesting situation.
"I had spent the last 2.5 hours running over all the numbers," said Peabody, the co-founder of football analytics site Massey-Peabody and a former ESPN employee. "And, as it goes at the end, I was going back and forth: 'Which one am I going to do? Am I going to pull the trigger?' It was going to be a Saints bet of some kind or the under. Unfortunately, I didn't get the chance."
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/25756205/draftkings-sports-betting-national-championship-ends-controversy-leader-prevented-making-final-wager
Hypothetically if you had outs/bankroll (sounds like this guy did) then I think the correct play would be to go all in on either the Saints/Eagles straight bet.
82 wins 75, once that happens you would probably want to budget for getting beat by few parlays (there was a guy in like 15th that would've won if the last FG hit I believe) So consider the money that you're going to win about 427 (3rd place+the roll you built) if the side hits. So I'd hedge like 225k-ish on the other side. Try to come out with 200 either way and then if none of the guys behind me overtake me and I win my bet in the tourney then I'd win the mill. If somehow 4-5 guys behind you beat you then you win or lose like 20-30 but that's very unlikely.
I don't think you can go more than that on the hedge though because if somehow 4-5 people overtake you by hitting parlays you could slide down leaderboard pretty fast (approx 70% of $ went to top 5) and then only get 160 + your prize $ and lose the hedge.
That's my first thought but Saints ML would've covered it that he could fade straight bets and this was his logic. He may have a lot better explanation/idea than I do since I just typed that up in 5 minutes and didn't weigh all variables.
So whether you bet Saints ML or 1 of the sides basically comes down to how confident you are in saints ML being enough of winnings (around 110k-ish) to shield you from the parlay guys. I really haven't looked at it that closely, but I probably wouldn't have been that confident. I think that's basically the conundrum
Yeah, it would've worked but only because a missed FG (granted a long 1) That's cutting it way too close for me.
If you lose because you played it conservative with Saints ML and you finish with like 110k but the other guy hits his parlay and beats you with 115 or whatever and that is the difference between 650k that's a pretty sick feeling.
this whole SNAFU and incompetence could of been avoided if DK allowed IF bets
in the tournament. also imagine the scenario that the pats/chargers game went
into OT. then no one could of bet the late game unless they still had funds.
draftkings has NEVER been a real bookmaker and as a result the idea of IF bets
either never occurred to them or wasn't incorporated into the tourney software.
it might have even been illegal and not approved in the state. damn shame as
that option would of avoided all of the negative publicity and the upcoming
litigation. anyone who is considered their tournament director, gambling
consultant, or head linemaker should be reprimanded and made to
attend FISHHEAD's sports betting/bookmaking 101 class. this is really
basic shit.
in the tournament. also imagine the scenario that the pats/chargers game went
into OT. then no one could of bet the late game unless they still had funds.
draftkings has NEVER been a real bookmaker and as a result the idea of IF bets
either never occurred to them or wasn't incorporated into the tourney software.
it might have even been illegal and not approved in the state. damn shame as
that option would of avoided all of the negative publicity and the upcoming
litigation. anyone who is considered their tournament director, gambling
consultant, or head linemaker should be reprimanded and made to
attend FISHHEAD's sports betting/bookmaking 101 class. this is really
basic shit.
I think the solution is to let people bet after the late game starts, halftimes, live betting. That way if the game goes into OT they will still have that opportunity.
The problem with if bets is a big part of the tournament from a game theory standpoint is continually assessing your place in it and trying to find ways to leverage your bankroll. You won't have the information from the early game results when making "if" bets to do that.
