BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

The Stake should be zero if a previous bet in the Acca resulted in no winnings.  If I win 10 Readies in the first bet and lose 10 Readies in the second bet, the third bet should have zero stakes, not 10.

Or, more simply, the Stake for each bet is equal to the winnings of the previous bet, with no need to look further.

If we want this to be a true parley, I think “The Stake for each subsequent Bet is the accumulated winnings of the Acca so far” needs to be reworded

In a real parley, if you bet on a 3:1 and 4:1 it should wind up being a 20:1 bet where you only win if both events occur, and lose your bet all other times

But here if I bet 10 on a 4:1 and win, my “winnings” are only 40. If I then bet on a 3:1 and win, I get 120 from that bet, plus the 40 from the first bet, so a net profit of 160.

If I lose the 3:1 bet, I lose my 40 but keep the original 10, meaning I overall get nothing

If I lose the 4:1 bet regardless of the 3:1 bet I lose me 10

Its not really a deal breaker. But I wonder if we can word this better so we get an actual parley while still having it work with meddling

Thanks; that was the intent so glad to have clarified the wording.

I think something like

“The Stake for each subsequent Bet is the Winnings plus the Stakes from the previous bet in the Acca if the previous bet was won, or 0 if the previous bet was lost.”

solves this.

It does make meddling interesting because you can actually still come out ahead if you get caught meddling in the first round but don’t meddle in the second round. But that isn’t necessarily a bad thing

Thanks Clucky - have adopted your wording.

I don’t think “plus the Acca’s Stake” works with three or more bets in a row. Needs to be the stakes of the previous bet.

Say you have 3 bets, all 1:1. In theory this means that each event has a 50% chance to occur, so the odds of hitting all three are one in eight so an equivalent bet should be 7:1

But if you use your wording with original stakes of 10:

Hit bet 1: win 10. New bet is 10 + 10 = 20
Hit bet 2: win 20, new bet is 20 + 10 = 30
Hit bet 3: win 30

You only win 60 here

meanwhile if you lose bet 3, rather than losing your original 10 bet you’ve not lost anythign

Ok, how does it look now?

yeah I think its good now.

This needs to mandate that each bet in an Acca be on a different Sporting Event from all the others.

What happens in the scenario where the Punter planned a Meddle on the first Sporting Event in the Acca, but not the others, and then got successfully fined for it from an Accusation?

As currently written, that Punter would lose the winnings from the first Bet in the Acca, but they would have also been able to use those winnings as part of the Stake in the next Acca, and so on, thus it’s actually worthwhile to make an obvious Meddle in the first Bet of the Acca and let the cascading winnings outweigh the risk of getting caught from an Accusation.

Trying to unwind this where a successful Accusation somehow removes the winnings of the first Bet from the subsequent Bets in the Acca seems tricky.

I see Clucky already made this argument but then concludes that it’s not such a bad thing. I’m not so sure about this. It weakens Accusations a lot in this case.

@JonathanDark I think the interactions between Accusations and Accas needs some prying apart; I’d support a flat Fine formulation for Meddled Accas (20 * the number of bets in the acca?) or something a bit more dynamic.

CoV because 0 Stakes Bets are invalid.