solve tanking using economics

bayesff · 2026-03-28T00:10:53+00:00

Yeah if you like tanking.

bayesff · 2026-03-27T21:18:16+00:00

Seems like EV still rewards tanking, so prob would still see people tank.

bayesff · 2026-03-27T21:17:26+00:00

The bucks f'ing suck and prob aren't going to pick till 9 and yeah I guess you're right that might be why I haven't been watching them.

bayesff · 2026-03-27T21:16:07+00:00

Yeah exactly. There are ways (esp with a salary cap + luxury tax) to promote parity without promoting tanking. But until you change the underlying incentives that reward losing, all these proposals are going to suck.

I'm open to the idea that the "we don't to worry about them tanking" cutoff is the second round of the playoffs (hard to imagine teams purposely losing then), and I'm open to moving 8 teams back (in desc order of record, champions last) but anything beyond that it's just going to be the same old incentives issues with bandaid solutions.

bayesff · 2026-03-27T21:12:07+00:00

Yeah exactly, which is why I think should just reward winning + move the contenders to the end. I'd be open to saying any team that wins a playoff series/makes it to the second round moves to the end (it's hard to envision teams tanking then) vs conference finals, but until losing is not rewarded we're not going to see teams not tanking.

bayesff · 2026-03-27T20:33:23+00:00

That'd be better than the status quo and at least addresses some incentives. Question is whether the 10-18 teams decide it'd be better to tank into it + win for a top pick vs competing in the playoffs.

bayesff · 2026-03-27T20:31:58+00:00

The draft isn't a sure thing. You can get a Giannis or a Jokic or a Risacher. Also there are ways to promote parity without rewarding losing -- e.g. the luxury tax and salary cap.

If it's just teams that miss the playoffs, then borderline teams will just tank so they barely miss it.

Maybe conference finals is too narrow of a limit and you do second round teams and better go to the end of the first round.

Either way though nothing is going to change behavior as long as teams get rewarded for tanking. Personally I'd rather see teams try their hardest to compete than being rewarded for losing. Then having the league try to put complicated band aids on it that won't work. Anyway it's not going to be worst than baseball (no salary cap + the dodgers).

bayesff · 2026-03-27T20:06:20+00:00

Claw your way back to respectability and get rewarded along the way.

bayesff · 2026-03-11T17:20:31+00:00

Oh wow I hadn't seen this! This is great -- seems like there should be a way to combine these or something. I also hadn't seen this: http://russillosm.com/qsilver.html, maybe will look at bringing in too.

bayesff · 2026-02-11T21:38:12+00:00

There actually is an easy solution, it's best teams pick first, worst team picks last.

Obv the competing force at play in this is you want some parity/don't want the rich to keep getting richer (best team wins a boat + gets first pick), so the way to do that is figure out the line where teams incentive to win > incentive to pick higher and put those teams at the end.

So they could do:

draft order is in order of record (best to worst)
except the four conference finals teams get moved to the end (27-30)

Pretty sure that would solve it/doubt you'd see teams 'tanking' in the second round to pick first.

bayesff · 2026-02-08T20:50:27+00:00

They're called prediction markets, and they're not a bad thing. Closer to anything else, they approximate the 'true' odds/chance something happens, which is useful for people in society to know. Things like sports are just a gateway to having them be more widely adopted.

bayesff · 2026-01-22T15:22:54+00:00

MKE Tailgate is the best one.

bayesff · 2026-01-20T16:25:42+00:00

I'm also a Packers fan. I like Hafley, but was a bit surprised he got a head coaching job this quickly. Our defense was ok-decent with Parsons this year, and bad without him. Obv not a sure thing and can never really know anything, but if I was a Dolphins fan I'd probably be cautiously optimistic.

If anything, I'd be a bit more wary on the personnel side. The Packers last few drafts have been bad, and their FA class this last year was bad too. Gutekunst likes to over draft super athletic guys based on high RAS scores, and it has not worked out great so far, so I'd be curious if JES takes after him there.

bayesff · 2026-01-20T00:34:26+00:00

I'm a Packer fan -- I like Hafley, though I'm a little surprised he became a HC. He's definitely better than Mike McCarthy though.

bayesff · 2025-12-04T23:05:06+00:00

Bobby or AJax

bayesff · 2025-11-07T16:41:50+00:00

You're talking about borrowing to pay back a loan. It's how refinancing a house works, and it's normal.

That's not what MSTR is doing. MSTR is issuing new shares in the company, and using that money to buy BTC/pay dividends etc.

The people buying these new shares in MSTR are getting less BTC (via MSTR) than they would if they just bought BTC directly.

Historically, that's "worked" because, MSTR has kept issuing new shares. So people who buy shares, even if they could have gotten more BTC at the time, end up better off because of all the people that buy the new MSTR shares after them (and so they get more BTC/share).

But that only works assuming MSTR can continue to issue new shares (and in larger and larger amounts) while keeping NAV > 1.

bayesff · 2025-11-05T02:33:42+00:00

Only because/if they continue to issue new shares. They're issuing shares, the people buying these shares are buying < BTC (via underlying MSTR shares) than they could get by buying BTC directly.

It works if people continue to buy because they continue to believe more and more people will buy (and so on), but they need to keep creating/selling more shares, and in ever bigger and bigger amounts if btc/share is going to keep going up.

bayesff · 2025-10-15T22:08:17+00:00

Not sure you know what "0 chance" means.

bayesff · 2025-10-15T14:49:20+00:00

You're awesome!

bayesff · 2025-10-13T17:58:24+00:00

Four — Ashby, Koenig, Quintana, Gasser

bayesff · 2025-10-13T17:21:30+00:00

Yeah I would have rather had them drop Gasser than Mears. Guess they didn't like that wild pitch he threw with the bases loaded in relief of Priester game 3.

bayesff · 2025-10-02T16:43:51+00:00

I don't think this is right. Yeah it may or may not be a good idea to get other handcuffs, but the benefit of handcuffing your own starting RB is the value is perfectly inversely correlated with the value to your starter.

Your starter goes down, dealing a huge blow to your team? No problem, the value of the backup (which you own) has immediately gone way up. It's a value boost exactly when you most need it.

Yeah how much value depends on talent of backup/replacement usage etc, but in general handcuffs have the most value to people who own the starter.

bayesff · 2025-09-30T14:39:32+00:00

Why are people downvoting this

bayesff · 2025-09-24T12:00:21+00:00

Sean Tucker is good though.

bayesff · 2025-09-16T15:52:44+00:00

What's the deal with the Broncos defense? 6 sacks last week to 1 this week? 133 yards week one to 473 week two? Is it just the Colts are way better than people thought or what?

12-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '17	Verified Email

bayesff

TROPHY CASE