Circa sports book is on pace to make the Westgate SuperContest a non-factor

#1
Here are the details on what they are going to do with the 2020 supercontest and additions.

cliff notes
no rake again
quarterly prize up to $250k
pay out extended to top 50


plus survivor contest
$1,000
winner gets $1,000,000
if winner goes 18-0 (i think one of the weeks is a double entry) winner gets a bonus of $1,000.000

westgate has to cut that rake down, which they won't ever do because derek stevens isn't afraid to set the bar high and given his new book is opening its going to pull in a ton of players.

https://www.goldengatecasino.com/circa-sports/the-circa-sports-million-pro-football-contest/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#2
Supercontest shows no signs of slowing down though. I think there is plenty of space for two contests, probably more. What will hurt it and the Circa one is if other states start getting serious about their own contests, but much like the WSOP the original king maker always will have a strong pull.

One thing to watch is if Superbook ever gets its name on a few other books. That might give them an even bigger pull because lets face it, no one really wants to go to Westgate and its just getting worse each year.
 
#3
Good points WildBill.

It seems like Draftkings, Fanduel, and even PointsBet could be books that offer up some other contests and given the number of states they are in could really make some noise.

I think they could seperate themselves with a college football contest or even doing a NFL one that includes totals.
 
#4
circa is making big noise. westgate now jumps on the quarterly prizes and circa raises theirs to 250k.

I can understand that the rake that westgate charges is only going to scare away some people but with the extra players in it this should be something a good contest player can overcome.

I would like to see the prize pool in the supercontest extended to 100 payouts with a min cash of $5k.
 
#5
westgate game moving east. Less than 3 years they will be in Chi town, NJ and at times Square NYC.. taking action how fast the ball drops on new years.. superbook thinks big circa needs vegas more than superbook
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#9
Bad news for the XFL:

The XFL’s ratings fell again in Week 3. After a 34 percent drop in average audience from Week 1 to Week 2, there was a further 23 percent drop from Week 2 to Week 3. Overall, the Week 3 average audience was just 52 percent of the Week 1 audience.


Source: Sports Business Journal
 
#10
Bad news for the XFL:

The XFL’s ratings fell again in Week 3. After a 34 percent drop in average audience from Week 1 to Week 2, there was a further 23 percent drop from Week 2 to Week 3. Overall, the Week 3 average audience was just 52 percent of the Week 1 audience.


Source: Sports Business Journal
Wasnt this expected?

They need more scoring. Nobody wants to watch low level football played in the upper 30s
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#11
From three million to two million to 1.6 million viewers in only three weeks is not good.

I expected a drop-off, just like the old XFL and the recently-defunct AAF, but the new XFL have lost about half its audience since they started the show.

Where's the bottom?
 
#12
From three million to two million to 1.6 million viewers in only three weeks is not good.

I expected a drop-off, just like the old XFL and the recently-defunct AAF, but the new XFL have lost about half its audience since they started the show.

Where's the bottom?
will they have enough to finish the season. the ad money is going to disappear quick from the networks which is going to hurt the league.
 

DotPark

EOG Addicted
#13
Supercontest shows no signs of slowing down though. I think there is plenty of space for two contests, probably more. What will hurt it and the Circa one is if other states start getting serious about their own contests, but much like the WSOP the original king maker always will have a strong pull.

One thing to watch is if Superbook ever gets its name on a few other books. That might give them an even bigger pull because lets face it, no one really wants to go to Westgate and its just getting worse each year.
Can you please enlighten me why no one wants to go to Westgate and what is making it worse? Clientele?
 
#14
Can you please enlighten me why no one wants to go to Westgate and what is making it worse? Clientele?
Neighborhood and the fact that the rest of the dump hasn't had a real investment in 20 years. The book has been upgraded with new screens at least. And maybe most important, do you really want to financially support timeshare hawkers who have committed so much deception and fraud they can't get a gaming license in Nevada?
 
#17
The Westgate SuperContest growth is slowing dramatically.

In 2017, it had 48% growth to 2748 entrants. Then slowed in 2018 to 3123 (13.6% growth). Last year, with competition from Circa and only having an earlier entry date (in March) probably saved it from completely leveling off, 3328 (6.6% growth).

Circa had a stunning debut last year and with growing prizes this year, I predict year 2 will again have significant growth and the SuperContest will have a tough time growing at all. However, having more dead money is one advantage the SuperContest appears to have, last year SC had 49.7% W ATS vs Circa 50.6%, also Circa had a slightly later Saturday deadline for entries.
 
#19
IIRC, the SuperContest is raising its max entries per contestant (id'd by SS#) to 3 from 2 -- that may push the raw entry count up, and it also makes things more apples-to-apples with the Circa Million, which already is at 3 entries per contestant.

Also, again IIRC, the SuperContest is going to an 11PM Saturday selection deadline (11AM for putting picks in by app), so, for in-person input at least, its selection deadline now will be later than Circa's.

Not pointing that out as making one contest better than the other (I do both regardless, so it's a moot point for me, I want it all), just in contrasting to Bob's points about the past contest year made more or less in relation to projected entry counts for 2020.
 
Last edited:
#20
. . . .

I would like to see the prize pool in the supercontest extended to 100 payouts with a min cash of $5k.

This past year, the SuperContest paid down, with ties, 102 entries, with the 24-way tie for 100th place (from the 79th entry on down) paying $2181.50 each.

https://www.westgateresorts.com/hot...las-vegas-resort-casino/supercontest-payouts/

The entries at the 79th to 102nd were at 51 contest points, ranging depending on pushes at about 60% to 60.5%. (Per my look behind the paywall at the data on fantasysupercontest.com.)

To boost that to 5K per would then require boosting immediately higher up, etc. prizes to proportionately compensate, ultimately requiring cannibalization from the topmost prizes (and/or getting rid of the rake, which apparently they're not going to do with the current overall property ownership).

To each his own, but I prefer big prizes at the top. I don't enter these contests to grind out some small payout and/or to be able to crow about having cashed in the SuperContest on social media and/or in tout promotional materials. (I will take the smaller prize money, though, of course, if that's all I can get. And I will crow on occasion about past contest performance. But like Willie Sutton, I do the contests because "that's where the (big) money is.")

That's why I have been such a big fan of the SuperContest Gold. One single payout (barring a tie at the top and chop) for all the marbles (and with no rake to boot).

Play big or stay home.

That's how I like it.
 
#21
good insight squarepants.

I'm advising a $5k min payout simply because after 17 weeks a player who beats over 3100 other players should get more than a couple of hundred bucks. (2100 - 1500 entry fee - 300 proxy fee = 300) which doesn't include travel costs to show up in vegas to sign up making this a potential season long loss.

I love the big prize but does it make a difference at the top if it's $1,000,000 or if it's $1,400,000? No. That can be spread out better in my opinion.

I've always been a fan of poker tournaments having a min cash being 3x the buy in. I think it gives the rec player a better payoff to say "ya I made the money and tripled my money".

Then have the payout structure more flat making the pay jumps more extreme the closer to the top that you get.
 
#22
And yours as well.

But, well, yeah, to me, it does make a difference between $1.4M (and increasing) and one million, one that of course dwarfs someone recovering their buy-in (1500 x 3 entries) and maybe some travel costs.

In particular in the financial markets, the larger my working bankroll is at my advancing age, the further down rather than up the risk ladder I can work to achieve a decent income. In markets of all kinds, financial and betting, a fair amount of the push towards typically negative EV plays like parlay cards (absent an ability to bet into multiple substantially stale lines) -- and/or higher risk plays in the financial markets -- is folks with not a lot of money trying to and/or needing to turn it into a significant amount of money. With a sufficient bankroll, one should have even more of a tendency to gravitate toward positive EV -- or in the financial markets less risky -- plays. So I want a shot at "mo money," life or bankroll changing money, not at "doesn't-really-make-a-difference" money.

To me, it's just not that big of a deal to beat 3100 other entries -- most of which are dead money early on, maybe even before the first picks are made -- when you're playing Wednesday afternoon lines now as late as Saturday night. So, yeah, I want potentially life-changing money at the top -- for all the work I've put in these things over the years -- rather than relatively inconsequential money in the overall scheme of things for finishing around 60%, again playing against stale lines. Yes, that is a decent mark, even against stale lines, but it's still a "woohoo, here, have a cookie" situation to me (with a nod to Don Rickles).

I consider the contest buy-in gone every year, which is the most likely outcome every year for every contestant. I'm not playing to get that back or even that and a little bit extra. If I was trying to get a decent, more likely return on my contest buy-in, I'd put that money into betting sides at the windows (or on the apps) instead, and just try to grind my way up in a positive EV manner rather than via a negative EV one. If folks want to grind out a small profit, there are much more positive EV ways to do that.

Again, to each his own, Sports, it's a matter of preference, a "paper vs. plastic" sort of thing. But when I see opinions of this sort expressed on social media, I tend to present the contrasting view, lest it be assumed that there is a universal consensus by all contest players toward expanding payouts (necessarily by diluting top end payouts), when there instead are differing views on the point.
 

sharky99

EOG Dedicated
#23
Many of the proxy guys I deal with and players I do not deal with appear to want to shift to the Circa Contest. They either are doing both or are transitioning to just doing the Circa and with the $1000 pricetag they feel they have a better contest with no take out and the extra $500 is used to do the William Hill $500 College Contest or for other stuff for example.
 
#24
Many of the proxy guys I deal with and players I do not deal with appear to want to shift to the Circa Contest. They either are doing both or are transitioning to just doing the Circa and with the $1000 pricetag they feel they have a better contest with no take out and the extra $500 is used to do the William Hill $500 College Contest or for other stuff for example.
very interesting idea. I wonder if Circa is going to be on the ball to scoop up this $500 of savings with a new contest of their own.
 
Top