Anyone here use the Dutching method?

[hutennis]

Fair enough.

[Duff85]

This is a very important question, b/c it shows that you need to learn a lot about the most important thing - knowing how the world works.
What if in a court room prosecutor would ask defense attorney:
"How do you know that your client did not break a law?"
Impossible, right? Why? Because they are trained professionals, they know better.
This called presumption of innocent. It is not defense’s job to prove anything.

Same thing here.

When I deal with any hypothesis, in this case it would be "mike's threads show that dutching nascar is a great way to win in that market", it is not my job to convince myself that this hypotheses is true.
If anything, it is my job is to try to falsify it. And in this case it's not hard to do at all.
On another hand, for him to prove that hypothesis is correct would be a monumental task.
But until and unless he does it (not you for yourself, him for you), "This is an illusion" is a position that must be taken. In general, the more skeptical you are, the better off you are going to be.

When you search, interpret and remember information in such a way that it systematically impedes the possibility that hypotheses could be rejected, you fall hard for what is commonly known as Conformation Bias.

In practical terms, if you have a habit of falling for conformation bias in sports betting you going to lose a lot of money.

Look, being contrarian is not such a bad position to be in,
but in this case it's not about being contrarian.

You say white because you think it looks like white to you and if it looks then it must be. (really??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o)
I say black, or rather it is not white, because the probability that it is not is huge and there is nothing proving that it is white in a first place. If the goal is to find the truth, I don't know how that can be boring.

The next time you get the urge to kill yourself, please show some initiative.

[flocko76]

This is a very important question, b/c it shows that you need to learn a lot about the most important thing - knowing how the world works.
What if in a court room prosecutor would ask defense attorney:
"How do you know that your client did not break a law?"
Impossible, right? Why? Because they are trained professionals, they know better.
This called presumption of innocent. It is not defense’s job to prove anything.

Same thing here.

When I deal with any hypothesis, in this case it would be "mike's threads show that dutching nascar is a great way to win in that market", it is not my job to convince myself that this hypotheses is true.
If anything, it is my job is to try to falsify it. And in this case it's not hard to do at all.
On another hand, for him to prove that hypothesis is correct would be a monumental task.
But until and unless he does it (not you for yourself, him for you), "This is an illusion" is a position that must be taken. In general, the more skeptical you are, the better off you are going to be.

When you search, interpret and remember information in such a way that it systematically impedes the possibility that hypotheses could be rejected, you fall hard for what is commonly known as Conformation Bias.

In practical terms, if you have a habit of falling for conformation bias in sports betting you going to lose a lot of money.

Look, being contrarian is not such a bad position to be in,
but in this case it's not about being contrarian.

You say white because you think it looks like white to you and if it looks then it must be. (really??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o)
I say black, or rather it is not white, because the probability that it is not is huge and there is nothing proving that it is white in a first place. If the goal is to find the truth, I don't know how that can be boring.

you should learn reading comprehension. OP asked "does anyone use the dutching method?" 2nd guy says "Check out 5mike5's Thread in the NASCAR forum Sweep.

He has won 4 or 5 figures on about 20 of the 26 races so far this year dutching every week."
maybe you should test the hypothesis that everything you say is wrong and useless.

[Snowball]

"dutching" is nothing more than a fade on heavy favorites.
it can work with discretion.

[5mike5]

all i know is what i do works and works well, but optional explained it well

[statictheory]

By the way. Dutching isnt just betting multiple entries, it is a formula to bet multiple entries to win a specific amount, so this thread has really widened.

[Optional]

By the way. Dutching isnt just betting multiple entries, it is a formula to bet multiple entries to win a specific amount, so this thread has really widened.

Can you tell us more?

I actually thought technically dutching a market was the same as greening out on an exchange. ie: you cover all possibilities and can't lose. But I don't think people generally use that definition.

Has anyone worked out a formula to dutch optimally?

[hutennis]

Can you tell us more?

I actually thought technically dutching a market was the same as greening out on an exchange. ie: you cover all possibilities and can't lose. But I don't think people generally use that definition.

Has anyone worked out a formula to dutch optimally?

You got it completely wrong.

In fact, dutching is exact opposite of greening out.

To green out for profit you must be already making money on your original selection.
Then, if you wish, you can split this profit between all possible outcomes to make the same amount no matter final result.

Dutching is spreading your bets between possible outcomes prior to an event in such a way that makes you the same profit no matter what outcome will be.
But if you bet all possible outcomes you are guaranteed to lose due to, in most cases, a draconian vig.
It is like betting favorite and dog at the same time and there is no draw. Not good.

So you have to pick and choose like with anything else in sport betting.
It is just a type of bet and there is absolutely no advantages in dutching comparing to any other type of bet.
There is also no magic formula. It is just looks that way for uninitiated.

That being said, dutching can be a useful component of an overall strategy that is making sense.
But that is true for any other combination of bets too.

[Sawyer]

When I was in university, there was a student exchange program and some hot dutch students were coming. They were young but hot. Student Exchange Program Manager Dikhead asked us to make an orientation to new students in campus. Instead of walking in campus, we go to concert&bar with dutch girls.

There, another professor saw us and asked "Wtf you're doing here?". I replied, err..We are..DUTCHING

[Optional]

You got it completely wrong.

Did I?

Dutch book approach

The Dutch book argument was proposed by de Finetti, and is based on betting. A Dutch book is made when a clever gambler places a set of bets that guarantee a profit, no matter what the outcome is of the bets. If a bookmaker follows the rules of the Bayesian calculus in the construction of his odds, a Dutch book cannot be made.

However, Ian Hacking noted that traditional Dutch book arguments did not specify Bayesian updating: they left open the possibility that non-Bayesian updating rules could avoid Dutch books. For example, Hacking writes[16] "And neither the Dutch book argument, nor any other in the personalist arsenal of proofs of the probability axioms, entails the dynamic assumption. Not one entails Bayesianism. So the personalist requires the dynamic assumption to be Bayesian. It is true that in consistency a personalist could abandon the Bayesian model of learning from experience. Salt could lose its savour."

In fact, there are non-Bayesian updating rules that also avoid Dutch books (as discussed in the literature on "probability kinematics" following the publication of Richard C. Jeffrey's rule, which is itself regarded as Bayesian[1]). The additional hypotheses sufficient to (uniquely) specify Bayesian updating are substantial, complicated, and unsatisfactory.[17]

From wikipedia


But as I also said, I doubt most of us actually use that definition when speaking of Dutching. But please do write another few paragraphs explaining the obvious, or telling me I am completely wrong again.

[hutennis]

Did I?



From wikipedia


But as I also said, I doubt most of us actually use that definition when speaking of Dutching. But please do write another few paragraphs explaining the obvious, or telling me I am completely wrong again.

You are confusing dutching the market (what you originally asked about) with constructing Dutch book (which was never part of any conversation).

So yes, if confusion is a form of being wrong, you are completely wrong again.

[Sawyer]

Let's ask Judge who is right here. Judge?




Judge: Optional is right. Hutennis is wrong.

Hutennis: Mr. Judge! But..



Judge: Shut the f**k up!

Hutennis: But Mr. Judge, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and blah blah blah blah but blah blah blah.



Judge #2: NOOOOOOOO!! PLEASE SHUT UP! I CaN'T TAKE IT ANYMOREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

Hutennis: But I say theorotically blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..



Judge Dredd: Say one more word and I will vaporize you with my weapon!!

-End of Discussion-

[Optional]

When I was in university, there was a student exchange program and some hot dutch students were coming. They were young but hot. Student Exchange Program Manager Dikhead asked us to make an orientation to new students in campus. Instead of walking in campus, we go to concert&bar with dutch girls.

There, another professor saw us and asked "Wtf you're doing here?". I replied, err..We are..DUTCHING

Definitely +EV

[illfuuptn]

hutennis, I'm sorry that you're the only person itt who is correct yet you get absolutely torched. I've been in your shoes many times here.

[statictheory]

In horse racing where its probably used the most, if you want to bet two horses at different odds but make a hundred regardless who wins, then that's dutching. Its been around since the 20s. If you do a google search I'm sure you can find the formula, but its obviously not a strategy unto itself, its just a money mgmt gimmick. With the high odds in car racing, you could probably cover quite a few entries. you need some sort of database of how often those long odds come in and bet accordingly.

[mtneer1212]

Dutching? Is that where I fart under the covers and then hold the covers over my wife's head so she can't get out?

[Sawyer]

Useful for dutching btw..

http://www.oddschecker.com/betting-tools/dutching-calculator.html

[swordsandtequila]

Dutching? Is that where I fart under the covers and then hold the covers over my wife's head so she can't get out?

That would be a "dutch oven"

[indio]

In horse racing where its probably used the most, if you want to bet two horses at different odds but make a hundred regardless who wins, then that's dutching. Its been around since the 20s. If you do a google search I'm sure you can find the formula, but its obviously not a strategy unto itself, its just a money mgmt gimmick. With the high odds in car racing, you could probably cover quite a few entries. you need some sort of database of how often those long odds come in and bet accordingly.

It's not rocket science. If you have a 7-1 shot and a 9-1 shot, you can combine them and now you have a 7-2 entry.

Horse racing would be a better example if they had fixed odds rather than a pari-mutual, but if you want the ratio of how much to bet on each horse to get 7-2 (actually +344), just figure the percentages. 7-1 is 12.5%, 9-1 is 10%. So, since 12.5% is 55.56% of the combined 22.5%, you'd bet 55.56% of your stake on the 7-1 shot, and 44.44% on the 9-1 shot.

If you didnt feel like messing around with change, bet $55 on the 7-1 shot to win 385 and get back $440 total. Bet $44 on the 9-1 shot, win 396 and get back $440 total. Then take the leftover dollar, buy a soda, and enjoy the race.

[Avskum]

heres a nice dutching calculator, hope anyone finds it uesfull!

http://www.oddschecker.com/betting-tools/dutching-calculator.html