A quick research question/quiz

[Conan]

[Pancho sanza]

No. Even though the wager is +EV, the one-shot deal makes it gambling to me.

Joe.

you can't be serious

[u21c3f6]

you can't be serious

I am serious. Even though I "gamble", I don't really consider myself a gambler. If I don't have a very good expectation of profiting from an endeavor, I won't risk any serious time, money or effort on it. I value the $100 in my hand more than the one-time 10% chance of getting $1400.

Joe.

[EXhoosier10]

I am serious. Even though I "gamble", I don't really consider myself a gambler. If I don't have a very good expectation of profiting from an endeavor, I won't risk any serious time, money or effort on it. I value the $100 in my hand more than the one-time 10% chance of getting $1400.

Joe.

So you're not answering OP's question...

"Assuming you can afford to lose $100 but that this is real money and you value it, and that you can't do it a second time: do you take this bet?"

James D made the obvious point in post#22 about valuing your personal money, but again, that's not what the OP is asking about.

[yisman]

Yes, of course.

Because I don't like to lose! When I look for an edge, I also look at what is my expectation of showing a profit. Since this is only a one-shot deal with only a small chance of being profitable, I would pass.

Joe.

How can this be +EV if you only get one shot?

[u21c3f6]

So you're not answering OP's question...

"Assuming you can afford to lose $100 but that this is real money and you value it, and that you can't do it a second time: do you take this bet?"

James D made the obvious point in post#22 about valuing your personal money, but again, that's not what the OP is asking about.

Actually, I believe I am answering the intent of the OP's question. He didn't write "money is no object" he wrote that "you value it". I can afford to lose much more than $100 and if in real life I was given the OP's offer, I would decline.

Joe.

[James D]

So you're not answering OP's question...


James D made the obvious point in post#22 about valuing your personal money, but again, that's not what the OP is asking about.

I answered the OP in post #6. Although the OP could have been a little more clear on how much I "value" the money. Several posters used the Kelly Criterion pure math answer, which of course is a great answer. How much I "value" the money is not nearly as clear as it should be in the original post. I "value" my tivo, I "value" my wife a great deal more. ( usually LOL)

Post 22 was in response to the question by team profit " how can it be +EV if you only have one shot?" . I quoted teamprofit in post 22 so it was clear that was what I was addressing. Like I posted previously and the Kelly posters did afterwards something can be +EV yet not a bet a person should every make.

[Pancho sanza]

I am serious. Even though I "gamble", I don't really consider myself a gambler. If I don't have a very good expectation of profiting from an endeavor, I won't risk any serious time, money or effort on it. I value the $100 in my hand more than the one-time 10% chance of getting $1400.

Joe.

You value money? really?

Sounds like you hate money to me.

[u21c3f6]

You value money? really?

Sounds like you hate money to me.

Let's just say more risk-averse than what one would normally attribute to a "gambler".

My wagers gravitate more to higher win% lower edge% than the lower win% higher edge% wagers. This fits my personality and has been very successful for me (almost 4 decades now). Does that mean that I leave money on the table? Absolutely, but that is the price I am willing to pay for controlling variance.

Please also note that I didn't say that no one should take the OP's wager. The wager is +EV. It is just a wager that I wouldn't make for the reasons stated above.

Joe.

[James D]

Pancho and Joe ( u21) just illustrate the different types of gamblers that are out there. Just because winning gamblers will exploit +EV spots or edges does not mean they do not also practice game selection. We all do it is just that some gamblers are more risk averse then others.

EVERY rational gambler would turn down a +EV spot if the edge was 1/10 of 1% and the bet was for their entire net worth. A spot being +EV is a very important part of the equation, but certainly not the only part.

[yisman]

EVERY rational gambler would turn down a +EV spot if the edge was 1/10 of 1% and the bet was for their entire net worth. .

yes but that is an extreme example that does not come up.

[Pancho sanza]

Pancho and Joe ( u21) just illustrate the different types of gamblers that are out there. Just because winning gamblers will exploit +EV spots or edges does not mean they do not also practice game selection. We all do it is just that some gamblers are more risk averse then others.

EVERY rational gambler would turn down a +EV spot if the edge was 1/10 of 1% and the bet was for their entire net worth. A spot being +EV is a very important part of the equation, but certainly not the only part.

right

But were talking about a play with an edge of 40 % edge here.

Any way you slice it, it would be incredibly dumb to pass it up.

[matthew919]

A 40% edge? I computed a 2.86% edge.

I.e. the true odds are 1 in 10 (0.10), but the house is giving you odds of 1/14, or 0.0714.

Edit that: my own misunderstanding of the definition. Actually I guess the edge is 0.1*14 - (1-0.1) = 50% edge? Look ma, I learned something today.

[Pancho sanza]

A 40% edge? I computed a 2.86% edge.

I.e. the true odds are 1 in 10 (0.10), but the house is giving you odds of 1/14, or 0.0714.

Edit that: my own misunderstanding of the definition. Actually I guess the edge is 0.1*14 - (1-0.1) = 50% edge? Look ma, I learned something today.

Edge means ROI to me

40 % ROI

[u21c3f6]

right

But were talking about a play with an edge of 40 % edge here.

Any way you slice it, it would be incredibly dumb to pass it up.

Thremp also accused me of hating money in a post a couple of years ago. Let's leave name-calling out of this and just agree to disagree.

Joe.

[BeatingBaseball]

Easy Call

My $100 is down in a heartbeat.

[davidsiegel]

Thanks very much for the responses. There are actually more no's than I expected. As people have rightly observed, it's a 50% EV. However, I wonder whether the Kelly criterion comes into play. The Kelly criterion is a money-management strategy that helps you a) keep from going down the drain by betting too big and losing too many times in a row, and b) maximize your profit over time. Neither of those applies here. The amount is fixed, and it's only one time. It IS relevant to how much money you have, but I'm assuming this board isn't being read by homeless people. We all value $100, but we can also afford to lose $100. I'm sure most, if not everyone, here has lost that much or more betting or gambling. And yes, it's in the context of all your other bets (if you magically have a better deal going on, then this is a lower ROI for you). But since the ROI here is outstanding, AND you have the money, AND you won't have a chance to do it again, does the Kelley number really come into play here? I'm guessing it just comes down to whether you can afford to lose $100. If you can't, you don't bet. If you can, you do. Thoughts?

[Inkwell77]

[MP123]

It's worth a gamble 14-1 on my money and the odds are only 1:10 , yes

But like u said u only get 1 shot at it... If u need that $100 n money's funny than no

[James D]

Thanks very much for the responses. There are actually more no's than I expected. As people have rightly observed, it's a 50% EV. However, I wonder whether the Kelly criterion comes into play. The Kelly criterion is a money-management strategy that helps you a) keep from going down the drain by betting too big and losing too many times in a row, and b) maximize your profit over time. Neither of those applies here. The amount is fixed, and it's only one time. It IS relevant to how much money you have, but I'm assuming this board isn't being read by homeless people. We all value $100, but we can also afford to lose $100. ?

David,

I enjoyed your little survey and the discussion that ensued. I will say I wish the terms were a little less vague.

The we value the money statement for instance, I would have preferred something cut and dry like your gambling bankroll is X. If I have 500 dollars to gamble I "value " the 100 and I pass. If I have 5500 to gamble I still value 100 but I make the bet with you. I really had no idea where I stood regarding my bankroll.

The second issue I had was the payout, you stated if I give you 100 and win you will give me back 1400. I took this to mean a 13-1 payout because you stated you initially took my 100 and if I lost you keep it. Now it seems the payout is actually 14-1 not 13-1. That does greatly affect the edge and the decision making process.

Enjoyed your post, I hope you post some more.

[Lookingtostart]

The fact this bet won't be repeated is irrelevant as I will have other +ev opportunities in the future .

I agree, and just like with any other play bookies offer, no single play ever gets repeated.

I have a bag with 9 white marbles and 1 black marble.

The bet being too good to be true is a bit of a worry. Such a simple play though, would be easy to check for legitimacy. We're only dealing with a bag and 10 marbles...

Assuming you can afford to lose $100

in other words, assuming you have good bankroll management,

but that this is real money and you value it,

in other words, you're looking for +EV,

Given these circumstances, I would say yes, I would take the bet, as long as I know the guy offering the bet is legit.