[PaperTrail07]

NOT hedging has hurt me recently for sure.....Hurts when you have a good opportunity and pass-the take the L....when you hit and hedge off a few bucks and win.....you aren't concerned w the hedge as much....

[TeddyB]

I think it's best to hedge through live betting.

[BuckyOne]

If your a pro and do it for a living you have to hedge just like stock traders

Anyone else NO

Very good Point! Are you deer hunting because you like the sport or because you are hungry and want to eat?

[Underdog5229]

Very good Point! Are you deer hunting because you like the sport or because you are hungry and want to eat?

you shouldn't be playing parlays imo, if it's to eat. now sport/for fun is another story.

[homerbush]

I have to hedge at least something because usually if I hedge i hit the bigger bet and lose the hedge and am pissed i hedged but yet if i dont hedge at all i never win the bigger bet.

[mrpapageorgio]

Only time I've really hedged is when I hedged my Final Four Michigan future in the championship game. Nova was too much of a heavy favorite to let it ride and the hedge worked out.

[Chili_Powder]

I'm against hedging unless new information has come to light or a solid middling opportunity becomes available. You are paying extra juice on that last game, while going against your original selection. It's just one more thing to make things more complicated in gambling, when it is beneficial to have a clear mind.

[HurryUpAndDrink]

Helped me

pretty sure it has fukked me before, I am an advocate for letting it ride, no hedge

[eidolon]

If you hedge, it means you shouldn't have done that big parlay in the first place.

[Sam Odom]

Don't be afraid to win

best answer

[A4K]

Only hedge if you can get a sweet middle

[funnyb25]

It can't "hurt" you. The only way one would think it "hurts" them is the illusion of it hurting them. Guaranteeing profit is never a bad thing. It is quite sharp long term. Sure, you may hedge and not get the profit you would as if you let it ride; but in a business where the books win, guaranteeing profits with a hedge is always sharp.

[Inkwell77]

It can't "hurt" you. The only way one would think it "hurts" them is the illusion of it hurting them. Guaranteeing profit is never a bad thing. It is quite sharp long term. Sure, you may hedge and not get the profit you would as if you let it ride; but in a business where the books win, guaranteeing profits with a hedge is always sharp.

What edge do you have when you place a bet strictly to hedge?

It is not sharp to place a -ev bet.

[mrpapageorgio]

What edge do you have when you place a bet strictly to hedge?

It is not sharp to place a -ev bet.

You're forcing the book to payout something where they otherwise have a chance to pay nothing.
It's also smart when the conditions change that make hedging seem wise.

I bet Michigan +6600 on a fluke. They made it to the national championship. Based on the new information that they would be playing a very strong Nova, I wanted to hedge as I thought Nova would (and did) win. Where is the -EV?

[Inkwell77]

You're forcing the book to payout something where they otherwise have a chance to pay nothing.
It's also smart when the conditions change that make hedging seem wise.

I bet Michigan +6600 on a fluke. They made it to the national championship. Based on the new information that they would be playing a very strong Nova, I wanted to hedge as I thought Nova would (and did) win. Where is the -EV?

Hedging a +6600 bet is a bit different than hedging a +120 bet.

Yes, I agree in your situation it was great to hedge. In most situations I don't believe it is... unless you are placing an additional +ev bet through the course of a game.

[u21c3f6]

What edge do you have when you place a bet strictly to hedge?

It is not sharp to place a -ev bet.

Just to set the record straight, it can be extremely sharp to place a -ev bet.

This is often done with hedging. The concept is to get a larger % of your bankroll in action initially than you would or should with a single wager so that even though the hedge has an overall less +ev than the single wager, you would reap more profit due to the larger wager initially.

Joe.

[TheSchafe]

I amend my previous statement. I condone hedging if it's life-altering money. If it's a ten teamer for $10,000+, definitely guarantee a few Gs of profit. Nothing less, though.

[tsty]

It's always a mandatory hedge when lines move a certain amount

basic shit

[tsty]

What edge do you have when you place a bet strictly to hedge?

It is not sharp to place a -ev bet.

EV is not the #1 reason to make a bet

[RudyRuetigger]

most here are clueless

NOTHING NEW

[Hman]

So assuming the first 2 games win, let's see if not hedging the late game in Washington pays off today:


Risk To Win Status Wager
$100.00 $200.00 Pending 3 Team Parlay

Pending 6/16/18 1:05pm MLB Baseball 964 New York Yankees -300* vs Tampa Bay Rays (R Stanek - R must Start L Severino - R must Start)


Pending 6/16/18 2:15pm MLB Baseball 967 Houston Astros -200* vs Kansas City Royals (D Keuchel - L must Start D Duffy - L must Start)


Pending 6/16/18 4:05pm MLB Baseball 979 Washington Nationals -200* vs Toronto Blue Jays (M Scherzer - R must Start M Estrada - R must Start)

[LVHerbie]

Since you are giving up equity making additional -EV bets hedging is only correct is if the the second bet is also +EV. As long as the second bet is +EV, and has a similar edge as the original, it should likely be about twice as big as the first (since the latter is opposing your former bet and you are capturing profit) creating a new position at your level of risk tolerance.

If you find yourself worrying about potentially losing a bet you have a strong position on (for example doing parlays or hedging out bets with a high probability of winning with live bets at whatever price is available) you betting too big in the first place.

And, if your original bet was -EV at the time it was made, ignore all the above and do whatever the fukk you feel like doing with it...

[tsty]

Since you are giving up equity making additional -EV bets hedging is only correct is if the the second bet is also +EV.

this is not true

there are plenty of circumstances where making a -ev bet leads to a +eg situation

but what do you expect from people who bet in units

[LLXC]

Hedging has hurt my wallet. But also saved years of my life.

[Hman]

NOT hedging has hurt me recently for sure.....Hurts when you have a good opportunity and pass-the take the L....when you hit and hedge off a few bucks and win.....you aren't concerned w the hedge as much....

Same here

I took one for the team yesterday by not hedging just to prove a point.

Odds were not in my favor or anyone's to sweep those games by winning that last one.

Yes we win some of those but it does not always even out in the long run.

Everyone has different results.

Cant imagine how some of those Vegas Knights future-bettors still feel after losing thousands by not hedging.

[Bsims]

but what do you expect from people who bet in units

I don't understand this comment. Can you elaborate?

[tsty]

I don't understand this comment. Can you elaborate?

if you know you know

[u21c3f6]

I don't understand this comment. Can you elaborate?

From a +eg point of view using Kelly, one is better off wagering on events with a higher win % even if the % edge is less.

For example, you are better off with a 50% win rate with a 5% edge than a wager with a 10% win rate with a 10% edge. Using Kelly, the +eg is significantly higher for the former compared to the latter.

Therefore if you can convert a lower win rate wager such as a parlay or a futures wager into a higher win rate wager even using a -ev wager and lowering your edge, you are still better off due to the higher +eg.

I do a lot of hedges but my hedges are always planned in advance. Therefore I wager a much larger % of my bankroll on the initial wager than would be normal because I know I am going to eventually hedge my wager to a more normal sized risk.

Joe.

[Hman]

.

I do a lot of hedges but my hedges are always planned in advance.

As they should be

[Bsims]

With all due respect gentlemen, using the Kelly criteria or any progressive betting system for sports is not a good idea. I really fell in love with the Kelly criteria when I first tumbled on it a few decades ago. I attempted to implement it in my systems for several years. Unfortunately, I was never able to demonstrate that the results were superior to flat (unit) betting. In fact, after a successful season of wagering with Kelly, I went back and asked what would have happened if I had just made flat bets with the same amount of money. I always found the Kelly approach to be less profitable.

The fool that I am, I am still trying to use a variation of Kelly with my current run line wagers. I'm just finishing up a study of the impact of using multiple outs on this system. Unfortunately, once again out of curiosity, I compared the results to flat wagers and found the flat wagers superior. I'll publish these results soon.

[Sam Odom]

With all due respect gentlemen, using the Kelly criteria or any progressive betting system for sports is not a good idea. I really fell in love with the Kelly criteria when I first tumbled on it a few decades ago. I attempted to implement it in my systems for several years. Unfortunately, I was never able to demonstrate that the results were superior to flat (unit) betting. In fact, after a successful season of wagering with Kelly, I went back and asked what would have happened if I had just made flat bets with the same amount of money. I always found the Kelly approach to be less profitable.

The fool that I am, I am still trying to use a variation of Kelly with my current run line wagers. I'm just finishing up a study of the impact of using multiple outs on this system. Unfortunately, once again out of curiosity, I compared the results to flat wagers and found the flat wagers superior. I'll publish these results soon.

Bsims... no disrespect meant

Seems like you did not know your advantage (+EV) with your bets

[u21c3f6]

With all due respect gentlemen, using the Kelly criteria or any progressive betting system for sports is not a good idea.

Bsims, with all due respect and by your own account, you have no basis for making the statement above. It is a variation of the statements made on here that no one can win at sports betting. Just because one cannot do something it does not mean that no one else can.

If one truly has an edge and can reasonably quantify it (you don't need to be perfect and a good reason not to wager full Kelly) Kelly and/or % betting is undeniably superior to flat betting and can be mathematically proven. Anyone that has an edge can prove it to themselves as well. If you truly had an edge, I am not sure how you came to your conclusion but I am very sure that you miscalculated or mishandled something along the way.

Joe.

[tsty]

what most people on this website and "pro" bettors in general don't understand is that making the model is only 30-40% of the game

you are clueless if you are betting in units

if you don't even know what to do when you find edge then what's the point

[shocka1212]

really depends on the situation, when the opportunity rises, I hedge a bet over $1000.

[RudyRuetigger]

just go all in every bet you place

that way you have nothing left to hedge and do not have to worry about this