Originally Posted by
Data
This truth stands and below I will show that there is no contradiction. What we witness here is by no means an outcome that will happen in the long run. Quite in reverse, this is a short run while looking at the issue at hand. If you look in the really long run you will see that these both parties are long term loosers. How come? Where is the money and who is the winner? The winner is going to be an extremely lucky bettor who, in very rare turn of events, wins all the money from the book. That was your assumption that under given conditions the book can do this but in fact they cannot and neither can we. It's pretty much like if they were offering $1 lottery tickets with a $20bln payout and 10/bln'th chance of winning. Obviously, this is a +EV opportunity for a player. Nonetheless, the book would likely collect lots of cash and there would be quite a few loosers among the players. This may last for quite some time but sooner or later somebody will get a winning ticket. This may also illustrate the difference between maximizing EV vs. maximizing EG, as per the thread title. Maximizing EV is like betting on that you are going to be that lucky bettor who wins the lottery (while most everyone loses) because the rare big winner is the likely outcome. Maximizing EG is similar to maximizing the number of the winning players. The "max EG" bettor will likely find himself among the winners while the "max EV" player is going to win only "on average" and in reality most likely going to be a looser.