Series Price vs single game play

**Justin7** · 04-17-12, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by statnerds

Long and the short of it, thanks in advance if any cares to offer insight. So I took Flyers +195 to win the series as the stock known as the Penguins seemed extremely over valued and the stock known as the Flyers was the opposite. Bet the Flyers as a home dog for the same reason in Game numero trois.

So here we are now.

Would like to bet Philly in Game 4, but here is how I am viewing it.

I already have them +195 in this game considering a win closes out the Series bet. Additionally, if they lose Game 4, I would follow up with a Game 5 play on them, depending on the price.

My question being do I just sit on the Series play and not invest anymore on the Flyers? Do I take them in Game 5 if they lose tomorrow? Is my view of having Flyers +195 tomorrow misguided and mistaken?

Any input is appreciated.

Oh, another thing I like to do when I like the price on the dog in the series is bet them in Game 1. If they lose, the Series price goes up for them being down 1-0, as everyone expected. That strikes me as an adjustment that need not be made by the books and gives the dog added value. Any dissenting views on that approach?

There are two factors you need to think about.

First, what is the fair price on the game you are considering wagering? Second, are you overexposed or optimally exposed on the series based on your bankroll? If the amount you have on the series is trivial compared to your bankroll, disregard your series bet. What are the fair odds on each game? If that amount is relevant, you should consider playing less on the Flyers, and more on Pittsburgh for individual games.

**mathdotcom** · 04-17-12, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

There are two factors you need to think about.

First, what is the fair price on the game you are considering wagering? Second, are you overexposed or optimally exposed on the series based on your bankroll? If the amount you have on the series is trivial compared to your bankroll, disregard your series bet. What are the fair odds on each game? If that amount is relevant, you should consider playing less on the Flyers, and more on Pittsburgh for individual games.

Funny that you replied given you started the thread entitled 'No systems in the TT please'.

**statnerds** · 04-18-12, 04:05 PM

thanks J7-

amount on series right where i would like it, based on my original feeling and thoughts that no one saw a 4-0 sweep as a possibility.

your post got me thinking about the fair price on tonight's game, and given 3 starters suspended for Pit, I conservatively put my expected probability of a Flyers win at 60%, no vig -150? -115 a steal then, and had to take a position on Philly again tonight.

Pens fan, hate the Flyers, just as an FYI.

If it were a different team, maybe. But these teams hate each other, Pens down, Flyers look to destroy and embarrass them tonight.

**LT Profits** · 04-18-12, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by mathdotcom

Funny that you replied given you started the thread entitled 'No systems in the TT please'.

No this thread is fine because nerds isn't really talking about a "system" because he IS giving regard to price.

**mathdotcom** · 04-18-12, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

No this thread is fine because nerds isn't really talking about a "system" because he IS giving regard to price.

Not in the original post. And besides, handicappers coming up with a break even number off the top of their head doesn't really belong in here. It's just a pick based on faulty correlation, there's no interesting analysis anywhere.

**Thremp** · 04-18-12, 10:51 PM

math,

I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to salvage a terrible OP into a useful teaching tool on correlation and its effect on Kelly Criterion. I briefly considered learning AMPL to solve these sort of scenarios. Then I decided that was a terrible idea and focused on just having so much money I didn't have to worry about this, since these situations come up infrequently and I'd like just be ad hoc-ing a ton of the correlations. (Are markets still inefficient on motivation? How much less than the past? Do I need to consider major injury issues? Systematic market over/under-valuation? Etc etc etc) The task basically seem too large to do correctly and the marginal utility very small.

I guess I succeeded in some way by losing my entire BR. But thems the breaks, are they not?

**statnerds** · 04-30-12, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by mathdotcom

Not in the original post. And besides, handicappers coming up with a break even number off the top of their head doesn't really belong in here. It's just a pick based on faulty correlation, there's no interesting analysis anywhere.

forgive my continued stupidity, but don't see how a question on series pricing with a position that at the time had over a 98.20% chance of cashing (164 of 167), which I should have done the research on before posting, coupled with plays on individual events in said series amounts to a system.

and if you have the patience, please offer any insight on where my logic goes awry when i like the dog to win the series and the book adjusting the price upwards if the dog loses game one, which is the expected outcome. additionally we know that winning game two is a stronger indicator of the series winner than game one. please explain how using these facts to view the price on the dog to win the series after a game one loss as added value that was not available before the start of the series is flawed. use small words, not too bright here south of mikey j fox land.

and yes, i am naive enough to believe that the adjustment made by the book following a game one win by the fave is a reflection of the public over reacting to the victory.

perhaps I am in need of more help than you can provide.

**Justin7** · 04-30-12, 11:12 PM

Statnerds,

You have an old position. You know the odds, and presumably know the probability of it winning. You are considering making a new position. You believe the new odds (after the visitor lost game 1) are incorrect. If you know your edge, and your previous exposure, this is just a Kelly problem that is somewhat more complicated than your typical one. I'd be leery of assuming that both prices (pre-series and after game 1) were inaccurate, however.