-
Comment -
What's the big deal about this bleeping game ?Comment -
damnComment -
Rfr3sh!!! Apologies for the late reply but I am in the UK so am on a different time zone to yourself.
EV is expected Value. Therefore for EV to be taken into account you have to have a 'True Price'. For example in poker if you get your money all in on the flop 100 times as say an 80% Fav you will win (variance not taken into account in this example) 80% of pots played, this is a +EV play. If on the turn we now drop to 60% fav, after getting it all in and being 80% Fav on the flop, this does not make our initial all in a -EV play. So let’s now put this into a hockey bet example. If our ‘True Price' is +105, as a percentage = 48.78%, and we back Florida at +145, as a percentage = 40.32%, we have an edge of 8.46%. Therefore if we bet in this situation 100 times we will make 8.46% which is +EV. If however in the same situation we bet Florida at +175 rather than +1.45 our percentage edge now increases to 12.42%. So if we bet Florida at +175 we have more EV (Expected Value) than at +145 but it doesn't make our bet -EV it just makes it less +EV, that was my point, this is known as the value principal. The VIG is irrelevant in this case as you are only backing one side. I wasn’t at any point arguing that you don’t feel bad when you have backed at a shorter price than the closing price; everyone does as its ‘missed money’. I also wasn’t arguing that if you back both sides or trade out of a position on one side by backing the other then the VIG has to be taken into account. If you want to have a sensible discussion about this then PM me and I'll be happy to discuss it with you but it seems to me like we are arguing 2 separate things here, my whole point was to do with your incorrect use of EV.Comment -
I am arguing that if you bet a team at +115 and the line closes at +200 then your bet is -EV
there is nothing you can argue that will make this false, unless you do not agree that the market is efficient
to judge if your bet is +EV is to beat the no-vig closer which i did the math forComment -
Swap "mood" with momentum.
Swap "illegal hit" with interference
empty net? There were no goals scored on an empty net last night.
BTW. I am not going to defend the non-call on Orr. This call was made because Jiggy was interferred with by Stillman on Florida's lone goal. You see, it all "evens" out in the end.Comment -
I think we are coming at this from completely different angles. What I am saying is that if I make the 'True Price' of a team +105 and I back at +145 then this is a +EV bet. If it then drifts to +175 my bet at +145 is still +EV bet because i believe the true price to be +105 it is just less +EV. What you are arguing is something completely different, you are arguing that it is a negative EV bet in relation to the closing price which is true if the only prices you are taking into account are the market price at the time of the bet and the closing price. So basically we are arguing two different things as you are using the price at the time of the bet to determine whether it is + or -EV and I am basing it upon a 'true price'. Do you see what I mean???Comment -
yeah I get what you are saying, but if your true price is +105 and it closes at +170,+200 you are doing something wrongComment -
Yeah that is extreme and was just an example, but if i feel there is value on a line even though it has drifted 20pts I will still bet it even if it does mean opposing the market as not all money in the market is smart money. I find with hockey that it is more often team news that moves a market than the volume of $ put into it. For the record the ML on this game last night was no bet for me as even at +145 I didn't feel there was enough value in Florida. The earlier price movements were mainly due to Clemmensen being confirmed as the starter IMO.Comment
