[ebbearsfb1]

Good post... comes down to picking your spots with live betting... every situation is different and a 14 0 lead is not the same... lsu down 14 0 to bama is different then ok state down 14 0 to stanford.. gotta bet smart.. and do what you feel is best...to each is own... good luck

[FourLengthsClear]

The + even - even crew should start posting picks and see how it goes.. think it would be good to see

English League 1 for tomorrow.
Sheffield Wednesday @+110 for the first half v Hartlepool

If your book doesn't offer 1st half bets the take the full-game AH -1 @ +104 or better.

N.B. Do not hedge it in-game or include in a 25 teamer!

[ebbearsfb1]

Lol I won't... now you say that's plus even... what do you the value should actually be

[FourLengthsClear]

Lol I won't... now you say that's plus even... what do you the value should actually be

The first half bet should be around -106.

[wrongturn]

Pretty simple. If you can stomach the variance, don't hedge (unless the hedge bet is +ev in itself, which don't happen often), long term you will be better off. If you want to sleep better, hedge.

[Glitch]

youre like our resident wise-man Wantit.

[ebbearsfb1]

But your basing that the line should be -106 off your own opinion? Or model? Correct?

[FourLengthsClear]

But your basing that the line should be -106 off your own opinion? Or model? Correct

Yes it is from a statistical model. I sometimes need to make adjustments based on weather, injuries or 'motivation' issues, but there are none here.

[smoke a bowl]

But your basing that the line should be -106 off your own opinion? Or model? Correct?

I'm sure I make bets that are -EV but that is not my intentions which is the argument here. I try to make a +EV bet every time I hit the submit button however I do understand that that is not reality and sometimes I make -EV bets. I sure don't do it intentionally though.

[Glitch]

this is the circle everyones talking about. if the E in ev is "expected" then thats what the capper expects (perceived percent likelihood put against the odds)- whether it is based on a model or a good pick or not. this changes for each person and it is based on the individual's perception. you will keep going around in circles forever trying to argue for or against whether someone can detect something that is +ev

[FourLengthsClear]

this of course depends on the definition of equity but the value of the house that is your bankroll is not decreasing- the optimistic prospect for that property's value is perhaps decreasing but the downside potential is becoming more favorable as well..

i agree also that all +ev legs = optimization (with or without additional strategy. but i disagree that the occasion -ev leg for a nice enough profit is not worth it.

whether it is or is not still a -ev (for the event) endeavor mathematically at the time of bet placement is trivial and irrelevant. the up arrow is the up arrow. you should not always take this path but it will never result in a loss.

the guaranteed [/U]nature of this sort of profit. is something that is not mathematically quantifiable onto a scale of percentages including arbitrary ones based on one's perception of their own handicapping ability And percentages of profit potential.

you HAVE TO measure it separately- because it does not fit on the same scale.

llodra/murray is a bad example and only for the sake of example working with games on the board.

lets all keep this conversation very mature if possible-but the reason these practices are allowed is that not that many people do them.

i would imagine that some people do similar things and the books Really dont like it (even though sometimes they eat half of the theoretical pie themselves).

livebetting: when you no longer can lose- it is no longer gambling. your fancy brain calculator can't even compute the value of surety on the same scale as gambling, if you think you can then please kindly add your job's wages, portfolio returns and birthday cards from your grandmother to the loss-offsetting consideration that you consider equity.

the only thing that you could possibly attempt to calculate even with X variables is whether or not you abandon the mission more times (in terms of dollars) than you benefit from locking it up with this live betting strategy.

these opportunities happen all the time. (i dont really bet on fridays because fridays have the most rigged games and there arent many events today anyway.)

The part I have bolded is where we disagree (and it is probably better that we agree to disagree).

In this case of hedging you have a 100% probability of winning x
In the case of not hedging you have a W% probability of winning y and an L% of losing z

You and wantit suggest, essentially, that you cannot define/quantify W and L with sufficient accuracy/confidence to justify the risk and if that works for you, who am I to argue?

As food for thought though consider how the books in-play odds come about. These days for tennis pretty much all of them are simply tracking Betfair, adding juice and, I presume adjusting for current exposure.

Those Betfair odds are not derived from hunches. The big traders are turning over millions on single matches with overrounds/juice of less then 1% which they can only do with every game/point/missed first serve being carefully priced based on samples of 10,000s of previous matches.

[ebbearsfb1]

It still at the end of the day is up to the bettor to decide if the play is +ev or - ev... a minus 500 play could be + ev if you feel the value should be minus 100.... good luck wager responsibilty.. don't lose your rooster on 2 large of a play

[wantitall4moi]

The part I have bolded is where we disagree (and it is probably better that we agree to disagree).

In this case of hedging you have a 100% probability of winning x
In the case of not hedging you have a W% probability of winning y and an L% of losing z

You and wantit suggest, essentially, that you cannot define/quantify W and L with sufficient accuracy/confidence to justify the risk and if that works for you, who am I to argue?

As food for thought though consider how the books in-play odds come about. These days for tennis pretty much all of them are simply tracking Betfair, adding juice and, I presume adjusting for current exposure.

Those Betfair odds are not derived from hunches. The big traders are turning over millions on single matches with overrounds/juice of less then 1% which they can only do with every game/point/missed first serve being carefully priced based on samples of 10,000s of previous matches.

I am not sure if they all follow betfair or not, if they are then I would suggest betfair is also following someone else.

But as long as they are all shading a common line then wha I and he says is true. there is no real 'value' just a comparative one. If the line is 'right' or 'wrong' can only be determined by the outcome. The outcomes themselves wont even be 100% , so determining the accuracy even in a vacuum is impossible. While you can weight it and validate it any number of ways you an still only gauge your play/bet on your findings. It isnt like you assume say a +280 chance, and then offer that price. No you look at the line offered and bet accordingly. If the offer is +320 then you take that. But it could be +160 So do you take the other side at presumably -180/-200 or do you do nothing?

The inconsistency of sporting event results is the great equalizer. If sports have say a margin of error of 10-12% that makes putting math into them a very difficult thing. Because even a team with a 100% 'chance' of beating a team might still lose 10 or 12 out of 100 just based on unknown variables. That is where it gets really theoretical but there are some cases where a team would and should never ever lose to another, but there is always that sports variable that gives the team with no chance a slight chance. It might not be 10% but the closer the teams are in known variables the more that sports margin of error comes into play.

[Glitch]

The part I have bolded is where we disagree (and it is probably better that we agree to disagree).

In this case of hedging you have a 100% probability of winning x
In the case of not hedging you have a W% probability of winning y and an L% of losing z

You and wantit suggest, essentially, that you cannot define/quantify W and L with sufficient accuracy/confidence to justify the risk and if that works for you, who am I to argue?

As food for thought though consider how the books in-play odds come about. These days for tennis pretty much all of them are simply tracking Betfair, adding juice and, I presume adjusting for current exposure.

Those Betfair odds are not derived from hunches. The big traders are turning over millions on single matches with overrounds/juice of less then 1% which they can only do with every game/point/missed first serve being carefully priced based on samples of 10,000s of previous matches.

a good strategy regarding this encompasses the science of predicting an over-reaction. these happen very very often. many live odds ARE derived from hunches- even if its a relatively collective hunch from betfair etc based on different things. their traders have specific arbitrary power to adjust based on factors as they perceive them.

10,000 previous matches does not mean much when taking into account a talented newcomer. ex- Lotsa gamblers here dont know who David Goffin is. i know who he is because hes good for an upset and/or a set Very often.

that highlighted part is incorrect- that is not what we are saying at all. we both like +ev bets a lot. we are saying that guaranteeing money is an entirely different thing. (and if you start with a +ev dog every time, then this is where my loop loops back to your loop ( if a -ev bet doesnt come later- our loops stay in series)) we love +ev wagers but those are gambling. these are something different.
- you may have missed the part of my post where i quoted you and said something about wages and grandmother b-day cards. but i agree that it is better that we agree to disagree here. thanks for the knowledge guys.

*if youre just now coming in- you missed a lot.

[k13]

Youngstown

[Glitch]

4lc- today in CBB we have oklahoma sooners +155 and colorado state +190 as extemely +ev dogs.
-i cant guarantee su ml ft wins (though i feel each should win handily on the road today) but i can almost guarantee very favorable live-betting opportunities as a result of trader over-reactions to in-game leads.

[FourLengthsClear]

4lc- today in CBB we have oklahoma sooners +155 and colorado state +190 as extemely +ev dogs.
-i cant guarantee su ml ft wins (though i feel each should win handily on the road today) but i can almost guarantee very favorable live-betting opportunities as a result of trader over-reactions to in-game leads.

Tks, I will try to track/follow the earlier game because I will be busy later.

[FourLengthsClear]

If you believe that then you hammer Youngstown State. What is the value proposition of intending to hedge it if things are going well? If it is simply that it guarantees a profit then we are going round in circles because that guaranteed profit involves a loss of equity unless the second bet is also +EV.

Did you hedge it in-play?

[Kindred]

threads like this make me want to become a bookie..easy money

[k13]

Did you hedge it in-play?

Nah, I was thinking about it at half-time when the ML was +400 or something.

Not worth hedging if it's not a huge bet or you believe the bet will win anyway.

[Glitch]

oklahoma led 18-11 and was up 3 with 1 minute left but lost in overtime.

colorado state is losing wire to wire. i think i severely underestimated wyoming. have not watched them play and still tonight have not.