[pokernut9999]

I know they will lose .....but see value in the odds.

[face]

take for example tomorrow nordsjaelland +2356 tomorrow against juventus. nordsjaelland is a top team in denmark and what if juventus doesn't score and nordsjaelland win 1-0? could happen, probably won't, but hey +2356 is good value for a top team.

[milwaukee mike]

I know they will lose .....but see value in the odds.

if someone gives me 10-1 odds on the roll of a die and i only pick one number, there's value there, even if i will lose 5 times out of 6.

[neverstoppers23]

who knows, in all the projections and models for the election obama is at 90-91 percent chance of victory. i don't see how +300 is good value for that.

you would have to think their is systematic problems with all the polling agencies doing polls in the swing states. i just don't get it either

[pokernut9999]

Understand odds , but to say I know they will lose but bet because of the odds is stupid.

[Emily_Haines]

Last week the ML on Colorado at +250000 had a lot of value as well

but it really makes no difference what the number was when they had zero chance to win

[tto827]

Understand odds , but to say I know they will lose but bet because of the odds is stupid.

When people say "I know", they are making that decision with their gut. If the numbers say otherwise, you should go against your gut sometimes.

[pokernut9999]

who knows, in all the projections and models for the election obama is at 90-91 percent chance of victory. i don't see how +300 is good value for that.

you would have to think their is systematic problems with all the polling agencies doing polls in the swing states. i just don't get it either

That isn one point I am talking about , seen many posters say I know Rommey will lose but +300 is too good to pass up.

If you know they will lose keep your damn money.

[pokernut9999]

One poster has Louiville at better odds than they are now to win the BCS , he thinks he made a good bet.

Does not matter what odds he has because they will never play for the title .

[tto827]

One poster has Louiville at better odds than they are now to win the BCS , he thinks he made a good bet.

Does not matter what odds he has because they will never play for the title .

If that's the way you feel, use a martingale system for the rest of your life and let me know how it goes.

[guy Fawkes]

The difference seems to be in presentation. For instance, my last write up for Middle Tennessee State at Georgia Tech looks very different from the way I worded it in my write up to how the average poster would write it. Both are still saying the same thing:

My write up:
"ML @ +2800 1u * This is purely a value play, I only give MTSU a 7-9% chance to win this game, but at 28:1 it's hard to pass up."

Average post:
"I know MTSU will lose this one, but I can't pass up on a line like this."

In all reality, both are saying the same thing. I'm just wordy and tend to lay it all out there so I'm not misquoted/misunderstood.

[tto827]

The difference seems to be in presentation. For instance, my last write up for Middle Tennessee State at Georgia Tech looks very different from the way I worded it in my write up to how the average poster would write it. Both are still saying the same thing:

My write up:
"ML @ +2800 1u * This is purely a value play, I only give MTSU a 7-9% chance to win this game, but at 28:1 it's hard to pass up."

Average post:
"I know MTSU will lose this one, but I can't pass up on a line like this."

In all reality, both are saying the same thing. I'm just wordy and tend to lay it all out there so I'm not misquoted/misunderstood.

If this doesn't clear it up for the OP its hopeless.

[k13]

It only makes sense with futures that you know how to hedge correctly for profit.

[neverstoppers23]

well at 28-1 i could understand if you believe they had a slim chance 7-8 percent chance.
but in intrade, pollser, real clear politics all give Romney around an 8-10 chance of victory. which i think is why its hard to understand why people think +300 is good value.

[pokernut9999]

If this doesn't clear it up for the OP its hopeless.

Hopeless is losers saying they know a team will lose but like the odds anyway.

Keep betting those and let me know how that works out.

[guy Fawkes]

well at 28-1 i could understand if you believe they had a slim chance 7-8 percent chance.
but in intrade, pollser, real clear politics all give Romney around an 8-10 chance of victory. which i think is why its hard to understand why people think +300 is good value.

If we are talking about this election, I couldn't agree more. I'm medium on Obama's election-line with a sprinkle on him -1.999%. I see no value in Romney.

It is very hard to be unbiased in the political realm. I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs or political preference, but from reading the posts here and elsewhere I think there is a confusion between value and proximity.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ has Romney at 48.3% popular vote with Obama at 50.8%. I think many bettors are confusing this with a 48% shot to win for Romney and a 50% shot to win for Obama, in reality the election probability at this line is closer to 90% Obama 10% Romney.

[tto827]

Hopeless is losers saying they know a team will lose but like the odds anyway.

Keep betting those and let me know how that works out.

The point is that there is never a single bet that has no chance of winning, or a bet with a 100% chance of winning, so people saying this is really misleading and irrelevant anyway. It's the reverse equivalent of a lock, which I hope we can all agree doesn't exist.

[Goat Milk]

Mike,

I'll give you the Bucks +100,000 to win the NBA Championship.

Anyone come in here and tell me that's value based on what books are offering.

I'll shatter your argument.

[tto827]

Mike,

I'll give you the Bucks +100,000 to win the NBA Championship.

Anyone come in here and tell me that's value based on what books are offering.

I'll shatter your argument.

Just cause its better value then books offer doesn't mean it is real value. If you simulated the NBA season 10 million times, and the bucks win it all less than 100, that pick still doesn't have value.
That's where capping comes in, and why it's hard, if they win 99 times its -EV and 101 it's +EV.

Not really sure what you're trying argue now that I re-read your post.

[milwaukee mike]

Mike,

I'll give you the Bucks +100,000 to win the NBA Championship.

Anyone come in here and tell me that's value based on what books are offering.

I'll shatter your argument.

Couple of problems with this, one being that there is no way to hedge it because there are at keast 15 teams with a better chance of winning than the bucks, and there's too much juice in those bets, if i bet every other team somewhere i would be way behind.

the other problem is that at 1000-1, the odds of me getting paid by you if i win are even less than the odds of the bucks winning the championship.

i took romney at 4-1 from fishhead, fully expecting him to lose, because i could get obama at -280.

[Goat Milk]

Couple of problems with this, one being that there is no way to hedge it because there are at keast 15 teams with a better chance of winning than the bucks, and there's too much juice in those bets, if i bet every other team somewhere i would be way behind.

the other problem is that at 1000-1, the odds of me getting paid by you if i win are even less than the odds of the bucks winning the championship.

i took romney at 4-1 from fishhead, fully expecting him to lose, because i could get obama at -280.

Let's hypothetically assume the Bucks make the playoffs and make it out of the first round. At this point there are 8 teams left in the entire playoffs. Then, let's say I offer you +100,000 odds to win it all. You can easily hedge if you want.

Doesn't matter if you hedge. You still lost even though you win. Why? The Bucks have a 0% shot to win an NBA championship. It's not 0.001%. It's not 0.1%. It's 0 percent. Therefore, even if the Bucks make it to the Eastern Conference Finals and play Miami, they have a 0% shot to win that series. So I can offer you +100,000 and you hedge and you still lose. Because I bet against them to win it all which is a 100% lock.

Do you understand?

[tto827]

Let's hypothetically assume the Bucks make the playoffs and make it out of the first round. At this point there are 8 teams left in the entire playoffs. Then, let's say I offer you +100,000 odds to win it all. You can easily hedge if you want.

Doesn't matter if you hedge. You still lost even though you win. Why? The Bucks have a 0% shot to win an NBA championship. It's not 0.001%. It's not 0.1%. It's 0 percent. Therefore, even if the Bucks make it to the Eastern Conference Finals and play Miami, they have a 0% shot to win that series. So I can offer you +100,000 and you hedge and you still lose. Because I bet against them to win it all which is a 100% lock.

Do you understand?

Are they ineligible? Please show me how you got 0% then you can continue the discussion. Until then math wins over this or that cannot happen

[Inkwell77]

When people say "I know", they are making that decision with their gut. If the numbers say otherwise, you should go against your gut sometimes.

Great post.

It boils down to the numbers.

I don't even know if I'm going to wake up tomorrow. There might be a 99.99% chance but I don't "Know" it to be a fact.

[RogueScholar]

Doesn't matter if you hedge. You still lost even though you win. Why? The Bucks have a 0% shot to win an NBA championship. It's not 0.001%. It's not 0.1%. It's 0 percent. Therefore, even if the Bucks make it to the Eastern Conference Finals and play Miami, they have a 0% shot to win that series. So I can offer you +100,000 and you hedge and you still lose. Because I bet against them to win it all which is a 100% lock.

Do you understand?

You obviously have zero clue about hedging strategies. How much are you willing to post up with a third party on that wager?

[thetrinity]

goat u r one of the dumbest mofos i ever saw seriously.