3 Games near same lines which one has best value?

[Machba]

Rutgers +6.5 ML +220 Ncaab
Clip +6.5 ML +200 NBA
St Thomas +7.5 ML +270

[Machba]

And Rams +6.5 ML +240

[KVB]

Define "value" and how you determine it.

I can tell you what I think. I determine value with extensive market study and coerrelation exploration. I compare my differences between the teams in the current rotation and compare that with the offered line. I use a mix of histories, including recent to get there.

In my opinion, it's very tough to determing the difference in value between Rutgers +220 and LA Clippers +200.

It's very close to the same but Rutgers gets the edge currently, but overall value isn't currently that great.

I feel the same way about the two 6.5 spreads.

St Thomas a different animal here as there are different pressures shading that line. We are awaiting more info on that game.

Rutgers +230 could show bettable value.

[TommieGunshot]

Clippers and Rutgers numbers are bad to take, because it is so easy to do better than those. St Thomas +270 is better than Circa and pinnacle right now, only a little worse than CRIS, so that would be the one with the smallest negative value.

[TommieGunshot]

Define "value" and how you determine it.

Probability of winning times payout minus amount bet.

[Machba]

Define "value" and how you determine it.

I can tell you what I think. I determine value with extensive market study and coerrelation exploration. I compare my differences between the teams in the current rotation and compare that with the offered line. I use a mix of histories, including recent to get there.

In my opinion, it's very tough to determing the difference in value between Rutgers +220 and LA Clippers +200.

It's very close to the same but Rutgers gets the edge currently, but overall value isn't currently that great.

I feel the same way about the two 6.5 spreads.

St Thomas a different animal here as there are different pressures shading that line. We are awaiting more info on that game.

Rutgers +230 could show bettable value.

Value as in return for your dollar. Betting $100 on Rams, rutgers,clip let's say. All +6.5 lines but ML are all 3 different, +240 +220 +200 , 1 would think +6.5 would constitute same ML across the board unless slightly persuaded by home field/court . So IMO Rams +240 has most value just because of my return pending it is a W.

[KVB]

Probability of winning times payout minus amount bet.

This won't get you very far.

Perhaps you meant to say...

"Probabilitly of winning times the amount you can win minus the probability of losing times what you can lose (your risk) divided by the total amount at risk."

Taking the sum of every possible result multiplied by their respective benefit or costs and dividing all of that by the amount risked is the basic definition of Expected Value.

[KVB]

..1 would think +6.5 would constitute same ML across the board...

Don't forget you are dealing with different sports, here. Different markets between NBA and NCAAB.

Prices of points and half points aren't the same so they won't convert to moneylines the same.

[jjgold]

Rutgers can cover but has zero shot to win

A terrible shooting team especially on the road

This is not 2021 Rutgers

[KVB]

Rutgers can cover but has zero shot to win

A terrible shooting team especially on the road

This is not 2021 Rutgers

Have you seen their spreads and schedule so far? It can be misleading.

They might just suck and be who we think they are.

[TommieGunshot]

Probability of winning times payout minus amount bet.

This won't get you very far.

Perhaps you meant to say...

"Probabilitly of winning times the amount you can win minus the probability of losing times what you can lose (your risk) divided by the total amount at risk."

Taking the sum of every possible result multiplied by their respective benefit or costs and dividing all of that by the amount risked is the basic definition of Expected Value.

After double checking both formulas it is quite obvious that both arrive at the same place.

[KVB]

After double checking both formulas it is quite obvious that both arrive at the same place.

Huh? Let's take an example of a 50% chance risking -110 to win 100.

Probability of winning times payout minus amount bet.

.5(100) - 110 =
50-110 = -60

..."Probabilitly of winning times the amount you can win minus the probability of losing times what you can lose (your risk) divided by the total amount at risk."...

.5(100) - .5 (110)
110

(50 -55)/110 = -.04545



Whether expressed as a dollar amount, percentage, the answers are very different. I'm not sure there's much use in arriving at -60 here but figuring the -4.5% is one of the most important things a bettor can do.

[TommieGunshot]

If I buy a ticket for $110 and it wins, they give me my original stake back when I go to cash it and the payout would be $210.

[KVB]

If I buy a ticket for $110 and it wins, they give me my original stake back when I go to cash it and the payout would be $210.

I know you pretty much know what's up Gunshot and my last post was really for others. I feel like you just left the formula incomplete.

As far as the 210 goes, that's not your winnings, that's not what you stand to win.

You said it yourself, it's the original stake added to what you won.

It's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing. Isn't it?

I might have missed your point in that post though. I really am not sure why you posted it.

Again, I respect your ability in this realm, I just think you left the initial formula a little short is all.

[TommieGunshot]

It's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing. Isn't it?

You asked for the definition, I gave it. Whether simplified or in expanded form, it can always be used anytime someone wants to see which bets have higher values.

[KVB]

You asked for the definition, I gave it. Whether simplified or in expanded form, it can always be used anytime someone wants to see which bets have higher values.

I see, as long as you do realize our equations aren't reaching the same place. I would still argue that you can't get very far with th -60 but being able to calculate the -4.5% is essential.

Never seen anyone assess or compare value at that "-60" level.

Comparing the -60 to other values arrived at the same way won't provide anything helpful without adding some math, almost like a need to normalize.

[KVB]

Going to put this here as well, it's relevant and the next step in the education.

Might help to refer to the original thread this post comes from as well to see what Chucky posted.

Basically 100% divided by 12.5% equals 8.

You have broken up 100% into 8 12.5% parts.

You can now see that you could lose 7 of them and in order to break even on the 8th try you would need +700 or 7/1 odds.

If you're getting better than +700 odds, you have an edge.

But if you are estimating something higher than 12.5%, then you can estimate that edge.

The easiest way to figure the estimated edge for this purpose will probably to be to use the decimal line, Chucky has it there at 8.

Similar to EV, we take our estimated chance to win and multiply it by the odds it pays, but this time we'll use decimal odds and subtract 1.

For example, if you estimate a 12.5% chance to win, and are getting what Chucky and I have determined to be +700 or a decimal line of 8.0 it looks like this...

.125 * 8 = 1

Then subtract 1 and you get 0% edge. Makes sense, you estimate 12.5%, they are paying for the 12.5%.

Say you estimated the chance of winning to be 14.5%, then you estimate the fair line to +589.6, a decimal line of 6.896, but they are offering +700, or a decimal of 8.0.

That would look like this...

.145 * 8 = 1.16

Subtract 1 and you find yourself with a 16% edge on that bet.

(Your estimated chance of winning X odds paid in decimal) - 1 = Your Estimated Edge...

[TommieGunshot]

You asked for the definition, I gave it. Whether simplified or in expanded form, it can always be used anytime someone wants to see which bets have higher values.

I see, as long as you do realize our equations aren't reaching the same place. I would still argue that you can't get very far with th -60 but being able to calculate the -4.5% is essential.

Never seen anyone assess or compare value at that "-60" level.

Comparing the -60 to other values arrived at the same way won't provide anything helpful without adding some math, almost like a need to normalize.

Seriously? What the fukc am I even reading here? Obviously you don't get very far with -60, because the only way to arrive at that answer is by using the wrong numbers. Try using the correct numbers that I already gave you. Payouts from sportsbooks are stake + winnings.

0.5 x (110 + 100) - 110 does not equal -60.

[KVB]

Seriously? What the fukc am I even reading here? Obviously you don't get very far with -60, because the only way to arrive at that answer is by using the wrong numbers. Try using the correct numbers that I already gave you. Payouts from sportsbooks are stake + winnings.

0.5 x (110 + 100) - 110 does not equal -60.

lol I see, but you will still be off, they won't arrive at the same answer.

0.5 x (110 + 100) - 110 = -5.

It's a little high, as it's not -4.5, and it's not rounded to 5.

The can difference is more pronounced in different examples but you are right you can make some comparisons that way.

My bad, I misread your first post and when I asked what I missed, because it sure seemed like I was missing something, you took a couple posts to answer, at least clearly for me.

At least we got to the bottom of it, you formula felt incomplete because I mistook payout for winnings.

Sorry about that. Hopefully there's something in here for others to get out of it all, we put some usefule formulas in here.

[jjgold]

Tremendous thread!

[KVB]

Yeah, a few posts that might not have been made but are chalk full info were made because I misread Gunshot.

I knew I was missing something, tommie is usually on with his sportsbetting knowledge.

That was my bad, even if it resulted in some good.

[TommieGunshot]

lol I see, but you will still be off, they won't arrive at the same answer.
0.5 x (110 + 100) - 110 = -5.

It's a little high, as it's not -4.5, and it's not rounded to 5.

I’m pretty sure you are just trying for jj level trolling here, but if you still really don’t understand, that -5 is a value of -$5. As a percent of value, divide by the amount bet. Which would be -$5 / $110.

[KVB]

Lmao gunshot, I was going to go back to that. My gawd I’m laughing so hard right now.

You’re all good.



Again, sorry for miss reading that first post, that wasn’t a troll. You’re usually on point and that’s why I kept saying I must be missing something. I clearly was.

[Machba]

Don't forget you are dealing with different sports, here. Different markets between NBA and NCAAB.

Prices of points and half points aren't the same so they won't convert to moneylines the same.

This is 100% HUGE and i mean HUGE when capping these games . I just got out of work and give me a minute to read the rest of your threads. You obviously know that you KVB are a rare dying breed when it comes to gambling and i respect ALL your stuff

[Machba]

If I buy a ticket for $110 and it wins, they give me my original stake back when I go to cash it and the payout would be $210.

So JMO here but once you buy a ticket you forfeited that cash and is actually part of your winnings now because your out that cash until you win. I understand it's not the actual winnings but you did forfeit it at once and had o so to say. But obviously on a ML bet of +220 at $100 is only a win of $220 and your $100 back. Can be debated you won your money back.

[Machba]

Time to take the wife out to dinner
Let's fkn win some games tonight
Nhl
Peg o 6 -110 should cash by 2nd period 5-4 type game gents

[TheToffer]

Time to take the wife out to dinner
Let's fkn win some games tonight
Nhl
Peg o 6 -110 should cash by 2nd period 5-4 type game gents

Do you mean the Preds, Machba?

[KVB]

So JMO here but once you buy a ticket you forfeited that cash and is actually part of your winnings now because your out that cash until you win. I understand it's not the actual winnings but you did forfeit it at once and had o so to say. But obviously on a ML bet of +220 at $100 is only a win of $220 and your $100 back. Can be debated you won your money back.

I’m not so sure about that Macher.

Both your and the casino funds could be put in escrow. It just so happens that we give the money to the house first. True, you bought something with the money but I wouldn’t consider that a forfeit.

We especially don’t when making these calculations. The bet is just considered the risk.

Unless your TommieGunshot, he does all kinds of weird things…

Lol just kidding.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Rutgers +6.5 ML +220 Ncaab
Clip +6.5 ML +200 NBA
St Thomas +7.5 ML +270

Mach, I love this stuff. Hope u hit tonite, pal.

[Machba]

Do you mean the Preds, Machba?

No i mean Peg as in winniPEG Over 6 . Winner

[Machba]

3/4 covered the ATS and 1 S/U ML winner
6.5 is a massively KEY #

[Machba]

Mach, I love this stuff. Hope u hit tonite, pal.

[jjgold]