The term "VALUE"

[donjuan]

What has more value,a black jack game that has a +9 count or a opinionated basketball game?
+EV does not exist when opinions decide!

Not enough info.

[LT Profits]

Time to hang it up, or make a matchbook bet.

I'll take every dog of +150.

You pay me +200 for each of the +150 dogs.

I'll put up $5000 to start with that I come out ahead money.

Wanna play?

You guys are actually in agreement.

[LT Profits]

What has more value,a black jack game that has a +9 count or a opinionated basketball game?
+EV does not exist when opinions decide!

But if the +EV on the sporting event is determined by a mechanical model that only analyzes past numbers, is it really an "opinion" por se? In my mind, numbers are objective, opinions are subjective.

[u21c3f6]

Either one or both models are still wrong on that particular game... either one or neither side is +EV, never both. It's possible for a model to be +EV overall but still be on the wrong side of individual contests.

Your premise goes back to defining +EV as a single event and if that is true, then only winning wagers can be considered +EV.

A player that selects 55% winners @ -110 is a winning player. When this player makes his next 100 wagers isn't each wager win or lose considered +EV if using his criteria he selects 55% winners? There is no "wrong" wager. There are losing wagers but those wagers are still considered +EV based on his ability to select 55% winners. If another player using different criteria can do the very same thing, all of his wagers would be considered +EV even if he happened to be on the other side of the first player in a single event.

Now a different scenario. Assume two players play the exact same wagers except that player 2 has the ability on average to eliminate 1 losing wager in 10. So player 1 wagers on 10 events and wins 5 @ -110. Therefore, a losing player and one would say that his wagers based on his selection criteria are -EV. Now player 2 wagers on the exact same wagers as player 1 with the exception of 1 loser. Therefore, player 2 has 5 wins @ -110 but only 4 losers. Therefore he is a winning player and one would say that his wagers based on his selection criteria are +EV. Here is a scenario where the same wagers on the same side are both - and +EV at the same time!

- or +EV cannot be based on a single wager and/or event. All wagers are simultaneously - or +EV dependent upon the group of wagers that it belongs to.

Joe.

[pokernut9999]

interesting subject. I dont always look at value or speak of it in the terms that Justin or LT use it. Like if I made this bet 100 times will it profit.

I look at value as right here & now. Am I getting "value" because of linemakers error. Am I getting "value" because the linesmakers are underestimating something I've seen time & again.

Here's an example from yesterday where I saw real "value" and I loaded up heavy. OhioSt/GaTech game. At halftime they had a combined 41 points, GT only had 13. They had a horrible 1H. The 2H line for that game was 71. Which means if that went over they would only have 112 points. The total for the game was 134 I think. I saw a great "value" in the line because the total IMO was not gonna be 20 points lower than the line. I hammered that 2H total & they came out & scored 30 points in the first 5 minutes. I think they even went over the game total.

Think about it, how many totals do you bet, whether its over or under, that you're not sweating the last 90 seconds for someone to miss, foul, make it, hit both FT's, miss both, for the total to win? 9 out of 10 of them. So for me to take over 2H in this situation was a no brainer. But this may go back to the "how many times will this win" scenario of +EV

Thought the score was 28--26 @ the half

[Peep]

LOL.

Good to know I don't have to hang them up! (But I do need to review reading comprehension 101).

[donjuan]

Your premise goes back to defining +EV as a single event and if that is true, then only winning wagers can be considered +EV.

This is simply not true. You are playing heads up NLHE and get all-in with KK against AQs. Someone on the rail offers you -120 on your KK. You accept and it loses. This is a single event that lost and yet it is still an obviously +EV wager.

[pokernut9999]

This is simply not true. You are playing heads up NLHE and get all-in with KK against AQs. Someone on the rail offers you -120 on your KK. You accept and it loses. This is a single event that lost and yet it is still an obviously +EV wager.

Poker is easier to understand value for me

[u21c3f6]

This is simply not true. You are playing heads up NLHE and get all-in with KK against AQs. Someone on the rail offers you -120 on your KK. You accept and it loses. This is a single event that lost and yet it is still an obviously +EV wager.

Your example is not valid for this discussion where exact probabilities do not exist.

Joe.

[MrX]

Your premise goes back to defining +EV as a single event and if that is true, then only winning wagers can be considered +EV.

Only if you believe in a deterministic universe.

Most people believe that a sporting event has a probability distribution associated with it. If that's the case, then a losing wager can be +E.V. even outside the context of a group of wagers.

[Peep]

Only if you believe in a deterministic universe.

Most people believe that a sporting event has a probability distribution associated with it. If that's the case, then a losing wager can be +E.V. even outside the context of a group of wagers.

Mike Caro wrote a good book on this.

The first sentence is..

"In the beginning, everything was even money".

[roasthawg]

Your premise goes back to defining +EV as a single event and if that is true, then only winning wagers can be considered +EV.

No... if you bet on a heads or tails coin flip and were given +110 odds on heads that would be a +EV wager. Whether or not it wins is irrelevant to it being +EV.

[u21c3f6]

No... if you bet on a heads or tails coin flip and were given +110 odds on heads that would be a +EV wager. Whether or not it wins is irrelevant to it being +EV.

The context of this discussion was about events where the actual probabilities are not known.

Joe.

[Vig Pig]

faaaagetaboutittt

Yo Dummy,
In all the years spent being a cyber railbird on economic, political, and sports web sites I have never felt compelled to have my voice heard by posting a message in response to anothers comment, but I simply cannot sit by and see a idiomatic expression that I hold near and dear to my heart, painfully anililated. The correct spelling is "fuhgettaboutit". That's Brooklynese 101.
Most Sincerely,
Vito "The Guido" Milito

[Justin7]

No... if you bet on a heads or tails coin flip and were given +110 odds on heads that would be a +EV wager. Whether or not it wins is irrelevant to it being +EV.

Is it a fair coin?

[u21c3f6]

Most people believe that a sporting event has a probability distribution associated with it. If that's the case, then a losing wager can be +E.V. even outside the context of a group of wagers.

Agreed. However, who gets to assign the probabilities?

If team A plays team B and my validated data determines that team A has a 55% chance of winning but your validated data determines that team B has a 55% chance of winning, who's "right" and who's "wrong"? The point is that we would wind up wagering on opposite sides of this single game both with a validated +EV for this particular game.

Joe.

[donjuan]

Agreed. However, who gets to assign the probabilities?

If team A plays team B and my validated data determines that team A has a 55% chance of winning but your validated data determines that team B has a 55% chance of winning, who's "right" and who's "wrong"? The point is that we would wind up wagering on opposite sides of this single game both with a validated +EV for this particular game.

Joe.

But only one side could possibly have +EV in reality. You're talking about perceived EV while we are talking about EV in reality.

[MrX]

If team A plays team B and my validated data determines that team A has a 55% chance of winning but your validated data determines that team B has a 55% chance of winning, who's "right" and who's "wrong"? The point is that we would wind up wagering on opposite sides of this single game both with a validated +EV for this particular game.

I'm not arguing that it's always possible to determine which of us is making the +EV wager for an individual game, but I am arguing that only one of us (at most) is.

Just because a system is +EV for a group of games does not mean that each game is a +EV wager. In the example you give, it's a fact that at least one side is -EV. Just because we can't determine which side it is, doesn't make it not so.

[Kemalettin]

+ E.V ?

[LT Profits]

+ E.V ?

Positive Expected Value.

[egr99]

in the past couple days he's laid -750 on Kentucky to not win the tournament (probably didn't see those Kansas and Villanova losses coming) and -2500 on Syracuse.

Like turning the counter around, taking action from the public.

[ljump12]

Agreed. However, who gets to assign the probabilities?

If team A plays team B and my validated data determines that team A has a 55% chance of winning but your validated data determines that team B has a 55% chance of winning, who's "right" and who's "wrong"? The point is that we would wind up wagering on opposite sides of this single game both with a validated +EV for this particular game.
Joe.

As mentioned earlier, both models may have "+EV" in the longrun, we don't disagree there. However, it is impossible for both sides of a game to be +EV. I hate to bring this conversation to a "bring me proof". But show me a situation where both sides of a -110/-110 line have value, and I will agree with you. It's simply not possible if you could figure out the true odds (which you can't, even if somebody claims they can.) Again, as mentioned before -- perceived/modeled odds != true odds.

[EaglesPhan36]

See this thread is why I am a loser. You guys are spending how many hours on figuring out the percentages of whatever. I simply pick a winner or a loser, **** this mathemical bullshit. I'm pretty sure guys can spend seven extra hours on figuring out their probabilities, while I spend a quarter the time and make the pick and win just as much. I just think mathematical probability stuff is over thinking gambling and looking too deep for a perceived "edge."

[THE PROFIT]

Thought the score was 28--26 @ the half

may have been. My mistake made me go heavy on the bet. That's what I get for using SBR odds. I'm getting fukin sick of it. I have tried to use SBR because I am a patron & supporter of this site, but they are starting to cost me time, that means money. It cant be trusted to be accurate & timely anymore. I dont know what happened but they have went all to hell in the past month. Today it wouldnt even show the time beside the game on about half them. I have no idea if its halftime, close to it, 2nd half or what.

[Patrick McIrish]

Time to hang it up, or make a matchbook bet.

I'll take every dog of +150.

You pay me +200 for each of the +150 dogs.

I'll put up $5000 to start with that I come out ahead money.

Wanna play?

Zip it back up Peep, all you're doing is supporting his position.



Edit - never mind, I see as I read further the point has been made. Disregard.

[skrtelfan]

The context of this discussion was about events where the actual probabilities are not known.

Just because the actual probabilities are not "known" doesn't mean the actual probabilities don't exist.

If I've picked 54% winners vs -110 lines over my last 10,000 NBA picks, and there's no evidence of a recent downtrend (suggesting that the market may have caught up to my methods), it's pretty likely my expected win percentage is 54%. But some of my picks will actually have a 60% chance of winning and some will have a 48% chance.

[u21c3f6]

Just because the actual probabilities are not "known" doesn't mean the actual probabilities don't exist.

If I've picked 54% winners vs -110 lines over my last 10,000 NBA picks, and there's no evidence of a recent downtrend (suggesting that the market may have caught up to my methods), it's pretty likely my expected win percentage is 54%. But some of my picks will actually have a 60% chance of winning and some will have a 48% chance.

Correct! Of course you have no idea of which wagers are the 60% chance and which are the 48% chance because if you did, I assume you would not wager on the 48% group.

Now, when you make a wager on a future game using your methods do you say: "I have no idea what my EV is on this wager because I don't know the "true" probabilities for this individually selected game" or do you consider your wager to be +EV? By definition, to me, I would say that your wager is +EV. If one disagrees with this, then we agree to disagree.

If you agree that the player in the scenario above is making +EV wagers, then it follows that another player using different criteria can come up with the opposite wager as part of his +EV wagers creating a situation where 2 players wagering on opposite sides of a game have a +EV. +EV is not a comparison to another player. Yes, both sides obviously cannot profit from this particular game but by definition both players individually have made a wager that is +EV for them.

Joe.

[ljump12]

We'll agree to disagree. I would say the just because the system is +EV, does not mean all the parts of the system are +EV. In your example, I would say the 48% bet is -EV, however you have no way of knowing that. If you were to bet "only" the 48% bets, obviously the system would turn to -EV.

Summary: overall system is +EV. Individual bets in the system can be -EV, but tht doesn't mean you shouldn't make them.

[skrtelfan]

We'll agree to disagree. I would say the just because the system is +EV, does not mean all the parts of the system are +EV. In your example, I would say the 48% bet is -EV, however you have no way of knowing that. If you were to bet "only" the 48% bets, obviously the system would turn to -EV.

Summary: overall system is +EV. Individual bets in the system can be -EV, but tht doesn't mean you shouldn't make them.

Yes, this is well put. Perhaps a poker example would provide a better analogy--late in a sit and go, the button, a typical player, raises all-in for 10 big blinds. I have QQ in the small blind which is a no-brainer call (or re-raise), but it turns out the button has KK. In that specific instance, my call was -EV, but on the whole I will do very well playing QQ in that scenario. In the long run both the button and I will gain a lot of equity playing KK and QQ in those spots, but in that specific scenario, the button's play was highly +EV and mine was highly -EV. The fact that I ran into KK that specific time doesn't mean I should muck QQ the next time that player raises all-in from the button.

[u21c3f6]

Yes, this is well put. Perhaps a poker example would provide a better analogy--late in a sit and go, the button, a typical player, raises all-in for 10 big blinds. I have QQ in the small blind which is a no-brainer call (or re-raise), but it turns out the button has KK. In that specific instance, my call was -EV, but on the whole I will do very well playing QQ in that scenario. In the long run both the button and I will gain a lot of equity playing KK and QQ in those spots, but in that specific scenario, the button's play was highly +EV and mine was highly -EV. The fact that I ran into KK that specific time doesn't mean I should muck QQ the next time that player raises all-in from the button.

Unfortunately, your example is not valid IMO because you are comparing something with known probabilities to something that has unknown probabilities.

Using your example, prior to "knowing" that you were up against Kings, was your wager +EV or -EV?

Joe.

[talnted]

Think of it like a stock price. If you think the stock is worth more than the bidding price from a calculation of BE/ME than buying the stock presents good value. When placing a wager, if you think a certain bet has a 66% chance of winning, and the line offered plus juice requires you to hit 60% or more over the long run to make money, than this line would have good value. If you think a wager has a 50% chance of winning, and you can get one side at +EV than this again presents good value. If you believe the price offered presents a good value for the probability of it winning, than this is good value.

[Snowball]

See this thread is why I am a loser. You guys are spending how many hours on figuring out the percentages of whatever. I simply pick a winner or a loser, **** this mathemical bullshit. I'm pretty sure guys can spend seven extra hours on figuring out their probabilities, while I spend a quarter the time and make the pick and win just as much. I just think mathematical probability stuff is over thinking gambling and looking too deep for a perceived "edge."

hear hear.

time should spent studying and thinking about the matchups and what may affect the outcome.
Never place a bet because it has "+EV" and never fail to place a bet you liked because it has "-EV".

[donjuan]

This thread should be cross-linked to S&I under the title "where the money comes from".

[LT Profits]

Never place a bet because it has "+EV" and never fail to place a bet you liked because it has "-EV".

Subtitled: "What is the most certain way to lose money in sports betting?"

[laziie]

hear hear.

time should spent studying and thinking about the matchups and what may affect the outcome.
Never place a bet because it has "+EV" and never fail to place a bet you liked because it has "-EV".