The term "VALUE"

[EaglesPhan36]

Is as over-used and abused as "sharp" or "square" here at SBR. I've seen mathematical formulas on what makes value, where people believe picking underdogs at plus odds presents "VALUE" .... the thing you have to ask yourself at the end of the day is about percentages of the time a bet will hit, etc. .... just ask yourself CAN THAT BET WIN? End of story.

Value to me isn't taking a big or moderate plus money dog as a longshot. Value is getting that extra half point or point or reduced juice on a bet you believe wins.

Just had to get that off my chest, now I'll go F myself.

[LT Profits]

Sounds good. Easiest way to determine value is if you make the same play over and over, will you make a profit in the long run (in other words, is the play +EV). Not all winners have value and there are losing plays that have value. The long run is all that matters.

[IrishTim]

People love saying +1500 longshots/props have value, but a lot of time it's actually the other side with the value. Just ask Justin7, one of the sharpest in the Think Tank - 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.

It's all about probability. If an event has a 20% chance of occurring and you can get +900, then it has "value". But if it has a 5% chance, then the +900 does not have value.

[pavyracer]

If you can pick winners and keep a +ve balance in your book you are a sharp. It doesn't matter how you do it. To be +ve means you have money management skills and handicapping skills.

[Justin7]

Of course, I also bet

Will New England go undefeated in the 2008 regular season: No at -1400 when they were 5-0. That stung. It's a lot easier to remember the losers than the winners...

[poker_dummy101]

faaaagetaboutittt

[Miz]

LT is right on target. Incorrect or arbitrary use of the term "value" has long been a pet peeve of mine.

[TheLock]

Eags Phan didn't you make this same exact thread like a year or two ago?

If it wasn't you I apologize in advance.

[The Seer]

one of Zboiz's favorite words

[EaglesPhan36]

I probably did make the same sort of thread, but this term still gets under my skin and it seems to rear it's head a lot in March. Sorry for the redundancy, but I really hate the terminology.

[Slainte]

Value is when the books odds are higher than your expected odds. If you pick value bets and still be -EV, your calculations are wrong.

[donjuan]

Who moved this to Think Tank? At least a few of the responses are TT-style rather than the absurd nature of the OP.

[INVEGA MAN]

eagle, i agree 100% of what u say. Value bets are a joke. if your value bets lose, what good is it. oh, i bet it because it was a value bet but thats ok. PLEASE. STICK YOUR VALUE BETS UP YOUR POOPER. i WANT A SURE THING AND NOT A VALUE BET

[ljump12]

eagle, i agree 100% of what u say. Value bets are a joke. if your value bets lose, what good is it. oh, i bet it because it was a value bet but thats ok. PLEASE. STICK YOUR VALUE BETS UP YOUR POOPER. i WANT A SURE THING AND NOT A VALUE BET

^ this is why there is money to be made in sports betting.

[skrtelfan]

A good example of a value bet is laying -1000 on "which mod moved this into the Think Tank."

[u21c3f6]

If your objective is to make money in the long run, then one should only make wagers when they believe they have "value".

Whether a wager has "value" is based on what you are looking for and your data. Let's say that you find "value" in playing teams that showed improved performance and I find "value" by playing lines that are "off". There will be many times when we are not wagering on the same games and there will also be times where we are wagering on the same side of a game. But there will also be times where we will be wagering on opposite sides of the same games. In these games, we both believe we are making the "value" wager. How can we both be right?

We can both be right because "value" isn't about a single game, (as LT first noted) it is about the long-term after you have made many of your "value" wagers and whether it is profitable. The bottom line is that you are trying to select a subset of games and wagers that wins more total money on your winners than you lose on your losers.

Below is something I wrote on a financial message board when the concept of (fair) value was brought up:

"Think gambling.

If you play the seven in craps and win, you win $4 dollars for every dollar wagered. That is below fair value because the true odds are that you will win on average once every six throws of the dice. Therefore fair value for playing the seven requires you to be paid $5 dollars for a win for every dollar wagered. You lose 5 throws at $1 dollar each and you win one throw for $5, net $0 or fair value. (This is a much bigger discussion to include size of wager to bankroll, variance etc., I am just scratching the surface).

Now assume your casino is feeling generous and offers to pay $6 for every dollar for a win on the seven. You now have the best of the odds or better than fair value. You wager one dollar and a six is thrown, you lose one dollar. The fact that you lost one dollar does not mean that your wager was not better than fair value. You had the best of it, it just didn't hit this time.

The same holds true for trading. If you have a set-up that "wins" $2 dollars 40% of the time and loses $1 dollar 60% of the time you have an "edge" and I equate that with getting better than fair value for my "wager". Just because one particular "wager" does not pan out it does not mean that your "wager" was less than fair value.

The reverse also holds true. Just because you win a "wager", it does not mean that your initial "wager" was better than fair value. Think of wagering on the seven and winning $4. The $4 dollars will not be enough to cover the "expected" number of losses if you continue to wager on the seven. Whether or not your set-up is better than fair value can only be determined after many transactions."

Here's wishing that all your future wagers have "value".

Joe.

[ljump12]

I'd like to respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe that both sides of the line can have value. People may believe both sides have value. Two people may each be playing profitable systems that tell them the other side has value, but both can't be right on that game.

It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to come up with the 'true' odds of a game, the best we can do is model it with pretty high uncertainty. Again, while two profitable models, that generate "value" picks may spit out opposite sides, one will be wrong, because both sides can not, by definition, be +EV. ( unless your doing something like making the market on matchbook, getting fills at +110 on both side. In that case assuming the 'true' line is betweeen 100-110, both sides would have value.)

[gman2114]

Value to your preceived odds vs the reality outcome.
if you think a bet is good value at 2-1, i feel it is only value at 4-1. odds go off as 3-1. you bet an win and i bet the flip side at 1-3. Both according to our calculations got value. However you won, i lost. Overall did we both get value or only you?

[xyz]

There is a time dimension to this. Team A may be +EV at time t1, and Team B may be +EV at time t1+delta. delta can be minutes or days.

[LT Profits]

There is a time dimension to this. Team A may be +EV at time t1, and Team B may be +EV at time t1+delta. delta can be minutes or days.

That is obviously true, but the prior posters were talking about two handicappers using two independent models that yielded opposing selections.

[Peep]

I think everyone who makes any bet feels at the time it has "value", whether or not it does. Otherwise, he wouldn't put money on it.

And whether it wins or loses that particular trial doesn't mean it did or didn't have value.

In my mind (by my definitions) anyone who wins long term bets "value", whether or not he calls it that. And anyone who loses long term isn't making as many value bets as he should.

[statnerds]

i agree with OP here, as it doesn't sound like he is denying the existence of value, but pointing out that is a term applied too often.

also agree with OP that value is a line movement in your favor or playing reduced lines. think it goes without saying that you should never place a wager without believing it will win.

and of course each side has perceived value, or there would be only one-sided action and/or we would have no marketplace to purchase a position.

[Scorpion]

Is as over-used and abused as "sharp" or "square" here at SBR. I've seen mathematical formulas on what makes value, where people believe picking underdogs at plus odds presents "VALUE" .... the thing you have to ask yourself at the end of the day is about percentages of the time a bet will hit, etc. .... just ask yourself CAN THAT BET WIN? End of story.

Value to me isn't taking a big or moderate plus money dog as a longshot. Value is getting that extra half point or point or reduced juice on a bet you believe wins.

Just had to get that off my chest, now I'll go F myself.

have fun doing it

[THE PROFIT]

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

[Peep]

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

Good example TP.

I have looked at 15,000 plus games in a database, and when the first half goes under, the tendancy is for the second half to go under as well. Now the books know this, and will adjust their line accordingly. So a line that would normally be 74 for the second half may be set at 71, if the first half is under by a significant amount.

In any case, congrats on your win.

[u21c3f6]

I'd like to respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe that both sides of the line can have value. People may believe both sides have value. Two people may each be playing profitable systems that tell them the other side has value, but both can't be right on that game.

It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to come up with the 'true' odds of a game, the best we can do is model it with pretty high uncertainty. Again, while two profitable models, that generate "value" picks may spit out opposite sides, one will be wrong, because both sides can not, by definition, be +EV. ( unless your doing something like making the market on matchbook, getting fills at +110 on both side. In that case assuming the 'true' line is betweeen 100-110, both sides would have value.)

I think you disagree with me because you are trying to define +EV as a single event when that is not really possible. If you try to define +EV as a single event, then only winning wagers can be +EV. While that would certainly be true if one had the ability to only make winning wagers, it is not reality. In reality, +EV is determined by a larger sample where the amount collected on your winning wagers exceeds the amount that you lose on your losing wagers.

Therefore, it is possible for two winning players to wager on opposite sides of a single event and both wagers be “+EV” as part of their larger sample of wagers. It would be interesting to analyze this subset of opposite wagers to see if one or both of the winning players could improve their wagering and bottom line.

Joe.

[donjuan]

I think you disagree with me because you are trying to define +EV as a single event when that is not really possible. If you try to define +EV as a single event, then only winning wagers can be +EV. While that would certainly be true if one had the ability to only make winning wagers, it is not reality. In reality, +EV is determined by a larger sample where the amount collected on your winning wagers exceeds the amount that you lose on your losing wagers.

Therefore, it is possible for two winning players to wager on opposite sides of a single event and both wagers be “+EV” as part of their larger sample of wagers. It would be interesting to analyze this subset of opposite wagers to see if one or both of the winning players could improve their wagering and bottom line.

Joe.

You are talking about perceived EV, not actual EV. Given two people making wagers at the exact same time on opposite sides at the same book, only one actually has +EV. Whether or not their models are both profitable over a large sample size, it is impossible for both sides of that individual wager to have +EV.

[LT Profits]

You are talking about perceived EV, not actual EV. Given two people making wagers at the exact same time on opposite sides at the same book, only one actually has +EV. Whether or not their models are both profitable over a large sample size, it is impossible for both sides of that individual wager to have +EV.

What about cases where distinct but VALID models that have good data and are profitable long term but are developed using different sets of statistics spit out opposing sides?

[roasthawg]

What about cases where distinct but VALID models that have good data and are profitable long term but are developed using different sets of statistics spit out opposing sides?

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.

[LT Profits]

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.

Got it, makes sense.

Thanks.

[BettingWizard]

You're not psychic, so stop thinking of "can they win"

If I gave you +200 for every +150 dog in baseball this year, would you bet them all blindly? If you say no, it's time to hang it up.

[Peep]

You're not psychic, so stop thinking of "can they win"

If I gave you +200 for every +150 dog in baseball this year, would you bet them all blindly? If you say no, it's time to hang it up.

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?

[donjuan]

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?

Read his post again.

[MrX]

It's possible for a model to be +EV overall but still be on the wrong side of individual contests.

Not only possible, but nearly inevitable.

[the shadow]

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!