"Value" is meaningless if you do not wager on the winning team, horse, individual, car,or whatever you wagered on. Those of you who spend all of your time looking for "value" may want to start doing more research on who, or what you are wagering on. Penny wise and pound foolish. When looking for "value", this happens more time than not. There is NO SUCH THING as a "good" losing wager because it had "good value". Those of you who believe that there is get a huge thanks from those of us who are winners.
-
Comment -
Players Talk thinking at its finest.
So you are saying getting +200 on a losing play that is +150 everywhere else in the world is not losing with value? Furthermore, do you not see that if you keep making that same play all the time, that you will win in the long run?
I'd love to be your bookie!Comment -
Players Talk thinking at its finest.
So you are saying getting +200 on a losing play that is +150 everywhere else in the world is not losing with value? Furthermore, do you not see that if you keep making that same play all the time, that you will win in the long run?
I'd love to be your bookie!
lol
yeah one of the big reasons I love to troll around these boards still......
you'll get a good snapshot of the gambling public, out of posts like thisComment -
You would be broke in a week. I have made more money gambling in my life that you ever will. That is because I am so much better than you, when it comes to picking winner. You may worry more about value than I, but bottom line is, when you start hitting college football at 58.9% over a 15 year period for 5K or larger wagers, then you can talk to me. You may lose with value, but I do not lose. Now any time you care to make a football wager with me, say for points, because you can not afford to wager real money with me, I am game. My proof can be seen now because I have left last years plays in my spreadsheet.Players Talk thinking at its finest.
So you are saying getting +200 on a losing play that is +150 everywhere else in the world is not losing with value? Furthermore, do you not see that if you keep making that same play all the time, that you will win in the long run?
I'd love to be your bookie!
Now any idiot knows that if you can get +200 on a wager instead of +180, it is a better wager. My point is that many people in here waste way too much time waiting for the best possible line, instead of finding the winner. Just look at the huge number of losers who go on and ona ad mausem about value, but can not pick a winner to save their lives. Again, I state there is no value to a losing wager. I will be glad to match my skill in picking winners with your skill in value plays any day sir.Comment -
Absolutely false on both counts. And if you are so good, why not post your plays and document them in the forum for the world to see? I have had 16 winnings season out of 18 right here in the forum documented daily for the world to see, and one of the losing years was like -1.00 unit in NFL this year.
To win, you have to be able to combne picking winners with money management, and properly bbetting +EV plays is part of the latter.Comment -
I tend to agree with that. My research consists of crunching stats and trends for the teams and/or players in match-ups as it pertains to the spread or total. Finding lazy lines to me is a better "value" hunt. WNCAA for example has featured plenty of lazy lines where you don't have to be a math genius to figure out what is a solid bet. For example, a Nebraska team that lost ONE game was favored by just 16.5 I believe in their opening round game as a #1 seed. The other three #1s were favored by 30 or much much higher [UConn]. They were not playing at home, but that line was LAZY. If I sat around trying to figure out the exact price I need to win something 82.456549754% of the time - I would thoroughly hate gambling. It's cool if that works for others, I just don't practice that.Comment -
Personally, my goal is not to get the best price possible (although that would obviously be ideal), but rather to beat the closing line consistently.Comment -
Bigdaddy, too stupid to realize the city he lives in (supposedly) was built on value.
Vegas gets "value" everytime you roll the dice
everytime you spin the roulette wheel
The losing bettors, in the long-term, obviously can't spot value.Comment -
BiogDaddy, you may be very good at what you do, but I think you are overexaggerating the whole "value" argument. If LOVE the Saints to beat the Vikings in the NFC championship you ended up being right. But there is a huge difference between betting that game at -2 and -8. Even if you LOVE the Saints to win, is there still value in a spread of -8.
Value is HUGE over the long run.Comment -
He's basically saying one side has 100% chance to win/cover, the other side 0%, You just gotta pick the 100% side
Comment -
Big Daddy, this is exactly the same point I was making. They want to laugh at us. Replies to my post said it was the way to lose to ignore this EV chit.
They think they are sharp and have an edge.
All they have is repetition of mediocrity.
Getting sucked into ANY wager just because it has so-called value is for absolute retards who WILL lose money. Failing to take a winning bet because the payoff went down a little is even MORE RETARDED.
Selection of events is the key. Not throwing around combinations of pluses and minuses, thinking you've somehow insulated yourself against the house.
Winning cappers don't bother with EV horeschit.
Winning at sports betting is more about knowing the sport, matchup, and all its determinative factors and nothing about EV.
The most annoying tripe I've seen repeated on SBR is about the "public bet".. as if Vegas cares whether 65% is on one side. There are so many events and combination bets placed it does not matter. So many retards on this site over and over fall into the trap of not taking a bet because they think it's "square" that the public is more on it than its opposite. What's most idiotic is that the information used to come to these conclusions is also only partial information.
Offshore books ? come on. Vegas makes the lines. Street money is on these bets. Hundreds of MILLIONS per night. Just get outta here with this line of thinking, guys ! You will never make money if you watch chit like that.Last edited by Snowball; 03-23-10, 03:11 PM.Comment -
This thread is making Tomato's fade list grow EXPONENTIALLY!Comment -
I am happy to read all the people who do not have a clue and have closed their mind to ever having one. I am saddened somewhat about the people who will be taken in by people misrepresenting having one.Comment -
I have seen very few posters with the rare combination of cluelessness and willingness to appear so as BigDaddyHq. I hope people learn from this thread not from him directly, but how short-sited approaches screw you.Comment -
hating on value is what the cool kids do these days..Comment -
You can't teach a pig to sing and he gets damned angry when you try.Comment -
The funniest part about that clown is that he didn't even bother to take the requisite hour or so that it would have taken to figure out which books in Vegas actually do take large action, and in one of his "I make more money than the rest of the posters combined" post he talked about how Mirage and Caesars were "the big players" among the Vegas sports book. I'm not sure if any books are bigger weenies than the MGM/Mirage books other than the Wynn. You probably can't even bet a single number on roulette at the Wynn for less than $25 but they shit their pants over $500 CBB bets.Comment -
The probabilities are unknown before the player flips over his kings. Knowing that I'm against a button raise in that specific situation, unless I'm against the tightest player in the history of poker, my QQ is +EV there. Even though his cards are unknown, I know how typical players play and any player is raising a wide enough range of hands there that QQ is +EV. It turns out that specific time my play with QQ was -EV, but it doesn't mean my initial play was +EV in general. Both my opponent and I played correctly and should play it the same way next time, but only he had a +EV situation in that specific hand.Comment -
Ooh ooh, I want to try.
It's hard for some people, (actually for A LOT of people), to associate a mathematical probabilty with the chaos of an athletic event.
So let's try it with the weather.
A weatherman says on the local news that there's a 40% probabilty of rain tomorrow.
But either it will rain tomorrow or it won't. How do you explain this? Shouldn't he just say it will rain or it won't?
Well that's because it depends. It depends on if the wind changes direction or not, if the barometric pressure changes or not, if the amount of moisture changes or not, if another weather front suddenly changes direction and blocks this front from coming in, etc. So you can't say for sure if it will rain or not, only that 40% of POSSIBLE SCENARIOS will result in rain.
Same with an athletic event. A tennis player may have superior abilty and is rated as a 60/40 probabilty to beat today's opponent. But the favorite may not have his timing up to his usual standards this day and miss his first serve more frequently than usual, he may not be hitting the lines as often as he does or the other player may be unusually sharp that day. Or it's possible the favorite may be very sharp and win easily. Or it's possible the match will be close, and the favorite has a history of performing well in close matches. The oddsmakers have said 60% of scenarios will result in the favorite winning, just like the weatherman said 40% of possible weather scenarios will cause rain tomorrow.
So if you're taking -180 on the favorite tennis player when the outcome of all possible scenarios show him as a -150 fair value favorite, you are taking the worst of it. If you're getting him at -120 you're getting value. He may win or he may lose this match, just like it may rain or not rain today, but if 60/40 for the favorite is an accurate measure of the possible scenarios of this match, then in the long run you will profit at -120 and lose at -180.Comment -
Thank you for your reply and I agree with you up to your last sentence. The difference your last sentence makes is that it is a known probability that KK will win more often than QQ however that does not change the fact that your wager when you made it was +EV.
Let me change the scenario slightly. Assume now that only a third party can look at the hands and decide (fairly) the winner. So in this case you never know the "true" probabilities of what you were up against. It may be KK, it may also be JJ or drawing for a flush, straight etc. When all the cards are dealt, you are either told that you won or not. Now if you lose the hand you have no way of "knowing" what you were up against. If you lose, you may have lost to KK but you may also have lost due to your opponent sucking out on the river. But that doesn't matter. Because what you do "know" is that when you made your wager that if you made this same wager many times, your Expected Value will be a positive increase in cash (+EV).
This is the scenario in sports betting. There is no hard % that anyone can put on a sporting event. It is not like tossing a fair coin where you "know" the probabilities are 50-50 or tossing a fair die where the probabilities are 1/6 for each side. The only thing you can really know about a sporting event is that after the game, (ignore pushes) that one side of a wager had a 100% chance of winning and one side had a 0% chance of winning. Now how do we come up with an estimate before the game?
One estimate can be derived from closing ATS lines which are amazingly accurate at approx a 50-50 chance of one side or the other winning. If you were to wager on all games, you would probably come very close to 50-50 unless you were doing something terribly wrong (which also means you might have the seeds to do something very right). However, if you only wager on a subset of games that meets a validated criteria and those games give you a validated 55% chance of winning your wager, which estimate is correct for that one particular game, the 50-50 or the 55-45? As I wrote in previous posts, now imagine another player using different validated criteria but selects the opposite team as the 55% chance, Which estimate is correct for this particular game? The point is, that they are all correct, in context. There are no hard probabilities for sports events like there are for a coin or die etc. and therefore an estimate has to based on a sampling of games and not just one particular game. There is no one single % that one can place on a single sporting event without backing that up with a sample and then dependent on the criteria used, you will come up with different %'s. The only hard probabilities for a sporting event are after the game when you know that one wager had a 100% chance of winning and the other side had a 0% chance of winning. I think some believe that only one side of a wager in a single event can have value and that is simply not true without context.
+EV for a sporting event simply means (to me) that you have a validated expectation of collecting more on your winning wagers than you lose on your losing wagers. It is not about "picking" winners.
If you could always pick the winner, then of course that is a solution. However, the moment you make a wager and it does not win, then probabilities and odds come into play. And the question that needs to be answered prior to making a wager (assuming you are trying to "win" money) is: If I make this same type of wager many times, will I collect more on my winning wagers than I will lose on my losing wagers. The use of validated data is very helpful in answering that question.
I hope I have been clear and I want to thank those that are helping to make this a good discussion.
Joe.Comment -
Thanks Art. Now let me throw you a curve ball. I have tree frogs in my backyard, and if they croak through the night, I have validated data that says it will rain 75% of the time the next day. Two different %'s for the same event but both correct in context, 60/40 over all days and 75/25 over my tree frogs subset of days. Therefore I would have a reason to take -180 and expect to make a profit (+EV) where someone else using the 60/40 stats would believe that wager was -EV.
Joe.Comment -
OK, if we're playing a game called "Beat the Weatherman" you appear to be an advantageous position and can rip into the weatherman's "lines"
But for the sake of this "basic" discussion on what value is let's assume (hopefully incorrectly) that the weatherman as well as the sports linesmaker has the best and most accurate information and can make the most realistic line. What you're describing is valid and important but really the next phase of this discussion, imo.Comment -
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.
Sharp post
Comment -
et tu StraitShooter?
Bottom Line: Value is EVERYTHING in betting. If you are not making +EV bets, you can NOT win long term. It really is that simple.Comment
