Anybody just live bet and hedge all day?

Glitch · 01-20-12, 10:06 AM

you are confusing a loss of equity with a loss of an extent of one's potential/ possible gain.

if youre only betting decent dogs to begin with, you can just watch some of the game- see if you like how its going or not and just buy out when your team goes on one of basketball's inherent runs- often at a profit.

Glitch · 01-20-12, 10:13 AM

and to augment my most recent previous statement- i will add that i understand your mathematical standpoint that reducing the potential profit of these dogs prevents them from being able to have the full offset potential to balance out your losses.

i get that but one shouldnt do this "all day" as the thread title suggests- but spot bet with gameflow predictions.

you can keep your regular win/loss record and an account of your guaranteed profit that you lock up separately- and attempt to manage accordingly. these should be looked at differently- categorized in a section that only has an up-arrow.

(all of this only pertains to "decent handicappers" (whatever those are))

FourLengthsClear · 01-20-12, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Glitch

i wish this was yesterday so i could've shown you vanderbilt +180
(there are threads where you can tell my calculation of what the odds really should be, saying i would take them at -250 if you need me to point this out)

there are only 4 cbb games tonight.

1/21/2012 3:00 AM Props Tennis M.Llodra Wins 1st Set* +525 vs A.Murray Wins 1st Set
this is not +ev but murrays been dropping a lot of first sets lately and llodra can hold with him (keep it a tie) until very late in the set- at which time murray will be about -250 to -350 to win it or possibly much better.

again there are not a lot of good games or matches for tonight specificically but ask me again on saturday or wednesday.

I believe you on last night's CBB, I know you are quite adept at selecting value dogs. My issue is with the thought process that suggests betting both sides (at different times) is better even when you believe one of those sides is has -EV.

Lets go through it logically, In the case of the Murray/Llodra you are saying that the probability of Llodra winning the set is not more than 16% (implied probability of +525) but you calculate there is high likelihood of those odds falling as the first progresses based on previous form. At this time betting on Murray at -300 (as the mid-point of your expected odds range) would be +EV.

If we assign actual values to those probabilties:

At the start of the match the true probability of Llodra winning the first set is 15.5% (-EV is 3.12%)
And for the sake of argument Llodra is 3-4 down and about to serve. Murray is -300 for the set but you think the true probability is 78% (+EV is 4.00%)

Does that sound about right, so far?

Glitch · 01-20-12, 10:36 AM

sounds close enough trusting some of your calculations BUT- the part i am saying that you are neglecting is when you either waste 10 dollars aborting the mission (with what i personally see as a 33% chance of winning (handicapping) OR if this does occur- you have the choice of putting any amount down from 57.5 dollars (on the opposite of your +575 to win 13 dollars or so) IF it gets to this hypothetical -300ish range- that 57.5 dollars would win 13 dollars and at that point you cant lose.

at this point- if this opportunity prevents itself- it is no longer gambling. at this point- you need to look at it separately.

(i think you perhaps had not read my Most recent post at the time of your most recent one- so this may not be in sync with your entertaining a school of thought that you have already newly patronized.)

*down 3-4 about to serve- murray will probably be much in the -400s range. but this is arbitrary to the whims of the traders.

im talkin 5-5 5-6 6-6.

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 10:41 AM

Everybody makes this shit too difficult. It is really simple. Any bet you make should be independently +EV(obviously the toughest part is knowing if the bet is actually +EV). Any bet you make that is not +EV takes away from your bottom line. There are no betting strategies that yield longterm success in and of itself. The individual bets have to be +EV or you are just throwing money away.

wantitall4moi · 01-20-12, 10:47 AM

Obvious people dont understand how Vig kills them. Even if youre supposedly +ev the vig on live bets is huge. While any +ev bet is good for the most part it stll doesnt equate to a 'perfect' bet.

If youre hedging against a pre game line then it makes it even worse.

If you bet a dog +8 and theyre winning outright, then you bet the favorite + money then youre more than likely actually getting a - ev proposition, you 'cant lose' but the chances of your dog bet covering more than likely outweigh the hedge value of a live bet.

While getting plus money both sides is usually (almost always) a good thing, it takes on awhole different meaning with live betting mostly because of the vig involved killing your 'fair' odds.

I play it as safe as anyone and stand by getting both sides of the same game for a profit is the best way to go. For example I over bet Mavericks yesterday -5.5 (even got a bad number) because I thought they would hit 7 or maybe 7.5 sometime during the day. But the fake story comes out about Lebron and the number actually goes to 5. So i am exposed in a sport I dont even like to bet. Do you think I watched the game and when LA was down huge I would have thought about buying them in game? No, I have a 20 point lead with 12 minutes left, if I get outscored by 17 in the 4th quarter all that does is cement my thoughts on why I stopped betting the NBA in the first place. Especially since Lakers hadnt scored more than 17 points in 2 of the first 3 quarters in total. As it was Lakers did score 28 but Miami scored more than 11 so that is all that mattered.

If youre betting ingame numbers and byuing back against them I would suspect books would love you actually. Theyre getting anywhere from 20-50 cents of vig off you every bet.

Glitch · 01-20-12, 10:50 AM

GUYS: DISREGARD THREAD TITLE WORDING. (sorry op)
now look at it from a side angle. these +ev dogs with which you are always starting- can be attacked from a standpoint of these being a side issue from your regular gambling win/loss record/ vig-rape.
........................................ ...........................

yes i agree smoke but you are not making it complicated enough. lots of us agree with you in BUT:

though 4lc, many others and i all agree with you that you should try to make +ev bets.

- as a separate issue- we have now taken it a step further to try to analyze the merits of a possible system in which you can start with a +ev bet and later/ predictably occuringly-so: make a bet thats -ev OR +ev to guarantee money in a manner that doesn't violate the prospect of acquiring of additional equity to your entire bankroll.

(of course ones being able to perceive whether or not a pick is +ev varies with handicapping ability)

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by wantitall4moi

Obvious people dont understand how Vig kills them. Even if youre supposedly +ev the vig on live bets is huge. While any +ev bet is good for the most part it stll doesnt equate to a 'perfect' bet.

If youre hedging against a pre game line then it makes it even worse.

If you bet a dog +8 and theyre winning outright, then you bet the favorite + money then youre more than likely actually getting a - ev proposition, you 'cant lose' but the chances of your dog bet covering more than likely outweigh the hedge value of a live bet.

While getting plus money both sides is usually (almost always) a good thing, it takes on awhole different meaning with live betting mostly because of the vig involved killing your 'fair' odds.

I play it as safe as anyone and stand by getting both sides of the same game for a profit is the best way to go. For example I over bet Mavericks yesterday -5.5 (even got a bad number) because I thought they would hit 7 or maybe 7.5 sometime during the day. But the fake story comes out about Lebron and the number actually goes to 5. So i am exposed in a sport I dont even like to bet. Do you think I watched the game and when LA was down huge I would have thought about buying them in game? No, I have a 20 point lead with 12 minutes left, if I get outscored by 17 in the 4th quarter all that does is cement my thoughts on why I stopped betting the NBA in the first place. Especially since Lakers hadnt scored more than 17 points in 2 of the first 3 quarters in total. As it was Lakers did score 28 but Miami scored more than 11 so that is all that mattered.

If youre betting ingame numbers and byuing back against them I would suspect books would love you actually. Theyre getting anywhere from 20-50 cents of vig off you every bet.

It's one thing to make a -EV hedge vs a position that you knowingly overbet but to make an in game hedge just to simply turn a profit is fukin garbage. All you are doing is giving away EV from your original position. The only justification for betting the other side of an original position via live betting is if you think the live bet you are making is independently +EV. Locking up profits via live betting is for amateurs who do not know how to quantify their edge in any given situation.

Glitch · 01-20-12, 10:55 AM

these live-bet scenarios are based on game-flow predictions. if you think the warriors will go on a 10 point run or if you think raonic will win a set.

think of it in terms of totals. the possibilities are astronomical. these opportunities are very frequent- and often arent inhibited by point shaving.

ebbearsfb1 · 01-20-12, 10:57 AM

I agree with wantitallboi... if you can get both sides plus money and its a reasonability about of game time left... take ur profit and run.

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Glitch

GUYS: DISREGARD THREAD TITLE WORDING. (sorry op)
now look at it from a side angle. these +ev dogs with which you are always starting- can be attacked from a standpoint of these being a side issue from your regular gambling win/loss record/ vig-rape.
........................................ ...........................

yes i agree smoke but you are not making it complicated enough. lots of us agree with you in BUT:

though 4lc, many others and i all agree with you that you should try to make +ev bets.

- as a separate issue- we have now taken it a step further to try to analyze the merits of a possible system in which you can start with a +ev bet and later/ predictably occuringly-so: make a bet thats -ev OR +ev to guarantee money in a manner that doesn't violate the prospect of acquiring of additional equity to your entire bankroll.

(of course ones being able to perceive whether or not a pick is +ev varies with handicapping ability)

Well if the idea is over betting your bankroll on a position that you know/or think will move your way with the intentions of betting some back after the move, I can go along with that though I think it is very dangerous (obviously the better you are at reading the market the more success you will have with this strategy).

mrmarket · 01-20-12, 10:59 AM

live betting is not profitable stay away!!!! mods lock this thread!!!!!

Thehusker · 01-20-12, 10:59 AM

Fck hedging defeats purpose

big0mar · 01-20-12, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by ebbearsfb1

Good post... for example ok state was minus 180 pre game... to get them in game at plus 250 is a steal..... you know stanford wasn't going to stop them all game and still could get stanford plus 158 at half...good in nba when. Dogs get a big lead... few weeks ago bulls pre game minus 550... during the game when they were shooting awful they were plus 200 or something... its a must to watch the game to live bet... example I had wvu plus 220 vs clemson and there was never a thread to hedge out of it

Getting a team at +250 isn't a steal if you could have gotten them at +270

Its like someone told you that you won a free car. You can choose between a Ford Focus or a 911 Carrera. Choosing the Ford Focus is a bad decision, even though you're still getting a free card.

You can make a lot of money live-betting. But you don't need to watch the games. Develop a model that calculates win probability based on past results. Then just pluck bad numbers. Live betting isn't an extremely efficient market.

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by mrmarket

live betting is not profitable stay away!!!! mods lock this thread!!!!!

100% false however most of the ways to live bet in this thread are indeed not profitable.

kmarinouofm · 01-20-12, 11:06 AM

tons of euro players do this.. i know of at least 3 that make a living at it in soccer on the other side of the pond ..

Glitch · 01-20-12, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by smoke a bowl

Well if the idea is over betting your bankroll on a position that you know/or think will move your way with the intentions of betting some back after the move, I can go along with that though I think it is very dangerous (obviously the better you are at reading the market the more success you will have with this strategy).

yes i agree. and an open mind is what it would take to develop the part of your brain that gauges these movements.

there are many +ev concepts that can be applied to live betting. especially in tennis.
you have a guy down 1 set, tied late in the second (in best of 3) so that means in 5 minutes- this will be over and your guy will lose OR after that same 5 minutes- it will be tied again.

if you take this losing fellow at +1000 (as it often is) and then if he loses he loses, if he wins- 5 minutes later the other side might be -210.

some factors to take into account would be Service ability and physical respiratory and muscular stamina.

ebbearsfb1 · 01-20-12, 11:10 AM

So whose to say the line should of been plus 270? Go pokes

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Glitch

yes i agree. and an open mind is what it would take to develop the part of your brain that gauges these movements.

there are many +ev concepts that can be applied to live betting. especially in tennis.
you have a guy down 1 set, tied late in the second (in best of 3) so that means in 5 minutes- this will be over and your guy will lose OR after that same 5 minutes- it will be tied again.

if you take this losing fellow at +1000 (as it often is) and then if he loses he loses, if he wins- 5 minutes later the other side might be -210.

factors to take into account would be Service ability and physical respiratory and muscular stamina.

But that information alone isn't enough to prove that the +1000 was actually a good bet at the time of making it (not that it wasn't). Now once you start factoring in service ability, physical respiratory, and muscular stamina, you are actually just handicapping a given situation. Handicapping a given live betting situation is a lot different than making a pregame bet on side A with the intentions of hedging back on side B at some point during the game.

wantitall4moi · 01-20-12, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by smoke a bowl

It's one thing to make a -EV hedge vs a position that you knowingly overbet but to make an in game hedge just to simply turn a profit is fukin garbage. All you are doing is giving away EV from your original position. The only justification for betting the other side of an original position via live betting is if you think the live bet you are making is independently +EV. Locking up profits via live betting is for amateurs who do not know how to quantify their edge in any given situation.

I dont really have a working bankroll I am just fooling around but I bet more than what I would have once considered a reasonable sized play. But with the idea of taking a lead, especially on the side I thought was the winner anyway it was worth the risk. Winning the game doesnt mean I was correct, just means I got a positive result.

The only live betting I like is when I am at games and fans or haters are looking for people to take action, and there are a lot of them which may or may not be surprising. But obviously for smaller amounts, or so outrageous amounts theyre obviously fake. But in those situations youre giving a prop or a scenario and really no vig involved.

The biggest issue with live betting in general is books have all the control, they can change odds, refuse bets, slow play bets, put bets on hold and then accept them when the edge falls in their favor. In games like basketball that is an extreme advantage for them. So even though theyre in game and supposedly 'live' they are no where near real time wagers.

Glitch · 01-20-12, 11:18 AM

smoke you are right- it definitely is not enough. but if you know they are good players that can get the job done from your own personal handicapping ability- you will realize that you get your win if they win the set- even though the +1000 will be reduced when you buy out at -210.

i have taken +1000 live in that exact situation towards the end of this last season on matt ebden and david goffin (sleeper/ underrated) and they won the set (2nd/ money set). i did what Fourlengthsclear warned be about and bought out. they won the matches too so i would have won more. instead i chose to guarantee a win.

it is EVEN BETTER if you are watching the match and you can tell who is worried about their outfit or who is moving to the left with difficulty or who is approaching the net aggressively or hitting all the lines etc etc. lotsa times you can tell exactly how +ev your situation is with these.

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by wantitall4moi

I dont really have a working bankroll I am just fooling around but I bet more than what I would have once considered a reasonable sized play. But with the idea of taking a lead, especially on the side I thought was the winner anyway it was worth the risk. Winning the game doesnt mean I was correct, just means I got a positive result.

The only live betting I like is when I am at games and fans or haters are looking for people to take action, and there are a lot of them which may or may not be surprising. But obviously for smaller amounts, or so outrageous amounts theyre obviously fake. But in those situations youre giving a prop or a scenario and really no vig involved.

The biggest issue with live betting in general is books have all the control, they can change odds, refuse bets, slow play bets, put bets on hold and then accept them when the edge falls in their favor. In games like basketball that is an extreme advantage for them. So even though theyre in game and supposedly 'live' they are no where near real time wagers.

Sure they are if you are betting them at reputable books, Pinny, Matchbook, Cris etc. If you keep your live betting to only betting during commercials you avoid all the risks you stated above. Obviously soccer is an exception (no commercials) therefore I can see where you would have to be extremely careful there.

ebbearsfb1 · 01-20-12, 11:22 AM

I only live bet during commericals and games I'm watching

FourLengthsClear · 01-20-12, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by ebbearsfb1

So whose to say the line should of been plus 270? Go pokes

That is the whole premise of the 'debate'. If the second 'hedging' bet is +EV then there is no argument. It was you who stated that if you can lock in a profit (without regard to edge on the second bet), you would do it all day long. Finding +EV spots with juiced up in-play lines is not impossible but it is far from easy.

Going back to LV Herbie's initial post on the matter, most people/bets will be -EV.

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Glitch

smoke you are right- it definitely is not enough. but if you know they are good players that can get the job done from your own personal handicapping ability- you will realize that you get your win if they win the set- even though the +1000 will be reduced when you buy out at -210.

i have taken +1000 live in that exact situation towards the end of this last season on matt ebden and david goffin (sleeper/ underrated) and they won the set (2nd/ money set). i did what Fourlengthsclear warned be about and bought out. they won the matches too so i would have won more. instead i chose to guarantee a win.

it is EVEN BETTER if you are watching the match and you can tell who is worried about their outfit or who is moving to the left with difficulty or who is approaching the net aggressively or hitting all the lines etc etc. lotsa times you can tell exactly how +ev your situation is with these.

If you have the ability to watch a live match and quantify the edges by what you are seeing then sure, there will be some great betting situations. I'm sure this is possible though I do stress that our eyes fool us way more than not ( not saying that is the case with your tennis watching).

wantitall4moi · 01-20-12, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by big0mar

Getting a team at +250 isn't a steal if you could have gotten them at +270

Its like someone told you that you won a free car. You can choose between a Ford Focus or a 911 Carrera. Choosing the Ford Focus is a bad decision, even though you're still getting a free card.

You can make a lot of money live-betting. But you don't need to watch the games. Develop a model that calculates win probability based on past results. Then just pluck bad numbers. Live betting isn't an extremely efficient market.

Depends on a lot of things. If you need a car and cant afford one or the taxes then the ford focus will do especially if you have a kid(s). Now if you can get a cash equivalent for the porche that would buy you a ford focus free and clear and after any other taxes give you some left over then sure.

"Value" is not always obvious.

big0mar · 01-20-12, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by wantitall4moi

Depends on a lot of things. If you need a car and cant afford one or the taxes then the ford focus will do especially if you have a kid(s). Now if you can get a cash equivalent for the porche that would buy you a ford focus free and clear and after any other taxes give you some left over then sure.

"Value" is not always obvious.

Sure, but in this case, the "true price" is obvious.

ebbearsfb1 · 01-20-12, 11:26 AM

To each is own... I like guarantee profit like glitch and wanitallmoi rather profit then have to worry about a team missing a chip shot fg or miss free throws

FourLengthsClear · 01-20-12, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Glitch

you are confusing a loss of equity with a loss of an extent of one's potential/ possible gain.

if youre only betting decent dogs to begin with, you can just watch some of the game- see if you like how its going or not and just buy out when your team goes on one of basketball's inherent runs- often at a profit.

No. This is the root of the matter. A -EV bet is, by definition, a loss of equity. You have paid more for that side of the trade than it's true value justifies.

Don't get me wrong, I well understand (as I mentioned in Shari's thread last week), the desire to reduce exposure, reduce variance and 'lock-in' a profit but in the long run leaving out the -EV leg is optimal.

In our Llodra/Murray example, the highest EV/equity is attained (if our calculations are correct) by not betting Llodra pre-game and waiting for the opportunity to bet on Murray.

ebbearsfb1 · 01-20-12, 11:31 AM

another example pitt was down 20 to 6... and they were plus 500....from opening line of my minus 400 or whatever... obviously you have to be comfortable with your orginal pick of the dog but if your betting say 500 bucks a game and you got broncos to win 1500 ... and get pitt in game to either to risk 500 to guarantee profit... or risk enough to break even in case pit wins...like I said to each is own... its your money there is no right answer

smoke a bowl · 01-20-12, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by ebbearsfb1

another example pitt was down 20 to 6... and they were plus 500....from opening line of my minus 400 or whatever... obviously you have to be comfortable with your orginal pick of the dog but if your betting say 500 bucks a game and you got broncos to win 1500 ... and get pitt in game to either to risk 500 to guarantee profit... or risk enough to break even in case pit wins...like I said to each is own... its your money there is no right answer

There is 100% a right answer if your goal is making the most money longterm and it's not your answer. However if you are comfortable giving away money to lock up a profit in some spots by all means go for it.

ebbearsfb1 · 01-20-12, 11:44 AM

The + even - even crew should start posting picks and see how it goes.. think it would be good to see

goldendome23 · 01-20-12, 11:55 AM

Sorry about the wording in the original post. I really appreciate the feedback guys. Went to bed 4 responses, woke up to over 60 lol Alot of good insight. Thanks guys.

wantitall4moi · 01-20-12, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by ebbearsfb1

The + even - even crew should start posting picks and see how it goes.. think it would be good to see

The one thing I can say is that +/- Ev is more easily determined during a game. Before the game it is narly impossible to determine. Guys will use models, which if theyre fairly accurate will give them the best guess. But comparing lines and odds between different books doesnt determine +/- Ev, it just gives you a comparison shopping of what books are offering.

We have had this debate forever. If +/- Ev were sop easily and accurately predictable BEFORE the games started then everyone with a brain and you could divide and multiply would be a millionaire.

In game betting in some sports that are slower can tip you off to strategies and game plans that were in question prior to the start. Also gives a full accounting of any replacement players and how effective or ineffective they may be. The most obvious ones are quick or 'flukey' scores that will obviously effect a chance at an outcome of a game. But not always. But if over compensated for could offer some 'value' the other way.

In the end the only real + Ev bets are ones that cant lose no matter what. But in terms of profitability they might not have as much 'value' (risk versus reward) as a bet that has a comfortable lead. Having +155 ML and your team winning by 20 points isnt a sure thing. But it is probably enough of a lead that buying the other side +400 would basically be a separate bet rather than an actual 'hedge'. So it comes down to semantics after awhile. Obviously one side at +155 and one side at +400 coupled together is + Ev no matter how you slice it. But some would say that the +400 bet was not + EV alone given the circumstances. That is where semantics and theory start entering in.

Glitch · 01-20-12, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by FourLengthsClear

No. This is the root of the matter. A -EV bet is, by definition, a loss of equity. You have paid more for that side of the trade than it's true value justifies.

Don't get me wrong, I well understand (as I mentioned in Shari's thread last week), the desire to reduce exposure, reduce variance and 'lock-in' a profit but in the long run leaving out the -EV leg is optimal.

In our Llodra/Murray example, the highest EV/equity is attained (if our calculations are correct) by not betting Llodra pre-game and waiting for the opportunity to bet on Murray.

this of course depends on the definition of equity but the value of the house that is your bankroll is not decreasing- the optimistic prospect for that property's value is perhaps decreasing but the downside potential is becoming more favorable as well..

i agree also that all +ev legs = optimization (with or without additional strategy. but i disagree that the occasion -ev leg for a nice enough profit is not worth it.

whether it is or is not still a -ev (for the event) endeavor mathematically at the time of bet placement is trivial and irrelevant. the up arrow is the up arrow. you should not always take this path but it will never result in a loss.

the guaranteed nature of this sort of profit. is something that is not mathematically quantifiable onto a scale of percentages including arbitrary ones based on one's perception of their own handicapping ability And percentages of profit potential.

you HAVE TO measure it separately- because it does not fit on the same scale.

llodra/murray is a bad example and only for the sake of example working with games on the board.

lets all keep this conversation very mature if possible-but the reason these practices are allowed is that not that many people do them.

i would imagine that some people do similar things and the books Really dont like it (even though sometimes they eat half of the theoretical pie themselves).

livebetting: when you no longer can lose- it is no longer gambling. your fancy brain calculator can't even compute the value of surety on the same scale as gambling, if you think you can then please kindly add your job's wages, portfolio returns and birthday cards from your grandmother to the loss-offsetting consideration that you consider equity.

the only thing that you could possibly attempt to calculate even with X variables is whether or not you abandon the mission more times (in terms of dollars) than you benefit from locking it up with this live betting strategy.

these opportunities happen all the time. (i dont really bet on fridays because fridays have the most rigged games and there arent many events today anyway.)