Trying to make +EV plays anyway I can...

[dj_destroyer]

I've lost a couple plays with a new bookie so I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm a mush.

I asked him to parlay St. John's and the under and he told me he normally couldn't... but for me, he'd make it happen.

St. Johns +10/UNDER 135
$1000 to win $2500

[Smoke]

You are a compulsive gambler

[biggie12]

or bullshitter

[HoulihansTX]

Buffalo v Akron should be a good parlay

[Ghenghis Kahn]

how is this +ev? don't parlay and don't bet with money you don't have.

[dj_destroyer]

how is this +ev? don't parlay and don't bet with money you don't have.

It is +EV because it is correlated. And what makes you think I don't have this money? Cake Up!

[griz]

this guy is a clown

[The Kraken]

Did you not read 4LC post about +EV not being everything. I've loosely followed some of your threads and if the BR you've reported is accurate, this is an exorbitant % of your BR, even for a +ev play.

[dj_destroyer]

Did you not read 4LC post about +EV not being everything. I've loosely followed some of your threads and if the BR you've reported is accurate, this is an exorbitant % of your BR, even for a +ev play.

If 4LC said to completely abandon +EV betting opportunities then I understood his post to mean something a bit different.

Anyways, it may be a large wager but I've been betting stacks since I can remember so this really won't be a big hit to the bankroll, especially after some big poker wins at the casino.

Cake the fukk up!

[SportsMushroom]

Did you not read 4LC post about +EV not being everything. I've loosely followed some of your threads and if the BR you've reported is accurate, this is an exorbitant % of your BR, even for a +ev play.

why do you listen to that guy? he is someone that read a book and thinks that now he is smart, well he is probably smarter than you since you actually find logic in what he says

the meaning of a +ev bet is one with a positive expected return, one that will yield a % return on the investment, by the very definition of the term, it means that if you make a bet that is not +ev (does not have a positive expected return) then you are losing money on your investment, because that means it has a negative expected return (-ev)

[ttrace35]

or bullshitter

[RudyRuetigger]

the meaning of a +ev bet is one with a positive expected return, one that will yield a % return on the investment, by the very definition of the term, it means that if you make a bet that is not +ev (does not have a positive expected return) then you are losing money on your investment, because that means it has a negative expected return (-ev)

apparently you don't know how that correlates to risk of ruin

[FourLengthsClear]

apparently you don't know how that correlates to risk of ruin

You just read a book and think you're smart

BOL with the play DJ.
A 10 point dog on a medium-low total isn't enough of a correlation to make +250 a good price (IMHO of course) but statistically speaking it is better than -105 on either of the dog/under straight bets.

[mrmarket]

10%+ of bankroll small edge key to riches right 4lc?

[SportsMushroom]

apparently you don't know how that correlates to risk of ruin

so risk of ruin makes it acceptable to make bets with negative expected value? is that what you are saying?

The term gambler's ruin is used for a number of related statistical ideas:

• The most common use of the term today is for the unsurprising idea that a gambler playing a negative expected value game will eventually go broke, regardless of betting system. This is another corollary to Huygens' result.

if a bet does not have a long term positive expected return, (or +ev as it is known on sbr), then it should not be wagered on, anyone that says that +ev is not the most important part of placing a wager does not know what they are saying and their opinions do not count as far as I am concerned

[smoke a bowl]

I've lost a couple plays with a new bookie so I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm a mush.

I asked him to parlay St. John's and the under and he told me he normally couldn't... but for me, he'd make it happen.

St. Johns +10/UNDER 135
$1000 to win $2500

You are trying to make +EV plays and you are taking 2.5 to 1 on a 2 team parlay? That 10 pt dog to under correlation is not near enough to outrun the fact that you are getting paid 2.5 to 1 instead of 3 to 1 (actual odds).

[FourLengthsClear]

10%+ of bankroll small edge key to riches right 4lc?

Just for fun, I like to play around with my past results to see what the results would have been if I had played full Kelly, Half Kelly, flat 4% etc. Mr. M and anything more than 3%-4% (as an average) would have been the key to the loony bin for me.

[smoke a bowl]

Just for fun, I like to play around with my past results to see what the results would have been if I had played full Kelly, Half Kelly, flat 4% etc. Mr. M and anything more than 3%-4% (as an average) would have been the key to the loony bin for me.

I'd be shocked if many people have ever survived betting full kelly being that too often our edge isn't actually what we think or perceive it to be.

[FourLengthsClear]

so risk of ruin makes it acceptable to make bets with negative expected value? is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what he is saying.

He is saying that substantially overbetting an edge has negative expected growth just as surely as -EV bets do.

[mrmarket]

[RudyRuetigger]

so risk of ruin makes it acceptable to make bets with negative expected value? is that what you are saying?

but technically, yes i'd rather risk $1 on -101 odds on a coin flip than risk my net worth at +101 odds.

[SportsMushroom]

No, that's not what he is saying. He is saying that substantially overbetting an edge has negative expected growth just as surely as -EV bets do.

so? noone in this thread said otherwise, in fact I agree, that doesnt change the fact that a bet should not be placed unless it has a positive expected return

but technically, yes i'd rather risk $1 on -101 odds on a coin flip than risk my net worth at +101 odds. [/url]

and there it is

a guy that thinks that +ev = +odds is trying to school me, you dont even understand what we are talking about sir, yet you are opinionated on the subject, maybe 4lc can educate you

[RudyRuetigger]

a guy that thinks that +ev = +odds is trying to school me

hey dumbass, +101 odds on a coin flip is +EV. wtf are you missing?

[mrmarket]

Sports market becoming so sophisticated and sharp I'm not sure how bookies can make a profit long term.

[The Kraken]

Rudy youve been on a roll lately with that pic and it literally just made me spit out my cereal. Nicely placed.

[FourLengthsClear]

I'd be shocked if many people have ever survived betting full kelly being that too often our edge isn't actually what we think or perceive it to be.

With the discalimer that I don't actually know anyone who utilises full Kelly, I am not so sure about that.

Over the last 8 years, my optimal Kelly multiplier would have been 0.91 as opposed to the 0.75 that I actually use and fully Kelly would have been slightly superior to my actual results.

I am sure there are people out there who are even more anal about quantifying and filtering historical edge calculations than I am.

[SportsMushroom]

hey dumbass, +101 odds on a coin flip is +EV. wtf are you missing?

so?

yes if you only had to bet once you'd put your money on the coin flip, but if you were going to place the same bet over and over again then you would go completely broke

placing a -ev bet once may or may not yield a profit, placing that bet over and over again though will lead to 0 balance, so if you are a long term gambler, there is no other bet besides +ev


you are just creating a scenario that suggest that you are right, its like you are showing me the sky at night and saying it proves the color of the sky is black

the truth is sir sports wagering is long term, and -ev bets are not a profitable proposition


yes wager size is an issue, but there is no scenario that warrants putting money on a bet with a negative expected value, even with your hypothetical scenario you'd have to chose between going all in or making a -ev bet, exactly because placing a -ev bet is russian roulette

[RudyRuetigger]

so?

yes if you only had to bet once you'd put your money on the coin flip, but if were going to place the same bet over and over again then you would go completely broke

placing a -ev bet once may or may not yield a profit, placing that bet over and over again though will lead to 0 balance, so if you are a long term gambler, there is no other bet besides +ev

thanks for the tip. i will be sure to keep that in mind on future wagers.

[FourLengthsClear]

so? noone in this thread said otherwise, in fact I agree, that doesnt change the fact that a bet should not be placed unless it has a positive expected return

Can't see anyone that disagrees with this.

Is English your first language? I hope you will believe me that I am not trying to be rude but I do get the impression that you often misinterpret what has been said.

[The Kraken]

Mush,
It just seemed like a disproportionate % of his BR compared to his edge, regardless of +ev or not. +ev isnt the end all be all.

[dj_destroyer]

FLC, I'd love to hear your opinion about exploiting static markets in my thread over HERE.

[Romanov]

Jesus christ!

The dumbassery in this thread is asstounding

[dj_destroyer]

Jesus christ!

The dumbassery in this thread is asstounding

Posts like these really add a lot though...

This thread isn't even half bad. At least there is something worthwhile being discussed which is more than I can say about most threads.

[smoke a bowl]

Jesus christ!

The dumbassery in this thread is asstounding

Elaborate please.

[RudyRuetigger]

FLC, I'd love to hear your opinion about exploiting static markets in my thread over HERE.

you nominated this post:

why do you listen to that guy? he is someone that read a book and thinks that now he is smart, well he is probably smarter than you since you actually find logic in what he says

the meaning of a +ev bet is one with a positive expected return, one that will yield a % return on the investment, by the very definition of the term, it means that if you make a bet that is not +ev (does not have a positive expected return) then you are losing money on your investment, because that means it has a negative expected return (-ev)

and now are asking 4lc for help?

personally, id tell you to fukk off