[Enkhbat]

Please give an example

[King_Suckerman]

backing both side of an outcome - normally at different books, often to get through a rollover

[truebluebear]

to hedge a bet is to take insurance against the possibility that your original bet may not win - thus guaranteeing a payout . as an example , i had a future bet that FC PORTO (14/1) would win the Europa League and last week they reached the final where they will play SC Braga - so i "Hedged " my porto bet by betting Braga to win the tourney at 5/2 , leaving me with a guaranteed profit come the final on may 18th --£150 if Porto win or £75 if Braga win - hope that helps

[Hareeba!]

backing both side of an outcome - normally at different books, often to get through a rollover

that's more like and arb, I much prefer the truebluebear's definition

[King_Suckerman]

that's more like and arb, I much prefer the truebluebear's definition

Yes, so do I!

[BWest]

It is a strategy employed by seasoned bettors and sportsbooks attempt to defend against for obvious reasons.

[soxwin1917]

It is a strategy employed by seasoned bettors and sportsbooks attempt to defend against for obvious reasons.

They don't protect against hedging, they might protect against arbing, however.

It always amazes me how many blowhards there are around here. I always assume guys know what they're talking about and then you see a couple of the guys in this thread who so confidently state the wrong definition for a simple concept like hedging.

[BranchDavidian]

How would a sportsbook "protect" against hedging or arbing? If a gambler finds an arb at two different books, neither of those books have any "protection" against that arb. As a matter of fact, both books are looking for bets on the respective teams. What the gambler does at other books does not affect the book he places half his arb at. When a gambler places an arb with bets on both teams at the same book, it is done at different times. The line has moved and now the book will accept bets on the second team where a profit is guaranteed. The only way a book can "protect" itself from this scenario, although most books would not want such "protection" since books generally will want as much action as possible at the new odds they have listed, would be to make a rule against betting both sides. I believe some books have this rule, but not any books with any sizeable customer base.

[BranchDavidian]

And these books that don't allow betting on both sides, are only reducing their volume and thereby reducing their income. Even if one bettor is making an arb at the books expense, the book is taking bets on the other side of the bet at odds that provide an arb for the book for each bet that the customer places.

[David]

Most books will eventually kick you out (or limit you) if you are betting like that.

[Bill Dozer]

Most common use for the term is when someone is sitting on a good futures bet that's close or the last leg of a big parlay and they bet the other side to guarantee a profit.