Are postive EV players stealing?

Mudcat · 05-22-11, 10:14 AM

No it is not stealing.

DevilCheese · 05-22-11, 10:17 AM

Casinos know the EV of their slot and VP machines, but with sports its more of an estimate. As long as there's variance, there's always some risk. The difference with sports bets is the casino theoretically has no risk if they can get balanced action on both sides, they pay the winners with the losers and take the vig. It doesn't matter which side had the edge if they can accomplish that.

allabout the $$$ · 05-22-11, 10:18 AM

its obvious to me that the books who are sponsors here have an advantage for instance 5 dimes tony said in the bot case i know that the player will lose over the long term or something to that effect which makes the game -even tho it is our choice to play the game without knowing the exact extent of the ev % but we all know it is in the books favor regardless of intent the book is their to take our money the books take advantage of people in the casino that is the bottom line but when we (the player) find an advantage or error on their part its not stealing its taking advantage of an error and they take back the winnings but do they give back the peoples money who didnt take advantage of the error????? no they dont so to me the casino freerolls the players when the player finds something and exploits it to their advantage they see fit to take back their money so in my opinion the online casino is basically there to steal a players money

JoeVig · 05-22-11, 10:24 AM

Most of the offshore operators might as well be run from a ship in international waters, because that's about as much legal oversight as they are going to get.

wrongturn · 05-22-11, 10:26 AM

I call all casinos, online or in las vegas, are stealing, no different than casino calling a player playing +ev game is stealing, if that is what you mean.

David · 05-22-11, 11:15 AM

They are not stealing.

clowncar · 05-22-11, 11:30 AM

I don't want the point to be lost. There is no difference between a person betting at a 2% edge and a 12% edge morally. If the person is using proper money management and betting at a 2% edge it is almost impossible to go broke and he will win lots more money on average than the short term 12% edge player. And yet the short term big edge player is getting called a thief repeatedly.

Moreover, if you don't believe you have an edge, then you shouldn't be betting unless you are doing it solely for entertainment. Therefore, even the losing sports bettors atleast think they have an edge over the book, or think they are "stealing".

So can we end this childish behavior of calling someone a thief when they find a big edge vs a book or casino? And if we believe the big edge player is a thief, can we atleast admit the book/casino are thieves then too by the same definition?

allabout the $$$ · 05-22-11, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by clowncar

I don't want the point to be lost. There is no difference between a person betting at a 2% edge and a 12% edge morally. If the person is using proper money management and betting at a 2% edge it is almost impossible to go broke and he will win lots more money on average than the short term 12% edge player. And yet the short term big edge player is getting called a thief repeatedly.

Moreover, if you don't believe you have an edge, then you shouldn't be betting unless you are doing it solely for entertainment. Therefore, even the losing sports bettors atleast think they have an edge over the book, or think they are "stealing".

So can we end this childish behavior of calling someone a thief when they find a big edge vs a book or casino? And if we believe the big edge player is a thief, can we atleast admit the book/casino are thieves then too by the same definition?

thats what im saying

statnerds · 05-22-11, 11:38 AM

So now we are getting to the meat of it?

A capper working his penis off to find an edge on a sporting event will never be accused of stealing. But when you begin hypothetical scenarios with a "short term 12% edge" makes it sound like this edge may have been arrived at in a not too honest fashion. Much like knowingly betting a bad line, your 12% player would be at fault.

However, if the book is aware of the edge, and still allows play to continue then it is not stealing.

And might I suggest that "short term" any edge isn't worth it if it is going to encourage a book to stop taking your action.

Fa11en · 05-22-11, 11:48 AM

Well in sports betting, both parties are aware of the vig and that the "fair value" is subject to interpretation. Some sites give specific/vague rules that do not allow arbing from the same account or syndicate play, both can be used to generate +EV. So if players decide that is the way they would like to generate their edge, they have to proceed with caution knowing that their funds could be confiscated. Do shady sportsbook use this rule unjustly? Of course they do.

To have to analyze the intent of the parties is silly. Last I checked,the reason why sportsbooks and online casinos were created was because people LOVE to gamble. And because people love to gamble so much and wish to "get lucky" into winning some significant sum, there will always be places looking to book their action, whether it be casinos, locals, on-line books, ect...

The larger issue is do people really expect to be fully compensated by an error that is so obvious that they are knowingly betting into? From reading these forums, it appears so.

Should Sportsbooks/Casinos be held accountable if they let this gross error continue? Yes they should. Clearly, Tony assumed Tackleberry's intent and previous experiences when settling with him, it is up to his discretion. Typically if a bet on a bad line is not caught before the game starts or is graded and a customer wants to dispute it, books will offer to let the line stand at fair market value or better and possibly close the account. The most enjoyable thing to see is a customer who takes a shot at a bad line and misses and then would like the bet canceled or refunded after it was graded, by the same logic, shouldn't it be graded at fair market value and stand? When you try to take a shot at a bad line, you should know that you are at the book's discretion so why complain if it doesn't work out for you?

If you were to apply that approach to Tackleberry's casino situation, it would be easy. Lets just give the Casino's normal edge (vig) and apply that % to the player's advantage in bets over the period of time at the same stakes Tackleberry bet? In fact, we could even let the stakes he bets be raised exponentially relative to his bankroll, as he did before. That exponential growth at "fair value" would not even come close to the 300 some dollars he got in his "settlement" from Tony.

Zabula was a buffoon who knowingly broke the rules and tried to lie about and is still crying conspiracy. There is NO WAY an established book would go that far to cover up a casino mistake, it just does not make sense.

When did people think they are entitled to free money? The same motivating factor that drives people to create fraud and scam books is the same thing that compels bettors to take there shots and use SBR as a last resort to squeeze a book for something they knowingly took a shot at. The books who have established themselves will always find business despite bad PR.

The only thing that we learned from all these 5Dimes posts is that UNDER NO circumstance should players ever play online casinos. If you want to make money gambling than do the research and take the time to perfect your craft and get an edge that way because shooting bad lines/past posts will not get you very far. Tony knows this as do professional bettors/handicappers. The demand will always be there and the customers that 5Dimes want are concerned about getting good prices and being able to get paid - NOT the casino or how many bad lines they can exploit.

cloudagh · 05-22-11, 11:50 AM

Is it stealing if someone prices petrol at 10 cents a liter instead of a dollar, and you fill up your tank?

clowncar · 05-22-11, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by cloudagh

Is it stealing if someone prices petrol at 10 cents a liter instead of a dollar, and you fill up your tank?

Is it stealing if someone prices petrol at $1 a liter instead of the proper $1.02 and you fill up your tank?

clowncar · 05-22-11, 11:58 AM

It's all semantics. The small edge player likes to think of himself as a noble worker as he takes tens of thousands from the books/casinos every year while condemning bigger edge players as "shot takers" and the like. It's comical in its lack of consistency.

The question of whether it is smart or stupid to "take shots" has nothing to do with whether it is any less or more "theft" than small advantage plays over time.

It fails the basic logic test.

Fa11en · 05-22-11, 12:12 PM

Comparing EV to theft does not make any sense, just like the gas tank analogy.

Fa11en · 05-22-11, 12:21 PM

My only point was, as a customer, if something is "too good to be true" it usually comes with some stipulations. I don't blame people for trying to obtain a 12% edge or 390% edge or the like, they just need to understand that in the unregulated and ethically vague world of sportsbetting/online casinos, they are at the discretion of the books. For that reason, I think it is the right thing for sportsbook to credit freeplays and other goodwill gestures to players who bring these "badlines" to attention. If someone wants to take a shot at something with huge +EV, knowing that they may not get paid if they hit it than more power to them. If they do not get what they expect, they have no reason to complain or try to use bad PR/forums to squeeze a book.

clowncar · 05-22-11, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Fa11en

My only point was, as a customer, if something is "too good to be true" it usually comes with some stipulations. I don't blame people for trying to obtain a 12% edge or 390% edge or the like, they just need to understand that in the unregulated and ethically vague world of sportsbetting/online casinos, they are at the discretion of the books. For that reason, I think it is the right thing for sportsbook to credit freeplays and other goodwill gestures to players who bring these "badlines" to attention. If someone wants to take a shot at something with huge +EV, knowing that they may not get paid if they hit it than more power to them. If they do not get what they expect, they have no reason to complain or try to use bad PR/forums to squeeze a book.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, nor do I think it is fair to assume that a casino should be put at complete risk over one obvious error. But I also don't think it is fair or consistent to refer to advantage players as thieves as has been pretty common place in the forum the last few weeks.

My point was to merely show that a big edge player is no more a thief than a small edge player or sportsbook/casino for that matter. A person who "steals" $100,000 dollars over the course of a year is no better than a person who "steals" $100,000 over the course of a day. Atleast in my humble opinion.

Fa11en · 05-22-11, 01:05 PM

I don't think either of your EV examples constitute stealing and if people or books refer to customers seeking an edge as thieves they are horribly mistaken. I understand how you may be frusturated with the hypocrisy of someone who takes the "honor among thieves" approach to self-righteously criticize the shot-takers. Shot-takers have do deal with way more variance than the consistant pro gambler if anything. The pro gambler probaly feels they are more entitled to their edge because of the work, preperation, and possible mental capacity they believe they posssess and someone just hoping to benefit by someone else's oversight is simply taking the easy way out. Tony has just seen a lot of shot-takers (I'm sure he probaly took many himself) in his day and he probaly enjoys taking them on with little regard for the effects it has on his business.

goblue12 · 05-22-11, 01:30 PM

A good price is usually a bad / sloppy line.

Landprofits · 05-22-11, 03:48 PM

When the law says it's stealing is when I will stop to think about that.

relaaxx · 05-22-11, 06:23 PM

no -- but that would not be 5dimes' opinion

PanamaBrad · 05-22-11, 07:02 PM

Seems like with the lack of any credible controlling legal authority, these books can get away with nearly anything. Serves them right if they get taken every now and then by smart players.

trixtrix · 05-22-11, 07:55 PM

a casino has a blackjack game at 99%+ payout, and a slot game at 80% payout, and a full deuce pay video poker machine at 100%+ payout, there is absolutely no argument that all 3 games are equally legit.

kero214 · 05-22-11, 10:41 PM

According to SBR and 5dimes it is.

chachi · 05-22-11, 11:50 PM

The worrying thing is that a new account could have a session at one of these 'overpaying' games simply because it is their favorite / one they play at all the online casinos they frequent, win a fistful or two, and get hosed through no fault of their own.

There are effectively set guidelines and rules for sportsbook behavior and expectations of 'must settle/pay a ticket you write unless X Y or Z occur' and it is high time that Lou, Justin, et al lay down the foundations for such.

BranchDavidian · 05-23-11, 12:42 AM

This concept simply amazes me. A sports better, for instance, any one of us, only places a bet when he believes that the bet has a better chance of winning than losing. Doesn't this mean that every bet we place, we believe has a +even value? How in the world could a sportsbettor possibly think that is stealing? According to that ridiculous logic, sportsbettors would have to make wagers they thought would lose in order to not "steal"! Since so many poster above have this idiotic opinion, and are betting on sports one would assume since they frequent this site, I guess these people are either morons, hypocrites, or they are placing bets that they think will lose. What is this world coming to? Gamblers actually telling other gamblers that finding a bet that you think will win is stealing!

BranchDavidian · 05-23-11, 12:50 AM

And as has already been pointed out, this means that every casino is stealing since most casino games are set up to favor the casino. So, is a +EV bet is theft, casinos are guilty on almost every bet. Therefore, if it ain't theft for the casin', it ain't theft for the customer!

bettorjon · 05-23-11, 01:30 AM

does possitive EV means going for the favorite all the time?

if not, how can we apply this in sports betting?

chachi · 05-23-11, 01:36 AM

+EV simply means the payout is higher than the theoretical likelihood of success suggests, nothing more.

Extreme example: a MLB pro team is playing against a AA farm team, and best market price on the AA team is +450. If I offer +550 on them, while you are getting paid more than the market suggests you should, it does not mean that betting on the AA team is any more likely to cash as a winner.

bettorjon · 05-23-11, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by chachi

+EV simply means the payout is higher than the theoretical likelihood of success suggests, nothing more.

Extreme example: a MLB pro team is playing against a AA farm team, and best market price on the AA team is +450. If I offer +550 on them, while you are getting paid more than the market suggests you should, it does not mean that betting on the AA team is any more likely to cash as a winner.

thanks but still a lil bit confused.

so for example in soccer, the over 2.5 goals has it at 2.30 while the under 2.5 has it at 1.70. upon checking on the head to head matchup of the two opposing teams, the total goal scored in 7 out of 10 matches had it at under 2.5.

it is right for me to say that i should go for the under since it has +EV?

blix177 · 05-23-11, 01:49 AM

Unless your buying both sides and locking in the profit there is no such thing as no risk. What makes you think your capping always give you +EV.

bettorjon · 05-23-11, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by blix177

Unless your buying both sides and locking in the profit there is no such thing as no risk. What makes you think your capping always give you +EV.

i do that from time to time especially on live betting where in the odds reaches as high as 10 for over/under.

i dont understand how +EV works so i cant answer that question

chachi · 05-23-11, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by bettorjon

thanks but still a lil bit confused.

so for example in soccer, the over 2.5 goals has it at 2.30 while the under 2.5 has it at 1.70. upon checking on the head to head matchup of the two opposing teams, the total goal scored in 7 out of 10 matches had it at under 2.5.

it is right for me to say that i should go for the under since it has +EV?

You are confusing +EV and probability of an outcome.

+EV is totally unrelated to whether or not a ticket will cash as a winner, it solely is suggesting that the payout on the proposition would be higher than 'it should be' with the 'it should be' part being wholly subjective based upon either own's own analysis, someone else's analysis, or just in comparison to generally available pricing in the marketplace.

In your example above, the history indicates 30/70 split over the prior 10 matches and the odds are skewed to reflect the lesser likelihood of overs cashing and the lesser odds on the under are showing you the market overall is leaning towards 2 goals or less.

Of course, the players on the pitch for that match may have other ideas and ring up 5/6/7 goals

Prices and lines are only ever 100% accurate in terms of likelihood after the final whistle at the end of the match when it comes time for settlement / bet evaluation.

In-running 1.01 shots lose all the time in horse racing ... even though the live market suggested otherwise the horse still got pipped at the line.

Dark Horse · 05-23-11, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by clowncar

It's all semantics. The small edge player likes to think of himself as a noble worker as he takes tens of thousands from the books/casinos every year while condemning bigger edge players as "shot takers" and the like. It's comical in its lack of consistency.

The question of whether it is smart or stupid to "take shots" has nothing to do with whether it is any less or more "theft" than small advantage plays over time.

It fails the basic logic test.

You miss one simple basic. There is a balance to everything. The last casino case involved a player who could have ran up his balance from 36K to 20 million in another two hours. Had he gotten away with that, there would have been nothing left for the honest players at that book. It was a heist. Only here many of the account holders were cheering for the thief.

Semantics aside, you will never be able to find such an absurd edge in the sportsbook, not even if it's a bad line, as that casino shot taker exploited. Not going to happen. Some people may think they have a financial edge when someone drops a wallet in front of them. Others prefer to earn money the honest way. If you can't see the difference, you may be in the wrong field.

Salamander · 05-23-11, 03:39 AM

There must be some strict legal definiton people here are missing because we're not lawyers.

If the linesmaker puts up Vikings -4.5 and your better numbers say they should be -6, the two of you are engaging in a fair fight, you just happen to better, and it's up to the linesmaker to improve or get out of town.

When a casino's machine spews out more than it takes in due to human programming error, that is not a fair fight.

Law is based on words, and the word "stealing" you use is not appropriate for the fight between linesmaker and player, even if both situations are +EV for the player.