Cilic Outright - Queens

**kenz** · 06-09-14, 04:26 AM

Last year watched how he played, he was very close to beating Murray in Queens and then got suspended for doping before Wİmbledon

If he plays like last year @14.60 is crazy value. BOL

**baconbets** · 06-09-14, 09:47 PM

lol, winner in 2012 due to the "board kick of doom"

**fitguy67** · 06-10-14, 03:22 AM

JC, real-world experiment time...

purely curiosity-driven...not any kind of a challenge

this debate has come up before...here's a chance to at least walk thru a real-world "sample of one" comparison

I'll play Cilic ML starting tonight in R1 v Matosevic...best price i could get was just 1.1849 after-commissions at matchbook

-100 / +18.49

I'll continue to roll all-in "manual parlay" style until you get to the "uncle" point of your futures bet...

you hedge out...and count $-blessings...

i'll just stop and not "roll into" the next round...and count my $ blessing...

biggest $-blessing won/smallest $-curse suffered registers the first blow in this ongoing and very-interesting debate...our first observation (aka. sample of one) will be in the books
_________

can we assume you now stand with your Cilic futures as representing Strategy A?

-100 / +1,460 A: Cilic "Future+ Hedge-Out" option

vs

-100 / +18.49 B: Cilic "Rolling-Parlay + Sit-Out" option

right now before R1 match played we've both risked 100 and have a net profit of 0

Let the actual comparison begin:

BTW, it goes without saying...Marin, you better help make this experiment interesting by making it a long one, nuff ced?

________________

best thing about this...is that "we ride and/or die together"...all we're comparing is which strategy makes out "better" (either "more $ to the good" or "less $ to the bad")...

I'm sure this question can and has been back-tested...but a hell of a lot more fun in real-time going forward...

_______________

May we BOTH make some serious "Cilic @ Queens Court 2014" money!

**kenz** · 06-10-14, 03:28 AM

Fit-guy Also you may think about increasing your stake by 20-25% and use this small stake for betting Cilic when he is down a break on live. BOL guys

**Honeybadger44** · 06-10-14, 03:30 AM

If I understand well, Fitguy67 is trying to say that backing Marin in every round ML, will get you a better payout in the end, then winning that futures bet. That is probably true. But when you have a futures bet, you can also get a bit lucky with the draw, if his potential top rivals, get eliminated before they meet him. That is why I would preffer to have futures bet and possibily hedge out later, if I want to.

**kenz** · 06-10-14, 03:36 AM

The problem with futures is I get connected with them with time

I was thinking Masha and Nadal would win but my value futures Halep @6 and Novak @2.75 somehow affected me from hedging. Keeping one more than a month and the other more than 10 days make you get connected with your bets. I would easily make a parlay $500 @3+ odds if I did not have futures

One Futures story : I had Ferrer to win Wimbledon 2012 3 different crazy odds @251, @201, @151 and that year he was fantastic. He beat Delpotro, then he was up 1-0 against Murray, serving for the 2nd set @5-4 but got broken. Then went to tiebreak. Ferrer was up 1 mini Murray had 2 serves @2-5 and won the tiebreak. That entire game made me nuts. If he could make it 2-0, he mght win 1 out of the next 3 sets. He could beat Tsonga too.

Dont mistake Ferrer of 2012 with this Ferrer, he won titles on every court that year, he was fantastic

I remember I got upset from Ferrer wasting 15-40s on Murray's serves and the patriotic crowds response to the point of having a few tears pour from my eyes

Ferrer of 2012 could beat Murray and Tsonga on grass and final would be hedge time against Federer

I took my wifey for a walk on the beach for putting the game behind me

A side note: On the final of Wimbledon 2012 I had my a close-2nd largest bet of my life on Federer. It was $4000 @1.57. My wifey was with her grandparents-parents that day. I ordered a big pizza b4 the game. I remember I was up standing entire 3rd and 4th set and possibly some 2nd set too. What a crazy game it was

**fitguy67** · 06-10-14, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Honeybadger44

If I understand well, Fitguy67 is trying to say that backing Marin in every round ML, will get you a better payout in the end, then winning that futures bet. That is probably true. But when you have a futures bet, you can also get a bit lucky with the draw, if his potential top rivals, get eliminated before they meet him. That is why I would preffer to have futures bet and possibily hedge out later, if I want to.

just add, that what i'll be doing is a fully-flexible "open parlay"...not locked into any set number of plays...and free to place (or not place) at whatever book i want...cuz each and every leg is a "stand alone straight up ML"...

so the simple equivalent for me of what the futures-holder has to do to "green out" before any "next" match starts...is to do "nothing" to simply keep my stake and the accumulated/"snowballed" and don' re-risk

i think that there's a good chance that my manually-rolling fully-"all in" sequence of ML's would /could do almost as well as the SU "future" or tourney "outright" bet if our man goes right thru and wins and JC never cries "uncle"...but how often does the holder of such a ticket NOT "hedge" substatially partially...to at least guarantee themselves a healthy % of the "full pop"...

here's where i think playing the guy as an ever snowballing (original stake + all accrued profits from all winning bets to that point)...actually has an advantage...once the guy's gone deep...say, won the quarters/SF next up...i don't have all sorts of gymnastics to go thru to "protect" my tentatively massive earnings...no "hedging out" (basically a profit-insurance premium...but it ain't cheap brother) required...

here's what i suspect in a nutshell: if your guy goes deep enough into the tourney, to where "hedging out" becomes a necessity to allow you to sleep...after you've subtracted the hedging fees from the mesmerizing profit that attracted you to the position in the first place...it ain't so mesmerizing anymore...and probably less $ than if you'd just taken that same 100 bucks and bet on the guy to win the tournament...BUT ONE GAME AT A TIME..by the time your guy's made the semis and you're feeling dizzy...you just stop and count up the nice take on the 5-legger...and this take is very likely better than what's left over after the futures-buying cat "greens out"...

and FAR less (actually zero % of ) the "endless cycles of what-iffery" involved...posting and threading "help what do i do now?" etc... you know the drill...for similar "after hedge income"...

if you have the psychological composure that you can look at, say, a 120-1 payout on a "middle of the pack" player in a GS that you're lucky enough to see get to the semis...if you can just see it as a $100 buck bet that just MIGHT graduate into 12,000 ...and not "damn i can lock in a almost $2000 if i just do x, y, and z"... you're wasting your time cuz a 100 bucks on world#35 rolled-over "all in" on the 5 consecutive he needed to make the semi-finals probalby beats the hell out of the consolation prize you'll talk yourself into

___________

this is just a 14-1 payout so my preconception may not hold together as dramatically as i laid it out above as is typical for a slam

________
for this "tale of two tactics" case-study tho...the focus is on just seeing what happens and learning from it...having the alternative going on "side by side" makes it far more instructive

i'm curious to see exactly how things will unfold tho' if Cilic gets to the QF...if JC decides to take some sorts of partial-insurance of a prospective outright win...then i'll have to figure out the algebra for how much to reduce my next ML-bet to lock in the same % that JC's protecting...of what i would accrue if i kept the parlay going successfully till the bitter end...so this will be an interesting exercise...and lead to sharpened thinking about all manner of hedging regimes in uncertain "1 or 2 events remaining" environments...

**kenz** · 06-10-14, 10:13 AM

Cilic is the dog to Matosevic on live menu

**bababooey13** · 06-10-14, 10:15 AM

**kenz** · 06-10-14, 10:16 AM

not watching, if it is close might be good spot to buy a little bit more Cilic for future holders

**bababooey13** · 06-10-14, 10:20 AM

its over.

**kenz** · 06-10-14, 10:23 AM

Not watching but If Cilic is not shitting big time and holds from 0-40 anything can happen.

Of course if the game is not like Goffin-Thiem. Even if they played 19768768467 sets Thiem would not win much the way he played

**beantown34** · 06-10-14, 10:34 AM

Great call lol

**Hardcoar** · 06-10-14, 10:35 AM

Oh f*ck that's unlucky. The odds were nice too, for a future.

**kenz** · 06-10-14, 10:38 AM

Cilic was horrible make no mistake about it. Watched the lastfew games.

He held from 0-40 and then blew a 0-30 in Matosevic game. From what I saw all Matosevşc needed to do was hit some solid strokes as Cilic cant see a 10+ rally with those ues

**STAY STRONG** · 06-10-14, 11:02 AM

**fitguy67** · 06-10-14, 03:45 PM

thanks Cilic...for ruining a perfectly good "reality thread" idea...

JC...next time you want to lock in a pre-tourney outright bet, PM or "call me out"...maybe at the next biggie (GS or "1000")...where the potential $-payouts involved for a hundo-bet on even a quality player (upper--but not top--tier...someone like a Dimitrov, Raonic or maybe even that fukker Cilic again as long as he promises to not play like he'd just "fallen in love" like he did today)...then the potential $ get interestingly astronomical...

we can compare the $-/emotional-rides our two different ways of playing the same proposition (that XYZ goes "deep")...will be fun...i'm especially interested in some of the competing theoretical approaches to the "what-iffery" should our guy do well and creates a "good kind of worry" for us

if we're working off a 120-1 shot angle (rather than 14-1 shot like here)...things'll get a lost more interesting and the motivation to accurately sort out the thinking (mostly just applied probability + algebra) gets stronger