I really like doing this when there are 2 +200 or more doggies on the board that day with legit shots at winning. Here is why, if you go 1-1 you can win $$$$ and if you 2-0 you win FUCKIN BANK. And if you go 0-2 you dont lose too much. Basically what I am saying is that the REWARD outweighs the RISK by a whole lot. Here is the math...
$100 A-R FOR EXAMPLE
Marlins +200
Padres +230
1. Marlins W and Padres W = +$860
2. Marlins W and Padres L = EVEN
3. Marlins L and Padres W = +$30
4. Marlins L and Padres L = -$200
I think it is worth a shot but thats just me....
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
ACTION REVERSING TWO +200 OR MORE DOGGIES
I really like doing this when there are 2 +200 or more doggies on the board that day with legit shots at winning. Here is why, if you go 1-1 you can win $$$$ and if you 2-0 you win FUCKIN BANK. And if you go 0-2 you dont lose too much. Basically what I am saying is that the REWARD outweighs the RISK by a whole lot. Here is the math...
Sounds great, if you prefer warm and fuzzy feelings and high expectations to mathematics.
Saying that the "reward outweighs the risk by a whole lot" (saying a whole lot should be the first clue) is not only unmeasured it is flat out wrong.
Since Im feeling charitable, lets assign some real numbers to your 4 scenarios and do some real math - instead of guessing at how we feel about a risk / reward scenario:
At +200 and +230, you would expect those teams to win at a 33.3% and 30.4% respectively.
So:
1. Marlins W and Padres W = +$860 = 10.1% chance
2. Marlins W and Padres L = EVEN = 23.2% chance
3. Marlins L and Padres W = +$30 = 20.3% chance
4. Marlins L and Padres L = -$200 = 46.4% chance
So your overall EV is exactly 0.
So in conclusion - there is zero advantage to betting these together unless they are correllated, which in this case they certainly are not. But surprisingly, there is no disadvantage to betting them this way either - there is simply no advantage or disadvantage.
Now that is saying that the expected winning percentages are exactly the price you are paying for the teams, which is not exactly true - I think a fairer use of the expected winning percentage would be based off a line that is split between the fav and dog - which in this case makes this parlay an EV loser.
But in any case, mathematically - saying "the reward far outeighs the risk" is not supported.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Sounds great, if you prefer warm and fuzzy feelings and high expectations to mathematics.
Saying that the "reward outweighs the risk by a whole lot" (saying a whole lot should be the first clue) is not only unmeasured it is flat out wrong.
Since Im feeling charitable, lets assign some real numbers to your 4 scenarios and do some real math - instead of guessing at how we feel about a risk / reward scenario:
At +200 and +230, you would expect those teams to win at a 33.3% and 30.4% respectively.
So:
1. Marlins W and Padres W = +$860 = 10.1% chance
2. Marlins W and Padres L = EVEN = 23.2% chance
3. Marlins L and Padres W = +$30 = 20.3% chance
4. Marlins L and Padres L = -$200 = 46.4% chance
So your overall EV is exactly 0.
So in conclusion - there is zero advantage to betting these together unless they are correllated, which in this case they certainly are not. But surprisingly, there is no disadvantage to betting them this way either - there is simply no advantage or disadvantage.
Now that is saying that the expected winning percentages are exactly the price you are paying for the teams, which is not exactly true - I think a fairer use of the expected winning percentage would be based off a line that is split between the fav and dog - which in this case makes this parlay an EV loser.
But in any case, mathematically - saying "the reward far outeighs the risk" is not supported.
Sounds great, if you prefer warm and fuzzy feelings and high expectations to mathematics.
Saying that the "reward outweighs the risk by a whole lot" (saying a whole lot should be the first clue) is not only unmeasured it is flat out wrong.
Since Im feeling charitable, lets assign some real numbers to your 4 scenarios and do some real math - instead of guessing at how we feel about a risk / reward scenario:
At +200 and +230, you would expect those teams to win at a 33.3% and 30.4% respectively.
So:
1. Marlins W and Padres W = +$860 = 10.1% chance
2. Marlins W and Padres L = EVEN = 23.2% chance
3. Marlins L and Padres W = +$30 = 20.3% chance
4. Marlins L and Padres L = -$200 = 46.4% chance
So your overall EV is exactly 0.
So in conclusion - there is zero advantage to betting these together unless they are correllated, which in this case they certainly are not. But surprisingly, there is no disadvantage to betting them this way either - there is simply no advantage or disadvantage.
Now that is saying that the expected winning percentages are exactly the price you are paying for the teams, which is not exactly true - I think a fairer use of the expected winning percentage would be based off a line that is split between the fav and dog - which in this case makes this parlay an EV loser.
But in any case, mathematically - saying "the reward far outeighs the risk" is not supported.
interesting take on this matter have a nice day...
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Sounds great, if you prefer warm and fuzzy feelings and high expectations to mathematics.
Saying that the "reward outweighs the risk by a whole lot" (saying a whole lot should be the first clue) is not only unmeasured it is flat out wrong.
Since Im feeling charitable, lets assign some real numbers to your 4 scenarios and do some real math - instead of guessing at how we feel about a risk / reward scenario:
At +200 and +230, you would expect those teams to win at a 33.3% and 30.4% respectively.
So:
1. Marlins W and Padres W = +$860 = 10.1% chance
2. Marlins W and Padres L = EVEN = 23.2% chance
3. Marlins L and Padres W = +$30 = 20.3% chance
4. Marlins L and Padres L = -$200 = 46.4% chance
So your overall EV is exactly 0.
So in conclusion - there is zero advantage to betting these together unless they are correllated, which in this case they certainly are not. But surprisingly, there is no disadvantage to betting them this way either - there is simply no advantage or disadvantage.
Now that is saying that the expected winning percentages are exactly the price you are paying for the teams, which is not exactly true - I think a fairer use of the expected winning percentage would be based off a line that is split between the fav and dog - which in this case makes this parlay an EV loser.
But in any case, mathematically - saying "the reward far outeighs the risk" is not supported.
interesting take on this matter have a nice day...
By the way, my point above, and that is assuming best case scenario is that there is no advantage to betting the parlay unless they are correllated. If you could somehow put a correllated total and side in that parlay it would be better to bet it that way, but if they are not correllated it is the same as the following proposition:
Flip me a coin. Each time you win I pay you 100 and each time you lose you pay me 100.
OR
Spin a 38 number roulette wheel. Every time you name the correct number I pay you 3700, and every time you are wrong you pay me 100.
Some would choose the coin and some would choose roulette, but they are exactly the same over the long run. No advantage to one or the other.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
By the way, my point above, and that is assuming best case scenario is that there is no advantage to betting the parlay unless they are correllated. If you could somehow put a correllated total and side in that parlay it would be better to bet it that way, but if they are not correllated it is the same as the following proposition:
Flip me a coin. Each time you win I pay you 100 and each time you lose you pay me 100.
OR
Spin a 38 number roulette wheel. Every time you name the correct number I pay you 3700, and every time you are wrong you pay me 100.
Some would choose the coin and some would choose roulette, but they are exactly the same over the long run. No advantage to one or the other.
Sounds great, if you prefer warm and fuzzy feelings and high expectations to mathematics.
Saying that the "reward outweighs the risk by a whole lot" (saying a whole lot should be the first clue) is not only unmeasured it is flat out wrong.
Since Im feeling charitable, lets assign some real numbers to your 4 scenarios and do some real math - instead of guessing at how we feel about a risk / reward scenario:
At +200 and +230, you would expect those teams to win at a 33.3% and 30.4% respectively.
So:
1. Marlins W and Padres W = +$860 = 10.1% chance
2. Marlins W and Padres L = EVEN = 23.2% chance
3. Marlins L and Padres W = +$30 = 20.3% chance
4. Marlins L and Padres L = -$200 = 46.4% chance
So your overall EV is exactly 0.
So in conclusion - there is zero advantage to betting these together unless they are correllated, which in this case they certainly are not. But surprisingly, there is no disadvantage to betting them this way either - there is simply no advantage or disadvantage.
Now that is saying that the expected winning percentages are exactly the price you are paying for the teams, which is not exactly true - I think a fairer use of the expected winning percentage would be based off a line that is split between the fav and dog - which in this case makes this parlay an EV loser.
But in any case, mathematically - saying "the reward far outeighs the risk" is not supported.
This is the most I've learned on Coversin quite some time. Thanks vanzack
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Sounds great, if you prefer warm and fuzzy feelings and high expectations to mathematics.
Saying that the "reward outweighs the risk by a whole lot" (saying a whole lot should be the first clue) is not only unmeasured it is flat out wrong.
Since Im feeling charitable, lets assign some real numbers to your 4 scenarios and do some real math - instead of guessing at how we feel about a risk / reward scenario:
At +200 and +230, you would expect those teams to win at a 33.3% and 30.4% respectively.
So:
1. Marlins W and Padres W = +$860 = 10.1% chance
2. Marlins W and Padres L = EVEN = 23.2% chance
3. Marlins L and Padres W = +$30 = 20.3% chance
4. Marlins L and Padres L = -$200 = 46.4% chance
So your overall EV is exactly 0.
So in conclusion - there is zero advantage to betting these together unless they are correllated, which in this case they certainly are not. But surprisingly, there is no disadvantage to betting them this way either - there is simply no advantage or disadvantage.
Now that is saying that the expected winning percentages are exactly the price you are paying for the teams, which is not exactly true - I think a fairer use of the expected winning percentage would be based off a line that is split between the fav and dog - which in this case makes this parlay an EV loser.
But in any case, mathematically - saying "the reward far outeighs the risk" is not supported.
This is the most I've learned on Coversin quite some time. Thanks vanzack
I don't know, Buck, the only way this makes sense is if you identify inherent value in both dogs. I can definitely tell you San Diego should be over -300 rather than where the line is. They absolutely cannot hit lefties for anything and the pitching matchup is pretty staggering. So this would kill your value dog bets.
0
I don't know, Buck, the only way this makes sense is if you identify inherent value in both dogs. I can definitely tell you San Diego should be over -300 rather than where the line is. They absolutely cannot hit lefties for anything and the pitching matchup is pretty staggering. So this would kill your value dog bets.
Billybuck - if you get a chance to post how those values are calculated in this bet I would be greatly appreciative.
I have never seen this type of bet for baseball (not saying it isnt out there - its just not on my radar). I would also love to know if they take same game bets with this (like totals and sides in same game, and possibly run lines and totals same game).
Thanks
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Billybuck - if you get a chance to post how those values are calculated in this bet I would be greatly appreciative.
I have never seen this type of bet for baseball (not saying it isnt out there - its just not on my radar). I would also love to know if they take same game bets with this (like totals and sides in same game, and possibly run lines and totals same game).
Billybuck - if you get a chance to post how those values are calculated in this bet I would be greatly appreciative.
I have never seen this type of bet for baseball (not saying it isnt out there - its just not on my radar). I would also love to know if they take same game bets with this (like totals and sides in same game, and possibly run lines and totals same game).
Thanks
I only like throwing dogs in AR's, I will never bet favorites in AR's as AR's are all double action basiclaly.
so you start off with 2 straight bets
100-200 on fla if win 100-230 on pads
100-230 on sd if win 100-200 on fla
and to answer your question, yes you can do the same game AR's like Marlins and the Over for example they will take that.
As you can see this can get pretty dangerous if you are betting big favorites in an AR.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Billybuck - if you get a chance to post how those values are calculated in this bet I would be greatly appreciative.
I have never seen this type of bet for baseball (not saying it isnt out there - its just not on my radar). I would also love to know if they take same game bets with this (like totals and sides in same game, and possibly run lines and totals same game).
Thanks
I only like throwing dogs in AR's, I will never bet favorites in AR's as AR's are all double action basiclaly.
so you start off with 2 straight bets
100-200 on fla if win 100-230 on pads
100-230 on sd if win 100-200 on fla
and to answer your question, yes you can do the same game AR's like Marlins and the Over for example they will take that.
As you can see this can get pretty dangerous if you are betting big favorites in an AR.
I don't know, Buck, the only way this makes sense is if you identify inherent value in both dogs. I can definitely tell you San Diego should be over -300 rather than where the line is. They absolutely cannot hit lefties for anything and the pitching matchup is pretty staggering. So this would kill your value dog bets.
I think Van was utilizing the assumption that the Vegas oddsmakers have this down to a science. We utilze the most recognized and sharp lines prior to assessing probability.
If you have information that is unknown to the oddsmakers, this is where the probability could fluctuate from the above numbers.
Example: you were at Shea and found out that Delgado AND Reyes got into a scrap moments before gametime and both wouldn't be playing(assuming you had a direct line to your book and PRIOR to Vegas making the adjustment). This could potentially mean value...but all things aside, the Vegas numbers are the proper lines for the sake of the mathematical equation Van lays out above.
The above scenario RARELY happens without the knwledge of the moneymakers in Vegas. Remember that their profit is attained by maintaining a proper distribution of action so that they can take their juice and never worry about the outcome.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:
I don't know, Buck, the only way this makes sense is if you identify inherent value in both dogs. I can definitely tell you San Diego should be over -300 rather than where the line is. They absolutely cannot hit lefties for anything and the pitching matchup is pretty staggering. So this would kill your value dog bets.
I think Van was utilizing the assumption that the Vegas oddsmakers have this down to a science. We utilze the most recognized and sharp lines prior to assessing probability.
If you have information that is unknown to the oddsmakers, this is where the probability could fluctuate from the above numbers.
Example: you were at Shea and found out that Delgado AND Reyes got into a scrap moments before gametime and both wouldn't be playing(assuming you had a direct line to your book and PRIOR to Vegas making the adjustment). This could potentially mean value...but all things aside, the Vegas numbers are the proper lines for the sake of the mathematical equation Van lays out above.
The above scenario RARELY happens without the knwledge of the moneymakers in Vegas. Remember that their profit is attained by maintaining a proper distribution of action so that they can take their juice and never worry about the outcome.
I just want to give people a little bit about how I gamble...
Ive been doing this kind of bet in baseball for a LONG time, ive won my share of these and ive lost my share of these, it got to the point with one of my bookies about 10 years ago where he would take these anymore from me because he saw no advantage to taking them and It just killed him. I dont really play the %'s to be honest with you, Im an old time capper basically, look at whats available to me, research games a bit, go on hunches, talk to my friends, shit like that, does that make me a bad capper? Thats for you to decide. I just dont have the time to do all this in-depth type of stuff with systems and all sorts of this fancy bullshit. Ive been betting sports for a long time and its worked out for me and im not about to change it.
0
I just want to give people a little bit about how I gamble...
Ive been doing this kind of bet in baseball for a LONG time, ive won my share of these and ive lost my share of these, it got to the point with one of my bookies about 10 years ago where he would take these anymore from me because he saw no advantage to taking them and It just killed him. I dont really play the %'s to be honest with you, Im an old time capper basically, look at whats available to me, research games a bit, go on hunches, talk to my friends, shit like that, does that make me a bad capper? Thats for you to decide. I just dont have the time to do all this in-depth type of stuff with systems and all sorts of this fancy bullshit. Ive been betting sports for a long time and its worked out for me and im not about to change it.
I think Van was utilizing the assumption that the Vegas oddsmakers have this down to a science. We utilze the most recognized and sharp lines prior to assessing probability.
If you have information that is unknown to the oddsmakers, this is where the probability could fluctuate from the above numbers.
Example: you were at Shea and found out that Delgado AND Reyes got into a scrap moments before gametime and both wouldn't be playing(assuming you had a direct line to your book and PRIOR to Vegas making the adjustment). This could potentially mean value...but all things aside, the Vegas numbers are the proper lines for the sake of the mathematical equation Van lays out above.
The above scenario RARELY happens without the knwledge of the moneymakers in Vegas. Remember that their profit is attained by maintaining a proper distribution of action so that they can take their juice and never worry about the outcome.
What? I don't understand your post. Are you trying to say every line is put out according to what the exact winning percentages for each and every game should be?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mickyg:
I think Van was utilizing the assumption that the Vegas oddsmakers have this down to a science. We utilze the most recognized and sharp lines prior to assessing probability.
If you have information that is unknown to the oddsmakers, this is where the probability could fluctuate from the above numbers.
Example: you were at Shea and found out that Delgado AND Reyes got into a scrap moments before gametime and both wouldn't be playing(assuming you had a direct line to your book and PRIOR to Vegas making the adjustment). This could potentially mean value...but all things aside, the Vegas numbers are the proper lines for the sake of the mathematical equation Van lays out above.
The above scenario RARELY happens without the knwledge of the moneymakers in Vegas. Remember that their profit is attained by maintaining a proper distribution of action so that they can take their juice and never worry about the outcome.
What? I don't understand your post. Are you trying to say every line is put out according to what the exact winning percentages for each and every game should be?
What? I don't understand your post. Are you trying to say every line is put out according to what the exact winning percentages for each and every game should be?
What he is saying - if I can answer for him - is that in my math above I use the line itself as a predictor of expected probability to determine my percentages. But as he states - correctly - a line is not the best predictor of expected probability because a line is set to attract equal action, not predict results.
So - then he says - if you are actually at a game where you know you have an edge before anyone else does - and the line has not reacted - you are actually better off parlaying these advantage plays because they accellerate you positive EV.
Just like if you are an above 50% handicapper, and you can get parlays with no extra juice (true rollover payouts on parlays), then you are better parlaying your plays then betting straight bets - over the long run.
He is correct with everything he says in theory - the challenge is putting it in to practice.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:
What? I don't understand your post. Are you trying to say every line is put out according to what the exact winning percentages for each and every game should be?
What he is saying - if I can answer for him - is that in my math above I use the line itself as a predictor of expected probability to determine my percentages. But as he states - correctly - a line is not the best predictor of expected probability because a line is set to attract equal action, not predict results.
So - then he says - if you are actually at a game where you know you have an edge before anyone else does - and the line has not reacted - you are actually better off parlaying these advantage plays because they accellerate you positive EV.
Just like if you are an above 50% handicapper, and you can get parlays with no extra juice (true rollover payouts on parlays), then you are better parlaying your plays then betting straight bets - over the long run.
He is correct with everything he says in theory - the challenge is putting it in to practice.
Thanks Van. I am actually not well versed in this particular parlay theory. I usually try to stay away from all parlays. So this only works w/ two considerate dogs? And do most sites offer no extra juice?
0
Thanks Van. I am actually not well versed in this particular parlay theory. I usually try to stay away from all parlays. So this only works w/ two considerate dogs? And do most sites offer no extra juice?
Thanks Van. I am actually not well versed in this particular parlay theory. I usually try to stay away from all parlays. So this only works w/ two considerate dogs? And do most sites offer no extra juice?
No - not making a comment at all on the original posters strategy. It wouldnt matter dogs or no dogs....
What I am saying, and what the guy above says too - is that if you are a positive EV handicapper, and can get parlays to pay at true rollover odds, and have a deep bankroll or at least mm practices, you are better off (long run) parlaying than straight betting.
I know on the surface that goes against everything you might initially think - but its true - the act of parlaying accellerates your EV - either positive or negative. So if you are a positive EV player, it will accellerate that, and if you are negative it will accellerate that as well.
Lets say for extreme example - you are a 80% football capper. You also get true payout odds on parlays, like 7-1 on 3 teamers, 15-1 on 4 teamers etc.....
Your longterm EV is greater if you parlay, and not only parlay, but parlay as much as you can with as many teams as you can - than straight betting.
I think there will be some arguments come my way with this one because it is widely misunderstood because the circumstances of it working are almost impossible - but the math supports it.....
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lanastasis:
Thanks Van. I am actually not well versed in this particular parlay theory. I usually try to stay away from all parlays. So this only works w/ two considerate dogs? And do most sites offer no extra juice?
No - not making a comment at all on the original posters strategy. It wouldnt matter dogs or no dogs....
What I am saying, and what the guy above says too - is that if you are a positive EV handicapper, and can get parlays to pay at true rollover odds, and have a deep bankroll or at least mm practices, you are better off (long run) parlaying than straight betting.
I know on the surface that goes against everything you might initially think - but its true - the act of parlaying accellerates your EV - either positive or negative. So if you are a positive EV player, it will accellerate that, and if you are negative it will accellerate that as well.
Lets say for extreme example - you are a 80% football capper. You also get true payout odds on parlays, like 7-1 on 3 teamers, 15-1 on 4 teamers etc.....
Your longterm EV is greater if you parlay, and not only parlay, but parlay as much as you can with as many teams as you can - than straight betting.
I think there will be some arguments come my way with this one because it is widely misunderstood because the circumstances of it working are almost impossible - but the math supports it.....
Interesting. Why does parlaying get such a bad rap? Well, stupid question, I know the answer, but oddly enough, I had never actually sat down to do the math. So for a 55% ATS bettor, he would be better in the long run parlaying team X and Y rather than playing them separate. Does this edge only apply to two team parlays or others too? So, a fair question would be: Do you parlay any for bases?
0
Interesting. Why does parlaying get such a bad rap? Well, stupid question, I know the answer, but oddly enough, I had never actually sat down to do the math. So for a 55% ATS bettor, he would be better in the long run parlaying team X and Y rather than playing them separate. Does this edge only apply to two team parlays or others too? So, a fair question would be: Do you parlay any for bases?
Parlaying gets a bad rap because you hardly ever get enough payback odds on the parlay to justify your handicapping advantage. For every bit they take off of your payoff, you have to make it up in handicapping.
The other reason it gets a bad rap is because of variance. The variance is greater betting parlays, and betting more teams in parlays only increases that. So if you were a 10 team parlay advantage player - your mathematical EV might be positive - but you might have to survive 500 lost parlays to win your first - a feat most cant do. This is an extreme example but it applies to all parlay bettors - the more parlays the greater the variance.
And this is not just for 2 teamers - its for any and all advantage plays.
Short answer - the only time I parlay is when I feel I have a correllated parlay - like a total and a side....
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Parlaying gets a bad rap because you hardly ever get enough payback odds on the parlay to justify your handicapping advantage. For every bit they take off of your payoff, you have to make it up in handicapping.
The other reason it gets a bad rap is because of variance. The variance is greater betting parlays, and betting more teams in parlays only increases that. So if you were a 10 team parlay advantage player - your mathematical EV might be positive - but you might have to survive 500 lost parlays to win your first - a feat most cant do. This is an extreme example but it applies to all parlay bettors - the more parlays the greater the variance.
And this is not just for 2 teamers - its for any and all advantage plays.
Short answer - the only time I parlay is when I feel I have a correllated parlay - like a total and a side....
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
