Posted:
#26
Hey dumbass.......there is no juice if you win and there is no value in a losing ticket 
Fuck wrong with you 
Good luck tonight Key 
0
The Blog you have waited for, plus Money Ball 10.17.12
Posted:
#27
Quote Originally Posted by mmac66:
Hey dumbass.......there is no juice if you win and there is no value in a losing ticket
Fuck wrong with you
Good luck tonight Key
Betting to win on faves and flat betting unit size on dogs just limits variance. Most people that gamble lose, and limiting variance is much more comfortable for them. It makes gambling less stressful as for a loser their will be more downswings than upswings, and betting to win on faves and flat betting dogs will cause large downswings to hit much less often.
It's also the idea of betting on a team that is statistically 'more likely to win' regardless of the EV of the actual bet given the odds one gets. Psychologically, MANY people just want to bet on the team that will win more often regardless of odds. (There's no juice when you win theory)
Also, I'm sure everyone understands why it's tougher psychologically for a recreational gambler to pull the trigger betting $100 to win $200 on a +200 dog than $100 to win $50 on a -200 fave, even if ROIs are somehow proven to be the same on both plays in the long run. The fact is that they will lose their $100 far less if they bet the favorite. It honestly doesn't register as clearly that they are being paid 4x on the dog as they are on the fave, they want to pick a winner. At -200/200 with a 65% win rate for the fave and 35% win rate for the dog proven and established, there would be those at covers that would take the favorite.
The fact is just that psychology and human nature dictate that people are loss averse to the point they would rather win 2/3 of their bets than 1/3, even if given the odds they can make slightly more winning 1/3... of course at the time of wagering, they cannot prove this to themselves as a fact either way, which makes it even easier psychologically to take favorites, as usually the favorite is the better team.
0
Posted:
#28
Quote Originally Posted by Donnie_Baseball:
Betting to win on faves and flat betting unit size on dogs just limits variance. Most people that gamble lose, and limiting variance is much more comfortable for them. It makes gambling less stressful as for a loser their will be more downswings than upswings, and betting to win on faves and flat betting dogs will cause large downswings to hit much less often.
It's also the idea of betting on a team that is statistically 'more likely to win' regardless of the EV of the actual bet given the odds one gets. Psychologically, MANY people just want to bet on the team that will win more often regardless of odds. (There's no juice when you win theory)
Also, I'm sure everyone understands why it's tougher psychologically for a recreational gambler to pull the trigger betting $100 to win $200 on a +200 dog than $100 to win $50 on a -200 fave, even if ROIs are somehow proven to be the same on both plays in the long run. The fact is that they will lose their $100 far less if they bet the favorite. It honestly doesn't register as clearly that they are being paid 4x on the dog as they are on the fave, they want to pick a winner. At -200/200 with a 65% win rate for the fave and 35% win rate for the dog proven and established, there would be those at covers that would take the favorite.
The fact is just that psychology and human nature dictate that people are loss averse to the point they would rather win 2/3 of their bets than 1/3, even if given the odds they can make slightly more winning 1/3... of course at the time of wagering, they cannot prove this to themselves as a fact either way, which makes it even easier psychologically to take favorites, as usually the favorite is the better team.
Maybe I should try betting a dog or two......never occured to me
0
Posted:
#29
Quote Originally Posted by Donnie_Baseball:
Betting to win on faves and flat betting unit size on dogs just limits variance. Most people that gamble lose, and limiting variance is much more comfortable for them. It makes gambling less stressful as for a loser their will be more downswings than upswings, and betting to win on faves and flat betting dogs will cause large downswings to hit much less often.
It's also the idea of betting on a team that is statistically 'more likely to win' regardless of the EV of the actual bet given the odds one gets. Psychologically, MANY people just want to bet on the team that will win more often regardless of odds. (There's no juice when you win theory)
Also, I'm sure everyone understands why it's tougher psychologically for a recreational gambler to pull the trigger betting $100 to win $200 on a +200 dog than $100 to win $50 on a -200 fave, even if ROIs are somehow proven to be the same on both plays in the long run. The fact is that they will lose their $100 far less if they bet the favorite. It honestly doesn't register as clearly that they are being paid 4x on the dog as they are on the fave, they want to pick a winner. At -200/200 with a 65% win rate for the fave and 35% win rate for the dog proven and established, there would be those at covers that would take the favorite.
The fact is just that psychology and human nature dictate that people are loss averse to the point they would rather win 2/3 of their bets than 1/3, even if given the odds they can make slightly more winning 1/3... of course at the time of wagering, they cannot prove this to themselves as a fact either way, which makes it even easier psychologically to take favorites, as usually the favorite is the better team.
Honestly man. Do your fucking research before you post. mmac66 is one of the most prolific (successful) dog pickers on this website. He hardly EVER takes a favorite. Everybody that has been here for more than 5 minutes know that. Do your math. That's all I ask. It's not too much. Don't waste our time with bullshit attacking someone else's credibility when you don't even spare the courtesy of looking into WTF you are ranting about.
0
Posted:
#30
That would be simpler but I may choose to play a 4 or 6 unit selection and that would be closer to reality than attempting to adjust a 1 unit selection. The increase or decrees would be much closer t what Intend that way, as I may find a play with a little more or less investment value, but never a radical amount. I think when people play 1 to 10 units the risk is disproportionate to the normal, average bet. If a $100 player wants to call a unit $20, then he could put $80 on a 4 unit or $120 on a six unit and be within a more natural range. The amount per unit is a personal thing.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by gabs24:
I wanted to comment on this post because I too love craps and have been playing for years...it really does not relate to Keys post but I thought I would share something about craps....The beauty of the game is that you are allowed to play with the house and play with the shooter at the same time...yes you will be the most hated man at the table,keep a low profile, but who cares, because when everyone is coming and going and seeing your stacks grow, they will start to talk to you and try and understand how "you do it"...now do not get me wrong, that you will definitely get run over now and again when you run into a heater, but that is where the "place" bets come in to play....as long as you play the do not pass line, and lay your odds, which is the best bet inn the entire casino, and you play your place bets you will be a highly highly profitable craps player in the long run....this goes with the fact that people like to bet the favorites, except in craps people love to bet on the pass line, even know the odds are against them...it is pyschological, and will never change
BOL TO ALL
0
Posted:
#33
Post #30 is in regard to the question about why 5 units unless otherwise noted. As for Donnie, just ignore his post, he must be unaware that mmac66 and I are friends and his "dumbass" post was in jest, at least I think it was. If not, well then maybe I am a dumbass, lol.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Posted:
#37
Quote Originally Posted by JEG53:
O great,like Keys head isnt big enough,now the dickhead really going to be pleased with himself,
O great, the dickhead bartender got an evening off and is going to make a pain in the ass out of himself.O great,like Keys head isnt big enough,now the dickhead really going to be pleased with himself,
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Posted:
#39
The "Key" word (pun intended
) is "physcological" imo....
And for that matter a better word(s) should be money management....
If every so called "gambler" understood the fact that losing 45%-47% (even slightly higher) of your plays IS A GOOD THING, then this thing we call gambling would be easy to understand. Problem is, 80% of the betting public can't afford to lose, thus eliminating the dog for most wagers being placed by the public.
I remember a day about 3 weeks before the season ended. Six games on the board and all are huge #'s...-170 and higher, or +155 up...
I told my buddy who called with questions about the games to just bet ALL the dogs small but even (i didn't have time to go over every game w/ him), because picking and choosing a fav on that day was a stupid process. I told him if he went 2-4 he would be down small, but 3-3 would bring a profit and 4-2 for the dogs would bring a nice payout. He didn't listen, played a fav, lost -170 and was pissed. The dogs actually went 3-3. He's humbly learning, as I have from you "Key"...looking forward to next year
0
Hot Forum Topics
