Cavs Championship futures ticketholders?Save yourself the grief and put those babies in the shredder

No, I have my money tied up elsewhere.

people have seen my NBA playoff record, all documented. I am not one to toot my own horn but I dare you to find a single person on covers who has had a better playoffs than me. It's very weird that you would say that to me. at this point. At least wait till I have a bad run....maybe one will come this Fall who knows.

Just think you said something in your intro that you are having to own up to and it was just more of the same in the NFL season every week with the NY jets.

And as for the GD discussion I challenged you since you seem so adamant about blacks rights improving to make steps to run for office, donate your time to a movement, do something productive to stop the bigotry that runs rampant throughout this country every day. This would truly show how much you care about the topic.

Have you made any of those steps yet?

Oh look at you!

You got the Cavs at 30-1!!

Boy, aren't you special!!!

Folks, write it down right now: those tickets ARE TOAST.

If they should ever get to the finals, the representative will smoke them like a cheap joint. I'd love it to be the Spurs to have LBJ smacked up twice in two cities.

Sorry guys, this futures goose....is cooked.

And please, bump this thread in some alternate universe if they should ever win it all.

The series could EASILY be 2-1 if not for Dellavadova:

1) Grabbing a rebound in game 2 with 10 seconds left and sinking 2.

2) Throwing up a Chris Paul-esque (vs. Spurs) circus shot that went down with the foul at 81-80 with the Warriors rallying.

If one of those two things don't happen, it's 2-1 Warriors.

Now I won't play coulda/shoulda/woulda here and say that the Cavs shouldn't be up 2-1. They are and should be.

Thanks for coming back to the thread. We now have ONE poster who has a future that matter with the OP at hand.

I want to be clear for the thousandth time. I NEVER said your ticket was worthless.

On the very first page, I specifically said:

I'm not talking about hedging. I'm talking about going all the way.

And they will pay the same as the 3-1 ticket: Nothing.

I had the Spurs at 8-1, 7-1, 6-1, 4-1, and 3-1 and didn't buy out a single dime of it.

I'm not one to buy out of any future or why even get involved. And let me say this. The hedging gets a little sticky...

After I said the word 'sticky', the thread went on endlessly as I explained something called 'effective hedging'.

I still hold firm to the fact that your ticket is worthless as a 'winner' and THAT IS ALL.

As a way to make a profit, you appear to have the bankroll (but still not enough to maximize profit) to come out with a profit.

That profit, as you noted will be about $1,200, as a rough estimate according to you, if the Cavs don't win. But here is the key: you risked $5,900 (5K + 500 on the Hawks + 400 on the original bet) return for a profit of $1,200, and that is IF the odds stay as you say they will (which they won't of course).

Now you have risked another $1K and that will ONLY get you your original 400 back plus 20 bucks. Why? The hedge is coming at the worst possible time with the worst possible team. And that is how things get 'sticky'.

This is not to defame you...profit is profit and you should be proud you went after that lottery ticket and now the Cavs are in the finals.

But people in this thread are going berserk about what I wrote in the OP: and that is specifically THE CAVS WILL NOT WIN THE TITLE.

Now I ask Rangerz, who says I put my foot in my mouth, how in the world is dropping $5,900 to win $1,200 something that is extraordinary?

If this futures doesn't hit, that ROI is positively dismal and that's only because he has the bankroll which by the way, as I've said over and over, the casual $100 bettor does not have.

And the thought that this hedge was 'guaranteed' is ludicrous. The Cavs needed to get Mozgov JR and Shump to be where they are. Does anyone believe they'd be in the position they are in right now without those players? They may have even lost to the Bulls and the odds may have skyrocketed to boot before the bettor even recognized a proper hedge.

Hedging for a small profit with a terrible ROI is NOTHING compared to actually hitting a 30-1 future, which since day 1, I said wouldn't happen (and I said it purposely at 3-1 to prove a point).

And you said it yourself Rangerz, this is all possible IF YOU HAVE THE BANKROLL.

Even this poster can't maximize his profit because although he has 5K, that is not enough to hedge out the maximum. Sticky Sticky Sticky even with 5 large, as expected.

And BB noted this above in support of me: that is the entire point...there are so many variables to effectively hedge until the last game of the year WITH the bankroll, things get incredibly sticky even though this poster is a mere 4 games away from cashing it. But those 4 games may as well be as far away as the moon right now.

Of course, lady luck smiles on the Cavs once again (as she has the entire playoffs along with the hired goon of Dellavadova taking out kneecaps) with Steph doing his best Cirque De Soliel act landing on his head and Klay taking a MMA knee to his face and projectile vomiting out of his father's car, but ultimately I stand by my statement, the Cavs will not win...and an highly unremarkable hedge with a hideous ROI (and the luck, yes luck, it took for the Cavs to get the Knicks roster dump) doesn't impress me in the least.

If he CASHES at 28-1, everyone can pile on but until then, what is the big deal????

BB, thanks for being the most level headed person in the thread as usual.

I obviously have money against the Cavs on the series Melos. The best part about that is that it prevents me from betting individual zig and zag series games where you could lose your shirt if you are black when red comes out or red when black comes out.

The series could EASILY be 2-1 if not for Dellavadova:

1) Grabbing a rebound in game 2 with 10 seconds left and sinking 2.

2) Throwing up a Chris Paul-esque (vs. Spurs) circus shot that went down with the foul at 81-80 with the Warriors rallying.

If one of those two things don't happen, it's 2-1 Warriors.

Now I won't play coulda/shoulda/woulda here and say that the Cavs shouldn't be up 2-1. They are and should be.

But I've seen enough out the Dubs and more than enough of the two ultra-hustle plays from that little twerp that gave the Cavs the series lead and that simply can't happen game after game after game (although it's happened twice in a row now). The Warriors will adjust and minimize Delly (I can't believe I have to write that) and I'm more than happy to see enough out of what was a give-up game at the end of the third turn into a possible Warriors win.

They were down 2-1 to Memphis and the earth shook. Same thing is happening here. Just win game 4 and you have similar series odds and home court back in the Dubs corner.

And on top of that, the refs clearly used this as a give-back game to the Cavs 'calls-wise' (not that the Cavs didn't deserve such a game after last game's atrocious calls against them).

Look at the Draymond Green play where he was 'blocked' by Mozgov's body and the refs said it was legit because Mozgov went 'straight up'. Folks, that's a foul 95 out of 100 times in the NBA but set a tone for who the refs were going to work for that night, further frustrating the Warriors. And they STILL rallied from a HUGE deficit, never conceding and almost forcing a record third OT when many had shut the game off long before that. Again, the Cavs should be up 2-1 but there was enough in this game for me to say I'm confident it will be 2-2 shortly. 20/5/4 for Dellavadova....my god. First it was a blessing Love went down and now it has been a blessing Kyrie went down.

The horseshoe up their as* will start to rust after this game. 

Even if I backed away you'd still bump the thread for all eternity if the Cavs one. I'll ride this baby out anyway down 2-1!

Yeah, he's a good one. Put him on the Knicks and they'll end up with the same 17 wins.

You don't even understand what a conditional statement is.

If I said at the beginning of the year, if Steve Kerr goes 10-72 he should be fired, that has NO BEARING on whether he wins 67 games, 77 games, or all 82 for that matter.

Go look up what a conditional statement means and get back to me. Then again, don't. You've proven you haven't learned much after even 540 posts.