Anchor Baby, A yknot betting concept.

@vanzack

 Not sure what you are getting at? 

That they put different values on lives based on different circumstances?

The life insurance industry is based on laying very long odds, on an event that is 100% going to happen. It correlates very well as a concept with your hundred to one example. The fact that there are long odds doesn't mean that you can't make money laying those odds.

Life insurance companies lay long odds, way longer than 100 to 1, all the time. This is how the industry is based. They lay thousands to one on an individual death, on event that is inevitable, but are extremely profitable because they pay less odds then the events actual probability.

It is a 100% exact correlation to laying 100 to 1, on an event that has higher actual odds.

Bottom line is there is no odds threshold that negates expected value. You throw it 100 to one like that's some kind of threshold that you can't make money on. It is inherently a false statement, and you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over as if that is to prove that you can't be profitable laying 100 to 1. You can be. It is a simple formula of paying less than the actual odds of an event.

Not interested in going round and round and round and round on this. It's simple probability theory that has been proven over and over and over.

@vanzack

 Of course you can be profitable betting any odds....thats a blanket statement

And I agree if you pick your spots at 100-1 sure....but as you increase your sample size you increase your risk of hitting that 1 loser

The real question is can you hit the required win rate at said odds over a long period. Hence why I say over 100 picks and all the different variations you have exposed yourself too, chances are decent that the opposite side of your bet wins 1 of those 100 bets...

Could you go 100-0... absolutely.....is it likely...no

@vanzack

 Also life insurance isn't a great example because death is a fact. The insurance company 100% knows the final result  and can price that in based on how at risk that persons life is to dying. Coal mine worker vs desk worker

The sporting event result is an unknown and odds are placed on potential results..

Oh dear, I give up. You're right, I am wrong. I concede.

I need to get back to my life outside of this moronic echo chamber.

Carry on

@vanzack

 Your logic summed up

The book says 100-1

My numbers say 200-1

I can't be wrong cause it is +ev

Carry on

@vanzack

I find it very interesting how dubz4dummy has really stepped up this username's posting volume ever since dubz4life got banned.

Van you got trolled hard these past few days,,,but i know you were just playing along out of pity for this lonely dubz4donkies 

The irony of ripping a guy for 70-7 but then saying 100-0 record on 100-1 bets is normal if they +ev as if nothing could go wrong during 1 of those 100 bets

Only on covers

Not 70-7.  He is 72-7.

*His word, not posted, none of it is posted.

Yeah, just playing along here out of boredom.  No games and sitting in front of lines screens all day makes me a little crazy, and I like mixing it up occasionally.  Although I have to admit - these guys in this thread are a little short on the ability to mix it up or be challenging.  It is really bottom of the barrel stuff - by aliases - probably all the same person.

Not sure why this ynot dude comes out of nowhere to attack Vanzack while at the same time boasting of numerous unsubstantiated claims of handicapping skill.

Anybody can talk the talk; make bountiful boasts of skill

Anybody can get short-term lucky and go on a temporary win streak.

And anybody can copy picks from others and claim them as his own. Even tout-wannabees!

These things happen here and on other sports forums weekly.

Sure, there will always be gullible people who will pay touts, or believe unsubstantiated claims of handicapping magnificence

But the intelligent person knows" the proof is in the pudding:" where's the verifiable documentation?

Here??   I don't see any 70-7 (or 72-9) documented anywhere here! 

Those are lofty but unsubstantiated claims. 

 Vanzack is documented here:  NFL 75-59  - a solid Win-Loss record!

That's a record from early Sept to now, and a good sample size of 134 picks!

Sample size is critically important toward eliminating the possibility of short-term random luck.

Generally speaking 25, or 30, or 35 picks posted over an NFL season mean squat in regard to a capper's alleged skills!  The sample size is too frickn small!  With the rare exception being if a capper can hit a very high win percentage on small sample sizes and repeat that same high win percentage year after year after year after year -- all posted and documented for verification of course.  If not posted/documented, any "claims" of outlandish win percentage mean squat, except to the truly gullible fools. (testimonials from shills are disregarded)

@vanzack

  I get where we diverge...you are assuming a +ev bet as a winner or as a long term winner....in the long term it is a winner....but at certain odds are you potentially at a disadvantage as you increase your sample size (bets/exposure)...

When looked at as single event a +ev bet is just a winner or a loser...

In my example of 100, 100-1 bets they could all be +ev ...the events still have to be played and the chance of an upset is still plausible. 

Also +ev is not a constant. It is a created. You might think you have a better edge on game A then I think I have on game A.

I 100% agree with +ev plays in a certain odds range over thousands of bets. But again that +ev is an edge you think you have....it isn't an edge set in stone....

the 100, 100-1 bets is just showing that it only takes 1 slip out of 100 bets to be back to square 1, even if your numbers are telling you that its +ev...+ev not the be all end all, just another factor to consider

Interesting topic for sure

Actually, I am forced to follow logic and agree with Vanzack if that truly sums up what his point is.

IF (big if) one is a winning capper, or just a break even capper, either is fine, and that capper finds multiple games he truly believes have 2 to 1 odds to win outright but the books are listing them for what is in effect HALF PRICE - one would be a fool not to grab each and every one of those he identifies that way and keep playing those same type of bets over and over and over.

So a winning capper like Vanzack sincerely identifies a side with 200-1 odds of winning but the book is only charging at 100-1 rates = take the frickn bet every time!

It's a solid "value play"

But this only works consistently for cappers who can win year over year consistently

@zircon

 Good comment. I agree with most of it.

I doubt in a lifetime one could place 100, 100-1 bets and go undeafeated ......if this was the case every Joe blow would just bet 100-1 games their entire life...sure your numbers are telling you it a +ev play but over 100 plays you are bound to be wrong once...simple as that

Now if we wanna talk +ev at -110 odds that is an entirely different conversation as the win rate required for profit drops substantially for -110

@zircon

 Also find it interesting that no one is saying your +ev play can still lose. ...In the 100-1 example that is crucial 

In the -110 convo it doesn't matter as much cause you don't need as high of a win rate for profit 

Yeah, of course, but I also do not read into Vanzack's comments that he was truly suggesting any 100-1 bets even exist, but rather just tossing out numbers as an illustration for argument sake.

Likewise, I could make the argument that there is value in betting on coin-flips, if (big if) the payouts on TAILS  was +105 on a win or -100 if it loses.  Solid value betting on TAILS every time!  But obviously such a betting scenario on coin-flips will NEVER occur!  Nevertheless it works as an illustration about "value betting"  I believe that was what Vanzack was presenting an illustration of a larger point.

@TRAIN69

 I agree...the 100-1 a bit far-fetched but it gets the point across about different win rates associated with different odds

Great thoughts. Your last sentence is very interesting. 

Of course 100-1 has an expectancy to lose once every 100 plays on average.

But the point I believe Vanzack was making and I certainly agree with is what if it is a 200-1 expectancy but the book is only charging 100-1 rates?!? 

IF the capper is indeed correct in his assessment, he could play 200 of those same type bets and the expectancy is ONE LOSS.   HUGE PROFIT over time!   IF HE IS A SOLID WINNING CAPPER (or actually it still works if he is no worse than break even as a capper because the value compared to his skill level is still solid)

@zircon

 I may have been to dialed in on the 100-1 example

Right that's a massive IF...all I was saying...

Think of the millions of variables in 200 events...

Is this cappers+ev system that dialed in?

Does the teams star player get hurt in the 1st 5 min of the game and now ur +ev bet has turned negative?

This is called exposure, as you increase your sample size you expose yourself to more potentials for loss...

Again this is only specific to 100-1 example

Of course at -110 the win rate needed drops 

Now we politicize this sports forum discussion with Life insurance to the equation wtf!

@Macwestie1

 What about the sun rising

@Macwestie1

The amount of SAFs that have exploded onto the scene this past week is a COVID-19 side effect...the only way to treat this problem is by 100% ignoring them altogether.

Dubz4life will eventually realize his dopamine hits for attention is no longer satisfying his narcissistic supply, and will evolve into something else.