To hedge or not to hedge, here is the math and why hedging is a bad idea....

The web site of betonsports.com is created to scam you out of your money when all they do is tell you to do what you just mentioned. It is a nervewracking way to bet as you will bust your bankroll pretty good when there is a one run win. The more popular way to do this bet is to bet the underdog at significant plus money as well as the fav -1.5. But trust me, I messed with this before and the results aren't pretty.

Just goes to show you that after a year and nearly 400 posts - some people just dont get it - and as this guy proves never will.

It is you who is making an innane argument.  It is you who needs to wake the fuck up.  And it is obviously you who needs to read this whole thread, and stop arguing basic mathematics.

When you argue with math, generally you are going to lose.  When you call math stupid, it is generally you who look stupid.  When you ignore math exists and give personal anecdotes to prove your point, you should quit gambling.

Oh my...

I know some people are dumb and ignorant but...

Best argument here was: We live in the US and A, if I want I can be wrong and I don't want your help even if it makes me ten times the more money, I'm an ignorant git and I won't listen to you even if you paint it red on my penis.



The books are smart, they want to make money and so do we.
Why do you think they gave you an option to hedge anyway ?

Yes, it's so that they have to pay less to, well that is if you are even winning. Most people are not.

You are really dumb.

oops!  only that top part was his quote!!!  sorry vanzack!!

, i love this thread...I just re-read it and have some things to add:

By the time that 4th (or final) game rolls around, the only thing that matters is THAT game.  It has nothing to do with "what you should have done before placing the parlay if you felt you might hedge the last game"  We are taking two things for certain in this hypothetical: 1) there is only one game left in a parlay, and 2) the amount to win/lose.

I may be thick in the head, but I just don't understand how taking the risk of LOSING $100 to win $1000 is a more sound betting practice than DEFINITELY WINNING $424.  "Guaranteed" money is always better than "maybe" money IMHO.

If you can't understand the math (or the logic), then perhaps gambling isn't for you.

That really is the bottom line of this entire discussion. If winning that last game of a 5 team parlay was so simple no one would hedge. Just because you have won 4 out of the 5 does not mean you will win the 5th.

I myself will take the guaranteed money as well.

Van, it's not even worth your effort to help these people at this point. They are too far gone. The problem is that 95% of bettors do not grasp the concept of "long term." They live in the moment, rely on instant gratification and don't see gambling as an investment. These are probably the same people that curse A-Rod because he doesn't hit the homer in the individual at bat they need him to without realizing the best baseball players fail 67 percent of the time. Ugh, I don't even know why I keep coming back to this thread.

I think this argues option #3 real well.  Another thing to add that 4th team is just in case something changes.  Lets say its a MNF game and the first 3 games come on Sunday.  Thats at least a good 36 hour span where something could come up.  For example, the team you chose quarterback gets sick and ends up sitting down.  Then you will be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to hedge. 

Anyways, enough with option #3. 

In your situation, its a 10-1 parlay to begin with.  You hit all 3 and then its a 50/50.  If a gambler feels like hedging to guarantee a profit because he thinks its too good to be true to hit a 10-1 parlay to begin with, then why not?  In the end its just a matter of gambling and how much you want to gamble?  With all the math you showed us, I just don't see it proving one choice is worse than the other.

And lanastasis, if your in it for the long run, why even do 4 team parlays?  But thats just my thinking.  I try avoiding large parlays altogether.

In the end its just a matter of gambling and how much you want to gamble?  With all the math you showed us, I just don't see it proving one choice is worse than the other.

If you are a recreational gambler with no intent of maximizing long term profits then, yes, by all means hedge that last game. If you understand mathematical theory and want to maximize profits, then you will never hedge. And if you fall into the category of the latter, then like you said, you will never parlay like this anyway.

Let's say your at a poker table playing poker. The River has come and you are pretty sure you have the best hand. You are in position and the 2 remaining players in front of you check it to you. Now you have 2 options:

1. You can check it and take down a real nice pot.

2. Since you are in a position of strength (thinking you have the best hand) you can bet out and hope for a call to insure that once you take the pot down with your better hand that it will be bigger than it would be if you had just checked.

I think most serious players would do #2 in a heartbeat and quite frankly #1 is a stupid thing to do. Sure you are winning the pot by checking but you are passing on an opportunity to TAKE DOWN A BIGGER POT, and thus you are NOT MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFIT.

In the long run by betting out in the poker scenario you will come ahead with more chips because you are taking advantage of the situation and playing it so you can make as much profit as possible. You won't get a call every time you bet out but sometimes you will and that will mean you take down a BIGGER POT than you would if you had just checked.

I'm not sure I've articulated this well enough but serious poker players will know what I'm talking about and how this situation can play out in so many aspects at the poker table. The bottom line in my poker example is sure you are taking down a nice pot, but why in the hell would you not try to maximize your profit when you are in a position of strength? YOU ARE SHORTCHANGING YOURSELF. Just like when you hedge a parlay you are shortchanging yourself by not trying to get the most money possible when you are in that position.

Andarmac, I understand what your trying to express about not shortchanging yourself and to take advantage of the position your in.  In this parlay situation, the advantage is you just made a 10-1 ticket into a 50/50.  But I would say your poker example is a bit off.  Too many factors to account for.

But the thing in this situation with the 4-team parlay,  If its 50/50 and you end up losing, aren't you shortchanging yourself by not taking the guaranteed money? 

You are assuming that people make these parlays with the intent on hedging the final game. I am sure that is not the case 99% of the time. That is definitely not the case when I make a parlay.

Look - Im going to try this again - for the 100th time in this thread by asking you a question to answer your question in bold above:

If the last game is 50/50, and I offer you a "guaranteed money" payout of less than 50/50, are you shortchanging yourself?

Im not sure how to explain this any better - when you hedge YOU ARE GETTING PAID LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR YOUR POSITION.

So let me take an extreme example:

If you bet a 4 team parlay, 100 to win 1000, and the first 3 are in, and I offer you 100 dollars to buy that parlay for you before the last game is played.  Do you take it?  Its "guaranteed money".  Of course you dont.  How about 200?  Nope.  How about 300?  Getting itchy now?  Probably not.

So why when I offer you 520, instead of the 550 that it is really worth, you jump at the chance of "guaranteed money"?  DONT YOU GET THIS?  WHEN YOU HEDGE YOU TAKE LESS MONEY THAN YOU SHOULD - AND THEREFORE YOUR GUARANTEE COMES AT A PRICE THAT OVER THE LONG RUN YOU WILL LOSE MONEY BECAUSE OF IT.

Please read it again.  Im losing patience explaining this over and over.  If you dont understand it by now - you really shouldnt be gambling - and maybe go invest in a community college course on basic probability.

WoW been so long i almost forgot my password.....needless to say here we are.....Good write up Van...good to see you again, good luck this YEAR....Here we go!

I have never once said I don't understand what you are trying to express.  Its funny because here you are trying to express your view and help people out, but at the same time seem so pissy about it.  Its not that people don't understand your view, its that they disagree.  Can you not comprehend that?  Just because people disagree with your advice, you shouldn't automatically label them as dumb people who need to take math courses.

Sort of like a little girl if you ask me (omg, I'm so right, if you don't understand then read it again and goto community college!). 

I do get the point that you are getting paid less than fair market value when your in a position as you described.

To get the guaranteed money, theres a price to pay for it and some people decide to pay it.  Its called being safe and not having to gamble at all (lots of people call that the wise thing to do).  Just because someone decides to take the guaranteed money, doesn't make it the wrong or stupid choice.
 
Whether you always let it ride or always hedge, I just don't see how either could be the right or wrong thing to do. 

If your motivation is to make money:

1.  You are doing the wrong thing by hedging

2.  It is a stupid choice

3. This is not an opinion, these are facts

4.  I dont care if you dont like my personality, my personality did not invent mathematics and you dont have to like me to be apply to the laws of mathematics.

5.  If you say you understand the math, but for some reason you choose to disregard the math - that makes you stupid and wrong.

Sorry, but thems the facts.

Math is wrong here.

1. 1696
2. 1800