Posted:
#451
0
To hedge or not to hedge, here is the math and why hedging is a bad idea....
Posted:
#452
I debated whether to respond anymore - but I had to to Archdiver.
My example in the first post is not flawed. You have 2 options when placing a bet:
1. A 10-1 four team parlay
2. A 6-1 three team parlay, and roll it over on the 4th game because it is the next day.
I have no idea what your point is, but that is straight up easy math there and it would be more profitable to bet it using option 2. You are betting the same bet with better payback. Dont know your point and maybe you can clarify, but there is no wrong math. Given the choice at the begining of a parlay, if the games dont start at the same time, you are better rolling over your bets.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#453
a 4 team parlay that pays out 10 to 1 is based on average
odds of -122 for each game.( the precise odds is -121.8)
you say it would be much smarter (no brainer) to bet only the first three of those bets and he would have won 6 to 1. that, is mathematically impossible.
His three game parlay would have only paid 5 to 1.
My point is that you cant change the odds in your comparison
and then say that strategy is a no brainer.
0
Posted:
#454
more math.....
in a 4 game parlay where the odds generate 1000 profit for 100 wagered.
the profit is the same whether you took that 100 bucks and bet
the four games in a row , each time rolling all your winnings into the next game
or even
bet the 3 game parlay and rolled the winnings into the fourth game.
the profit is always going to be the same
you will end up with the same amount of money 1000 plus your original 100 bucks.
0
Posted:
#455
Quote Originally Posted by archdriver:
a 4 team parlay that pays out 10 to 1 is based on average
odds of -122 for each game.( the precise odds is -121.8)
you say it would be much smarter (no brainer) to bet only the first three of those bets and he would have won 6 to 1. that, is mathematically impossible.
His three game parlay would have only paid 5 to 1.
My point is that you cant change the odds in your comparison
and then say that strategy is a no brainer.
Hmmm.. Pretty sure Van is going on the premise that most books pay 6-1 for a 3 team parlay.... 600 + your original 100...
0
Posted:
#456
Archdiver - look - take a breath and go look up a 3 team parlay odds. It is standard 6-1 for football.
Now go look up a 4 team footabll parlay. Also standard 10-1.
These are not "rollover parlays", these are predetermined odds on football parlays.
So if a 4 team parlay is 10-1 (which it is in the very first post of this thread), and a 3 team parlay is 6-1 (which it also is), then if you are prepared to bet a 4 team parlay and the last game of those 4 starts at a later day or time, you are better off betting a 3 team parlay and rolling it on to the 4th game - WHICH IS EXACTLY THE PRECISE SITUATION WHICH STARTED THIS THREAD TO BEGIN WITH.
Please - think about it before you post again with more math - you are just misunderstanding the point.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#457
Quote Originally Posted by wasabitobiko:
Hmmm.. Pretty sure Van is going on the premise that most books pay 6-1 for a 3 team parlay.... 600 + your original 100...
Hmmm.. Pretty sure Van is going on the premise that most books pay 6-1 for a 3 team parlay.... 600 + your original 100...
You beat me to it.
You think if I would have gotten the math wrong in the initial post - it wouldnt have taken a year and 500 more posts afterwards for someone to uncover it.
This guy archdiver doesnt realize that parlays in football have predetermined odds.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#459
Classic thread.. arguing with the universal language is 
On another note.. Arch made a good point that a 4 team parlay for 10-1 is actually based on average odds of -122 for each game while a 3 teamer is -110. Even further reason not to make the 4 teamer which at -110 would be 12-1.. food for thought..
On another note.. Arch made a good point that a 4 team parlay for 10-1 is actually based on average odds of -122 for each game while a 3 teamer is -110. Even further reason not to make the 4 teamer which at -110 would be 12-1.. food for thought..
0
Posted:
#465
Good thread. Long thread. I dont know if this has been brought up yet but alot of the parlay players are smaller unit players. They put in parlays in an attempt to "win big" with minimal risk. These players wont roll over the 6-1 payout onto the 4th leg but a 4-team parlay will insure that big bet. So most end up hedging at least a portion for the "guarantee" profit. It may be mathematically flawed but then again if they cared about that they wouldnt have placed the bet in in the first place.
0
Posted:
#466
Quote Originally Posted by ZonaCats:
this same concept applies to all table games. Example: Insurance in Blackjack. You hit 21 but dealer is showing an Ace. You can take even money or ride it. Smarter to ride it out, then take the reduced payout over the long term. Same deal hedging w/ sports bets. It's always better not to in the long term.
The exception is what most people here are attempting to argue: in the short term. You shouldn't make short term decisions. To consistently make money in this market (essentially investing), you should only care about the long term. Keep a consistent strategy, stay disciplined and adhere to the right principles and you'll win money. Not just once, twice or a few times but consistently over long periods of time.
this same concept applies to all table games. Example: Insurance in Blackjack. You hit 21 but dealer is showing an Ace. You can take even money or ride it. Smarter to ride it out, then take the reduced payout over the long term. Same deal hedging w/ sports bets. It's always better not to in the long term.
The exception is what most people here are attempting to argue: in the short term. You shouldn't make short term decisions. To consistently make money in this market (essentially investing), you should only care about the long term. Keep a consistent strategy, stay disciplined and adhere to the right principles and you'll win money. Not just once, twice or a few times but consistently over long periods of time.
^^^ This is the best example here.
So yes, in the long run it's best not to take insurance just like it's best not to hedge. But let's say on one hand you bet $1 million and get a blackjack when the dealer has an ace, then for sure I'm taking the guaranteed even money. For the guys that agree with hedging, they're just betting a high % compared to their bankroll, so for them taking the guaranteed money makes sense.
Mathematically it's clearly black and white, but emotions make hedging a reasonable option to some people.
0
Posted:
#469
Yea but there's a sound problem with this reasoning to a degree.
Let's say you take the 4th game off the parlay like you said...now you are left with 3 games. Now say the first two win....now you're in the exact same situation as you were with the 4 game parlay.
You now have to choose whether to hedge or not. And if you planned on doing it with a 4 gamer, what makes it any different with 3?
Plus it's not likely after I cash my 3 gamer, that I would go and throw all of it into the 4th game...even if I like the 4th game. It would still be smarter to bank some of it and just straight bet the last game. And in that situation, you're still banking some in the interest of guarunteed money.
So really it's not that different.
0
Posted:
#470
Yea but there's a sound problem with this reasoning to a degree.
Let's say you take the 4th game off the parlay like you said...now you are left with 3 games. Now say the first two win....now you're in the exact same situation as you were with the 4 game parlay.
You now have to choose whether to hedge or not. And if you planned on doing it with a 4 gamer, what makes it any different with 3?
Plus it's not likely after I cash my 3 gamer, that I would go and throw all of it into the 4th game...even if I like the 4th game. It would still be smarter to bank some of it and just straight bet the last game. And in that situation, you're still banking some in the interest of guarunteed money.
So really it's not that different.
0
Posted:
#473
Hey Vanzack,
I enjoyed that analysis a great deal. I never looked at hedging as being a bad idea but your math is well demonstrated and it makes good sense to me.
The only item that I think could be debated is that the probability of winning a game is a 50/50 chance. For example if a player just guessed which team will win then that portion shows a coin flip opportunity, however if through deeper analysis you saw that a line was way off, and the probability of the favourite winning was more like 60/40, and you're on the dog, then hedging may be profitable here.
If the guess was random, you may be on the wrong side of a very bad line. Isn't all this gambling about finding oddsmaker errors, or beating their lines.
Your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks
0
Posted:
#474
It could be said that people hedge because even though mathematically it is wrong, they have the satisfaction of having a winning ticket no matter what happens. Psychologically, this is very important to those who either believe that gambling is a silly way to spend money or to justify to those close to them worried about their gambling habit(s) that complaints such as "you always lose" or "you will never make any money gambling" are untrue.
That could explain an example that comes from the world of parimutual betting. Say there is an animal with 3-5 odds. There is no handicapping method that can accurately predict that one animal in a race where all the other animals meet the criteria for that race will win with such overwelming regularity. So knowing that the public is wrong more than they are right, the gambler may bet the same dollar value on each of 4 or 5 other animals at odds from 4-1 (exactly break-even) to maybe 20-1 in order to (hopefully) have a winning ticket.
The thrill of "going to the window" is overwelmingly attractive to the gambler and worth the risk of losing all bets when the favorite (or a different animal) wins. Hedging the last bet of a parlay gives the gambler the thrill of "going to the window" every time. (S)he doesn't care that (s)he loses money doing this; (s)he gets something back. That makes him/her happy.
0
Posted:
#475
I agree that this relates more to the psychological mindset and inexperience of the player rather than the math for numerous reasons.
Being recreational players, they arent interested in learning the right way to wager(let alone handicap), they just want action.
Parlay players for the most part have limited bankrolls - parlays allow them to "get action" on lots of games for limited investment.
Cheap entertainment
Turn toothpick into lumberyard etc
Ego- How many times have you heard guys say "I can easily hit one out of 10 4 teamers"?
Then when they finally come to the final leg- they hedge to guarantee themselves money. They dont care about the math. Their mindset is that they have more than they started so it was a great bet--- .
They schedule the last leg intentionally for sun night or mon so they can "watch themselves cash in" mentality..then second guessing themselves electing to hedge reverting back to the "more than I started with" theory
Greed-- the larger odds entice adding that extra game. I've heard the same phrase a thousand times- "it's always the last game that gets me" and these guys begin to make future parlays with hedging already in mind.
It's just a different mindset...you could explain the math 10,000 times and it won't sink in to players who wager with the above mentality
0
Hot Forum Topics
