Sure...3 teamer at 6:1, say $100 bet. First two are winners, simply hedge the last bet, let's say for $300, obviously opposite of what your bet is on the last leg of the 3 teamer. Scenario 1, you hit your 3 teamer, get your $600, but lose the $330 bet, net $270. Scenario 2, you lose the 3 teamer, at $100, however, you bet $300 the other way on the last part of the 3 teamer. Net profit, of $200, nicely and neat wrapped up for ya.
Thanks for the lesson.
Now Mr Hedgefundmanager - now that you told us HOW to hedge (the part that everyone knows), tell us how this is somehow a good idea. Because doing what you suggest above means that you are GIVING money away in the form of vig on both sides of the last game.
Maybe before you answer, you should actually read this thread.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
Sure...3 teamer at 6:1, say $100 bet. First two are winners, simply hedge the last bet, let's say for $300, obviously opposite of what your bet is on the last leg of the 3 teamer. Scenario 1, you hit your 3 teamer, get your $600, but lose the $330 bet, net $270. Scenario 2, you lose the 3 teamer, at $100, however, you bet $300 the other way on the last part of the 3 teamer. Net profit, of $200, nicely and neat wrapped up for ya.
Thanks for the lesson.
Now Mr Hedgefundmanager - now that you told us HOW to hedge (the part that everyone knows), tell us how this is somehow a good idea. Because doing what you suggest above means that you are GIVING money away in the form of vig on both sides of the last game.
Maybe before you answer, you should actually read this thread.
Hey, you're the one that wanted a lesson on how I would turn you a profit by hedging a 3-teamer. I gave you two simple scenarios on how to do it. Sure I give up some Vig, however, as you will see in both scenarios I rendered a net PROFIT. I made money no matter what. Now, iIf you let your $100 3-teamer ride without hedging the last play and lose you get nothing but a $100 loss. I make money everytime.
0
Hey, you're the one that wanted a lesson on how I would turn you a profit by hedging a 3-teamer. I gave you two simple scenarios on how to do it. Sure I give up some Vig, however, as you will see in both scenarios I rendered a net PROFIT. I made money no matter what. Now, iIf you let your $100 3-teamer ride without hedging the last play and lose you get nothing but a $100 loss. I make money everytime.
Hey, you're the one that wanted a lesson on how I would turn you a profit by hedging a 3-teamer. I gave you two simple scenarios on how to do it. Sure I give up some Vig, however, as you will see in both scenarios I rendered a net PROFIT. I made money no matter what. Now, iIf you let your $100 3-teamer ride without hedging the last play and lose you get nothing but a $100 loss. I make money everytime.
Super.
You didnt even read page 1 of this thread.
Im not going to waste my breath with you. For someone who claims to be an expert on risk analysis, you should be able to comprehend simple expected value computations.
Keep hedging those parlays. Afterall, why not guarantee yourself money!! Dope.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
Hey, you're the one that wanted a lesson on how I would turn you a profit by hedging a 3-teamer. I gave you two simple scenarios on how to do it. Sure I give up some Vig, however, as you will see in both scenarios I rendered a net PROFIT. I made money no matter what. Now, iIf you let your $100 3-teamer ride without hedging the last play and lose you get nothing but a $100 loss. I make money everytime.
Super.
You didnt even read page 1 of this thread.
Im not going to waste my breath with you. For someone who claims to be an expert on risk analysis, you should be able to comprehend simple expected value computations.
Keep hedging those parlays. Afterall, why not guarantee yourself money!! Dope.
First off, parlays are for suckers, we all should know that they odds aren't true, etc... However, if you are in a position to hedge one for a guaranteed profit vs. a chance to not win anything, then you shouldn't be gambling in the first place.
0
First off, parlays are for suckers, we all should know that they odds aren't true, etc... However, if you are in a position to hedge one for a guaranteed profit vs. a chance to not win anything, then you shouldn't be gambling in the first place.
Hey, you're the one that wanted a lesson on how I would turn you a profit by hedging a 3-teamer. I gave you two simple scenarios on how to do it. Sure I give up some Vig, however, as you will see in both scenarios I rendered a net PROFIT. I made money no matter what. Now, iIf you let your $100 3-teamer ride without hedging the last play and lose you get nothing but a $100 loss. I make money everytime.
Sigh...
0
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
Hey, you're the one that wanted a lesson on how I would turn you a profit by hedging a 3-teamer. I gave you two simple scenarios on how to do it. Sure I give up some Vig, however, as you will see in both scenarios I rendered a net PROFIT. I made money no matter what. Now, iIf you let your $100 3-teamer ride without hedging the last play and lose you get nothing but a $100 loss. I make money everytime.
First off, parlays are for suckers, we all should know that they odds aren't true, etc... However, if you are in a position to hedge one for a guaranteed profit vs. a chance to not win anything, then you shouldn't be gambling in the first place.
its called gambling, not hedging for a reason. doesn't make sense, why not gamble? isn't that what we are doing? placing a wager on a live event we do not really know the outcome?
0
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
First off, parlays are for suckers, we all should know that they odds aren't true, etc... However, if you are in a position to hedge one for a guaranteed profit vs. a chance to not win anything, then you shouldn't be gambling in the first place.
its called gambling, not hedging for a reason. doesn't make sense, why not gamble? isn't that what we are doing? placing a wager on a live event we do not really know the outcome?
I've studied the thread but still have to ask. If you accidentally find yourself in a situation where you are awaiting a fourth team for your 4 team parlay, you're saying that you would take the 50/50 chance that it hits instead of 100% guaranteed money of you hedge all because you don't want to pay juice on both ends? I'm sorry but it sort of reminds me of Splitting 10 or higher in Blackjack. Never split a winning hand. I get everything else you are saying, why it's bad to hedge and in the long run you win more because essentially it's 50/50 but if you ever find yourself in this position, I would be very curious to see what you do.
0
I've studied the thread but still have to ask. If you accidentally find yourself in a situation where you are awaiting a fourth team for your 4 team parlay, you're saying that you would take the 50/50 chance that it hits instead of 100% guaranteed money of you hedge all because you don't want to pay juice on both ends? I'm sorry but it sort of reminds me of Splitting 10 or higher in Blackjack. Never split a winning hand. I get everything else you are saying, why it's bad to hedge and in the long run you win more because essentially it's 50/50 but if you ever find yourself in this position, I would be very curious to see what you do.
I've studied the thread but still have to ask. If you accidentally find yourself in a situation where you are awaiting a fourth team for your 4 team parlay, you're saying that you would take the 50/50 chance that it hits instead of 100% guaranteed money of you hedge all because you don't want to pay juice on both ends? I'm sorry but it sort of reminds me of Splitting 10 or higher in Blackjack. Never split a winning hand. I get everything else you are saying, why it's bad to hedge and in the long run you win more because essentially it's 50/50 but if you ever find yourself in this position, I would be very curious to see what you do.
Bad analogy.
The analogy should be to BJ about taking even money when you have BJ and the dealer has an A. Actually, it is almost exactly the same situation. Taking even money is a BAD idea - why? Because they are paying you LESS than you should be paid for the current value of your hand. Your hand is worth MORE than even money.
Let me ask you this. If you have the Raiders +7 for 100 bucks, and they were winning at HT by 10. I tell you that I would buy your bet for 20 bucks - effectively GUARANTEEING you a profit!! You walk away with 20 bucks no matter what! Obviously, you dont take the money, because I am offering you less than what your bet is worth considering current market conditions.
The same is true with a hedge. You are being offered less (or by betting the other side, you are selling your bet for less) than what it is worth.
If you extend the logic of hedging to every sports bet, then you would advocate selling your positiion for LESS than it is worth EVERY time - and over the long run it would be IMPOSSIBLE to be profitable because you would always settle for less money than your current bet is worth.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HonLi:
I've studied the thread but still have to ask. If you accidentally find yourself in a situation where you are awaiting a fourth team for your 4 team parlay, you're saying that you would take the 50/50 chance that it hits instead of 100% guaranteed money of you hedge all because you don't want to pay juice on both ends? I'm sorry but it sort of reminds me of Splitting 10 or higher in Blackjack. Never split a winning hand. I get everything else you are saying, why it's bad to hedge and in the long run you win more because essentially it's 50/50 but if you ever find yourself in this position, I would be very curious to see what you do.
Bad analogy.
The analogy should be to BJ about taking even money when you have BJ and the dealer has an A. Actually, it is almost exactly the same situation. Taking even money is a BAD idea - why? Because they are paying you LESS than you should be paid for the current value of your hand. Your hand is worth MORE than even money.
Let me ask you this. If you have the Raiders +7 for 100 bucks, and they were winning at HT by 10. I tell you that I would buy your bet for 20 bucks - effectively GUARANTEEING you a profit!! You walk away with 20 bucks no matter what! Obviously, you dont take the money, because I am offering you less than what your bet is worth considering current market conditions.
The same is true with a hedge. You are being offered less (or by betting the other side, you are selling your bet for less) than what it is worth.
If you extend the logic of hedging to every sports bet, then you would advocate selling your positiion for LESS than it is worth EVERY time - and over the long run it would be IMPOSSIBLE to be profitable because you would always settle for less money than your current bet is worth.
Even though it shows the low level of IQ of many of the people here. This thread is a must read. Though it pains me to say it Vanzack is completely right. The math makes perfect sense. People (including me) when they do a parlay just throw the kitchen sink in there and don't really have a solid game plan going in, hence the games are all over the place. Thats why hedging is always usually an option, though it shouldn't be as you stated. At that point taking the "guaranteed money" is to hard to resist even though you are making a bad deal.
Good Thread
0
Wow I remember reading this thread years ago.
Even though it shows the low level of IQ of many of the people here. This thread is a must read. Though it pains me to say it Vanzack is completely right. The math makes perfect sense. People (including me) when they do a parlay just throw the kitchen sink in there and don't really have a solid game plan going in, hence the games are all over the place. Thats why hedging is always usually an option, though it shouldn't be as you stated. At that point taking the "guaranteed money" is to hard to resist even though you are making a bad deal.
As I recall it was this: He offers you a proposition. He flips a coin and if you guess the result correctly he will give you $10.00. If you guess it incorrectly, you owe nothing at all.
He then offers you another option... he will give you $1.00 not to play the game at all!
People who hedge, who want their "guaranteed money" want that dollar. (Because, hey, they could play the game and lose and not get anything at all, right?)
But people who understand the big picture, the ones who will have more money in their pocket at the end of the weekend/month/season, the ones who understand that one option has MUCH more of a positive EV than the other option, do not hesitate at all. At those odds they will want a chance to guess that coin every time.
In the above scenario, you are COSTING YOURSELF MONEY if you take the "guaranteed money." (Yes, you are.)
None of us here make just one bet and that's it. We're all in it for the long haul. Hedging comes at a price and if you keep paying that price you will have noticeably LESS money at the end of the weekend/month/season/lifetime, etc.
The Ten Commandments of Gambling. #7. "Thou shall not hedge thy bets."
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/tencom.html
0
I really like Vanzack's coin flip analogy.
As I recall it was this: He offers you a proposition. He flips a coin and if you guess the result correctly he will give you $10.00. If you guess it incorrectly, you owe nothing at all.
He then offers you another option... he will give you $1.00 not to play the game at all!
People who hedge, who want their "guaranteed money" want that dollar. (Because, hey, they could play the game and lose and not get anything at all, right?)
But people who understand the big picture, the ones who will have more money in their pocket at the end of the weekend/month/season, the ones who understand that one option has MUCH more of a positive EV than the other option, do not hesitate at all. At those odds they will want a chance to guess that coin every time.
In the above scenario, you are COSTING YOURSELF MONEY if you take the "guaranteed money." (Yes, you are.)
None of us here make just one bet and that's it. We're all in it for the long haul. Hedging comes at a price and if you keep paying that price you will have noticeably LESS money at the end of the weekend/month/season/lifetime, etc.
The Ten Commandments of Gambling. #7. "Thou shall not hedge thy bets."
The analogy should be to BJ about taking even money when you have BJ and the dealer has an A. Actually, it is almost exactly the same situation. Taking even money is a BAD idea - why? Because they are paying you LESS than you should be paid for the current value of your hand. Your hand is worth MORE than even money.
Let me ask you this. If you have the Raiders +7 for 100 bucks, and they were winning at HT by 10. I tell you that I would buy your bet for 20 bucks - effectively GUARANTEEING you a profit!! You walk away with 20 bucks no matter what! Obviously, you dont take the money, because I am offering you less than what your bet is worth considering current market conditions.
The same is true with a hedge. You are being offered less (or by betting the other side, you are selling your bet for less) than what it is worth.
If you extend the logic of hedging to every sports bet, then you would advocate selling your positiion for LESS than it is worth EVERY time - and over the long run it would be IMPOSSIBLE to be profitable because you would always settle for less money than your current bet is worth.
I think I finally get it Van thanks. Great explanation. All I know is, I wanna open a sportsbook in Vegas!
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Bad analogy.
The analogy should be to BJ about taking even money when you have BJ and the dealer has an A. Actually, it is almost exactly the same situation. Taking even money is a BAD idea - why? Because they are paying you LESS than you should be paid for the current value of your hand. Your hand is worth MORE than even money.
Let me ask you this. If you have the Raiders +7 for 100 bucks, and they were winning at HT by 10. I tell you that I would buy your bet for 20 bucks - effectively GUARANTEEING you a profit!! You walk away with 20 bucks no matter what! Obviously, you dont take the money, because I am offering you less than what your bet is worth considering current market conditions.
The same is true with a hedge. You are being offered less (or by betting the other side, you are selling your bet for less) than what it is worth.
If you extend the logic of hedging to every sports bet, then you would advocate selling your positiion for LESS than it is worth EVERY time - and over the long run it would be IMPOSSIBLE to be profitable because you would always settle for less money than your current bet is worth.
I think I finally get it Van thanks. Great explanation. All I know is, I wanna open a sportsbook in Vegas!
Question. Would you ever think about at least betting the parlay wager amount to guarantee that you can not lose any money?? To some people that would be important.
0
Van....right as usual.
Question. Would you ever think about at least betting the parlay wager amount to guarantee that you can not lose any money?? To some people that would be important.
Guys I pride myself on math and statistics and I think I could add something to here...I'm going to provide the dirty math..
In the situation yesterday the bettor could have guaranteed a max profit of $1,921.43.
To maximize guaranteed profit when hedging a bet, a simple algebraic equation is evolved.
A=Parlay Bet (known) B=Parlay To Win (known) C=Hedge Amount (unknown, variable) X = Betting Odds on Team to Hedge With (known) (ie. yesterday called for a hedge with NO ML at -600 so (1/6)
={1 / [1/2 + (1/2)(X) ] } * (1/2 * A + 1/2 * B)
That is the simplified version of the equation that will maximize profit on a hedge bet regardless of outcome. Throw the three variables in there (A = 200, B = 14,650, X = 1/6) and this man would have wagered exactly $12,728.57 on the NO ML at -600 and he would have been guaranteed $1,921.43, regardless of the outcome last night.
Now the big debate is whether this is a good move?
Since we already know what is guaranteed to us, we must take the expected return of parlay without the hedge bet to compare the two.
In this case, the parlay was $200 to win $14,650. We have to determine the probability of winning the parlay to calculate the expected return.
To do this, we can convert the ML on the game to to expected winning percentage for that team. Last night we could conclude that Vegas had thought there was a 14.2857% chance that Atlanta would win the game (true odds... 100/(600+100)).
From there you multiply the expected win percentage with the return of the parlay and add that to the expected losing percentage of the parlay multiplied by the loss of the parlay bet.
For example yesterday the expected return on the parlay without the hedge would have been:
$14,650 * (100/(600+100)) + -$200 * (600/(100+600)) Do the math and the expected value of NOT hedging the parlay turns out to be $1,921.43. Exactly the same as hedging the bet correctly.
Now these two are always going to equal each other as long as the odds remain constant from the time you bet to the time you wish to hedge. So as long as another factor such as weather, important injury, etc, doesn't occur, the expected returns are going to always be equal.
Thus my math raises two points I will address. 1) I didn't account for the vig or juice in the expected winning percentage of the game by converting Vegas's Line to expected winning percentage. True odds aren't equal to "actual odds" (or expected win percentage). These true odds are always high because of the vig. So if we adjust for that that the expected value of hedging the bet thus becomes slightly greater than not hedging the bet. So then the next question asked logically is: "We should hedge right?"
Well that's where the second point comes into play. If you bet on a game, make any sports wagers at all it should be because you believe the team has greater odds to win than what you are actually wagering on. You see value, and you believe that Vegas's line is off to a degree, thus you don't think the expected winning percentage is correct. This factor significantly impacts the expected return for not hedging and makes it much greater than actually hedging the bet.
So, Vegas works out the math where if you think they are more accurate in their line than yours, hedging and not hedging has no advantage one way or the other in the long run, as the expected values are exactly equal. But if you believe you are more accurate then the value lies in the long run by not hedging the parlay, and if you initially parlayed the game you obviously seen value in that line and believed you had an "edge" or were more accurate.
In conclusion, I will say this: 1) If you initially played the parlay for shits and giggles and were just hoping for a big payday, and didn't do much research, etc. Hedge. 2) If you played the parlay because you seen value in all the plays, including this last one that we are deciding whether to hedge against or not, and still think you have an "edge" on the line in this last game: Don't Hedge! and 3) If you have the option to Live Bet during the game, Don't Hedge before the game, wait for the game to play out, and Hedge in the middle of the game when the time becomes profitable. If anyone would like me to explain this part more in detail, PM me or just ask!
Sorry this is like a novel, but I get sick and tired of people saying Hedge! or Don't Hedge! without anything to back up their reason, with no math at all. Hope you guys take this to heart.
0
Guys I pride myself on math and statistics and I think I could add something to here...I'm going to provide the dirty math..
In the situation yesterday the bettor could have guaranteed a max profit of $1,921.43.
To maximize guaranteed profit when hedging a bet, a simple algebraic equation is evolved.
A=Parlay Bet (known) B=Parlay To Win (known) C=Hedge Amount (unknown, variable) X = Betting Odds on Team to Hedge With (known) (ie. yesterday called for a hedge with NO ML at -600 so (1/6)
={1 / [1/2 + (1/2)(X) ] } * (1/2 * A + 1/2 * B)
That is the simplified version of the equation that will maximize profit on a hedge bet regardless of outcome. Throw the three variables in there (A = 200, B = 14,650, X = 1/6) and this man would have wagered exactly $12,728.57 on the NO ML at -600 and he would have been guaranteed $1,921.43, regardless of the outcome last night.
Now the big debate is whether this is a good move?
Since we already know what is guaranteed to us, we must take the expected return of parlay without the hedge bet to compare the two.
In this case, the parlay was $200 to win $14,650. We have to determine the probability of winning the parlay to calculate the expected return.
To do this, we can convert the ML on the game to to expected winning percentage for that team. Last night we could conclude that Vegas had thought there was a 14.2857% chance that Atlanta would win the game (true odds... 100/(600+100)).
From there you multiply the expected win percentage with the return of the parlay and add that to the expected losing percentage of the parlay multiplied by the loss of the parlay bet.
For example yesterday the expected return on the parlay without the hedge would have been:
$14,650 * (100/(600+100)) + -$200 * (600/(100+600)) Do the math and the expected value of NOT hedging the parlay turns out to be $1,921.43. Exactly the same as hedging the bet correctly.
Now these two are always going to equal each other as long as the odds remain constant from the time you bet to the time you wish to hedge. So as long as another factor such as weather, important injury, etc, doesn't occur, the expected returns are going to always be equal.
Thus my math raises two points I will address. 1) I didn't account for the vig or juice in the expected winning percentage of the game by converting Vegas's Line to expected winning percentage. True odds aren't equal to "actual odds" (or expected win percentage). These true odds are always high because of the vig. So if we adjust for that that the expected value of hedging the bet thus becomes slightly greater than not hedging the bet. So then the next question asked logically is: "We should hedge right?"
Well that's where the second point comes into play. If you bet on a game, make any sports wagers at all it should be because you believe the team has greater odds to win than what you are actually wagering on. You see value, and you believe that Vegas's line is off to a degree, thus you don't think the expected winning percentage is correct. This factor significantly impacts the expected return for not hedging and makes it much greater than actually hedging the bet.
So, Vegas works out the math where if you think they are more accurate in their line than yours, hedging and not hedging has no advantage one way or the other in the long run, as the expected values are exactly equal. But if you believe you are more accurate then the value lies in the long run by not hedging the parlay, and if you initially parlayed the game you obviously seen value in that line and believed you had an "edge" or were more accurate.
In conclusion, I will say this: 1) If you initially played the parlay for shits and giggles and were just hoping for a big payday, and didn't do much research, etc. Hedge. 2) If you played the parlay because you seen value in all the plays, including this last one that we are deciding whether to hedge against or not, and still think you have an "edge" on the line in this last game: Don't Hedge! and 3) If you have the option to Live Bet during the game, Don't Hedge before the game, wait for the game to play out, and Hedge in the middle of the game when the time becomes profitable. If anyone would like me to explain this part more in detail, PM me or just ask!
Sorry this is like a novel, but I get sick and tired of people saying Hedge! or Don't Hedge! without anything to back up their reason, with no math at all. Hope you guys take this to heart.
In this case, the parlay was $200 to win $14,650. We have to determine the probability of winning the parlay to calculate the expected return.
To do this, we can convert the ML on the game to to expected winning percentage for that team. Last night we could conclude that Vegas had thought there was a 14.2857% chance that Atlanta would win the game (true odds... 100/(600+100)).
That is your math mistake.
Last night we could not conclude that vegas had thought there was a 6-1 chance that Atlanta would win the game. Those are not the "true odds". The true odds are the midpoint between -600 and whatever you could bet on the + side (falcons).
If the Falcons were +550, then the true odds were -575, not -600.
Go back and do your algebra with that new factor - which is actually the REAL factor - and tell me that hedging is still a wash.
I will wait.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
I have your error.
In this case, the parlay was $200 to win $14,650. We have to determine the probability of winning the parlay to calculate the expected return.
To do this, we can convert the ML on the game to to expected winning percentage for that team. Last night we could conclude that Vegas had thought there was a 14.2857% chance that Atlanta would win the game (true odds... 100/(600+100)).
That is your math mistake.
Last night we could not conclude that vegas had thought there was a 6-1 chance that Atlanta would win the game. Those are not the "true odds". The true odds are the midpoint between -600 and whatever you could bet on the + side (falcons).
If the Falcons were +550, then the true odds were -575, not -600.
Go back and do your algebra with that new factor - which is actually the REAL factor - and tell me that hedging is still a wash.
"1) I didn't account for the vig or juice in the expected winning
percentage of the game by converting Vegas's Line to expected winning
percentage. True odds aren't equal to "actual odds" (or expected win
percentage). These true odds are always high because of the vig. So if
we adjust for that that the expected value of hedging the bet thus
becomes slightly greater than not hedging the bet"
I accounted for that.
0
"1) I didn't account for the vig or juice in the expected winning
percentage of the game by converting Vegas's Line to expected winning
percentage. True odds aren't equal to "actual odds" (or expected win
percentage). These true odds are always high because of the vig. So if
we adjust for that that the expected value of hedging the bet thus
becomes slightly greater than not hedging the bet"
FreakyFresh - Im sure your heart was in the right place - but I think you should go back to wherever you posted that initially and correct your error - and apologize for giving out incorrect advice.
You pride yourself on math and statistics, as do I - so you should also pride yourself on accuracy.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
FreakyFresh - Im sure your heart was in the right place - but I think you should go back to wherever you posted that initially and correct your error - and apologize for giving out incorrect advice.
You pride yourself on math and statistics, as do I - so you should also pride yourself on accuracy.
"1) I didn't account for the vig or juice in the expected winning percentage of the game by converting Vegas's Line to expected winning percentage. True odds aren't equal to "actual odds" (or expected win percentage). These true odds are always high because of the vig. So if we adjust for that that the expected value of hedging the bet thus becomes slightly greater than not hedging the bet"
I accounted for that.
I dont know what you are saying here.
Let me make this simple:
If he had less than +600 in the parlay on Atlanta - YOUR MATH IS WRONG.
You cannot have +550 in the parlay, and hedge out at -600 without losing EV. Impossible.
Your equation above uses a factor of "true odds" to compute EV in the parlay. You use -600. That is WRONG. That is not the actual odds. As I state above, the actual odds and what you should use in that factor is the midpoint between the plus and minus sides of the wager.
Im telling you - please think about it - you are tripped up here - you are using -600 and that is not correct.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by FreakyFresh:
"1) I didn't account for the vig or juice in the expected winning percentage of the game by converting Vegas's Line to expected winning percentage. True odds aren't equal to "actual odds" (or expected win percentage). These true odds are always high because of the vig. So if we adjust for that that the expected value of hedging the bet thus becomes slightly greater than not hedging the bet"
I accounted for that.
I dont know what you are saying here.
Let me make this simple:
If he had less than +600 in the parlay on Atlanta - YOUR MATH IS WRONG.
You cannot have +550 in the parlay, and hedge out at -600 without losing EV. Impossible.
Your equation above uses a factor of "true odds" to compute EV in the parlay. You use -600. That is WRONG. That is not the actual odds. As I state above, the actual odds and what you should use in that factor is the midpoint between the plus and minus sides of the wager.
Im telling you - please think about it - you are tripped up here - you are using -600 and that is not correct.
Hot Forum Topics
