Expected Value and NHL Betting - A Discussion **** Hi folks, some of you have asked for my take on why I shy away from big dogs paying +25 or more (and, equivalently, big faves costing you -250 or more. Today, I will stick with the argument against playing big dogs, and show you how expected values prove that in the long run they are nasty (in otherwords, don't get me wrong, if you see some big edge on a dog, play it, as yes, every dog gets its bone now and then (hence the expression)). **** Simply put, the expected value of a wager is what CanadianTrav can expect to win or lose if I play a certain type of wager (for example, taking home teams or dogs or ...) over time. Expected Value (EV) = [(probability of winning)(amount won per bet) - (probability of losing)(amount lost per bet)]. See, books LOVE for you to chase the big payouts (either big doggies or even worse, PARLAYS) cos the EV is negative. So, here's an example to prove the point: Consider the Isles taking on the Wings, where the Isles will pay you $2.30 on a $1 bet (+230 in other words) and the Wings will pay you $0.33 on a $1 bet (-330). Assume that the probability is 90% the super-talented Wings will win any time they play the shitely Isles, and of course 10% of the times the Isles will win (You can quibble about the percentages, but no way is it 50-50 (if they played 10 games, you'd think the Wings would win most of them). ****** The EV of taking the Wings is = 0.9*(0.33)-0.1*(1) = .20 and the EV with the Isles is -0.70 This means that, over time, you can expect to win 20 cents with your Wings bet (you get your $1 back) and LOSE 70 cents on your Isles (big dog) bet. No wonder the books ENTICE you with luscious odds, eh? :) In contrast, the EV of a coin flip game is what .... ? Answer is 0, or breakeven, which is what you would expect on a game that has the probability locked in at 50% (1/2 heads, 1/2 tails). Now, EV doesnt mean that in 10 coin flips, you could get 10 heads in a row, but over a 1000 flips, it will certainly tend to the aritmetic mean of 50-50 .... As for chasing big Faves, the EV is positive but so tiny that it doesnt pay off unless you are wagering 10K a game or something (and even then, you have to wager $10K a long time and win in order for it to pay off ..... hope this helps, and DEFINITELY, books like you to take the extremes, so stay in the MIDDLE (-140 to +140 and avoid parlays of anything greater than 2 (3 maybe ...) .... Cheers for reading! CanadianTrav
Expected Value and NHL Betting - A Discussion **** Hi folks, some of you have asked for my take on why I shy away from big dogs paying +25 or more (and, equivalently, big faves costing you -250 or more. Today, I will stick with the argument against playing big dogs, and show you how expected values prove that in the long run they are nasty (in otherwords, don't get me wrong, if you see some big edge on a dog, play it, as yes, every dog gets its bone now and then (hence the expression)). **** Simply put, the expected value of a wager is what CanadianTrav can expect to win or lose if I play a certain type of wager (for example, taking home teams or dogs or ...) over time. Expected Value (EV) = [(probability of winning)(amount won per bet) - (probability of losing)(amount lost per bet)]. See, books LOVE for you to chase the big payouts (either big doggies or even worse, PARLAYS) cos the EV is negative. So, here's an example to prove the point: Consider the Isles taking on the Wings, where the Isles will pay you $2.30 on a $1 bet (+230 in other words) and the Wings will pay you $0.33 on a $1 bet (-330). Assume that the probability is 90% the super-talented Wings will win any time they play the shitely Isles, and of course 10% of the times the Isles will win (You can quibble about the percentages, but no way is it 50-50 (if they played 10 games, you'd think the Wings would win most of them). ****** The EV of taking the Wings is = 0.9*(0.33)-0.1*(1) = .20 and the EV with the Isles is -0.70 This means that, over time, you can expect to win 20 cents with your Wings bet (you get your $1 back) and LOSE 70 cents on your Isles (big dog) bet. No wonder the books ENTICE you with luscious odds, eh? :) In contrast, the EV of a coin flip game is what .... ? Answer is 0, or breakeven, which is what you would expect on a game that has the probability locked in at 50% (1/2 heads, 1/2 tails). Now, EV doesnt mean that in 10 coin flips, you could get 10 heads in a row, but over a 1000 flips, it will certainly tend to the aritmetic mean of 50-50 .... As for chasing big Faves, the EV is positive but so tiny that it doesnt pay off unless you are wagering 10K a game or something (and even then, you have to wager $10K a long time and win in order for it to pay off ..... hope this helps, and DEFINITELY, books like you to take the extremes, so stay in the MIDDLE (-140 to +140 and avoid parlays of anything greater than 2 (3 maybe ...) .... Cheers for reading! CanadianTrav
do I REALLY have to post the last 4 years "Big Dog" (highest underdog of at least +150) stats AGAIN? that "blind bet" play has made money over the course of the season since I have followed it.
do I REALLY have to post the last 4 years "Big Dog" (highest underdog of at least +150) stats AGAIN? that "blind bet" play has made money over the course of the season since I have followed it.
ummm your numbers are all wrong so your theory is all wrong, ML's are based on % chance of winning, if the ISLES ARE +250 books are giving them a 28.57% chance of winning (OR you must win at that percent to breakeven) on the other hand you wont get the Wings at -250 but more like -280 meaning they have to win 73.68% of the time for you to breakeven.
Saying you know the probability of a certain team winning on any given night when your simply pulling numbers like 10% islander win out of your ass isnt going to work. With the great amount of parity in the league there is always a good reason to play +150 plus dogs, as lines are often inflated because of teams perceived records.
ummm your numbers are all wrong so your theory is all wrong, ML's are based on % chance of winning, if the ISLES ARE +250 books are giving them a 28.57% chance of winning (OR you must win at that percent to breakeven) on the other hand you wont get the Wings at -250 but more like -280 meaning they have to win 73.68% of the time for you to breakeven.
Saying you know the probability of a certain team winning on any given night when your simply pulling numbers like 10% islander win out of your ass isnt going to work. With the great amount of parity in the league there is always a good reason to play +150 plus dogs, as lines are often inflated because of teams perceived records.
Yes, please post :) Seriously, I never read it or seen it ...
OK, ONE freeking more TIME for posting 'Big Dog" stats. here's the yearly summary for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and the current season to date.
it's the highest odds dog of the night that is at least +150. also track the +200 or higher only. standard 1 unit bet. IF their is NO team at least +150, then it's a "no bet" night.
I just have the last three years plus this season so far because my old "Dell from Hell" laptop blew up and took another 5 years of info with it to the grave.
2007-08 +150 or higher 66-103 +21.90 +200 or higher 20-31 +15.60
2008-09 +150 or higher 46-111 +0.45 +200 or higher 28-63 +5.75
2009-10 +150 or higher 49-102 -6.40 +200 or higher 23-44 +4.40
ytd 2010-2011 +150 or higher 20-28 +7.60 +200 or higher 4-9 -0.35
2009-10 was a +150 loser because the favs completely ran over the game 2nd half of the season BUT the +200 still squeeked out a profit.
Yes, please post :) Seriously, I never read it or seen it ...
OK, ONE freeking more TIME for posting 'Big Dog" stats. here's the yearly summary for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and the current season to date.
it's the highest odds dog of the night that is at least +150. also track the +200 or higher only. standard 1 unit bet. IF their is NO team at least +150, then it's a "no bet" night.
I just have the last three years plus this season so far because my old "Dell from Hell" laptop blew up and took another 5 years of info with it to the grave.
2007-08 +150 or higher 66-103 +21.90 +200 or higher 20-31 +15.60
2008-09 +150 or higher 46-111 +0.45 +200 or higher 28-63 +5.75
2009-10 +150 or higher 49-102 -6.40 +200 or higher 23-44 +4.40
ytd 2010-2011 +150 or higher 20-28 +7.60 +200 or higher 4-9 -0.35
2009-10 was a +150 loser because the favs completely ran over the game 2nd half of the season BUT the +200 still squeeked out a profit.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.