Gamblers Corner - Correct Hedge for Final Four? (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

We were talking about the act of betting on the game anyways.

Betting on something doesn't make it a game of chance.

That still doesn't make anything you've said any less dumb.

I'm happy to seem dumb to someone who doesn't understand the difference between betting on a card game and betting on a basketball game.

Well, you look pretty dumb to someone that understands that betting on games that you have no control over the outcome is the same as betting on games that you have no control over the outcome.

And you look pretty dumb to someone who realizes that hedging a bet on a mathematically reducible randomizing agent is different from hedging a bet on a team game of skill.

It's not your skill that determines either of these outcomes. From your perspective it is a random event outside of your control.

The fact that it is outside your control doesn't make it random.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

please stop doing this

why?

It's a terrible gambling "strategy" that's costing you money.

this doesn't help.

I mean it's fun to be lectured, but usually people give more information than just telling you what to do without any explanation.

so, hedging is always a losing strategy? it doesn't depend on the situation and the odds presented and what you think is likely to happen?

 

[ghostguy123]

If you're not comfortable assigning a mathematical probability to the outcome, we might as well call it a coin flip. If you are comfortable offering up what you believe the probability is, we can run some EV calculations off of that.

Ok call last nights game a complete coinflip. 50-50

As asked before, what is better:

1- taking a 50-50 shot at winning 8 grand or lose

or

2- bet the moneyline at +135, betting $3,500 on Uconn, winning about $4,500 if they win, or win $4,500 if Kentucky wins.

which one looks better to you in the longrun if it is a coinflip (which I think it was as opposed to Kentucky being -140).............and again, that -140 is totally meaningless

 

[DrJ]

We were talking about the act of betting on the game anyways.

Betting on something doesn't make it a game of chance.

That still doesn't make anything you've said any less dumb.

I'm happy to seem dumb to someone who doesn't understand the difference between betting on a card game and betting on a basketball game.

Well, you look pretty dumb to someone that understands that betting on games that you have no control over the outcome is the same as betting on games that you have no control over the outcome.

And you look pretty dumb to someone who realizes that hedging a bet on a mathematically reducible randomizing agent is different from hedging a bet on a team game of skill.

It's not your skill that determines either of these outcomes. From your perspective it is a random event outside of your control.

The fact that it is outside your control doesn't make it random.

Okay, the fact that cards are dealt randomly doesn't make a poker game entirely random either. So what's your point?

 

[Henry Ford]

If he's doing it simply because he wants to reduce variance and has no concern for the probability of the event occurring it's a losing gambling strategy long term.

why?

Because you lose money making a bunch of coin flip plays.

it's not a 'coin flip' play though. it's taking a coin flip play and converting into a sure thing.

If you're not comfortable assigning a mathematical probability to the outcome, we might as well call it a coin flip. If you are comfortable offering up what you believe the probability is, we can run some EV calculations off of that.

This is terrible.

 

[ghostguy123]

Gambling on the outcome of last night's game is a game of chance. Get the picture on that yet?

then tell me the chances of kentucky winning??

You are avoiding this like its dodgeball

 

[DrJ]

Gambling on the outcome of last night's game is a game of chance. Get the picture on that yet?

then tell me the chances of kentucky winning??

You are avoiding this like its dodgeball

It doesn't matter what I think the odds were. It matters what Cyclones thought the odds were, he was the one betting.

 

[ghostguy123]

The original bet is already placed. He doesn't gain or lose equity by keeping it, he has no choice in that matter once he placed the original bet.

lol, yeah, we know this. His original bet is what we are working with, not -140.

We are working with having KU at 40-1 and a pickem game where Uconn is +135 and getting 3 points.

Again, this all changes if Uconn is -3

 

[gianmarco]

If he's doing it simply because he wants to reduce variance and has no concern for the probability of the event occurring it's a losing gambling strategy long term.

why?

Because you lose money making a bunch of coin flip plays.

it's not a 'coin flip' play though. it's taking a coin flip play and converting into a sure thing.

If you're not comfortable assigning a mathematical probability to the outcome, we might as well call it a coin flip. If you are comfortable offering up what you believe the probability is, we can run some EV calculations off of that.

This thread is terrible.

FYP.

It's amazing how the EV nerds are so intent on showing how much more they know about EV that they're completely losing the forest for the trees.

 

[Henry Ford]

We were talking about the act of betting on the game anyways.

Betting on something doesn't make it a game of chance.

That still doesn't make anything you've said any less dumb.

I'm happy to seem dumb to someone who doesn't understand the difference between betting on a card game and betting on a basketball game.

Well, you look pretty dumb to someone that understands that betting on games that you have no control over the outcome is the same as betting on games that you have no control over the outcome.

And you look pretty dumb to someone who realizes that hedging a bet on a mathematically reducible randomizing agent is different from hedging a bet on a team game of skill.

It's not your skill that determines either of these outcomes. From your perspective it is a random event outside of your control.

The fact that it is outside your control doesn't make it random.

Okay, the fact that cards are dealt randomly doesn't make a poker game entirely random either. So what's your point?

Those aren't equivalent statements.

In poker, I am betting that my skill level with randomly selected cards will carry me through - the "outside my control" part is randomized.

Betting on basketball games I don't play in is purely betting on non-randomized events outside my control.

These are tremendously different scenarios.

 

[DrJ]

The original bet is already placed. He doesn't gain or lose equity by keeping it, he has no choice in that matter once he placed the original bet.

lol, yeah, we know this. His original bet is what we are working with, not -140.

We are working with having KU at 40-1 and a pickem game where Uconn is +135 and getting 3 points.

Again, this all changes if Uconn is -3

No, we are working with Kentucy at -140 vs Cyclone's perception of what the true odds should be.

 

[ghostguy123]

So how would "letting it ride" in this case have beat the built in edge????

Because you can prove Kentucky would win that game like 590 times out of a 1000???

Hint> he's not talking about this one individual bet. He's operating under the assumption that he will make many futures bets over time.

As long as his future hedges on bets are like this, he will come out ahead in the longrun (I mean if he took the moneyline).

On future bets if he feels the team he has his action on has a good enough shot to win, the don't hedge.

Each case is unique, like this one.

 

[ghostguy123]

Actually it's a pretty horrible strategy. If you rode them out rather than sacrificing equity to reduce variance then you'd hit less often, but make more money on average. If you weren't comfortable with the variance then why bother placing longshot bets to begin with?

Because I was confident that the odds I was getting were good enough relative to where I needed them to get to make a good hedge. Simple.

I have done this several times over with success.

 

[DrJ]

We were talking about the act of betting on the game anyways.

Betting on something doesn't make it a game of chance.

That still doesn't make anything you've said any less dumb.

I'm happy to seem dumb to someone who doesn't understand the difference between betting on a card game and betting on a basketball game.

Well, you look pretty dumb to someone that understands that betting on games that you have no control over the outcome is the same as betting on games that you have no control over the outcome.

And you look pretty dumb to someone who realizes that hedging a bet on a mathematically reducible randomizing agent is different from hedging a bet on a team game of skill.

It's not your skill that determines either of these outcomes. From your perspective it is a random event outside of your control.

The fact that it is outside your control doesn't make it random.

Okay, the fact that cards are dealt randomly doesn't make a poker game entirely random either. So what's your point?

Those aren't equivalent statements.

In poker, I am betting that my skill level with randomly selected cards will carry me through - the "outside my control" part is randomized.

Betting on basketball games I don't play in is purely betting on non-randomized events outside my control.

These are tremendously different scenarios.

In basketball you're betting that your skill in evaluating the probability of each team winning will carry you through. How are these different from the standpoint that we're wagering on probabilities?

 

[DrJ]

And in poker, you're actually betting that your skill in evaluating probabilities will be better than the skill level of the other guy at the end of the table. Just like you're doing in wagering on basketball. It's pretty simple, unless you try and lawyer it up.

 

[ghostguy123]

Actually it's a pretty horrible strategy. If you rode them out rather than sacrificing equity to reduce variance then you'd hit less often, but make more money on average. If you weren't comfortable with the variance then why bother placing longshot bets to begin with?

And it's not a strategy I use a LOT. But I will when I see a line that makes sense.

I don't even bet all that often on a team to win a tourney like this. It's not as profitable as if you just let it ride, for example:

Had he bet 200 on kentucky the first game, and then let it ride 5 more times, he probably would have won more than 8 grand. For this reason, I only place those bets when I feel it would make more money betting the odds they are giving me rather than betting on the team and letting it all ride till the end, and only if I think the team has a high enough chance to make some noise

 

[James Daulton]

Am I the only one who finds this thread entertaining, but can can only follow about half of what's posted?

 

[ghostguy123]

None of this convoluted BS matters. Was the UCONN bet a good bet on its own merit? Then it should be made. If it wasn't, it shouldn't. The Kentucky bet has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It was apparently a good bet on its own merit, right? I thought it was beforehand, and it proved to be.

And ummmmmmm, knowing that Kentucky winning would put 8 grand in his pocket...............it makes the decision to bet uconn that much easier.

If he went into tonights game with nothing on the line, I doubt he would have put 4 grand on Uconn even if he felt they would win. So yes, it matter.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Am I the only one who finds this thread entertaining, but can can only follow about half of what's posted?

There are two entirely different arguments happening in here. Both are correct in what they're arguing but neither side realizes they are arguing different things.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's like this: A man walks up to you on the street and says "I'm going to flip a coin. If it comes up heads, I'll hand you $60,000. If it comes up tails, you get nothing. Or I can just hand you $10,000 right now and walk away." I think any mathematician would tell you the "right" thing to do would be to tell the guy to flip the coin and take your chances. But if you need to redo your kitchen or your kid needs braces or something can you really be faulted for taking the 10K?

The hardcore gambling guys in this thread are coming off like Jeff Gordon trying to tell a random guy how to properly draft behind the car in front of you while driving on the freeway. The other side is coming off like the random guy telling Jeff Gordon he has no clue how to drive.

In this case the hedge "worked out". Long haul it's not going to be the "right" play but how many times is the OP going to be in that position again? Never?

I couldnt disagree more with the first part of that, because if he gets these exact odds with two teams so evenly matched many times over the long haul, he will come out further ahead doing what he did (and for sure if going with the moneyline)

 

[DrJ]

None of this convoluted BS matters. Was the UCONN bet a good bet on its own merit? Then it should be made. If it wasn't, it shouldn't. The Kentucky bet has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It was apparently a good bet on its own merit, right? I thought it was beforehand, and it proved to be.

And ummmmmmm, knowing that Kentucky winning would put 8 grand in his pocket...............it makes the decision to bet uconn that much easier.

If he went into tonights game with nothing on the line, I doubt he would have put 4 grand on Uconn even if he felt they would win. So yes, it matter.

Just like getting your entire net worth in on a 4 outer is good if you actually hit one of those 4 outs, right?

 

[Henry Ford]

In basketball you're betting that your skill in evaluating the probability of each team winning will carry you through. How are these different from the standpoint that we're wagering on probabilities?

Because there's no actual math on the probabilities. There's a lot of B.S. conjecture that people attempt to make into formulas.

There's an actual mathematical formula for the chance that the first card dealt will be the two of diamonds. There is no actual mathematical formula for whether UConn will block the first shot Kentucky attempts or whether a star will roll his ankle coming down after a routine jump shot.

 

[Short Corner]

Winning 8K 50% of the time is better than winning 3500 100% of the time.

well, he could have played the UConn ML and come closer to a 50% outcome I think. He was more aggressive and tried to play for a middle. Still think he's probably happy with his decision.

Of course - in this sample size of one it worked out. So using results based analysis, it was the "right move".

If his goal was reducing variance, the sample size of one dictates that the hedge was the correct move, regardless of the result.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's not your skill that determines either of these outcomes. From your perspective it is a random event outside of your control.

Mike Tyson fighting a 90 year old lady is out of my control.........................I will bet on Tyson at -140

My skill level does not determine the outcome. Nobody said it did.

My skill determines where I am putting my money, if I decide to bet on the event.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=family+guy+mike+tyson+vs+old+lady

I'll take that money now please.

haha, I am not even going to watch this, but I bet it's the family guy clip

 

[Cyclones]

Anyone want to book a O/U bet on the number of pages this drags on with no consensus being reached on what was the right play?

 

[DrJ]

Am I the only one who finds this thread entertaining, but can can only follow about half of what's posted?

There are two entirely different arguments happening in here. Both are correct in what they're arguing but neither side realizes they are arguing different things.

I realize what the other side is saying. Cyclones isn't a gambler, he made his original Kentucky bet on macho bravado realizing that he was going to lose his $200 most of the time, and in the few events where he didn't he would still have too much money on the table for his liking. The hedge was less dumb than getting himself in that position to begin with. And then there's ghostguy who is actually arguing that this should be part of a long term betting strategy because he's pretty dumb to the mathematics of this.

 

[Nipsey]

It's like this: A man walks up to you on the street and says "I'm going to flip a coin. If it comes up heads, I'll hand you $60,000. If it comes up tails, you get nothing. Or I can just hand you $10,000 right now and walk away." I think any mathematician would tell you the "right" thing to do would be to tell the guy to flip the coin and take your chances. But if you need to redo your kitchen or your kid needs braces or something can you really be faulted for taking the 10K?

The hardcore gambling guys in this thread are coming off like Jeff Gordon trying to tell a random guy how to properly draft behind the car in front of you while driving on the freeway. The other side is coming off like the random guy telling Jeff Gordon he has no clue how to drive.

In this case the hedge "worked out". Long haul it's not going to be the "right" play but how many times is the OP going to be in that position again? Never?

I couldnt disagree more with the first part of that, because if he gets these exact odds with two teams so evenly matched many times over the long haul, he will come out further ahead doing what he did (and for sure if going with the moneyline)

Jeff, your driving is terrible!!!1!!

 

[munga30]

please stop doing this

why?

It's a terrible gambling "strategy" that's costing you money.

this doesn't help.

I mean it's fun to be lectured, but usually people give more information than just telling you what to do without any explanation.

so, hedging is always a losing strategy? it doesn't depend on the situation and the odds presented and what you think is likely to happen?

It always costs more than not hedging. You're giving away expectation and paying juice for the privilege. That drives down your winrate, which increases your risk of ruin for a given bankroll. To control the risk you either drop your betsize or commit more capital to your BR (has it's own cost). If you don't care about it, then for the same higher risk you could increase your betsize in a non-hedging strategy and make more money.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's entirely relevant - it determines the odds that you are getting on your bet.

Which bet? He didn't bet Kentucky at -140

 

[DrJ]

In basketball you're betting that your skill in evaluating the probability of each team winning will carry you through. How are these different from the standpoint that we're wagering on probabilities?

Because there's no actual math on the probabilities. There's a lot of B.S. conjecture that people attempt to make into formulas.

There's an actual mathematical formula for the chance that the first card dealt will be the two of diamonds. There is no actual mathematical formula for whether UConn will block the first shot Kentucky attempts or whether a star will roll his ankle coming down after a routine jump shot.

There's no "pure math" for poker either. If I bet into someone - there's a chance that he's going to fold, call, raise... I can assign probabilities to these events based on my knowledge, what I believe the likely range this person has in their hand and their usual behavior, etc but I can't say with certainty what they are holding at a given time, how they're feeling that day, etc. Realistically I have no idea what the actual probability is, I'm making my best guess. If I guess better than him most of the time, I win. If I don't, I lose. If we're even at it, we play to a draw and the house takes some of our money for hosting the event.

 

[ghostguy123]

Whether or not his bet was a good bet has to do with the odds he was getting, and how he felt about each team's chances. And absolutely nothing to do with the previous bet he made on Kentucky. That's the bottom line.

Looks like he felt his the odds were good enough to make the bet eh?

And if you are saying the fact that he would win 8 grand if kentucky won has "absolutely nothing to do with anything", then wow, just wow.

We are talking about this one game. We arent talking about how or why he made his original bet. We arent talking about poker or roulette.

We are talking about a game that he likely felt was a 50-50 game, but he happened to have big money riding on a kentucky win, and the team they were playing HAPPENED to be the underdog. Perfect storm scenario.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

please stop doing this

why?

It's a terrible gambling "strategy" that's costing you money.

this doesn't help.

I mean it's fun to be lectured, but usually people give more information than just telling you what to do without any explanation.

so, hedging is always a losing strategy? it doesn't depend on the situation and the odds presented and what you think is likely to happen?

It always costs more than not hedging. You're giving away expectation and paying juice for the privilege. That drives down your winrate, which increases your risk of ruin for a given bankroll. To control the risk you either drop your betsize or commit more capital to your BR (has it's own cost). If you don't care about it, then for the same higher risk you could increase your betsize in a non-hedging strategy and make more money.

hypothetical example:

I think the odds for a team to win a championship are lower than they should be. Let's say they are 40:1. So I place a futures bet on them. If that team makes the playoffs and advances a couple rounds, maybe everybody starts to think they are a favorite or at least a strong contender.

I'm in a great spot there. I'm holding a ticket that looks like it has a strong chance of paying out when I really had very little expectation of it actually hitting when I placed it.

You're saying 100% of the time I should just let it ride? There's no scenario that exists where betting AGAINST the team I have a futures bet on would make any financial sense?

bankroll isn't a concern here.

 

[ghostguy123]

Okay, the fact that cards are dealt randomly doesn't make a poker game entirely random either. So what's your point?

Poker is not random. What's YOUR point?

 

[ghostguy123]

Gambling on the outcome of last night's game is a game of chance. Get the picture on that yet?

then tell me the chances of kentucky winning??

You are avoiding this like its dodgeball

It doesn't matter what I think the odds were. It matters what Cyclones thought the odds were, he was the one betting.

lol, jesus.

So then you are saying every bet is a good bet if the person feels it is a good bet.

yet you have also said every bet is a bad bet because of -EV.

####

 

[ghostguy123]

The original bet is already placed. He doesn't gain or lose equity by keeping it, he has no choice in that matter once he placed the original bet.

lol, yeah, we know this. His original bet is what we are working with, not -140.

We are working with having KU at 40-1 and a pickem game where Uconn is +135 and getting 3 points.

Again, this all changes if Uconn is -3

No, we are working with Kentucy at -140 vs Cyclone's perception of what the true odds should be.

Actually no, there is ZERO chance he would bet on Kentucky at -140 given his current bet getting 40-1.

We are working with UCONN at +135 getting 3 points, since that is his only betting option.

 

[munga30]

You're saying 100% of the time I should just let it ride?

There's no scenario that exists where betting AGAINST the team I have a futures bet on would make any financial sense?

It depends on your situation. Can you afford to spend the money to not let it ride? Does it make "financial sense" (whatever that means) for you to have less but have certain? I can't answer that for you.

 

[ghostguy123]

Am I the only one who finds this thread entertaining, but can can only follow about half of what's posted?

There are two entirely different arguments happening in here. Both are correct in what they're arguing but neither side realizes they are arguing different things.

I am well aware a couple guys in here are arguing something else, and they are completely unaware that I AGREE with their calculations for random events with actual set in stone probabilities........................but not sports betting

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

You're saying 100% of the time I should just let it ride?

There's no scenario that exists where betting AGAINST the team I have a futures bet on would make any financial sense?

It depends on your situation. Can you afford to spend the money to not let it ride? Does it make "financial sense" (whatever that means) for you to have less but have certain? I can't answer that for you.

bankroll is not really a concern here. let's assume the bet is less than 1% of total bankroll. I don't think it makes much sense to be putting big money on 40:1 longshots. these are usually more bets for fun that have a shot at paying out in the end, or at least presenting a great hedge opportunity to lock in profits when they get close.

 

[munga30]

The question Cyclones should have asked himself is "can I afford to spend $1300* to ensure having $3500?"

$8000*0.6 - $3500 = $1300.

 

[ghostguy123]

None of this convoluted BS matters. Was the UCONN bet a good bet on its own merit? Then it should be made. If it wasn't, it shouldn't. The Kentucky bet has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It was apparently a good bet on its own merit, right? I thought it was beforehand, and it proved to be.

And ummmmmmm, knowing that Kentucky winning would put 8 grand in his pocket...............it makes the decision to bet uconn that much easier.

If he went into tonights game with nothing on the line, I doubt he would have put 4 grand on Uconn even if he felt they would win. So yes, it matter.

Just like getting your entire net worth in on a 4 outer is good if you actually hit one of those 4 outs, right?

no. your statement here has nothing to do with anything.

 

[DrJ]

Okay, the fact that cards are dealt randomly doesn't make a poker game entirely random either. So what's your point?

Poker is not random. What's YOUR point?

My point is that the same mathematical concepts are applicable to both.

 

[ghostguy123]

Anyone want to book a O/U bet on the number of pages this drags on with no consensus being reached on what was the right play?

I'll take the over. It's a sure thing. I have CONTROL over it, HAHAHHAAH

 

[DrJ]

None of this convoluted BS matters. Was the UCONN bet a good bet on its own merit? Then it should be made. If it wasn't, it shouldn't. The Kentucky bet has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It was apparently a good bet on its own merit, right? I thought it was beforehand, and it proved to be.

And ummmmmmm, knowing that Kentucky winning would put 8 grand in his pocket...............it makes the decision to bet uconn that much easier.

If he went into tonights game with nothing on the line, I doubt he would have put 4 grand on Uconn even if he felt they would win. So yes, it matter.

Just like getting your entire net worth in on a 4 outer is good if you actually hit one of those 4 outs, right?

no. your statement here has nothing to do with anything.

It's an example of results based analysis, like you're putting forward.

 

[ghostguy123]

Am I the only one who finds this thread entertaining, but can can only follow about half of what's posted?

There are two entirely different arguments happening in here. Both are correct in what they're arguing but neither side realizes they are arguing different things.

I realize what the other side is saying. Cyclones isn't a gambler, he made his original Kentucky bet on macho bravado realizing that he was going to lose his $200 most of the time, and in the few events where he didn't he would still have too much money on the table for his liking. The hedge was less dumb than getting himself in that position to begin with. And then there's ghostguy who is actually arguing that this should be part of a long term betting strategy because he's pretty dumb to the mathematics of this.

If that is what you truly think I believe, then no, you do NOT understand what I am arguing.

 

[Cyclones]

The question Cyclones should have asked himself is "can I afford to spend $1300* to ensure having $3500?"

$8000*0.6 - $3500 = $1300.

The math is right, but Kentucky didn't really have a 60% chance to win that game. It was a coin flip at best.

 

[Nipsey]

The question Cyclones should have asked himself is "can I afford to spend $1300* to ensure having $3500?"

$8000*0.6 - $3500 = $1300.

What about the potential middle he had?

 

[Jalapanose]

The poker analogy was spot-on, you're crazy to fold preflop with those pot odds just as Cy was crazy to hedge that bet last night.

Ghost, you keep alluding to this incorrect moneyline that I used in my calculations. For our next experiment, I'm totally willing to look past the fact that if you're that good at exploiting efficient markets that you'd be typing replies from your own island. Instead I want you, after the game has already been played, to give me what the moneyline should have been/your estimate of what uconn's probability of winning SHOULD have been. Again, all of this is after the game has been played. Please be realistic is all that I ask (i.e. Don't say uconn was 100% to win the game) I will then show you the entire EV equation from both viewpoints and how the hedge was wrong.

Have some time to kill and look forward to it.

I already said it should have been a pickem, about as close to 50-50 as you can get.

I TRIED to bet on Uconn but the stupid bookie my friend uses doesn't take parlays.

So in this case, considering I was personally wanting to bet on Uconn, I think they had maybe a 50-55% chance of winning. Just my personal opinion. I felt getting 3 points that Uconn was about a 60% chance to either win or lose by 3 or less.

I didn't bet Uconn because I felt the UNDER has a slightly better chance at happening, which it did my a lot.

And no, I never said I was soooooooo good at gambling that I will have my own island. But in the 15 years I have gambled on sports, mainly NFL with some college football, plus over/unders on college basketball, I am up thousands. Hard to know exactly how far up I am, but in those 15 years it is at least 25-30 grand.

I don't bet on every ####### game. Some weeks in the NFL nothing looks good. Same with the other sports, some weeks or even months nothing looks good. Some weeks a few things look good.

To figure out what I am going to bet, I look at the schedule and make my own personal "lines". Then I check the lines on the website I use and bet the games that are far off what my own projections are. This has been quite successful for me, for a long period of time.

The key to winning, obviously, is being able to pick winners. But you have to pick them at a good enough percentage relative to the lines the sportsbook is giving you.

Here is a question for YOU now.......if Cyclone really felt Uconn was going to win this game, what would you have thought about him betting about 7 grand on the moneyline at +135 (enough so that if Kentucky won, he would at least get back the original 700 he bet)...................SO if uconn won he would get around 9 grand, and if Kentucky won he would have been up like 300 bucks.

If you say that "the math" makes that a bad decision because the Kentucky moneyline was -140, I probably will laugh so hard I piss myself.

So you're up all of these thousands in your sports betting lifetime, but you have to go through a friend's bookie, and you can't even get a moneyline wager in or one of your patented parlays with him? All of the other guys cut you off, I guess.

Again, the UK future is totally independent of his UConn bet in the "really liking them"-scenario......if he really felt that UConn was going to win the game, he should absolutely Kelly bet what his bankroll allows him to after he has calculated his edge on the UConn ML play.....UK FUTURE BE DARNED - THEY ARE SEPARATE WAGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"50/50"? C'mon man, you're honestly going to tell me that you have that big of an edge on arguably the most wagered upon single championship game in all of American sports besides the Super Bowl? Of course that hedge will be more +EV than holding pat on the futures ticket due to the fact that every single leg of the equation will be off the charts +EV. In which case, you wouldn't even have a hedge, you'd have two really good, independent bets. If you really felt that way and truly knew what you were doing, you should have been on a plane to Vegas placing pretty large wagers on UConn (given your bankroll). I said to be realistic with it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The question Cyclones should have asked himself is "can I afford to spend $1300* to ensure having $3500?"

$8000*0.6 - $3500 = $1300.

False.

Your math assumes that .6 was an actual number.

 

[ghostguy123]

The question Cyclones should have asked himself is "can I afford to spend $1300* to ensure having $3500?"

$8000*0.6 - $3500 = $1300.

Why is he spending $1300??

Sounds like a number you can up with assuming kentucy was a favorite

 

[ghostguy123]

Okay, the fact that cards are dealt randomly doesn't make a poker game entirely random either. So what's your point?

Poker is not random. What's YOUR point?

My point is that the same mathematical concepts are applicable to both.

why are you even talking about poker?