-
Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment -
Comment -
I bet juice yesterday and did not turn out wellComment -
Gold this makes no sense.
But actually, I can make it make sense. If a bettor is dealing with an edge, there is a way to absorb and specifically manage money to absorb the juice by "betting the juice" for lack of a better term. I am one of the inventors of the method.
I think SBR isn't ready for those concepts though, the gambling IQ of the Forum needs to go up a bit first.Comment -
I do this a lot.
So let's say you have two books with this:
Team A -140/B+130
Team A -165/B+145
And you like Team A.
If limits and funding are no issue, then it's unlimited.
But let's say you're fully funded and can bet to win/risk $1k max at each.
But you really only want to wager 100 on Team A.
Well then, do this:
Team A -140 1400/1000
Team B +145 900/1,305
Your bet is now 95/100 on Team A
You just turned a -140 wager into a +105 wager
Math and volume are beautiful things.Comment -
Not even close and what I said in no way, at all, in any way shape or form, sounds like hedging or middling. Which are two totaly different things. (That sentence was not meant with any type of negative tone, I'm just trying to be clear, not demean your thoughts or interpretation, I mean no disrespect there).
It makes little sense for a gambler with an edge to hedge their bet. If you made a +EV bet, then it would be foolish to sell it back for what would be less profit.
Over the long haul, it would be better to bet and lose individual bets with an edge than to bet with an edge and then back out for small profit. Futures and open parlays can be a different story.
I'm actually referring to placing additional bets (partial bet size though) in a specific way to make up the vig. It's a unique form of money management that happens to be mathematically sound involving a certain amount of carryover.
Like d2bets says, the key part here is betting with an edge. Without understanding where you stand probability wise, then it additional bets will likely just be more losses.
***
This might be a bit off topic but losing bets lowers the vig too, by the way. Some can call it semantics, some can call it perspective, but the reality of the transaction is such that losing bettors pay less vig than winning bettors...
Comment -
I know that hedging and middling are totally different. I was referring to the terms in more of a "are you doing something like this?" sort of meaning. No disrespect taken, and none meant by me as well. Asking out of curiosity, as I follow your posts on here often, as you're one of the few guys left on here who posts actual mathematical insight instead of some the drivel I see on a daily basis.
My curiosity lies in this line though:
I'm trying to consider a practical example of this. Only thing that comes to mind for me is playing a pass/don't pass in craps to beat the line bet odds and place odds behind either your pass/don't pass based on your own preference on the number, so you're taking a even money bet every time (of course, until the 12 hits). In a sports betting strategy, I'm curious to how you could make something like that work.
I know that what I'm saying isn't exactly what you're talking about. But, to me, this is my best approximation of getting what you're driving at? Am I in the ballpark? I'm genuinely curious.Comment -
Yes and no. Did you see how I phrased it in my example? Nobody has unlimited appetite for risk, right? Even at +EV, there is an appropriate bet size. Now if that bet size is the max available, then of course don't hedge it. But if what you want to bet is less than max, then why not bet the max and buyback the other side partially at an arb down to your preferred bet size?Not even close and what I said in no way, at all, in any way shape or form, sounds like hedging or middling. Which are two totaly different things. (That sentence was not meant with any type of negative tone, I'm just trying to be clear, not demean your thoughts or interpretation, I mean no disrespect there).
It makes little sense for a gambler with an edge to hedge their bet. If you made a +EV bet, then it would be foolish to sell it back for what would be less profit.
Over the long haul, it would be better to bet and lose individual bets with an edge than to bet with an edge and then back out for small profit. Futures and open parlays can be a different story.
I'm actually referring to placing additional bets (partial bet size though) in a specific way to make up the vig. It's a unique form of money management that happens to be mathematically sound involving a certain amount of carryover.
Like d2bets says, the key part here is betting with an edge. Without understanding where you stand probability wise, then it additional bets will likely just be more losses.
***
This might be a bit off topic but losing bets lowers the vig too, by the way. Some can call it semantics, some can call it perspective, but the reality of the transaction is such that losing bettors pay less vig than winning bettors...
Comment -
I totally get what your saying here. And I think you and I are beyond the hedge/arb semantics, but you really aren't hedging in the sense I'm talking about in what you put in bold in my post. I think you get that too.
You started with "yes and no" but as I read further we see why. You say "don't hedge" max bet, and then talk about "partially at an arb".
We aren't disagreeing, but I'm most certainly not talking about an arb strategy when I talk about selling back a +EV bet.
I'm talking about selling back, paying extra vig, and partially reducing you're payout so you can walk away with something over nothing. I'm talking about hedging out of the bet.
If the bet is +EV, just go with it, be patient, and have patience in the long term...math and volume like you say.
But understand that what you are talking about is incredibly useful for many reasons. It's not the straight +EV wager strategy, it is a different strategy that can not only help pad the bankroll, but can also be used to move Funds around the marketplace.
Fuk, did I just say that?
lol
Eventually, sticking to almost soley that partial or total arb startegy, those of us with experience in the practice will often see, no matter the massive numbers of accounts at different books, no matter teh network, if you do it long enough you'll find that one particular set of accounts, all at one particular book, ends up getting all the losses. They get the money you don't walk away with.
All accounts rise at other books, but one book must be reloaded constantly while you are making profit.
One book.
In the whole entire world.
Comment -
Exactly.
You are arbing here, and you are not a dumb gambler. Not that anyone said you were, I'm just making the point about this practice.
See if you can guess which book the groups constantly have to reload at. Where are we always funding while every other book and account gets paid/limited/run around/ grown fat...etc etc.?
I might do a video on this very subject.Comment -
Agreed. It's just that some people have no appetite for "risk" and variance. Can't handle the swings. You pay for the privilege of "smoother" returns.I totally get what your saying here. And I think you and I are beyond the hedge/arb semantics, but you really aren't hedging in the sense I'm talking about in what you put in bold in my post. I think you get that too.
You started with "yes and no" but as I read further we see why. You say "don't hedge" max bet, and then talk about "partially at an arb".
We aren't disagreeing, but I'm most certainly not talking about an arb strategy when I talk about selling back a +EV bet.
I'm talking about selling back, paying extra vig, and partially reducing you're payout so you can walk away with something over nothing. I'm talking about hedging out of the bet.
If the bet is +EV, just go with it, be patient, and have patience in the long term...math and volume like you say.
But understand that what you are talking about is incredibly useful for many reasons. It's not the straight +EV wager strategy, it is a different strategy that can not only help pad the bankroll, but can also be used to move Funds around the marketplace.
Fuk, did I just say that?
lol
Eventually, sticking to almost soley that partial or total arb startegy, those of us with experience in the practice will often see, no matter the massive numbers of accounts at different books, no matter teh network, if you do it long enough you'll find that one particular set of accounts, all at one particular book, ends up getting all the losses. They get the money you don't walk away with.
All accounts rise at other books, but one book must be reloaded constantly while you are making profit.
One book.
In the whole entire world.
Comment -
Anyone?...Eventually, sticking to almost soley that partial or total arb startegy, those of us with experience in the practice will often see, no matter the massive numbers of accounts at different books, no matter teh network, if you do it long enough you'll find that one particular set of accounts, all at one particular book, ends up getting all the losses. They get the money you don't walk away with.
All accounts rise at other books, but one book must be reloaded constantly while you are making profit.
One book.
In the whole entire world.
Comment -
Very sharp. Both KVB and d2bets.
Great conversation.Comment -
>> Doesn't matter what the odds are if there is enough +EV in the play.
Yes.Comment -
You got it D2.
For everyone else, it will benefit you gambling to understand this, and why this is the case.
It's worth thinking about.
So who's going to be the next "Pinnacle" on the US shores?
Probably not the guys in their customer acquisition phase.
It should have been Will Hill, but they just plain got scared of US sharps.
So who's next man up?
Can't wait for California to legalize...(that's was both on and off topic, lol).Comment -
Interesting. I turned 1k into 100k last month just by betting juiceComment -
I’ve been betting a lot of juice latelyComment -
2 team ml parlays guysComment
