SBR Forum - Free Picks & Sports Handicapping Legendz The PIG WSEX
BetJamaica Matchbook BetOnline
SBR - SportsBookReview.com 5Dimes The Greek Intertops
SBR Recommended Sportsbooks
1. Pinnacle Sports ... SBR Rating A+ ... Pinnacle Sports Review
2. The Greek Sports Book ... SBR Rating A+ ... The Greek Review
3. BookMaker ... SBR Rating A+ ... BookMaker Review
4. BetJamaica ... SBR Rating A+ ... BetJamaica Review
5. Legendz Sports ... SBR Rating A+ ... Legendz Review
Posters' Top Rated Sportsbooks
1. Pinnacle Sports ... 150 total points ... Pinnacle Sports Review
2. Matchbook ... 144 total points ... Matchbook Review
3. BetJamaica ... 115 total points ... BetJamaica Review
4. BookMaker / CRIS ... 109 total points ... BookMaker Review
5. The Greek Sports Book ... 91 total points ... The Greek Review
Go Back   Sports Handicapping - Sports Betting - Sports Picks - SBR Forum > Sports Betting, Sportsbooks & General Discussion > Handicapper Think Tank

View Poll Results: Which of these two bets would you consider "riskier"?
$1,000 wager with a 5% edge at odds of -1,000 12 36.36%
$100 wager with a 5% edge at odds of +1,000 14 42.42%
Both are equally risky 7 21.21%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-26-2007, 09:30 AM   #1 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,586
Ganchrow is offline
Default Risk/Reward Poll

Which of these two bet would you consider "riskier"?

For the sake of discussion you can assume the player has a $10,000 bankroll.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 09:49 AM   #2 (permalink)
juuso
SBR MVP
 
Join Date: 10-04-05
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,135
juuso is online now
Default

$100 wager with a 5% edge at odds of +1,000 is "riskier" IMO.

-1000 bet has a lot lower variance and hits at much higher clip. 5% edge at -1000 also better than 5% edge at +1000
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 10:00 AM   #3 (permalink)
HedgeHog
SBR MVP
 
HedgeHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-11-07
Posts: 2,526
HedgeHog is online now
Default

I'd say the "risk" level was equal. The "comfort" level ,however, may be different as one grand may be a lot of money to some--perhaps more than they can stand to lose (even if the chance of loss is under 10%).
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 10:20 AM   #4 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,586
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HedgeHog View Post
The "comfort" level ,however, may be different as one grand may be a lot of money to some--perhaps more than they can stand to lose (even if the chance of loss is under 10%).
The issue of a "comfort level" is of course separate (although related to) risk.

For the purposes of determining a "comfort level" you can assume a $10,000 bankroll.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 10:32 AM   #5 (permalink)
HedgeHog
SBR MVP
 
HedgeHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-11-07
Posts: 2,526
HedgeHog is online now
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
The issue of a "comfort level" is of course separate (although related to) risk.

For the purposes of determining a "comfort level" you can assume a $10,000 bankroll.
Ok, I was assuming this was a one bet deal. If this is a series of bets then the -1000 bets are less risky--as defined by higher likelihood to show a profit over dozens (or more) of bets.

PS And even if it were just a 1 bet thing, the -1000 bettor has a greater than 90% of profitability compared to less than 10% chance for the big dog bettor.

Last edited by HedgeHog : 12-26-2007 at 10:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 11:08 AM   #6 (permalink)
ShamsWoof10
SBR MVP
 
ShamsWoof10's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-15-06
Posts: 4,308
ShamsWoof10 is online now
Default

I would "assume" the -1000 is a greater risk... Just because someone is favored does not mean they will be the better team on that day....

The problem I have with sports probabilities is they are not accurate... There are too many variables that can not possibily be known before gametime... The data output is only as good as the data imput... Having "coached" and "played" as well as being a bettor I always use to wonder... "if we were a college or pro team there is NO WAY ...AAAAAAANY handicapper could factor in what goes on here behind closed doors that makes all the differance in the world during the game...

In cards it's differant.. If a certain number of cards are gone then what's left is a certainty... In sports you can have a bet that Steve Nash will make his next FT and even if he knows and will do it to help you out he still can miss... He's a 90some percent FT shooter so even if he knows and wants to make it to help you out his percentage can't go much higher to 100%... It actually might go down if he gets to nervous...

Probabilities are cute but that's about it...


Last edited by ShamsWoof10 : 12-26-2007 at 11:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 11:15 AM   #7 (permalink)
CrazyL
VIP Moderator
 
CrazyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-02-07
Posts: 16,492
CrazyL is online now
Default

Option B seems too standard/obvious...

And because it is a Ganchrow question I know it has to be what makes less sense on the surface, and in some advanced mathematical way is actually theoretically correct. So my vote is option A.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 11:25 AM   #8 (permalink)
LT Profits
SBR Hall of Famer
 
LT Profits's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-27-06
Posts: 8,827
LT Profits is offline
Default

Assuming you are a good enough handicapper that both 5% edges are accurate, I would say both risks are equal. You expect to gain 5% in either case in the long run.
__________________
If you don't bet Hockey, you must not like money!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 11:36 AM   #9 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,586
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LT Profits View Post
I would say both risks are equal. You expect to gain 5% in either case in the long run.
Might it be relevant that you're risking ten times more on the -1,000 bet than on the +1,000 bet ($1,000 versus $100 respectively) ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 11:39 AM   #10 (permalink)
20Four7
SBR MVP
 
20Four7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-08-07
Posts: 2,189
20Four7 is online now
Default

It comes down to your definition of risk.

Risk amounts to the chances of a negative impact to an asset (bankroll). Therefore having 10% of your bankroll riding on a bet would appear to be riskier than having 1% of your bankroll riding on a bet.

If your looking at volitility of returns etc, than the dog would show more volitility in my opinion.
As a smaller percentage of your funds are at risk you should be able to sustain the volitility and therefore would be less "risky"

Now if ganch wants some mathematical "proof" this is the case I'll pass.
__________________
The wisdom of FISH

Quote:
Originally Posted by WE EAT FISH View Post
WINS are not lucky sometimes LOSSES are VERY unlucky like Pedro
Quote:
Originally Posted by WE EAT FISH View Post
Today can be an EASY MLB Day if ALL the plays can WIN with MORE RUNS then THEY ALLOW offense wins AS MUCH as pitching someone CAN NOT FORGET that.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 11:41 AM   #11 (permalink)
HedgeHog
SBR MVP
 
HedgeHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-11-07
Posts: 2,526
HedgeHog is online now
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LT Profits View Post
Assuming you are a good enough handicapper that both 5% edges are accurate, I would say both risks are equal. You expect to gain 5% in either case in the long run.
I agree that "profit expectation" is equal for the long run. But I would think that risk would be higher during the interim with a +1000 bettor due to the inevitable long losing streaks-- where 20-30 failures in a row would not be unusual.

PS 20Four7 beat me to the punch!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 11:49 AM   #12 (permalink)
HedgeHog
SBR MVP
 
HedgeHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-11-07
Posts: 2,526
HedgeHog is online now
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
Might it be relevant that you're risking ten times more on the -1,000 bet than on the +1,000 bet ($1,000 versus $100 respectively) ?
Might it also be relevant that the +1000 bettor is ten times more likely to lose each time? You're toying with us Ganch.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 12:07 PM   #13 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,586
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 20Four7 View Post
Risk amounts to the chances of a negative impact to an asset (bankroll). Therefore having 10% of your bankroll riding on a bet would appear to be riskier than having 1% of your bankroll riding on a bet.
If you were to measure your risk in such a manner ("the chances of a negative impact to an asset (bankroll)") then wouldn't the -1,000 bet be less risky in that you'd only lose that bet approximately 4.545% of the time versus 90.455% of the time with the +1,000 bet?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 12:08 PM   #14 (permalink)
Justin7
Moderator
 
Justin7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-31-06
Posts: 1,732