[Bullajami]

Kobe Bryant to be Finals MVP -163
Celtics to win the championship +177

Is the risk worth more or less than the payout?

What is the value of the risk? Can it be accurately quantified?

Possibility of winning both?

I thought it looked intriguing and wanted to get some opinions.

[AgainstAllOdds]

IF it plays out like you would want your profit is only 1.95% and you also have the chance of losing both(celtics lose and by some fluke gasol or fisher win MVP)...Just depends on what your risk tolerance is.

Also, I think you have a 0% chance of winning both...imo. Gl to whatever you choose.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by Bullajami

Kobe Bryant to be Finals MVP -163
Celtics to win the championship +177

Is the risk worth more or less than the payout?

What is the value of the risk? Can it be accurately quantified?

Possibility of winning both?

I thought it looked intriguing and wanted to get some opinions.

If you bet this such that you profit the same whether Boston won the series or Kobe won the MVP (but not both) then just as AAO has said you'd win 1.9594% of your wager amount.

This is akin to placing a bet at money line odds of roughly .

You can't take just take two -EV bets and by straight betting them simultaneously transform them into a +EV bet.

So really what you're saying is that you believe that the line on at least one of these two bets has been mispriced. (If you could identify which line you believed mispriced then proper Kelly strategy might still dictate a bet on the other market as a hedge.)

So at this point, Bullajami, the question I'd pose to you would be which of the lines do you believe to be mispriced and why? Realize of of course that this is a rhetorical question. I'm not asking because I want an answer, but rather this is what you would need to ask yourself before seriously considering taking this bet. While the short odds on the aggregate wager do imply a fairly likely victory (and hence a low outcome standard deviation), they do not by themselves imply positive expectation.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Ganch,

1. What formula did you use to figure out the money line odds of the bet?.

2.To me, I dont think he really thinks one of the lines is off. It sounds like he is just trying to make money (wheather it has value or not is not his concern). So in this case if he just wanted to make a little money reguardless of value, he would take the bet both sides as you described.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

1. What formula did you use to figure out the money line odds of the bet?.

He'd be betting 1 unit to win 1.9594% units. That'd be decimal odds of about 1 + 1.9594% ≈ 1.09594 or US odds of about -100 / 1.9504% ≈ -5103.6.

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

2.To me, I dont think he really thinks one of the lines is off. It sounds like he is just trying to make money (wheather it has value or not is not his concern). So in this case if he just wanted to make a little money reguardless of value, he would take the bet both sides as you described.

Generally speaking, the optimal strategy for one "just trying to make money" would be to fully abstain from placing any wagers at lines that hold no value (hedging aside).

[AgainstAllOdds]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Generally speaking, the optimal strategy for one "just trying to make money" would be to fully abstain from placing any wagers at lines that hold no value (hedging aside).

I dont quite agree with this statment. If you have a line that should be at +150 and is instead at +125 and the other side is -110, You would still arb this line just to make money.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

I dont quite agree with this statment. If you have a line that should be at +150 and is instead at +125 and the other side is -110, You would still arb this line just to make money.

In which case he'd necessarily believe one of the lines (the -110) held value ... he'd be betting on the other side (the +125) as a hedge.

If he were a full-Kelly bettor (unconstrained either by betting limits or time-value-of-money) he'd optimally bet 60% of bankroll at -110 and 40% of bankroll at +125.

The point is that when confronted with a set of bets with mutually dependent outcomes you need to believe at least one of them is +EV to make any bet on the underlying worthwhile. Now certainly you might not know exactly which bet (or bets) holds the value, but you'd need to believe that at least one of them did or else you'd just be throwing away money.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

In which case he'd necessarily believe one of the lines (the -110) held value ... he'd be betting on the other side (the +125) as a hedge.

No.

That line could be -120 instead of -110 and I'm sure he would not believe the line held value, just in the bet itself because there would be no value in either line, just him trying to make money.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

[AgainstAllOdds]

Ganch,

Overall I wish the guy would just come in here so we could stop talking hypothethicals.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

That line could be -120 instead of -110 and I'm sure he would not believe the line held value, just in the bet itself because there would be no value in either line, just him trying to make money.

But there would be value in the -120 ... there'd be EV of 1.8519%. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

Are you perhaps suggesting that the only value for your hypothetical bettor is in a guaranteed profit?

[AgainstAllOdds]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

But there would be value in the -120 ... there'd be EV of 1.8519%. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

Are you perhaps suggesting that the only value for your hypothetical bettor is in a guaranteed profit?

Yes...that is what Im trying to say.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

Yes...that is what Im trying to say.

OK.

The problem is of course (just as you pointed out in the second post of this thread) that that simply isn't applicable in this betting scenario.

For the OP's aggregate bets to be +EV one or the other of the two underlying events would need to occur with probability > ¹/ ≈ 98.078% (double counting the probabiliry of winning both simultaneously).

[Bullajami]

I posted and then went to bed.

First, I have not bet either, nor do I intend to at his time. 1.95% profit with some risk of losing both bets ain't my bag, baby.

Basically AAO is correct, I have no interest in the underlying value of either proposition. Frankly, I don't like NBA basketball all that much and am unlikely to watch much of the finals. (Except that I will be in Vegas from 4-13 June, and the finals are sure to be on center screen in the sportsbooks.)

I just thought the numbers looked interesting, and wondered what folks thought of my angle of correlating these events for an arbitrage opportunity. Something that would normally be very risky, but here seems like a 98%+ correlation (SWAG).

I actually think winning both is more likely than losing both. There's no way that the Lakers win if Kobe is not playing to MVP standards. Likewise, I think he could put on an unbelievable display in a losing effort - a losing effort that requires lots of teamwork by the Celtics. I think the MVP has only gone to a player who lost the series once in the past, but it IS possible.

But, as we all know - anything can happen!

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by Bullajami

First, I have not bet either, nor do I intend to at his time. 1.95% profit with some risk of losing both bets ain't my bag, baby.

Basically AAO is correct, I have no interest in the underlying value of either proposition.

If you don't have any interest in the underlying value of either proposition then your choice is clear. Bet nothing.

Originally Posted by Bullajami

I just thought the numbers looked interesting, and wondered what folks thought of my angle of correlating these events for an arbitrage opportunity. Something that would normally be very risky, but here seems like a 98%+ correlation (SWAG).

The only way to obtain excess expected value from correlated bets would be to parlay them (although FWIW, not in this case insofar as the two bets are actually negatively correlated.) Straight bets do you no good whatsoever (hedge value aside). You can't just manufacture +EV by straight betting two -EV mutually dependent wagers. There's no "angle" to that.

Originally Posted by Bullajami

I actually think winning both is more likely than losing both. There's no way that the Lakers win if Kobe is not playing to MVP standards. Likewise, I think he could put on an unbelievable display in a losing effort - a losing effort that requires lots of teamwork by the Celtics.

The only way for the aggregate bet to have value would be if one or more of the two underlying bets had value. If you're not prepared to confront the question of which bet you believe to be +EV, then you shouldn't be considering the aggregate bet.

It doesn't matter how