[Bill Dozer]

I don't understand why everyone is putting the LeBrons in the finals already but if they make it, are the Spurs a -500 favorite?

[Bill Dozer]

Ok Pinnacle has ...
87 Western Conference -390
88 Eastern Conference +370

390 looks good against this Cavs team.

[Bill Dozer]

Right?? If you like the Spurs to take Detroit anyway, why not buy in at -390 now?

Who knows, maybe LeBron starts shooting from half court to get his shot off and people will actually perceive the Cavs have a shot.

[Wheell]

owned is right. It is about -450 vs. Clev, -300 vs. Det. -390 IS good against the cavs, but poor against the Pistons.

[jjgold]

Spurs -340 over Detroit

Spurs -680 of Cleve

[Ganchrow]

Currently:

East +370 at Pinnacle
Spurs -320 at 5Dimes

2.599% scalp

[Wheell]

5dimes has already asked many of the players who do such things to leave. This might last a while.

[Bill Dozer]

owned is right. It is about -450 vs. Clev, -300 vs. Det. -390 IS good against the cavs, but poor against the Pistons.

Anyone notice if Pinny even takes that OTB during the Eastern Final games? How much did it go up after game 5?

[Bill Dozer]

Currently:

East +370 at Pinnacle
Spurs -320 at 5Dimes

2.599% scalp

Ganch finds some free money! especially if 5Dimes is allowing rebets after small moves.

5dimes has already asked many of the players who do such things to leave. This might last a while.

If the line isn't moving they would have no one to blame but themselves. I know 5Dimes has gotten less tolerant of market bettors but this just looks like some bargain shopping.

[rm18]

bodog has -350

[bigboydan]

Heres what Pinnacle has it at currently:

Cleveland Cavaliers +395
San Antonio Spurs -425

Anyone got the balls to take the Cavs, because I sure don't.

[isetcap]

Hmmm...

Cleveland played San Antonio twice in the regular season and won both games. San Antonio obviously should be favored to win the series but +395 is great value for the Cavs.

Looking at the matchups, Cleveland defense sets up well against SA with the notable exception of Tony Parker. Larry Hughes has a chance to earn his salary if he can get healthy enough to keep himself in front of TP. If he can not, then the Cavs will have some real problems.

[Wheell]

The futures market is overvaluing the cavs. If you wish to take the Cavs take them on a game by game basis.

[20Four7]

Currently:

East +370 at Pinnacle
Spurs -320 at 5Dimes

2.599% scalp

Do you really want to tie up your money for at least 4 games to make 2.5%? I'd personally want to keep my money in circulation and turn it over 5 times before locking it up.

[jjgold]

2.5% is chump change, no way to win

Square play is Cavs

[20Four7]

current line on pinny

cavs +392
spurs -422

[BuddyBear]

I'd take Spurs here......hard to imagine how the Spurs could lose this series.

[Ganchrow]

Do you really want to tie up your money for at least 4 games to make 2.5%? I'd personally want to keep my money in circulation and turn it over 5 times before locking it up.

Firstly, it's not like the limits on that bet were all that high to begin.

Secondly, even if an advantage player is liquidity constrained, that doesn't mean he shouldn't place a portion of it on the guaranteed winner.

[20Four7]

Ganchrow, there is guaranteed winners everyday. Usually not as high as 2.5% but they are there. Given the series may go the distance that money would be turned over many times even if you got .75% during that time. But to throw a few bones on it isn't a bad move. I did grab the ducks and sens at almost 3% but I figured the series would go 5 at best.

[Ganchrow]

Given the series may go the distance that money would be turned over many times even if you got .75% during that time. But to throw a few bones on it isn't a bad move. I did grab the ducks and sens at almost 3% but I figured the series would go 5 at best.

It really depends on what your objective is. For a recreational bettor looking to enjoy himself by placing a few bets you're probably correct. For an advantage bettor hoping to grow his bankroll as quickly possible, however, then unless that player bets at a very large edge on big favorites, and/or makes a very large number of bets, it would almost certainly be rational to place a large portion of his bankroll on the risk-free scalp (also dependent of course on the likelihood of other risk-free opportunities presenting themselves).

Just to give an example, if a bettor typically places 10 bets at -110 and 5% edge each day, betting singles and constituent parlays (a state of affairs equivalent, btw, to a risk-free return of about 1.387%) then he's going to betting a bit less than 42% of his bankroll per day. If he bet the remainder (~ 58%) on the scalp he'd only be losing out on days where more than 10 5% edge opportunities presented themselves. On a day when 11 bets existed, for example, the bettor's opportunity cost (the expected bankroll growth lost from having insufficient funds) would only be 0.089%.

The point is that ignoring capacity constraints on the scalp (and a 5Dimes/Pinnacle scalp does have abnormally high capacity), an advantage bettor properly structuring hsi bets to provide maximal expected growth needs to consider what percentage of his bankroll he tends to put to use on a given day, the return he expects on those bets, as well as the distribution of that return. With a scalp of 2.599%, most of the time it will probably work out to place a very portion of one's bankroll on that scalp.

When you consider real world capacity constraints, however, most professional bettors with reasonable bankroll should in general probably bet as much as they can on every scalp that exceeds their respective hurdle rates (it's not worth the effort if the amount to be gained is sufficiently small).

[SBR_John]

Its a nice setup for Cavs backers - very large price, nothing to lose attitude for the cavs and a over confident Spur team.

Problem is this is the Finals. If the Cavs go up say 2-1 the pressure shifts to them and the Spurs wake up. Hard to imagine the Cavs winning 4 out of 7 against this veteran Spur team.

[cincy_1]

Just to give an example, if a bettor typically places 10 bets at -110 and 5% edge each day, betting singles and constituent parlays (a state of affairs equivalent, btw, to a risk-free return of about 1.387%) then he's going to betting a bit less than 42% of his bankroll per day. If he bet the remainder (~ 58%) on the scalp he'd only be losing out on days where more than 10 5% edge opportunities presented themselves. On a day when 11 bets existed, for example, the bettor's opportunity cost (the expected bankroll growth lost from having insufficient funds) would only be 0.089%.

A few things here:

1. Distribution of funds is important. In other words, your bankroll has to be distributed such that you have 3-4 times more money in 5 Dimes than in Pinnacle, and then still have enough money in each account to get the best available line on any given wager ... and after the wager is graded, is there a cost associated with re-distribution of funds? After the loss of Neteller, this is not a trivial matter.

2. The risk associated with keeping large amounts of money in a book is VERY important for me ... and delays in payouts/transfers (on a winning scalp) changes everything in a hurry. Having 90% of your funds in one book after a scalp, paying for the transfer and then waiting for the transfer for long periods of time means that when wagering, does one have to assign risk factor co-efficients and delay co-efficients for each book? In other words, what would it take for a scalp at BetRoyal to be worth the same as a scalp at Olympic?

3. BetJM has virtual wagers which can be used when scalping ... so I have sometimes tried scalping for most my bankroll (90%+), and then placing my wagers as if-bets on BOTH sides of the scalps. The only risk that one takes here is that if the initial bet comes out no-action (pitching change, weather, etc) then the if-bet will either be a no-action with it (WIN only) or be placed twice (WIN-PUSH).

[Ganchrow]

1. Distribution of funds is important. In other words, your bankroll has to be distributed such that you have 3-4 times more money in 5 Dimes than in Pinnacle, and then still have enough money in each account to get the best available line on any given wager ... and after the wager is graded, is there a cost associated with re-distribution of funds? After the loss of Neteller, this is not a trivial matter.

Ostensibly, a player with access to Netller is not living a post-Neteller existence, although in general your point is of course quite relevant. I'd only note that for bettors with appreciable bankrolls most scalps will generally represent relatively small capital outlays.

2. The risk associated with keeping large amounts of money in a book is VERY important for me ... and delays in payouts/transfers (on a winning scalp) changes everything in a hurry. Having 90% of your funds in one book after a scalp, paying for the transfer and then waiting for the transfer for long periods of time means that when wagering, does one have to assign risk factor co-efficients and delay co-efficients for each book? In other words, what would it take for a scalp at BetRoyal to be worth the same as a scalp at Olympic?

Good point again. This was why I was implicitly placing so much importance on this particular scalp -- a 5Dimes / Pinnacle scalp is certainly at the blue chip end of the spectrum.

I'd point one that if one really wanted to weigh books based on payout risk correctly it would turn out to be a little more difficult than assigning linear risk factors coefficients (as in one dollar at book A is worth x% of a dollar in hand) due to the quadratic nature of risk (which is subsumed by the logarithim of Kelly). Not that this make the problem overly intractable of course, just that it becomes nontrivial.

3. BetJM has virtual wagers which can be used when scalping ... so I have sometimes tried scalping for most my bankroll (90%+), and then placing my wagers as if-bets on BOTH sides of the scalps. The only risk that one takes here is that if the initial bet comes out no-action (pitching change, weather, etc) then the if-bet will either be a no-action with it (WIN only) or be placed twice (WIN-PUSH).

This is indeed a great way to with deal liquidity constraints. To solve the no action/double bet issue, why not place the bet IF WIN ONLY on one side of the scalp and IF WIN/PUSH/NO ACTION on the other?

[cincy_1]

This is indeed a great way to with deal liquidity constraints. To solve the no action/double bet issue, why not place the bet IF WIN ONLY on one side of the scalp and IF WIN/PUSH/NO ACTION on the other?

Great points ... thanks Ganch.

As for the suggestion, it makes sense ... the only thing is that in an IF-WIN bet, the size of your wager can be larger than your initial wager, whereas in a IF WIN/PUSH/NO ACTION wager it can only be the size of your initial wager.