[mofome]

not included in parlays that i know some love, but on a straight bet have you ever laid anything that large. what was the bet?

[teazeman]

not when sober................

[zerocage]

No, nor would I ever admit to something that insane!

[jjgold]

Not me, I make dumb bets but never that dumb.

You lose one of them and your basically done or need to really get hot to get it back.

[mofome]

not when sober................

lol

same here.

[Ganchrow]

not included in parlays that i know some love, but on a straight bet have you ever laid anything that large. what was the bet?

As much as I can. Betting at short odds is a key part of bankroll management for an advantage player.

2% edge at -700 is for a quarter-Kelly bettor roughly as desirable as about 15% edge at +700.

[zerocage]

I can't see it winning long term............

[Ganchrow]

I can't see it winning long term............

Based on what?

[zerocage]

one loss sets you back too much

[Ganchrow]

one loss sets you back too much

In this post I explained some of the issues involved with betting money line favorites.

State Lotteries are very -EV but many people still play them because the idea of risking a little to occasionally win a lot is extremely enticing. Conversely, you don't frequently see people wagering $1 million dollars every week for a 99.9999% probability of winning $1, even though at 0 EV it's a much better bet expectation-wise than a state lottery.

These same preferences also frequently drive the recreational sports bettor. He notes that by betting the large money line underdog he'll occasionally have a nice surprise. He'll tend to remember these large wins and will tend to forget about the many seemingly inconsequential losses he encounters. He'll also note that when he bets large favorites he'll face many small seemingly inconsequential wins and will occasionally suffer very large, very heart wrenching losses. He'll remember these big losses and will vow to avoid large favorites going forward. Perversely, he'll consider this careful risk management when in reality all he's doing is taking on more skew at the cost of greater variance.

In fact, in a somewhat roundabout way the greater variance of underdogs might actually be an advantage for the recreational sports bettor -- especially those attempting to fool themselves into believing their bets are +EV. Because of the lower risk inherent in betting favorites it's much less likely for a -EV bettor betting favorites to show a profit over any given stretch of time than a -EV bettor betting underdogs.

Consider, for example, two bettors each playing at 4.545% vig over 1,000 trials, one betting only +1000 dogs and the other betting only -1000 faves. If each player were to risk 1 unit on every wager then both players have the same expectation, namely -45.45 units. However, the player betting at -1000 has only a 0.0022% probability of showing a profit over 1,000 wagers while the player betting at +1000 has a 33.3257% of showing profit over the same stretch.^* (The +1000 player also has a 6.3989% probability of winning 100 or more units. The -1000 player? A 5.3627×10-56% probability.)

So we have two players, each with the same expectation, but the first with a de minimis probability of showing a profit and the second, no more or less skilled as a bettor than the first, with nearly a 1/3 probability of facing an outcome that permits him the self-delusion of believing he has an advantage as a sports bettor even when none exists. This is yet another reason why recreational bettors so frequently prefer to bet the large underdog.

---

^*It's for this very same reason that when evaluating the records of a handicapper it's important not only to take into account the range of bet sizes, but also the range of payout odds at which bets took place. For example a handicapper up 24.5 units over 250 1-unit bets (+9.8%) at -200 has a more statistically significant record (p-value=1.56%) than a handicapper up 60 units over 250 1-unit bets (+24%) at +400 (p-value=3.70%).

[zerocage]

If it works for you man.

[mofome]

In this post I explained some of the advantages of betting money line favorites.

zero, when you're done reading that, tell me what you think.

[mofome]

If it works for you man.

i put ganch on ignore because it makes me feel brighter.

[zerocage]

zero, when you're done reading that, tell me what you think.

NOT FOR ME.

[zerocage]

Fools gold.

[durito]

Fools gold.

[Ganchrow]

Fools gold.

If you have an argument as to why you believe this to be the case I'd be interested in hearing it.

[mofome]

Fools gold.

i couldn't read that because my mind isn't built for it. what i can say is that ganch is one of the brightest people ive ever had the chance to speak with in person. as we all have, ive met thousands and thousands of people, but i dont recall being quite as impressed with anyone else. ive certainly been impressed by some, but i was taken back by this young man. really...he's something else.
thats my opinion anyway.

[zerocage]

One loss at even 700 to win 100 sets u back 7 units. I'm not doubting you believe it works for you. It wouldn't work for me. Your bankroll must be huge.

[teazeman]

i put ganch on ignore because it makes me feel brighter.

that's fcuking funny as hell right there, i've never interacted with him but have read many of his post and often feel the same way. it's not hard to recognize this guy is on a different intellectual level than most of us, not jealous but damn i wished i were that smart.

[zerocage]

what are your units???

[MadCapper]

I dont think Ive ever laid more than -300

[Ganchrow]

One loss at even 700 to win 100 sets u back 7 units.

Well that's why you'd need to win at better than an 87.5% clip. A 2% edge, for example, would correspond to an expected 89.25% win rate.

win I'm not doubting you believe it works for you. It wouldn't work for me. Your bankroll must be huge.

That for a given edge shorter odds are more conducive to bankroll growth and lower outcome volatility (i.e., "risk") is a fundamental property of gambling mathematics and is unrelated to either bankroll size (except insofar as a player with a large bankroll might be constrained by maximum bets -- this would tend to make favorites less attractive) or the personal opinions of the player placing those bets.

Of course all this is contingent on a player having secured and identified an edge. If a player is simply placing bets recreationally then he will indeed have a more difficult time profiting when betting at shorter odds than at longer odds (although his outcome volatility would still be lower when betting favorites).

[zerocage]

You're talking about laying -700 odds only when there is a complete edge. I'm not talking random placings of bets. So would you have laid -900 on Georgetown last night since they would beat them around 8.5 times out of 10??

[Ganchrow]

So would you have laid -900 on Georgetown last night since they would beat them around 8.5 times out of 10??

Had I believed that Georgetown would have won that game 85% of the time, then I woudl have attributed to a bet at an expected value of about * 85% - 1 ≈ -5.556%, making it a foolish wager indeed.

[zerocage]

The edge would of been with the +13 Nova

[zerocage]

You are very good at math. You do this full time or are your talents used elsewhere??

[Ganchrow]

You do this full time or are your talents used elsewhere??

Full-time.

[donjuan]

So would you have laid -900 on Georgetown last night since they would beat them around 8.5 times out of 10??

It's sad that our education standards have fallen this low.

[zerocage]

It's sad that our education standards have fallen this low.

WTH does that mean sir??

[Ira Wilton]

Not -700 but I had GS on the ML last night - talk about an anxious experience. Apologies to anyone that had Wizards SU

[donjuan]

WTH does that mean sir??

It means that I hope you are in 3rd grade.

[zerocage]

It means that I hope you are in 3rd grade.

Whatever I'm gonna ignore you assholeness for the time being. I like to discuss how everyone bets and views things. If you do not like how I ask questions or what not then put me on ingnore. Since you are so much smarter than I, then why don't you chime in with your knowledge? Have a nice day

[donjuan]

Here's a hint: winning 85% of the time at -900 is a -ev bet. Basic arithmetic is your friend.

As for the OP, of course I've laid more than -700, for the reasons Ganchrow laid out.