[EaglesPhan36]

Ridin' on one game only & looking at + money games to do so. Here are the options tonight as I see them:

1. Tigers +115
2. Nuggets +160
3. Jazz +185
4. Nashville +210
5. Dallas Stars +140
6. Wait Till Tomorrow - NO BET

Stars look like the best option to me as I think they can steal Game 1 @ Anaheim. Maybe the Jazz after their big win @ New Orleans get another? Whaddya got for me bro's & ho's?

[Richkas]

Twins

[Richkas]

Ridin' on one game only & looking at + money games to do so. Here are the options tonight as I see them:

1. Tigers +115
2. Nuggets +160
3. Jazz +185
4. Nashville +210
5. Dallas Stars +140
6. Wait Till Tomorrow - NO BET

Stars look like the best option to me as I think they can steal Game 1 @ Anaheim. Maybe the Jazz after their big win @ New Orleans get another? Whaddya got for me bro's & ho's?

Theres no ho's here buddy.

[slacker00]

If it's a freeplay, take the biggest dog you can find. That maximizes the utility value of the freeplay.

[Shark79]

Nashville

[donjuan]

Basically you hate money if you don't put this on a big dog.

[Ganchrow]

Basically you hate money if you don't put this on a big dog.

I'll just add that with any bet sizing decision true optimal strategy will ultimately depend on the size of the bettor's bankroll (relative to the freeplay), and the availability of hedge bets.

If the freeplay can only be used in a single go, then if we assume zero time value of money and a bettor unable to hedge:

let f = freeplay (as % of bankroll)
let v = bet EV
let d = decimal odds

As win probability = (1+v)/d, the player then seeks to maximize:

E(U) = (1+v)/d*ln(1+(d-1)*f)

with respect to v & d (which together jointly define a bet).

If we further assume EV doesn't vary with odds magnitude then we have:

E(U) = ln(1+(d-1)*f) / d

So to give a few examples for a $50 indivisible freeplay:

		Optimal Odds 	Optimal Odds
Bankroll	(full-Kelly)	(quarter-Kelly)
$100    	  +231*		  -115*
$1,000  	  +665		  +301*
$10,000 	+2,033		  +984
$100,000 	+6,358		+3,146

Of course a player may always guarantee himself a 75% conversion on his freeplay by betting a 3-team parlays all 8-ways (yielding full-Kelly utility of ln(1+.75f)), and in the cases marked by an asterisk above (assuming zero EV on the bets), that's exactly what he would optimally do.

Anyway, there are obviously tons of enhancements that could be made to this methodology (for example, taking into account that many freeplays may be split up into multiple wagers and that EV typically does vary with odds magnitude), but the general idea is clear.

While players will generally want to select large dogs for their freeplays, there will nevertheless be a limit to the magnitude of the odds a player is willing to accept. Sufficiently small players will optimally choose to use the 8-parlay method for their freeplays in preference to betting underdogs

While higher EV players won't optimally select higher magnitude odds (again we're assuming EV doesn't vary with d), they will obviously be more willing to use their freeplays for underdog betting rather than for an 8-parlay 75% conversion.

[mofome]

So what happens if you can split up the freeplay as much you want? Does that mean you could take bigger doggies?

[hawk 5]

Mark Martin

[Ganchrow]

So what happens if you can split up the freeplay as much you want? Does that mean you could take bigger doggies?

Yeah, that's precisely it. By spreading out your freeplay over a greater number of games you'd be able to reduce your risk without expecting your expectation (assuming all games were at the same EV and teh same payout odds).

Break up your freeplay into infinitely many bets, for example, and your expectation would be 100% freeplay conversion to cash (± the edge/vig).