<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SportSavant:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> +6 -110 / -5 +103 (NCAAB FULL GAME...BYU game)... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
soduium, this is the example I presented above...which would have been the 'value' as you describe? Ill be damned If I could figure that out myself...however without much risk I won the middle...
also in a discussion it is important to give & take...i challenge you...let us know if there is at least anything above that makes sense to you...to mock in the fashion that you do does not give your side of the argument credibility nor are you bringing much respect to yourself...something as simple as choice of words 'idiotic' would completely change the tone of what is IMHO an extremely interesting thread...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm going to run some numbers now to test this out with your example above of -5+103/+6-110. Assume each number has a mere 2% chance (I believe this is quite overconservative BTW) of hitting. And let's say we make the following bet 100 times:
-5+103 for 103.45/106.55
+6-110 for 110/100
We are risking a total of $345 loss (3.45 each)
96 times we lose 3.45=-331.20
2 times we win 106.55=+213.10
2 times we win 100=+200
Up 81.90 expected return on a $345 total risk of loss, cool.
In order to get back an expected 81.90 per 345 risk of loss for straight bets at -105 each, you would need to hit over 63% of them ($345*.37=-127.65 and $328.57*.63=+207, up 79.35).
The idiot just became better than a 63% capper. How, uhhh, idiotic of the idiot. Uh. Yeah.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> +6 -110 / -5 +103 (NCAAB FULL GAME...BYU game)... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
soduium, this is the example I presented above...which would have been the 'value' as you describe? Ill be damned If I could figure that out myself...however without much risk I won the middle...
also in a discussion it is important to give & take...i challenge you...let us know if there is at least anything above that makes sense to you...to mock in the fashion that you do does not give your side of the argument credibility nor are you bringing much respect to yourself...something as simple as choice of words 'idiotic' would completely change the tone of what is IMHO an extremely interesting thread...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm going to run some numbers now to test this out with your example above of -5+103/+6-110. Assume each number has a mere 2% chance (I believe this is quite overconservative BTW) of hitting. And let's say we make the following bet 100 times:
-5+103 for 103.45/106.55
+6-110 for 110/100
We are risking a total of $345 loss (3.45 each)
96 times we lose 3.45=-331.20
2 times we win 106.55=+213.10
2 times we win 100=+200
Up 81.90 expected return on a $345 total risk of loss, cool.
In order to get back an expected 81.90 per 345 risk of loss for straight bets at -105 each, you would need to hit over 63% of them ($345*.37=-127.65 and $328.57*.63=+207, up 79.35).
The idiot just became better than a 63% capper. How, uhhh, idiotic of the idiot. Uh. Yeah.
A) + 2.5 -110 / -1 -115
B) +2.5 -105 / -1.5 -110
Both In NCAAB
From what I have heard hear from the experts...I would assome that B would be the better option than A...as there is only a 15 cent spread & one should not pay more than 6 cents per 1/2 point...
Are either of these strong plays in your opinions?
Also sodium...wanted to ask you yesterday Portland @ Conzaga game Total offered was 147 or 149...
game ended @ 148 (obviously could have gone either way)...how would you have tackled that opportunity...I know what I did...
[This message was edited by SportSavant on February 19, 2004 at 12:17 PM.]
B) +2.5 -105 / -1.5 -110
Both In NCAAB
From what I have heard hear from the experts...I would assome that B would be the better option than A...as there is only a 15 cent spread & one should not pay more than 6 cents per 1/2 point...
Are either of these strong plays in your opinions?
Also sodium...wanted to ask you yesterday Portland @ Conzaga game Total offered was 147 or 149...
game ended @ 148 (obviously could have gone either way)...how would you have tackled that opportunity...I know what I did...
[This message was edited by SportSavant on February 19, 2004 at 12:17 PM.]
I don't think there's all that much difference between NBA and college though there are some key NBA numbers which make certain ones better. As a g**** oversimplification, full game:
Sides: 6 cents per half point (i.e. -5-105/+6-107)
Totals: 4 cents per half point
I'd usually be willing to pay just a little more for halves. Stick to these requirements and better and frankly I don't think you can lose long-term.
** Call this the idiot's guide to idiot middling.
Sides: 6 cents per half point (i.e. -5-105/+6-107)
Totals: 4 cents per half point
I'd usually be willing to pay just a little more for halves. Stick to these requirements and better and frankly I don't think you can lose long-term.
** Call this the idiot's guide to idiot middling.
you da man...thanks for the help...I have been doing this for quite a while but my approach has changed since joining the RX & talking to you & the others who are so helpful...
does the 6 cent rule apply wether there are two outs or 1 out?
for example
+4-105 / -3-105
+4.5 -105 / -3.5 -105
Obviously both are 1 point & both have the same vig...but B has less chance of winning...but you win more...would you rate these two the same over the long haul?
does the 6 cent rule apply wether there are two outs or 1 out?
for example
+4-105 / -3-105
+4.5 -105 / -3.5 -105
Obviously both are 1 point & both have the same vig...but B has less chance of winning...but you win more...would you rate these two the same over the long haul?
SS, that's a good question and it moves beyond the beginning idiot stage into the intermediate idiot stage.
I believe that the -3-105/+4-105 is slightly superior because, assuming 3 and 4 are equal chances to hit, you will hit 2X as often but win 1/2 as much with the -3/+4. This means that you will take a (small) loss less often (maybe 2-4% less often) resulting in a higher overall return, but not by a lot. It's also nice to get the "rush" from winning more often.
I believe that the -3-105/+4-105 is slightly superior because, assuming 3 and 4 are equal chances to hit, you will hit 2X as often but win 1/2 as much with the -3/+4. This means that you will take a (small) loss less often (maybe 2-4% less often) resulting in a higher overall return, but not by a lot. It's also nice to get the "rush" from winning more often.
