First off, I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you. That certainly wasn't my intention. :toast:
Regardless, this isn't a matter for non-mathematical debate. If a player's goal is to maximize the growth of his bankroll (and that may well not be his goal -- and there'd nothing intrinsically "wrong" with that) then whether any given individual chooses to believe it or not, the counter-intuitive solution of placing negative EV hedges is indeed completely correct. This is easily provable fact.
To be fair, I should note that as a player's bankroll increases such that he often finds himself highly constrained by book-imposed maximum bets, then it becomes increasingly more correct for a player to always avoid negative EV wagers. In other words, just as you say, a player with a sufficiently large bankroll would never choose to a make a negative EV wager.
I told you at the start that they weren't coming out of that bracket and I don't think they are goingt o be able to pull off the win tonight but this is college baseball and is far from over... A&M is dynamite at home and they did push them to the limit so you had a good bet... But I told you when you made the play that they wouldn't pull this off because the Aggies just were to deep... I have no money down here so hoping ur team can come back but I just on't see it happening
Only in a world where there is no risk of bankruptcy. With bankruptcy involved, you are incorrect. This very easy to show. Lets say I offer you bets on a coin flip where you get +105 every time. However, there is a rule that says you must bet the entire bankroll every bet for 50 bets or until you go broke. You have $10K bankroll to start. Do you take the deal? Of course not. Because, even though you are making a positive expectation bet every single bet you are going broke.
Now, if I were to offer you +102 on the coin flips and you could bet whatever you wanted you would immediately take that.
So, the obvious smart play would be to take the +102. Thus, you are making a negative EV play because you are taking +102 when you could take +105.
I dont play much straight action, but on those I do play I don't come close to that, but on Nebraska basketball games which I bet VERY large amounts on in relation to other wagers where I am limited(even more so this day and age without neteller) I have hit well above 60 percent in the past. My hundred dollar straight wagers where I have a lean on the game but just bet so it gets me to watch the game and scout it if I have no prop activity on it, I break about even on or possibly lose a little.
I am more of a crafty specialist I would call myself. My hat is off to those that can just line up and beat the books on straight bets day in and day out. I would have to go to the Iceman school to do that I think. I need to limit myself to spot betting on straight bets where I know I know more than the books, such as Husker basketball etc. Play team totals and so forth instead of straight wagering.
I don't know more than everyone else. I do know that me making negative expectation wagers is not the way to go. Perfect example.
Many moons ago when I had very small bankroll and a future on the marlins to win the NL pennant at 110-1 for 150 to get 16500. I made up my mind I was not hedging it against the Giants. They grinded through that series somehow. Then they were playing the Cubs. It gets to game 6 and they were down 3-2. Prior and Wood lurking for the last two games. Figured I had very little chance so thought maybe should hedge a bit. Line comes out on game 6 and it was Cubs like -240 or some shit. That is silly. Had I not had future play, would have been all over Marlins at that line. So I determined the future bet is a seperate entity. Don't make a stupid negative expectation play just to hedge. Same thing in game 7 and you know how it turned out. Now, it usually will not work out, but over time making the negative expectation play will cost one money. That is my belief and I do not think I can be convinced otherwise. Looking back, that is the wager that truly launched my career. Gave me a better roll to work with.
Now it can go both ways, Had GS at 200-1 to win the title. I felt Utah had a fair chance to win that series and line was fair on series price so I played Utah for enough to get my stake back. It all depends on if it is a negative expectation play or not.
And of course there's no arguing with a sample size of 1.
I understand what you're saying and you're certainly not alone in your belief. In fact, I'd think most people would probably tend to agree with you on this point. But mathematical reality is not a democracy and objective fact is not subject to consensus of opinion. And in this case the objective fact is that it will often be quite rational for a player attempting to grow his bankroll as quickly as possible to make negative EV bets (although becoming increasingly less so the more constrained by maximum wagers the player becomes). This isn't a matter of opinion or some theoretical construct, it's objective mathematical reality that's no less certain and definitively understood than the concept of two plus two equaling four.
Contrasting expected value and expected growth I wrote:
Now certainly a multi-billionaire correctly max-betting every positive EV wager he can find would be doing himself a disservice hedging any bet an negative EV. But the fact is that is that this state of affairs simply does not apply to most advantage bettors.
This concept isn't unique to sports betting either. In the world of finance, a hedge fund manager will often sell out of a portion of a position that he still considers to have value in order to manage his risk and maximize the expected growth of his portfolio of investments. A dollar lost hurts not only because it reduces the value of an investment, but also because it represents one fewer dollar that can be invested in the future.
Another example of a negative expectation bet is insurance. People don't pay insurance premiums because they expect to make money by doing so, but rather because they feel that there's value in smoothing out their expectations.
If you're involved in a car accident and kill a pedestrian, for example, you may very well lose a multi-million dollar judgment. Without liability insurance this could destroy you and your family financially, digging you a hole from which it might be nearly impossible to extricate yourself. Liability insurance, however, would permit you to avoid financial devastation.
So that's really it. The point is it negative EV wagers often make sense. It's a straightforward concept. While a bettor's mean outcome will be worse if you place negative EV wagers, his median outcome (corresponding in this case to the most likely or modal outcome) will be better. Now if a player were just flat-betting a relatively small amount on every wager (typically hurting his expected bankroll growth by doing so) then this mean/median dichotomy won't generally be relevant, but if he's Kelly percentage betting (as he should in order to maximize his expected bankroll growth) then this concept becomes extremely important.
Remember, royalfan, it's not just about you. While you're obviously doing very well max betting every positive EV wager you can find, this doesn't apply to most people. You should certainly do whatever your own preferences dictate ... but your preferences shouldn't govern the actions of bettors with preferences different than yours. And in the case of a bettor seeking to grow his bankroll as quickly as possible his proper behavior is abundantly clear.
And of course there's no arguing with a sample size of 1.
I understand what you're saying and you're certainly not alone in your belief. In fact, I'd think most people would probably tend to agree with you on this point. But mathematical reality is not a democracy and objective fact is not subject to consensus of opinion. And in this case the objective fact is that it will often be quite rational for a player attempting to grow his bankroll as quickly as possible to make negative EV bets (although becoming increasingly less so the more constrained by maximum wagers the player becomes). This isn't a matter of opinion or some theoretical construct, it's objective mathematical reality that's no less certain and definitively understood than the concept of two plus two equaling four.
Contrasting expected value and expected growth I wrote:Now certainly a multi-billionaire correctly max-betting every positive EV wager he can find would be doing himself a disservice hedging any bet an negative EV. But the fact is that is that this state of affairs simply does not apply to most advantage bettors.
This concept isn't unique to sports betting either. In the world of finance, a hedge fund manager will often sell out of a portion of a position that he still considers to have value in order to manage his risk and maximize the expected growth of his portfolio of investments. A dollar lost hurts not only because it reduces the value of an investment, but also because it represents one fewer dollar that can be invested in the future.
Another example of a negative expectation bet is insurance. People don't pay insurance premiums because they expect to make money by doing so, but rather because they feel that there's value in smoothing out their expectations.
If you're involved in a car accident and kill a pedestrian, for example, you may very well lose a multi-million dollar judgment. Without liability insurance this could destroy you and your family financially, digging you a hole from which it might be nearly impossible to extricate yourself. Liability insurance, however, would permit you to avoid financial devastation.
So that's really it. The point is it negative EV wagers often make sense. It's a straightforward concept. While a bettor's mean outcome will be worse if you place negative EV wagers, his median outcome (corresponding in this case to the most likely or modal outcome) will be better. Now if a player were just flat-betting a relatively small amount on every wager (typically hurting his expected bankroll growth by doing so) then this mean/median dichotomy won't generally be relevant, but if he's Kelly percentage betting (as he should in order to maximize his expected bankroll growth) then this concept becomes extremely important.
Remember, royalfan, it's not just about you. While you're obviously doing very well max betting every positive EV wager you can find, this doesn't apply to most people. You should certainly do whatever your own preferences dictate ... but your preferences shouldn't govern the actions of bettors with preferences different than yours. And in the case of a bettor seeking to grow his bankroll as quickly as possible his proper behavior is abundantly clear.
You make some valid points. What is right for me, may not be right for others.
