Middling/Scalping/Arbing=earn less because of an inablity to discern which bet has the higher expectation. It is not free money, you are paying a fee to the holder of the paper on the lesser of the two bets for the priviledge of betting risk free.
There is no counter argument too, I win therefore I am not an idiot. It is a matter of how much to earn.
The question was how do you recognize a good middle? There is no such thing as a good middle, one bet's return will alway's dilute the other's.
There is no counter argument too, I win therefore I am not an idiot. It is a matter of how much to earn.
The question was how do you recognize a good middle? There is no such thing as a good middle, one bet's return will alway's dilute the other's.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But even if one does play both sides equally, if it can be determined that the combination is a positive expectation, then I simply cannot see how that can be "idiotic" as compared to a more volative straight up betting approach for which itis much more difficult to accurately judge expectation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Difficult as in requires effort? No originators bet both sides unless they are manipulating, so I guess the top earners see things differently.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Difficult as in requires effort? No originators bet both sides unless they are manipulating, so I guess the top earners see things differently.
do a search. . this topic has been discussed endlessly many times.
i think the strongest arguements made were that certain sports have stronger numbers to middle than others and that a lot of statistical research should be done before diving into becoming a day in and day out middle player.
i think the strongest arguements made were that certain sports have stronger numbers to middle than others and that a lot of statistical research should be done before diving into becoming a day in and day out middle player.
"The question was how do you recognize a good middle? There is no such thing as a good middle, one bet's return will alway's dilute the other's."
I'm not going about this discussion arguing whether an open bet should be converted into a middle, because my bets are purporsefully taken with middling in mind - period. From that point of view, assuming you have the proper combination of points + odds, it is irrelevant what the expectations are on either side. That's true whether you took the original bet on simple speculation or covered both bets simultaneously. There ARE exceptions, of course, especially in the NBA when you find out someone like Shaquille or O'Grady are now out (or in) and you're sitting on the best bet - when players have an undeniable major impact on a team like those 2, you're well advised to sit on the original bet.
I'm not going about this discussion arguing whether an open bet should be converted into a middle, because my bets are purporsefully taken with middling in mind - period. From that point of view, assuming you have the proper combination of points + odds, it is irrelevant what the expectations are on either side. That's true whether you took the original bet on simple speculation or covered both bets simultaneously. There ARE exceptions, of course, especially in the NBA when you find out someone like Shaquille or O'Grady are now out (or in) and you're sitting on the best bet - when players have an undeniable major impact on a team like those 2, you're well advised to sit on the original bet.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sodium Pentethol V:
The question was how do you recognize a good middle? There is no such thing as a good middle, one bet's return will alway's dilute the other's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm going to have to use my 3rd grade buzzer again and repeat myself very carefully. One bet's return will NOT dilute the other if both individual bets on their own each have a positive expectation. A positive expectation bet cannot dilute. Now I think I can anticipate that your response will be something like...well, why not just bet more on the more positive side. Simple, and it's the same reason you don't just bet all you have on a positive bet -- money management -- you're only willing to risk so much of your BR on any one play because nothing is sure. And this is another major reason why middles are generally superior to straight bets -- middles require relatively very little units risked in comparison to earnings potential. Now listen, I'm not saying no one should ever make a straigt bet because middles are better, but by the same token saying that there is no such thing as a good middle is just factually and mathmatically wrong. That's all there is to it.
Here's a little math. Let's say you can pick 55% winners at -110. And let's say I hit a mere 6% of middles also -110 both ways -- again, simplified and it undervalues better middles. Now let's so you risk 110/100 over 100 plays:
Straight:
win 55*100 = +5500
lose 45*110 = 4950
Win 550, nice.
Middling: Agin, let's presume here that I'm RISKING (putting at risk) 110 per play
lose 94*110=10,340
win 6*2,200=13,200 (gain is 20X loss)
Win 2,860, better!
The middler made over 5X as much per $ risked by simply hitting 6% vs. a 55% straight bettor. Bump the middler up to 7% and no straight player could ever achieve a commensurate return.
The challenge is finding such middles and getting a lot down, not in understanding how uniquely profitable they are.
The question was how do you recognize a good middle? There is no such thing as a good middle, one bet's return will alway's dilute the other's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm going to have to use my 3rd grade buzzer again and repeat myself very carefully. One bet's return will NOT dilute the other if both individual bets on their own each have a positive expectation. A positive expectation bet cannot dilute. Now I think I can anticipate that your response will be something like...well, why not just bet more on the more positive side. Simple, and it's the same reason you don't just bet all you have on a positive bet -- money management -- you're only willing to risk so much of your BR on any one play because nothing is sure. And this is another major reason why middles are generally superior to straight bets -- middles require relatively very little units risked in comparison to earnings potential. Now listen, I'm not saying no one should ever make a straigt bet because middles are better, but by the same token saying that there is no such thing as a good middle is just factually and mathmatically wrong. That's all there is to it.
Here's a little math. Let's say you can pick 55% winners at -110. And let's say I hit a mere 6% of middles also -110 both ways -- again, simplified and it undervalues better middles. Now let's so you risk 110/100 over 100 plays:
Straight:
win 55*100 = +5500
lose 45*110 = 4950
Win 550, nice.
Middling: Agin, let's presume here that I'm RISKING (putting at risk) 110 per play
lose 94*110=10,340
win 6*2,200=13,200 (gain is 20X loss)
Win 2,860, better!
The middler made over 5X as much per $ risked by simply hitting 6% vs. a 55% straight bettor. Bump the middler up to 7% and no straight player could ever achieve a commensurate return.
The challenge is finding such middles and getting a lot down, not in understanding how uniquely profitable they are.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> One bet's return will NOT dilute the other if both individual bets on their own each have a positive expectation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong of course,
The lower one will dilute the return of the higher one.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now listen, I'm not saying no one should ever make a straigt bet because middles are better, but by the same token saying that there is no such thing as a good middle is just factually and mathmatically wrong. That's all there is to it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Factually and mathematically provided the goal is maximization of ROI or maximization of Sum of the return, without ruination, independent of limit constraints, there is no such thing as a good middle. Can dress up the idiot all you want, will not change the nature of the beast.
Wrong of course,
The lower one will dilute the return of the higher one.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now listen, I'm not saying no one should ever make a straigt bet because middles are better, but by the same token saying that there is no such thing as a good middle is just factually and mathmatically wrong. That's all there is to it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Factually and mathematically provided the goal is maximization of ROI or maximization of Sum of the return, without ruination, independent of limit constraints, there is no such thing as a good middle. Can dress up the idiot all you want, will not change the nature of the beast.
Yup, what D2 said. Besides, he was using -110 per side in the write-up, when reduced juice lowers your cost and increases your expectation.
As I've said, SPV, you've got some chip on your shoulder about people who can make money doing this - why it's there, I have no idea. Also recall that I really have little interest in straight gambling per se, other than the odd futures bet I take to set up hedges (I hedged very nicely and idiotically on a Cubs future to win the WS and a Panthers future to win the SB). Great if you're a winning bettor, congratulations, seriously - but to denigrate middling as an occupation for idiots is simply idiotic.
As I've said, SPV, you've got some chip on your shoulder about people who can make money doing this - why it's there, I have no idea. Also recall that I really have little interest in straight gambling per se, other than the odd futures bet I take to set up hedges (I hedged very nicely and idiotically on a Cubs future to win the WS and a Panthers future to win the SB). Great if you're a winning bettor, congratulations, seriously - but to denigrate middling as an occupation for idiots is simply idiotic.
Who said they'd bet that??? I didn't. You've made 2 assumptions here: first, that the coin was certified to be perfectly balanced (never verified at the Super Bowl as far as I know), and secondly that if it was perfectly balanced I or any middler would not bet the +110 only. See, there's a difference between knowing the exact odds of an outcome and that of a specific sporting event, whereas middling simply doesn't care - it operates on the assumption that as long as long-term trends operate, it won't matter. Such as betting the 3 spread in the NFL when it's cheap enough.
One final comment before I'm out for a while: sporting events may appear to have great value, until a critical injury occurs or some other factor intervenes (weather, bad field, player ejection, etc) that was not anticipated - it will not impact the middler as adversely as the SU bettor on the wrong side.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who said they'd bet that??? I didn't <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You did, you said the individual return is irrelevant. All of a sudden it isn't irrelevant, why? cause Jazzy requires zero effort to figure out the expectation.
You don't even know what you're doing ROTFLMAO,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>middling simply doesn't care - it operates on the assumption that as long as long-term trends operate, it won't matter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
it operates on the assumption that one side or the other is high enough positive expectation to overcome the dilution from the other.
You did, you said the individual return is irrelevant. All of a sudden it isn't irrelevant, why? cause Jazzy requires zero effort to figure out the expectation.
You don't even know what you're doing ROTFLMAO,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>middling simply doesn't care - it operates on the assumption that as long as long-term trends operate, it won't matter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
it operates on the assumption that one side or the other is high enough positive expectation to overcome the dilution from the other.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sodium Pentethol V:
Book A offers heads-105
Book B offers tails +110.
Coin toss.
Betting at book A is for idiots, limits aside and ROR aside.
no matter what combination you use, if you bet at Book A you are diluting the return of just betting at Book B, even if Book A offered +105.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How can you put limits and risk of ruin aside? They matter. If I can get +110/+105 then I can put all that I could possibly get on both sides and know that my risk of ruin is -0-. When betting one side you had better bet only a fraction of your bankroll, maybe 2-4% tops, if you want to avoid the risk of ruin. If allowed, I could bet 50% of my bankrol on both sides and have zero risk of ruin and a much higher rate of return. Also, as Jazz pointed out, while a fair coin is known to be 50/50, you simply cannot precusely know the expectation of a bet on one side of a sporting event. You can't. Period. Can you be good enough to make sure your bets over the long-term are positive? Yes, I think so. But your argument against middling is predicated first on being able to know the expectations with precision and 2nd, ignoring money management and risk of ruin principles. These two facts are where your theory fails with certainty.
And again, a +EV bet does not dilute a more +EV bet where's you already erisk as much as your MM/BKR allow on the more positive side. Otherwise, according to your argument, if yo hae two different games, one with 58% expec and another 60%, why put anything on the 58% play when you have a better 60% play. The abswer is obvious to most.
Book A offers heads-105
Book B offers tails +110.
Coin toss.
Betting at book A is for idiots, limits aside and ROR aside.
no matter what combination you use, if you bet at Book A you are diluting the return of just betting at Book B, even if Book A offered +105.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How can you put limits and risk of ruin aside? They matter. If I can get +110/+105 then I can put all that I could possibly get on both sides and know that my risk of ruin is -0-. When betting one side you had better bet only a fraction of your bankroll, maybe 2-4% tops, if you want to avoid the risk of ruin. If allowed, I could bet 50% of my bankrol on both sides and have zero risk of ruin and a much higher rate of return. Also, as Jazz pointed out, while a fair coin is known to be 50/50, you simply cannot precusely know the expectation of a bet on one side of a sporting event. You can't. Period. Can you be good enough to make sure your bets over the long-term are positive? Yes, I think so. But your argument against middling is predicated first on being able to know the expectations with precision and 2nd, ignoring money management and risk of ruin principles. These two facts are where your theory fails with certainty.
And again, a +EV bet does not dilute a more +EV bet where's you already erisk as much as your MM/BKR allow on the more positive side. Otherwise, according to your argument, if yo hae two different games, one with 58% expec and another 60%, why put anything on the 58% play when you have a better 60% play. The abswer is obvious to most.
"From that point of view, assuming you have the proper combination of points + odds, it is irrelevant what the expectations are on either side."
SPV, if you're going to quote me, please do so in context - the quote above was referring to sporting events and not something where the actual odds of occurrence are known - but you know that anyway. I notice you managed to avoid answering my example of a 'good middle' even you wouldn't pass up.
SPV, if you're going to quote me, please do so in context - the quote above was referring to sporting events and not something where the actual odds of occurrence are known - but you know that anyway. I notice you managed to avoid answering my example of a 'good middle' even you wouldn't pass up.
Although I pretty much agree with Sodium, I only agree because most places have smaller limits.
Once I had 10k on "tails" +110, it would be time to start playing some more tails but only with heads -105.
Sure, the heads has negative expectation, but it's ok to play some negative expectation once you have already reached your max bet status (due to BR restrictions) AND you can scoop up more of the great bet.
It's like seeing a dime lying on the ground. You can grab it, but a nickel will fall out of your pocket. Obviously, I'd rather just pick up the dime, but if I no longer can do so without pitching the nickel, then Ill toss the nickel.
Once I had 10k on "tails" +110, it would be time to start playing some more tails but only with heads -105.
Sure, the heads has negative expectation, but it's ok to play some negative expectation once you have already reached your max bet status (due to BR restrictions) AND you can scoop up more of the great bet.
It's like seeing a dime lying on the ground. You can grab it, but a nickel will fall out of your pocket. Obviously, I'd rather just pick up the dime, but if I no longer can do so without pitching the nickel, then Ill toss the nickel.
