<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
What fools bet on that one? What are the true odds, like 50-1 ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then your next visit would be to 5 Dimes to bet the "Makes The Cut" at -1650, as this would represent a value bet given 50-1 odds.
What fools bet on that one? What are the true odds, like 50-1 ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then your next visit would be to 5 Dimes to bet the "Makes The Cut" at -1650, as this would represent a value bet given 50-1 odds.
Yeah good luck finding scalps on these kinds of prices. Most people would go broke at some point betting this kind of price with the about 4% implied value (assuming my 50-1 was correct in the first place). You have to have a pretty big BR or be willing to take that real small payoff. Just easier to find a team that is even that you think is really in your mind about -117 or so, its the same edge with a lot more trials and a lot less complicating hassles than betting -1650 sides IMO.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
Most people would go broke at some point betting this kind of price with the about 4% implied value (assuming my 50-1 was correct in the first place). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bullshit.
If you have a suitable bankroll, you'd be overjoyed to bet the -1650 every hour of every day, assuming the true odds are indeed -5000.
Think about it: lay $100, win $6.06, when the true odds dictate that you should only win $2.00.
Most books/gamblers would line up for blocks to have an endless supply of these -5000 true-odds bets that pay -1650.
Most people would go broke at some point betting this kind of price with the about 4% implied value (assuming my 50-1 was correct in the first place). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bullshit.
If you have a suitable bankroll, you'd be overjoyed to bet the -1650 every hour of every day, assuming the true odds are indeed -5000.
Think about it: lay $100, win $6.06, when the true odds dictate that you should only win $2.00.
Most books/gamblers would line up for blocks to have an endless supply of these -5000 true-odds bets that pay -1650.
Ok here is my math...
16.5/17.5 = 94.2%
50/51 = 98%
The differential between the two is what is crucial here, not the absolute dollar amounts. This implies if you bet the side 100 times you will net about 3.8% edge. That is the EASY way, here is the more difficult way.
Bet this 100 times for $16.50 to win $1, 98 times Tiger plays on Saturday, 2 times he doesn't. The 98 times he makes it, you win $98. The two times he loses you lose a total of $33, so after 100 trials of "risking" $1650 your net win is $55. Take your win and divide it by your investment. $55/$1650 nets you 3.3% ROI. That is not a sufficient return for most people that consider themselves astute bettors. A top sports bettor aims to make betwen 7-15% ROI, its not worth the risk to bet 3.3% wagers unless you are dead certain of your math and when the numbers are as big as this you would be hard pressed to say "I am dead certain Tiger is 50-1 to not make the cut".
If you want to look at it $6 over $2 or whatever fine, but I am telling you the return on this bet, while the numbers look good on paper, is not worthy of the risk. This is a big trap a lot of bettors fall into and when people perpetuate this mistake is gets to me because many people that bet sports can't do this kind of math for whatever reason and they count on those that can to post logical math solutions, something I strive to do every time I get into this. This really is an issue come hockey season when teams are say -280 on the ML and -170 at -0.5. It LOOKS like a big whopping difference and the typical square thinks "Wow that is way too much to pay for a half goal, for sure I will lay the half" and he gets further confused because another game on the board is a team -190 on the ML and -125 at -0.5. He thinks to himself well in one game the half goal is only worth 65 cents while in the other its worth 110 cents? He will see value in the 110 cent line, yet the two lines are almost identical in percentage terms, with the lines implying about 10% differential in likely results for that half goal. These are easy mistakes to make if you look at things as you suggest $6 over $2 or 5000 vs. 1650, but good gambling math is very important to have so that you see what a good value truly is and you don't get made to look like a sucker because you can't do the math correctly.
16.5/17.5 = 94.2%
50/51 = 98%
The differential between the two is what is crucial here, not the absolute dollar amounts. This implies if you bet the side 100 times you will net about 3.8% edge. That is the EASY way, here is the more difficult way.
Bet this 100 times for $16.50 to win $1, 98 times Tiger plays on Saturday, 2 times he doesn't. The 98 times he makes it, you win $98. The two times he loses you lose a total of $33, so after 100 trials of "risking" $1650 your net win is $55. Take your win and divide it by your investment. $55/$1650 nets you 3.3% ROI. That is not a sufficient return for most people that consider themselves astute bettors. A top sports bettor aims to make betwen 7-15% ROI, its not worth the risk to bet 3.3% wagers unless you are dead certain of your math and when the numbers are as big as this you would be hard pressed to say "I am dead certain Tiger is 50-1 to not make the cut".
If you want to look at it $6 over $2 or whatever fine, but I am telling you the return on this bet, while the numbers look good on paper, is not worthy of the risk. This is a big trap a lot of bettors fall into and when people perpetuate this mistake is gets to me because many people that bet sports can't do this kind of math for whatever reason and they count on those that can to post logical math solutions, something I strive to do every time I get into this. This really is an issue come hockey season when teams are say -280 on the ML and -170 at -0.5. It LOOKS like a big whopping difference and the typical square thinks "Wow that is way too much to pay for a half goal, for sure I will lay the half" and he gets further confused because another game on the board is a team -190 on the ML and -125 at -0.5. He thinks to himself well in one game the half goal is only worth 65 cents while in the other its worth 110 cents? He will see value in the 110 cent line, yet the two lines are almost identical in percentage terms, with the lines implying about 10% differential in likely results for that half goal. These are easy mistakes to make if you look at things as you suggest $6 over $2 or 5000 vs. 1650, but good gambling math is very important to have so that you see what a good value truly is and you don't get made to look like a sucker because you can't do the math correctly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
Bet this 100 times for $16.50 to win $1, 98 times Tiger plays on Saturday, 2 times he doesn't. The 98 times he makes it, you win $98. The two times he loses you lose a total of $33, so after 100 trials of "risking" $1650 your net win is $55. Take your win and divide it by your investment. $55/$1650 nets you 3.3% ROI. That is not a sufficient return for most people that consider themselves astute bettors. A top sports bettor aims to make betwen 7-15% ROI, its not worth the risk to bet 3.3% wagers unless you are dead certain of your math <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are correct.
I think we're actually on the same wavelength here. My earlier comments were based purely on the theoretical numbers over the long haul. I was assuming that:
A. Your 50-1 true odds were valid, and
B. Someone had a sufficient Bankroll to withstand a few losses, and
C. This bet was available to you at -1650 in perpetuity.
In other words, if you could bet $100 bucks on this -1650 shot as often as you wanted, and you had a bankroll of at least a couple of thousand bucks, and the 50-1 true odds were valid, then you would bet this forever and make a pile of money.
---------------------------
However, back to the real world, where this -1650 is a one-shot deal, and we don't know for certain what the true odds are, I agree - for me, it wouldn't be worth the risk for such a small return.
Bet this 100 times for $16.50 to win $1, 98 times Tiger plays on Saturday, 2 times he doesn't. The 98 times he makes it, you win $98. The two times he loses you lose a total of $33, so after 100 trials of "risking" $1650 your net win is $55. Take your win and divide it by your investment. $55/$1650 nets you 3.3% ROI. That is not a sufficient return for most people that consider themselves astute bettors. A top sports bettor aims to make betwen 7-15% ROI, its not worth the risk to bet 3.3% wagers unless you are dead certain of your math <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are correct.
I think we're actually on the same wavelength here. My earlier comments were based purely on the theoretical numbers over the long haul. I was assuming that:
A. Your 50-1 true odds were valid, and
B. Someone had a sufficient Bankroll to withstand a few losses, and
C. This bet was available to you at -1650 in perpetuity.
In other words, if you could bet $100 bucks on this -1650 shot as often as you wanted, and you had a bankroll of at least a couple of thousand bucks, and the 50-1 true odds were valid, then you would bet this forever and make a pile of money.
---------------------------
However, back to the real world, where this -1650 is a one-shot deal, and we don't know for certain what the true odds are, I agree - for me, it wouldn't be worth the risk for such a small return.
Ok, good we are exactly thinking the same thing. Getting 3.3% return would be fine if it was certain to happen. That is the problem with big odds events, it generally can do nothing but beat you. I know there are guys that like backing up the truck on these big favorites, but sometimes they backfire. I remember reading a guy saying Forrest (thought to be among the best pound for pound before this recent saga of two fights) should have been 30-1 over the smoking, drinking Mayorga who had questionable losses on his record and couldn't hold a jock to this guy. That fight was like 10-1 and I am sure there were some guys that took a hit on that one thinking there was little chance they would lose. All it takes is a bad episode or two like this and some people get knocked off track like a tailspin. They can handle the monetary loss, but it throws their handicapping off and they become risk adverse towards everything. Its why I suggest to people never to get involved, the chances of getting value on the dog are very very slim and the risks of what happens after losing on the favorite make it best just to let all these big odds events pass you by.
