Hooligans Sportsbook

Question for Durito and MonkeyFocker

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    22 Replies •
  • Views 1,982 Views
Follow
wal66

wal66

New Member
Since
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
11,716
Score
2
Tokens
0
I want to try and word this correctly. I am talking about something that is entirely out of my league so please bear with me.

You have a team that you have calculated could win a specific game 1 out of 3 times played. They are +250. The way I understand how math guys play it this is considered +EV right? You are getting 2.5 on your money and you will win this situation 33% of the time. If this plays out you bet $100 each time, win once for $250 and lose twice for a total of $200 so you net $50.

In that same situation if one of the +EV situations for a given game is less than +200 (because in the scenario given +200 on all 3 games is the breakeven point) then it becomes a -EV situation?

In this example is this considered long term +EV?

If you are looking in the short term then it would be different?

Do you even think long term vs short term or do you treat each +EV situation independently? Or is my question showing my lack of higher education all together?
 
yellowfist9
Breakeven on a +250 is 29% long term which would mean if it hits 33% you have a 4% edge.

I know i'm not durito or focker.

http://professionalgambler.com/mlineconv.html
Click to expand...

But my question is, and perhaps I didn't ask correctly, if that same game is at +165 and you are expected to win 1 out of every 3 times is it still truly +EV because if it plays out you lose money if you played it 3 times. So do you look short term individually or long term overt he number of times you are expected to win out of any given situation?
 
the expected value would be $50 on every 300 bet which is 16.67% edge.

Longterm refers to the idea that if you made many such bets you would return that % on all money bet. The more bets you make the higher the likelyhood your edge will be realized.

Short term refers to variance. In a small number of trials your results are more dependent on luck than expected value.
 
You can convert a moneyline, spread line, etc into a probability % quite easily - this essentially is the % chance of winning that bet (which you are buying)

+250 = 100 / (100+ 250) ~ 28.57%
-250 = 250 / (100+250) ~ 71.43%

As long as you think the probability of winning your bet is better than the odds you're paying (or their underlying percentage), then that's a +Expected Value bet.

I like to equate the process of gambling with buying a nice new TV. You wouldn't just see a sweet flat screen and say "I want that now". You might do some research into whether said TV is going to offer you the quality you're paying for; whether the retailer you're buying from is offering a good price, etc.

The same is true for gambling. I like to make sure that when I'm betting, I'm buying odds at a cheaper price.
 
djiddish98
You can convert a moneyline, spread line, etc into a probability % quite easily - this essentially is the % chance of winning that bet (which you are buying)

+250 = 100 / (100+ 250) ~ 28.57%
-250 = 250 / (100+250) ~ 71.43%

As long as you think the probability of winning your bet is better than the odds you're paying (or their underlying percentage), then that's a +Expected Value bet.

I like to equate the process of gambling with buying a nice new TV. You wouldn't just see a sweet flat screen and say "I want that now". You might do some research into whether said TV is going to offer you the quality you're paying for; whether the retailer you're buying from is offering a good price, etc.

The same is true for gambling. I like to make sure that when I'm betting, I'm buying odds at a cheaper price.
Click to expand...



Your analogy is the prime reason that I am still a gambler and not a sports investor. I set a price for a TV or whatever I want to purchase but when I get to the store I buy what looks coolest. Not a smart way to live life and not a smart way to wager on games. Great analogy Dish.
 
I'll just add a bit here. Yes. That would be a wager with positive expectation. Long term results are all that matter. In order to calculate your edge, you need to find the expected value, as reno alluded to a bit. In order to do that, you need the win percentage and odds of the wager. You simply add up all of the possible outcomes. Since we know the fair value of the win percentage in this case (33%) and it is a binomial outcome (two possible outcomes), you would simply add the win%*payout plus the loss%*wager to find the expected value. This gives you your long term expectation on the wager. So, assuming that you're betting one unit on this wager, you'd win 2.5 units 33.3333333% of the time and you'd lose 1 unit 66.66666667% of the time.

Expected value:
(.3333333*2.5) + (.66666667+-1) = .16666667

Now if you wish to convert that into a percentage, you'd simply divide the expected value by your wager. In other words, .166666667/1 or .166666667 (16.666667%).

That is your edge on that particular wager.
 
I always build in a factor.... I think the Cards tonight are almost 60% to win the game..... that would equate to -150 or better..... after building in my margin of error I come out with a line of -110 or better I'll bet which equates to about a 51% win percentage...... and I use the 51% for my edge when calculating my bet size using kelly. It's probably not idea, but until I get far more comfortable with modelling etc I have found it keeps me winning and away from the close games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.