[NSchandler]

Man this thread kind of sucks so I'm not really going to post much in here (I'm not blaming you for this, btw).

Let me just say that while I understand what you're saying, you assume that all risks here are the same. I don't believe this to be true. There are a number of reasons people might treat sports betting different from other gambling - some of it behavioral, some of it not.

Your argument comes down to you being able to deduce others' preferences (or opportunities) based on the fact that they're "advantage gamblers." To use your analogy, (8,8) can only be listed if you know something about the win rate and variance of the game they're playing. You're saying that it doesn't make sense to refuse a Steelers coinflip that pays 1.1:1 but then go to the poker tables and accept coinflips that pay 1.05:1. Especially when we can choose the size of the Steelers coinflip based on how much we decide to hedge.

I understand what you're saying, I'm just not willing to make the leaps that you are. And I don't think you should be as comfortable making them as you are.

I mean, on a site that relies so much on the behavioral concept of a "poker roll," why should we immediately drop behavioral considerations when declaring that most everybody who decided to hedge got it wrong? Not to mention that you don't know whether the people who hedged truly are "advantage gamblers" or simply "aspiring advantage gamblers" ... or really any number of a million other things I think you'd need to know to really say with confidence that they're wrong.

Eh, whatever, I'm rambling here. But at least know that I'm challenging your statement on different grounds from what you probably thought initially.