Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice guns vs butter PPF you idiot. Just get done taking econ 101??

We're not talking about bundles of goods here (or bets). We're talking about one bet. If you could do this bet 1000 times then you might be right.. and you might make your tiny little extra 2% "+EV". But this is ONE BET! and you either don't hedge and possibly lose it all.. or do hedge and still make near half either way. Your acedemic crap is worthless.. just like my old professors who teach econ and business.. They teach their economic theories and never figure out how they work in reality.

Not to add insult to your injured ego

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow.

In the process of getting a degree in economics, I progressed far beyond Econ 101, but I remember it and use it when appropriate. Why would you call me an idiot for that, as opposed to the people who failed to apply basic economics, or 3rd grade reading comprehension?

Your anti-intellectual rant was pathetic, particularly on 2+2. Of course the theory is applicable here, to one bet, and advantage gamblers with any sense listen when a theorist corrects the "common wisdom." Please consider killing yourself in an amusing fashion.

Edit: Oh, I see you changed your post to delete all but the "Nice guns vs butter PPF." Ok, thanks.

Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

If I had taken that bet, 66% of my roll would have been involved. I'd rather hedge the remaining $ to get SOME sort of boost to my roll.

EDIT- original link served no purpose, and i'm sure had nothing to do with my point

Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I had taken that bet, 66% of my roll would have been involved. I'd rather hedge the remaining $ to get SOME sort of boost to my roll.

EDIT- original link served no purpose, and i'm sure had nothing to do with my point

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, when the OP was talking about 3rd grade reading comprehension, I bet you didn't realize he was talking about you.

Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

Thought I edited in time. Guess not. I wasnt a fan of the title because I'm one person that hedged.. so I skipped to page 7 without reading everything. Now that I read everything I apologize..

Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

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.

Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thought I edited in time. Guess not. I wasnt a fan of the title because I'm one person that hedged.. so I skipped to page 7 without reading everything. Now that I read everything I apologize..

[/ QUOTE ]
Apology accepted. Welcome to the forums.

My title was intentionally provocative, but I don't think what I said should have been taken as an insult by people who hedged. I usually don't feel insulted if someone points out a mistake I have made, particularly if it helps me to avoid future mistakes, but it apparently makes some people very defensive.

Re: My take on OP\'s analysis....
 

[ QUOTE ]


Thank you for putting this down clearly. My only qualm with your logic is that this Mansion gift was not a repeated trial, like the repeated birthday gift in your analysis.

If someone offered me a million $1 coinflips where they payout $1.1 to a win, I'd wager the full amount every time right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you took the time to read it, and think about it. And yes, Mansion only offered one event, as opposed to my various birthday gift examples above. After laying the PItt wager (before the game) -- with the opportunity to hedge in any amount you wish, or not hedge, you have the choice of accepting the year #2 gift, or the year #1 gift. That's what I was trying to get across. Most would always choose the second year gift, and hedge to one degree or another. I guess I should've presented the gift analogy as a CHOICE between the year 1 and year 2 gift, i.e., the same choice you make when you hedge or do not hedge.

And yes, if you could have a million $1 coin flips, paying $1.1 when you won, you'd of course jump on it every time. Problem with Pitt scenario is that you only get the 1.1 - 1 opportunity once, which is why everyone wouldn't wager the entire $475 (and thus most choose to hedge some amount).

Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I had taken that bet, 66% of my roll would have been involved. I'd rather hedge some of the remaining $ to get SOME sort of boost to my roll.

EDIT- original link served no purpose, and i'm sure had nothing to do with my point

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, when the OP was talking about 3rd grade reading comprehension, I bet you didn't realize he was talking about you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, when the OP was talking about 3rd grade reading comprehension, I bet you didn't realize he was talking about you.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

edit - now that I'm defending something I mistyped, I realize that now. my preference is simple. In my situation, $200 dollars is alot of money to have, so therefore I'd rather skim some EV to have free money to spend. I didn't look as this as a gamble, I looked it as a chance to have free money on either outcome, and maybe hit it big. this is all of course assuming I took the bet in the first place (I didn't, I love poker too much). I'll re-read this thread a few times to try to see a flaw in this thinking. Although I should pace myself, I just finished reading "see spot run"

Re: To hedgers: Adding insult to injury
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you hedged the Mansion Steelers bet, you lost. I'd like to point out that most people who hedged did so incorrectly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just took offense to the 1st post. OP has since changed it to "advantage gamblers" made wrong move.

OP- everyone knows that sports betting is -EV with juice
and blackjack is also -EV online.

if you've never whored blackjack bonuses then try it. and if you think $25 in juice makes hedging wrong in sports betting then you aren't aware of their bonuses.

ever heard the term of "busting a book" ?? perhaps you should do a search and then read your 1st post again and realize how stupid it was.

and saying " you can get those bonuses later" just isn't practical when alot of these people will never bet on sports again!! they opened their ONLY 2 books this last week)

and even 99% of the so-called advantage gamblers don't use every weekly reload at every book.

Re: My take on OP\'s analysis....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Thank you for putting this down clearly. My only qualm with your logic is that this Mansion gift was not a repeated trial, like the repeated birthday gift in your analysis.

If someone offered me a million $1 coinflips where they payout $1.1 to a win, I'd wager the full amount every time right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you took the time to read it, and think about it. And yes, Mansion only offered one event, as opposed to my various birthday gift examples above. After laying the PItt wager (before the game) -- with the opportunity to hedge in any amount you wish, or not hedge, you have the choice of accepting the year #2 gift, or the year #1 gift. That's what I was trying to get across. Most would always choose the second year gift, and hedge to one degree or another. I guess I should've presented the gift analogy as a CHOICE between the year 1 and year 2 gift, i.e., the same choice you make when you hedge or do not hedge.

And yes, if you could have a million $1 coin flips, paying $1.1 when you won, you'd of course jump on it every time. Problem with Pitt scenario is that you only get the 1.1 - 1 opportunity once, which is why everyone wouldn't wager the entire $475 (and thus most choose to hedge some amount).

[/ QUOTE ]

This can't be right, two posters agreeing with each other in this thread. Mod! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]