[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

if someone whored every single sportsbook and reload you're theory is correct if someone has the risk tolerance for a $500 coin flip.


[/ QUOTE ]
I have explicitly stated several times that my objection is to hedging 100%, not to hedging at all. You can't have missed that. It is absurd to misrepresent what I am saying as applicable only to people willing to risk $500.

Don't pretend the only reason people hedged was for the promotions at other sportsbooks. If you hedge, of course you may want to take advantage of a bonus or other deal, but not hedging or only partially hedging here will not prevent you from taking advantage of those promotions. You should be able to see the value of better strategies without having exhausted the available promotions.

You are throwing out red herring after red herring, and repeatedly (and erroneously) declaring "end of story." Is this your attempt at an intelligent conversation? Either admit that I pointed out a simple mistake that many people made, or really end the story by giving up on the irrelevant complications and misrepresentations.

For many advantage gamblers, hedging 100% is better than hedging 0%. For almost none is hedging 100% better than both hedging 99% and hedging 101%. Many people hedged close to 100% without carefully considering better alternatives. This is a common error of advantage gamblers, even if it is uncomfortable for you to admit that it is an error.