To hedgers: Adding insult to injury

[E.Z.]

pzhon, it was EV to hedge if you got a nice kickback or sign up bonus elsewhere with the same line or better... end of story.
we got lucky as F*ck with a pick 6 when miami had 0 timeouts

[SoCalRugger]

[ QUOTE ]
SI is sports interaction correct?? what is CCU.

didnt do what you did but would like to in the future

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been less than impressed with SIA so far. I deposited $900 today so that I could work through the referral bonus over the next week or two. The $900 was deducted from Neteller, but never showed up in my SIA account balance. Their Live Chat is disabled, I can't get through to phone support, and I've received no response to my e-mail...

[smak]

Why would somebody who would never bet more than $5 on sports, want to risk not winning $500 or whatever the amount was on the game, when the almost worst scenario almost happened.

Which is, pittsburgh with a 9-11 point lead playing prevent defense, and allowing Miami to score a meaningless touchdown.

After luckboxing two scores to even get it to a win for -4.5 and -5 bettors, that could have easily happened.

That's why I don't bet on football in the first place, and why a hedge, especially with the Rothlisberger getting hurt was the right move for a lot of people.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
pzhon, it was EV to hedge if you got a nice kickback or sign up bonus elsewhere with the same line or better... end of story.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, and those +EV sign up bonuses elsewhere couldn't have been used at any other time, and required you to bet exactly what was needed to hedge 100%? What an unbelievable coincidence. I thought most of you had made a common, understandable error, and instead you were all optimizing perfectly. My bad; carry on. <font color="white">When was the last time someone admitted being wrong on the internet? </font>

[SoCalRugger]

smak, you should get together with FeltBelt. You two would be perfect for each other.

[E.Z.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pzhon, it was EV to hedge if you got a nice kickback or sign up bonus elsewhere with the same line or better... end of story.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, and those +EV sign up bonuses elsewhere couldn't have been used at any other time, and required you to bet exactly what was needed to hedge 100%? What an unbelievable coincidence. I thought most of you had made a common, understandable error, and instead you were all optimizing perfectly. My bad; carry on. <font color="white">When was the last time someone admitted being wrong on the internet? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

not everyone bets or whores sports books....chill out bro.

we got lucky, end of story

ps. do you grind black jack bonuses at $1 per hand too..lol

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would somebody who would never bet more than $5 on sports, want to risk not winning $500 or whatever the amount was on the game, when the almost worst scenario almost happened.

[/ QUOTE ]
Normally, you don't bet on sports because you risk $11 to win $10. It takes a lot of skill to beat that. Here, there was an opportunity to risk $10 to win $11 by reducing the size of your hedge. That should be sufficient reason for almost all advantage gamblers to hedge less than 100%. Some should hedge 0%, some 20%, some 80%, but almost none should hedge 100%.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

we got lucky, end of story


[/ QUOTE ]
"End of story" does not mean what you think it does.

This isn't about luck. It's about making the right decisions. Almost all of the people who hedged 100% did not make the right decision, win or lose. They chose a +EV strategy that had a lower expected value than incomplete hedging (or betting even more on Miami, if they felt betting 11 to win 10 was favorable).

I'm willing to bet that your choice of Ed Miller, David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, or BruceZ would agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]

ps. do you grind black jack bonuses at $1 per hand too..lol

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not, and I don't see why you think I would. The people who do are generally making serious mistakes, skipping other bonuses and life to reduce variance a tiny bit. That shares some similarities with the mistake I am criticizing, paying too much to hedge 100%.

[E.Z.]

most of these people had never heard of or cared to hear of the books that offered bonuses + the kickbacks, so the hedge thread made it EV on that alone.

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

but alot of the people that hedged don't whore every single book known to man like you think....period......end of story

we got lucky bro

[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.