Having a plan is paramount, and probably is THE most imprtant thing to have if you are gambling in expectations of actually winning money.
The issue I have with the whole EV expectation thing is that that Ev expectaion is in direct correlation to an individuals abilty to handicap in the first place.
in toher words it is like trying to lift yourslef off the floor. It is impossible. you can leave the floor for short periods by jumping, but holding yourself in the air (with out holding onto to something) is impossible, unless you believe in levitation.
We have had argument/debate on and on about things that can be given some sort of parameters, and even then we cannot agree on a EV expectaion over any extended period of time.
So is one supposed to factor a FREE STANDING EV expectation? It is impossible. A perosn that picks 50% winners is goign to have an EV expectation the same 50% of the time. If he finds an angle that makes sense an extra 3% of the time, he THEORTICALLY can improve to a 53% capper, but I think that assumption is highly overrated. Because for it to hold true he has to play the scenario EVERY single time it occurs. Which is nearly impossible.
That is taking the advabntage at face value. With the variances in lines and odds getting a FIXED/STATIC number is also next to impossible. What makes a game -3? What if 10 books have -3 -110, 20 have -2.5 -130, and still a few other have -3.5 +110. What is the TRUE closing number? This doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen.
Also opening lines as well. If you asked 5 people what theoopening line was on this SuperBowl you might get 5 different answers. That is the problem with giving value or trying to determine expectations for specific odds/lines.
So if you cannot agree on something AFTER the fact, what chance is there BEFORE the fact?
I do agree with the hedging. And that taking leads in sports these days is something that is far too often overlooked.
But that also raises the question of value and expectation. I posed the question last night. For the guys that bought the Spurs -4 -110. Had a chance to get Seattle +6.5 -105( I think it hit 7 at a few spots) . Over all that was a good buy back in my opinion. BUT due to specific circumstances in the game, a plyer not playing, and the coach being absent, the line move had perhaps more weight than the "value" of the middling oppurtunity.
Those things are also things that are lost when one simply looks at results from years past.
So it still comes down to specific game situations. Theoretically if you bet -4 -110 and +7 -110 in the NBA you would have an unreal advantage. But in the case of last night the circumstances out wieghed the value. Obviously easier to say after the fact, but the results proves the point.
So even when you are hedging or taking leads, one has to figure out if the buy back is "correct" in that game situation.
This is far more relavent in baseball where the ML system is in play. But also the sport where making money is by far the easiest using this approach.
So You buy the Sox at -135, looking to see them go to -150 so you can buy the Orioles back at +142 and get 7 cents. If there is no change in personel then the buy back wouold probably make sense. But if the Sox win 9-0 did it? You had aline that was 15 cents "better" than the clsoer, and probably a nickle betteer than most people got it.
So one then has to determine "true value" Was -135 a more "true" line, or was the -150? the result woould point to the -150. But then again it might have been a fluke. I have seen many games go the "wrong" way. Meaning a team opens -115, goes to -130 and loses.
That is why in theory when you buy back with no regard to what the right vaue on thegame is, the better off you will be. Because by betting both side evenly you take the gamble out of it. You can hedge around and buy back for half or 3/4 or whatever. Taking a stand slightly on one side or the other. But if you are wrong, then that can completely blow the premise of your whole approach.
it is very simple, and very complicated at the same time. I would rather NOT LOSE 100 bets than win 55 of 100 bets. Because NEVER lsoing is always more profittable than winning even a high percentage of games.
If you picked up a dime every day of your life starting when you were 5. By the time you were 20 you would have about 550 bucks, just for finding a dime. If you took that same dime you found and flipped it and could double it if you hit heads or tails, but had to pay a penny for that chance to double it. You would theoretically (if you had 50/50 split) have only about 500 bucks. So in some cases you would make 19 cents for the day, in others you would make zero. So while the years would be mixed with wins and losses, over the long haul you would be behind because you "gambled" rather than taking what was given to you.
