vpFREE2 Forums

Casa Blanca/Mesquite, NV

#1

Private email to Administrator:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Casa Blanca Resort/Mesquite NV. The eight 9-6 JOB 25 cent, Triple
Play Machines, have now been downgraded to 8-6. This completes the
devastation of good VP at this location. Nothing play-able remain. Some
the the VP downgraded earlier have been downgraded again.

This will be my last report on the Casa Blanca. I will continue to walk
through this location from time to time. This is just in case there may
be a change of heart from management later on.

#2

What would you do?
   
  Last summer I bought - on a lark - a futures bet on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl. At 40-1 it seemed like a fun thing to do. Now it is even more fun....(-;
   
  Since we are only talking a $20 investment I was thinking of other bets to "insure" this one. The spread is +4 Seahawks, with an over under of 47.5.
   
  Just for kicks, what would you do? Bet against them as a hedge? Stay with just the original bet?
   
  BTW, as the 'Hawks made their run toward the playoffs I offered to sell the ticket - for as low as $200 at one point. No takers then, not for sale now!
   
  Fire away!
   
  SK
     "Why do they call it an asteroid when it's outside the
hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it's in your
butt?"

  "I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a
screamer or a moaner."

  "Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant, like
having a peeing section in a swimming pool?"
   
  "You know sometimes I get the sudden urge to run around naked. But then I
just drink some Windex. It keeps me from streaking."

···

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

This is a real sweet situation. You have them to win straight up without the spread. I would try to do a little middling. If you bet the other team with the spread and the Seahawks
win but don't cover, you can win both bets. I'd personally bet $300 that way . Result if Seahawks win and cover you net around $480, Win and don't cover $1080, Lose and you get a $280 profit, vigorish not counted in..

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Kent
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:20 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Super Bowl bet question

  What would you do?
     
    Last summer I bought - on a lark - a futures bet on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl. At 40-1 it seemed like a fun thing to do. Now it is even more fun....(-;
     
    Since we are only talking a $20 investment I was thinking of other bets to "insure" this one. The spread is +4 Seahawks, with an over under of 47.5.
     
    Just for kicks, what would you do? Bet against them as a hedge? Stay with just the original bet?
     
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

If I were you I would only hedge enough to cover the $20 or maybe a little more. The Seahawks are getting no respect and actually are a better team than the 4.5 points they are getting. In other words, bet enough on the Steelers to cover the $20 and maybe a little profit ($100 or so), but I would not give the casino back $400 of your potential $800.

BTW: I was gutsy enough to bet on my Bears to cover the 6.5 season win total and win the division (got 10 to 1 on that one) but not enough to win the Superbowl. For us Bears fans the wait continues...

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Kent
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:20 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Super Bowl bet question

  What would you do?
     
    Last summer I bought - on a lark - a futures bet on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl. At 40-1 it seemed like a fun thing to do. Now it is even more fun....(-;
     
    Since we are only talking a $20 investment I was thinking of other bets to "insure" this one. The spread is +4 Seahawks, with an over under of 47.5.
     
    Just for kicks, what would you do? Bet against them as a hedge? Stay with just the original bet?
     
    BTW, as the 'Hawks made their run toward the playoffs I offered to sell the ticket - for as low as $200 at one point. No takers then, not for sale now!
     
    Fire away!
     
    SK
       "Why do they call it an asteroid when it's outside the
  hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it's in your
  butt?"

    "I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a
  screamer or a moaner."

    "Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant, like
  having a peeing section in a swimming pool?"
     
    "You know sometimes I get the sudden urge to run around naked. But then I
  just drink some Windex. It keeps me from streaking."

  ---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a.. Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

In this case, it's not possible to middle in this way because
Pittsburgh is the favorite. Seattle can't win without covering. A
bet on Pittsburgh on the point spread runs the risk of losing both
bets. But, even assuming they could, the benefits of this bet are
past and have nothing to do with the Super Bowl. Anyone could do the
same kind of middling without having made Steve's bet on the Seahawks.
Assuming the prevailing money line odds are correct, Steve has roughly
$300 of equity, which is no less convertible to cash than, say, $300
in a checking account at Bank of America. The fact that Steve has
made something like $280 in equity so far is irrelevant to what he
should do in the Super Bowl. He'd be in the same situation if he had
laid $800 to win $20 on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl.

···

This is a real sweet situation. You have them to win straight up without the spread. I would try to do a little middling. If you bet the other team with the spread and the Seahawks
win but don't cover, you can win both bets. I'd personally bet $300 that way . Result if Seahawks win and cover you net around $480, Win and don't cover $1080, Lose and you get a $280 profit, vigorish not counted in..

Regards
A.P.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Kent
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Super Bowl bet question

What would you do?
    
   Last summer I bought - on a lark - a futures bet on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl. At 40-1 it seemed like a fun thing to do. Now it is even more fun....(-;
    
   Since we are only talking a $20 investment I was thinking of other bets to "insure" this one. The spread is +4 Seahawks, with an over under of 47.5.
    
   Just for kicks, what would you do? Bet against them as a hedge? Stay with just the original bet?
    
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#6

Albert Pearson wrote:

This is a real sweet situation. You have them to win straight up
without the spread. I would try to do a little middling. If you bet
the other team with the spread and the Seahawks
win but don't cover, you can win both bets. I'd personally bet $300
that way . Result if Seahawks win and cover you net around $480, Win
and don't cover $1080, Lose and you get a $280 profit, vigorish not
counted in..

I like this! (And rather than Steve's referring to this as "insuring
the bet", I deem this diversifying to spread the risk -- I sweat
nuances, as has probably been illustrated more than once recently :wink:

To look at this another way (again, before factoring vig), consider
the following scenario:

Assume the following probabilities:

Win, spread covered ... 50%
Win, not covered ...... 10%
Lose .................. 40%

Albert's suggested wager of $300 would yield the following expected
total win on the bets (treating the $20 as sunk money):

Win/cover = $500 x .5 = $250
Win/don't = 1100 x .1 = $110
Lose .... = $300 x .4 = $120

···

----------------------------
Expected win (avg.) = $480

Now, compare this against the current bet having, under this scenario,
a 60% shot of coming in ... $780 x .6 = $468.

If the vig on the $300 were no more than 4%, you spread your risk at
no theo cost.

- Harry

#7

I don't have any good betting information for you at this point, but I
was wondering who you plan to pick this coming summer? Just for fun I
did the same as you last summer, but I picked Atlanta and Oakland.
Neither team even made it to the playoffs. Not much fun for me now :frowning:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kent <bayfieldkent@y...> wrote:

What would you do?
   
  Last summer I bought - on a lark - a futures bet on the Seahawks to

win the Super Bowl. At 40-1 it seemed like a fun thing to do. Now it
is even more fun....(-;

#8

Albert Pearson wrote:

This is a real sweet situation. You have them to win straight up
without the spread. I would try to do a little middling. If you bet
the other team with the spread and the Seahawks
win but don't cover, you can win both bets. I'd personally bet $300
that way . Result if Seahawks win and cover you net around $480, Win
and don't cover $1080, Lose and you get a $280 profit, vigorish not
counted in..

I like this! (And rather than Steve's referring to this as "insuring
the bet", I deem this diversifying to spread the risk -- I sweat
nuances, as has probably been illustrated more than once recently :wink:

To look at this another way (again, before factoring vig), consider
the following scenario:

Assume the following probabilities:

Win, spread covered ... 50%
Win, not covered ...... 10%
Lose .................. 40%

You're also assuming that it's possible for Seattle to win without
covering, but it isn't.

Albert's suggested wager of $300 would yield the following expected
total win on the bets (treating the $20 as sunk money):

Win/cover = $500 x .5 = $250
Win/don't = 1100 x .1 = $110
Lose .... = $300 x .4 = $120
----------------------------
Expected win (avg.) = $480

Now, compare this against the current bet having, under this scenario,
a 60% shot of coming in ... $780 x .6 = $468.

To be consistent with the above, this should be $800 x .6 = $480. But
there's no reason to not count the $20, since it will be returned with
the $800 win if Seattle wins.

···

If the vig on the $300 were no more than 4%, you spread your risk at
no theo cost.

- Harry

#9

Tom Robertson wrote:

In this case, it's not possible to middle in this way because
Pittsburgh is the favorite. Seattle can't win without covering. A
bet on Pittsburgh on the point spread runs the risk of losing both
bets.

Yep. I misinterpreted Albert's phrasing (and thought he was
suggesting that Seattle was favored, not being up to speed myself).

You can still hedge to shift some risk away from a Steeler win, but
there's the uncomfortable gap you note in which both bets are at risk
in the event of a narrow Pittsburgh victory.

- H.

#10

My apologies. I read the original post as the Seahawks being the favourite ( I haven't followed football in the past few years).
Tom I don't understand your last sentence ? "He'd be in the same situation if he had
laid $800 to win $20 on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl." The $280 in
equity is only realized if he hedges the bet. In this case I think I would bet the Steelers to
win straight up for $200 in order to guarantee some profit.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Tom Robertson
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 2:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Super Bowl bet question

  In this case, it's not possible to middle in this way because
  Pittsburgh is the favorite. Seattle can't win without covering. A
  bet on Pittsburgh on the point spread runs the risk of losing both
  bets. But, even assuming they could, the benefits of this bet are
  past and have nothing to do with the Super Bowl. Anyone could do the
  same kind of middling without having made Steve's bet on the Seahawks.
  Assuming the prevailing money line odds are correct, Steve has roughly
  $300 of equity, which is no less convertible to cash than, say, $300
  in a checking account at Bank of America. The fact that Steve has
  made something like $280 in equity so far is irrelevant to what he
  should do in the Super Bowl. He'd be in the same situation if he had
  laid $800 to win $20 on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#11

Harry : You didn't misinterpret what I said. I misinterpreted the original message.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Harry Porter
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:34 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question

  Yep. I misinterpreted Albert's phrasing (and thought he was
  suggesting that Seattle was favored, not being up to speed myself).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#12

That's why your hedge bets probably need to be made on the money line, not with the point spread. However, the amount wagered on the Steelers would have to be increased since they are at -140 or so on the money line.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Harry Porter
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:34 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question

  Tom Robertson wrote:
  > In this case, it's not possible to middle in this way because
  > Pittsburgh is the favorite. Seattle can't win without covering. A
  > bet on Pittsburgh on the point spread runs the risk of losing both
  > bets.

  Yep. I misinterpreted Albert's phrasing (and thought he was
  suggesting that Seattle was favored, not being up to speed myself).

  You can still hedge to shift some risk away from a Steeler win, but
  there's the uncomfortable gap you note in which both bets are at risk
  in the event of a narrow Pittsburgh victory.

  - H.

  vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a.. Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#13

Expected value being equal, I'd bet about $500 on Pittsburgh and
guarantee the same profit, no matter who won. And to explain what you
asked about, the word "profit" in my previous sentence isn't really
the best word. "Result" is better. If Steve had laid $800 to win $20
on Seattle to win the Super Bowl, he'd have the same equity he has now
and I'd still recommend he bet about $500 on Pittsburgh, locking in
the same result, even though it would be a loss. How much he paid for
the ticket that will be worth $820 if Seattle wins is relevant to how
he'll come out overall, but not to what the ticket is worth now.

···

My apologies. I read the original post as the Seahawks being the favourite ( I haven't followed football in the past few years).
Tom I don't understand your last sentence ? "He'd be in the same situation if he had
laid $800 to win $20 on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl." The $280 in
equity is only realized if he hedges the bet. In this case I think I would bet the Steelers to
win straight up for $200 in order to guarantee some profit.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Robertson
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Super Bowl bet question

In this case, it's not possible to middle in this way because
Pittsburgh is the favorite. Seattle can't win without covering. A
bet on Pittsburgh on the point spread runs the risk of losing both
bets. But, even assuming they could, the benefits of this bet are
past and have nothing to do with the Super Bowl. Anyone could do the
same kind of middling without having made Steve's bet on the Seahawks.
Assuming the prevailing money line odds are correct, Steve has roughly
$300 of equity, which is no less convertible to cash than, say, $300
in a checking account at Bank of America. The fact that Steve has
made something like $280 in equity so far is irrelevant to what he
should do in the Super Bowl. He'd be in the same situation if he had
laid $800 to win $20 on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#14

I wrote:

> Assume the following probabilities:
>
> Win, spread covered ... 50%
> Win, not covered ...... 10%
> Lose .................. 40%

Tom Robertson commented :

You're also assuming that it's possible for Seattle to win without
covering, but it isn't.

Right. My omission of the case of a push (win by exact pt. spread)
ultimately doesn't effect the wager EV given the return of the bet.

HP:

> Now, compare this against the current bet having, under this
> scenario, a 60% shot of coming in ... $780 x .6 = $468.

TR:

To be consistent with the above, this should be $800 x .6 = $480.
But there's no reason to not count the $20, since it will be
returned with the $800 win if Seattle wins.

Again, you got it.

It should be apparent that I'm not a sports better and am stretching a
bit here. I'm extending a finance analog.

Bottom line is that so long as you're not second guessing the odds
makers, it's not possible to improve your expected win through
additional bets ... you can only diversify the risk. However, if the
favorite goes against you, then there's a hole in that diversification
and you risk losing both bets given the introduction of a point spread.

- H.

#15

If you want to hedge, the money line is the only way you can be certain to win. Currently, you have to lay $180 on Pittsburgh to win $100. The line on the game seems to be increasing, so if you intend to bet you should probably do it sooner rather than later.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Kent
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:20 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Super Bowl bet question

  What would you do?
     
    Last summer I bought - on a lark - a futures bet on the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl. At 40-1 it seemed like a fun thing to do. Now it is even more fun....(-;
     
    Since we are only talking a $20 investment I was thinking of other bets to "insure" this one. The spread is +4 Seahawks, with an over under of 47.5.
     
    Just for kicks, what would you do? Bet against them as a hedge? Stay with just the original bet?
     
    BTW, as the 'Hawks made their run toward the playoffs I offered to sell the ticket - for as low as $200 at one point. No takers then, not for sale now!
     
    Fire away!
     
    SK
       "Why do they call it an asteroid when it's outside the
  hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it's in your
  butt?"

    "I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a
  screamer or a moaner."

    "Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant, like
  having a peeing section in a swimming pool?"
     
    "You know sometimes I get the sudden urge to run around naked. But then I
  just drink some Windex. It keeps me from streaking."

  ---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a.. Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006

  ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#16

I just looked at a few online sports books and it looks like the odds
on Pittsburgh have even increased. - 180 is the best I found, which
seems crazy to me. A number 1 seed (especially MY Hawks) should be
favored over a number 6 seed. If I were Steve, I'd just let the bet
ride. He'd have to bet $527 on Pittsburgh to win $293 to lock in a
profit of $273. Watching the game would probably be more exciting if
he had something to win. Isn't that the point of gambling, anyway?

···

That's why your hedge bets probably need to be made on the money line, not with the point spread. However, the amount wagered on the Steelers would have to be increased since they are at -140 or so on the money line.

----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Porter
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:34 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question

Tom Robertson wrote:
> In this case, it's not possible to middle in this way because
> Pittsburgh is the favorite. Seattle can't win without covering. A
> bet on Pittsburgh on the point spread runs the risk of losing both
> bets.

Yep. I misinterpreted Albert's phrasing (and thought he was
suggesting that Seattle was favored, not being up to speed myself).

You can still hedge to shift some risk away from a Steeler win, but
there's the uncomfortable gap you note in which both bets are at risk
in the event of a narrow Pittsburgh victory.

- H.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   a.. Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
     
   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
     
   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#17

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@e...>
wrote:

Expected value being equal, I'd bet about $500 on Pittsburgh and
guarantee the same profit, no matter who won.

Given a money line of around -175, a $525 money line bet on Pitts would
win $300. So the outcome would be: Pitts win=+$280; Sea win=+$275.

You can play with the amounts and arrive at a point that you are
comfortable with. If you think Seattle has a good chance, you may only
bet $175 on Pitts on the money line, which would give this outcome:
Pitts win=+$80; Sea win =+$625

I had Carolina at 15-1 to win the Super Bowl...almost got into the
enviable position you are in. Personally, I think the line is too high.
I already have Seattle +4.5 pts.

Steve, however you play it...good luck and congrats!!

Don the Dentist

#18

Had similar 2 yrs ago with Carolina Panthers at 70 to 1. ($10 bet) Hedged Philly so I would profit equally. The earlier the better to bet on the favorite (money line). Otherwise the higher the number on Steelers will mean less overall profit. Whiskey Pete's at Primm, NV. had the best money line on the favorite (Eagles); and it did not change as rapidly as others in Vegas. By the way, in my case, I enjoyed the game much more; without the dollar sign staring me in the face. .... Office pool anyone??...
Lots of luck and enjoy... Ron

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Robertson" <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question

I just looked at a few online sports books and it looks like the odds
on Pittsburgh have even increased. - 180 is the best I found, which
seems crazy to me. A number 1 seed (especially MY Hawks) should be
favored over a number 6 seed. If I were Steve, I'd just let the bet
ride. He'd have to bet $527 on Pittsburgh to win $293 to lock in a
profit of $273. Watching the game would probably be more exciting if
he had something to win. Isn't that the point of gambling, anyway?

That's why your hedge bets probably need to be made on the money line, not with the point spread. However, the amount wagered on the Steelers would have to be increased since they are at -140 or so on the money line.

----- Original Message ----- From: Harry Porter
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:34 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question

Tom Robertson wrote:
> In this case, it's not possible to middle in this way because
> Pittsburgh is the favorite. Seattle can't win without covering. A
> bet on Pittsburgh on the point spread runs the risk of losing both
> bets.

Yep. I misinterpreted Albert's phrasing (and thought he was
suggesting that Seattle was favored, not being up to speed myself).

You can still hedge to shift some risk away from a Steeler win, but
there's the uncomfortable gap you note in which both bets are at risk
in the event of a narrow Pittsburgh victory.

- H.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   a.. Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.

   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#19

Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote: I just looked at a few online sports books and it looks like the odds
on Pittsburgh have even increased. - 180 is the best I found, which
seems crazy to me. A number 1 seed (especially MY Hawks) should be
favored over a number 6 seed. If I were Steve, I'd just let the bet
ride. He'd have to bet $527 on Pittsburgh to win $293 to lock in a
profit of $273. Watching the game would probably be more exciting if
he had something to win. Isn't that the point of gambling, anyway?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
  Wow! Thanks guys, that was quite a little lesson for me. After reading A.P.'s reply I thought that sounded great, until I realized I could lose both bets - not good! I think Tom is probably right, let it ride. That's the reason I bet it in the first place!
   
  I bet it because I figured that the "genius" was either going to get it done now or get fired. The firing of Whitsett paved the way for getting rid of a few bad apples and bringing in a few more team players.
   
  Now, Would I have made that bet if it were, say the Chargers, or Vikings? No. I was in college when the expansion Seahawks came to Cheney for training camp. As a student at EWU it was fun to go to the bar and watch the show when meetings ended and the curfew kicked in The girls would folck to "the" bar in Cheney at about 8:45 - like clockwork. The players meetings got over at 9:00, the players started arriving by about 9:10, bed check was 11:00. For two hours it was quite entertaining, to say the least.
   
  I have never understood that groupie phenomenon. Gals, care to enlighten us? Anyway, I could never understand why they went after those guys when some real studs were readily available any time - me and my buddies, of course.
   
  So, I'll let it ride, belly up to the bar and GO HAWKS!
   
  Thanks for all the repiles, this has been exciting!
   
  SK
  "BEER: It's not just for breakfast anymore."
   
  "There are more important things in life than money
- but women won't go out with you if you're broke."

"If sports builds character, how come most
basketball coaches behave like spoiled children?"

···

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#20

Steve Kent wrote:
I think Tom is probably right, let it ride. That's the reason I bet
it in the first place!

···

========================================================
I would recommend betting $540 on Pittsburgh with a money line of
-180. If Pittsburgh wins, you'll have $300 - $20 = $280. If Seattle
wins, you'll have $820 - $540 = $280. Either way, you'll have won 14
times your original bet. The main reason I would make this bet is
because Seattle is now in the underdog role.
I'm not sure how to convert money lines to probabilities, but I'm
guessing it goes something like this:
-180/+170 ---> odds are 100 to 170 --->
probability is 100/(100 + 170) ~ 37% that Seahawks win
(If someone knows how this works, please post.)
If this was VP and I could get multiple shots at the $820, I would
take the 37% chance; but it isn't, you only get one shot. [Of course,
next Monday, you'll receive much better advice! :slight_smile: ]