vpFREE2 Forums

Casa Blanca/Mesquite, NV

#21

It's hard to figure the spread favoring Pittsburgh, except they
probably had a tougher schedule. But Seattle has totally dominated
their two opponents in the playoffs!

Seattle and Pittsburgh had four common opponents. Both beat Houston
(like everyone else) and Tennessee. Pittsburgh split with Indy (lost
in regular season, won in playoffs). Seattle beat Indy, but Manning
barely played, so that game doesn't tell us much about Seattle.
Finally, BOTH lost to Jacksonville, who lost to NE (badly) in the
playoffs.

Good luck.

···

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

  So, I'll let it ride, belly up to the bar and GO HAWKS!

#22

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

I assume the "true" odds are right in the middle. If the only
information I had were lines of + 170 and - 180, I'd assume that
Seattle had a 1 in 2.75 (averaging the 170 and the 180) chance of
winning. But that's also assuming that the lines are accurate, which
isn't necessarily true.

#23

I'm surprised that so many from this group are suggesting a hedge of
one sort or another. Every hedge costs you equity! When the house is
taking a 2.5% (at -105) or 5% (at -110) cut on any bet you make, why
make any bet at all? Several posters have suggested making a bet in the
range of $300 to reduce, or eliminate, the variance. But this is at an
equity cost of $15 or so.

     This is like the beginning Deuces Wild gamblers who hold all five
cards from 222(56) and take the "guaranteed profit" on the straight
flush instead of the proper play of "gambling it up" and holding the
deuces only. Since vpFREE is supposed to attract knowledgeable gamblers,
you'd think there'd be more gambling savvy here.

    Tom advised Steve to forsake all hedges (I'm glad someone is on the
ball!) and Steve apparently is going to take this advice. No matter who
wins the game on Sunday, that's the intelligent play.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

#24

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

A #6 seed in the AFC. The AFC is currently the better conference.
BTW: This #6 seed beat the #3, #1, and my #2 Broncos.

My money would be on the AFC no matter who had won the AFC
championship. If you believe in your team, let the bet ride and make
no more bets on the game.

dipy911

#25

Bob Dancer

     This is like the beginning Deuces Wild gamblers who hold all five
cards from 222(56) and take the "guaranteed profit" on the straight
flush instead of the proper play of "gambling it up" and holding the
deuces only. Since vpFREE is supposed to attract knowledgeable gamblers,
you'd think there'd be more gambling savvy here.

Holding 222 still guarantees you a win of some sort. Doing nothing on this
betting opportunity guarantees you nothing.

Scot

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of

#26

Bob Dancer wrote:

    I'm surprised that so many from this group are suggesting a
hedge of one sort or another. Every hedge costs you equity!

It's a matter of risk preference and suggestions to hedge presumed a
desire on Steve's part to reduce risk of coming away with nothing.

He's in a profitable EV position and, depending upon his risk
tolerance, it can be a rational decision to add a wager which will
increase the probability of a significant net win (provided that an
appropriate hedge can be made and doesn't unacceptably reduce net EV).

It's loosely comparable to an investor who has ridden an investment to
strong gains and rather than sell, opts to purchase a put to cover
downside risk (reducing net equity) and provide the opportunity for
additional gains.

- H.

#27

   I'm surprised that so many from this group are suggesting a hedge of
one sort or another. Every hedge costs you equity! When the house is
taking a 2.5% (at -105) or 5% (at -110) cut on any bet you make, why
make any bet at all? Several posters have suggested making a bet in the
range of $300 to reduce, or eliminate, the variance. But this is at an
equity cost of $15 or so.

    This is like the beginning Deuces Wild gamblers who hold all five
cards from 222(56) and take the "guaranteed profit" on the straight
flush instead of the proper play of "gambling it up" and holding the
deuces only. Since vpFREE is supposed to attract knowledgeable gamblers,
you'd think there'd be more gambling savvy here.

   Tom advised Steve to forsake all hedges (I'm glad someone is on the
ball!) and Steve apparently is going to take this advice. No matter who
wins the game on Sunday, that's the intelligent play.

Bob Dancer

Although I've never learned how to quantify it, I'm convinced that, if
only because I believe money has diminishing marginal utility,
reducing fluctuation has value. A guarantee is worth sacrificing some
equity for, depending on how big a portion of one's bankroll is
involved. In this case, if I'd really have to give up $15 of equity
for the sake of cashing out less than $300 of equity, I'd let the bet
ride even if I didn't "feel" that Seattle should be such an underdog,
but there are ways to hedge without sacrificing equity. "Scalps," in
which you can get better odds at one place on the underdog than you
have to lay at another place on the favorite, can occasionally be
found. Since the 2 bets taken together can lock in a profit, it can
be assumed that each bet, by itself, has positive equity. Even a
hedge when there's a break even scalp, such as if one place had + 180
on Seattle and another place had - 180 on Pittsburgh, can be assumed
to reduce fluctuation without affecting equity.

#28

Scot replied to my 222(56) example: Holding 222 still guarantees you a
win of some sort. Doing nothing on this
betting opportunity guarantees you nothing.

Whether or not part of the money is guaranteed is not an important
distinction here. If you'd prefer to discuss the (KQJT9) --- should I
toss the 9 or not? --- decision, the principle is the same. Looking for
a guaranteed win is not intelligent gambling.

What we're speaking about here is taking insurance --- and the cost of
insurance premiums. $800 is not a lot of money. Spending a premium of
$30 or so to turn a "maybe $800 and maybe $0" decision into a guaranteed
$275 is far too high in my opinion. The edge the best players have when
gambling is small. Giving up such large premiums for "guarantees" is
more than enough to eliminate any possible edge.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

#29

Looking for
a guaranteed win is not intelligent gambling.

---Going out -$20 at this point "is not intelligent gambling." +$200 or
more is intelligent.

$800 is not a lot of money.

---Maybe not to some, but others it would be.

Spending a premium of
$30 or so to turn a "maybe $800 and maybe $0" decision into a guaranteed
$275 is far too high in my opinion. The edge the best players have when
gambling is small. Giving up such large premiums for "guarantees" is
more than enough to eliminate any possible edge.

---Put another way...this bettor has essentially "won." The question is how
much, or how much MORE do you want to risk? I will gladly give you $30 for
your $275 as often as you would like.

I once had a 7/8 parlay going into a Monday night game and foolishly didn't
play it. I lost on Monday and got nothing. THAT was a bad bet! (Not that the
parlay was a good bet to start with, but neither were the 40-1 Seahawks at
the beginning of the year.)

Scot

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Bob Dancer
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:41 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question

#30

Bob Dancer wrote:

Looking for a guaranteed win is not intelligent gambling.

What we're speaking about here is taking insurance --- and the cost
of insurance premiums. $800 is not a lot of money. Spending a
premium of $30 or so to turn a "maybe $800 and maybe $0" decision
into a guaranteed $275 is far too high in my opinion. The edge the
best players have when gambling is small. Giving up such large
premiums for "guarantees" is more than enough to eliminate any
possible edge.

Some idle comments (which some may wish to pass on, since it deals in
hypotheticals simply to examine alternate cases):

I earlier said a hedge may be rational given the bettor's risk
preference. But it should be qualified to say that it would only be
rational for a bettor who's entered into a wager initially on a weak
assessment of their risk preference to begin with ... in other words,
we likely wouldn't be talking about an astute gambler.

A sharp gambler would be aware of the potential win/loss scenarios
that might develop down the road and only enter into the wager if
he/she were satisfied that it represented an acceptable risk scenario.
If not, then the odds on the original wager make it an unsuitable bet.

But, let's say that in the interim between the original bet and the
present time solid circumstances have altered the gambler's risk
preference. We're talking about extreme circumstances -- say, the
bettor desperately needs $300 to make a mortgage payment to prevent
foreclosure. It might now be rational for that bettor to sacrifice
some EV in order to reduce the risk to their adjusted tolerance.

But Bob's point is solid -- hedging (or insuring) a risk which you can
solidly bear is never advisable. It's like having a $250 deductible
on your homeowners policy when you have $100K in liquid assets -- the
low deductible has a premium which is irrationally high.

- Harry

#31

Bob Dancer wrote:
I'm surprised that so many from this group are suggesting a hedge of
one sort or another. Every hedge costs you equity!

···

=========================================================
I wouldn't recommend a hedge bet for a garden variety bet that you
make often. This be has to deal with number size (I'm assuming $820
isn't pocket change to Steve; if it was, he wouldn't have posted the
question.), frequency of the bet, and probability of winning.
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Dancer wrote:
This is like the beginning Deuces Wild gamblers who hold all five
cards from 222(56) and take the "guaranteed profit" on the straight
flush instead of the proper play of "gambling it up" and holding the
deuces only.

I don't think this is the same since you expect to face this hand
many times and want to maximize your EV. I think everyone on this
forum would say go for the higher paying hands. If someone decided
to take a shot at a $100 machine on a bankroll of $3000 (just for
fun), lost their first 5 hands, got dealt 222(56) on the last hand
for a $5000 win, I certainly wouldn't think they were a bad gambler
for walking away with a $2000 profit (assume SF pays 10).
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Dancer wrote:
Since vpFREE is supposed to attract knowledgeable gamblers,
you'd think there'd be more gambling savvy here.
     Tom advised Steve to forsake all hedges (I'm glad someone is on
the ball!)...

For everyone that disagrees with you, I'll just say "ouch." I think
Steve's ticket is worth about $291 in EV right now. Taking $280 net
profit doesn't seem that bad to me. Again, he's not making this bet
very often (like deciding high pair vs. 3RF in JoB) and the odds
(what he has to work with, not what he believes) are against him
winning anything.
----------------------------------------------------------

#32

Bob,
See if the following scenario changes your answer.

Suppose The Palms offers a year-long tournament. The prize is $820
million and there will be 100 tickets earned by playing high limit
machines. You play all year and earn 37 tickets. It's been a bad
year and you've dropped $20 million. Just before the winning ticket
is drawn, George Maloof comes over to you and says he'll give you $300
million for your 37 tickets. [To get an advantage, you tactfully ask
him for $320 million, but he doesn't budge. :slight_smile: ] So your choices are
a 63% chance at $20 million in the hole, a lock of $280 million, or a
37% chance at $800 million. I think we're out of pocket change
territory, but you can adjust the numbers relative to your net worth
to make it interesting to you. What would you do?
Jeff

#33

Harry wrote:

A sharp gambler would be aware of the potential win/loss scenarios
that might develop down the road and only enter into the wager if
he/she were satisfied that it represented an acceptable risk

scenario.

If not, then the odds on the original wager make it an unsuitable

bet.

But, let's say that in the interim between the original bet and the
present time solid circumstances have altered the gambler's risk
preference. We're talking about extreme circumstances -- say, the
bettor desperately needs $300 to make a mortgage payment to prevent
foreclosure. It might now be rational for that bettor to sacrifice
some EV in order to reduce the risk to their adjusted tolerance.

But Bob's point is solid -- hedging (or insuring) a risk which you

can

solidly bear is never advisable. It's like having a $250

deductible

on your homeowners policy when you have $100K in liquid assets --

the

low deductible has a premium which is irrationally high.

     I think that Bob and Harry are right on in their analysis of
accepting the risk for the 820 payoff of the ticket. I was at the
MGM watching the NBA finals and a Pistons fan was regretting his bet
of 40 at halftime. That is what this scenario is about. I told him
if he wanted his money back place a second half bet on the Spurs of
40 as they were clearly the hot team. He would have recouped his
money. The manipulations of Sports betting are as varied and
complicated as the Video Poker games that seem so simple on first
glance. What is interesting about this bet is how value and risk
have changed over time and that is what makes sports betting
exciting to some. And he has a whole week to take additional actions.
     In addition there are many ways to manipulate the point spread
and money line bets to either cover his assumed value or even parlay
additional bets to even bigger wins. This discussion about apple
orchards should not be held in an orange grove. I suggest he go to
a sports book and discuss his options there with sports betters, in
particular look for an elderly lady in a green windbreaker at
Terribles I once sat by who taught me I knew nothing about sports
betting. Her overseas book had all the NBA spreads a half a point
less.

Lets get some Royals.. Beachstu

#34

Bob,
See if the following scenario changes your answer.

Suppose The Palms offers a year-long tournament. The prize is $820
million and there will be 100 tickets earned by playing high limit
machines. You play all year and earn 37 tickets. It's been a bad
year and you've dropped $20 million. Just before the winning ticket
is drawn, George Maloof comes over to you and says he'll give you $300
million for your 37 tickets. [To get an advantage, you tactfully ask
him for $320 million, but he doesn't budge. :slight_smile: ] So your choices are
a 63% chance at $20 million in the hole, a lock of $280 million, or a
37% chance at $800 million. I think we're out of pocket change
territory

LOL. "I don't think we're in pocket change territory any more, Toto."

, but you can adjust the numbers relative to your net worth
to make it interesting to you. What would you do?
Jeff

I think Bob has already agreed that at some point, risk becomes a
significant factor. He wrote: "A general rule of intelligent gambling
is not to overbet your bankroll." He was assuming, as I would, that
whether Steve wins $800 on his bet or not isn't going to make or break
him, and that sacrificing $15 in equity for a guarantee of a few
hundred dollars instead would be too much to pay. Your question could
be rephrased by asking Bob what is the most equity he would recommend
sacrificing in such a situation, assuming a certain bankroll. To say
"0" would be inconsistent with his belief in not overbetting one's
bankroll, no matter what one's bankroll is.

#35

I have to disagree that a hedge may not be a good proposition. Your
comparison to playing duces is a good example, but we all know that a
VP machine has a fixed % of return (average) based on what is delt and
what is held. When this bet was made, it was who would win a game
without knowing who the opposing team would be, and what the odds of
winning the game would be. Since there are no points involved, the
outcome of this bet is substantially different than bets placed at a
book today.
I would hedge the bet IF I did not expect my team to win straight up
(no points), and at least guarantee a partial win.

Andy MacDonald

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:

    I'm surprised that so many from this group are suggesting a hedge of
one sort or another. Every hedge costs you equity! When the house is
taking a 2.5% (at -105) or 5% (at -110) cut on any bet you make, why
make any bet at all? Several posters have suggested making a bet in the
range of $300 to reduce, or eliminate, the variance. But this is at an
equity cost of $15 or so.

     This is like the beginning Deuces Wild gamblers who hold all five
cards from 222(56) and take the "guaranteed profit" on the straight
flush instead of the proper play of "gambling it up" and holding the
deuces only. Since vpFREE is supposed to attract knowledgeable gamblers,
you'd think there'd be more gambling savvy here.

    Tom advised Steve to forsake all hedges (I'm glad someone is on the
ball!) and Steve apparently is going to take this advice. No matter who
wins the game on Sunday, that's the intelligent play.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

#36

Steve
Many good posts on this math and EV on this subject, but as a fellow football fan, I advise you to throw all that out and hedge the game. The reason: emotional gratification.

The Hawks are YOUR TEAM. You will be ecstatic if they win, regardless of having hedged. An, you still get to glory in having picked the winner and hit a 40-1 shot. On the other hand, if they lose...and you don't hedge, well that sucks twice. If they lose, and you DO hedge, you still get the satisfaction of winning a large chunk of cash.

John (who holds a $50 Pittsburg Super Bowl ticket at 12-1, and intends to do some hedging his own self.)

#37

There is a very big difference between hedging the Seahawks and Steelers. When you hedge the Steelers, you can take the points and win both bets

John (who holds a $50 Pittsburg Super Bowl ticket at 12-1, and intends
to do some hedging his own self.)

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

SPONSORED LINKS Online gambling Outdoor recreation Recreation software
      Gambling

···

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date: 1/31/2006

  ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date: 1/31/2006

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

#38

I am leaning to just letting it go - odds makers be damned. For some strange reason I really think the Hawks can get the job done. As a HS football coach for the past 28 years I feel I am qualified to, umm, well, umm, maybe pump up the footballs? Either way If I was offered 40 to 1 right now I'd jump all over it and would probably not consider hedging the bet.
   
  Again, thanks to all for their input - that was very informative, not to mention entertaining! The final decision will likely come down to my accountant/Sec. of Defense - she keeps a pretty tight rein on my wallet!
   
  Damn the bookies, full speed ahead!
   
  SK
  "When I'm feeling down, I like to whistle. It makes
the neighbor's dog run to the end of his chain
and gag himself."

  "I couldn't repair my brakes, so I made my horn louder."

  "If you can remain calm, you just don't have all the facts."

"I started out with nothing & still have most
of it left."

  "For every person with a spark of genius, there
are a hundred with ignition trouble."

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.

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

#39

Hey, that last one was so fun I thought I'd throw another out.
   
  I have my standard MSS offers for Feb. - up to 4 nights, $75 food, 2X points - and I have booked 3 nights. Yesterday along comes an offer for the days I'm there, 3 nights, 2X points, no food, and 40 pulls on a wheel of fortune machine - value of $30.
   
  I'm sure the $75 is the better deal, but as I will be solo I can usually cover at least dinner with my play, reducing the need for the $75 in vouchers.
   
  Opinions?
   
  Ladies and gentlemen, start your keyboards!
   
  SK
  "Wrinkled Was Not One of the Things I Wanted to Be When I Grew Up"

"Rehab Is for Quitters."

"My Dog Can Lick Anyone."

"They call it "PMS" because "Mad Cow Disease" was already taken."

···

---------------------------------
Bring words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

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

#40

Steve Kent wrote:

Hey, that last one was so fun I thought I'd throw another out.
   
I have my standard MSS offers for Feb. - up to 4 nights, $75 food, 2X
points - and I have booked 3 nights. Yesterday along comes an offer
for the days I'm there, 3 nights, 2X points, no food, and 40 pulls on
a wheel of fortune machine - value of $30.
   
Opinions?

Yeah, right ... I can see the question about the McCarran CAT bus
coming next ... :wink:

- H.