In a message dated 1/30/2006 5:39:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bob.dancer@compdance.com writes:
. Every hedge costs you equity!
Yes, but at some point it's desirable to take money off the table. Betting
$20 is one thing. Betting $800 is quite another.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 1/30/2006 5:39:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bob.dancer@compdance.com writes:
. Every hedge costs you equity!
Yes, but at some point it's desirable to take money off the table. Betting
$20 is one thing. Betting $800 is quite another.
Karen
Thank you to the voice of reason!
Scot
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
krallison416@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:49 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question
Where to draw the line is the tough part. I wouldn't sacrifice $15 in
equity for the sake of guaranteeing a $300 win, but I'd unhesitatingly
sacrifice 2¢. And I'm confident that even those who emphasize equity
the most and reducing risk the least would still stop short of
"purity." If there were a 5-coin $200,000 token video poker machine
at a .001% advantage, which, at 1000 hands per hour, would be worth
$10,000 per hour, I doubt if anyone with a $1 million bankroll who
took winning money at gambling seriously would play it.
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
krallison416@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:49 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet questionIn a message dated 1/30/2006 5:39:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bob.dancer@compdance.com writes:. Every hedge costs you equity!
Yes, but at some point it's desirable to take money off the table. Betting
$20 is one thing. Betting $800 is quite another.Karen
Thank you to the voice of reason!
Scot
Tom argued: Where to draw the line is the tough part. I wouldn't
sacrifice $15 in
equity for the sake of guaranteeing a $300 win, but I'd unhesitatingly
sacrifice 2¢. And I'm confident that even those who emphasize equity
the most and reducing risk the least would still stop short of
"purity." If there were a 5-coin $200,000 token video poker machine
at a .001% advantage, which, at 1000 hands per hour, would be worth
$10,000 per hour, I doubt if anyone with a $1 million bankroll who
took winning money at gambling seriously would play it.
In general I agree (although I am having trouble fantasizing about how
you'd get 1,000 hands per hour on a machine with all those W2Gs). A
general rule of intelligent gambling is not to overbet your bankroll.
And I can see that for some nickel players, $800 seems like a lot of
money.
Perhaps the distinction between me and certain others here is that I see
$800 as pocket change --- having had tens of thousands of "jackpots"
that size or larger. To me this is like a dollar 10/7 player deciding
how to play AAA44 --- take the guaranteed $50 or hold AAA which averages
$50.57 and has a (4%) chance of becoming $800. Even when I was first
playing for dollars, and guessing at how much bankroll I needed because
I didn't have the tools to know for sure, it never occurred to me to
"hedge" and take the guaranteed $50.
This is a forum for people who are interested in succeeding at gambling.
A certain amount of willingness to assume risk is mandatory for success
in this field.
I spend my career differentiating between plays that are less than a
penny apart in equity. Although others sneer at this and argue that
using a penalty free strategy that occasionally gives up a buck or two
isn't such a bad deal, the idea of giving up $15-$30 in equity on this
play would be totally anathema to me.
Perhaps I should be disqualified from this discussion. In my opinion,
most futures bets have a HUGE house edge and I would have strongly
argued against making one in the first place.
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]
There's a big difference between VP and sports betting, where the odds
can't be computed at all. So I'm wondering if that makes a difference
here. He said he made the bet on a whim, before the season started.
Now the season is over and he's witnessed both teams all season.
Suppose he now thinks Pittsburgh is going to win. Is it still smart to
stand pat?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:
I spend my career differentiating between plays that are less than a
penny apart in equity. Although others sneer at this and argue that
using a penalty free strategy that occasionally gives up a buck or two
isn't such a bad deal, the idea of giving up $15-$30 in equity on this
play would be totally anathema to me.Perhaps I should be disqualified from this discussion. In my opinion,
most futures bets have a HUGE house edge and I would have strongly
argued against making one in the first place.
Tom argued: Where to draw the line is the tough part. I wouldn't
sacrifice $15 in
equity for the sake of guaranteeing a $300 win, but I'd unhesitatingly
sacrifice 2¢. And I'm confident that even those who emphasize equity
the most and reducing risk the least would still stop short of
"purity." If there were a 5-coin $200,000 token video poker machine
at a .001% advantage, which, at 1000 hands per hour, would be worth
$10,000 per hour, I doubt if anyone with a $1 million bankroll who
took winning money at gambling seriously would play it.In general I agree (although I am having trouble fantasizing about how
you'd get 1,000 hands per hour on a machine with all those W2Gs). A
general rule of intelligent gambling is not to overbet your bankroll.
Do you believe the same principle applies to how to play hands or just
which game is played? I see no difference in principle between the
two. In some cases, there's at least an obvious similarity when a
hand that, if stood pat, would return the original bet, has an
alternative that has more equity. And in some cases (a dealt king
high straight flush with slightly less equity than the royal draw
being the best example I can think of), how to play the hand involves
far more risk than the overall game so that a player who could afford
the overall game might not be able to afford to draw to the royal in
that spot.
And I can see that for some nickel players, $800 seems like a lot of
money.Perhaps the distinction between me and certain others here is that I see
$800 as pocket change --- having had tens of thousands of "jackpots"
that size or larger. To me this is like a dollar 10/7 player deciding
how to play AAA44 --- take the guaranteed $50 or hold AAA which averages
$50.57 and has a (4%) chance of becoming $800. Even when I was first
playing for dollars, and guessing at how much bankroll I needed because
I didn't have the tools to know for sure, it never occurred to me to
"hedge" and take the guaranteed $50.
But, since playing the game only risks $5 per hand and discarding the
full house risks $35 per occurrence, there's probably some bankroll
range which can afford to play the game but not to draw to the 4 aces.
Tom Robertson wrote:
Do you believe the same principle applies to how to play hands or
just which game is played? I see no difference in principle between
the two. In some cases, there's at least an obvious similarity when
a hand that, if stood pat, would return the original bet, has an
alternative that has more equity. And in some cases (a dealt king
high straight flush with slightly less equity than the royal draw
being the best example I can think of), how to play the hand
involves far more risk than the overall game so that a player who
could afford the overall game might not be able to afford to draw to
the royal in that spot.
< snip >
TR went on to write Re brumar's comment about 10/7 DB:
But, since playing the game only risks $5 per hand and discarding
the full house risks $35 per occurrence, there's probably some
bankroll range which can afford to play the game but not to draw to
the 4 aces.
I'll staunchly argue that it's a VERY strong sign that a player who is
drawn to deviating from ER-max strategy for the sake of reducing
variance is overplaying their bankroll with the game as a whole.
(And, for the sake of Steve Jacobs, the assumption is that this player
has a max-ER goal 
The first example cited (pat SF v. 4 RF) is interesting. With only a
1 in 47 shot at completing the RF, obviously it takes a very high RF
progressive meter to make the RF favored over the SF. If the player
isn't inclined to go for the RF in that case, I can't imagine why the
hell the player would be playing the machine.
The second example ($1 10/7 DB Aces FH vs. 3A) is more to the point.
As brumar noted in the original source post (not quoted), going for
the quad Aces has only a $.57 advantage over holding the pat hand. It
can be compelling to argue that a bird (FH) in the hand is well worth
1.01 in the bush -- and I say compelling because for a few months
after I began playing $1 10/7 I reasoned exactly that -- that in this
special case the reduced variance warranted a minor ER sacrifice.
But my experience quickly demonstrated that the variance involved in
this hold decision paled against the variance of the balance of the
game. I soon came to the realization that if I couldn't stand the
heat of going for the Aces it was time I got out of the kitchen. And,
boy, quad Aces on that deal (while infrequent) is a thrilling victory
that's well worth the risk acceptance 
- Harry
Tom Robertson wrote:
Do you believe the same principle applies to how to play hands or
just which game is played? I see no difference in principle between
the two. In some cases, there's at least an obvious similarity when
a hand that, if stood pat, would return the original bet, has an
alternative that has more equity. And in some cases (a dealt king
high straight flush with slightly less equity than the royal draw
being the best example I can think of), how to play the hand
involves far more risk than the overall game so that a player who
could afford the overall game might not be able to afford to draw to
the royal in that spot.< snip >
TR went on to write Re brumar's comment about 10/7 DB:
But, since playing the game only risks $5 per hand and discarding
the full house risks $35 per occurrence, there's probably some
bankroll range which can afford to play the game but not to draw to
the 4 aces.I'll staunchly argue that it's a VERY strong sign that a player who is
drawn to deviating from ER-max strategy for the sake of reducing
variance is overplaying their bankroll with the game as a whole.
(And, for the sake of Steve Jacobs, the assumption is that this player
has a max-ER goalThe first example cited (pat SF v. 4 RF) is interesting. With only a
1 in 47 shot at completing the RF, obviously it takes a very high RF
progressive meter to make the RF favored over the SF. If the player
isn't inclined to go for the RF in that case, I can't imagine why the
hell the player would be playing the machine.
In 8/5 Jacks or Better, the breaking number is, if memory serves me,
$11,410, at which point the player has close to a 2% advantage in the
overall game. Let's say the royal is $11,411. Having to risk 50
times as much on a play that has far less % advantage than the game as
a whole means that there must be a huge range of bankrolls that can
afford the game but not the royal draw. But how much is risked per
hand in the 2 situations might not even be the best criterion. How
much is risked per royal might be better. But the conclusion is the
same. Just the fact that there are hands that have breaking numbers
in between the current royal and the break even royal means that there
have to be hands that some players who can afford to play the game
can't afford to draw to the royal on.
The second example ($1 10/7 DB Aces FH vs. 3A) is more to the point.
As brumar noted in the original source post (not quoted), going for
the quad Aces has only a $.57 advantage over holding the pat hand. It
can be compelling to argue that a bird (FH) in the hand is well worth
1.01 in the bush
after I began playing $1 10/7 I reasoned exactly that -- that in this
special case the reduced variance warranted a minor ER sacrifice.But my experience quickly demonstrated that the variance involved in
this hold decision paled against the variance of the balance of the
game.
But that's only because of the huge difference in frequency. It's one
thing to say that one's overall variance won't be reduced much if all
aces fulls are stood pat on because it doesn't come up very often, but
it's quite another to say that anyone who can afford to risk $5 per
hand must also be able to afford to risk $35 per dealt aces full.
Tom Robertson wrote:
In 8/5 Jacks or Better, the breaking number is, if memory serves me,
$11,410, at which point the player has close to a 2% advantage in
the overall game. Let's say the royal is $11,411. Having to risk
50 times as much on a play that has far less % advantage than the
game as a whole means that there must be a huge range of bankrolls
that can afford the game but not the royal draw. But how much is
risked per hand in the 2 situations might not even be the best
criterion. How much is risked per royal might be better. But the
conclusion is the same. Just the fact that there are hands that
have breaking numbers in between the current royal and the break
even royal means that there have to be hands that some players who
can afford to play the game can't afford to draw to the royal on.
I'm having much difficulty getting to your perspective on this
(wouldn't be the first time I've been at a loss in getting the "big
picture" ;).
Part of the problem is dealing with this in the abstract. Please give
me a specific 5-card deal where you'd suggest that a player having the
bankroll for the game as a whole might be advised to go with a lesser
ER hold out of bankroll limitations. (Obviously I'm not looking for a
specific bankroll example in this.)
I simply can't conceive of such a situation (and the original example
of a pat SF/4-cd RF deal can't possibly be deemed one). In general,
my position is that if the variance of a particular deal proves a
challenge, the game as a whole is an ill-advised venture for that player.
you wrote re 10/7 DB FH v. 3A
But that's only because of the huge difference in frequency. It's
one thing to say that one's overall variance won't be reduced much
if all aces fulls are stood pat on because it doesn't come up very
often, but it's quite another to say that anyone who can afford to
risk $5 per hand must also be able to afford to risk $35 per dealt
aces full.
It's variance that's at issue here, pure and simple. I steadfastly
maintain that someone who doesn't have the stomach for the risk of
going for the Aces MAJORLY doesn't have the stomach for the large
fluctuations in the course of the game. I'm hard pressed to see that
anyone who has spent at least a few 100 hours playing DB could come to
another conclusion for themselves (although clearly you have done just
that).
- Harry
Part of the problem is dealing with this in the abstract. Please give
me a specific 5-card deal where you'd suggest that a player having the
bankroll for the game as a whole might be advised to go with a lesser
ER hold out of bankroll limitations. (Obviously I'm not looking for a
specific bankroll example in this.)I simply can't conceive of such a situation (and the original example
of a pat SF/4-cd RF deal can't possibly be deemed one).
I don't see why not. It's the best example I can think of. It's a
situation in which the game as a whole is both of higher % advantage
and lower risk than the hand in question. The hand in question can be
seen as a separate game that the player has the option to play or not.
Compared to standing pat, drawing to the royal is risking $250 at a
.009% ($1 ($11,411 minus $11,410) divided by 47 draws at $250 each)
advantage, just as if it were a separate 5-coin $50 token game at a
.009% advantage, which many bankrolls which could afford the $5 game
at a 2% advantage couldn't afford.
<<This is a forum for people who are interested in succeeding at gambling>>
I think members of this forum have many different meanings for the word "succeeding." When Brad and I started out, we only planned to break even and have comped vacations. I have a tendency to "overdo" so when I saw we could do that, it was too much of a temptation to resist doing more - and the rest is history. But I have always stressed that everyone should have their own personal goals - and no one should feel small if these are different from those of someone else.
As I wrote in both of my Frugal books, there are many levels of players, depending on personality, how often they gamble, how important gambling is to them in comparison to other activities in their life. For some it is a "job" - full time for some, part time for others. For some it is a hobby. Some people take a hobby as casual entertainment; others are fanatical about it, whether it be gambling or golfing, or collecting stamps. I once knew a religious man whose compelling interest was to put Gideon bibles in every public place - but he spent so much time on that activity that he neglected his family.
I think most people on this forum are interested in learning more about gambling, VP in particular. But how intense they are about this information will vary, depending on their goals.
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
Tax time is coming up - groan! "Tax Help
for the Frugal Gambler" can answer many
of your questions!
I wrote:
> I simply can't conceive of such a situation (and the original
> example of a pat SF/4-cd RF deal can't possibly be deemed one).
Tom Robertson wrote:
I don't see why not.
Me neither ...
Ok, I owe you an explanation on that one.
My perspective was stuck in the original abstract example you posed
where I envisioned we were talking a standard 4000 cr. royal -- not
the case you later flushed out invovling an 11,400 cr. prog meter.
No fault of yours ... we've just been running this through the mill
awhile now and I lost track of the thread. Mentally I slipped.
With the shift to a game with massive variance and bankroll
requirement AND where we're talking only $.02 ER difference in the two
hold choices, I start becoming indifferent. I haven't analyzed the
specifics but I can see where the variance impact of the "sure thing"
hold may be sufficient for it to be the rational hold in this case.
So, considerable concession here. Just understand that it's the huge
potential variance considerations that are responsible. Bump that ER
difference up by much (what's your breakpoint in hold choice, by the
way) and I start caring.
------------
Frankly, my focus in this discussion was your response to the
initially discussed vp example posed by Bob Dancer -- 10/7 DB FH v.
3A. You said you could see a situation in which a player had
sufficient bankroll to play the game but, given that a pat hand worth
$50 would be broken for the Aces, you could see that same player
staying with the $.47 subpar FH.
This is a situation that I know intimately. I'm on solid ground when
I suggest that the player who would be attracted to the pat FH over
the quad shot very likely isn't bankrolled for the game itself.
A straightforward example: I suggest looking at a downside hour in
which no quads (or better) are hit. Assume 800 hph. Under standard
strategy, average expected 1-hour loss is $706. Veteran $1 DB players
are likely familar with not too infrequent occasions of losing
$1000-$1200 in such an hour.
So, take a player sufficiently bankrolled for this short-term risk.
It's fairly infrequent that the player is presented with a pat FH/3A
hand - our player will see one per 11 hours of play. But, frequency
isn't really a concern here. Assume in the course of that sour hour
one of these hands is dealt.
Given the choice between going for the quad A's or keeping the pat FH,
the conservative player will come out about $35 better when quad A's
aren't in the making. So that guy or gal, in this particular hour, is
looking at a mere $671 loss rather than $706.
You say there may be a player out there who's bankrolled for the $671
loss but can't hold up under a $706 loss expectation in this hour??
Right. I say they should cut back to $.50 - FAST.
- Harry
Frankly, my focus in this discussion was your response to the
initially discussed vp example posed by Bob Dancer -- 10/7 DB FH v.
3A. You said you could see a situation in which a player had
sufficient bankroll to play the game but, given that a pat hand worth
$50 would be broken for the Aces, you could see that same player
staying with the $.47 subpar FH.This is a situation that I know intimately. I'm on solid ground when
I suggest that the player who would be attracted to the pat FH over
the quad shot very likely isn't bankrolled for the game itself.A straightforward example: I suggest looking at a downside hour in
which no quads (or better) are hit. Assume 800 hph. Under standard
strategy, average expected 1-hour loss is $706. Veteran $1 DB players
are likely familar with not too infrequent occasions of losing
$1000-$1200 in such an hour.So, take a player sufficiently bankrolled for this short-term risk.
It's fairly infrequent that the player is presented with a pat FH/3A
hand - our player will see one per 11 hours of play. But, frequency
isn't really a concern here. Assume in the course of that sour hour
one of these hands is dealt.Given the choice between going for the quad A's or keeping the pat FH,
the conservative player will come out about $35 better when quad A's
aren't in the making. So that guy or gal, in this particular hour, is
looking at a mere $671 loss rather than $706.You say there may be a player out there who's bankrolled for the $671
loss but can't hold up under a $706 loss expectation in this hour??
Right. I say they should cut back to $.50 - FAST.- Harry
But you're still using frequency of occurrence as a reason to not be
concerned about its risk. What happens in the other 799 hands in that
hour has nothing to do with what should be done with the aces full.
Since it happens so infrequently, you could just as easily say that
you could keep only 2 of the aces and draw 3 cards when dealt aces
full, and if you can't afford to do that, you shouldn't play the game
in the first place, and anyone who can afford to lose $706 in the
horrendous hour can also afford to lose the $716 that would be lost
that way. For purposes of clear conceptualization, I think it's
better to assume that the aces full hand is a completely separate
game, the frequency of occurrence of which doesn't matter, so you
might as well assume that it happens 800 times an hour. It's a game
that costs $50 to play, at least $15 of which will be returned each
time, so $35 is the maximum risk, and it has a 1.14% advantage on the
$50, or something like a 1.7% advantage on what is actually at risk.
How big a bankroll does it take to play that game? You seem to think
that it necessarily takes no more than what it takes to play $1 10/7
Double Bonus, but I don't see why. And, for the sake of argument, the
% advantage can be reduced, and the bankroll requirement thus
increased, arbitrarily. It wouldn't be hard to devise a 10/7 Double
Bonus game that paid just enough for quad aces to give drawing to aces
full a much smaller increase in equity over standing pat than it does
in the game we're familiar with. The value of the overall game could
be left unchanged by, say, additional cash back. If drawing to quad
aces had a .01% advantage on the $35 that was risked, would you still
say that it would necessarily take no bigger of a bankroll than
playing the overall game would?
brumar_lv wrote:
There's a big difference between VP and sports betting, where the odds
can't be computed at all. So I'm wondering if that makes a difference
here. He said he made the bet on a whim, before the season started.
Now the season is over and he's witnessed both teams all season.
Suppose he now thinks Pittsburgh is going to win. Is it still smart
to stand pat?
Wouldn't a $30 hedge bet to win $275 mean he would either spend a total of $50
to win $275, $800, or $1075?
If that's the case, would you take all or nothing for $20, or spend $50 for the
chance to win less?
--Brett
brumar_lv wrote:
> There's a big difference between VP and sports betting, where
the odds
> can't be computed at all. So I'm wondering if that makes a
difference
> here. He said he made the bet on a whim, before the season
started.
> Now the season is over and he's witnessed both teams all season.
> Suppose he now thinks Pittsburgh is going to win. Is it still
smart
> to stand pat?
But his reason for placing the bet, his motivation and risk is
based on the fact he is a seahawks fan. So to stand pat is to stick
with his motivation. But you have hit upon the interesting fact on
sports and that is that odds are subjective. So now not only is he
getting his team in the game but he is also getting 4 and a half
points on the point spread and favorable moneyline odds.
So a more interesting bet would be to place a parley with some
money to increase his winnings and maybe lay off some of the risk in
a point spread bet and buy a couple of points up to 6 and a half and
take his team again now getting those points. And keeping his
origional ticket. This way he can say the rest of his life he won
800 on the seahawk victory and a few hundred more on his parley if
they win, or a couple hundred win or so if they lose and cover his
now huge spread.
As Bronco fans know it might take five more trips to the
playoffs and four more to the Bowl to get a win they want to
remember and thank God for John Elway. And Back to Back was
unbelievable.
Lets get some Royals...Beachstu
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vex <vexicon@s...> wrote:
But his reason for placing the bet, his motivation and risk is
based on the fact he is a seahawks fan. So to stand pat is to
stick
with his motivation. But you have hit upon the interesting fact on
sports and that is that odds are subjective. So now not only is he
getting his team in the game but he is also getting 4 and a half
points on the point spread and favorable moneyline odds.
So a more interesting bet would be to place a parley with some
money to increase his winnings and maybe lay off some of the risk
in
a point spread bet and buy a couple of points up to 6 and a half
and
take his team again now getting those points. And keeping his
origional ticket. This way he can say the rest of his life he won
800 on the seahawk victory and a few hundred more on his parley if
they win, or a couple hundred win or so if they lose and cover his
now huge spread.
As Bronco fans know it might take five more trips to the
playoffs and four more to the Bowl to get a win they want to
remember and thank God for John Elway. And Back to Back was
unbelievable.Lets get some Royals...Beachstu
My point was to compare a bet made before the season begins with my
analysis today, based on much more information. It seems to me this
extra knowledge counts for something. Here are the 3 scenarios:
1. I think the Seahawks will win .... stand pat.
2. I think its a tossup ... stand pat. Why? Suppose you played
roulette and bet red or black (50% odds basically). Red I lose $20,
black I win $800. I'd make that bet anytime.
3. I think Pittsburgh will win ... it's time to do some hedging. At
a minimum I want to win $20 betting Pittsburgh, to break even overall.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <beachstu@y...> wrote:
Greg <beachstu@yahoo.com> wrote: But his reason for placing the bet, his motivation and risk is
based on the fact he is a seahawks fan. So to stand pat is to stick
with his motivation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
True, this is what I have decided to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So now not only is he
getting his team in the game but he is also getting 4 and a half
points on the point spread and favorable moneyline odds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
They are 4 point 'dogs now, but that has no effect on my futures bet - it is win or lose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So a more interesting bet would be to place a parley with some
money to increase his winnings and maybe lay off some of the risk in
a point spread bet and buy a couple of points up to 6 and a half and
take his team again now getting those points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Being somewhat of a novice sports bettor, how would one go about buying more points? Never heard of that.
Also, what types of parlay bets would you consider? I may just follow your advice here!
Thanks,
SK
---------------------------------
What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Greg <beachstu@...> wrote: But his reason for placing the
bet, his motivation and risk is
based on the fact he is a seahawks fan. So to stand pat is to
stick
with his motivation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
True, this is what I have decided to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So now not only is he
getting his team in the game but he is also getting 4 and a half
points on the point spread and favorable moneyline odds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
They are 4 point 'dogs now, but that has no effect on my futures
bet - it is win or lose.
Steve ... sorry for the late reply it was my day to work out at the
beach... went to Blacks Beach in La Jolla below Torrey Pines. But I
did read your and CasinoChristys reply also, and she gave you some
good advice also. She said that she pressed her bet while in the
same situation...and that while her team did not win they did
cover. This is what I would do also. Bet some more money on the
Seahawks. And even if now you are getting 4 pts instead of 4 and a
half no worries take the points and place another bet on your
Seahawks in addition to your 40-1 you have already from season
starting. Press your bet. Decide how much more you want to risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So a more interesting bet would be to place a parley with some
money to increase his winnings and maybe lay off some of the risk
in
a point spread bet and buy a couple of points up to 6 and a half
and
take his team again now getting those points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Being somewhat of a novice sports bettor, how would one go about
buying more points? Never heard of that.
Also, what types of parlay bets would you consider? I may just
follow your advice here!
Steve: The wager that combines bets into one is called a parlay.
The following is from the Wagering Guide from the Stardust Sports
Book the most historic book on the Strip. If you havent visited
there make sure you visit their historical area also sometime this
year before they close next year. (a free Hat with a $20 parlay card)
Straight Bet: wager one team against the point spread.
However, you may combine several teams into one bet. This is known
as a parlay. In football, one may parlay 2 to 7 teams. All teams
must cover the spread to win the bet.
On the super bowl they may have specific parlay cards out at the
book just for the super bowl and you could bet the game, the
over/under, total score etc.
Football Teasers: In football parlays, one has the option
of "teasing" the point spread up or down a specified number of
points. The Stardust Sports Book offers 6, 6-1/2, and 7 point
teasers. This effectively increases the likeloodhood that you will
win your bet. Of course the odds are reduced accordingly. Teaser
odds are as follows:
2 teams 6 points 10-12 6.5pts are 10-13 and 7pts are 10-14
3 teams 6 points 8.5-5 6.5pts are 7.5-5 and 7pts are 7-5
In the case of the Super Bowl you can just tease the Seahawks
alone...(the Seahawks team one and Seahawks team two). just select
how many points you want to tease.
Find a betting clerk and a time when it isn't too busy and just ask
when betting and the guys there are more than helpful to show you
different combinations and payouts by punching up your question on
the machine with different amounts. Ask what a 6 point teaser on
the Seahawks for $50 or maybe $20 would pay back, then ask what a 7
point would pay if they are even offering them. Remember you will be
getting ten and 11 points actually so you may want to bet more money
as risk is small but payback is accordingly small also in this bet.
I may not have this exactly but the clerks can help you with the
many scenarios. Tell them what your situation is and what you want
to do. Other betters there may help you also, just ask.
CasinoCristy had the easiest solution and that is to at least press
your bet (bet more money on the Seahawks this time getting the 4
points).
Go Seahawks... my pick also by the way....I have picked the last 5
or 6 years correctly... Stu
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kent <bayfieldkent@...> wrote:
Blacks Beach...is that still a nude beach?
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:13 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Super Bowl bet question/sports betting
Steve ... sorry for the late reply it was my day to work out at the
beach... went to Blacks Beach in La Jolla below Torrey Pines.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Mopar Man" <moparman4@...> wrote:>
Blacks Beach...is that still a nude beach?
Steve ... sorry for the late reply it was my day to work out at
the
beach... went to Blacks Beach in La Jolla below Torrey Pines.
Good job Mopar Man...I wanted someone to catch that for Harry's
benefit, I knew he would like that.
Yes it is. The trail down from the gliding port off Torry
Pines Rd. near the golf course is currently closed as it is very
steep and on slick sandstone. So to get to the beach now you must
walk about 4mi from the North along the cliffs during low tide. I
didn't make it that far yesterday as I didn't have enough time, but
a great place for a wintertime walk or run under the cliffs, they
shield the wind and it was shorts and shirt about 67 and sunny.
Lets get some Royals... Beachstu
From: Beachstu