Tips for Tikay

[Tal]

From what has been explained, here’s how I understand this points/odds/punting stuff works:

Say the New Mexico Badgers are playing the Arkansas Gravediggers in Superbowl MM. They are evenly matched, so both teams have (bear with me, because I know this isn’t how it’s chalked up) an Even Money chance of winning.

Each margin of victory has a probability attached – 7 and 3 being the biggies – but let’s for ease say:

1point = 10%
2 = 5%
3 = 30%
4 = 5%
5 = 5%
6 = 20%
7 = 20%
Over 7 = 5%

So, if you want to work out what the chance of a Gravediggers victory by 3 or more (so betting Gravediggers -2.5), it’s the probability of a Gravediggers victory (0.5) multiplied by the probability of everything above 2.5 added together (85%) = 42.5%.

If I understand BadBeat’s posts correctly, there will be situations where the Gravediggers and the Badgers are actually evenly matched, but the bookies are taking so much money on the Gravediggers that they have to adjust the line in order to attract some bets on the Badgers. Loads of rich Arkansas ranch owner have been lumping on and Bill Clinton has been leading the charge in the press. If they don’t do that and the Gravediggers win, they’ll be filing for administration the next morning as the world and his wife will be cleaning up. If you’re a savvy punter, you spot these situations, where the market is flooded with punters choosing their local team or the team David Beckham goes to watch or whatever and that team is playing a team that’s really unpopular on which only the village Laddies is taking bets.

This is why we liked laying Liverpool earlier in the season: all the money (including from Asia) was going on Liverpool and, against a niche team like Norwich, the bookies had to compensate or risk losing a packet. So, they made Liverpool shorter than their actual price and made the other two prices more generous than they should have been.

I forget which one splitting the handle is, but it’s either this one or the other one

How did I do?

[tikay]

I'm not going to get in a big argument or get cross about this, but suffice to say I disagree with an awful lot of what Neil says about the Superbowl.

Especially the triple maximum bet on 49ers.

I hedged a good proportion of my San Francisco position last night by backing Baltimore +4 -110.

Everyone needs to do what suits them. I think now is the time to hedge, but Neil obviously thinks it's time to press up.

It's completely up to you.

Well I shall need a little help & guidance on this, & will listen to suggestions.

We cannot seriously bet more than we have already, in the context of our 'roll, & Fred's health, it is a bit disproportianate.

We currently have a 2% ROI over 11.5 months, if this gets home we will be between around 5% depending how & if we hedge, save or whatever. Which, I think, would be very satisfactory, all things considered, first year & all that.

I'm not sure I'm brave enough to risk the whole lot.

[redarmi]

As Neil alluded to earlier the correct way to bet the Superbowl is always the same.  If you like the favourite you should bet on the moneyline and if you like the underdog you should bet on the handicap and generally for both you should be waiting until gameday because this is when the vast majority of punters will play and the books will respond to their liabilities.  Even though +3.5 is a painted number I don't really see any upside to betting Baltimore +4.  It might be the right side but I would be 90% certain it isn't going to 3 and it may very well get bet up on gameday and worst case sceanrio I think you will be able to bet +4 at better than 10/11.  Normally if you shop around on gameday you can find a way to bet the favourite on the moneyline and underdog on spread for a worthwhile middle attempt.

[BigAdz]

I'm not going to get in a big argument or get cross about this, but suffice to say I disagree with an awful lot of what Neil says about the Superbowl.

Especially the triple maximum bet on 49ers.

I hedged a good proportion of my San Francisco position last night by backing Baltimore +4 -110.

Everyone needs to do what suits them. I think now is the time to hedge, but Neil obviously thinks it's time to press up.

It's completely up to you.

Well I shall need a little help & guidance on this, & will listen to suggestions.

We cannot seriously bet more than we have already, in the context of our 'roll, & Fred's health, it is a bit disproportianate.

We currently have a 2% ROI over 11.5 months, if this gets home we will be between around 5% depending how & if we hedge, save or whatever. Which, I think, would be very satisfactory, all things considered, first year & all that.

I'm not sure I'm brave enough to risk the whole lot.

I have done the usual plus a bit, ie I managed to lay my stake back plus a bit at 1.6. To my mind this still leaves me a substantial winner at odds of just under on a freeroll, winning a meagre ton if we get done. Been such good fun, I have gained much enjoyment from being involved.
The win will be v nice tho!!

I sense some nerves Tikay and suggest this as the best "gut" result. I appreciate the Gurus will run me over with a bulldozer

[edgascoigne]

I'm not going to get in a big argument or get cross about this, but suffice to say I disagree with an awful lot of what Neil says about the Superbowl.

Especially the triple maximum bet on 49ers.

I hedged a good proportion of my San Francisco position last night by backing Baltimore +4 -110.

Everyone needs to do what suits them. I think now is the time to hedge, but Neil obviously thinks it's time to press up.

It's completely up to you.

Well I shall need a little help & guidance on this, & will listen to suggestions.

We cannot seriously bet more than we have already, in the context of our 'roll, & Fred's health, it is a bit disproportianate.

We currently have a 2% ROI over 11.5 months, if this gets home we will be between around 5% depending how & if we hedge, save or whatever. Which, I think, would be very satisfactory, all things considered, first year & all that.

I'm not sure I'm brave enough to risk the whole lot.

Whilst one may not think of it as such, the truth is the positive equity the position has achieved now provides 'utility' to Fred. From the obvious (financial, the position is worth considerably more than it was) to the more obscure (morale/future expectation of profit).

If it is believed the market is 'correct' and you can passively hedge (ie. put up liquidity on one side and wait whilst it is nibbled at) then you are actually slightly adding to the EV of the position (as you are laying a c99.9% book) - you also limit your commission liability.

If you believe the market is 'incorrect' and the 49ers should be shorter than they are....whilst in theory you should be pressing up from a purely mathematical standpoint it would not make sense to do so given the current exposure and the utility implications should the unthinkable happen (see Kelly Criterion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion).

The market is unlikely to be far wrong (cue a potential torrent of abuse). In this situation I would heartily recommend a manipulation of the position to see a win on Baltimore of circa 25-35% of what the 49ers outcome would net.

If we ignore pure mathematical theory, and look at the 'utility' (in all senses) of Fred's situation.....how do you find the following options:

8 times in 21 : Lose £250
13 times in 21 : Win £1500

or.....

8 times in 21 : Win £300
13 times in 21 : Win £1150

[The Camel]

I'm not going to get in a big argument or get cross about this, but suffice to say I disagree with an awful lot of what Neil says about the Superbowl.

Especially the triple maximum bet on 49ers.

I hedged a good proportion of my San Francisco position last night by backing Baltimore +4 -110.

Everyone needs to do what suits them. I think now is the time to hedge, but Neil obviously thinks it's time to press up.

It's completely up to you.

Well I shall need a little help & guidance on this, & will listen to suggestions.

We cannot seriously bet more than we have already, in the context of our 'roll, & Fred's health, it is a bit disproportianate.

We currently have a 2% ROI over 11.5 months, if this gets home we will be between around 5% depending how & if we hedge, save or whatever. Which, I think, would be very satisfactory, all things considered, first year & all that.

I'm not sure I'm brave enough to risk the whole lot.

My bet in proportion with Fred's equates to you having £770 on Baltimore plus the points at 10/11.

I saw the +4 was going fast late last night so I had the bet.

Obviously +3.5 is not so attractive, but every way I look at this game, it looks tight.

The M/L roughly equate to the point spread (although Neil is probably right about the M/L being slightly tighter on the underdog in the Superbowl).

So it depends on your personality how you want to hedge.

Because I think there's a very good chance it will be close, I decided to play on the handicap and go for the 1,2,3 or 4 point win for SF jackpot.

If you are more conservative, just closing out for a profit is an option too.

Next week you'll definitely be able to bet 20/21 each of two on the handicap, maybe even a better %. But there is a chance the line moves to 3. Similarly there is a chance it moves back to 4.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[redarmi]

Next week you'll definitely be able to bet 20/21 each of two on the handicap, maybe even a better %. But there is a chance the line moves to 3. Similarly there is a chance it moves back to 4.

I honestly believe there is more chance of this line closing SF -6 than there is it closing SF -3.  The problem is that it will will take a LOT of money for it to go to 3 and if the books were to move there they would try and do it as quickly as possible.  It would take much less money for the game to go to 6 because it is all largely dead numbers.

[The Camel]

Next week you'll definitely be able to bet 20/21 each of two on the handicap, maybe even a better %. But there is a chance the line moves to 3. Similarly there is a chance it moves back to 4.

I honestly believe there is more chance of this line closing SF -6 than there is it closing SF -3.  The problem is that it will will take a LOT of money for it to go to 3 and if the books were to move there they would try and do it as quickly as possible.  It would take much less money for the game to go to 6 because it is all largely dead numbers.

That's true, but then again, we would never have thought the number would go as low as 3.5!

Every pro I talk NFL with, has either already backed Baltimore +4.5 or +4 or is not planning a bet unless they can play SF -3

[Doobs]

I think you have a profit of £1610 if SF win, and lose £250 if they lose.

I guess you will feel more comfortable if you don't have the -£250, so...

If you just lay £155 at 1.62 on betfair, you get £1455 if SF win (less commission) and £1 or so if they lose.

[redarmi]

Next week you'll definitely be able to bet 20/21 each of two on the handicap, maybe even a better %. But there is a chance the line moves to 3. Similarly there is a chance it moves back to 4.

I honestly believe there is more chance of this line closing SF -6 than there is it closing SF -3.  The problem is that it will will take a LOT of money for it to go to 3 and if the books were to move there they would try and do it as quickly as possible.  It would take much less money for the game to go to 6 because it is all largely dead numbers.

That's true, but then again, we would never have thought the number would go as low as 3.5!

Every pro I talk NFL with, has either already backed Baltimore +4.5 or +4 or is not planning a bet unless they can play SF -3

Yeah there is no doubt this is true.  There has been a lot more pro money for Baltimore than I envisaged.

[BigAdz]

I think you have a profit of £1610 if SF win, and lose £250 if they lose.

I guess you will feel more comfortable if you don't have the -£250, so...

If you just lay £155 at 1.62 on betfair, you get £1455 if SF win (less commission) and £1 or so if they lose.

Like wot I said, but wiv numbers

[Doobs]

I think you have a profit of £1610 if SF win, and lose £250 if they lose.

I guess you will feel more comfortable if you don't have the -£250, so...

If you just lay £155 at 1.62 on betfair, you get £1455 if SF win (less commission) and £1 or so if they lose.

Like wot I said, but wiv numbers

Yep, I just wanted to spell out what you were saying to make it clearer (hopefully).

[tikay]

Doobsy knows me well enough to know I need these things spelling out, & with short words.

[The Camel]

Next week you'll definitely be able to bet 20/21 each of two on the handicap, maybe even a better %. But there is a chance the line moves to 3. Similarly there is a chance it moves back to 4.

I honestly believe there is more chance of this line closing SF -6 than there is it closing SF -3.  The problem is that it will will take a LOT of money for it to go to 3 and if the books were to move there they would try and do it as quickly as possible.  It would take much less money for the game to go to 6 because it is all largely dead numbers.

That's true, but then again, we would never have thought the number would go as low as 3.5!

Every pro I talk NFL with, has either already backed Baltimore +4.5 or +4 or is not planning a bet unless they can play SF -3

Yeah there is no doubt this is true.  There has been a lot more pro money for Baltimore than I envisaged.

It's already moved through one key number, from 4.5 to 3.5.

Obviously it's going to take a huge amount of money to go to 3 and is unlikely to do so.

But I talk to some pretty shrewd people, and none are interested in the 49ers unless it hits 3. Maybe 3 5/6.

I think 3.5 is the most likely number for the game to start at now.

It might go back to 4, but practically zero chance it goes to 6.

[TightEnd]

You are, currently

+£1610 SF win
- £250 Baltimore win

£500 on Baltimore +4 http://www.oddschecker.com/american-football/nfl/baltimore-ravens-at-san-francisco-49ers/point-spread at 10/11

Then

Outcome 1 SF win by more than 4 +£1110 (£1610-£500 = £1110)

Outcome 2 SF win but by less than 4  +1610 and Balt beat the spread +454 =Total profit £2064. You have played the middle/won both sides

Outcome 3 Baltimore win £454  less £250 SF Stake = Total Profit £204


This is, proportionately, what I have done

So has Keith, more importantly, but bigger..to the equivalent of £770


Definitely the right way to go I think