General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 215 comments are related to the topic:
Value Betting
Value Betting
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 215
|
By:
you value men just lump on 6.10 the fav , its past the post hows that for value
|
|
By:
Looks like the zipper show over and out ......zzzzzzzzz
|
|
By:
MT forget clocks get your ball on the 6.10 fav . thats if you got balls i have my doughts
|
|
By:
Zipper you should live in Somalia.
You're good at hijacking things. |
|
By:
Ayr robot your post 17.17 percentage of the bank can never be wiped out , but heres the nity grity does it win anything .
|
|
By:
Mgt
He's already escaped ( from somewhere at least ). |
|
By:
Frog , zip was a card counter in Las Vegas 1993 .1999 ok it was a great 6 years but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe , and that was us card counters over .. move on
|
|
By:
Mr Manager take this to your Bank , a 4/6 winner has more credibility than a 5/1 loser .. get in the real world mug
|
|
By:
Zip
When's the book coming out ? Will it be in the fact or fiction section of the bookstore ? Don't want to miss it. |
|
By:
Zips out now but you mugs / pin stickers theres 2 certs tomorrow and no they will not be put up in the div 2 comp or the AW comp . suck it and see zzzzzzzz
|
|
By:
Frog it will be FACT i only deal in facts , the rest is for dreamers like The Management ..zzzzz
|
|
By:
But before time or after time facts.
That's Mgt's issue with you. |
|
By:
argosy Joined: 01 May 03
Replies: 44 10 Feb 11 17:09 the pg hypothesis makes a lot of sense to me. Over stake and the losing sequence will wipe you out. Mathematical probability ensures that all gamblers will have a long losing sequence at some stage. The quick version of why his system is a load of tosh Let's say the bet is 50% of bank at evens, it will be less normally but you can do that one yourself, it'll be the same outcome, just take longer. Bank $10000 Bet 1 $5000 wins, new bank = $15000 Bet 2 $7500 wins, new bank = $22500 Bet 3 $11250 wins, new bank = $33750 Bet 4 $16875 wins, new bank = $50625 Bet 5 $25312.5 wins, new bank = $25312.5 Total profit = $15312.5 Now, what he's saying you should do is add up all the stakes = 65937.5 and divide by 5 for an average bet of $13187.5 He then says it returns more than the other system would. Of course there's a huge problem with that.... and he's the one telling us not to overstake. |
|
By:
The house COULD lose every spin, that's the point. It's not very likely, but it's possible just the same as it's possible for 1.01s to get turned over.
Can you calculate the odds of the house losing 37x35 stakes in a row, or to put it another way losing 37 approx 1.028 shots in a row? Those odds/that chance is what your layers edge is based on. Apologies for hijacking Zip's thread :) |
|
By:
Naughty that last comment Trevh.
But luckily I'm not proprietorial. |
|
By:
zipper Joined: 06 Jul 02
Replies: 3790 10 Feb 11 18:28 Frog , zip was a card counter in Las Vegas 1993 .1999 ok it was a great 6 years but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe , and that was us card counters over .. move on Why couldn't you beat a 3 deck shoe? Also, Binions still had single deck in 1999. |
|
By:
Can you calculate the odds of the house losing 37x35 stakes in a row, or to put it another way losing 37 approx 1.028 shots in a row?
There are two parts to the answer - 1: yes - of course. 2: but it's not relevant. So, one at a time: Assuming there is only one chip on the table (if that's what it's called) then the odds of an individual spin losing for the house are 1/37, so the odds of the house losing 37 consecutive times are (1/37)^37. But it's neither here nor there - the house risks more than the player on every spin. The edge is calculated on the basis of each individual spin regardless of previous or future spins and is the same whether the player plays once or a million times. When I gave the example showing 37 spins that was just to show how the value/edge works it's way through by looking at a full series of "typical" results that accurately reflect the probabilities. You don't need to do this to calculate the layer's edge, you can use any one of the methods I gave above. Ultimately the "backer's edge"-"layer's edge" distinction is a false one because there's no difference between backing and laying - the point is really that backing at 3 with true odds of 2 is not the same edge as laying at 2 with true odds of 3. If you want to get a good feel for why this is then work through that example - After 30 bets what is the return of backing at 3 with true odds of 2, and how much did you have to risk to make it? Then also with 30 bets how much do you make by laying at 2 with true odds of 3 - and again, how much did you put at risk? |
|
By:
zip was a card counter in Las Vegas 1993 .1999
How long do we think it took him to get to 52? but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe I can imagine that 156 would be beyond him right enough. |
|
By:
I hear his real problem was that he couldn't count without moving his lips.
|
|
By:
My point is that calculating the value of an edge by using how much you put at risk to make the profit maybe theoretically correct, but as in the example of roulette where the house would have to lose (1/37)^37 times in a row to justify your computation, in the real world it's not going to happen, ever, which makes a mockery of the 0.007% edge figure.
What if the punter decided to back black each spin? The house now has a liability of 1 stake x 37 spins to make 1 stake, or 2.7%. You can't therefore say that the overall roulette house edge is a mere 0.007%, which is what the question was many posts ago. |
|
By:
Just to correct that, *where the house would have to lose a (1/37)^37 chance* i.e.(losing 37 x 97% chances in a row).
|
|
By:
Trevh,
I think I've been pretty clear that that edge calculation is for a single chip on the table, other combinations of bets give different edges, we've been over that already. As the number of chips on the table increases the house' edge increases and can even reach infinity whereas the punter's edge decreases and can reach -100% (no possibility of a win). This came up because you asked me to clarify how edges were calculated for layers, I've been through all the maths of that pretty exhaustively and shown you how to reach the right solution in several different ways, so unless you can point to a problem in the maths you'll have to concede that the matter is settled. If you're not clear on it I really would encourage you to work through a simple example (given above) - work out what the return is and what the risk is on backing 30 bets at 3 with a true value of 2, then laying 30 bets at 2 with a true value of 3, this will illustrate the point perfectly. It's a massive mistake to say that things "can't happen in the real world" - in fact it's the fundamental mistake that leaves many in the poor house. It's what makes people back bad value 1.01s or think that Martingale type "progressive staking" is a good idea. There are two ways of looking at unlikely events: People who view things probabilistically will say that is an event CAN happen, then it almost certainly WILL happen, it's just a matter of how often, or how long you have to wait. People who view things intuitively without thinking through probabilities will often say that if an event is unlikely (and it doesn't even have to be all that unlikely) then it almost certainly won't happen. They are wrong. I can't think off the top of my head how you can quickly calculate how many times you have to spin a roulette wheel before it becomes likely that you'll hit 37 consecutive zeros (I'm not very strong on maths - I only know the basic stuff) but doubtless someone will post it up very shortly - and I would say think of this: How many roulette wheels are there in the world? How often are they spun? How long has that been going on for? The odds against something may be large, but if you spin the wheel enough times it will come up. That's the last thing I'm going to say about roulette because frankly I'm getting a bit bored of it. |
|
By:
I watched some people playing roulette in a casino the other week. They were covering almost every eventuality with 25p chips dumped seemingly at random across the board. Of course they won nearly every spin and their banks crept up and they looked skillfully smug until the inevitable Schalke event struck and they had to slink back to the counter to get some more chips.
|
|
By:
I've never been into a casino.....
|
|
By:
Always funny watching folk do that, cat.
Almost as funny as watching them write down the numbers that come up or staring thoughtfully at the electronic board that displays the previous numbers. |
|
By:
Aye robot you have never been in a casino well that makes your 23.36 post look the nonsence i though it was . any how why are you not in bed before 23.36 thats 11.36 our time .
|
|
By:
Come on Zip, I was only taking the p1ss a bit.
|
|
By:
any how why are you not in bed before 23.36
You know I don't sleep Zip, i just turn on my screen-saver and de-fragment. |
|
By:
aye robot .. Its only a bit of fun , lets keep it that way . zip dont do piss taking.
|
|
By:
Fair enough, I don't really want to fall out with anyone.
|
|
By:
Value doesnt always matter.
A very wise man once told me..... 'Value doesnt even come into it.. if you never bet a loser'.!  |
|
By:
Magical that wise man was very wise take this 2.05 Patsy Finnegan .. there aint no value .. but its the only one there paying out on and no this is not after time get on
|
|
By:
Shame he wasn't wise enough to figure out that if you never back a loser you must be betting at very good value.
|
|
By:
Patsy Finnegan made 3 bad jumps .. but he would not have beat the winner bad jumps or not ..zip was wrong never mind 3 certs to follow .
|
|
By:
How do you figure that out Robot?.
I thought the essence of value preconceived before an event is over has nothing at all to do with the end result. What has your eventual strike rate to do with the value you are getting.? Maybe it has a lot to do with the value you're asking for, or should be asking for. But most don't actually ever ask for anything, they just take what's given to them by the pros. |
|
By:
Come on FAFH - If you back 100 horses at 2 how many do you expect to win? 50 right? So if more than 50 win what have you been doing? Backing value innit. If 100 of them win what kind of value have you got? Bl00dy good value that's what.
|
|
By:
^ obviously 100 isn't really enough to say that, but you get my point.
|
|
By:
^ by which I mean that over 50 out of 100 isn't necessarily value, but 100/100 almost certainly is.
|
|
By:
Yep, but how many of the winners were really value, and how many of the losers were really value also ?
|
|
By:
Not referring to the 100 % example where there are no losers. Would be tasty eh ?
|