Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Give me a break...do you use freeplay or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Give me a break...do you use freeplay or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You must mean the risk of getting mugged, or something along those lines that you can't quantify mathematically with respect to the wager.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
But as far as the bets themselves, there's no mathematical risk to the bettor using freeplay.
Sure you can, given enough trials you can see their overall results and quantify their opinion mathematically. That is exactly what quantify means.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThey pay him for his opinion. They value his opinion.
They continue to pay for his advice only if it's profitable.
There is no way to mathematically quantify an opinion.
The conclusion of your "if/then" scenario below is null...the hypothesis does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I JUST explained it! Blackjack card counting, holecarding (which I don't do much anymore) or other type table game I play unrated because the EV is from something besides the FP. VP, (which I also don't do much of anymore) the EV was from the FP, so yes, I collected and played FP.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
No what I mean is the RISK of the play being exposed or "blown up" or otherwise shortened.
coach belly, you don't seem very knowledgeable about advantage play. Just from having been on forums as long as you have trolling, I would think you would know more than you do or are pretending not to know. :confused:
Isn't expected value based on the mathematical odds of the wager, where the odds are calculated based on randomness, such that the results will follow a random distribution?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Yes you don't use freeplay...and yes you do.
Yeah, OK, you explained it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
[/QUOTE] Do you know that for sure? There are plenty of gullible people in this world who can be bamboozled into thinking the profits are coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Do some research on MLMs, people touting their bunk betting system etc.
Here is a fun watch. I love John Oliver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6MwGeOm8iI
How does that apply to the money at risk for a wager?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
If you bet your own money, then your money is at risk.
If you bet somebody else's money, then your money is not at risk.
It's math. Why are you struggling with this concept?
You can't quantify Integrity Sports' risk of exposure, or back off or whatever you're talking about, based on the number of investors involved.
A guy just bet $3 million the Eagles moneyline, how would the monetary risk change based on how many investors were involved in raising the stake money?
That's the business model, advisor's commission based on percentage of profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
That's CALULATED ODDS, you used the word QUANTIFIED.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyIsn't expected value based on the mathematical odds of the wager, where the odds are calculated based on randomness, such that the results will follow a random distribution?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I believe you can figure out someone's EV based on enough long-term results. If someone has been picking 57% on 50/50 chances over thousands of trials, I would say you can be fairly confident they have an Advantage and you can calculate/quantify it within reason.
It could look like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThat's the business model, advisor's commission based on percentage of profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Lose 100k the first year with no profit. Win the 2nd year 50k profit(pay commission). Lose the 3rd year 100k... They Go for the 4th year. They continued to pay for his advice even though it was not profitable.
Believe what you want, but EV applies to the wager, not to who makes the wager.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
The calculation of EV is based on random results, are the results of athletic contests random over any number of trials?
Yes the EV is based on the wagers. Knowing who or what has the ability to make +EV wagers can be based on the number of trials and results.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyBelieve what you want, but EV applies to the wager, not to who makes the wager.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
The calculation of EV is based on random results, are the results of athletic contests random over any number of trials?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enctYgbln0E&t=55s
Take note to :53
Coach B, aren't you the guy that dug into and posted Redietz non or late tax payment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
That's not possible, the advisor is paid from the profits. If they paid, then they were profitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Whether the clients continue to pay for his advice has no bearing on how the commission is calculated.
They all start with no previous results...no advice, nothing lost, no profits, no commissions paid.
The money lost wagering is not paid to the advisor.
I don't think we should keep holding that against redietz as it was only $500.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
That only applies to wagers where a random distribution of results is expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Are you talking about MDawg?
Gossip.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Why do you ask, what have you heard, who did you hear it from?
This isn't always the case. There were some very valid pick services recently (5ish years) but they were more based on props which had weak lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
It is also very hard to get in enough action. Having your clients bet for you alleviates that. It takes a pretty big bankroll to make much sports betting. The edges aren't particularly big but more importantly the frequency of positive wagers isn't very high.
Anyway not that I particularly disagree with you but throwing in my 2 cents.