What is a "good bet" thread on the Wizard's forum

There is an interesting thread on the Wizard's forum about what is a "good bet"? This comes from the Wizard's tag line.

What is particularly interesting is the different interpretations and answers given by various members of the Wizard's forum.

Many of the answers, though different, make sense. So far, there is no comment from the Wizard himself.

To me a good bet is one that is likely to win. On the Wizard's forum many answers indicated a good bet is one with the best EV or a positive EV.

I don't think "likely to win" is the same as "best EV." For example, winning the place 4 at craps does not have a high EV, but if you knew the shooter was more likely to throw a 4 I think the 4 becomes a good bet.

How would you know if a shooter is more likely to roll a 4?


You should play the don't pass or just lay all the numbers -- they are more likely to win than to lose, by Alan's definition, they are good bets.

Here is my problem with just looking at +EV. What if the lottery has carried over to $500,000,0000, and the odds of winning are 1 in $250,000,000 (theoretically---i have no idea what the odds are). Does that make buying 1 lottery ticket a good bet?

So I think you have to look at +EV and variance.

In horse racing we have "bridge jumpers" who bet hundreds of thousands to show on a heavy favorite that can't possibly lose to get a 5% return. However, if one of them does lose, you can never recoup. So is that a good bet? 5% in 2 minutes sounds good---until one loss ruins you.

Regnis, correct me here if I'm wrong, but aren't there scenarios where you can bet both the bridge jumper and everybody else to show and have a guaranteed profit?

This discussion reminds me of the obverse. The assistant to a small-operation/enormous-handle bookmaker in Pennsylvania was asked by the prosecutor, in court, if he had ever taken phone bets for the bookmaker in question. The assistant said he had. The prosecutor then asked him if he knew what a parlay was.

The assistant replied, "I certainly do. It's a really stupid bet."

Redietz the way I remember if you are betting, for example $2 on ten different horses to show, you will win $2.10 on one ticket and lose $18 on the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

How would you know if a shooter is more likely to roll a 4?


You should play the don't pass or just lay all the numbers -- they are more likely to win than to lose, by Alan's definition, they are good bets.

---

I don't know. It was to illustrate the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Redietz the way I remember if you are betting, for example $2 on ten different horses to show, you will win $2.10 on one ticket and lose $18 on the others.

---

Alan-what Red is referring to here, and what I was saying about the bridge jumpers, is that when there is a situation where someone has dumped that much money on one horse to show, it creates an opportunity to get an overlay on all of the other horses to show. So if that favorite fails to run 3rd or better, the show price on the others may be anywhere from $20 to $60 in many cases.

I know you don't play horses, but this occurs because of the way pari-mutuel betting works. If there is $400,000 bet to show in a race, and $300,000 of that is on number 1, if number 1 fails to run 3rd, the payoff is disproportionately high on the other horses because all of that money that had been bet on number 1 gets distributed to the smaller number of gamblers who bet the horses that did run first, second, or third. Only if that favorite ran 1-2-or 3 is the payout $2.10.

This is a key play that I always watch for. I will bet anywhere from 1-3 horses to show--but usually only 1 hoping for that favorite to run out of the money. The bridge jumper is betting on that favorite to get his $2.10 (5%). But one loss will kill him.

Hey Redietz--just an FYI. I got an error message in responding to your private message saying that you have too many saved PM's and can't receive any more. So my reply to you did not go through. But thanks for the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Here is my problem with just looking at +EV. What if the lottery has carried over to $500,000,0000, and the odds of winning are 1 in $250,000,000 (theoretically---i have no idea what the odds are). Does that make buying 1 lottery ticket a good bet?

So I think you have to look at +EV and variance.

In horse racing we have "bridge jumpers" who bet hundreds of thousands to show on a heavy favorite that can't possibly lose to get a 5% return. However, if one of them does lose, you can never recoup. So is that a good bet? 5% in 2 minutes sounds good---until one loss ruins you.

---

I was one of those said "bridge jumpers" in the mid-1990s. Do you remember a "can't lose" horse named Gentlemen? He was supposed to be up against another really good horse and a few scrubs at Hollywood Park, but the good opponent got scratched and it was just Gentlemen against the scrubs.

Because Hollywood Park cold not go lower than 1:20 payouts, everyone hammered Win and Place. I bet Place because it was the same 1:20 payout as Win!

Was sure it was free money. More than a million dollars (total, not mine) was wagered on Gentlemen, with very little on the other horses. There were only 5 horses total in the race.

Gentlemen ended up finishing last.

He actually got booed after the race.

Turned out that he had some major health issue which they didn't disclose. I don't believe he raced again.

Oh, and in your lottery example, yes, it's a good bet. However, it wouldn't be a wise bet to throw too much on it, given the insane variance.

I think what needs to be discussed is the difference between a good bet and a wise bet.

A good bet is any bet which is +EV at the time it's made.

A wise bet is a good bet which is appropriate for one's personal circumstances.

I'll take a simple, real-life example from Harrah's Rincon.

The two highest-return games there at the moment are $5 Aces and Faces Bonus Poker (99.26%) and ACE$ Bonus Poker (99.40%).

These are very similar, except Aces and Faces gives you the "bonus" for hitting quads on J/Q/K/A and ACE$ gives it to you for hitting quads on 2/3/4/A. Additionally, ACE$ will pay you like a royal if your quad aces line up sequentially, as each ace is labeled "A", "C", "E", and "$".

Without that sequential payout,, the ACE$ game would be a standard 99.17% bonus poker game.

On the surface, ACE$ would be the better choice to play, as its return is 0.16% higher.

However, unless you're running a MASSIVE number of hands, the wiser bet is on Aces and Faces.

Why?

Because you will only hit ACE$ approximately once every 300,000 hands! And when you do, the money won't be life changing -- only equivalent to a royal.

Therefore, the variance isn't worth it, and the wiser bet is simply to stick to 99.26% Aces and Faces.

Now, I realize neither of these bets are +EV, but if you're playing VP as part of some advantage play (such as earning Seven Stars optimally), then the wise bet would be Aces and Faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I was one of those said "bridge jumpers" in the mid-1990s. Do you remember a "can't lose" horse named Gentlemen? He was supposed to be up against another really good horse and a few scrubs at Hollywood Park, but the good opponent got scratched and it was just Gentlemen against the scrubs.

Because Hollywood Park cold not go lower than 1:20 payouts, everyone hammered Win and Place. I bet Place because it was the same 1:20 payout as Win!

Was sure it was free money. More than a million dollars (total, not mine) was wagered on Gentlemen, with very little on the other horses. There were only 5 horses total in the race.

Gentlemen ended up finishing last.

He actually got booed after the race.

Turned out that he had some major health issue which they didn't disclose. I don't believe he raced again.

Oh, and in your lottery example, yes, it's a good bet. However, it wouldn't be a wise bet to throw too much on it, given the insane variance.

---

I am actually surprised that you would make that kind of bet, as you seem much more likely to wait for an advantage play. Those are the exact opportunities that I look for to fade the favorite and look for value.

I don't do them anymore.

I thought it was an advantage play, since Hollywood Park wouldn't lower it farther than 1:20 no matter how much money came in, and I believed it was a virtual lock for Gentlemen to win.

Gentlemen is still alive at age 24.

regnis, I caught a very interesting article about the show bet in the L.A. Times yesterday. The article even covered the bridge jumpers. I'm to computer stupid to be able to put up the link. But you can google "somehow, in horse racing. the show (bet) still goes on" to find the article. Perhaps you or someone else can post the link.

If Bill Gates offered to flip a coin with me, and offered me 4 to 1 odds on the flip, but the caveat was I had to put my entire bankroll on the one flip, I would turn the bet down cold. Sure, the bet has huge +EV value. But if I lose the bet I don't just lose my bankroll, I also lose the earning power of the bankroll. So that is not a good bet to me.

My problem with lottery bets is the unhittable odds. Or take Megabucks for example. The frequency of the top line hit is about 50,000,000. To me it doesn't matter if it ever goes positive. I could play the game every day and not hit it in 100 lifetimes. A bad bet to me even if it is positive expectation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

regnis, I caught a very interesting article about the show bet in the L.A. Times yesterday. The article even covered the bridge jumpers. I'm to computer stupid to be able to put up the link. But you can google "somehow, in horse racing. the show (bet) still goes on" to find the article. Perhaps you or someone else can post the link.

---

Here is the link. Not a bad article.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/l...221-story.html


DanDruff---it bothered me all night that I couldn't remember the name of the horse that beat Gentlemen. It just came to me. The horse was Malek who I believe was also from Argentina and on whom I did have a decent wager.

Yep, looks like Silver Charm (who almost won the 1997 Triple Crown) scratched and with only 4 horses in the race, Gentlemen was a TMMLK lock of the century. Sorry you lost, Todd. :D

Gentlemen did race five more times after that day, though he never won again.

https://s30.postimg.org/a9riv77oh/IMG_2140.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I was one of those said "bridge jumpers" in the mid-1990s. Do you remember a "can't lose" horse named Gentlemen? He was supposed to be up against another really good horse and a few scrubs at Hollywood Park, but the good opponent got scratched and it was just Gentlemen against the scrubs.

Because Hollywood Park cold not go lower than 1:20 payouts, everyone hammered Win and Place. I bet Place because it was the same 1:20 payout as Win!

Was sure it was free money. More than a million dollars (total, not mine) was wagered on Gentlemen, with very little on the other horses. There were only 5 horses total in the race.

Gentlemen ended up finishing last.

He actually got booed after the race.

Turned out that he had some major health issue which they didn't disclose. I don't believe he raced again.

Oh, and in your lottery example, yes, it's a good bet. However, it wouldn't be a wise bet to throw too much on it, given the insane variance.

---

Nerakil--I sure wish you would have posted this sooner. I really was trying to remember all night and I refused to Google it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerakil

Yep, looks like Silver Charm (who almost won the 1997 Triple Crown) scratched and with only 4 horses in the race, Gentlemen was a TMMLK lock of the century. Sorry you lost, Todd. :D

Gentlemen did race five more times after that day, though he never won again.

https://s30.postimg.org/a9riv77oh/IMG_2140.jpg

---

House made about $600k on a $1.5m pool.

Pretty impressive showing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

House made about $600k on a $1.5m pool.

Pretty impressive showing!

---

Horse players, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the trick to this years ago was to have a good relationship with an illegal book who paid track odds and did not dump money into the pool. You bet the bridge jumper at the track, then bet the other horses to show with the illegal book.

Does that seem correct?