Professional Sportsbetting

[smurgerburger]

How was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)

Apparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.

You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"

Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.

So your true argument is against a particular use of the rhetoric of EV rather than the concept itself.

[AxelWolf]

My friend with a YouWager account finally got back to me with some details.

In the last 2 years, he is down 37,800 at YouWager. He is not too keen on the bonus stuff(He doesn't like to be locked into wagering)I asked him to negotiate their best deal and keep asking for something better on a 5k-10k deposit. I told him to tell them that other sports books are offering him over 100% deposit bonuses. I told him there's no obligation to take any bonuses so not to worry.

He sent me a copy of the email. The best we can offer you 40% Free Play bets with a 5X Rollover and 30 Days, but you can cash your winnings out before the rollover has been met on your crypto deposit.

While we offer generous bonuses, we are not considered a bonus book. We are known for our player friendly policies, great lines and really nice programs such as 5% monthly rebate, Daily Casio Rebate and Friday Night 5% Juice.



Can we set up a call to where I can answer any questions you may have or we can continue over email if you would prefer.



We will also get you a casino bonus and a poker tournament.

I waited 5 days and asked what I could get for a larger deposit and they offered me the same thing WITH a big Caveat.
He told me up-front that they would be watching me because of my previous betting history. Somthing about paying me my winning bit, not the bonus money if they deem I'm using professional sports betting tactics. I'm not going to risk it as there are so many other options out there.

[accountinquestion]

Apparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.

You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"

Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.

So your true argument is against a particular use of the rhetoric of EV rather than the concept itself.

Nah hes just sliding along his view until it becomes reasonable to people with a clue.

EV suggests someone has an estimated amount they are giving the EV. It also implies a methodology in deriving this value.

"My opinion" could literally mean anything.

Redietz has never messed with EV in this way from anything I've read so it is in his interest to not understand/ridicule it.

That however is not a good look.

[accountinquestion]

How was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)

Apparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.

You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"

Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.

This is obvious, simple stuff. "The EV is" -- LOL. No, it's "I think the EV is." Huge difference.

There is a monstrous difference between an actual established EV based on actual probability theory, and some dude dressing up vague ballpark estimates with "the EV is."

Or maybe I'm all wet, and it's fine when "APs" throw out "the EV is" for non-random events based on their personal history and whatever neurons they can bring to the table in that moment. So what if they turn out to be off by 1% or 5% or 20%? They are, after all, "APs."

It isn't APs that use "EV". All winning professional sports bettors too and they're not particularly considered advantage players to begin with.

This is another part of it. You give Redietz a chance and he'll go off in the weeds talking about football and all this minutia. He has no actual methodology so it all boils down to what he says - "his opinion".

He also makes the error in believing that his knowledge of football minutia translates into correct guessing. Having him try to weigh all the factors and separate all his own inherent biases is not something i'd ever have faith in. Sure coin-flipping contests it is a totally different thing ...

[AxelWolf]

You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"

Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.

So your true argument is against a particular use of the rhetoric of EV rather than the concept itself.

Nah hes just sliding along his view until it becomes reasonable to people with a clue.

EV suggests someone has an estimated amount they are giving the EV. It also implies a methodology in deriving this value.

"My opinion" could literally mean anything.

Redietz has never messed with EV in this way from anything I've read so it is in his interest to not understand/ridicule it.

That however is not a good look.

When it comes to handicapping and analyzing games and coming to the conclusion that it has value, there must be a reason why you believe that bet has value, or why are you betting it? Wouldn't that value be considered Expected Value? I understand that might be different on each and every game but they're certainly has to be a range and if you've been doing this for years you must have a large enough sample size to compare similar situations and get an approximate average EV.

I would assume someone who has been doing this for years with investors(has supposedly been tracked for years) would have a spreadsheet that could break all this down.

I know guys that makegood money betting Sports> they're so confident in their abilities and they know what they're doing but they're not sitting there keeping track of everything because they don't have investors or customers or they're not touting they're just betting for themselves and their bank account is the only thing that matters at the end of the year. But if you ask him what their approximate EV is they can tell you on certain bets and situations with their EV is approximately and what their overall advantages are by calculating the Dollar in versus dollar out and come to an average percentage they make.

[redietz]

I'll spell this out for the low-IQ crowd one more time.

If you want to use the phrase "Expected Value" as a substitute for "personal opinion," for sports betting, be my guest. But you acknowledge that there is no actual calculus, no probability theory, that is applicable. Your personal experience and personal history, tracking x number of plays for y years and z events, may render a situation as being defined as "+EV" by YOU in PAST TENSE. Why you feel as if your personal history with non-random events allows you to anoint your opinion with the phrase "Expected Value" as if "Expected Value" is a mathematically sound estimation from probability theory is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. People want to dress up their personal opinions and personal histories with Shroud of Turin importance all the time. But it's the last thing that I would expect "APs" to do. Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words.

And if your estimates aren't really all that precise, then why not just refer to them as "my estimates." Instead of labeling stuff as "EV" as if you are dealing with the actual concrete math of random events.

If you want to use "EV" in past tense for sports betting or for middling applications/descriptions or for auto-profit -130/+140 arbitrage applications, cool. That's the proper use. But don't go beyond those specific applications, claiming you have "+EV" going forward using Strategy A for Sports A, B, or C. You have only a general idea what the EV MIGHT be going forward. The proper phrase isn't "the EV is," the proper phrase is "my opinion is."

Basically, my problem with people assigning "EV" to non-random events has to do with their conflating their opinions with math. I've always used "EV" with the "Expected" referring to precise mathematical estimates. Once you substitute your opinion and use the "Expected" as in "What YOU Personally Expect" versus math, you are going mega-arrogant and calculating things way beyond any likely precision.

This nonchalant use of "EV" for non-random events by alleged "APs" blows my mind. It also blows my mind that they call me arrogant when they are the ones deciding that their personal opinion is math itself.

Point spreads do not create coin flips. How hard is that to understand? Point spreads are designed to balance betting, not create 50/50 results. That's kindergarten basics. This has little to do with the math of random events. You are dealing with a permeable universe of non-random events.

[AxelWolf]

I'll spell this out for the low-IQ crowd one more time.

If you want to use the phrase "Expected Value" as a substitute for "personal opinion," for sports betting, be my guest. But you acknowledge that there is no actual calculus, no probability theory, that is applicable. Your personal experience and personal history, tracking x number of plays for y years and z events, may render a situation as being defined as "+EV" by YOU in PAST TENSE. Why you feel as if your personal history with non-random events allows you to anoint your opinion with the phrase "Expected Value" as if "Expected Value" is a mathematically sound estimation from probability theory is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. People want to dress up their personal opinions and personal histories with Shroud of Turin importance all the time. But it's the last thing that I would expect "APs" to do. Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words.

And if your estimates aren't really all that precise, then why not just refer to them as "my estimates." Instead of labeling stuff as "EV" as if you are dealing with the actual concrete math of random events.

If you want to use "EV" in past tense for sports betting or for middling applications/descriptions or for auto-profit -130/+140 arbitrage applications, cool. That's the proper use. But don't go beyond those specific applications, claiming you have "+EV" going forward using Strategy A for Sports A, B, or C. You have only a general idea what the EV MIGHT be going forward. The proper phrase isn't "the EV is," the proper phrase is "my opinion is."

Basically, my problem with people assigning "EV" to non-random events has to do with their conflating their opinions with math. I've always used "EV" with the "Expected" referring to precise mathematical estimates. Once you substitute your opinion and use the "Expected" as in "What YOU Personally Expect" versus math, you are going mega-arrogant and calculating things way beyond any likely precision.

This nonchalant use of "EV" for non-random events by alleged "APs" blows my mind. It also blows my mind that they call me arrogant when they are the ones deciding that their personal opinion is math itself.

Point spreads do not create coin flips. How hard is that to understand? Point spreads are designed to balance betting, not create 50/50 results. That's kindergarten basics. This has little to do with the math of random events. You are dealing with a permeable universe of non-random events.

If you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?

[kewlJ]

My friend with a YouWager account finally got back to me with some details.

I waited 5 days and asked what I could get for a larger deposit and they offered me the same thing WITH a big Caveat.
He told me up-front that they would be watching me because of my previous betting history. Something about paying me my winning bit, not the bonus money if they deem I'm using professional sports betting tactics. I'm not going to risk it as there are so many other options out there.

Well now you know 2 people that Youwager has screwed or threatened to screw in the same manner in the last month. Maybe somebody, some big bonus whore or group hit them hard sometime recently leading to this crackdown , because they were good through 4 cycles with me and then bam.

[kewlJ]

I find this EV discussion regarding sports betting very interesting. I am a very novice sports better, especially trying to play with an advantage so I don't profess to know the answer. But I gotta say, I agree somewhat with redietz. Although I don't know why he can't be involved in the discussion and make his points without being so arrogant. And then he has the freaking nerve to call the APs the arrogant ones.

With other things I do at an advantage, like card counting and even the machine/mailer game my partner and I played for years, you can point right to what makes the play at an advantage. And once you have that advantage, EV is just a formula. Advantage x amount wagered = expected value or EV.

No with the bonus stuff I have done with sports betting for the last year, you can also point right to the advantage, and subtracting rollover from bonus, calculate the expected win or expected value. Easy peasy.

But with non bonus type sports betting, I don't know where the EV comes from or how to calculate it. Suppose you are doing something like betting against the public or betting with sharp picks, or doing something with line movements (not involving middling). Where is the EV and how do you calculate it? A lot of that seems based on past trends and I don't think that works as EV.

Take the little first two weeks NFL underdog play that Axelwolf and myself have played in recent years. You are talking 15 games a week for 2 weeks or 30 games a year with data from 10-12 years. That isn't enough data to say that is a +EV play is it? In blackjack we use not just a million or two but 10s or 100s of millions of simulation size to have any real meaning. So 300-360 games worth of data can't really mean anything as far as definitively declaring something +EV. Not in my mind.

I will let you guys fight it out and Red keep weighing in with his very nasty arrogant posts, but so far I just don't see that the term EV translates all that well into sports betting, with the exception of something like the bonus play where you can point right to the advantage and then calculate EV.

[kewlJ]

The above said, there are people that win at sports betting year after year after year. (I have no idea is Red is one of them). So the must be doing something at an advantage and can come up with a number leading to a +EV type expectation. I just don't know what that is. So I should re-phrase my previous statement to say For me and what I know to date, I don't think the term EV or +EV translates that well into sports betting. Not like other areas where you can point right to where the advantage is and comes from.

[accountinquestion]

I'll spell this out for the low-IQ crowd one more time.

If you want to use the phrase "Expected Value" as a substitute for "personal opinion," for sports betting, be my guest. But you acknowledge that there is no actual calculus, no probability theory, that is applicable. Your personal experience and personal history, tracking x number of plays for y years and z events, may render a situation as being defined as "+EV" by YOU in PAST TENSE. Why you feel as if your personal history with non-random events allows you to anoint your opinion with the phrase "Expected Value" as if "Expected Value" is a mathematically sound estimation from probability theory is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. People want to dress up their personal opinions and personal histories with Shroud of Turin importance all the time. But it's the last thing that I would expect "APs" to do. Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words.

And if your estimates aren't really all that precise, then why not just refer to them as "my estimates." Instead of labeling stuff as "EV" as if you are dealing with the actual concrete math of random events.

If you want to use "EV" in past tense for sports betting or for middling applications/descriptions or for auto-profit -130/+140 arbitrage applications, cool. That's the proper use. But don't go beyond those specific applications, claiming you have "+EV" going forward using Strategy A for Sports A, B, or C. You have only a general idea what the EV MIGHT be going forward. The proper phrase isn't "the EV is," the proper phrase is "my opinion is."

Basically, my problem with people assigning "EV" to non-random events has to do with their conflating their opinions with math. I've always used "EV" with the "Expected" referring to precise mathematical estimates. Once you substitute your opinion and use the "Expected" as in "What YOU Personally Expect" versus math, you are going mega-arrogant and calculating things way beyond any likely precision.

This nonchalant use of "EV" for non-random events by alleged "APs" blows my mind. It also blows my mind that they call me arrogant when they are the ones deciding that their personal opinion is math itself.

Point spreads do not create coin flips. How hard is that to understand? Point spreads are designed to balance betting, not create 50/50 results. That's kindergarten basics. This has little to do with the math of random events. You are dealing with a permeable universe of non-random events.

I'm fairly certain most professional sports bettors who do any sort of origination have an IQ higher than yours. They all know what is implied in the use of "EV". The only real question is "how do you derive EV". Your observations are silly but you don't get that.

You keep repeating yourself like others don't understand when they're already 3 steps beyond you. This is real talk.

[accountinquestion]

I'll spell this out for the low-IQ crowd one more time.

If you want to use the phrase "Expected Value" as a substitute for "personal opinion," for sports betting, be my guest. But you acknowledge that there is no actual calculus, no probability theory, that is applicable. Your personal experience and personal history, tracking x number of plays for y years and z events, may render a situation as being defined as "+EV" by YOU in PAST TENSE. Why you feel as if your personal history with non-random events allows you to anoint your opinion with the phrase "Expected Value" as if "Expected Value" is a mathematically sound estimation from probability theory is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. People want to dress up their personal opinions and personal histories with Shroud of Turin importance all the time. But it's the last thing that I would expect "APs" to do. Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words.

And if your estimates aren't really all that precise, then why not just refer to them as "my estimates." Instead of labeling stuff as "EV" as if you are dealing with the actual concrete math of random events.

If you want to use "EV" in past tense for sports betting or for middling applications/descriptions or for auto-profit -130/+140 arbitrage applications, cool. That's the proper use. But don't go beyond those specific applications, claiming you have "+EV" going forward using Strategy A for Sports A, B, or C. You have only a general idea what the EV MIGHT be going forward. The proper phrase isn't "the EV is," the proper phrase is "my opinion is."

Basically, my problem with people assigning "EV" to non-random events has to do with their conflating their opinions with math. I've always used "EV" with the "Expected" referring to precise mathematical estimates. Once you substitute your opinion and use the "Expected" as in "What YOU Personally Expect" versus math, you are going mega-arrogant and calculating things way beyond any likely precision.

This nonchalant use of "EV" for non-random events by alleged "APs" blows my mind. It also blows my mind that they call me arrogant when they are the ones deciding that their personal opinion is math itself.

Point spreads do not create coin flips. How hard is that to understand? Point spreads are designed to balance betting, not create 50/50 results. That's kindergarten basics. This has little to do with the math of random events. You are dealing with a permeable universe of non-random events.

If you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?

<cough cough> hes a bullshitter

[accountinquestion]

I find this EV discussion regarding sports betting very interesting. I am a very novice sports better, especially trying to play with an advantage so I don't profess to know the answer. But I gotta say, I agree somewhat with redietz. Although I don't know why he can't be involved in the discussion and make his points without being so arrogant. And then he has the freaking nerve to call the APs the arrogant ones.

With other things I do at an advantage, like card counting and even the machine/mailer game my partner and I played for years, you can point right to what makes the play at an advantage. And once you have that advantage, EV is just a formula. Advantage x amount wagered = expected value or EV.

No with the bonus stuff I have done with sports betting for the last year, you can also point right to the advantage, and subtracting rollover from bonus, calculate the expected win or expected value. Easy peasy.

But with non bonus type sports betting, I don't know where the EV comes from or how to calculate it. Suppose you are doing something like betting against the public or betting with sharp picks, or doing something with line movements (not involving middling). Where is the EV and how do you calculate it? A lot of that seems based on past trends and I don't think that works as EV.

Take the little first two weeks NFL underdog play that Axelwolf and myself have played in recent years. You are talking 15 games a week for 2 weeks or 30 games a year with data from 10-12 years. That isn't enough data to say that is a +EV play is it? In blackjack we use not just a million or two but 10s or 100s of millions of simulation size to have any real meaning. So 300-360 games worth of data can't really mean anything as far as definitively declaring something +EV. Not in my mind.

I will let you guys fight it out and Red keep weighing in with his very nasty arrogant posts, but so far I just don't see that the term EV translates all that well into sports betting, with the exception of something like the bonus play where you can point right to the advantage and then calculate EV.

it speaks for itself you're the only one who agrees with Redietz.

Just so help you out - No one is disagreeing that EV is not estimated in some capacity. It is just IMPLIED.

It bothers Redietz because his sports betting was never that sophisticated in an analytical sense. It is all "Charlie's cousin ran the 100 M dash to Ken State therefore Jeremy K is a darkhorse running back". Or whatever the fuck.

I don't have a hard time believing Redietz beats the public in coin flipping contests. The problem is without a concept of EV you never know when to bet and when not to bet. You might say "OH this is the best bet" and it might very well have the best EV out of what you're analyzing. You won't be able to go down the list and know when there is no longer value without the concept of EV.

There is no fight to be had with Redietz. We're just loling at him.

[mickeycrimm]

Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words

C'mon, guys. Redietz has said over and over again you can't use probability of random events to assign actual value to non-random events. He has said repeatedly that NFL games are non-random.

So what should you use? No brainer. Use the chart below. It's a collection of statistics from thousands of NON-RANDOM NFL GAMES, right redietz?

[mickeycrimm]

I'll spell this out for the low-IQ crowd one more time.

If you want to use the phrase "Expected Value" as a substitute for "personal opinion," for sports betting, be my guest. But you acknowledge that there is no actual calculus, no probability theory, that is applicable. Your personal experience and personal history, tracking x number of plays for y years and z events, may render a situation as being defined as "+EV" by YOU in PAST TENSE. Why you feel as if your personal history with non-random events allows you to anoint your opinion with the phrase "Expected Value" as if "Expected Value" is a mathematically sound estimation from probability theory is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. People want to dress up their personal opinions and personal histories with Shroud of Turin importance all the time. But it's the last thing that I would expect "APs" to do. Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words.

And if your estimates aren't really all that precise, then why not just refer to them as "my estimates." Instead of labeling stuff as "EV" as if you are dealing with the actual concrete math of random events.

If you want to use "EV" in past tense for sports betting or for middling applications/descriptions or for auto-profit -130/+140 arbitrage applications, cool. That's the proper use. But don't go beyond those specific applications, claiming you have "+EV" going forward using Strategy A for Sports A, B, or C. You have only a general idea what the EV MIGHT be going forward. The proper phrase isn't "the EV is," the proper phrase is "my opinion is."

Basically, my problem with people assigning "EV" to non-random events has to do with their conflating their opinions with math. I've always used "EV" with the "Expected" referring to precise mathematical estimates. Once you substitute your opinion and use the "Expected" as in "What YOU Personally Expect" versus math, you are going mega-arrogant and calculating things way beyond any likely precision.

This nonchalant use of "EV" for non-random events by alleged "APs" blows my mind. It also blows my mind that they call me arrogant when they are the ones deciding that their personal opinion is math itself.

Point spreads do not create coin flips. How hard is that to understand? Point spreads are designed to balance betting, not create 50/50 results. That's kindergarten basics. This has little to do with the math of random events. You are dealing with a permeable universe of non-random events.

If you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?

Axel, you’ll never get an answer to that question.

[redietz]

I'll spell this out for the low-IQ crowd one more time.

If you want to use the phrase "Expected Value" as a substitute for "personal opinion," for sports betting, be my guest. But you acknowledge that there is no actual calculus, no probability theory, that is applicable. Your personal experience and personal history, tracking x number of plays for y years and z events, may render a situation as being defined as "+EV" by YOU in PAST TENSE. Why you feel as if your personal history with non-random events allows you to anoint your opinion with the phrase "Expected Value" as if "Expected Value" is a mathematically sound estimation from probability theory is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. People want to dress up their personal opinions and personal histories with Shroud of Turin importance all the time. But it's the last thing that I would expect "APs" to do. Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words.

And if your estimates aren't really all that precise, then why not just refer to them as "my estimates." Instead of labeling stuff as "EV" as if you are dealing with the actual concrete math of random events.

If you want to use "EV" in past tense for sports betting or for middling applications/descriptions or for auto-profit -130/+140 arbitrage applications, cool. That's the proper use. But don't go beyond those specific applications, claiming you have "+EV" going forward using Strategy A for Sports A, B, or C. You have only a general idea what the EV MIGHT be going forward. The proper phrase isn't "the EV is," the proper phrase is "my opinion is."

Basically, my problem with people assigning "EV" to non-random events has to do with their conflating their opinions with math. I've always used "EV" with the "Expected" referring to precise mathematical estimates. Once you substitute your opinion and use the "Expected" as in "What YOU Personally Expect" versus math, you are going mega-arrogant and calculating things way beyond any likely precision.

This nonchalant use of "EV" for non-random events by alleged "APs" blows my mind. It also blows my mind that they call me arrogant when they are the ones deciding that their personal opinion is math itself.

Point spreads do not create coin flips. How hard is that to understand? Point spreads are designed to balance betting, not create 50/50 results. That's kindergarten basics. This has little to do with the math of random events. You are dealing with a permeable universe of non-random events.

If you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?

Axel, you’ll never get an answer to that question.

Of course you will.

(1) That site reference is from a site roughly 30 years old. I would expect that I have learned how to be more precise and accurate in my language in the intervening 30 years.

(2) Second, and more importantly, Axel paraphrases as opposed to direct quoting (obviously), which allows him to use the phrase, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" instead of quoting from the site directly. He does that a lot.

(3) And even using Axel's misrepresentative language, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" is clearly an opinion, not a math formula. Last I checked "should expect" is not "the EV will be." I have no problem with "should expect" as used by "APs." I have an issue with assignation of a math formula as opposed to "the history has been" or "we expect to."

(4) On that site, I used the phrase "our modus operandi is," not "we will" or "the EV is." "Modus operandi" means "method of operating." "Modus operandi" in this case refers both to past results and future goals. There is no reference to EV, guarantees going forward, or a specific math formula. Even 30 years ago, I didn't think anyone would believe sports betting could yield something as fairy tale-ish as a mathematically grounded "EV." No one in the business did, and there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the business.

(5) In none of the sports gambling papers I have read from the National Conferences on Gambling and Risk-Taking, which stretch back to 1980, have I read anything "assigning EV" to sports betting except as it related to reporting in PAST TENSE. I gave a paper at one of these conferences, by the way.

6) I would think, as with the stock market, that one legally cannot and should not anchor "EV" going forward to past results.

7) And finally and most obvious -- whenever you have persistent, one might say addicted, gamblers, some of the questions you have to ask yourself are, "Do they overestimate their expertise? What indications would there be that they do so? Can you assign something as denotatively precise as an "EV" label to what they are doing? What kind of security blanket does using a phrase like "EV" provide, when in reality there are no such security blankets? Are they substituting math lingo for expertise to provide them comfort and a rationale to bet? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of expertise? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of historical knowledge regarding spreads and sports? Are these gamblers using 'EV' as a crutch concept to make them think they have some edge when in reality they may or may not?" Which leads to...

8) Are the people writing about "EV" vis-a-vis sports betting underestimating or overestimating their abilities to predict events? That's the bottom line. I suggest going to the social-psychological literature, and there are literally thousands of papers on the subject, regarding whether Americans underestimate or overestimate their knowledge and abilities and skill in predicting future events. I'd say the literature runs about 90/10, but that is, of course, just my opinion. Despite thousands of papers on the subject, it's not a math formula using "EV."

[jdaewoo]

A less retarded person would have said "I was wrong about EV not being relevant to profitable sports betting" a long time ago.

Your 8 points are nearly all retarded word salad.

[AxelWolf]

If you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?

Axel, you’ll never get an answer to that question.

Of course you will.

(1) That site reference is from a site roughly 30 years old. I would expect that I have learned how to be more precise and accurate in my language in the intervening 30 years.

(2) Second, and more importantly, Axel paraphrases as opposed to direct quoting (obviously), which allows him to use the phrase, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" instead of quoting from the site directly. He does that a lot.

(3) And even using Axel's misrepresentative language, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" is clearly an opinion, not a math formula. Last I checked "should expect" is not "the EV will be." I have no problem with "should expect" as used by "APs." I have an issue with assignation of a math formula as opposed to "the history has been" or "we expect to."

(4) On that site, I used the phrase "our modus operandi is," not "we will" or "the EV is." "Modus operandi" means "method of operating." "Modus operandi" in this case refers both to past results and future goals. There is no reference to EV, guarantees going forward, or a specific math formula. Even 30 years ago, I didn't think anyone would believe sports betting could yield something as fairy tale-ish as a mathematically grounded "EV." No one in the business did, and there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the business.

(5) In none of the sports gambling papers I have read from the National Conferences on Gambling and Risk-Taking, which stretch back to 1980, have I read anything "assigning EV" to sports betting except as it related to reporting in PAST TENSE. I gave a paper at one of these conferences, by the way.

6) I would think, as with the stock market, that one legally cannot and should not anchor "EV" going forward to past results.

7) And finally and most obvious -- whenever you have persistent, one might say addicted, gamblers, some of the questions you have to ask yourself are, "Do they overestimate their expertise? What indications would there be that they do so? Can you assign something as denotatively precise as an "EV" label to what they are doing? What kind of security blanket does using a phrase like "EV" provide, when in reality there are no such security blankets? Are they substituting math lingo for expertise to provide them comfort and a rationale to bet? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of expertise? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of historical knowledge regarding spreads and sports? Are these gamblers using 'EV' as a crutch concept to make them think they have some edge when in reality they may or may not?" Which leads to...

8) Are the people writing about "EV" vis-a-vis sports betting underestimating or overestimating their abilities to predict events? That's the bottom line. I suggest going to the social-psychological literature, and there are literally thousands of papers on the subject, regarding whether Americans underestimate or overestimate their knowledge and abilities and skill in predicting future events. I'd say the literature runs about 90/10, but that is, of course, just my opinion. Despite thousands of papers on the subject, it's not a math formula using "EV."

Isn't it you who keep going on how your results were tracked from 30 years ago or whatever?

I commend you on using tricky clever verbiage for the sake of recruiting investors.

But never mind the verbiage.

I'm still curious as to how or why you came up with that number in the first place?

Wasn't that based on your past results? Or did you just make up a number?

[accountinquestion]

One could also make the argument that in a pure random sense you could remove the expected and just use the word value.

In sports betting it literally is your expected value. That's how the word expected works.

Redietz mind blown.

[Half Smoke]

.
a game could open up as a pick 'em

then a few days later close to game time a fave could be bet down to -1.5 - happens quite often

so when would the bet be random________?___________when it was offered a a pick_________?__________or when it was offered at -1.5

my answer - if it is random - then it would be random close to game time after which there would be no changes in the line

and non-random early in the week

the bettors themselves, the sharps, move the bet spread closer to randomness the closer the bet is to the actual game time as the sharps make their late bets against the early non random line causing the books to alter their spread offering

.