Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
Expected value is a term from statistics that seems so self-explanatory and ubiquitous in advantage gambling that I'm not sure it should qualify as jargon.

Regardless the general problem of jargon is not as simple as you represent it to be. Jargon can be used to give the appearance of expertise where there is none (for example in paranormal investigations) or it can be used to communicate precise concepts within a specific body of knowledge shared by those communicating. For example, doctors discussing a possible diagnosis.
Maybe this is a tense issue. You could, past tense, say I was a "+EV sports bettor" in that I have won. Have I taken advantage of something one could generally call +EV opportunities? I would never describe what I do like that because it suggests there is a formula, a math application, a manual of info, or some kind of training one can acquire to be a "+EV sports bettor." There is not.

I think using that phrase suggests winning going forward, and it also suggests there is a category of people one could label "+EV sports bettors." It provides a math veneer to something best not described that way.

Other than arbitrage, explain to me a scenario where the term has any sports betting usefulness. There are no +EV scenarios if you eliminate arbitrage, bonuses, and rebates.

Let's try this. Winning at sports betting is about opinion, not math. So I think using the phrase "+EV sports bettor" is inappropriate. It suggests a built-in math element.

Ubiquity in advantage gambling means nothing to me. Sports betting is not really "advantage gambling." I've debated this with people here, but again, outside of arbitrage, bonuses, and rebates, there is no "advantage gambling" element to sports betting. There's no wrangling of the math that says you have an advantage, ergo it's not really advantage gambling.