$$$—Sports Betting Thread—$$$

[4thngoal]

I’d guess that Minnesota first half prop will open up at game time, but that sucks because the odds will change based on who receives the kick, so it could automatically work against you even if you bet at the earliest availability. And yeah, the only early line they have is Iowa @ Iowa State. Hopefully they get their shit together. I asked a few staff members if they’d be adding any teams, they were all totally clueless. I’ve been incredibly underwhelmed with the staff working the Prairie Meadows book. At best they’ve been woefully incompetent. At worst they’ve been super awkward and even rude. Walk in, make your deposit, and GTFO (After you wait in line to get to the counter with six people standing behind it, but only one window is open).

I've had a few problems (to create an account you use your full middle name, not just your middle initial) and have emailed and called them and they were helpful and pleasant with me.
I just don't like the future games and limited games.
I look at stuff and decide if I want to bet, when I have time. I can't be waiting until game time, or the day before, or three days before or whatever.
People gamble when they have time.
Hopefully it gets better. Who knows.

 

[Fryowa]

Call me a homer but I like that action for Iowa

Maybe to win the West, but not the whole thing.

 

[4thngoal]

Maybe to win the West, but not the whole thing.

Idk +3500 is a pretty good long shot.
No way I like Iowa at +200 to win the West.
Not when everyone from fans to every reporter to........ Everyone, says it's a close race between 4 teams. 1 in 4 odds (maybe slightly better, but not much) paying out 2 to 1????? Ummmmm not only no, but hell no.

I've got 4 cups, the ball is under one.......,..

Nope. Not even close.

 

[Fryowa]

Idk +3500 is a pretty good long shot.

Futures are for chumps and homers no matter what the odds. They’re the nickel slots of the sports betting world.

Spreads and O/U are the only thing your brain can actually make you money on.

 

[pootspot]

Maybe to win the West, but not the whole thing.

Idk, pretty wide open to me. All guesses at this point though

 

[4thngoal]

Futures are for chumps and homers no matter what the odds. They’re the nickel slots of the sports betting world.

Spreads and O/U are the only thing your brain can actually make you money on.

True.
But you are doing nothing but making my point.
Almost everyone who bets on sports throws a little down on futures. Yeah the odds suck, that's why they pay out more. Same with a parlay.
That +200 for Iowa to win the West is so far out of line. Jesus you can get good +150 action on a single game!!!
Doing some research this morning on stuff, I did see that the 3 wild Rose casinos partnered with draft kings. Maybe they are better? Idk.
I'm sure everything is just getting up and running, so we will see what happens.

 

[Fryowa]

True.
But you are doing nothing but making my point.
Almost everyone who bets on sports throws a little down on futures. Yeah the odds suck, that's why they pay out more. Same with a parlay.

Lol. You're digging yourself a hole here.

Higher payouts are signs you shouldn't bet on something (especially a future), not reason to bet on something. You're playing a lottery that no skill or knowledge can help you win because you see big payouts, i.e., a sucker. You could go play Keno and win more money.

Studying spreads and O/U patterns can give you an advantage, sharps are evidence of it. Bob Voulgaris didn't become a multimillionaire by betting on who would win the NCAA tournament in June.

My point isn't that you can easily make money betting covers and O/U; quite the contrary. But if you want to play a lottery like futures it's better to save the gas and just go buy a powerball ticket.

 

[4thngoal]

Lol. You're digging yourself a hole here.

Higher payouts are signs you shouldn't bet on something (especially a future), not reason to bet on something. You're playing a lottery that no skill or knowledge can help you win because you see big payouts, i.e., a sucker. You could go play Keno and win more money.

Studying spreads and O/U patterns can give you an advantage, sharps are evidence of it. Bob Voulgaris didn't become a multimillionaire by betting on who would win the NCAA tournament in June.

My point isn't that you can easily make money betting covers and O/U; quite the contrary. But if you want to play a lottery like futures it's better to save the gas and just go buy a powerball ticket.

I don't need a lesson.
You are missing my point.
I'm not saying higher payouts mean that is what you should do.
I assume you are not saying take Alabama to win the sec with a -150 payout either.

Jesus this isn't rocket science.
You would be bat shit crazy to bet Iowa for the west at 2-1 or Bama to take the sec at -150.
Those payouts compared to the odds suck.
If you want to throw $50 at a long shot, you can find super bowl winners that are like (don't quote me) 40-1 for the 49ers or 80-1 for the bronco's.
If you search you will probably find a long shot that has the odds to payout ratio you like.
I'm not saying it's a smart bet. I'M SAYING, don't make a long shot bet with a non long shot payout.

As for the lottery? I have my point of payout. Is it a long shot? Absolutely. The only question then becomes at what point is the payout worth the risk.

 

[Chickenlounge]

Tried to sign up for the elite sports book website today, man, what a piece of shit that site is.

 

[okeefe4prez]

As for the lottery? I have my point of payout. Is it a long shot? Absolutely. The only question then becomes at what point is the payout worth the risk.

Sports gambling is a sucker's game unless you are really good at it. The lottery, on the other hand, provides substantial utility in the form of dreaming about your wealth that is a better value than any other comparably priced entertainment option. With that $2 you could either get a few days of joy from the lottery ticket or stream 2 episodes of Punky Brewster.

 

[Fryowa]

Thinking about $50 on Illinois to cover UConn, 20.5 on Elite right now, UConn is 2-9-1 ATS last year.

What say ye?

 

[okeefe4prez]

Thinking about $50 on Illinois to cover UConn, 20.5 on Elite right now, UConn is 2-9-1 ATS last year.

What say ye?

Wouldn't do it. Bobby Diaco will have UConn ready to play. He hates Illinois with a passion and probably has this one circled as their Super Bowl.

 

[Fryowa]

Wouldn't do it. Bobby Diaco will have UConn ready to play. He hates Illinois with a passion and probably has this one circled as their Super Bowl.

I don't know, I felt the same way but they were the worst in the nation in average MOV @ -28.2. I also think that's a line that will move. If the thing was a 25-30 pointer I'd say no way but 20.5 is not in left field.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Ok. Help me out to understand. I am not a sports better but have been reading up on a couple of sites just curious and to get informed. I came across hedge betting. Can't a guy place a bet with a hedge bet ensuring at least a nominal win or really cutting losses?

I.E. Say you have a boxing match or MMA fight, maybe a high profile fight but definitely one of the fighters is an underdog. Couldn't one put a nominal amount down on the underdog (higher odds), then a Hedge bet on the favorite (low odds) to cover the bet if the favorite wins?

Two Scenerios
1) The higher odds (underdog) fighter wins and you get a bigger payout with less bet, which would end up more than what loss on the hedge bet. A sure win.
2) The lower odds (favorite) fighter wins, you lose the bet on the high odds fighter but not that much of an amount because you were banking on a bigger payout. But, you win on the low odds fighter putting a nice amount down to cover the initial bet. Don't gain but a no lose situation.

If you did this, wouldn't one be sure not to really lose, or a lot, but then have a chance to get a payout with the higher odds???? Obviously it doesn't work like that or everybody would be doing it. What am I missing?

Use Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson example.

Say I placed a 100 bet on Buster Douglas to win and say Douglas was 50:1 odds of winning. Payout $5,000 of course less $$ to the Book. Say placed a $300 hedge bet on Tyson for insurance and his odds 1:1.

Isn't this a no lose situation? If Douglas wins get a big payout of approx $4,700. If Tyson wins get $300 or less which would cover my $100 loss on betting on Douglas. So I win just a little bit but that was not the goal. The goal was to give me a chance at a huge payout with a Douglas win if were to happen.

Educate me.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Ok. Help me out to understand. I am not a sports better but have been reading up on a couple of sites just curious and to get informed. I came across hedge betting. Can't a guy place a bet with a hedge bet ensuring at least a nominal win or really cutting losses?

I.E. Say you have a boxing match or MMA fight, maybe a high profile fight but definitely one of the fighters is an underdog. Couldn't one put a nominal amount down on the underdog (higher odds), then a Hedge bet on the favorite (low odds) to cover the bet if the favorite wins?

Two Scenerios
1) The higher odds (underdog) fighter wins and you get a bigger payout with less bet, which would end up more than what loss on the hedge bet. A sure win.
2) The lower odds (favorite) fighter wins, you lose the bet on the high odds fighter but not that much of an amount because you were banking on a bigger payout. But, you win on the low odds fighter putting a nice amount down to cover the initial bet. Don't gain but a no lose situation.

If you did this, wouldn't one be sure not to really lose, or a lot, but then have a chance to get a payout with the higher odds???? Obviously it doesn't work like that or everybody would be doing it. What am I missing?

Use Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson example.

Say I placed a 100 bet on Buster Douglas to win and say Douglas was 50:1 odds of winning. Payout $5,000 of course less $$ to the Book. Say placed a $300 hedge bet on Tyson for insurance and his odds 1:1.

Isn't this a no lose situation? If Douglas wins get a big payout of approx $4,700. If Tyson wins get $300 or less which would cover my $100 loss on betting on Douglas. So I win just a little bit but that was not the goal. The goal was to give me a chance at a huge payout with a Douglas win if were to happen.

Educate me.

Usually the odds on the big favorite are nowhere near 1:1. The lines will be set in such a way that after you pay the vig (10% on each bet) a hedge bet will be a loser for everyone but the house. There are probably some arbitrage circumstances you might be able to find, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are way smarter guys than you who have algorithms set up to find those guaranteed win arbitrage scenarios that bet the hell out of them and immediately bring the line back to some place where the zero risk arbitrage scenario disappears.

 

[mopkins]

Ok. Help me out to understand. I am not a sports better but have been reading up on a couple of sites just curious and to get informed. I came across hedge betting. Can't a guy place a bet with a hedge bet ensuring at least a nominal win or really cutting losses?

I.E. Say you have a boxing match or MMA fight, maybe a high profile fight but definitely one of the fighters is an underdog. Couldn't one put a nominal amount down on the underdog (higher odds), then a Hedge bet on the favorite (low odds) to cover the bet if the favorite wins?

Two Scenerios
1) The higher odds (underdog) fighter wins and you get a bigger payout with less bet, which would end up more than what loss on the hedge bet. A sure win.
2) The lower odds (favorite) fighter wins, you lose the bet on the high odds fighter but not that much of an amount because you were banking on a bigger payout. But, you win on the low odds fighter putting a nice amount down to cover the initial bet. Don't gain but a no lose situation.

If you did this, wouldn't one be sure not to really lose, or a lot, but then have a chance to get a payout with the higher odds???? Obviously it doesn't work like that or everybody would be doing it. What am I missing?

Use Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson example.

Say I placed a 100 bet on Buster Douglas to win and say Douglas was 50:1 odds of winning. Payout $5,000 of course less $$ to the Book. Say placed a $300 hedge bet on Tyson for insurance and his odds 1:1.

Isn't this a no lose situation? If Douglas wins get a big payout of approx $4,700. If Tyson wins get $300 or less which would cover my $100 loss on betting on Douglas. So I win just a little bit but that was not the goal. The goal was to give me a chance at a huge payout with a Douglas win if were to happen.

Educate me.

It definitely doesn't work like that. If Douglas was a +5000 odds then Tyson would be like a -7000 odds or something. In other words your $100 Tyson bet would pay you next to nothing.

Where hedge bets come into play is on live betting or halftime betting. You're either guaranteeing your win or trying to "double dip" on a game. Lets say Iowa is -7 favorite over Minnesota. You bet $100 on Iowa -7 for the game. Then at halftime Iowa is up by 13 and the halftime line is Iowa -1. So then you bet $100 on Minnesota +1 for the second half. That way if Minnesota comes back and covers the full game spread, you're guaranteed to break even (minus the juice). BUT lets say Iowa wins the game by 10...then they cover the $100 full game -7 line AND Minnesota covers the $100 second half +1 bet. So in essence you were guaranteed to break even with a chance to double dip.

Thats the best example of hedging. Live betting is fun and addicting

 

[Fryowa]

Ok. Help me out to understand. I am not a sports better but have been reading up on a couple of sites just curious and to get informed. I came across hedge betting. Can't a guy place a bet with a hedge bet ensuring at least a nominal win or really cutting losses?

I.E. Say you have a boxing match or MMA fight, maybe a high profile fight but definitely one of the fighters is an underdog. Couldn't one put a nominal amount down on the underdog (higher odds), then a Hedge bet on the favorite (low odds) to cover the bet if the favorite wins?

Two Scenerios
1) The higher odds (underdog) fighter wins and you get a bigger payout with less bet, which would end up more than what loss on the hedge bet. A sure win.
2) The lower odds (favorite) fighter wins, you lose the bet on the high odds fighter but not that much of an amount because you were banking on a bigger payout. But, you win on the low odds fighter putting a nice amount down to cover the initial bet. Don't gain but a no lose situation.

If you did this, wouldn't one be sure not to really lose, or a lot, but then have a chance to get a payout with the higher odds???? Obviously it doesn't work like that or everybody would be doing it. What am I missing?

Use Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson example.

Say I placed a 100 bet on Buster Douglas to win and say Douglas was 50:1 odds of winning. Payout $5,000 of course less $$ to the Book. Say placed a $300 hedge bet on Tyson for insurance and his odds 1:1.

Isn't this a no lose situation? If Douglas wins get a big payout of approx $4,700. If Tyson wins get $300 or less which would cover my $100 loss on betting on Douglas. So I win just a little bit but that was not the goal. The goal was to give me a chance at a huge payout with a Douglas win if were to happen.

Educate me.

Hedging is like trying to manually play the stock market. Might have worked in 1949 but not anymore because computers monitor the lines and adjust them as people find hedges (there aren't really any to begin with because of the way lines are set now).

Odds are set with keeping the possibility of likely hedges super low, and after vig it's definitely a sucker thing. In other words, you're never going to see a scenario like the one you mentioned above. Dudes way smarter than us (and their computer programs) saw that way before you and I did.

Hedging can be done in parlays to some degree, but the you're more so decreasing liability than maximizing any profit.

You can use a hedge bet (there are even calculators online) to cut your losses a little bit if you made a drunk bet the night before and now have buyer's remorse, but that's about it. You won't make money from it. Basically it's a lot like how casinos use 8 decks in a game of Blackjack now, there's just no advantage to trying to game the system. The odds of you being successful at counting cards (hedging) have been brought so far down that there's no realistic advantage over just trying to get lucky.

 

[Fryowa]

It definitely doesn't work like that. If Douglas was a +5000 odds then Tyson would be like a -7000 odds or something. In other words your $100 Tyson bet would pay you next to nothing.

Where hedge bets come into play is on live betting or halftime betting. You're either guaranteeing your win or trying to "double dip" on a game. Lets say Iowa is -7 favorite over Minnesota. You bet $100 on Iowa -7 for the game. Then at halftime Iowa is up by 13 and the halftime line is Iowa -1. So then you bet $100 on Minnesota +1 for the second half. That way if Minnesota comes back and covers the full game spread, you're guaranteed to break even (minus the juice). BUT lets say Iowa wins the game by 10...then they cover the $100 full game -7 line AND Minnesota covers the $100 second half +1 bet. So in essence you were guaranteed to break even with a chance to double dip.

Thats the best example of hedging. Live betting is fun and addicting

And even then it's loss-minimization instead of profit maximization. Rational gambling assumes profit and loss are equal proportionally on a spectrum and that a profit of $10 is the same "amount" of desirable as a $10 loss is undesirable. Where us dumb humans get caught is that we think losing $100 sucks way more than we think winning $100 is awesome. And that's how the psychology steers us the way the books want us to go.

If you had a billion dollars to make 100,000 bets and some serious computing power you could make a small amount of money hedging (that's what mutual funds do in the stock market), but your "odds" of coming out ahead by hedging are statistically no different than throwing darts.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Thanks guys! Interesting.

I also learned that diversifying just "flat bets" is better than trying to cash in on parlays. Goal to make 10 $100 bets of your $1,000 allocated bank roll and hope you hit on at least 55% of the bets. Look for it to be a marathon instead of a sprint. If you stay at 55% or above your golden.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

It definitely doesn't work like that. If Douglas was a +5000 odds then Tyson would be like a -7000 odds or something. In other words your $100 Tyson bet would pay you next to nothing.

Where hedge bets come into play is on live betting or halftime betting. You're either guaranteeing your win or trying to "double dip" on a game. Lets say Iowa is -7 favorite over Minnesota. You bet $100 on Iowa -7 for the game. Then at halftime Iowa is up by 13 and the halftime line is Iowa -1. So then you bet $100 on Minnesota +1 for the second half. That way if Minnesota comes back and covers the full game spread, you're guaranteed to break even (minus the juice). BUT lets say Iowa wins the game by 10...then they cover the $100 full game -7 line AND Minnesota covers the $100 second half +1 bet. So in essence you were guaranteed to break even with a chance to double dip.

Thats the best example of hedging. Live betting is fun and addicting

Ok. Let me revisit this again. I realize betting on a favorite will prob not get you an even 1:1 payout. So, if you bet $100 on the favorite might win $30. But isn't it still worth it to take your chance on that underdog and possibly win $4,700 taking that chance you might lose $70 in the end.

I mean if a guy had enough bank roll to deal with could pop $500 down on the favorite just for insurance but still have the rare chance the underdog might win for a payout.

I better stick to Blackjack!