Explaining EV to Wellbush

Quote: Marcusclark66

You are so correct Wellbush, have you ever heard of a grade school teacher telling a student to get out of the classroom because he didn't get something correct or is falling behind??????

👍

I am closing this thread. This thread is no longer a well-intentioned constructive exchange (if it ever was one) and multiple participants are getting close to being suspended.

Whereas:

Wellbush claims he is not a troll
Wellbush claims he is earnestly trying to learn
and The Suspension List Discussion is not a suitable place for math tutorials

I hereby reopen this thread.

I pass on the advice from many math tutors I have known:
Stop. Re-read the problem. Think it through, piece by piece. Give yourself time to understand before asking the next question.

Quote: Dieter

Whereas:

Wellbush claims he is not a troll
Wellbush claims he is earnestly trying to learn
and The Suspension List Discussion is not a suitable place for math tutorials

I hereby reopen this thread.

I pass on the advice from many math tutors I have known:
Stop. Re-read the problem. Think it through, piece by piece. Give yourself time to understand before asking the next question.

Good try! However, throw all forms of logic out the window it is all about:

Believe, and you shall be heallllllled.

Tuttigym writes: : "average gambler" and "long run"?

Thus the challenge. It would be great if one could say the average is 30k hands per year and the long run is 1 year.

To my knowledge, this has never been clearly defined.

Quote: Wellbush

well there are many internet dwellers who would love to read about as many betting systems as they could. that's why WOV would be much bigger and better for it.

You are saying that the general public will benefit from having WoV become a site where people welcome posts about various betting systems which can be employed while playing negative expectation games.

That may be somewhat true, at least if your goal is to learn different methods to play such games, but not if your goal is to win in the long run.

Why would any right-thinking gambler want to learn twenty different methods of placing six and eight at craps, e.g., when the end result will still be that the house has an edge against you?

Might it not make a lot more sense, at least if you want to win, to disregard such games altogether and focus rather on AP opportunities?

One of your problems is that you seem to believe that playing a particular system in a negative expectation game will give you a positive advantage: it can't, and it won't, but you just don't seem to see it.

You blather about how math has changed over the years, as if that actually means something relevant.

This site does not welcome systems players such as yourself who feel compelled to proselytize and shout about their wares from the rooftops.

No, keep it to yourself: we all know better.

The math says playing an -EV game will eventually cost you about the house edge. We all know that or all should.

This is also based off off an infinite amount of time. The reasons betting systems don't work is because they require an infinite amount of money. Something people also do not have.

So, I believe no one is wrong in this argument.

Im sure there are lifetime winning gamblers who have played a -EV game without cheating or APing and finished their life, when time ran out, on the + side of what is expected.

Im also sure there are people who have had way worse than -EV experiences.

Its not unrealistic for these things to happen as no one has infinite money or infinite time, both of which the -EV is based.

If everything were 100% true to the number, no one would go gamble. We'd know we were going to buy in for $1,000 and leave with $975.00, or whatever the house edge dictates.

We also wouldnt need accountants at casinos as we'd know the 2.5% house edge game brought in $97.50 for every $100 wagered.

I know these are extreme examples, but they make the point, I think!

In Wellbush's favor, there are gamblers such as myself who understand how the math works yet still choose to play negative EV games.

FIne, my informed choice (fools and their money...).

I employ various methods of play or "systems" when playing craps, but when I do so I never try to convince myself that by doing so I am changing the game from -EV to +EV.

Therein lies the danger of buying into Wellbush's siren song: it will instill false hope.

When I win playing craps it is due solely to variance, aka luck, and not to any alleged skill / mathematical advantage I may have brought to the game by playing a particular system.

Quote: mwalz9

The math says playing an -EV game will eventually cost you about the house edge. We all know that or all should.

This is also based off off an infinite amount of time. The reasons betting systems don't work is because they require an infinite amount of money. Something people also do not have.

So, I believe no one is wrong in this argument.

Im sure there are lifetime winning gamblers who have played a -EV game without cheating or APing and finished their life, when time ran out, on the + side of what is expected.

Im also sure there are people who have had way worse than -EV experiences.

Its not unrealistic for these things to happen as no one has infinite money or infinite time, both of which the -EV is based.

If everything were 100% true to the number, no one would go gamble. We'd know we were going to buy in for $1,000 and leave with $975.00, or whatever the house edge dictates.

We also wouldnt need accountants at casinos as we'd know the 2.5% house edge game brought in $97.50 for every $100 wagered.

I know these are extreme examples, but they make the point, I think!

What point?

Quote: MrV

In Wellbush's favor, there are gamblers such as myself who understand how the math works yet still choose to play negative EV games.

FIne, my informed choice (fools and their money...).

I employ various methods of play or "systems" when playing craps, but when I do so I never try to convince myself that by doing so I am changing the game from -EV to +EV.

Therein lies the danger of buying into Wellbush's siren song: it will instill false hope.

When I win playing craps it is due solely to variance, aka luck, and not to any alleged skill / mathematical advantageI may have brought to the game by playing a particular system.

I agree 100%. As Ive said many times. I know tje games I play are -EV. However, I play low house edge games for entertainment. I enjoy it. Its a hobby. All hobbies cost people money. If I lose, so what, its entertainment expense.

However, sometimes, I enjoy my hobby and get paid.

Ill take that. My choice.

Quote: MrV

You are saying that the general public will benefit from having WoV become a site where people welcome posts about various betting systems which can be employed while playing negative expectation games.

That may be somewhat true, at least if your goal is to learn different methods to play such games, but not if your goal is to win in the long run.

thankyou MrV. btw, i like your pic. kinda handsome 👍.

Quote: MrV

Why would any right-thinking gambler want to learn twenty different methods of placing six and eight at craps, e.g., when the end result will still be that the house has an edge against you?

Might it not make a lot more sense, at least if you want to win, to disregard such games altogether and focus rather on AP opportunities?

did you not read the discussion thread? i spent quite the time explaining all the reasons my friend.

Quote: MrV

One of your problems is that you seem to believe that playing a particular system in a negative expectation game will give you a positive advantage: it can't, and it won't, but you just don't seem to see it.

You blather about how math has changed over the years, as if that actually means something relevant.

This site does not welcome systems players such as yourself who feel compelled to proselytize and shout about their wares from the rooftops.

No, keep it to yourself: we all know better.

ditto to what I wrote above, and you're telling me i don't listen???

Quote: MrV

Therein lies the danger of buying into Wellbush's siren song: it will instill false hope.

yeah, i agree not to instill false hope. has anyone read my signature? did anyone read the discussion III, where I recommended that a separate BETTING SYSTEMS area be set up, WITH a running header stating that WOV doesn't approve of them? does anyone know that Wellbush doesn't think he knows for certain that some gamblers can beat the casinos? does anyone know that Wellbush welcomes being taught about EV? Does anyone know that Wellbush believes MDawg can probably beat the casinos over the long term, it's just that how MDawg does it isn't known, and WOV shouldn't assume it's impossible?

Quote: Wellbush

thankyou MrV. btw, i like your pic. kinda handsome 👍.

Do you really think so?

That was my high school graduation picture; I have aged a bit and changed my hair style but the overall handsomeness remains, or so my psychiatrist tells me.

If you ask nicely I can PM you some "racy" pics ... talk about "+EV" ...

you know i used to love M.A.D. Magazine. I bought it in my teens in the late 1970s. It stopped (sometime in the 1980s, from memory) all of sudden, where i live in Perth, Western Australia. I don't know why? it was such fun!

Quote: OnceDear

I think that was a tactical error Mission. You've left him room to misinterpret and misunderstand. For any tussling about your question, I'll leave that to you.

Not at all. He answered precisely as I both expected and wanted him to. As a result, he created no need for me to tussle with him about anything.

Quote: Mission146

No. Please go find a definition of, "Expected Value."

It would only be +EV if the person were betting on something that had a positive expectation to begin with.

I am going to ask a simple queries based on the above statement.
1. When Appalachian State played U. of Michigan and was a huge underdog, would a wager on Michigan be considered a +EV bet?
2. Is the PL bet at CO a +EV bet in that the player has a 2 to 1 chance of winning that bet.?
3. Can any individual bet be considered +EV if the wager or cluster of wagers gives an advantage to the player on a one time basis?
4. Is the PL wager a -EV after a point is established?
5. Is the free odds bet tied to the PL wager a -EV after the point is established?

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

I am going to ask a simple queries based on the above statement.
1. When Appalachian State played U. of Michigan and was a huge underdog, would a wager on Michigan be considered a +EV bet?
2. Is the PL bet at CO a +EV bet in that the player has a 2 to 1 chance of winning that bet.?
3. Can any individual bet be considered +EV if the wager or cluster of wagers gives an advantage to the player on a one time basis?
4. Is the PL wager a -EV after a point is established?
5. Is the free odds bet tied to the PL wager a -EV after the point is established?

tuttigym

1. In RETROSPECT it was likely a negative EV bet. But neither you nor I could have been sure in advance. There MAY be some with more knowledge that could have pegged Ap St as a positive EV wager

2. No, since the wager does not automatically resolve after the first roll, it is not relevant if you win twice as often on the first roll. The EV of the come out roll is around -1.3% or so.

3. Too poorly worded a question to answer.

4. Yes. But another way to look at it is once a point is established you now have a new EV.

5. No. The free odds bet has an EV of exactly zero. Not positive nor negative.

Quote: tuttigym

I am going to ask a simple queries based on the above statement.
1. When Appalachian State played U. of Michigan and was a huge underdog, would a wager on Michigan be considered a +EV bet?
2. Is the PL bet at CO a +EV bet in that the player has a 2 to 1 chance of winning that bet.?
3. Can any individual bet be considered +EV if the wager or cluster of wagers gives an advantage to the player on a one time basis?
4. Is the PL wager a -EV after a point is established?
5. Is the free odds bet tied to the PL wager a -EV after the point is established?

tuttigym

1.) It depends on who you ask, but sports betting is not the best case for providing clear examples of +EV. A +EV bet is any bet by which the probabilities and payouts (on a win) yield a mathematical advantage relative to the probability of a loss and how much will be lost in that event. In the case of sports betting, a person could believe he/she is making a +EV bet on either side of the line, but unlike most other casino games, it would not be mathematically provable. Long-term results could lead a person to believe one way or another.

2.) No, the house edge of the Pass Line bet factors in the higher probability of winning on the first roll as opposed to losing on the first roll already. That said, if there was a house that would let you, "Pick up," your Pass Line bet when the point is established, then that would be a huge +EV bet.

3.) No. A wager either has an expectation of losing money, an expectation of winning money or has a breakeven expectation. Expected Value relates to both probability of winning and amount to be won, not just probability of winning.

4.) A Pass Line wager is always a -EV wager, certain circumstances aside. None of the circumstances that would make it a +EV wager have anything to do with the game itself as long as the game is being managed appropriately.

5.) The Free Odds bet is EV-neutral. The probabilities and payouts result in a situation that is not favorable to either the player or the house. If odds bets were included for the purposes of calculating comps, then that would technically make the Odds bet (taken by itself) EV positive, to some degree, but likely not enough so to offset the line bet that would have to be made for the opportunity to make an odds bet.*

*There have been exceptions to this.

Quote: SOOPOO

1. In RETROSPECT it was likely a negative EV bet. But neither you nor I could have been sure in advance. There MAY be some with more knowledge that could have pegged Ap St as a positive EV wager

2. No, since the wager does not automatically resolve after the first roll, it is not relevant if you win twice as often on the first roll. The EV of the come out roll is around -1.3% or so.

3. Too poorly worded a question to answer.

4. Yes. But another way to look at it is once a point is established you now have a new EV.

5. No. The free odds bet has an EV of exactly zero. Not positive nor negative.

Mr.SOOPOO: Thanks for the reply. My thought process is one of "simple" logic. Having said that, the term "expected" is not definitive. It should not assume any sort of guarantee. To me, the term presents a greater than average ability for a positive or negative result when one tries to analyze a set of circumstances In this case, wagers. So a bet on Michigan, at the time, would give the bettor a highly positive expectation of winning. That is why they call it gambling.

I agree with your answer on #2. It is not really a one roll bet.

Sorry, I did not make myself clear on # 3. What I intended to demonstrate is a betting pattern that would provide a player edge so that there would be more ways to win than to lose during the course of play. So rather then go into detail, do you believe that one can set up a betting pattern that would provide an "expected" positive outcome? As a simple example, betting on the hard 8 would have negative "expectations" because the odds of winning that bet are long.

I will address #'s 4 & 5 later.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Mr.SOOPOO: Thanks for the reply. My thought process is one of "simple" logic. Having said that, the term "expected" is not definitive. It should not assume any sort of guarantee. To me, the term presents a greater than average ability for a positive or negative result when one tries to analyze a set of circumstances In this case, wagers. So a bet on Michigan, at the time, would give the bettor a highly positive expectation of winning. That is why they call it gambling.

I agree with your answer on #2. It is not really a one roll bet.

Sorry, I did not make myself clear on # 3. What I intended to demonstrate is a betting pattern that would provide a player edge so that there would be more ways to win than to lose during the course of play. So rather then go into detail, do you believe that one can set up a betting pattern that would provide an "expected" positive outcome? As a simple example, betting on the hard 8 would have negative "expectations" because the odds of winning that bet are long.

I will address #'s 4 & 5 later.

tuttigym

The “expected” in expected value is defined with precision. It’s the act of taking the weighted average of all possible outcomes, where the weights are the probability that the outcome occurs. And the “outcome” is the amount won or lost.

Quote: unJon

The “expected” in expected value is defined with precision. It’s the act of taking the weighted average of all possible outcomes, where the weights are the probability that the outcome occurs. And the “outcome” is the amount won or lost.

Mr. unJon: Thank you. Let me try to understand. Is the definition above more about the "amount" one can win on any given wager rather than the ability to win the wager regardless of size? I ask because "precision" erodes as "probabilities" increase. In other words, the more possibilities or variables; the "precision" factor diminishes.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Mr. unJon: Thank you. Let me try to understand. Is the definition above more about the "amount" one can win on any given wager rather than the ability to win the wager regardless of size? I ask because "precision" erodes as "probabilities" increase. In other words, the more possibilities or variables; the "precision" factor diminishes.

tuttigym

The precision doesn’t diminish. You just have more terms to add up in the math equation. Take roulette for example and placing a bet of $5 on the number 15.

There are 38 possible outcomes of the spin. So:

Expected Value = sum of (Probability of each event times win/loss of each event)

For 37 of the events you lose $5. For one event you win $175.

EV = -5*37/38 + 175*1/38 = -$0.263

Quote: unJon

The precision doesn’t diminish. You just have more terms to add up in the math equation. Take roulette for example and placing a bet of $5 on the number 15.

There are 38 possible outcomes of the spin. So:

Expected Value = sum of (Probability of each event times win/loss of each event)

For 37 of the events you lose $5. For one event you win $175.

EV = -5*37/38 + 175*1/38 = -$0.263

The problem for a logical mind like mine is that there is no way to lose 26 cents, and winning that bet is a 36 or higher to one long shot. One could bet that number countless times but never just lose 26 cents. What you are presenting is an abstract principle that bears no resemblance to the realty of actual play. How can someone rely on the concept of EV when it can not actually happen? Isn't it more important for the player to know if he is going to win or lose? The amount is commensurate with bet size, frequency, and placement.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

The problem for a logical mind like mine is that there is no way to lose 26 cents, and winning that bet is a 36 or higher to one long shot. One could bet that number countless times but never just lose 26 cents. What you are presenting is an abstract principle that bears no resemblance to the realty of actual play. How can someone rely on the concept of EV when it can not actually happen? Isn't it more important for the player to know if he is going to win or lose? The amount is commensurate with bet size, frequency, and placement.

tuttigym

It’s what you expect to happen over a large number of trials.

Quote: unJon

It’s what you expect to happen over a large number of trials.

Mr.unJon: You and I are at loggerheads. I think we both know that there is now way to lose just 26 cents on a $5 bet, and you cannot tell me exactly how many "trials" it would take or how large a bankroll I would need to effect those "trials."

Thank you for trying to get me to understand the abstract.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

The problem for a logical mind like mine is that there is no way to lose 26 cents, and winning that bet is a 36 or higher to one long shot. One could bet that number countless times but never just lose 26 cents. What you are presenting is an abstract principle that bears no resemblance to the realty of actual play. How can someone rely on the concept of EV when it can not actually happen? Isn't it more important for the player to know if he is going to win or lose? The amount is commensurate with bet size, frequency, and placement.

tuttigym

Or reverse it. Bet on every roulette number except 15. You win 37/38 times. Though you only win $175 and it cost you $185 to cover all those numbers. 😂

Quote: tuttigym

Mr.unJon: You and I are at loggerheads. I think we both know that there is now way to lose just 26 cents on a $5 bet, and you cannot tell me exactly how many "trials" it would take or how large a bankroll I would need to effect those "trials."

Thank you for trying to get me to understand the abstract.

tuttigym

I think that the House Edge might be too low.

Let me create an inequitable game that we can play. There is a covered bucket with ten balls in it, one is green and nine are red.

If you pick a red your bet is dead.

To show you what I mean, let's say that you bet ten dollars and want a green.

If green is the hue, then I won't pay true. Instead what I will do is pay the original ten and another thirty dollars to you.

That it's negative expectation is something you surely can't miss and the equation for it would look something like this:

(1/10 * 30) - (9/10 * 10) = -$6.00

When I said negative expectation, what I meant is that the house edge is sixty percent.

Betting ten dollars you would be stuck for ten or end up thirty to the good, so while you can't lose six on any of the individual picks, you'd do well to keep this game out of your mix.

The damage to your bankroll would soon be irreparable, but you wouldn't play a game so objectionable; even though the concept of the house edge is inexorable, not all games are quite this inequitable.

The math has spoken and the math decrees that expected value is something that varies only by degrees.

As crazy as it seems, for those out there with system dreams, if you tried this game with 100 bets of ten, not even then, would it necessarily be all she wrote for 100,000 players each starting with a C-Note. I ran a few simulations and about half said there'd still be at least one player who is actually ahead, but we know that sooner or later that $100 would inevitably be dead.

Can I point to the exact bet of $10 that not a single player is ahead from that point forward? Of course not. I don't have to be able to. If we can agree that this game is a bad one because of the negative expected value, then we should be able to agree that any game with a negative expected value is a bad one for the player with the only question being, "How bad?"

Quote: tuttigym

Mr.unJon: You and I are at loggerheads. I think we both know that there is now way to lose just 26 cents on a $5 bet, and you cannot tell me exactly how many "trials" it would take or how large a bankroll I would need to effect those "trials."

Thank you for trying to get me to understand the abstract.

tuttigym

Agree no way to lose 26 cents. It’s an averaging function. And often that case that an average is not any one of the particular alternatives.

Would you say that betting on two columns of roulette is a good bet? Because you will win almost 2/3 of the time and only lose if it’s a 0 or the column you didn’t cover?

Quote: unJon

Or reverse it. Bet on every roulette number except 15. You win 37/38 times. Though you only win $175 and it cost you $185 to cover all those numbers. 😂

Yeah, but you would not lose 26 cents, and that $185 would last 18.5 spins unless the 0/00.

tuttigym

Quote: Mission146

I think that the House Edge might be too low.

Let me create an inequitable game that we can play. There is a covered bucket with ten balls in it, one is green and nine are red

You lost me at the "covered bucket." I am a 2nd grade arithmetic guy. Love the poetry though. You are full of surprises.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Yeah, but you would not lose 26 cents, and that $185 would last 18.5 spins unless the 0/00.

tuttigym

Agree. Losing is inevitable for this situation. But you have a winning bet way more often than not.

Quote: unJon

Agree. Losing is inevitable for this situation. But you have a winning bet way more often than not.

Or about twice as often as not!

😜

Quote: unJon

Agree no way to lose 26 cents. It’s an averaging function. And often that case that an average is not any one of the particular alternatives.

Would you say that betting on two columns of roulette is a good bet? Because you will win almost 2/3 of the time and only lose if it’s a 0 or the column you didn’t cover?

I personally do not believe there are any "good" bets at roulette. The wager structure would be 4 units on the first third; 2 units on the second third, and no units on the last third. So to be consistent in my "approach" to a player "advantage," that combination gives the player 33.3% advantage of winning the bet. Would I play it? No. First the return on the second third barely exceeds the wager of the first third. What that means is that in order to win a modest amount on a $300 buy-in ($150) would take awhile because the margin between the bets is so small, plus it is so boring.

Let me give you one that I have played with modest success:
Craps: $15 Don't Pass Line; The point is 6. $30 DP odds; $15 hard 6. seven ways to win and only 4 ways to lose. 57+% chance of winning. 7 out = $24; hard 6=$90 net $75. Certainly a better return then the roulette example above and lots more exciting. Of course, an easy 6 nails you for $60. Gambling. Mission would have a heart attack. Just kidding!!

tuttigym

Quote: unJon

Agree. Losing is inevitable for this situation. But you have a winning bet way more often than not.

No the player would lose at least $10 on every spin. That is not "winning."

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

You lost me at the "covered bucket." I am a 2nd grade arithmetic guy. Love the poetry though. You are full of surprises.

tuttigym

Thanks for the compliment on the poetry. I'm going to interpret the rest of your post to mean, "Your point is irrefutable and I concede my position."

Quote: Mission146

Thanks for the compliment on the poetry. I'm going to interpret the rest of your post to mean, "Your point is irrefutable and I concede my position."

You are welcome and LOL. We need a new label warning before we enter some of our posts such as above. I intend to use that label whenever possible and applicable. SARCASM ALERT!!!!!!! Perhaps that will give us some slack with the mods who might wish to fire suspensions from the hip.

What do you think?

Quote: tuttigym

What do you think?

I doubt it will help.
I have a feeling that at least some people will attempt to denote their grossly offensive and inappropriate posts as sarcasm in attempt to evade comeuppance, and at least some mods will randomly shoot them from the hip.

You and I are going to have a "tussle" on your answers to my previously asked questions. But first I need to make statements regarding your answers as well as my rebuttals. Based on some of your previous posts statements, I am sure that we will not necessarily agree which is quite OK with me.
1. Some of your answers/responses contain qualifiers or caveats. I understand that those are used to bolster or clarify your answers, and it is just fine to do that.

2. My rebuttals will contain previously submitted "facts" by others including Mr. W.

3. My rebuttals will be based on basic simple logic using those facts.

4, My rebuttals will use 2nd grade arithmetic and "real world" gambling outcomes both positive and negative.

5. Examples used are not an endorsement of any system or method for sale, nor are they touted as foolproof and absolute, and should not be construed as guarantees.

6. I will divide my rebuttals into more than one post so as to not elongate and bore the reader{s}.

Quote: Mission146

1.) It depends on who you ask, but sports betting is not the best case for providing clear examples of +EV. A +EV bet is any bet by which the probabilities and payouts (on a win) yield a mathematical advantage relative to the probability of a loss and how much will be lost in that event. In the case of sports betting, a person could believe he/she is making a +EV bet on either side of the line, but unlike most other casino games, it would not be mathematically provable. Long-term results could lead a person to believe one way or another.

1. I was under the impression that EV relates to all forms of gambling. Your response here did not address the specific question of a specific bet. The answer has many "qualifiers" or caveats. Odds makers offer their "best" and most "informed" analysis to produce the "expected" margins, and the player then makes their evaluations. If they believe the bookie is correct and wager such, one might conclude there is a +EV and bet accordingly. Of course, there are NO guarantees.

Quote: Mission146

2.) No, the house edge of the Pass Line bet factors in the higher probability of winning on the first roll as opposed to losing on the first roll already. That said, if there was a house that would let you, "Pick up," your Pass Line bet when the point is established, then that would be a huge +EV bet.

I agree the PL bet is a -EV big time (my words). The rest of your response is unnecessary simply because of the rules of the game. I understand the clarifier, but no additional information of hypotheticals is required.

More later in an additional post.

tuttigym

(Quotes will be clipped and only some parts of the previous post will be quoted.

Quote: tuttigym

You and I are going to have a "tussle" on your answers to my previously asked questions. But first I need to make statements regarding your answers as well as my rebuttals. Based on some of your previous posts statements, I am sure that we will not necessarily agree which is quite OK with me.
1. Some of your answers/responses contain qualifiers or caveats. I understand that those are used to bolster or clarify your answers, and it is just fine to do that.

The qualifiers are because there are people who will look to poke whatever holes they can in anything I say, or they will look for a previous post of mine that could be seen as contradicting whatever post I have made most recently. I don't have the time or inclination to address nonsensical counterarguments, so any qualifiers that I add are with an eye towards avoiding that pleasure and generally are not being made because of you.

Quote:

2. My rebuttals will contain previously submitted "facts" by others including Mr. W.

3. My rebuttals will be based on basic simple logic using those facts.

4, My rebuttals will use 2nd grade arithmetic and "real world" gambling outcomes both positive and negative.

5. Examples used are not an endorsement of any system or method for sale, nor are they touted as foolproof and absolute, and should not be construed as guarantees.

6. I will divide my rebuttals into more than one post so as to not elongate and bore the reader{s}.

You can almost derive the concept of Expected Value using second grade arithmetic; high-level math is not required. If we play a coin toss game where I get fifty dollars if I win and you get five dollars if you win, then you cannot beat that game with a coin that is anywhere close to 50/50. In general, casino games operate the same way, just with an expected loss per round that is far less than that.

For your purposes, you don't even have to identify what that expected loss is to the penny. It's sufficient simply to know that it exists. If 10,000 people play the $50/$5 coin flipping game with me acting as the casino, then there is no specific point that I can identify at which all 10,000 of them will be behind, but sooner or later, they all would. It's undeniable. Any casino game with a negative EV is simply a less extreme variation of the same concept.

Quote:

1. I was under the impression that EV relates to all forms of gambling. Your response here did not address the specific question of a specific bet. The answer has many "qualifiers" or caveats. Odds makers offer their "best" and most "informed" analysis to produce the "expected" margins, and the player then makes their evaluations. If they believe the bookie is correct and wager such, one might conclude there is a +EV and bet accordingly. Of course, there are NO guarantees.


I agree the PL bet is a -EV big time (my words). The rest of your response is unnecessary simply because of the rules of the game. I understand the clarifier, but no additional information of hypotheticals is required.

More later in an additional post.

tuttigym

Your impression is correct for most casino games. Sports betting is an odd one because the probabilities of a specific result cannot be strictly known in advance of making the bet. One must make assumptions as to the probabilities, and from those assumptions, calculate what the believe that an EV of a particular bet is. Some assumptions are better than others, which is what bookmaking is, at least, as far as coming up with opening betting lines. You want your opening betting line, at least, not to be so flawed as to be ridiculous. If you take any two NFL teams and open the line with a point spread of 100 points, then that is a clearly identifiable bad line because 100 points has never been scored by one team in an NFL game, so you should obviously bet on the side, "Getting," 100 points.

Anyway, that's what makes identifying a precise EV in sports betting all but impossible. There is no absolutely knowable probability, so you just hope that the probability that you are assigning to the results that you think yield a positive expectation is closer to reality than the line would indicate.

For example, I could not say something like, "There is absolutely a 57.6854235890% chance that KC will cover the spread." How could I come up with that and know it to be true?

Quote: Mission146

(Quotes will be clipped and only some parts of the previous post will be quoted.



The qualifiers are because there are people who will look to poke whatever holes they can in anything I say, or they will look for a previous post of mine that could be seen as contradicting whatever post I have made most recently. I don't have the time or inclination to address nonsensical counterarguments, so any qualifiers that I add are with an eye towards avoiding that pleasure and generally are not being made because of you.

I fully understand, accept, and agree with the above. There are many who will pounce on a perceived slight and magnify any comment without merit or conscience.

I truly appreciate your intellect and considerate approach to these questions as well as your communication skills as you write your posts.

Quote: Mission146

You can almost derive the concept of Expected Value using second grade arithmetic; high-level math is not required. If we play a coin toss game where I get fifty dollars if I win and you get five dollars if you win, then you cannot beat that game with a coin that is anywhere close to 50/50. In general, casino games operate the same way, just with an expected loss per round that is far less than that.

For your purposes, you don't even have to identify what that expected loss is to the penny. It's sufficient simply to know that it exists. If 10,000 people play the $50/$5 coin flipping game with me acting as the casino, then there is no specific point that I can identify at which all 10,000 of them will be behind, but sooner or later, they all would. It's undeniable. Any casino game with a negative EV is simply a less extreme variation of the same concept.

I personally do not equate coin tossing analogies in the same vein as craps gaming because like "21," roulette, and baccarat, the outcomes are basically one and done events where there is little if any flexibility in wagering dimensions. I am not trying to "change the rules" of this discussion. It is just that virtually most all the "math" revolving around EV, HA/HE, advantage play seems to center on craps, and that is my focus and "expertise."
So if you feel that I have misled you, I apologize, and that was not my intent.

tuttigym

Quote: Dieter

I doubt it will help.
I have a feeling that at least some people will attempt to denote their grossly offensive and inappropriate posts as sarcasm in attempt to evade comeuppance, and at least some mods will randomly shoot them from the hip.

You know this group far better than me. So I will defer to that knowledge, however, I personally might inject such an "alert" and will try to rely on the mods sense of irony and/or humor adjust their thinking.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

It is just that virtually most all the "math" revolving around EV, HA/HE, advantage play seems to center on craps, and that is my focus and "expertise."

I think it's believable that craps is where your interest lies, so that is the math you've looked at.

There is plenty of EV, HA/HE, and advantage play math with other games.

The math is much easier to wrap one's head around with a single trial per resolution, and that's where I recommend starting. This would include games like Big Six or Roulette, considering one wager at a time.

Probably want to stay away from bingo. The amount of math in bingo is obscene.

tuttigym,

Here is my question for you. Imagine a craps table where it was always full of players. And all the players played craps only with the betting method you favor. With the doey:dont, etc.

Over the course of the year, do you think the casino that operates that craps table would make a profit on that table?

Quote: tuttigym

You know this group far better than me. So I will defer to that knowledge, however, I personally might inject such an "alert" and will try to rely on the mods sense of irony and/or humor adjust their thinking.

tuttigym

I only know one, but I can predict his thoughts surprisingly well.

Quote: Dieter

I think it's believable that craps is where your interest lies, so that is the math you've looked at.

There is plenty of EV, HA/HE, and advantage play math with other games.

The math is much easier to wrap one's head around with a single trial per resolution, and that's where I recommend starting. This would include games like Big Six or Roulette, considering one wager at a time.

Probably want to stay away from bingo. The amount of math in bingo is obscene.

Thank you for the suggestion. I do not believe I have seen the game Big 6, and since I do not play roulette, I might want to defer such discussions, although I can not see any way that I would be attracted to the game simply because there are no "creative" ways to wager, IMO. "21" and baccarat are similar with bets that are simple and straight forward. As a reminder, my "math" approach to any gambling venue is 2nd grade arithmetic not algebraic formulas or equations that do not reflect real world play.

I would like to explore, at some later date, "advantage play" as I do not fully comprehend the term in relation to what might be called "standard gambling practices."

tuttigym

Quote: unJon

tuttigym,

Here is my question for you. Imagine a craps table where it was always full of players. And all the players played craps only with the betting method you favor. With the doey:dont, etc.

Over the course of the year, do you think the casino that operates that craps table would make a profit on that table?

Mr. unJon: That is a great insightful question. The short answer is YES. First, I do not play every hand or roll of the dice the same. It is not a one size fits all scheme or plan. Second, like any and every system the game can turn inside out such consistent play. Therefore, the casino's profits would not be danger.

My approach has also evolved thanks to ChumpC. I will explain at a later date if you are interested.

tuttigym

Quote: Dieter

I only know one, but I can predict his thoughts surprisingly well.

SARCASM ALERT!!
Oh great, a mind reading mod. I need to start hiding my most inner thoughts.

tuttigym

tuttigym: 3. Can any individual bet be considered +EV if the wager or cluster of wagers gives an advantage to the player on a one time basis?

Quote: Mission146

3.) No. A wager either has an expectation of losing money, an expectation of winning money or has a breakeven expectation. Expected Value relates to both probability of winning and amount to be won, not just probability of winning.

To continue the discussion started on Pg 7 of this thread: I partially agree. It is most likely that an "individual" wager will have a -EV in craps simply because the 7 out is more likely to happen than hitting any single bet. However, a "cluster of wagers," i.e., betting pattern, as I call them, can give the player "a one time (one roll) advantage." Real craps world example: the Iron Cross, PB 5,6, & 8 plus the Field gives the player 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose after point establishment. That is a 5 to 1 probability over the house that the player will win on any given roll of the dice before a 7 out, plus the amount of the win will almost always exceed the PL wager. Therefore, it meets the criteria of a +EV with both the "probability of winning" and "amount to be won." While I recognize a 7 out or that 1 in 5 chance of loss wipes all of the bets on the board, there is nothing in the definitions of EV that either guarantees a win or loss nor any specific amount in relation to a wager. The 2nd grade arithmetic is undeniable in this case.

tuttigym: 4. Is the PL wager a -EV after a point is established?

Quote: Mission146

4.) A Pass Line wager is always a -EV wager, certain circumstances aside. None of the circumstances that would make it a +EV wager have anything to do with the game itself as long as the game is being managed appropriately.

I completely agree.

tuttigym: 5. Is the free odds bet tied to the PL wager a -EV after the point is established?

Quote: Mission146

5.) The Free Odds bet is EV-neutral. The probabilities and payouts result in a situation that is not favorable to either the player or the house. If odds bets were included for the purposes of calculating comps, then that would technically make the Odds bet (taken by itself) EV positive, to some degree, but likely not enough so to offset the line bet that would have to be made for the opportunity to make an odds bet.*

*There have been exceptions to this.

You response above has a qualifier or caveat about the calculating of "comps." For the purposes of this discussion, that qualifier has no relevance simply because we are talking about the wager itself.

The reality of the game is that the free odds bet is coupled with the PL bet even though they may be different amounts and pay at different rates. Their "life and death" outcomes, i.e., winning or losing, is identical. We both agree that the PL wager is a -EV, and therefore, logic would conclude, because of the wager circumstance of both bets, the odds bet is also a -EV.

It has been stated often that one can not make a -EV into a +EV. Therefore, logic would also conclude that one can not make a -EV into a 0 EV.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Thank you for the suggestion. I do not believe I have seen the game Big 6, and since I do not play roulette, I might want to defer such discussions, although I can not see any way that I would be attracted to the game simply because there are no "creative" ways to wager, IMO. "21" and baccarat are similar with bets that are simple and straight forward. As a reminder, my "math" approach to any gambling venue is 2nd grade arithmetic not algebraic formulas or equations that do not reflect real world play.

I would like to explore, at some later date, "advantage play" as I do not fully comprehend the term in relation to what might be called "standard gambling practices."

tuttigym

Big 6 and roulette are useful because the trial the resolution is based on is simple and there are varying payout odds.
Baccarat and 21 games are somewhat more complex, being based on a comparison of multiple hands, each consisting of at least 2 cards.
2 dice can land one of 36 ways per roll, which is relatively simple, but the craps game makes resolutions based on combinations of rolls, which somewhat complicates the math.

If you want to use second grade arithmetic (fourth grade would be better), Roulette and Big 6 are the games to analyze.

I'm not suggesting that you never move on to dice or cards, but familiarizing yourself with the simpler math in the wheel games will be a useful foundation.

Quote: tuttigym

tuttigym: 3. Can any individual bet be considered +EV if the wager or cluster of wagers gives an advantage to the player on a one time basis?


To continue the discussion started on Pg 7 of this thread: I partially agree. It is most likely that an "individual" wager will have a -EV in craps simply because the 7 out is more likely to happen than hitting any single bet. However, a "cluster of wagers," i.e., betting pattern, as I call them, can give the player "a one time (one roll) advantage." Real craps world example: the Iron Cross, PB 5,6, & 8 plus the Field gives the player 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose after point establishment. That is a 5 to 1 probability over the house that the player will win on any given roll of the dice before a 7 out, plus the amount of the win will almost always exceed the PL wager. Therefore, it meets the criteria of a +EV with both the "probability of winning" and "amount to be won." While I recognize a 7 out or that 1 in 5 chance of loss wipes all of the bets on the board, there is nothing in the definitions of EV that either guarantees a win or loss nor any specific amount in relation to a wager. The 2nd grade arithmetic is undeniable in this case.

It doesn't. The reason why it doesn't is because all of those different bets you are proposing individually do not pay fairly relative to their probabilities of winning as compared to their probabilities of losing.

The mere fact that the sum of the probabilities of these bets total up to greater than the probability of a seven coming out has nothing to do with an advantage. Having a high probability of winning, itself, does not provide an advantage or you would not be able to bets huge favorites on the money line, cover thirty individual numbers in Roulette or do any other number of things that casinos are just too happy to let you do, if you wish.

I've already previously analyzed the expectation of the Iron Cross, I'm pretty sure. I know I've analyzed it with making a Place 6 and Place 8 bet simultaneously, which is a less extreme version of what you are proposing and with less total money involved on negative expectation bets---all else being equal.

Again, if every single individual bet has a negative expectation, then all of the bets together also have one. If you can look at each individual bet and understand why you would lose money if you made each bet enough times, then you should also be able to understand why making all of them at once is losing.

Quote:

tuttigym: 4. Is the PL wager a -EV after a point is established?

I completely agree.

Cool, I'll take one.

Quote:

tuttigym: 5. Is the free odds bet tied to the PL wager a -EV after the point is established?


You response above has a qualifier or caveat about the calculating of "comps." For the purposes of this discussion, that qualifier has no relevance simply because we are talking about the wager itself.

The reality of the game is that the free odds bet is coupled with the PL bet even though they may be different amounts and pay at different rates. Their "life and death" outcomes, i.e., winning or losing, is identical. We both agree that the PL wager is a -EV, and therefore, logic would conclude, because of the wager circumstance of both bets, the odds bet is also a -EV.

It has been stated often that one can not make a -EV into a +EV. Therefore, logic would also conclude that one can not make a -EV into a 0 EV.

tuttigym

Restricted to just talking about the wager itself, the Odds wager is EV-neutral and has an expectation of zero. The only exception would be if you bet the wrong dollar amount that could result in breakage which would generally not be rounded in your favor.

As far as your notion that both bets are -EV, that's a matter of perspective. Are you looking at them as making one bet or making two bets? I look at it as making two bets, but you are required to make the -EV first bet to potentially have the chance to make the EV-neutral Odds Bet. Because the two bets are inseparable (well, the second is inseparable from the first), the overall proposition is -EV---which I don't think anyone would dispute, whether they look at it as one bet or two.