General Sports Talk

Quote: unJon

Quote: billryan

Quote: moses

These are 18 to 21 year old kids. The season was 11 games. The game lasted 3 hours max. The Bowl games offered the Champions of Conferences a chance to showcase their skills in front of a national audience.

No ESPN. Maybe 23 pro teams. Things are a changing. Keep up with the times.
link to original post

This post caught my interest, so I went to Alabama football roster to see how many 18-21 year olds were major players for them. I was surprised to see they don't list the players ages, only if they are Seniors or Juniors, ect... So I went to their stars wikipedia pages and again no date of birth or even when they graduated high school. All it says is he is a graduate student. I'm going to guess he is older than 21 and I suspect the majority of starters on these teams are many years out of high school.
link to original post

I’d be surprised. For the stars that would be giving up a bunch of prime income generating years in the NFL.
link to original post

Now they get paid from endorsements. It's all about the final four these days. The Big 10 and Pac 8 would end their season the weekend before Thanksgiving. Then wait until January 1 for the Rose Bowl.

Half the seniors are graduate students. You can now play four years for Notre Dame, then go to Duke for graduate school and play there. Obviously not the stars that broke out early but guys like this years Notre Dame QB, Jack Coan.

You have 4 years eligibility. Once you start you have 5 years to complete.

Most major conference were 8 teams years ago. Thus non conference games were necessary to complete their schedule.. The early season mop up games were like a preseason game..

Soon there will 5 major conferences with no less than 12 teams. Play 11 games within. The conference. Win your division. Play the Big 5 conference championship games Thanksgiving weekend. The winners all advance. The loser enters a pool were they pick 3 teams. Now you have an 8 teams playoff that begins on the Saturday around the 15th. Championship game on New Years Day.

Now every game is a "big" game.

Quote: moses

You have 4 years eligibility. Once you start you have 5 years to complete.
link to original post

Jack Coan graduated high school in 2015.

I don't know. That was the NCAA rule when my kids were recruited.

Jack Coan played 6 games at Wisconsin in 2017. 5 games in 2018. 14 games in. 2019. Didn't play in 2020.

Things have changed.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Tim Prister of Irish Illustrated stated that Notre Dame says Jack Coan has two years of eligibility remaining. This doesn’t correlate what Notre Dame printed in their spring roster, as they had Coan listed with senior eligibility. Still, I trust Prister’s reporting and trust that Notre Dame knows the eligibility of its student athletes.

The math, however, doesn’t add up. As a freshman in 2017 Jack Coan played in 3 games and as a sophomore in 2018 he played in 5 games. According to the new eligibility rules from the NCAA, if an athlete plays in 4 or less games in a season — that season can be used as a redshirt year. Players get five years to play four seasons. The new rule, however, has this distinct language:

One report says he played 3 games in 2017. Another says 6.

2017 Season: Appeared in 6 games at quarterback … went 5-for-5 for 36 yards in limited action … completed first collegiate pass vs. FAU on Sept. 9 … made Badgers debut vs. Utah State on Sept. 1 … went 2-for-2 for 12 yards vs. Indiana on Nov. 4 … completed 2 of 2 passes for 18 yards at Minnesota on Nov. 25

Quote: moses

Tim Prister of Irish Illustrated stated that Notre Dame says Jack Coan has two years of eligibility remaining. This doesn’t correlate what Notre Dame printed in their spring roster, as they had Coan listed with senior eligibility. Still, I trust Prister’s reporting and trust that Notre Dame knows the eligibility of its student athletes.

The math, however, doesn’t add up. As a freshman in 2017 Jack Coan played in 3 games and as a sophomore in 2018 he played in 5 games. According to the new eligibility rules from the NCAA, if an athlete plays in 4 or less games in a season — that season can be used as a redshirt year. Players get five years to play four seasons. The new rule, however, has this distinct language:

One report says he played 3 games in 2017. Another says 6.

2017 Season: Appeared in 6 games at quarterback … went 5-for-5 for 36 yards in limited action … completed first collegiate pass vs. FAU on Sept. 9 … made Badgers debut vs. Utah State on Sept. 1 … went 2-for-2 for 12 yards vs. Indiana on Nov. 4 … completed 2 of 2 passes for 18 yards at Minnesota on Nov. 25
link to original post

If I am not mistaken the 2020-2021 season can be removed because all students were offered an extra year because of COVID.

Medical redshirts can also be granted that would give an extra year of eligibility to players who get hurt in the first few games and are out for the remainder season. I forget which bowl game I was watching, but one of the players was a 7th year senior!

Quote: Joeman

Medical redshirts can also be granted that would give an extra year of eligibility to players who get hurt in the first few games and are out for the remainder season. I forget which bowl game I was watching, but one of the players was a 7th year senior!

link to original post

Everyone was granted an extra year for COVID last year as well regardless of whether they opted out or not.

BYU’s spring game they were talking to a wide receiver who had taken a mission, one or both redshirts, and an extra year for COVID and he made the remark he was hoping to collect social security by the time he’d exhausted his eligibility.

Wasn't there a guy last year who had played college B-ball, went pro and then went back to school to play football, or vice versa?

Quote: billryan

Wasn't there a guy last year who had played college B-ball, went pro and then went back to school to play football, or vice versa?
link to original post

Not the same thing but retired NBA player in his mid 30’s JR Smith is playing college golf now. He went straight from high school to the NBA, but under the old rules pre endorsement era I don’t think he would have been eligible to do so.

I'm trying to find his name but there was a guy who played against ND this year who was on a travel lacrosse team with my nephew, who graduated college four years ago.

Quote: DRich

Quote: moses

Tim Prister of Irish Illustrated stated that Notre Dame says Jack Coan has two years of eligibility remaining. This doesn’t correlate what Notre Dame printed in their spring roster, as they had Coan listed with senior eligibility. Still, I trust Prister’s reporting and trust that Notre Dame knows the eligibility of its student athletes.

The math, however, doesn’t add up. As a freshman in 2017 Jack Coan played in 3 games and as a sophomore in 2018 he played in 5 games. According to the new eligibility rules from the NCAA, if an athlete plays in 4 or less games in a season — that season can be used as a redshirt year. Players get five years to play four seasons. The new rule, however, has this distinct language:

One report says he played 3 games in 2017. Another says 6.

2017 Season: Appeared in 6 games at quarterback … went 5-for-5 for 36 yards in limited action … completed first collegiate pass vs. FAU on Sept. 9 … made Badgers debut vs. Utah State on Sept. 1 … went 2-for-2 for 12 yards vs. Indiana on Nov. 4 … completed 2 of 2 passes for 18 yards at Minnesota on Nov. 25
link to original post

If I am not mistaken the 2020-2021 season can be removed because all students were offered an extra year because of COVID.
link to original post

Interesting point. Alot of reading regarding this subject.

Yes, but the days of thinking college ballplayers are 18-21 are in the past. When I was doing basketball clinics on Long Island, some of the best players were 18-19 before the season started.

Once a player starts they have 5 years to complete 4 years of eligibility. Maybe some wait a year after HS. Covid year 2020-21 allowed players to complete 4 years of eligibility in 6 years. It seems like the NCAA treated covid year as a free year eligibility wise. I didn't read it all.

Larry Bird started a year after HS.

How old is The Average College Football Player?
Most people graduate from high school when they are 17-18. They are likely going to college straight afterwards. Most universities have programs that go on for 4 years. As a result, the average college football player would be around 17-22 years of age.

There are exceptions. The oldest player was 45. The oldest player ever was 61.

_____________


I was really, really surprised to see that Big Ben was quoted as saying "the Steelers don't have a chance" and other negative stuff re their upcoming match with the Chiefs
.
of course, it's true - but I've never before heard a starting QB say anything like that
.
against the Ravens Big Ben led the winning final drive but the rest of the game he was really horrible
he threw some of the ugliest passes I've ever seen


.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2022/01/12/pittsburgh-steelers-ben-roethlisberger-kansas-city-chiefs/9192687002/


.

Quote: lilredrooster

_____________


I was really, really surprised to see that Big Ben was quoted as saying "the Steelers don't have a chance" and other negative stuff re their upcoming match with the Chiefs
.
of course, it's true - but I've never before heard a starting QB say anything like that
.
against the Ravens Big Ben led the winning final drive but the rest of the game he was really horrible
he threw some of the ugliest passes I've ever seen


.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2022/01/12/pittsburgh-steelers-ben-roethlisberger-kansas-city-chiefs/9192687002/


.
link to original post

Just so he covers the spread!

Quote: lilredrooster

_____________


I was really, really surprised to see that Big Ben was quoted as saying "the Steelers don't have a chance" and other negative stuff re their upcoming match with the Chiefs
.
of course, it's true - but I've never before heard a starting QB say anything like that
.
against the Ravens Big Ben led the winning final drive but the rest of the game he was really horrible
he threw some of the ugliest passes I've ever seen


.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2022/01/12/pittsburgh-steelers-ben-roethlisberger-kansas-city-chiefs/9192687002/


.
link to original post

Never in my life would I have believed that without seeing the video. What a disgraceful way to end his career, if they lose. I can't believe the slant of the article is that what he said was, "Refreshing."

It's also not even true. Just because Roethlisberger doesn't have much of a chance of being particularly effective doesn't mean that the team doesn't have a chance in the game. By the lines, the Jaguars were bigger dogs against the Colts and they dominated that game.

It's all a matter of whether or not the defense can answer Kansas City's offense and if Pittsburgh's offense can do just enough. I think the Steelers' path to victory would be to hold Kansas City to 20, or fewer, points. Of the Steelers nine wins, only one came against an opponent who scored more than 20 points (29-27 over the Bears) and then they beat Seattle who scored exactly 20.

I'd say you at least, 'Have a chance," against anyone if you play fundamentally sound offense, which is to say protecting the football and not committing turnovers, have a decent punter and can hold the opposition to under 20 points.

That's the same thing I said about the Steelers at the beginning of the season---they basically aren't going to do jack on offense and will need to lean on the defense to keep them in games while the offense does just enough. That's the story of almost every game they won this year.

The overall stats and defensive rankings might not be great, but the Steelers defense has played some darn good individual games this year. I say shame on Ben Roethlisberger for getting up there and devaluing those men on defense who got the team this far by saying something like that. That just demonstrates why I've never liked him.

Another thing about citing those defensive stats and rankings is that the rankings are as bad as they are mostly because the offense hasn't been very good this year.

For the season, Pittsburgh ranks 23rd in average time of possession in games (OT excluded)...which is right about where their defense ranks on the season. Does that come as a huge shock to anyone?

The offense is averaging 4.8 yards per play, which is abysmal. It's not as if the Steelers time of possession is poor because the offense is always scoring quickly.

The Steelers are actually 9th in offensive plays from scrimmage, which means the offense has the ball a good bit; they just aren't good at doing anything with it and aren't particularly good at holding it for a long time...even though playing conservative and trying to chew clock has been the literal game plan on offense the better part of the time. They are 18th in 3rd Down Conversion percentage, which wouldn't be terrible, if they didn't have to try to convert third downs so often as, with 239, they have had to (tied with Texans) attempt the most third down conversions in the entire league.

When you combine a poor Time of Possession, poor average yards per play, see a ton of third downs and only convert them at an average rate...most of the problems with the Steelers defense, quite simply, stem from the fact that the offense sucks so badly. If the Steelers don't have a chance against the Chiefs, then Ben Roethlisberger need look no further than the mirror. I guess it also doesn't help that they are T-3rd for fewest rushing touchdowns as a team, but it's not like the passing game has been any great savior as it is only enough to bring them to 7th fewest offensive TD's in the league (They are T-16th in receiving TD).

For all the throwing they have to do, you would think they would be better than 18th in total passing yards, but nope. I guess that's what running the same ineffective bubble screen ten times every game gets you. Oh, oh, oh, but he sheds first contact and breaks off a big gainer once every six games!

On the defensive side of the football, the Steelers are T-15th in Yards Per Attempt allowed, which is pretty good when you consider that the offense can't hold the ball long enough to give the defense any real break---even though that's literally what the offense is trying to do.

In terms of opponent passing, the Steelers allow the 9th lowest completion percentage in the league on defense, which is rock solid. The defense is also T-7th for the fewest touchdowns allowed by opposing quarterbacks, which is also extremely solid. For all the time they are forced to spend on the field, and while a few individual plays have looked really bad with coverage breakdowns...the Steelers pass defense has been pretty phenomenal. They are also (barely) in the top half of the league in picks and 11th in the league in opposing QB RATE.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the Steelers defense has the most sacks in the entire league. Even when they're not getting the quarterback to the ground, they are getting consistent pressure on him and making him throw quick...hence the decent pass defense stats in other categories.

Granted, the rushing defense has not been good. An opponent YPC of 5.0 is terrible and is the worst in the league, but it's the only reliable way for most teams to attack that defense. And, again, the Steelers offense is incapable of holding the ball long enough for those men to get a rest.

In short, enjoy your swan song Ben Roethlisberger and, for all of us who aren't Black and Gold diehards, good friggin' riddance.

Without knowing …. It isn’t POSSIBLE that Big Ben was being tongue in cheek!? Knowing what he was saying is actually what any unbiased observer was thinking….

It is a very bad look either way….

Not as bad as the QB sneaks that were the LOWEST point in the history of the NY Giants, but pretty bad! Do you think TJ Watt has given up on the game? No!

Quote: SOOPOO

Without knowing …. It isn’t POSSIBLE that Big Ben was being tongue in cheek!? Knowing what he was saying is actually what any unbiased observer was thinking….

It is a very bad look either way….

Not as bad as the QB sneaks that were the LOWEST point in the history of the NY Giants, but pretty bad! Do you think TJ Watt has given up on the game? No!
link to original post

Who are the unbiased observers thinking that, though? I don't have a pro-Steelers bias, but I think they have a chance in that game and can identify a path to victory---which is the same path to victory as it has been for virtually every game in which they've been competitive this season. If they hold the Chiefs to fewer than twenty points, then they maybe win...if they don't, they almost certainly lose.

TJ Watt will never say it, but if he can find a way to take Mahomes out of the game with a legal hit, then that's what he's going to try to accomplish. He definitely wants to try to put enough of the boom on him to shake him up. Unfortunately for Watt and the Steelers defense, Mahomes is going to have his legs, so the defense is pretty much going to have to sell out and make just getting to him and keeping him contained almost the entire priority.

Was that the lowest point in the history of NYG? It was low, to be sure, but lowest is a very low bar to get under. :Cue the limbo song:

___________


it's interesting the take on it from a columnist for (I think) the # 1 Pittsburgh newspaper

quote from the columnist - " it's his way of motivating his teammates - taking the edge off whatever nervous expectations they are feeling and getting the Chiefs to believe"

that it's true

I'm not buying it - those were some stupid words from a QB who throws a helluva lot of terrible passes

as if that's going to make the Chiefs not be intense at home in playoff game - right - sure it will - in Ben's dreams


.
https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2022/01/12/pittsburgh-steelers-ben-roethlisberger-kansas-city-chiefs-nfl-playoffs-mike-tomlin/stories/202201120133

.

Those guys are mostly Roethlisberger toadies, same with half of the radio guys. Half of the radio guys are actually objective and have been saying that it has been time to move on from Ben for the last three or four seasons.

The Post Gazette is definitely not the place to go for a reasonable take...homers writing for homers.

Given the opportunity, Gerry Dulac would...I'll stop there.

The Steelers beat the Bills in BUFFALO
The Bills beat the Chiefs in KANSAS CITY
So OF COURSE it is possible for the Steelers to beat the Chiefs in KC.
The money line has Pittsburgh winning around 1 in 6. Around 17% of the time. Are you stunned when you step up to the table and roll a 7?

Quote: SOOPOO

The Steelers beat the Bills in BUFFALO
The Bills beat the Chiefs in KANSAS CITY
So OF COURSE it is possible for the Steelers to beat the Chiefs in KC.
The money line has Pittsburgh winning around 1 in 6. Around 17% of the time. Are you stunned when you step up to the table and roll a 7?
link to original post

Every single time. :-)

I believe professional athletes can go back to college and play sports (other than what they went pro in) as long as they still have college eligibility.

Quote: SOOPOO

The money line has Pittsburgh winning around 1 in 6. Around 17% of the time. Are you stunned when you step up to the table and roll a 7?
link to original post

at vegasinsider.com the Chiefs are quoted mostly at - 700 or -750

usually in an extreme line such as that - the Chiefs - in this situation - are a good bet

gamblers, being gamblers, virtually everywhere, greatly prefer large payouts to small payouts
and are willing to give the house an extra edge to get a big payout

in horse racing extreme long shots have about a negative 30% R.O.I. even though the takeout is 15 - 18 % on a win bet

that's why the HA on the Hardway for 6 or 8 that pays 9 to 1 is 9.09% - while the HA on a pass line bet at even money is only 1.41%

to summarize - I believe the Steelers are a longer shot to win than indicated by the money line




vegasinsider.com has the Chiefs as 12.5 point faves

according to the linked spread to moneyline calculator based on that a fair moneyline for the Chiefs would be_____ -1307.3

but that's not what it actually is_________it actually is__________-700 or -750 and it shows DraftKings has them at ________-630

the calculator also indicates that that spread indicates a win rate for the fave of 88.67%

.


.
https://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-calculators/spread-ml-converter/


..

_______________


the talking heads are calling this block on Sunday by Ja Morant one of the greatest ever:
.

.



.

In their 42-17 domination over the Patriots, the Bills were the first team in NFL history to have no punts, no field goals, and no turnovers in the entire game. I believe no fourth down attempts either. Offense just completely dominated.

__________


hate to sound like a tout for sports betting apps but this stuff IMO is worth mentioning


New York is in its' 2nd week of legal sports betting apps and online and they are offering some incredible promos - see link

unfortunately, I believe you have to live in NY to take advantage - I'm pretty sure there are some here that do

look for similar stuff from your state if and when they make sports betting online legal - currently there are only 18 states that allow legal online betting - there are 12 other states where it's legal but not yet legal online

Caesars offer is the most shocking - $300 on registration and up to a $3,000 deposit match - I think it's never been done before

new customers should call to verify details before signing up - I wouldn't trust the link 100%


.
https://www.amny.com/sports/ny-sports-betting-enters-second-week/


.

Quote: lilredrooster

__________


hate to sound like a tout for sports betting apps but this stuff IMO is worth mentioning


New York is in its' 2nd week of legal sports betting apps and online and they are offering some incredible promos - see link

unfortunately, I believe you have to live in NY to take advantage - I'm pretty sure there are some here that do

look for similar stuff from your state if and when they make sports betting online legal - currently there are only 18 states that allow legal online betting - there are 12 other states where it's legal but not yet legal online

Caesars offer is the most shocking - $300 on registration and up to a $3,000 deposit match - I think it's never been done before

new customers should call to verify details before signing up - I wouldn't trust the link 100%


.
https://www.amny.com/sports/ny-sports-betting-enters-second-week/


.
link to original post

Remember, the AP here is to find two places with similar promotions and take both sides.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: lilredrooster

__________


hate to sound like a tout for sports betting apps but this stuff IMO is worth mentioning


New York is in its' 2nd week of legal sports betting apps and online and they are offering some incredible promos - see link

unfortunately, I believe you have to live in NY to take advantage - I'm pretty sure there are some here that do

look for similar stuff from your state if and when they make sports betting online legal - currently there are only 18 states that allow legal online betting - there are 12 other states where it's legal but not yet legal online

Caesars offer is the most shocking - $300 on registration and up to a $3,000 deposit match - I think it's never been done before

new customers should call to verify details before signing up - I wouldn't trust the link 100%


.
https://www.amny.com/sports/ny-sports-betting-enters-second-week/


.
link to original post

Remember, the AP here is to find two places with similar promotions and take both sides.
link to original post

Not necessarily. That just eliminates variance, but does not necessarily give you the most +EV. Some of it depends on the exact terms of the promotion.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: lilredrooster

__________


hate to sound like a tout for sports betting apps but this stuff IMO is worth mentioning


New York is in its' 2nd week of legal sports betting apps and online and they are offering some incredible promos - see link

unfortunately, I believe you have to live in NY to take advantage - I'm pretty sure there are some here that do

look for similar stuff from your state if and when they make sports betting online legal - currently there are only 18 states that allow legal online betting - there are 12 other states where it's legal but not yet legal online

Caesars offer is the most shocking - $300 on registration and up to a $3,000 deposit match - I think it's never been done before

new customers should call to verify details before signing up - I wouldn't trust the link 100%


.
https://www.amny.com/sports/ny-sports-betting-enters-second-week/


.
link to original post

Remember, the AP here is to find two places with similar promotions and take both sides.
link to original post

Not necessarily. That just eliminates variance, but does not necessarily give you the most +EV. Some of it depends on the exact terms of the promotion.
link to original post

Yes, you have to read the fine print. But say you took both sides of the Bills game yesterday and they rebated up to $1,000 which seems common. You lay a dime on each side. In one you have your $990 or so in winnings. On the other you have either a straight rebate of $1,000 in credits.

The thing is that it is usually just for your first bet. So you need to bet big to max it. But again I am coming at it from the finance side and believe in risk management, see my comments on the options play last week.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: lilredrooster

__________


hate to sound like a tout for sports betting apps but this stuff IMO is worth mentioning


New York is in its' 2nd week of legal sports betting apps and online and they are offering some incredible promos - see link

unfortunately, I believe you have to live in NY to take advantage - I'm pretty sure there are some here that do

look for similar stuff from your state if and when they make sports betting online legal - currently there are only 18 states that allow legal online betting - there are 12 other states where it's legal but not yet legal online

Caesars offer is the most shocking - $300 on registration and up to a $3,000 deposit match - I think it's never been done before

new customers should call to verify details before signing up - I wouldn't trust the link 100%


.
https://www.amny.com/sports/ny-sports-betting-enters-second-week/


.
link to original post

Remember, the AP here is to find two places with similar promotions and take both sides.
link to original post

Not necessarily. That just eliminates variance, but does not necessarily give you the most +EV. Some of it depends on the exact terms of the promotion.
link to original post

Yes, you have to read the fine print. But say you took both sides of the Bills game yesterday and they rebated up to $1,000 which seems common. You lay a dime on each side. In one you have your $990 or so in winnings. On the other you have either a straight rebate of $1,000 in credits.

The thing is that it is usually just for your first bet. So you need to bet big to max it. But again I am coming at it from the finance side and believe in risk management, see my comments on the options play last week.
link to original post

First change that to closer to $910 in winnings. I don’t know if they allow it, but if I recall you should bet an underdog on the money line to get maximum +EV. I’m pretty sure the Wiz and Axel, as examples, know how big an underdog is best.

Quote: lilredrooster

__________


hate to sound like a tout for sports betting apps but this stuff IMO is worth mentioning


New York is in its' 2nd week of legal sports betting apps and online and they are offering some incredible promos - see link

unfortunately, I believe you have to live in NY to take advantage - I'm pretty sure there are some here that do

look for similar stuff from your state if and when they make sports betting online legal - currently there are only 18 states that allow legal online betting - there are 12 other states where it's legal but not yet legal online

Caesars offer is the most shocking - $300 on registration and up to a $3,000 deposit match - I think it's never been done before

new customers should call to verify details before signing up - I wouldn't trust the link 100%


.
https://www.amny.com/sports/ny-sports-betting-enters-second-week/


.
link to original post

Exception to Caesars, those promotions are standard fare.

It would be highly unusual if you had to be a resident of NY to take advantage of the promotion, but who knows with their laws; generally speaking, you only have to be physically present in the state in question.

I also don't know which of those casinos won't give you the NY offer if you have done an offer in a different state already. One must read the terms and conditions for that. I know that BetRivers you cannot do the new player offer in both PA and NJ, so I'd assume NY would be the same, but maybe not. You also cannot do both BetRivers and PlaySugarhouse, in terms of new player, but it doesn't look like NY has PlaySugarhouse anyway.

How would I play a couple of those promotions? Glad you asked. I'd play both the DraftKings and Fanduel one. I'd find a half point line that the two sites shared and then bet one team on one of the sites and the opposite team on the other site for the full $1,000 risk-free.

One site you would now have, give or take, $1900 cash and the other you would have $0, but a $1,000, "Risk-Free," bet. At that point, you find another half point line to use the risk-free bet on and then use the site you have cash on to do a partial offset. If you want to be really nitty, then you can get the two possibilities for final profit within a dollar of each other...but I think it's better just to do the closest sensible bet that is a multiple of $50.

The reason why you want it to be on a half point line is because you do not want to push, otherwise, you didn't win anything and do not get a risk-free bet.

If you're worried about the two sites, "Talking to each other," then you can do it with a different person...just make sure they are located in a different part of the state in case they look at IP address and make sure to make the bets a couple hours apart. I do know one person who was refused a promotion because they did the offset betting (same site) in different states, but it was a weird game to pick and they made the bets within seconds of one another.

Anyway, guys inclined to bet sports recreationally will do what they will do, but if you don't really want to bet sports and just want to make several hundred dollars (maybe more) virtually risk-free, there you go.

Quote: SOOPOO

Not necessarily. That just eliminates variance, but does not necessarily give you the most +EV. Some of it depends on the exact terms of the promotion.
link to original post

It may not give the most EV, but when the probability of profit is 100%, what is the amount of EV required (which significantly higher EV opportunities are generally going to be on low probability outcomes) to offset the fact that you can take down a guaranteed profit?

Quote: SOOPOO

First change that to closer to $910 in winnings. I don’t know if they allow it, but if I recall you should bet an underdog on the money line to get maximum +EV. I’m pretty sure the Wiz and Axel, as examples, know how big an underdog is best.
link to original post

Yeah, but why? I know someone is going to rip my head off and throw it at me for spelling it out, but here you go:

Patriots +3.5 (-110) @ Dolphins -3.5 (-110)

Okay, so you throw the $1,000 bet down on both sides, Patriots to cover on one site and Dolphins on the other:

One side wins: (1000 * 100/110) + 1000 = $1909.09

One side loses: $1000 Free Bet

Okay, let's say the next half point line is:

Bengals -4.5 (-110) @ Steelers + 4.5 (-110)

Same thing, both sides again. Okay, so the return from the Free Bet if that is the side to win is $909.09. The goal is to end up with two possible amounts that are close to one another, so let's start with a $1000 Free Bet and a $500 cash bet on the site with $1,909.09 cash:

If Free Bet wins: (1909.09-500) + (1000 * 100/110) = $2,318.18

If Cash Bet wins: (1909.09) + (500 * 100/110) = $2,363.64

Okay, so maybe you're betting too much on the cash side, so you can knock the cash bet down to $475 if you want it tighter:

If Free Bet wins: (1909.09-475) + (1000 * 100/110) = $2343.18

If Cash Bet wins: (1909.09) + (475 * 100/110) = $2,340.91 (if they round the penny up)

See that? Assuming all lines are -110, then you can fix profits within a few dollars of $340 and they are 100% going to happen unless you screw something up mechanically or the sites refuse to give the bonus. The site where you win (the first bet) really can't refuse to pay.

If a person meets the following criteria:

1.) They are well-bankrolled.

AND:

2.) They are an AP regularly.

Then, maybe you can make an argument for going the route of the highest EV.

That said, if someone is just a casual gambler, doesn't have a big bankroll and/or usually wouldn't bet sports and has no plans to do so after completing the promotion, then pragmatically, I think you take the mostly guaranteed money.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: SOOPOO

First change that to closer to $910 in winnings. I don’t know if they allow it, but if I recall you should bet an underdog on the money line to get maximum +EV. I’m pretty sure the Wiz and Axel, as examples, know how big an underdog is best.
link to original post

Yeah, but why? I know someone is going to rip my head off and throw it at me for spelling it out, but here you go:

Patriots +3.5 (-110) @ Dolphins -3.5 (-110)

Okay, so you throw the $1,000 bet down on both sides, Patriots to cover on one site and Dolphins on the other:

One side wins: (1000 * 100/110) + 1000 = $1909.09

One side loses: $1000 Free Bet

Okay, let's say the next half point line is:

Bengals -4.5 (-110) @ Steelers + 4.5 (-110)

Same thing, both sides again. Okay, so the return from the Free Bet if that is the side to win is $909.09. The goal is to end up with two possible amounts that are close to one another, so let's start with a $1000 Free Bet and a $500 cash bet on the site with $1,909.09 cash:

If Free Bet wins: (1909.09-500) + (1000 * 100/110) = $2,318.18

If Cash Bet wins: (1909.09) + (500 * 100/110) = $2,363.64

Okay, so maybe you're betting too much on the cash side, so you can knock the cash bet down to $475 if you want it tighter:

If Free Bet wins: (1909.09-475) + (1000 * 100/110) = $2343.18

If Cash Bet wins: (1909.09) + (475 * 100/110) = $2,340.91 (if they round the penny up)

See that? Assuming all lines are -110, then you can fix profits within a few dollars of $340 and they are 100% going to happen unless you screw something up mechanically or the sites refuse to give the bonus. The site where you win (the first bet) really can't refuse to pay.

If a person meets the following criteria:

1.) They are well-bankrolled.

AND:

2.) They are an AP regularly.

Then, maybe you can make an argument for going the route of the highest EV.

That said, if someone is just a casual gambler, doesn't have a big bankroll and/or usually wouldn't bet sports and has no plans to do so after completing the promotion, then pragmatically, I think you take the mostly guaranteed money.
link to original post

I’m sort of disappointed in you, Mission. EV is EV. I asked a simple question, what bet can I make to get the highest EV? OF COURSE I’d know how to guarantee a win. I actually may do that with one of my sons. I’ve also thought about the 1/2 point issue. I will read the T and C’s very carefully, and if a tie bet eliminates the offer, then NO WAY I bet on an non half point spread!

When either Wiz or Axel chime in (or anyone else who knows the math on maximizing EV) I will weigh my options. Sounds like I’ll be getting a few thousand free $$.

(I’m not really disappointed in you, Mission…. thanks for the analysis and suggestions)

Is be surprised if the T&C let you bet a long shot free bet at one of these sites. It’s typically restricted to close to even money bets.

Quote: unJon

Is be surprised if the T&C let you bet a long shot free bet at one of these sites. It’s typically restricted to close to even money bets.
link to original post

I’m (sort of) hoping you are correct. That way I’ll just go opposite my son and we will split the profits.

I will also be checking T and C’s to see if wife can do it too. Or one per ‘household’.

Quote: SOOPOO

I’m sort of disappointed in you, Mission. EV is EV. I asked a simple question, what bet can I make to get the highest EV? OF COURSE I’d know how to guarantee a win. I actually may do that with one of my sons. I’ve also thought about the 1/2 point issue. I will read the T and C’s very carefully, and if a tie bet eliminates the offer, then NO WAY I bet on an non half point spread!

When either Wiz or Axel chime in (or anyone else who knows the math on maximizing EV) I will weigh my options. Sounds like I’ll be getting a few thousand free $$.

(I’m not really disappointed in you, Mission…. thanks for the analysis and suggestions)
link to original post

I would say that you're in a position where maximizing EV is the best thing for you to do if you don't want the guaranteed profit, and there's not necessarily a reason that you should want the guaranteed profit. As you have mentioned, you're a retired anesthesiologist, so I should imagine that you have more than a comfortable amount of money. That being the case, I would say that it makes sense you should want to go the route of maximum EV.

Many online players will not be similarly situated. I should imagine that there are a great many people in New York (and other states) who could use a few hundred virtually guaranteed, as well as several more who wouldn't want to sustain a loss of $1,000. After all, if you lose the first bet and then the, "Risk-Free," bet, you have lost $1,000. Even if you lose the first bet and win on the, "Risk-Free," bet on a minus line, then you have lost some amount overall.

The highest EV? There are so many different types of bets out there that it would be hard for me to say. I would say that, generally speaking, longer odds, 'Plus,' bets are going to tend to have higher EV. For example, let's say that your typical -110 bet can be considered as 50% to win, and that's what you do with the, "Risk-Free," bet, so that leaves you with this assuming the first bet loses:

(.5 * (1000 * 100/110)) = $454.55 (Assumes roundup to nearest penny)

Okay, so that's going to be your EV on the, "Risk-Free," bet if you lose in the first place. I've only ever seen one online casino where it's truly treated as a $1,000 bet where you get paid original bet amount AND winnings...and I don't think that's the case even there anymore. Almost all, if not all, are winnings only.

With that, if you can bet $1,000 at something like a +1000 line, that implies a 9.09% probability of winning, so you end up with something like this:

(.0909) * (1000 + (1000 * 1000/100)) = 999.9

Okay, so you take that $999.90 and subtract the expected (1000 - 454.55) if you take a loss on a -110 line after that and end up with EV of $454.45 for overall EV on a single promotion played that way.

If we compare that to just playing -110 lines straight up without offsets, there are three possible combinations of events which go:

Win
Lose-Win
Lose Lose

If we assume that everything has a 50% probability implied by the -110 lines, then you have 50%, 25% and 25% for these combinations of events, respectively. In order:

(1000) + (1000 * 100/110) = $954.55 (if rounded up to nearest penny)...so 954.55 * .5 = $477.275

(1000 * 100/110) = $909.09, which represents a net loss of $90.91 with .25 probability so, -$22.73 expected loss.

-1000 * .25 = -$250

477.275 - 22.73 - 250 = $204.545

That's why the offset method actually takes away a small amount of EV compared to the straight method; the offset method involves making more bets than would be made playing it straight up. Playing it straight up, you face the vig of making one bet 50% of the time and of making two bets 50% of the time, in comparison, you ALWAYS make two bets on each side doing offsets...one set of bets being Original + FREE BET and the other set of bets being Original + OFFSET CASH BET.

So, playing both promotions straight up would give EV of roughly $409 played straight up with losing possible. The long odds way that I described would have an overall EV of roughly $909 on two promotions, but your probability of profit would not be very great played that way. And, pursuant to my previous post, and assuming all -110 lines, you can GUARANTEE profits of roughly $340 with no risk of losing whatsoever, other than them not honoring the promotion or the player making a mechanical mistake.

So, best/better EV with low probability of profit, 'Normal,' EV with a pretty good probability of overall profit or less EV but you can't fail to profit. It's whichever you prefer. I don't know what certainty equivalent analysis would suggest of these options, but for me, the guaranteed profits are good enough in all cases that I'll just take them.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: unJon

Is be surprised if the T&C let you bet a long shot free bet at one of these sites. It’s typically restricted to close to even money bets.
link to original post

I’m (sort of) hoping you are correct. That way I’ll just go opposite my son and we will split the profits.

I will also be checking T and C’s to see if wife can do it too. Or one per ‘household’.
link to original post

It is absolutely almost always going to be one per household. If it is not; it will be the first time in my life I have seen an online casino (stateside or offshore) to not have that provision.

Quote: unJon

Is be surprised if the T&C let you bet a long shot free bet at one of these sites. It’s typically restricted to close to even money bets.
link to original post

I'm actually not sure about this exactly because I just take the guaranteed profits every time. I do know that the sites usually have provisions against going with massively minus odds (high probability of winning), I think I have seen no more than -200 or -300.

I would definitely take a look at the Terms and Conditions to see if huge plus odds are restricted on bonuses. At a certain point, I would think they probably are, but I wouldn't know what that point (if any) generally is and have never cared to look.

It's also possible that they won't restrict the initial bet to anything, but will restrict what you can do with the free bet. Again, none of this has ever mattered to me because I just do offsets and take the guaranteed money...but definitely something to look at closely.

Also, you'll definitely want to confirm the +LINE in the longer post previously. I'm sure that the math was correct, but I might have looked at the problem incorrectly. Specifically, (.0909) * (1000 + (1000 * 1000/100) might be better just to be (.0909) * (1000 * 1000/100) = $909 EV and then do all the rest of the stuff because I actually probably shouldn't have included the original $1,000 as part of the EV.

So then $909.90 - (.9091 * 545.45)---I should also have factored in the probability of losing the long shot bet and I didn't in that post; I just treated it like 100% by mistake.

So, $414.03 EV (Rounded to nearest penny), which is EV of roughly $828 on two promotions, assuming I did it right this time...still better than the others. I still like 100% guaranteed profit; can't figure a way not to. It would be one thing if it was something less than a 100% guarantee, then I would start to really contemplate the EV, but it's literally a 100% probability of profit.

The concept called CE or certainty equivalent is where the guaranteed win can be better than taking the less frequent win, higher EV play and basically what I think you are debating. Card counting software specifically measures both the EV and CE of a given game and spread entered. It’s derived from finance but there has to be non zero risk for it to applicable.

Entirely depends on size of bankroll put into the equation if it mathematically makes sense to take the lower volatility guaranteed win. Top of my head, if someone is kelly betting (which in this size of advantage would probably only be a high four figure bankroll), certainty equivalent is roughly 50%-60% of EV for someone betting half Kelly to full Kelly in blackjack card counting. If someone bets double Kelly despite the EV being higher they actually have a negative certainty equivalent, iow they are likely to go bust even though they have an advantage.

Quote: SOOPOO

(snip)I don’t know if they allow it, but if I recall you should bet an underdog on the money line to get maximum +EV. I’m pretty sure the Wiz and Axel, as examples, know how big an underdog is best.
link to original post

I'm pretty sure too and it's the opposite of lilredrooster's assertion link to original post