I wasn't sure where to put this but wanted to get more input because I'm not quite sure I fully understand these situations:
Lets say tonight I have VGK +192 for $200 at NYR, and after the 1st period its 2-1 VGK. NYR is now available in-game at +100. Why should I not put $200 to win $200 on NYR? If I do nothing I am risking $200 to win $384, if I take the NYR bet then I am reducing my overall risk to $0 to win $184. Why is this hedge/freeroll not superior? I have the same 'profit' to make either way, but taking NYR in this scenario means I can reduce my long-term variance, is that correct? I
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I wasn't sure where to put this but wanted to get more input because I'm not quite sure I fully understand these situations:
Lets say tonight I have VGK +192 for $200 at NYR, and after the 1st period its 2-1 VGK. NYR is now available in-game at +100. Why should I not put $200 to win $200 on NYR? If I do nothing I am risking $200 to win $384, if I take the NYR bet then I am reducing my overall risk to $0 to win $184. Why is this hedge/freeroll not superior? I have the same 'profit' to make either way, but taking NYR in this scenario means I can reduce my long-term variance, is that correct? I
Right I understand that, but I meant more is that a good idea to do so when the opportunity arises? What is the math behind either hedging there, or letting my current bet on VGK stand on its own? Surely at some point it is valuable to reduce my bankroll variance at the expense of potential profit/expected value, but what is a general formula behind that, without accounting for personal preferences on risk/reward.
0
Right I understand that, but I meant more is that a good idea to do so when the opportunity arises? What is the math behind either hedging there, or letting my current bet on VGK stand on its own? Surely at some point it is valuable to reduce my bankroll variance at the expense of potential profit/expected value, but what is a general formula behind that, without accounting for personal preferences on risk/reward.
there isn't really a 'formula' for it since, to address your last sentence, it is purely personal preference.
i always reduce risk when presented with the opportunity. but i tend to favor what Dan suggested and take profit regardless of the side, versus just reducing exposure to zero. (no one ever went broke taking a profit every time)
for example, i put in a futures play on the Dodgers to win WS at +200 on 8/23/17. then when the slate opened for the WS on the 24th i got on HOU at +150. $100::$200 & $80::$120. i didn't go full $100 on the HOU play b/c i liked Kershaw in G1, so i thought the houston price might get better. put another $20 on HOU the next morning at +220.
so regardless of who wins tonight, i'm clearing $100 if it's the dodgers or $64 if it's HOU. i could have evened it out more this morning at +155 on HOU on the game to get closer to 80 or 95, but i left it alone versus overthinking it anymore.
to put it another way, if you want to look at ROI, i'm laying $200 for either a 32% or 50% ROI. ask just about anyone who looks at ROI, and they'll take that all day, every day. and that's not even annualized, that's over a ~2 month period from initial wager. i wish i got that in my equity portfolio.
0
there isn't really a 'formula' for it since, to address your last sentence, it is purely personal preference.
i always reduce risk when presented with the opportunity. but i tend to favor what Dan suggested and take profit regardless of the side, versus just reducing exposure to zero. (no one ever went broke taking a profit every time)
for example, i put in a futures play on the Dodgers to win WS at +200 on 8/23/17. then when the slate opened for the WS on the 24th i got on HOU at +150. $100::$200 & $80::$120. i didn't go full $100 on the HOU play b/c i liked Kershaw in G1, so i thought the houston price might get better. put another $20 on HOU the next morning at +220.
so regardless of who wins tonight, i'm clearing $100 if it's the dodgers or $64 if it's HOU. i could have evened it out more this morning at +155 on HOU on the game to get closer to 80 or 95, but i left it alone versus overthinking it anymore.
to put it another way, if you want to look at ROI, i'm laying $200 for either a 32% or 50% ROI. ask just about anyone who looks at ROI, and they'll take that all day, every day. and that's not even annualized, that's over a ~2 month period from initial wager. i wish i got that in my equity portfolio.
This season through Oct 31, there have been 49 games in which the +100 or better team had a lead after 1 period. The record of the dogs in this situation is 34-19. So 19 times you would have made money by hedging instead of losing if you didn't. However, you would have given up a bigger payoff 34 times.
Not sure how this holds up year over year.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
This season through Oct 31, there have been 49 games in which the +100 or better team had a lead after 1 period. The record of the dogs in this situation is 34-19. So 19 times you would have made money by hedging instead of losing if you didn't. However, you would have given up a bigger payoff 34 times.
right Dan, and therein lies the issue. it's not an occurance that is predictable, and isn't something that you can really plan for in advance, short of playing EVERY underdog, and hoping for an in-game hedge. i've only really had much success doing it in playoff series in basketball and baseball where early in the year there's a pretty good chance that the majority of teams that you can reasonable predict will make the playoffs are greater than +200 odds.
0
right Dan, and therein lies the issue. it's not an occurance that is predictable, and isn't something that you can really plan for in advance, short of playing EVERY underdog, and hoping for an in-game hedge. i've only really had much success doing it in playoff series in basketball and baseball where early in the year there's a pretty good chance that the majority of teams that you can reasonable predict will make the playoffs are greater than +200 odds.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
