Tehtoe 3 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Didn't you guys hear? Thread's over, DN responded. Link to post Share on other sites
ncperrotta069 0 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Didn't you guys hear? Thread's over, Dscoot responded.fyp Link to post Share on other sites
kingcon31 0 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I think this is a huge misconception on your part. I don't think any tournament pro would ever fold a hand at any table if they magically "knew" they were gonna be 60% to win it for all their chips. Literally never.If you know you have an edge, you take it every single time. 60/40 is a massive edge.Sorry this is a quote, but I didn't know how to properly quote it. Anyways I'd like to know someone like DN's opinion on this because I'm certain that Phil Hellmuth has plenty of situations that he would fold even if he knew he was a 60% favorite. Actually I think Phil could find situations that he would fold in even if he knew he was more than a 60% favorite. I know I get tired of Hellmuth saying he is the best player in the world because he is not, but he does have this NL Hold'em tournament stuff pretty well figured out.As far as Phil is concerned I believe he talked to Barry on Pokerroad in somewhat proud fashion about never being all in the whole main event tourney. Its really difficult to stay in the main event if you keep counting on being all in as a 60% favorite. Plus, Ivey and many other top pros can accumulate tons of chips with bigger edges all in, and by just chopping their table up, especially at the main event where there are so many weak players. The point is that you should never fold in a cash game if you know your 60% to win. However, I wouldn't put it past me to believe that Ivey would refuse an all in being a 60% favorite in a tourney. Whether or not he would take that situation shortstacked at the final table would be a different story though. Link to post Share on other sites
dscoot 0 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 just 6months ago, the american idol finale had lines of 2-1 for kris allen heads up.its pretty obvious that in a massive nationwide vote, the gay contestant is at a severe disadvantage due to gay-haters that would vote the other way.how did bookmakers miss out on this and give kris 2-1 heads up? cuz they dont know shit about AI or voting, same goes for wsop final tables. they are rooks at this shit, dont think you cant find lines in vegas all the time that are terrible.hello patriots +14 vs the rams SB. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 just 6months ago, the american idol finale had lines of 2-1 for kris allen heads up.its pretty obvious that in a massive nationwide vote, the gay contestant is at a severe disadvantage due to gay-haters that would vote the other way.how did bookmakers miss out on this and give kris 2-1 heads up? cuz they dont know shit about AI or voting, same goes for wsop final tables. they are rooks at this shit, dont think you cant find lines in vegas all the time that are terrible.hello patriots +14 vs the rams SB.Dude.I can't tell if you're leveling us or are actually this unaware of what a betting line means. A Betting line is NOT the same thing as actual odds to win or even the bookmaker's prediction of actual outcome. It is an attempt to predict and react to actual BETTING activity and is HIGHLY dependent on the SUBJECTIVE behavior of those placing bets. Link to post Share on other sites
Pivvy2001 0 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Dude.I can't tell if you're leveling us or are actually this unaware of what a betting line means. A Betting line is NOT the same thing as actual odds to win or even the bookmaker's prediction of actual outcome. It is an attempt to predict and react to actual BETTING activity and is HIGHLY dependent on the SUBJECTIVE behavior of those placing bets.to be fair, bookmakers do attempt to pick an initial line that will be good enough to spread the money evenly (thus ensuring a big payday for the house)that said, the comparison made by dscoot is ridiculous; one event is subjective and based on voting, whereas here the chip stacks, skill, and luck all factor into the end result. The bookmakers are factoring those things in. Perhaps most importantly, they are considering the popularity of Ivey and how that might swing the line. Link to post Share on other sites
Pivvy2001 0 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 He might be unlikely to place a wager at 3.8:1 when a sports book would lay him 5.5:1...I agree. Interestingly though, XXEddie (unsurprisingly, as he is a half-wit), suggested that I should make a bet on hockey at worse odds simply because I had said the Hawks would beat the Canucks (to be specific, I said I thought the Hawks would win without asking for a bet, someone asked me to bet on it, and I said I would at Vegas odds but not straight up, XXEddie cried like a school girl about how that was wrong of me). This is the same. Daniel likely does believe that 3.8/1 is a fair line, but he would be an idiot to bet at that price when he can get better odds elsewhere. He is not an idiot, guys. Talk to dscoot or Eddie though, you might find your action there. Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 to be fair, bookmakers do attempt to pick an initial line that will be good enough to spread the money evenly (thus ensuring a big payday for the house)that said, the comparison made by dscoot is ridiculous; one event is subjective and based on voting, whereas here the chip stacks, skill, and luck all factor into the end result. The bookmakers are factoring those things in. Perhaps most importantly, they are considering the popularity of Ivey and how that might swing the line.All evidence suggest the opposite. Just look at the lines for basketball or football and tell me the books want even action on both sides. Lots of people think this but they are wrong.Bookmakers put lines out everyday that they know the public is going to back at very large percentages. They know how the public is going to bet on every line before they even do it. Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 All evidence suggest the opposite. Just look at the lines for basketball or football and tell me the books want even action on both sides. Lots of people think this but they are wrong.Bookmakers put lines out everyday that they know the public is going to back at very large percentages. They know how the public is going to bet on every line before they even do it.Uh, the ultimate goal of ANY book is to get even action. The books don't want to gamble, they want 10%....every single time.The line attempts to factor in all gamble variables to attract equal action. Any line movements are done in the attempt to reattain harmony and even betting.....to get that sure full juice w/o risk. Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Uh, the ultimate goal of ANY book is to get even action. The books don't want to gamble, they want 10%....every single time.The line attempts to factor in all gamble variables to attract equal action. Any line movements are done in the attempt to reattain harmony and even betting.....to get that sure full juice w/o risk.I'm sorry but you are completely wrong here. The books want to gamble and do gamble everyday with an edge. There are reverse line changes every single day in Basketball and Football. The lines come out and the public hammers one side and the books make it easier to bet that side. For example, in tonights Lakers vs Thunder game the line opend up at Thunder +7.5. Of course, the public hammers LA.... then the books make it easier to bet LA by lowering the line to LA -7. Reverse line changes happen every single day. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but you couldn't be any further from the truth in saying that books want even action on both sides in every game.With all the information the bookmakers have, why would they be risk averse? They know the true line in every game and every sitation. They know how the public is going to react to the lines and any line changes. Link to post Share on other sites
Pivvy2001 0 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm sorry but you are completely wrong here. The books want to gamble and do gamble everyday with an edge. There are reverse line changes every single day in Basketball and Football. The lines come out and the public hammers one side and the books make it easier to bet that side. For example, in tonights Lakers vs Thunder game the line opend up at Thunder +7.5. Of course, the public hammers LA.... then the books make it easier to bet LA by lowering the line to LA -7. Reverse line changes happen every single day. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but you couldn't be any further from the truth in saying that books want even action on both sides in every game.With all the information the bookmakers have, why would they be risk averse? They know the true line in every game and every sitation. They know how the public is going to react to the lines and any line changes.It is amazing that someone could write something that is so incredibly condescending and self-assured, yet at the same time be entirely incorrect. There is no need to argue and to draft eloquent prose on the subject. You are wrong. It is that simple. Anyone on here who knows anything about how sportsbooks works knows that (I would say except you, but you would appear to be excluded based on the "anyone on here who knows anything"). The part about "knowing the true line in every game and every situation" is particularly amusing though. Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The public knows very little about how sportsbooks really operate. Just study the lines and the line movements for one day and you will see that their goal is not always to have equal action. Many times the public pounds a side 80% and the line does not move at all or if it does move, it moves in the opposite direction many times. He says it with much more elegance than I ever could. Read at least the first post.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=125606 Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm sorry but you are completely wrong here. The books want to gamble and do gamble everyday with an edge. There are reverse line changes every single day in Basketball and Football. The lines come out and the public hammers one side and the books make it easier to bet that side. For example, in tonights Lakers vs Thunder game the line opend up at Thunder +7.5. Of course, the public hammers LA.... then the books make it easier to bet LA by lowering the line to LA -7. Reverse line changes happen every single day. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but you couldn't be any further from the truth in saying that books want even action on both sides in every game.With all the information the bookmakers have, why would they be risk averse? They know the true line in every game and every sitation. They know how the public is going to react to the lines and any line changes.Nope. You have no idea what you're talking about. One of the very few "wrong" posts I have ever seen. Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 It's really this simple. If 80% action is on one side and the books don't change the spread, then the books don't want even action. They want you to keep betting the popular side. If they wanted even action, then they would change the spread. The books willingly take massive uneven action on a daily basis... just look at the lines. Read the link I posted above.When the books take uneven action they are gambling on the outcome of the game. Link to post Share on other sites
looshle 6 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 It's really this simple. If 80% action is on one side and the books don't change the spread, then the books don't want even action. They want you to keep betting the popular side. If they wanted even action, then they would change the spread. The books willingly take massive uneven action on a daily basis... just look at the lines. Read the link I posted above.When the books take uneven action they are gambling on the outcome of the game.just bc it seems like 80% is on one side it's never the case. If the line isn't changing it's bc all the big money is betting the other side Link to post Share on other sites
dscoot 0 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 5.5 is terrible odds, no doubt about it. Firstly, a random player in this spot would not be a 19 or 20-1 dog, it would be more. Most oddsmakers and players would agree that someone having, say 80% of chips, has a better than 80% chance of winning, regardless of blind sizes. High blinds would simply exacerbate it.The reason you can be certain it is a terrible bet is that oddsmakers know 80% of the action will be bets on Ivey. Why would they set even a decent line? Normally I don't buy that logic, but in this case the betting will be so heavy and so one-sided that you can be sure the line was set favourably. I'd guess as the date gets closer the odds do get worse, as the 'masses' get increasingly likely to place their bets.we've only seen 5-1 online. anyone know of proof of this price in LV casino's? my guess is casinos would have ivey even lower. Link to post Share on other sites
dscoot 0 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 300 to make 1650.....ONE TIME!!!!im betting ivey but i have to make a smaller bet on shulman too. so if shulman wins i get back my ivey bet. i think thats the best play here. they should be clearly the top two performers/skill players on nov9 Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 just bc it seems like 80% is on one side it's never the case. If the line isn't changing it's bc all the big money is betting the other sideI guess there is no way to be sure that sites like vegasinsider are releasing the correcting betting trends. But sites like these do track the % amount bet on each side. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm pretty confident that Canary is right on this one. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm pretty confident that Canary is right on this one.Nope.Then again...Betfair has Ivey at 6.6:1 now. That's right, they are increasing the payout on the guy likely generating the most action. By comparison, Cada started at around 17:1 and is now at 15:1, and he is the other 'buzz' guy probably taking in money. Interestingly, Saout has about the same number of chips as Ivey and is 22:1. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Nope.Then again...Betfair has Ivey at 6.6:1 now. That's right, they are increasing the payout on the guy likely generating the most action.Wait, what are you trying to say? Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Wait, what are you trying to say?I'm not sure, but I think he is approaching a decent bet at 6.6 Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm sorry but you are completely wrong here. The books want to gamble and do gamble everyday with an edge. There are reverse line changes every single day in Basketball and Football. The lines come out and the public hammers one side and the books make it easier to bet that side. For example, in tonights Lakers vs Thunder game the line opend up at Thunder +7.5. Of course, the public hammers LA.... then the books make it easier to bet LA by lowering the line to LA -7. Reverse line changes happen every single day. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but you couldn't be any further from the truth in saying that books want even action on both sides in every game.With all the information the bookmakers have, why would they be risk averse? They know the true line in every game and every sitation. They know how the public is going to react to the lines and any line changes.If you know, you know. You aren't being rude, you being very poignant with your response.I honestly don't have a foundation for my statement, beyond the notion that the house is the only thing that can win without risk in this proposition. I'm sure if they have a specific sharp line, they will gamble by trying to get one side at a number less than favorable (knowing the public will still take it).I feel that generally speaking though, in your average game, the house would like balanced action and a freeroll to profit. Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The public knows very little about how sportsbooks really operate. Just study the lines and the line movements for one day and you will see that their goal is not always to have equal action. Many times the public pounds a side 80% and the line does not move at all or if it does move, it moves in the opposite direction many times. He says it with much more elegance than I ever could. Read at least the first post.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=125606 This post is a must-read and is exactly right. In fact in my 2009 football season so far, I've probably made a half dozen "no plays" or reverse side plays based exactly on this notion, and the success rate is near perfect. So i had the theory with me, but this defines it very well! Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 2 Members: vbnautilus, JubilantLankyLadHey Guys! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now