Jump to content

Phil Ivey Giving Great Odds


Recommended Posts

You guys are both wrong, but I am going to stand mysteriously in the sidelines while you try to guess what the correct answer is. When I hear something that sounds clever, I am going to sweep in from the periphery and proclaim it to be correct, thereby retroactively taking credit for something which has not been posted yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6.6 to 1 says he is.
You just set that line to make a profit on the popular opinion that TB is in fact bored. We all know that we should be getting closer to 11:1 to take that bet.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Really?
Are you saying they don't take uneven action? Or that they don't willingly do so? Or that they just don't do it often? Or that the reason for doing so is different than what is being implied?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this part was cleverly done. I thought the rest of your post was reminiscent of Canary's. Lots of bold proclamations and assertions with no support whatsoever to back it up. If you are so brilliant and knowledgeable on the subject, stop asking rhetorical questions and explain what a book's M.O. is when making lines. Telling us how much money you wager and how often you make lines, etc. strikes me as nothing more than pissing in the wind. I don't know you. Hence, I have no idea whether you have any credibility or are merely bragging about things that are unverifiable. I can tell you however, that what you are saying flies in the face of what I have heard previously and that you have failed to attach any facts or sources that prove your argument. Again, I am willing to change my viewpoint, but I need a reason to do so. I attach no vanity to my views on this website. If you can prove that me (and others agreeing with me) are wrong, I will appreciate you doing so. Unfortunately, all you have proven thus far is an ability to type inordinately long and overconfident message.As an aside, if you are truly that good at gambling that books are actively avoiding your action, then Kudos. Of that I am jealous.
I really love how things like logic and reason don't count as "facts." What, specifically, do you disagree with? Joey made a post with a few questions I'd love to see answered. Do you not believe that books do, in fact, take unbalanced action? Or do you simply believe it's just random, unpredictable happenstance they could not have planned for?The thing is, I could find you some sources, probably. Interview with bookmakers talking about how they're shading lines one way or another, how they're planning on letting people load up on the Colts because they like Houston at that number, but will that do any good? I will try to find something, but only if you agree to admit you're wrong when I do.Just say you're wrong. Say you're wrong. All I want you to do is to say you're wrong. No padding and nonsense, no sarcasm and embellishment. Just say you're wrong. Say it. Agree to say you're wrong, then when I prove you wrong, say you're wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really love how things like logic and reason don't count as "facts." What, specifically, do you disagree with? Joey made a post with a few questions I'd love to see answered. Do you not believe that books do, in fact, take unbalanced action? Or do you simply believe it's just random, unpredictable happenstance they could not have planned for?The thing is, I could find you some sources, probably. Interview with bookmakers talking about how they're shading lines one way or another, how they're planning on letting people load up on the Colts because they like Houston at that number, but will that do any good? I will try to find something, but only if you agree to admit you're wrong when I do.Just say you're wrong. Say you're wrong. All I want you to do is to say you're wrong. No padding and nonsense, no sarcasm and embellishment. Just say you're wrong. Say it. Agree to say you're wrong, then when I prove you wrong, say you're wrong.
If/when I am wrong, I have no problem admitting that I am wrong. I appreciate the knowledge that I would have gained. I might add, that an anonymous argument on FCP is not the type of thing I would duck admitting error within. So, yes, if you can prove that your theory is right with some kind of facts or statements, etc. I am happy to admit that I was wrong. I don't really see the big deal in that.However, your statement about logic and reason have been contradicted by other people's logic and reason. If your point is based on the theory that casinos would avoid taking sides if they didn't want to and thus, when the action is lopsided it serves as an indication that the casino acted deliberately, I can live with that..... except casinos usually shift the lines to avoid that result (though this process is obviously not perfect). If the notion is that the casinos' experts simply have more information and knowledge, then again I could see why they would want to take action themselves. Except that if a person (or a group of people) really was that good at picking games and had that big an edge why would they work for a casino instead of simply making bets themselves and cleaning up from the casinos. This seems simplistic, but I don't see why it isn't true. Why work in a job that pays a set wage without allowing you to gamble (cause let's be realistic, a linemaker could not ethically place bets), when you could gamble and use all of your extra knowledge to make so much more money. Example like this could continue and you could respond with hypotheticals.Let me be clear: I am not writing with any specific inside knowledge and I have never wagered $500K (or even a fraction of that). I have read several articles regarding how lines are set. If you know better and have this knowledge first-hand or can link to it, I am happy to defer to you. But all you have done so far is post innuendo and hypotheticals. Simply put, I am happy to admit I am wrong if shown to be wrong. Do so and you will have it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this is just right in my wheelhouse
You convinced me to spend ten minutes researching the subject: http://www.thespread.com/sports-betting-to...he-betting.html ("On the other hand, bookmakers deal very much in the real world, as they take bets on the lines they publish. These lines then move as a result of wagering, because the books seek to balance action in an effort to minimize risk and maximize the vig collected. This fundamental difference is one of the main reasons that the lines you see in your newspaper are not the same lines you get when you deal with a sportsbook. It is worth mentioning that time is also a factor. The lines in your paper were probably accurate when they were submitted to the editor, but in the amount of time that passes from pre-production to when you read the paper, injuries, weather and other factors can dramatically shift the spread.")http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-sports-odds-work.htm ("Odds may fluctuate before a contest, as other gamblers make bets. If the majority of people are betting on the underdog, for example, the odds may be changed so that the payoff for bets on the underdog is lowered. Keep in mind, however, that you lock in the odds at the moment that you place the bet irrespective of subsequent changes in the odds. The casino or sportsbook make money by charging commissions or keeping a portion of the winnings. They make money regardless of the outcome of the competition. The sportsbook changes the odds over time to ensure that they maintain an equal amount of money on both sides of the bet - in so doing they lock in their profit.") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_betting ("An imbalance results in a certain amount of exposure (event risk) to the bookmaker. To avoid this, bookmakers adjust their prices to attempt to balance wagering, so that they get the same amount of money on both sides. This can be viewed as a form of arbitrage.") but also ("However, this simple analysis only applies to single events. Most bookmakers offer wagering on many events at once, and for the most part, no single game will attract an amount of betting which is significant relative to the book's total capitalization. While having an exactly equal amount of money wagered on each contestant would guarantee the book a profit and eliminate the event risk, that won't necessarily maximize the book's profits. The book can make more money by accepting wagers at odds which are "inflated" from the true odds. For example, if the majority of customers are expected to bet on a team regardless of the price, the book set the price as high as possible. This is called "shading" the line. Generally, the public prefers to back the favorite, and unsophisticated bettors often show up during large events such as the Final Four and the Super Bowl. Popular teams often attract bettors who wager because they are fans of the team and are willing to pay higher odds, and the bookmaker will set odds to extract the maximum possible amount. Some bookmakers actually offer different prices to different customers, using past bets as an indicator of who the customer will bet on as a way of additionally increasing their potential profit. This practice is known in the industry as offering "dual lines".")While Wiki is far from a truly reliable source it does lend some credence to your theory of the book "taking action." However, quick searches seem to reflect the conventional wisdom of books wanting to avoid action. I know there was a large SI spread on this several years ago, but I can't find it right now. If anyone can, that would certainly further the discussion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Hellmuth's twitterphil_hellmuth I gave Phil Ivey a poker nickname today: 'Triple threat' cause he's great in cash games, online, and tourneys.Ivey already has a nickname, it's simply "The Best"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying they don't take uneven action? Or that they don't willingly do so? Or that they just don't do it often? Or that the reason for doing so is different than what is being implied?
Bing bing bing. I think I finally figured this out last night. Which probably means my brilliant idea will be immediately disproven by both sides.However I think both sides are partially correct. Or to be more accurate, both sides of this argument are wrong. Our friend Mr Shabaddoo has hovered around the correct answer.There are two underlying contradictory principles, both of which I feel are appropriately supported in logic and anecdotal evidence:- in general, it is in the book's best interest to balance funds. i.e. with no additional information, and with no public bias, they would prefer to take even betting, since it assures them of taking money. The lack of additional information/bias means they have no reason to believe uneven betting improves their expected profits, while it does include risk- sometimes lines don't move when there is heavy betting, or move opposite to how they should. While I haven't seen direct evidence of this, I do believe there is anecdotal support.So how is this possible?The answer is something that should be obvious to poker players, and can be exemplified as follows:As a poker player, would you rather be all-in for $1000 as a 60/40 favourite, or for $5000 as a 55/45 favourite? Now depending on your bankroll the answer may differ, but if we assume either an unlimited bankroll, or the situation can be repeated a high number of times, we would all take the latter.This, I am arguing, is the book's decision in cases of public bias, and they make the same decision as we would in the above situation.Consider the following example:Indianapolis plays St. Louis. The book sets what they consider a 'fair' line, at 20 points. Due to the public's love of favourites, 80% of the betting (actual funds, not number of bets) goes on Indianapolis. According to the first principal, the line should decrease, however I believe anecdotal evidence does not provide strong support for that. In fact, the line may even decrease to 19 points.The book is recognizing that public sentiment is strong for one outcome, and raises the line to encourage additional betting, knowing they are taking a worse position.Seems crazy to think a book would give bettors preferable odds, but in this case it makes sense for them to do so, since the small change in the line is not changing the fact they can expect a profit, given the relatively small chance the change in line affects the outcome of the bet. By taking a worse position, they are increasing their overall expected value. And while it opens them up to 'risk' in that Indy could cover and they lose a lot on that game, that is irrelevant since they have sufficient funds available, and they will effectively run that bet thousands more times. So the additional risk they place on themselves is countered by an increase in expected value.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bing bing bing. I think I finally figured this out last night. Which probably means my brilliant idea will be immediately disproven by both sides.However I think both sides are partially correct. Or to be more accurate, both sides of this argument are wrong. Our friend Mr Shabaddoo has hovered around the correct answer.There are two underlying contradictory principles, both of which I feel are appropriately supported in logic and anecdotal evidence:- in general, it is in the book's best interest to balance funds. i.e. with no additional information, and with no public bias, they would prefer to take even betting, since it assures them of taking money. The lack of additional information/bias means they have no reason to believe uneven betting improves their expected profits, while it does include risk- sometimes lines don't move when there is heavy betting, or move opposite to how they should. While I haven't seen direct evidence of this, I do believe there is anecdotal support.So how is this possible?The answer is something that should be obvious to poker players, and can be exemplified as follows:As a poker player, would you rather be all-in for $1000 as a 60/40 favourite, or for $5000 as a 55/45 favourite? Now depending on your bankroll the answer may differ, but if we assume either an unlimited bankroll, or the situation can be repeated a high number of times, we would all take the latter.This, I am arguing, is the book's decision in cases of public bias, and they make the same decision as we would in the above situation.Consider the following example:Indianapolis plays St. Louis. The book sets what they consider a 'fair' line, at 20 points. Due to the public's love of favourites, 80% of the betting (actual funds, not number of bets) goes on Indianapolis. According to the first principal, the line should decrease, however I believe anecdotal evidence does not provide strong support for that. In fact, the line may even increase to 21 points.The book is recognizing that public sentiment is strong for one outcome, and raises the line to encourage additional betting, knowing they are taking a worse position.Seems crazy to think a book would give bettors preferable odds, but in this case it makes sense for them to do so, since the small change in the line is not changing the fact they can expect a profit, given the relatively small chance the change in line affects the outcome of the bet. By taking a worse position, they are increasing their overall expected value. And while it opens them up to 'risk' in that Indy could cover and they lose a lot on that game, that is irrelevant since they have sufficient funds available, and they will effectively run that bet thousands more times. So the additional risk they place on themselves is countered by an increase in expected value.
I think you said this wrong. If the book wanted to balance action they would give St. Louis more points, so the line would increase, not decrease. According to the people who think the books want even action on every game, the line should to +21 or +21.5 for St Louis. However, like you mentioned, many times it will move in the opposite direction. The books want you to bet Indy so they give you an extra point or so changing the line to maybe Indy -19., making it easier to bet Indy. The first line they release is not the true line in this case.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other explanation for the line moving counter to the interest of evening out betting is if the books simply know more than the public. While I won't argue that is generally true, I think the dissemination of information available to the public is too wide for the books to act on this in any significant fashion. For the thousands of Joe Blows putting $10 on the Packers every week, there's a guy with a dozen computer monitors, setting up Monte Carlo simulations and will stick a 6-figure bet on a game if the books 'cook' the spreads to be significantly different than the true expected outcome.I can see this part being easily contentious, which is why I didn't include it above. I simply think the above is far less likely that books are able to manipulate odds in a way that is blind to speculators and large betters to gain a consistent advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you said this wrong. If the book wanted to balance action they would give St. Louis more points, so the line would increase, not decrease. According to the people who think the books want even action on every game, the line should to +21 or +21.5 for St Louis. However, like you mentioned, many times it will move in the opposite direction. The books want you to bet Indy so they give you an extra point or so changing the line to maybe Indy -19., making it easier to bet Indy. The first line they release is not the true line in this case.
Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for the correction!Edited my post.I think you made the best argument on the side arguing against the books wanting balance - how do you feel about my post?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for the correction!Edited my post.I think you made the best argument on the side arguing against the books wanting balance - how do you feel about my post?
I don't think both sides can be correct because the original argument was whether or not the books main objective was to get even action on both sides in every situation. As TB stated, if the books objective is to attract even action, why dont they attract even action? or why don't they take measures to attract even action? (Changing the spread) Why do they take measures to ensure they get very lopsided action? (Reverse line changes)When the books take lopsided action, they are gambling on the outcome of the game. They will lose money if Indy covers and make money if they don't. It may be my bias showing but your post is agreeing with my side. It shouldn't be all that hard to understand. I like your example of the poker situation. The books take the line that will give them the highest expected value. I concede that often times the approach that gives them the highest expected value is attracting even action. But, books take a stance everyday on teams.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The only other explanation for the line moving counter to the interest of evening out betting is if the books simply know more than the public. While I won't argue that is generally true, I think the dissemination of information available to the public is too wide for the books to act on this in any significant fashion. For the thousands of Joe Blows putting $10 on the Packers every week, there's a guy with a dozen computer monitors, setting up Monte Carlo simulations and will stick a 6-figure bet on a game if the books 'cook' the spreads to be significantly different than the true expected outcome.I can see this part being easily contentious, which is why I didn't include it above. I simply think the above is far less likely that books are able to manipulate odds in a way that is blind to speculators and large betters to gain a consistent advantage.
I think you are underestimating the amount of people who think they know everything about sports and sports betting and the amounts they bet. There are many "professional" sports bettors who truely have no idea about how sportsbooks really operate. They may show profit just because they have been on the right side of variance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are underestimating the amount of people who think they know everything about sports and sports betting. There are many "professional" sports bettors who truely have no idea about how sportsbooks really operate. They may show profit just because they have been on the right side of variance.
Or they have a SYSTEM...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa : Boy, mom sure will be happy you won 50 dollars.Homer : You'd think that wouldn't you? But you see, Lisa, your mother has this crazy idea that gambling is wrong, even though they say it's OK in the bible.Lisa : Really? Where?Homer : Uhh ... somewhere in the back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great back and forth guys but back to the TOPIC at hand. IVEY will crush the final table. After watching the last few episodes of WSOP I am more confident then ever that IVEY will win this thing. All he needs is one double up and he will run the table. MOon is by far the worst player ever to final table with the chip lead. Nothing against the guy but the way he played the JQ hand was TERRIBLE! He didn't even realize that the board was paired? WTF. Ship the $1650 BABY!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...