Phil Ivey Giving Great Odds

[KingJames 11]

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!

GLI think that Ivey has great chance. I read today the bio of the guy who is 2nd in chips...http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/7473-...le-eric-buchmanDude is a high stakes cash game pro, and sitting directly to the left of Begleiter. I do like that Phil is 2 to the left of Moon...

[mrdannyg 274]

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!

I'm rooting for you. But no way is Moon worse than Jamie Gold!Odds on Ivey are up to 6.8! And Buchman down to 5.2. I also nabbed him at 6.

[DinkDonk 1]

Guys, just read the damn thread. It was linked in this one, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

[CrystalBalla 0]

sportsbook.com has moon at +125 to finish top 3, any thoughts on this bet? I doubt hes gonna win but figure with close to 1/3 of the chips in play already, hes got a pretty good shot to nit it up and still get top 3

[El Guapo 8]

You convinced me to spend ten minutes researching the subject:

So you have been adamantly arguing a point, that prior to now, you have spent less than 10 minutes researching?

[dscoot 0]

sportsbook.com has moon at +125 to finish top 3, any thoughts on this bet? I doubt hes gonna win but figure with close to 1/3 of the chips in play already, hes got a pretty good shot to nit it up and still get top 3

you'd think its a great bet, but then again dennis phillips got real lucky to make final3 last year, most people would agree phillips is better than moon

[lurbz 2]

every time Moon comes up in this discussion i think of this

[mrdannyg 274]

Guys, just read the damn thread. It was linked in this one, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

Or you could read my argument above, which shows (arguably) the linked thread's argument to be incomplete to the point of being (arguably) wrong.If you accept the point I argued above, it also shows that the books don't 'take a side' by choice in the sense that they think one outcome is significantly more likely. It also shows contrarian betting is almost completely without merit. Those seem to be the central ideas of the linked thread.

[cemo76 0]

Who is better? Jamie Gold or Darvin Moon??? Good question really but watching Darvin moon play poker, I can't help but get the feeling of a Donk that is getting HIT BY THE DECK like a frieght train? 40 million chip pot and you insta call thinking you can only be beat by an ACE high flush WHEN THE BOARD IS PAIRED? Mind you I think the other guy is a fool for pushing but MOON got so lucky there. I think Gold has better poker skills not by much then MOON.DAmn Ivey is giving 6.8 to 1 now? Should have waited, oh well good luck all. Ps. I think that MOON bet getting to top 3 is ok but he is really bad. Suprised if he makes it that far.....

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Who is better? Jamie Gold or Darvin Moon??? Good question really but watching Darvin moon play poker, I can't help but get the feeling of a Donk that is getting HIT BY THE DECK like a frieght train? 40 million chip pot and you insta call thinking you can only be beat by an ACE high flush WHEN THE BOARD IS PAIRED? Mind you I think the other guy is a fool for pushing but MOON got so lucky there. I think Gold has better poker skills not by much then MOON.DAmn Ivey is giving 6.8 to 1 now? Should have waited, oh well good luck all. Ps. I think that MOON bet getting to top 3 is ok but he is really bad. Suprised if he makes it that far.....

Not saying that he is not a Fish, but Moon made at least two plays that Jamie Gold would NEVER have been able to execute: Slow playing his aces, and folding the Pocket Tens preflop (On the hand where there was also AK, JJ, and 99). Yeah, Moon has been hit with the Deck, but he has maximized the value of his big hands time and again. And while (apparently) he misread the paired board - he read his opponent better. I am advocating the term: "Kopp Out" for busting while pushing with a massive stack late in a tournament with a marginal hand."Oh no Lon, Pot Odds RAC is about to be Whamboozled. If he pushes here and cemo calls, RAC will Kopp Out of this tournament in 11th place"

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Or you could read my argument above, which shows (arguably) the linked thread's argument to be incomplete to the point of being (arguably) wrong.If you accept the point I argued above, it also shows that the books don't 'take a side' by choice in the sense that they think one outcome is significantly more likely. It also shows contrarian betting is almost completely without merit. Those seem to be the central ideas of the linked thread.

Your assumption that changing the line doesn't change the likelihood of the outcome seems, well, a little silly.I'm also not sure I buy the argument that a change in the line would bring in additional money rather than just shifting where the money is going.But that's just my gut feeling; I can't substantiate that.

[mrdannyg 274]

Your assumption that changing the line doesn't change the likelihood of the outcome seems, well, a little silly.I'm also not sure I buy the argument that a change in the line would bring in additional money rather than just shifting where the money is going.But that's just my gut feeling; I can't substantiate that.

Your first point I never made. I said a small change in the line doesn't significantly change the outcome. If you see a line move by more than a point when the betting activity is heavy on the same side, let me know.The second point is a fair contention. I don't think it is a huge change either. It does make sense if it is a situation where a single book makes the change, which could result in significantly more betting while their line is better - then the other books also change theirs to keep up. I don't think I'd fight about this one, but it is my gut feeling that it would increase the betting by enough to make up for the small change in the likelihood of that outcome.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

If you see a line move by more than a point when the betting activity is heavy on the same side, let me know.

Clemson (+4.5) at Miami (Saturday, Oct. 24, 3:30 pm) - Nearly 80 percent of bets have been on Miami as you would expect given their play and resulting popularity. Despite that, the line opened at the key number of seven and has dropped all the way to 4.5. This one is significant both because a key number is involved, and because the size of the move is fairly significant...(edited)...Clemson is worth a look.LinkI looked up this one because I remember hearing about it on a Miami radio station on the Friday before the game and they were trying to figure out what it meant. I said to them, "It means you should bet big on Clemson."

[mrdannyg 274]

Clemson (+4.5) at Miami (Saturday, Oct. 24, 3:30 pm) - Nearly 80 percent of bets have been on Miami as you would expect given their play and resulting popularity. Despite that, the line opened at the key number of seven and has dropped all the way to 4.5. This one is significant both because a key number is involved, and because the size of the move is fairly significant...(edited)...Clemson is worth a look.LinkI looked up this one because I remember hearing about it on a Miami radio station on the Friday before the game and they were trying to figure out what it meant. I said to them, "It means you should bet big on Clemson."

Well that would certainly 'prove' your point. Then again, there also could've been a change affecting the line - injury news, a change in weather forecast, etc. Weather forecast is a longshot to change it by that much, but you know where i'm getting.If I'm nitpicking (I am) the quote says that 80% of bets...doesn't indicate amounts.

[DinkDonk 1]

Or you could read my argument above, which shows (arguably) the linked thread's argument to be incomplete to the point of being (arguably) wrong.If you accept the point I argued above, it also shows that the books don't 'take a side' by choice in the sense that they think one outcome is significantly more likely. It also shows contrarian betting is almost completely without merit. Those seem to be the central ideas of the linked thread.

Heh. I'll bite.Ooooor you could read the thread, read your theory, and realize that neither is exclusive of the other. In fact, I don't even see how you're saying that they are. The reason that the books can knowingly take a +EV bet in the example that you're talking about is by having a very accurate idea of both what the line is and what the public betting distribution will be. Meaning that if the public are hammering one side and it's not +EV for the bookies to move the line, then it is +EV for us to bet the other side. This is a very simple zero sum game and it's fairly easy to analyze.If the betting is unbalanced and the line doesn't move in an unexploitable manner, the game is beatable and the only way to do that is to bet with the books.If a book's only goal is to balance action, it's very close to unbeatable. You just aren't a better handicapper than the line-setters no matter how awesome your NFL Sunday Ticket is.Edit- But really, just read the thread and argue it there. A lot of it has been said before.

[mrdannyg 274]

The reason that the books can knowingly take a +EV bet in the example that you're talking about is by having a very accurate idea of both what the line is and what the public betting distribution will be. Meaning that if the public are hammering one side and it's not +EV for the bookies to move the line, then it is +EV for us to bet the other side. This is a very simple zero sum game and it's fairly easy to analyze.

This example implies the line has been set 'correctly' as per the book's expectation of the outcome. Since they made a line, knowing the distribution would be heavily weighted (and accepting the principle that, all things equal, they'd prefer even betting) than we have to assume the line is an accurate representation of the outcome. Since we agree that we cannot outhandicap the book, this means either side is a 50/50 likelihood. It just so happens the public is betting 90% on one side. By betting the other side, we are taking an unpopular position, but one that has no higher EV for us. I agree the zero-sum game seems simple to analyze, and not sure how you're coming up with an alternate conclusion. It may not be +EV for the bookies to move the line in a situation with uneven betting because they're effectively repeating this situation an indefinite number of times. They have no reason to alter the 'correct' line to change betting distribution, unless doing so increases the total amount wagered.You also suggest that the books trying to balance the betting is unexploitable. This seems incorrect to me. To exploit that, we don't need to outhandicap the books, we just need to be able to predict public sentiment. If we know the books are trying to balance distribution, then we can guess that the line on a popular team will be over/under-weighted and bet against the popular teams. I thought most of us agreed this situation doesn't happen, simply because it would be exploitable.

[Canary3 1]

The books don't always release the true line. The following is from the thread that I guess you are refusing to read. "So: the book puts itself in jeopardy, and allows the public to load up on a team. They know how the public is going to react going in, yet they still do it. Why? What conclusion can we draw from this? The books are rational, they're not profit maximizers (as they are slightly risk-averse in certain cases), but they're close. WHY is Team A a 3.5 point favorite?Because Team A is actually an even bigger favorite. The only way Vegas allows the public to load up on one side is if THAT SIDE HAS NEGATIVE VALUE. The ONLY situations in which the books put up what LOOKS like a bad number is because THEY WANT EVERYONE TO THINK it is a bad number, and wager accordingly. The books don't do bad numbers. They don't give value on public sides."

[Tactical Bear 3]

If a book's only goal is to balance action, it's very close to unbeatable. You just aren't a better handicapper than the line-setters no matter how awesome your NFL Sunday Ticket is.

Actually... that's probably not the case. Example (using made up nonsense hypotheticals):2009 North Carolina is playing Purdue on a neutral court. Let's say the real line is UNC-9. Now, the books want balanced action here, or close to it. They know the handle will be $1MM, with the action weighted 70/30 in favor of UNC. Hmmm. Okay. Well, let's just open the line at 11.5. New action: 475,000 UNC 440,000 PurdueThe action is split. But in order to achieve split action, the books had to shade the line. They ended up giving value on the less popular side. This is why contrarianism is much harder in practice than it is in theory. There would be value here, in this instance, but it might be very hard to see. We'd need more information. Finally, that proof you guys were looking for. This is a scholarly article from Steven Levitt entitled "Why are gambling markets organised so differently from financial markets?"UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, NUUUUUGHHHH!Here is the introductory paragraph:The market for sports gambling is structured very differently from the typical financial market. In sports betting, bookmakers announce a price, after which adjustments are small and infrequent. Bookmakers do not play the traditional role of market makers matching buyers and sellers but, rather, take large positions with respect to the outcome of game. Using a unique data set, I demonstrate that this peculiar price-setting mechanism allows bookmakers to achieve substantially higher profits. Bookmakers are more skilled at predicting the outcomes of games than bettors and systematically exploit bettor biases by choosing prices that deviate from the market clearing price.Say you're wrong. Just say you're wrong. Say you're wrong.

[Tactical Bear 3]

They have no reason to alter the 'correct' line to change betting distribution, unless doing so increases the total amount wagered.

This is the sticking point, here. Books aren't clearing the market, because there are routinely-exploitable public biases for favorites and overs. They care about this equation:$Wagered[side1] x (1 - cover%) + $Wagered[side2] x (1-civer%) - $Wagered[side1] x (cover%) x 10/11 - $Wagered[side2] x (cover%) x 10/100Let's say there's 1100 wagered on both sides, and it's a truly fair line.(1100)(.5) + (1100)(.5) - (1100)(.5)(11/10) - (1100)(.5)(10/11) = 550 + 550 - 500 - 500 = +100The books have split action, and their EV is the vigorish, or +100 bucks. Now what if side 1 was going to get 75% of the action?1650 (.5) + 550 (.5) - 1500(.5) - 500(.5) = +100 Now, if the line is the same, they still have the same equity, obviously, but their variance has increased. They'd prefer if side 2 cover. What if they just made a smaaaaall change, moved the line by 1/2 of a point? 1650 (.55) + (550)(.45) - 1500 (.45) - 500 (.55) = +210A very, very short line move has changed the house's equity by a huge amount. Well, what if that half-point change meant they only got about 60% of the total action?They STILL MAKE MORE MONEY! Their EV is +123 instead of +100. This is why the books are exploitative.

[Tactical Bear 3]

More from Levitt:Bettors exhibit a systematic bias toward favourites and, to a lesser extent, towards visiting teams. Consequently, the bookmakers are able to set odds such that favourites and home teams win less than 50% of the time, yet attract more than half of the betting action. By choosing theseprices, it appears bookmakers increase their gross profit margins by 20–30% over a price-setting policy that attempts to balance the amount of money on either side of the wager. On the dimension of favourites versus underdogs, bookmakers appear to have distorted prices as much as possible without allowing a simple strategy of always betting on underdogs to become profitable. (Levitt, Steven D., "Why Are Gambling Markets Organised So Differently From Financial Markets?" p.226, The Economic Journal, Volume 114 April 2004.)

[Tactical Bear 3]

One final thing:I appreciate that people enjoy my Contrarianism 201 thread. I'm glad it resonated with some of you. It's weird to see my own words quoted as supporting evidence when the issue at bar isn't "Dude, what a homo" or "On Dying Alone: Why Shimmering Wang Will Never Find Love or Happiness."

[mrdannyg 274]

One final thing:I appreciate that people enjoy my Contrarianism 201 thread. I'm glad it resonated with some of you. It's weird to see my own words quoted as supporting evidence when the issue at bar isn't "Dude, what a homo" or "On Dying Alone: Why Shimmering Wang Will Never Find Love or Happiness."

I like you. But to be honest, everything you argued and presented (not including the above formula and article) was presently poorly and argued worse. You presented it as if arguing something loudly, without presenting evidence, should be accepted as truth.Your above post with the formula, combined with Levitt's article seem to prove almost everything I've said to be either wrong, or pointless. Haven't had a chance to read through Levitt's article yet, but I look forward to it. Knowing Levitt, I will be proven wrong in a very precise and exhaustive manner.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I like you. But to be honest, everything you argued and presented (not including the above formula and article) was presently poorly and argued worse. You presented it as if arguing something loudly, without presenting evidence, should be accepted as truth.

The formula is not cited. It's just a simple explanation of a book's equity given a side, and is meant to complement the logic. The logic is simple, and has yet to be refuted in any way. I didn't feel the need to present a scholarly work if my logic had yet to be challenged. People were simply repeating "the books are risk averse." Much of my argument was "you're gay" type ad hominem attacks, but that was only because I had absolutely no respect for the arguments being floated by Pivvy and the like. Plus, such behavior was requested, and I do enjoy my reputation as intellectual bully. I still don't understand why I needed sources for logic, Danny. "Evidence?" What do you mean? Logic is usually self-contained, and it would only weaken the discussion if I started quoting Levitt and co. Go back and read my older posts. There is a lot of meanness in there, but it's sprinkled among good, sound argumentation. Example: Books can only sell their action to the public. Books will very often take unbalanced action. This means (1) they don't want to, but they're too stupid and incompetent to do their job or (2) they want to take unbalanced action. If they want to take unbalanced action, then they're either (1) stupid and incompetent and just giving money away or (2) there is a reason for it.Now, there was yelling and name-calling in there, but that doesn't change the strength of the argument; it just makes it more AWESOME.

[mrdannyg 274]

The formula is not cited. It's just a simple explanation of a book's equity given a side, and is meant to complement the logic. The logic is simple, and has yet to be refuted in any way. I didn't feel the need to present a scholarly work if my logic had yet to be challenged. People were simply repeating "the books are risk averse." Much of my argument was "you're gay" type ad hominem attacks, but that was only because I had absolutely no respect for the arguments being floated by Pivvy and the like. Plus, such behavior was requested, and I do enjoy my reputation as intellectual bully. I still don't understand why I needed sources for logic, Danny. "Evidence?" What do you mean? Logic is usually self-contained, and it would only weaken the discussion if I started quoting Levitt and co. Go back and read my older posts. There is a lot of meanness in there, but it's sprinkled among good, sound argumentation. Example: Books can only sell their action to the public. Books will very often take unbalanced action. This means (1) they don't want to, but they're too stupid and incompetent to do their job or (2) they want to take unbalanced action. If they want to take unbalanced action, then they're either (1) stupid and incompetent and just giving money away or (2) there is a reason for it.Now, there was yelling and name-calling in there, but that doesn't change the strength of the argument; it just makes it more AWESOME.

Admittedly, assuming I end up reading Levitt's article and agreeing, the insults will have added to the awesomeness.I don't think the 'logic' that had been presented, was right. Obviously. It went away from economic theory, and without evidence, I was not ready to accept it. I still have one matter I can't fully reconcile, but I don't have time to post it right now!

[DinkDonk 1]

Or you could read my argument above, which shows (arguably) the linked thread's argument to be incomplete to the point of being (arguably) wrong.If you accept the point I argued above, it also shows that the books don't 'take a side' by choice in the sense that they think one outcome is significantly more likely. It also shows contrarian betting is almost completely without merit. Those seem to be the central ideas of the linked thread.

I really never had much interest in this argument because I read the original thread and processed and understood the logic. My only response in here is mis-worded and jumbled and I really don't care to correct it. I'll assume you read the thread since you're still arguing so adamantly and if that's the case, I do not have any interest in attempting to convince you of the validity of the logic. But I don't accept either your point as being sound or as it excluding the idea of contrarianism and I am still not sure how you do. Are you agreeing that bookies know very accurately what the "true line" is, what the public's betting biases are, exactly what the current betting is, and any other information that the public may or may not have. They know all this and they have sole control over the line. And you think that the only thing they do with that information is move lines a point at a time to increase volume?

This example implies the line has been set 'correctly' as per the book's expectation of the outcome. Since they made a line, knowing the distribution would be heavily weighted (and accepting the principle that, all things equal, they'd prefer even betting) than we have to assume the line is an accurate representation of the outcome. Since we agree that we cannot outhandicap the book, this means either side is a 50/50 likelihood. It just so happens the public is betting 90% on one side. By betting the other side, we are taking an unpopular position, but one that has no higher EV for us. I agree the zero-sum game seems simple to analyze, and not sure how you're coming up with an alternate conclusion. It may not be +EV for the bookies to move the line in a situation with uneven betting because they're effectively repeating this situation an indefinite number of times. They have no reason to alter the 'correct' line to change betting distribution, unless doing so increases the total amount wagered.You also suggest that the books trying to balance the betting is unexploitable. This seems incorrect to me. To exploit that, we don't need to outhandicap the books, we just need to be able to predict public sentiment. If we know the books are trying to balance distribution, then we can guess that the line on a popular team will be over/under-weighted and bet against the popular teams. I thought most of us agreed this situation doesn't happen, simply because it would be exploitable.

Ok a couple things here, why on Earth would the correct line for the bookie be the one that most accurately represented the probably outcome? If they aren't trying to balance action, why not start with a line that would attract more even betting?And they have reason to move a line if it attracts money to a side which is less likely to win. And that couldn't be more clear.On this third part, I misspoke when I said unexploitable and I'm really not sure where I was going anyway, but you bring up an interesting point. If books are trying to balance action, contrarianism still stands as valid by your own logic (this is something that has been discussed in the thread as well). And nobody said that books never try to balance action. If that is the most profitable line they see, they have no problem taking the juice. I'm sure that there just isn't a significant exploitative edge in every game.But, whatever, I'm not spending much more time on this. I don't even bet sports.