Phil Ivey Giving Great Odds

[mrdannyg 274]

But, whatever, I'm not spending much more time on this. I don't even bet sports.

Me neither. The books have too big an edge I guess there is only one area I'm still lost in, that dissuades me from accepting the arguments presented.It seems like there 'should' be some people out there who can beat the system. People with the ability to make very large wagers, and predict the outcomes very accurately. So accurately that the books being 'off' by half a point because of the public's bias would be exploitable. And of course I don't just mean someone who is really really good at wagering, but someone with the ability to do all the fancy crap the books do when making the lines.I suppose the betting limits imposed by books does a good job countering this. Is that sufficient, or would you folks also argue that even if someone was aware of the bias worked into certain lines, bettng would still be -EV because the advantage gained by this sage better does not overcome the vig?

[Tactical Bear 3]

Is that sufficient, or would you folks also argue that even if someone was aware of the bias worked into certain lines, bettng would still be -EV because the advantage gained by this sage better does not overcome the vig?

I don't know, but it's a big obstacle. I don't pay 10%, though, and I probably wouldn't be able to play tight enough to beat it if I did.

[Pivvy2001 0]

I don't know, but it's a big obstacle. I don't pay 10%, though, and I probably wouldn't be able to play tight enough to beat it if I did.

Thank you for your contributions in this thread. It appears that my preconceived notions were only part of the stroy and ignored the fact that the books do take sides. I appreciate the information.Back to the original topic of the thread..... I don't think it is simply hindsight being 20/20 to say that this final table is indicative of why the bet was not that good. The reality is that as good as Ivey is (the best in fact), he still has to make plays that will result in him being a 60/40 and 70/30 favorite with the chip stack that he had. Knowing that, I would think you would need odds of far more than 5.5/1 to bet on him. Please note that I said this before as well, but I really think he played it as should have been expected. I didn't love the call with A8, but who knows what he saw at the table and I certainly cannot criticize his read or his play. It is just an indicaction that when short (and make no mistake, he was short versus the table if not versus the blinds -- i.e. the table appears to have been playing bigger than the blinds would warrant, which is consistent with the last couple of days of the event), even the best players will have a tough go of it. Who would have thought that would be such a controversial statement?

[cemo76 0]

Ivey did all he could, if he wins that RACE with a8 vs 33 then he is gonna run over the table. He also loses AK to AQ that would have given him another shot! All in all I still think it was a good bet. DARVIN MOON Is the worst player I have ever seen in my life. THose two early bluffs will go down in history as the worst ever. He is truly a Donk who is getting hit by the DECK! GG Ivey.

[Pivvy2001 0]

Ivey did all he could, if he wins that RACE with a8 vs 33 then he is gonna run over the table. He also loses AK to AQ that would have given him another shot! All in all I still think it was a good bet. DARVIN MOON Is the worst player I have ever seen in my life. THose two early bluffs will go down in history as the worst ever. He is truly a Donk who is getting hit by the DECK! GG Ivey.

You might be missing the point. I agree that Ivey did all that he could and that Moon has been getting smacked by the deck. The point is that with Ivey's stack, he was going to have to play some raises and work some marginal advantages. With the relative stack sizes, it would be hard to say that 5.5/1 was a good value for him. There was too much that had to go right for him.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Thank you for your contributions in this thread. It appears that my preconceived notions were only part of the stroy and ignored the fact that the books do take sides. I appreciate the information.

I didn't see the word "wrong" in there. Just say you were wrong. Specifically. Using that word. Wrong.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I didn't see the word "wrong" in there. Just say you were wrong. Specifically. Using that word. Wrong.

Still waiting.

[Balloon guy 158]

Still waiting.

Have you laid the line on the over/under and the spread you are offering?As well as a plan on how to lay off the action if it swings one way too far?

[Tactical Bear 3]

Have you laid the line on the over/under and the spread you are offering?As well as a plan on how to lay off the action if it swings one way too far?

You are bad with the lingo. Also: I no longer run numbers, as one of my clients stiffed me, and was, unbeknownst to me, a murderer. Which is, you know, no good.

[Balloon guy 158]

You are bad with the lingo.

I know, it didn't flow like a true gambler would make it flow.But I was too lazy to fix it, and I didn't know how because I know almost nothing about this stuff.

Also: I no longer run numbers, as one of my clients stiffed me, and was, unbeknownst to me, a murderer. Which is, you know, no good.

Well it's better than one of your clients killing you, and unbeknownst to you planning on stiffing you also...

[Balloon guy 158]

BTW, what is the correct lingo for the previous joke that fell flat?

[Merby 3]

GG anyone who bet on Phil.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

GG anyone who bet on Phil.

But he was "giving great odds"

[Merby 3]

I bet DN had a (somewhat) sick sweat coming down to the HU battle with Moon.

[vbnautilus 48]

edit: oopsquote gone wrong