Hi,

first time poster but regular browser and thought maybe one of you more experienced sports bettors could help me out.

I took 16/1 on a game of football a few weeks back and today just before the game kicked off I layed my stake back at the sp of 7/1, I cant help but feel regardless of result (draw) this was the wrong move as i'm just giving some value back.

Interested to hear any feedback as want to learn so I know for the future.

Thanks

humble brag you got 100% roi imo

Not enough info. Depends on need of the funds.

hahaha

Sorry, It was only 2% of my bank so losing it wouldn't have been an issue.

In general if you do not need the funds back I feel laying the stack back is the wrong play but like I say I'm new to this or new to taking it seriously

Short answer: Selling back 100% of your position was fine, you gained 2.25% on your bankroll.

Long answer: How much of your position to hold back depends on the likelihood of your pick winning.

It is almost certain that your laying price of 0.125 (1:7) reflected some overround. Below is a table of what you should have held back based on the chance of your pick winning:

As you can see, when your pick exceeds 0.16137 chance, you should actually add to your position at price of 7:1.

I'm going post a FAQ on hedging strategies, which will cover situations such as what you had here.

Thank you for the reply PokerHero77 and I will look out for your FAQ thread. Im sure it will prove helpful going forward

Situations like this I always try to find a +EV wager on the other side. Anytime you make a -EV wager, youre costing yourself money. That doesn't mean you should never hedge, obviously, but just realize that by doing so you are giving up money. But what you give up in -EV you hopefully make up for in EG (expected growth). It can make sense to buy back positions at slightly -EV numbers.

Something that I like to do or at least used to do sort of often is pre plan what I call "half scalps." Say you want to bet 2% of your roll on something that you know is a great bet; either an off market rouge line or chasing steam at a slow book or whatever. Say your 2% bet is 300 dollars but the max bet is 1k. Sure, you could just bet your 300 dollars and lock in a +EV wager. Youd have done fine. But you can do better. It takes a little bit of nerve, especially when youre starting out, but the better move is to bet the max on the good number and buy back the difference on the other side. For example:

The pats are playing the jets. The pats are -6.5 favorites. Your boston area local always juices up the local team and has the pats at -7.5. His max bet is 1k and you want 2% of your roll, or 300 dollars on jets +7.5. Bet 1000 on jets +7.5 instead of 300. Then bet to win 700 on pats -6.5 (or pats money line, or tease the pats, etc. Whichever is the best bet.) So you have 1870 "at risk" (assuming everything is -110) but really only are risking 300 bucks. Bonus points if you find a +EV wager on the pats and extra bonus points if you hit the middle.

So you see, the most +EV thing you could have done is bet the max on jets +7.5 and leave it alone. And after a while thats what you will be doing. But EV isn't everything. You have to consider EG. So you think to yourself ok Ill just bet 300 on the jets. Like I said earlier, that would be fine but it isnt optimal. If the line you like really is that far off, you want to ****ing HAMMER it. Don't worry about the buy back. Plenty of places out there will be happy to take your pats -6.5 bet.

You can now see the importance of having multiple books and being able to bet on credit. This is where the people skill side of all this comes into play. Hustle for new accounts all the time and take advantage of losing weeks. Whenever you have a big losing week and pay up no problem, the agent or the bookie is going to be surprised and happy. So many people out there bet what they can't pay and either stiff and disapear or, more likely, work out some god awful payment plan where they pay the guy 100 bucks a week for like a year straight. By paying right up no problem, he might think youre a whale. That is when you hit him up for a credit increase or a max bet increase or even, if hes real stupid, a percentage back on your losing weeks. I once got a guy to give me 20% back on my losses every week after a 3 week losing stretch. (I eventually beat him so bad and buried him in so much make up that he quit being an agent altogether.)

Locals are ******ED. Like even moreso than youd think. If youre at all comfortable with meeting shady guys in bars and parking lots and exchanging large amounts of cash, you should have as many of these guys as possible in rotation. Then when the agents see you win you turn them dirty and have them start working for you. But this is all another subject.

Great post

Thank you for taking the time to right that answer Like. Really good info

Thanks again

I load up more when my team go's a goal or touchdown behind

Why I have no idea and I have never hedged in my life.

If you’re getting 17 (16/1) about an 8 (7/1) chance then you could have balanced the reward by laying back $212.50 so you profited $112.50 no matter the result. You wouldn’t have been giving up any equity as your EV on that wager was $112.50.

Let’s say you risked $100 at the original 17 (16/1) price point:

(Win Amt * Win Prob) – (Loss Amt * Loss Prob)

($1,600 * .125) – ($100 * .875)

$200 – $87.50 = $112.50

What you wouldn’t do is add to the position. Either let it ride or hedge it by balancing (as we did here) or biasing the reward (I think you did a biased hedge so you had yourself a free bet on the win).

The choice to hedge or not is personal but if you let the math inform you, then typically, as a bettor, you wouldn’t.

I lied. Obviously your laying back at an exchange so you would need to factor in commission. So if we say your at a 5% commission level, then you would lock in ~ $107.

Thank you for the input GameBred, I would've looked at locking in a profit if my original stake was bigger but sadly my bank is very small, really a little hobby atm but want it to be a hobby that earns me a little extra on the side so im always trying to learn. The answers in this thread have been helpful. Thank you

You’re welcome and I used to bet w/ micro stakes for years; no worries on bet sizing; learn the craft then throttle up when you have developed an edge.

Besides the math involved, I think another take-away from this discussion could be from a psychological POV. Hedging is often a Regret Minimization technique; people don’t want to “lose” with a winning hand (at the new price they can lock-in guaranteed profits or get themselves a risk-free bet by laying back 100% of the original stake). They need to redefine “loss,” as, “loss of equity,” which is what you are losing when you hedge. If you’re a pure bettor, it’s good to get into the habit of holding +EV positions because sometimes the best thing to do, is nothing at all.

Thanks again

This is pretty much spot on and the exact reason I felt I had made the wrong move. A lesson learnt I guess

With such incredible betting skills it's amazing you went back to being a part timer.

good one dude

In fact he would add to his position if his win chance exceeded 16.137%. (see above)

Can you please explain to me why he would do that?

Thank you..

The expected growth of his bankroll by adding to his position exceeds that if he hedged.

At some point the odds/chance become too good to pass up.

I appreciate the response and I understand the EG argument. What I don't understand is that if he wanted to increase his exposure, why wouldn't he have just bet more @ 17?

Ideally, he would project fair value, determine his perceived edge, divide the edge by the published odds to normalize the risk and depending upon his risk profile, bet a fraction of that divided amount and basically be done with it.

Because he now has additional information, and his risk profile has changed.

His initial wager is irrelevant at this point, as it cannot be changed. So best to solve for the current situation, which is what I did above.

How Bayesian of you

The information is that the market loves his 17 and the current situation is that he is sitting on a great #.

Let’s drill down on the current situation:

Would you bet something @ 8 that you could have had @ 17? You can argue that if you projected a fair price below 8 then the 8 is still good. OK, fair play to you. He didn’t miss the odds though, he got his $ in really good, no need to decrease his average odds by re-betting it a worse # to add a hundredth percentage point to his EG. For some people, an ounce of growth is not worth a pound of volatility and at these prices, he is going to experience very volatile results.

Take what the market gives you and if they want to give you 17 about a ~8 chance, then don’t start getting greedy because consequences are more important than probabilities. Trying to optimize in this piece can be a dangerous game at times because just around the optimization corner, is disaster. No one in sports investing is trying to optimize on straight bets, if they were, they would bet Full Kelly and the fact that no sane bettor does (to my knowledge) proves the point.

Looking forward to your FAQ, btw.

The point here is to recognize that at some point of increasing win probability (and fixed odds) it becomes advantageous to increase stake in a position. I noted to you, in terms of expected growth, when that point is reached. You may have a different view on utility and prefer even higher win probability before adding to the position.