[QUOTE=Dreamer;15549793]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp
Could you explain the reduction in variance. I'm not seeing it.
ETA: That post you linked doesn't really illuminate anything either. Its really basic.[/QUOTE]
So why is everyone and their uncle in this thread questioning my suggestion that Wong teasers wont be as profitable going forward when most people agree that certain subsets such as short HDs will be closer to 50% going forward?
If you are looking at the same given situation, variance is a function of edge.
If they had a 100% edge how much va****** would you have?
D.
That isn't strictly what variance means. I'm not math geek, but I did seek clarification on that point. And it appears you're using variance to mean some amount of swongage necessary to reach a certain amount of dollars. Like a Sharpe Ratio or something of that sort. In which case, then I'd agree.
No one is questioning that HDs teased won't be as profitable going forward. If that is what you're trying to prove, you should construct a more sound argument, as the one you've presented is quite dubious (HD covering at 48%) and the examples you use, somewhat asinine (54% SU is superior to a 6 pt teaser garnering 19% more).
Your seems to imply that you think NFL isn't efficient regarding HDs and/or that the teaser "sweet spot" won't fall in greater than a breakeven amount. I could very well be misunderstanding this, but that seems to be the source of a large amount of contention.