JR Miller's record

[wintermute]

My final word too.

I think it's a mistake to try and argue mathematical concepts using the English language. It's simply too vague and imprecise. I read an argument from someone once who very articulately and persuasively "proved" that 2 + 2 could not possibly equal 4.

I tend to trust mathematics more than semantics. Sports wagering is mathematically identical to any other game of chance where the house has a built-in advantage. Mathematical expectation a la probability theory says that in these games you expect on average to get back less than a dollar for each dollar wagered. ALL players pay the price for participating in these games.

[greg]

Jr. takes the unconventional route by explaining how winners pay vig! Why? simply because it looks more interesting and gets more hits on a website. Wagering to win an amount ie 110 to win 100 means if you win your $10. vig is returned , your $100 principle is returned and your profit $100 is paid. You see the book does not know which wagers will win, however the book makes sure that all wagerers pay their vig in ADVANCE therefore guaranteing the book a profit if action is equally split No vig no guaranteed profit To much winning action= not enough vig = losses. Vig is present to allow the book to make a profit No losers =no vig= no profit. Therefore winners dont pay vig, Everyone riskspaying vig Winners get the vig REFUNDED. PS JR and Irish run a search at IG.com check out my documented winning % vs line then chowdown on your BS. about people who believe losers pay vig are the ones paying the bookie.

[This message has been edited by greg (edited 07-17-2000).]

[J. R. Miller]

The importance of understanding how gambling actually "works" is self-evident if one hopes to ever be successful at it.

The importance of understanding how the house withdraws its commission arises when the bettor is faced with exotic propositions. For example, take a look at NFL futures being offered for the respective teams to win the Super Bowl. Professional gamblers (and bookmakers) must be able to look at those numbers and figure out how much vigorish is being charged. Same with assorted parlay payoffs, teasers, etc.

As for the fellow going by the name "Zippy" claiming that "most" gamblers regard their betting units as the amount they hope to win, he is correct, but only because "most" gamblers are non-professionals - and losers. You might also say that "most" gamblers use some form of progressive betting scheme, too, but that doesn't make it correct. I have never met a professional-level sports bettor who used some kind of "trick" betting scheme, such as the "1-star, 2-star, 3-star" system or the so-called "Kelly" criterion. Genuine professionals know you cannot use the size of your bets as some sort of pry-bar to make more money than you deserve.

[greg]

ps. wintermute sports wagering is not like any other casino game, only very advanced 21, and very skilled sports wagering can the house get beat long term by an individual. Several people do quite well at it. Other casino games are designed to preclude skill factor to the extent that long term profitability is notpossible, in fact sports wagering often places the book in the position of providing a brokering type of service to the wagering public whereby the sports book can collect a fee ie.vigorish for providing services. Ofcourse the book does gamble or take risks when a portion of the action is unbalanced.

[rfd]

The real question is "Who pays the angels that were dancing on the top of a pin" in Wintermute's earlier post. And are these REAL angels or or just the clone variety?

rfd

[reno]

J.R., it is obvious that you are very intelligent and logical. Consequently, I would appreciate hearing the reasoning behind your rejection of the Kelly Criterion money-management system. Year ago, I used to read Huey Mahl, who loved to expound upon the virtues of the Kelly system. I've never had any reason to doubt what Huey wrote, but I'm definitely open to considering alternative money-management systems.

Let me also state that I appreciate your presence in this forum. Anyone who possesses professional writing skills and clearly thought-out ideas is a welcome addition to Bettorsworld.

Also, I have a confession to make: I'd now rather have you in Bettorsworld than Pamela Anderson. But, please, don't tell Pam.

[AussieVamp2]

Originally posted by zippy:
equally accurate. The second tends to be a lot more common—-most bettors keep the potential win amount constant at $100 and put up the extra vig in the form of risking $120 instead of $110—-

Note that this is perhaps most American gamblers, which is still a minority of gamblers.


[This message has been edited by AussieVamp2 (edited 07-17-2000).]

[AussieVamp2]

'mute,

Agreed that J.R.'s NFL book is well worth a read, and reasonably priced as well.

I would also hope he sticks around.

[AussieVamp2]

J.R. a piece of advice though - I'm not a professional punter, but an internet professional - and the background/colors on your website - very, very bad.

American gambling types seem to think 'black' not sure why. No graphic designers I know do though

[AussieVamp2]

Sorry to hear about your brother, too, J.R., a very nice bloke I had corresponded with a few times

[SLAM DUNK]

JR. What do you not understand about
the fact that all games are not the same?
You insist that nobody you know uses a multi level betting system. Well either you have a circle of "professional gamblers" that is seriously lacking in capping skills or betting skills or both. Forget about your circle of geniouses. Lets take a hypothetical. You are a handicapper, that can distinguish about 100 games a year that can hit well over 60%. You also can distinguish 400 games that will hit in the 55% range. Please tell me the logic of betting all games for the same 2% of your bankroll. Guess what, there is no logic. Let me do the math, since you find it too laborious.

We will call the 60+% plays 2 unit plays(though I would argue for some 3 unit plays that would hit even higher than 60%, but we will assume they only hit 60% at 2 units each and the 55% plays will be 1 unit plays.

The Jr Miller way.

60-40 +16 units
220-180 +22 units

Net profit 38 units

The Slam Dunk Way

60-40 +32 units
220-180 +22 units

Net profit 54 units.

Now this doesn't even take into account bankroll growth which would skew the results even more my direction. Now let's go back to first grade. What is better +54 units or +32 units. There is no legitimate reason that if a player can identify stronger plays he should not bet more. To insist that your way is the only way, is A HUGE DISSERVICE to quality cappers. Guys that struggle to make a profit anyhow, might do better with your approach because they haven't reached the proper skill level to recognize a high percentage game. But you insist that everyone do it your way.

You still haven't answered my question, of why it makes a difference whether you use the
loser pays vig, or winner pays vig interpretation, why because there is no difference. But go ahead give me another link to your website, so I can learn why I do not want to hit 100 % winners because then I subject myself to 9% juice. As AV would say,
"OH THE HORROR".

Who do you think your fooling or do you actually believe this nonsense.

[SLAM DUNK]

By the way JR, about the point you made on futures. I agree to a point, but the math is very simple. Identify all possible contenders, and get the mathmatical probability based on their odds. So if you feel that only 6 teams have a chance to win the title and they are

2-1 =.33% (1/(odds +1)
3-1 =.25
3-1 =.25
8-1 =.11
12-1 =.08
16-1 =.06
other=.02

I am weeding out the non-contenders and assuming they have a 2% chance of winning(denoted as other).

The juice you would be subjected to in this case is roughly 110 to win 100(adding up the percentages they come to 1.10) , or the same 4.45% vig we are accustomed to. But this is only the starting point. You have to take each team on a case by case basis and determine whether their is significant value on the team. So once again, what does your GREAT THEORY add to any of this?


[This message has been edited by SLAM DUNK (edited 07-18-2000).]

[SLAM DUNK]

Okay a last point JR. If a game has a 60% chance of covering the true odds should really be -150. But I am only laying -110. So
in actuality, as Gregg alluded to above,
the house get no vig, I GET THE VIG. How does that fit into your theory?

[gooden]

If only the "Slam Dunk Way" was really that simple!

[J. R. Miller]

Anyone interested can prove to himself the Kelly criterion doesn't work. I have laid out a simple method of testing the system for yourself. It's on our website at http://professionalgambler.com/debunking.html

It'll take about a half hour once you've gathered the necessary equipment. You'll need 2 decks of cards, a hand calculator, a pen and paper - and a Thank You note for me when you realize how much money I've saved you.

But y'know what? Experience has taught me that less than 1 in 20 guys will bother to spend the half hour proving themselves wrong. They'd rather "believe."

That's okay. We need guys like Slam Dunk, who don't notice the difference between having a 60% probability of winning and the actual results of having such a probability, which can vary from 30% to 80% very very easily. In other words, if your bet is high enough to break you with a 55% winning probability, I guarantee you it will sooner or later break you with a 65% winning probability.