question fezz

I see where I made a mistake....thankyou... riding the jets the rest of the way....only on the ML

[QUOTE=skrtelfan;15575]Huh? The worse the initial bet, the tougher it is to hedge. The more accurate poker analogy would be "2-5 NLHE, I limp with T9o UTG, everyone folds, button makes it 25 total, blinds fold, I call. Flop comes 933. Now what do I do?" The correct answer is "Don't limp and call raises with shitty hands in bad position." I always hear these questions called "I stuck my hand in a blender, what should I do?" "Don't stick your hand in the blender in the first place." It doesn't bode well for this board IMO when moderators are posting such results oriented advice.[/QUOTE] Give me a break. What I said wasn't results-oriented (and there was no advice given in what you're addressing). I was giving our questioner a little break. Ignoring an original question so you can criticize does nothing but discourage original questions. I think it's fine that it's been pointed out that the bet could have been made in better ways, or that maybe it shouldn't have been made at all. But that shouldn't be done in a hostile fashion under any circumstances. And I'll take it a step farther and state that there's nothing wrong with making a futures bet if it's convenient and fun and adds to the enjoyment of the player making it. He "stuck his hand in a blender"? On the contrary, his bet has put him in a positive position (and I'll wager superior to where you or I currently sit going into this game), so there's even less reason to berate. I have no qualms about defending this stance. Ah, and editing to acknowledge the good comment by joelshitshow, which reflects the absolute proper spirit.

[QUOTE=anthony;15586]Give me a break. What I said wasn't results-oriented[/QUOTE] "Or, given the result, maybe betting the Jets was a decent play." [QUOTE]Ignoring an original question so you can criticize does nothing but discourage original questions. I think it's fine that it's been pointed out that the bet could have been made in better ways, or that maybe it shouldn't have been made at all. But that shouldn't be done in a hostile fashion under any circumstances. [/QUOTE] You give me a break. How is anything in these posts "hostile?" You seem to take anything remotely critical as a personal attack, but the OP seems to have handled the constructive criticism in the appropriate manner in which it was intended. [QUOTE]And I'll take it a step farther and state that there's nothing wrong with making a futures bet if it's convenient and fun and adds to the enjoyment of the player making it. [/QUOTE] I suppose "LVA Powerball Tickets" will be the next subforum. If the guy's worried about hedging his bet with 2 games down and 2 games to go, I doubt there's very much "fun" in that. [QUOTE]He "stuck his hand in a blender"? On the contrary, his bet has put him in a positive position (and I'll wager superior to where you or I currently sit going into this game)[/QUOTE] You lose that wager, as I won a bit on Jets +350 in the game vs the Chargers (although I had way more on various lines between +7.5 -110 and +8.5 -110), and am also sitting on Colts +310 for Super Bowl made before the playoffs started. I can prove that as the person who alerted me to that wager posted it publicly. That +310 wasn't WA, but even grading vs a WA line of +280 or +285, one's gained more equity with the Colts bet given the current "Colts not to win the SB odds" than a similar wager on Jets +2000. The worst MLs you could have possibly ended up with on the Jets in the two previous games are probably +115 and +250, even with limited outs and poor market timing. That's the equivalent of around +650. When you effectively get +200 on a +650 proposition, that's "sticking your hand in the blender," and to suggest otherwise is results oriented thinking. [QUOTE]so there's even less reason to berate. I have no qualms about defending this stance. Ah, and editing to acknowledge the good comment by joelshitshow, which reflects the absolute proper spirit.[/QUOTE] Only on Planet Curtis does constructive criticism equate to "berating" and "rubbing the poster's nose in it." One final note to the OP, and hopefully these posts survive without deletion, to compare a future bet to betting individual MLs, you want to estimate the ML on the remaining games, in this case 4, and then calculate the odds on parlaying them all together. In this case, +2000 is about the same as +115 odds in all 4 games. The ML vs the Bengals was roughly +115, and even if you aren't particularly experienced with estimating lines, at a bare minimum the Jets should have been expected to be at least +200 in the 2nd game, which would then have required them to be favored by more than -120 in the AFC championship and Super Bowl for +2000 to be the better option.

i see....I thank you and other's that posted on this

skrtelfan, I won't delete it. And I won't waste any more time trying to explain why self-styled elitistism doesn't cut it here. But after that tirade, I will tell you that if you ever get combative on this board again, ESPECIALLY with me or another on this staff, I'll delete you. Why don't you surprise me and last at least until tomorrow.

I'm with you man on the Jets I bet last week of season before the Bengals and am getting 35/1 to win the AFC. I thought about hedging it but I decided on just rolling with the JETS maybe with a little luck they can win this thing.

[QUOTE=anthony;15598]skrtelfan, I won't delete it. And I won't waste any more time trying to explain why self-styled elitistism doesn't cut it here. But after that tirade, I will tell you that if you ever get combative on this board again, ESPECIALLY with me or another on this staff, I'll delete you. Why don't you surprise me and last at least until tomorrow.[/QUOTE] Best Wishes!!!

No, he's cool and didn't respond aggressively, which shows class. No action taken and I appreciate his understanding of the situation.