Ridiculous Odds But They Will 100% Win!!!

[savage1]

Let me give you an example of what I consider a much better risk/reward ratio:
About a week ago, I was checking odds on various teams winning the World Series and noticed that the Reds were $17500 against $100 to win it all(odds now have decreased to $4000 against $100);this was at WWTS).
Anyways, I bet $100 on Reds to win it not because I think they are going to win it, but I do think they have some chance to at least make it to playoffs, and at those odds, I think it was worth a shot.
If they make playoffs, I will win something with the tremendous hedging I can do in each series.
Sure it is not a sure thing, but at the various generous odds offered and the possible reward, to me it made sense to bet $100, which I won't miss if they don't make the playoffs.

[CoachB]

I agree with that...but there is a chance the Reds will not make the playoffs thus losing money....there is NO CHANCE the Bucks win the series....so the end result would indicate Detroit -9000 is a better bet than Cincy +4000...one results in +100; one in -100....I do understand the thought process of this kind of wood...and did not bet it....just stating the fact that it is free money

[MAXX11]

Free money.. Didn't Jack Price used to give away free money years ago?

[savage1]

Actually for me it is 17500 against $100(the value is with the $17500 and NOT with the $4000).
Not that it would prove anything, but I would bet that if you took a poll of people who have gambled for a long time and have a sense of value, they would agree that $100 to win $17500 (considering the great start that the Reds have gotten off to and the hedging and other possibilites) is a better risk ratio than putting up $9000 to win a lousy $100.
What would happen if a player or players on Dallas were involved in a serious accident or were very ill? Sure it is unlikely but for me at least, $9000 against $100 is not worth it.
To play devil's advocate, I would have to say that if betting $9000 means hardly anything to you, then how much less is winning that $100!

[CoachB]

agree

I have agreed with everything you have said. I even made the team plane crash example as the only way to lose these series....
If polled, I would vote with you as well. My point is....Cincy will not win the World Series (most likely)...heding opportunities hopefully will arise if they even make the post season....whereas Dallas and Detroit .....major natural disaster withstanding....will win you the $100/each easily

[savage1]

Ok-I disagree with your thinking as do people like Coverboy, but congratulations anyways and don't spend your $100 all at once.
ps Lets see if my $100 is actually thrown out or not, or whether there is some time during the regular season(if for example they are on the bubble) or post season, where I can do something to make my $100 a wise investment.
I will let you know on this thread if and when I do something come late Sept. or October if Reds get there or on the brink of getting there.

[Tigger]

That is the craziest thing I think I've ever read on this board....... risk $9000 and $7500 to win a $100 dollars on each respectively??? If you have a bankroll like that and have that much confidence that Dallas and Detriot are not going to get swept the last four games, and for some reason have a desperate need to win a WHOLE $100 more dollars then use the infamous maringtale system for the last 4 games and take your 100.

At least if you are wrong you would only lose $1500 and not $9000....

~~~ Tigger

[griffey_mojo]

Ok-I disagree with you as do people like Coverboy, but congtaulations anyways and don't spend your $100 all at once.

I'm in your boat too Savage. It's not worth arguing your point with someone that cannot comprehend it. Anyone willing to lay 9K to win 100 bucks is a COMPLETE MORON!

PS....GL with the Cincy play...I hope they don't blow it for you....Hopefully their pitching can stay solid and bats hot.

[CoachB]

as

I already stated (see prior post on this thread those that can read) I did not wager this and agree with all logic. Just stating it is 100% going to win (see Dallas +100 already)...and Griffey...fuck you

[Tinman1960]

I'm in your boat too Savage. It's not worth arguing your point with someone that cannot comprehend it. Anyone willing to lay 9K to win 100 bucks is a COMPLETE MORON!

PS....GL with the Cincy play...I hope they don't blow it for you....Hopefully their pitching can stay solid and bats hot.

DITTO!!

[savage1]

Coach-I misunderstood and thought you did wager the money-sorry;that changes everything, although I still hold to my contention that it is not worth it. Talking about betting 9K and doing it are two different things.
I would add that I believe it was last season someone stated that Yankees would not lose more than two or three in a row, and that therefore he would keep doubling his bets to make $100.
Well, to make a long story short, Yanks went on a losing streak for at least 5 or 6 games, and considering Yanks were as 2-1 favorites in some of those games, the guy must have lost plenty.
He never did come back and tell us the results of what happened.
Anything can happen in life and sports.
Planes don't crash very happen(using your analogy), and we all take them figuring we won't be the unlucky ones.
Risk/reward ratios play a part of our lives every day, and as stated, it is a matter of perception as to which we should take and which aren't worth it.

[larryonion]

Just for fun, as someone who like a lot of stats for my capping, I do not think the situation has occured enough to warrent that kind of risk..here is the all time NBA 3-0 series record: 77-0 (1.000). Teams could come back from 3-0 a couple of times and create a 10% or so risk factor, like the RedSox or the 75 Islanders. And that amount of risk 9k or 7k for 100 seems to not be supported by even a minor amount of risk. Just my 2 cents

[savage1]

I'm in your boat too Savage. It's not worth arguing your point with someone that cannot comprehend it. Anyone willing to lay 9K to win 100 bucks is a COMPLETE MORON!

PS....GL with the Cincy play...I hope they don't blow it for you....Hopefully their pitching can stay solid and bats hot.

Thanks for good wishes.
I took the White Sox at 15-1(I posted it) last year after they got off to a good start along with some other teams and cashed.
Hopefully, Reds will at least be in a position to be in playoffs near end of season so that I can begin hedging.

[Tigger]

I already stated (see prior post on this thread those that can read) I did not wager this and agree with all logic. Just stating it is 100% going to win (see Dallas +100 already)...and Griffey...fuck you

You must of failed math in school because 2 years ago the Boston Red Sox came back from 3-0 to win the series (and then the world series). It doesn't take a physicist to figure out the statistic can not be 100%....... oh yeah but I do agree with you on the "and Griffey...fuck you"

That's the most logically thing I've heard you say all day.

~~~ Tigger

[CoachB]

again

wow.......once again...look at previous post. I explained that the difference is not just they are up 3-0 or 3-1....it is the team they are up against. I ALREADY stated the SOX/YANKS was the AL Championship....two quality teams......not a top seed vs. a shit hook in the opening round up 3-0 or 3-1. Notice I do not think LA is a great lock bet. They are up 3-1 but vs. a quality team. PHX won't win their series either, but it is not way beyond that they could.....Old adage....think (or in this case read) before you speak (or in this case type)