This time not a personal example but some anecdotal BS.
(I guess a personal example would qualify as 'anecdotal BS', but this is
third-party noise)
Something I heard on a podcast.
Tell me if my interpretation is correct.
What I heard:
Dude has a future on Nevada to win the NCAA at 300-to-1.
They won the first two, knocking off the #2 seed in the process (Cin),
and he commented that he now had a great hedging opportunity due to the fact
that he's sitting on the 300-to-1 on a live team. What approach was being
considered for this opportunity was not discussed.
What I assume:
Obviously, you can't hedge against the Nevada ticket by placing bets on the remaining
teams to win the prize. I guess that he would need to place a bet--with payout equal
to or greater than the Nevada risk--against Nevada on each subsequent game until
the Tourney ends. In hindsight, it would've been a good play in the Sweet 16 as they
lost to Loyola Chicago at a close to pick-em line. However, if they had won then they
likely would have been heavy underdogs for an of the remaining 3 rounds that they
survived for, meaning the hedging requirement will get rather expensive.
Seems like a win-win situation but each round that Nevada would
advance Dude would be tearing up tickets; huge ones by the Final Four. Also, once
the hedge has been committed to it would have to be followed through until the end;
Dude couldn't bail before the Final and just hold Nevada or he could lose everything.
When, how and how much to hedge seems to rely a great deal on subjectivity.
Then again, maybe I'm just imagining all you 'people'.
fuck it
Play Baal! (sic(k))
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WZaemr7cXEo" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
These lines are too short.
(probably the first time I've ever ... nevermind ... )
(I guess a personal example would qualify as 'anecdotal BS', but this is
third-party noise)
Something I heard on a podcast.
Tell me if my interpretation is correct.
What I heard:
Dude has a future on Nevada to win the NCAA at 300-to-1.
They won the first two, knocking off the #2 seed in the process (Cin),
and he commented that he now had a great hedging opportunity due to the fact
that he's sitting on the 300-to-1 on a live team. What approach was being
considered for this opportunity was not discussed.
What I assume:
Obviously, you can't hedge against the Nevada ticket by placing bets on the remaining
teams to win the prize. I guess that he would need to place a bet--with payout equal
to or greater than the Nevada risk--against Nevada on each subsequent game until
the Tourney ends. In hindsight, it would've been a good play in the Sweet 16 as they
lost to Loyola Chicago at a close to pick-em line. However, if they had won then they
likely would have been heavy underdogs for an of the remaining 3 rounds that they
survived for, meaning the hedging requirement will get rather expensive.
Seems like a win-win situation but each round that Nevada would
advance Dude would be tearing up tickets; huge ones by the Final Four. Also, once
the hedge has been committed to it would have to be followed through until the end;
Dude couldn't bail before the Final and just hold Nevada or he could lose everything.
When, how and how much to hedge seems to rely a great deal on subjectivity.
Then again, maybe I'm just imagining all you 'people'.
fuck it
Play Baal! (sic(k))
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WZaemr7cXEo" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
These lines are too short.
(probably the first time I've ever ... nevermind ... )
