Hi All,
I have seen a lot of discussion about the merits and problems with using a pay service. I figured I would address the question of exactly how good a pay service has to be in order for it to be in one's financial interest to subscribe to that service, as opposed to simply use their own picks. Imagine one is asking themselves the question, "Should I make my wagers based on my own handicapping, or on the picks of a pay service?"
Imagine this person's average wager is a risk of $110 to win $100. The expected amount of money the bettor will get back at the conclusion of the game is equal to $210 multiplied by the probability the bettor covers. (Ignore pushes for the purpose of this analysis.) Every handicapper has their own average probability of covering. The person will either get back $210 or $0. So, any increase in the probability of covering is worth $210 times that increase in probability. For example, an increase in the probability of covering of .01 (that is, 1%, or one one-hundredth) is worth ($210 x .01) = $2.10. An increase in probability of .02 is worth $4.20. And so on, and so on...
Now, imagine this $100 bettor would have to pay an average of X dollars per pick to subscribe to the pay service. It is in this bettor's financial interest to get his picks from the pay service if and only if X is less than ($210, multiplied by the increase in the average probability of covering). For example, if the pay service increases the bettor's average probability of covering by .05, or five percent, then each pick is worth paying any amount up to ($210 multiplied by .05), or $10.50.
The general formula is as follows: a bettor whose average wager is D dollars (risk 1.1 times D to win D) is financially benefitted by basing their picks on the recommendations of a pay service, rather than their own handicapping., if and only if:
cost per pick is less than (2.1D multiplied by the increase in average probability of covering).
There ya have it. Let me make one final point. Their are plenty of other reasons to choose to handicap one's own games, or not to. Nick Douglass makes great points with respect to this subject. The above analysis is simply a financial analysis that can be applied to any given set of games.
I have seen a lot of discussion about the merits and problems with using a pay service. I figured I would address the question of exactly how good a pay service has to be in order for it to be in one's financial interest to subscribe to that service, as opposed to simply use their own picks. Imagine one is asking themselves the question, "Should I make my wagers based on my own handicapping, or on the picks of a pay service?"
Imagine this person's average wager is a risk of $110 to win $100. The expected amount of money the bettor will get back at the conclusion of the game is equal to $210 multiplied by the probability the bettor covers. (Ignore pushes for the purpose of this analysis.) Every handicapper has their own average probability of covering. The person will either get back $210 or $0. So, any increase in the probability of covering is worth $210 times that increase in probability. For example, an increase in the probability of covering of .01 (that is, 1%, or one one-hundredth) is worth ($210 x .01) = $2.10. An increase in probability of .02 is worth $4.20. And so on, and so on...
Now, imagine this $100 bettor would have to pay an average of X dollars per pick to subscribe to the pay service. It is in this bettor's financial interest to get his picks from the pay service if and only if X is less than ($210, multiplied by the increase in the average probability of covering). For example, if the pay service increases the bettor's average probability of covering by .05, or five percent, then each pick is worth paying any amount up to ($210 multiplied by .05), or $10.50.
The general formula is as follows: a bettor whose average wager is D dollars (risk 1.1 times D to win D) is financially benefitted by basing their picks on the recommendations of a pay service, rather than their own handicapping., if and only if:
cost per pick is less than (2.1D multiplied by the increase in average probability of covering).
There ya have it. Let me make one final point. Their are plenty of other reasons to choose to handicap one's own games, or not to. Nick Douglass makes great points with respect to this subject. The above analysis is simply a financial analysis that can be applied to any given set of games.
