two even teams at a neutral site problem

[EXTRAPOLATER]

do u have to be under the influence to understand these posts? I thought I was semi-intelligent until the Extrapolator posts. Not too sure now! I don't think I've understood any of them? :scared :mj07:

My fault if I'm not explaining myself well.
Obviously I think about some of this stuff differently than most others.
For better or for worse.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

No offense, but all of your premises are so flawed there is no way to even address them. At a 50% chance, you would be happy with +150? Yeah Ummm, what do you suppose would be the odds on the other team that has a 50% chance. It's just silly. You might want to get some sleep, and put the pipe down for a bit. Could do wonders.

Please point out a flawed premise.
That's what I'm looking for.
Your example of "be happy with a +150?" is beyond me. Yes, of course I would be happy with a +150 in that situation.
Is that what you're implying?--that it's a waste?
I'd sit there all day if I could get +150 on a coin-toss.
Maybe you mean something else is wrong but you don't make it clear.
You make a claim but do not support it.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

There's got to be a better way to look at this. The idea of making more plays, esp with dogs, probably isn't the way to go. You end of hoping for one of two +$$ teams to win with the very possibility of both going down. Vegas always wants you making more bets.

Maybe the following works better.
Your friend offers to give you good odds for any 50% proposition of your choice--coin toss, pick 3 numbers from a 6-sided die, whatever.
You can bet up to $100.
One play or two.
The first he's offering +150.
The second he's offering +140.
Do you be the whole $100 on the first flip alone or do you try twice and increase your chances for a profit?
In that case, do you bet 50-50?
60-40?

If this doesn't describe the problem better then I'm on a plain.

I can't complain