Re: WSOP Odds
Okay, it's all clear, I get it now. Sorry, but you usually can't take that side of the bet. Books aren't that dumb. They just want to take suckers' money, who want to bet on their favorite players, and don't even realize just how bad the odds they're getting are.
Although now that I've been looking at horse racing odds, these poker lines seem a little more reasonable. In the Belmont Stakes, the odds for the favorite are 1-1, in an 11 horse field, while the worst horse is 100-1. That's a wider discrepancy than I would normally think there is. If you applied the same odds to the WSOP field, the best pros would be 660-1 and the worst fools would be 60,000-1. I just don't think you can have as much an advantage in poker as horses do in racing, but by comparison it does make the lines a little less scummy.
Re: the P.S.: Which forum is dumb enough to allow that kind favorable treatment of Martingale talk? Those posters must drastically lower the IQ of 2+2. I had a buddy who tried that once, thinking that he would virtually always win little by little, and even if it were ever to go wrong on him, it would take many, many sessions of play over several trips. Think again. I think he set a record - he got wiped out in half an hour.
|