essence of intelligent gambling

[babigm]

First of all, I don't really care if CrisBrown is wrong or right or stubborn or a scrabble hustler or Patrick Stewart or Paul Phillips arguing with himself for kicks.

Before this whole thing came up, I didn't know a damn thing about professional scrabble. I would wager, given enough time to research and set proper odds etc. etc., that most of the people that are so matter of fact now, and willing to bet so much on Paul, knew approx. as much as I did. Even David Sklansky, 'The God of Knowing Things', wasn't aware of the skill:results ratio involved himself. I can pretty much give really great odds that more people were tempted by that 3:1 then are willing to admit it now. So for most people the answer for who to bet on should be c) I don't know anything about competitive scrabble, so I won't bet on it! It's like trying to set a fair selling price for the Mona Lisa when all you've seen is a Etch-a-Sketch copy of it.

The thing to keep in mind is, when you take a look at a line that you think is too good to be true, or too bad to be true, the next thing to consider is the person/entity offering that line. Most people don't offer bets and lines with the intention of losing them. What you have to decide is whether or not you are more prepared, more knowledgable, and/or more correct in your reasoning then the person offering the bet.* Only then should you condier the bet itself.

*Certain Vegas bets are different, because they play to different rules then straight up prop bets.

[George Rice]

Cris, if you think about it, David's statement about betting into the wind is "correct". Not correct no matter what, but correct probably over 99% of the time.

True, you might be a hustler looking to get Paul in a contest at 3:1 where you figure to have the best of it at those odds. But what are the chances of that? People make all sorts of claims and assumptions about their abilities. There are untold numbers of people who would offer to play at those odds who had almost no chance of winning, nor any understanding of gambling concepts, scrabble or even adequate word knowledge. His statement illustrates the same point (or one of the points) in Paul's orinigal post.

Besides, your assumption that you are "the only one in this conversation who knows both sides of the equation" is flawed. You don't know if Paul has improved his game or whether David, if fact, does know who you are and knows about Paul's improved game. Not that any of this is likely, but neither is it likely that you're actually a wolf in sheep's clothing--far more likely the opposite.

Don't neglect the fact that you have over 2000 posts and David may have a pretty good idea about your abilities and thought processes from reading these posts.

Finally, it really dosen't matter if you are the rare hustler. The amount someone is willing to bet against you probably isn't enough to warrant your efforts. And a large bet would arouse suspicions and you might be found out (certainly David wouldn't wager a lot without looking into it).

But that's my point of view after reading some of the posts. If David made his statement without considering the small likelihood that you were a hustler, or didn't consider it irrlevant for the above reasons or others, then he was guilty of "betting into the wind." But I doubt it.

And if I'm wrong, excuse me for "'breaking wind' into the wind." [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[driller]

I stumbled across this thread while researching "self-weighting". But it reminded me of a story about Arnold Palmer when he was a lot younger and probably the best golfer on the planet.

Some guy that had had too many opined that the pro's weren't all that great and if Palmer would give him 2 up a side, he would play him for $1000. Palmer replied, "I'll give you 4 up a side and we'll play for $10,000." End of conversation. Palmer was betting into the wind, I guess.

[TStoneMBD]

please dont bump posts that have rightfully died unless you have something really important to say. jesus christ.

[curtains]

Yeah nothing can ruin my mood more than the untimely revival of an old thread.

[partygirluk]

FWIW, one of my best friends came third in the 2004 World Scrabble Championship. I regularly get 7 letter words, average maybe 285 and even though I knew he would likely beat me, thought I could maybe run him close, and if I hit luck, maybe just maybe beat him. I played him 3 times and he soundly trounced me. In one game I got 3 7 letter words and and he beat me by about 350 points! If I had to guess, I would say I am a 1000-1 shot to beat him.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
please dont bump posts that have rightfully died

[/ QUOTE ]


I have to disagree with you here, there are a multitude of lessons in this thread making it, easily, one of the better ones of 2004. This board is full of a ton of new faces and I think it's a public service when gems like this are brought back.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[drexah]

good post, thanks paul.


p.s. keep your beard

[drexah]

You're really doing an amazing job at making my point about people remaining impervious to their available information. Seriously, I applaud. People are going to start thinking you're a creation of mine intended to teach others about the dangers of making bad bets. Everyone, I swear she's another completely autonomous human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it just me or did anyone else laugh hysterically at this?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
good post, thanks paul.


p.s. keep your beard

[/ QUOTE ]

too late