Comments on: Hold Your Bets http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2006/02/11/hold-your-bets/ What is seen and what is unseen. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:26:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: chad http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2006/02/11/hold-your-bets/comment-page-1/#comment-18 chad Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:10:14 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2006/02/11/hold-your-bets/#comment-18 Jelly - you are right on. Let me make one point on probability. Even if you could win the over-under bet of 56% of the time, you are right, "a bet is a bet", you would lose 44% of the time. However, if you could make a large number of bets with a 56% chance of winning, the probability that you would come out ahead gets quite large. 50 bets - 67% 100 bets - 69% 200 bets - 82% 500 bets - 93% If your information is even better (so you win 58% of the time), the chance you come out ahead with 500 bets is now 99.2% - hardly a coin flip! Sterling - I am not sure what you mean when you write "It kills the user and close relative or friend." While I don't want to take a stand that amphetamines should be legal, there have been relatively few deaths attributed to amphetamines in sports. In fact, I know of two in cycling in the 1960s or 1970s, but I have not heard of any in baseball. If you know of some that I don't know of, let me know. Sokolove suggests in his article that <em>fans</em> may not enjoy baseball without players taking amphetamines, perhaps because people won't enjoy watching "sluggish" players.   Perhaps the benefits of amphetamine use are not enjoyed just by the player and their team. We'll see this year. --CT Jelly – you are right on. Let me make one point on probability. Even if you could win the over-under bet of 56% of the time, you are right, “a bet is a bet”, you would lose 44% of the time.

However, if you could make a large number of bets with a 56% chance of winning, the probability that you would come out ahead gets quite large.

50 bets – 67%
100 bets – 69%
200 bets – 82%
500 bets – 93%

If your information is even better (so you win 58% of the time), the chance you come out ahead with 500 bets is now 99.2% – hardly a coin flip!

Sterling – I am not sure what you mean when you write “It kills the user and close relative or friend.” While I don’t want to take a stand that amphetamines should be legal, there have been relatively few deaths attributed to amphetamines in sports. In fact, I know of two in cycling in the 1960s or 1970s, but I have not heard of any in baseball. If you know of some that I don’t know of, let me know.

Sokolove suggests in his article that fans may not enjoy baseball without players taking amphetamines, perhaps because people won’t enjoy watching “sluggish” players.   Perhaps the benefits of amphetamine use are not enjoyed just by the player and their team. We’ll see this year.

–CT

]]> By: Sterling Mack http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2006/02/11/hold-your-bets/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Sterling Mack Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:33:40 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2006/02/11/hold-your-bets/#comment-12 I agree with the more testing for steriods. The drug (amphetamines) is really good for the athlete taking it but also very bad at the same time. It kills the user and close relative or friend. It should be an illegal substance. The takers of this drug has a greater advantage in succeeding than the non-takers of the drug. Random drug testing is a requirement but our world is so caught in cheating and not doing the right thing, some teams will know their is use and would not say anything to stop just to win a game. Is that a shame or what? I agree with the more testing for steriods. The drug (amphetamines) is really good for the athlete taking it but also very bad at the same time. It kills the user and close relative or friend. It should be an illegal substance. The takers of this drug has a greater advantage in succeeding than the non-takers of the drug. Random drug testing is a requirement but our world is so caught in cheating and not doing the right thing, some teams will know their is use and would not say anything to stop just to win a game. Is that a shame or what?

]]> By: jelly86 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2006/02/11/hold-your-bets/comment-page-1/#comment-9 jelly86 Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:53:56 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2006/02/11/hold-your-bets/#comment-9 I definitely agree with a couple of points. One is yes, there is no way to beat the system. A bet is a bet. Its a gamble people take and while information such as the new testing policy for amphetamines may give those who know a upperhand, there is no sure shot of being 100% sure. I also agree with the idea on price equalibrium. Once any information is leaked into the genral public, bookies will quickly react to the information. In the business, I believe its a battle of the brains. Those with the knowledge will always have the upperhand, thus Billy should have kept this information and became a better himself. HOwever, like I said in the beginning, a bet is a bet. If you look at the economics behind it, like everything, is two handed. There's no way of beating the system. While Billy's statement may have been news to some, may have seemed common since to others. Of course a day game after a rough night may not be as eventful. Now if the information about the new testing policies were kept only to a few insiders, I believe that holds reason for them having a "better" chance because its whose in the "know". But once again, a bet is a bet. I definitely agree with a couple of points. One is yes, there is no way to beat the system. A bet is a bet. Its a gamble people take and while information such as the new testing policy for amphetamines may give those who know a upperhand, there is no sure shot of being 100% sure. I also agree with the idea on price equalibrium. Once any information is leaked into the genral public, bookies will quickly react to the information. In the business, I believe its a battle of the brains. Those with the knowledge will always have the upperhand, thus Billy should have kept this information and became a better himself. HOwever, like I said in the beginning, a bet is a bet. If you look at the economics behind it, like everything, is two handed. There’s no way of beating the system. While Billy’s statement may have been news to some, may have seemed common since to others. Of course a day game after a rough night may not be as eventful. Now if the information about the new testing policies were kept only to a few insiders, I believe that holds reason for them having a “better” chance because its whose in the “know”. But once again, a bet is a bet.

]]>