Betting 40000$ on Federer: to do or not to do

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
yes, but it's easy to say I was right after the fact. Risking 40,000 isn't worth it betting on a 36 year old who's back could go out like it did in the final against zverev last year. risk/reward not worth it.
His back could go out at any moment, but I thought the chances of that were less than 2.5%. Calculated risk, thought it was acceptable. Of course, it could definitely be better for a "safe" pick. You could get a much bigger return.

However, I did call it. If people who call an upset and get it right can be applauded for their foresight, so should people who call safe picks and get them right in the face of adversity. I'm not asking to be applauded, just not to be told it's hindsight to pick a near-sure thing.
 

JackGates

Legend
His back could go out at any moment, but I thought the chances of that were less than 2.5%. Calculated risk, thought it was acceptable. Of course, it could definitely be better for a "safe" pick. You could get a much bigger return.

However, I did call it. If people who call an upset and get it right can be applauded for their foresight, so should people who call safe picks and get them right in the face of adversity. I'm not asking to be applauded, just not to be told it's hindsight to pick a near-sure thing.
Just a question, not really an advice, why do you like gambling so much? Also, don't bookmakers skew odds in their favour just a bit, so it's not even gambling, its just giving your money away. Gambling would imply that you have at least 50% chances like a coin toss.

I never got why people love it so much, it sounds way too risky.

Also, a question, what do you do, how to you make your money? Usually rich people don't gamble, so I wonder how with your mindset you can have that much money to spare?

I could be wrong of course, so educate me.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Just a question, not really an advice, why do you like gambling so much? Also, don't bookmakers skew odds in their favour just a bit, so it's not even gambling, its just giving your money away. Gambling would imply that you have at least 50% chances like a coin toss.

I never got why people love it so much, it sounds way too risky.

Also, a question, what do you do, how to you make your money? Usually rich people don't gamble, so I wonder how with your mindset you can have that much money to spare?

I could be wrong of course, so educate me.
My uncle's a gambling manager. I personally don't play with my money as much, but I play the odds. That's why I join the sorts of games like on this forum like Power Play. What I do play with is the stock market.

In stocks we have something called undervalued stocks. We check for those stocks that we think are worth less on paper than they should be. We expect them to increase in value, and more often than not, they do. In gambling, there is similar things. People bet on rankings instead of matchups/form at the time, and that leads to overvalued/undervalued odds, which others can take advantage of.

Of course, there are losses. They suck, but if you're good, your wins outdo them. In gambling and stocks, the house always keeps a set percentage of the pot/trade, so you all you need is to be good enough to outearn the loss over time.

Currently I'm still studying, but I'm a computer scientist, so even on freelance work I earn some good money. All in all, either of these methods of gambling is taking money from people who assessed some stats differently than you, played their cards differently, and got lucky.

It's not for everyone. It takes a sound mind that doesn't give in to temptation. You can't bet your livelihood away. Anything you need, you don't bet. Anything extra is privy to a little betting, though. But my uncle has seen people bet themselves out of house and home. Not a pretty sight.
 

reaper

Legend
His back could go out at any moment, but I thought the chances of that were less than 2.5%. Calculated risk, thought it was acceptable. Of course, it could definitely be better for a "safe" pick. You could get a much bigger return.

However, I did call it. If people who call an upset and get it right can be applauded for their foresight, so should people who call safe picks and get them right in the face of adversity. I'm not asking to be applauded, just not to be told it's hindsight to pick a near-sure thing.

The thing is in gambling you're not right because your bet won. If you back a winner at $101 you were still wrong to back it if the true chances of it winning were 1 in 200, but you got lucky on that one occasion.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
His back could go out at any moment, but I thought the chances of that were less than 2.5%. Calculated risk, thought it was acceptable. Of course, it could definitely be better for a "safe" pick. You could get a much bigger return.

However, I did call it. If people who call an upset and get it right can be applauded for their foresight, so should people who call safe picks and get them right in the face of adversity. I'm not asking to be applauded, just not to be told it's hindsight to pick a near-sure thing.
You called Roger beating someone he was heavily favored to beat. And you also had the massive stones to tell a random person on the internet to bet it. Congrats. Much wow.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
The thing is in gambling you're not right because your bet won. If you back a winner at $101 you were still wrong to back it if the true chances of it winning were 1 in 200, but you got lucky on that one occasion.
True chances don't exist. Just the truth. If the estimated odds in your mind* the amount of money you get out of it is greater (AKA the expected value) then you made the intelligent choice. If it worked out for you, it was the right choice.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
You called Roger beating someone he was heavily favored to beat. And you also had the massive stones to tell a random person on the internet to bet it. Congrats. Much wow.
Thank you. You had the balls to tell me to shove it after I made a right prediction, for some reason. Well done to you as well.

Now, I feel like I owe you an apology- I may have been a little overexcited to claim that I was right. Hopefully that ends any animosity you may have for me right now and this discussion can end.
 

reaper

Legend
True chances don't exist. Just the truth. If the estimated odds in your mind* the amount of money you get out of it is greater (AKA the expected value) then you made the intelligent choice. If it worked out for you, it was the right choice.

This guy thinks true odds exist and seems to do rather well out of it. It's all well and good to win one bet, but most gamblers keep betting, so winning one bet in the scheme of things doesn't matter.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...ko_Ranogajec&usg=AOvVaw2ZiOq2md-fVm3k_rjDFP5O
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
This guy thinks true odds exist and seems to do rather well out of it. It's all well and good to win one bet, but most gamblers keep betting, so winning one bet in the scheme of things doesn't matter.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiys6Hon-vYAhVKxrwKHXYXBK4QFggpMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeljko_Ranogajec&usg=AOvVaw2ZiOq2md-fVm3k_rjDFP5O
If what you meant was "true odds" as in the implied odds, yeah. I'll agree going against them isn't the best move, but if your "adjusted odds" are better in your eyes, then the implied odds may be wrong. Say Nadal is injured, but people don't know that yet. His implied odds will be very good, but you'll bet against him, trusting that he's too injured to play. Hence you can make long odds on his opponent pay off nicely, despite odds being "against" you.

Not sure if that's what you mean - I'm a bit distracted right now, maybe a gambling term is passing me by. I'm not a gambler, I'm a stock trader.

Of course, though, you're right that gamblers play the long game.
 

reaper

Legend
If what you meant was "true odds" as in the implied odds, yeah. I'll agree going against them isn't the best move, but if your "adjusted odds" are better in your eyes, then the implied odds may be wrong. Say Nadal is injured, but people don't know that yet. His implied odds will be very good, but you'll bet against him, trusting that he's too injured to play. Hence you can make long odds on his opponent pay off nicely, despite odds being "against" you.

Not sure if that's what you mean - I'm a bit distracted right now, maybe a gambling term is passing me by. I'm not a gambler, I'm a stock trader.

Of course, though, you're right that gamblers play the long game.

By true odds I just mean real probability. Most people who gamble try to bet on the winner, whereas they should be looking for the candidate that is most underestimated by the market.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
By true odds I just mean real probability. Most people who gamble try to bet on the winner, whereas they should be looking for the candidate that is most underestimated by the market.
That's exactly what I meant by undervalued odds. It seems we're arguing the same thing.
 

JackGates

Legend
My uncle's a gambling manager. I personally don't play with my money as much, but I play the odds. That's why I join the sorts of games like on this forum like Power Play. What I do play with is the stock market.

In stocks we have something called undervalued stocks. We check for those stocks that we think are worth less on paper than they should be. We expect them to increase in value, and more often than not, they do. In gambling, there is similar things. People bet on rankings instead of matchups/form at the time, and that leads to overvalued/undervalued odds, which others can take advantage of.

Of course, there are losses. They suck, but if you're good, your wins outdo them. In gambling and stocks, the house always keeps a set percentage of the pot/trade, so you all you need is to be good enough to outearn the loss over time.

Currently I'm still studying, but I'm a computer scientist, so even on freelance work I earn some good money. All in all, either of these methods of gambling is taking money from people who assessed some stats differently than you, played their cards differently, and got lucky.

It's not for everyone. It takes a sound mind that doesn't give in to temptation. You can't bet your livelihood away. Anything you need, you don't bet. Anything extra is privy to a little betting, though. But my uncle has seen people bet themselves out of house and home. Not a pretty sight.
Thanks, very good answers. So, it can't really be called pure gambling. You need to study a lot, you need skills to beat others who have less skills.

Sort of like poker. You can play poker with gambling, meaning you just do it by your feel. Or you can study the game and have a poker tracker, in that case it's not called gambling, it's called skills.

I see the confusion now. Most people do gamble, but what you do can't really be called gambling.

Oh, ok, you are in computer science, so I don't worry, you are smart. Even if you would lose everything, which you won't, you will be easily able to get it all back.

I feel that you like the rush of it more than just making money, is this correct? If it is, yeah, if you love it, of course you need to do it.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Thanks, very good answers. So, it can't really be called pure gambling. You need to study a lot, you need skills to beat others who have less skills.

Sort of like poker. You can play poker with gambling, meaning you just do it by your feel. Or you can study the game and have a poker tracker, in that case it's not called gambling, it's called skills.

I see the confusion now. Most people do gamble, but what you do can't really be called gambling.

Oh, ok, you are in computer science, so I don't worry, you are smart. Even if you would lose everything, which you won't, you will be easily able to get it all back.

I feel that you like the rush of it more than just making money, is this correct? If it is, yeah, if you love it, of course you need to do it.
You've more or less got it. It's never about the money - it's about staking something on a match. If you gamble to make money, you're either a professional, do it for a hobby, or you need help. And if you don't do research before putting hard earned money on your picks, you're probably gonna lose.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Thats utterly stupid dude. An idiot could make 5% fool proof return on 40K e.g. bonds, depedning on your countries interest rates just putting it in the bank etc and less foolproof but it is easy to make 5% return in stocks in a year

If you have 40k to spare then why are you getting advice on the likes of this forum

If 40K means nothing to you as either your very rich or simply dont care then by all means go for it but youd be better off on betting fed to lose to get big bucks and more excitement
Believe or not,, this is how guys make money betting on tennis. some of the sure bets do return good money. Just make sure you don't get burned on upsets. how to avoid them ?? make sure players are healthy and there is no outside distractions.
 

augustobt

Legend
TC youre better off sticking £10,000 on Djokovic vs Chung at 1/4. Easy £2,500 profit and if that fails you can very easily make the £10k back with a safe bet using the £30k (not that it will).

In fact just whack the £40k on it for cool £10 grand.
Hope OP didn't got your advice ;)


Id rather put it on Chung to beat Djokovic in 5 sets.
Damn! 40k @ Chung +1,5 would've been a 60k profit.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Stuff Federer and buy gold instead. Seriously. That would be a good investment.
Make sure you buy physical metal and take possession of it though. No stupid paper gold certificates or anything. They're probably all fake.

If the gold ever arrives...

I recenty heard a story of a guy buying gold from a company...never got it.

Found out that company went bankrupt soon after he sent them the money.
 

EloQuent

Legend
All this talk after the fact kinda proves the point of the risky nature of gambling. Sure, Federer won but was it inevitable? No.
 
Top