Proposed solution to the "how to measure PM volume" issue:
Say I bet $1 against your $99; that is, 100 contracts trade at a price of 1 cent (or 99 cents, same thing)
Implied probability of cash flows: 1% chance that $99 changes hands, 99% chance that $1 changes hands.
Then, volume = 1% x $99 + 99% x $1 = $1.98.
More generally,
Volume = 2 x number of contracts traded x trade price x (1 - trade price).
The price x (1 - price) construct is how many PMs calculate fees so there's a nice synergy there.
I've told lots of insurance executives that I'm terrified of underwriting cyber insurance because you have no idea what the next threat is going to be, where it's going to come from or how many policyholders will be impacted simultaneously. Most of them looked at me like I was from Mars.
A scoop from me: CBS-owned local stations' election coverage will be sponsored by DraftKings, a deal that has stirred concern inside the company. https://t.co/qW8QTBotIf
Interesting. I always use an API odds provider to do a sweep of FD SGP quotes against my model and find the best ones so I can bet them manually and I always notice I get better odds than the API does for the same combos. Always chalked it up to better pricing in Ontario vs whatever jurisdiction the provider was quoting but maybe not.
@BetWithLB@JoePatrick Unless I have info that the model doesn't (which was my original point about context), I'd prefer 51% +/- anything to 49% +/- anything
Cool angle here. I talked about this kind of correlated parlay opportunity in my Bet Bash talk where there's a shared hidden generator (minutes played). @CalvinAndHobo took it a step further by capturing inverse correlation between blocks/fouls and between fouls/minutes. Nice!
Most same game parlays stack legs that have nothing to do with each other 🙅♂️
@CalvinAndHobo breaks down the SGP that paid +4000, the correlation that books missed and how you can find edges like it today 🏀
New Legendary Loopholes video, out now 🚨
Presented by @ProphetX
Interesting conversation,
"The analytics say 51% under some generalized assumptions but I'm not accepting it blindly because I might have more context-specific insight" is fine IMO.
"I don't get enough trials to realize the long run so I'm rejecting analytics" is not fine IMO. Classic failure to think probabilistically.
Kyle Shanahan says a 51% analytics recommendation won’t convince him to go for it because he gets one shot, not an hour at a blackjack table
“I don’t want to hear about it if it’s 51% of the time we should go for it.”
“As I always say, I’m not sitting here playing Blackjack for an hour with no one else at the table, and eventually I’ll get 51% of it. Like, I have this one try, and I have a feel for it. I’ve been doing it too long.”
“But what I want to know from him, when it’s not a feel, when it, no, this is 98%. We don’t even need to talk about it. So we don’t need to talk about it. Tell me when it’s that, and I’ll just do it.”
@supHezi@CapperBoard Being wrong could end your season either way. I'd still rather give myself a 51% chance of being right than a 49% chance of being right.