on "value"

EXTRAPOLATER

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 22, 2001
8,053
137
63
Toronto
Want to hear mainly from gamblers and how they consider the word value. Formulas and/or rhetoric are fine--I try to use forumulas where possible for proposing probabilites then comparing lines but, of course, resort to situations where it's more intuitive--+110 on a coin flip ain't too bad but +120 is better, etc.--assessing relative values can be done by a variety of methods, though similar. My argument would simply be that those with higher "value" values (ugh!), however assessed, will call for a greater risk or more consideration. More to the point, I just wrote elsewhere that "value" in my handicapping is different than "value" in my work on ethics BUT I changeded my mind.

A dictionary definition as I get psyched up.

===============================

Mirriam Webster online dictionary:

VALUE

1: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged
2: the monetary worth of something : market price
3: relative worth, utility, or importance <a good value at the price> <the value of base stealing in baseball> <had nothing of value to say>
4: a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement <let x take on positive values> <a value for the age of the earth>
5: the relative duration of a musical note
6 a: relative lightness or darkness of a color : luminosity b: the relation of one part in a picture to another with respect to lightness and darkness
7: something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable <sought material values instead of human values? W. H. Jones>

===============================

A value in ethics is simply what the definitions get at--something held in esteem or favour--something valued. All of our values will get internalized subjectively. Some consensus are reached and this greatly explains things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How well these concepts--this "Declaration"--has been distributed equally or justfully is up to debate; equally and justfully would mean the same thing to some and something quite different to someone else (i.e. matters of entitlement). Everybody has the right to eat but is the President's right to eat of greater value than the starving Ethiopian child's right to eat. Bad example--most presidency's I'd maybe argue for that but this is a bad example.

I'll value my life over yours and vice versa. Human nature. Can be counted for, in law, rights, whatever. Democracy would help out greatly if ideally possible.

Somewhat more objective values in the preceeding.

That I value chocolate more than brocolli is a more subjective decision. Bad example, again, as I could argue that my value-estimate of chocolate might be mistaken to value it higher--shouldn't health be an "objective" priority (still smoke<<cough-cough>>wanna quit before 40--in a few months). Chocolate over vanilla ice cream, say, seems strictly subjective.

chit...am i getting anywhere?

shut up already--
--give me whatever conceptions of "value" that you have.

I value my assessments of lines quite a bit--more so when it's working--similar to valuing chocolate or health or even altruism, obviously to differing degrees but they refer to the same actions of judgement. Judgements of actions, better still.

Hope that makes sense.

Truth is, I'm undecided on "value" in a number of ways.


--did a minor edit but otherwise this can't be saved so I won't waste time trying
 
Last edited:

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Rather than study philosophical concepts such as value, truth, etc. You may want to pay attention to the psychology or motives of the one who is creating the "value". By doing so, you may learn to substantiate whether the "value" is actually valid.
 
Last edited:

EXTRAPOLATER

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 22, 2001
8,053
137
63
Toronto
My life is a bender. Chillaxed yesterday with only five. Might try 3 max tonight. Got something more inspiring and don't like to mix, really.

buddy, I guess it might be instructive to look at some more psychology or sociology type stuff but I got a lot on my plate already. I know some, anyway. Think I understand some stuff about human nature but studies of it really say quite different things depending on what they're arguing--we's self-seeking or empathic/altruistic--we's good by nature but learn bad or is the opposite true? Depending on how one justifies a particular value at least suggests ways to determine its validity (still open to debate). On this last matter, whether its a value of some belief of "fact" I'm trying to make sense of potential truth through epistemology (study of knowledge) and certain things from science and whatever else seems fruitful. <<that was poorly written...phone call half-way through>> Anyways, I've got other thoughts on things such as bias (go Jays!), media and even education that might factor in. moving on...

Got to keep these shorter and to the point to get some (more) responses.

Still curious about various approaches to value-judgements, especially along the lines of gambling.

e.g. you can play a coin-toss at +140 or you can play one at +160. Obviously more value in the latter but how would you judge such (e.g return on investment).

Another example is that I'm currently considering refining how much to factor into home-field advantages while 'capping. If the visitor is .500 on the road and .500 at home and the home team is the same then it's hard to grant a home-field advantage. Visitor at .600H/.400R presents another problem, regardless of the home squad's record. I think what I've already got is fairly acceptable, and I try to factor in current trends and such, but I'm still trying to perfect it.

Perfection is overrated.
Profit is essential.
 
Last edited:

EXTRAPOLATER

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 22, 2001
8,053
137
63
Toronto
Going to try a different approach.

You walk into a casino in paradise.
Only two games open.
A coin-toss table is available offering +150 to call the toss.
The second table has a 6-sided-die roll with correct calls paying +1000.

Which table would you play?
 

kickserv

Wrong Forum Mod
Forum Member
May 26, 2002
93,967
2,208
113
51
Canada
two things.................


1) I'd play the coin toss game



2) You are wayyyy to smart for this site......your posts sound like a Dennis Miller stand-up act on speed :scared



oh and change your username to Doogie:scared
 

EXTRAPOLATER

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 22, 2001
8,053
137
63
Toronto
two things.................
......your posts sound like a Dennis Miller stand-up act on speed :scared



oh and change your username to Doogie:scared


Might agree with the first one.
Don't get the second one.
This has been my only username on this site, but not sure what you're suggesting.
As for that other shiite, I wish I could agree...got some evidence contrary to that but don't think I'll share it.
I wouldn't stick around if I thought it was a waste of time--several smart and interesting people 'round here, including some American perspectives that I don't get much of. Some solid 'cappers here, too; I'm just trying to get a sense of how others assess the risks.

I'm undecided on the paradise casino.
I think I could argue for either one.
Might try the math later.
 

EXTRAPOLATER

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 22, 2001
8,053
137
63
Toronto
A coin-toss table is available offering +150 to call the toss.
The second table has a 6-sided-die roll with correct calls paying +1000.

===============================

Coin toss tempts me but going to play around...

CT=coin toss
DI=dice (use singular but...fawgetaboutit...)

CT=+150 on a 50% (1 in 2)
DI=+1000 on a 16.666% (1 in 6)

CT
(a) odds 50%
payout break-even mark 40% (100/250%)
value indicator is +10

(b) risking $60
3 losses at $10 each, 3 wins at a return of $25 each
75 returned from 60 risk
ROI=+25% (125% return)

DI
(a) odds 16.666% or 1 in 6
payout break-even mark of 9.09%
value indicator is +7 (ish)

(b) risking $60
5 losses at $10 each and 1 win at total return of $110
110 returned from 60 risk
ROI=+83% (183.% return)

==============================

This problem glared at me last year. I use the value indicator (VI) a lot and my method makes (a) my preferred argument. (b) shows that there's a serious problem with that.

With (a), not only is the VI higher but my risk for each and every play is going to be greatly reduced--I lose 50% of the time on the coins and 83% of the time on the dice. The only way I can justify this preference is to argue that each sporting event that I 'cap will only be played once so I should look to limit my risk in these situations. My ROI proof (b) shows which will provide the better results (over the long haul).

Given only ONE opportunity to play--once--I might sacrifice the better possible return in order to have the better chance of winning.

Been fighting this for a few years.

disclaimer #1: I might be using "ROI" different than used in economics or business or what-have-you. I could care less. Using some common sense, hopefully, and the analysis seems useful.

diclaimer #2: the site moderators cannot endorse the sanity of the poster.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top