Quote from: MI6 on Today at 03:36:53 PM

Quote from: actmyname on January 16, 2021, 01:47:50 PM

Quote from: Adzivu on January 16, 2021, 09:24:35 AM

Quote from: codegnome on January 15, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Quote from: Adzivu on January 15, 2021, 11:13:27 PM

He placed a bet on another player (John Wall) to score more points because the absence of James Harden means that player will play more minutes and will take more shots because Harden takes 24 shots per game. So those 24 shots will be distributed among other players, but since some players have more "shooting privileges" than other that means that player will take bigger % of those 24 shots.

Let's take for example game between Houston and Sacramento that was played on December 31st.
Harden played 38:18 minutes and scored 33 points from 24 field goal attempts and 11 free throw attempts.
John Wall played 36:34 minutes and scored 22 points from 20 field goal attempts and 4 FTA (free throw attempts).

Houston and Sacramento then played on January 2nd (the game in which Harden did not play)
and John Wall played 37:14 minutes and scored 28 points from 22 field goal attempts and 6 FTA (free throw attempts).

Thanks for the explanation. At first sight I get it wrong, I thought we were talking about 1 player but now it appears the case is about 2 players.
So in summary nikica99 thought he could steal some money from Adkinsbet because he read a rival of John Wall was not going to play and tried to take advantage about it?
I believe this is the exact arbitrage betting that bookmakers are suffering from. Why do I have the feeling that Adzivu is somehow related to nikica99 Wink

Just because I understand the reasoning behind his bet does not mean I'm related to him.
It just shows common sense. If you read what he actually wrote you might understand it also.

A lot of these bets just happen to be logical, good ideas.

A quick question for users who are against this type of behavior: at what point are you allowed to bet on 'good odds'?
Are you only meant to take -ev options at casinos? Really think about what that entails: every bet of yours must be losing or else you are violating rules.

This is an interesting discussion for me. I personally don't think you can stick to fixed values when a value is too high or too low. If a value goes from 4.20 to 1.80 it is obvious, but if it goes from 4.20 to 3.5 for example? So far I have not been able to find any fixed guidelines.

I also think it is interesting to discuss this. There should be a limit somewhere, which you could only convert and determine via a% of the total odds. Many bookmakers will suffer from this.
Can't you make an awful lot of money with that courtsiding if you have the right resources?