Scalping out of a slow pay, the Turk way

[The Philosopher]

Well, I can’t let you all beat up on my buddy Turk any more. So I’ll offer a defense of his position of scalping/middling out of an NAB-type book. I can offer only a very qualified and limited such defense, but if you read closely his posts and the posts of those on his side of this issue, I don’t know that they are claiming anything much stronger than that for the strategy.

Let’s look at some potential reasons in favor of this strategy:

1. Assume you have $1,000 in your account at a book in trouble, where there is some small but nonzero chance that you will eventually be paid what you have coming to you. For the sake of argument, let’s say you estimate that there is a 25% chance they’ll bounce back and pay their customers.

You shop lines and find a game that is even money on one team at this book, and even money on its opponent at another book.

If you stand pat, there is a 75% chance you will have $1,000 stolen from you. If you bet $1,000 at even money on each side of this game at these two books, there is a 50% chance you will have eliminated your balance at the shaky book while boosting your balance at the legit book by $1,000, and a 50% chance you will have doubled your balance at the shaky book while losing $1,000 at the legit book. Which is to say, you will have a 37.5% chance of having $2,000 stolen from you.

Now, what’s worse? A 75% chance of being cheated of $1,000, or a 37.5% chance of being cheated of $2,000? Would you trade the one for the other?

I contend that while in a mathematical sense they are of equal value—both equivalent to a loss of $750—their actual utility can differ from person to person and from situation to situation. Depending on your bank roll, your individual psychological make-up and risk aversion, etc., you may well prefer putting yourself at a smaller risk of losing a bigger amount, or a bigger risk of losing a smaller amount. And I don’t think such a preference is “wrong.” If the one has more utility for you than the other, then so be it. There is no logical requirement that the impact on your life or your psyche of losing $2,000 has to be precisely double that of losing $1,000.

Also, for most people I would think the opportunity for closure would have some nonzero weight. If you stand pat, you will be stuck in a position of uncertainty for whatever indeterminate time the book teeters. But if you make the play, you have a 50% chance of remaining in that position of uncertainty and a 50% chance of being able to walk free of the book and never worry about it again.

So even if your subjective weighing of the utilities renders a 75% chance of being cheated out of $1,000 and a 37.5% chance of being cheated out of $2,000 as being of exactly equal value, it might still be your best course of action to choose the latter due to the opportunity it provides of potentially settling your fate and ending this whole unpleasant uncertainty.

(Clearly the math will be different with other hypotheticals, but the principles will be the same. For example, let’s say your strategy is to bet $1,000, then if you lose, bet $2,000, then $4,000, then $8,000, and that you’ll stop if your account builds to $16,000. In that case, you would be exchanging a 75% chance of being cheated out of $1,000 for a 4.6875% chance of being cheated out of $16,000. There again the utilities of these two outcomes for you need not be exactly equal.)

2. A player should also take into account if different level balances or different betting histories might have some impact on his likelihood of being paid.

Above I was assuming a 75% chance of getting stiffed across the board. But it’s possible that this percentage will vary at different levels. Depends on what evidence happens to be available concerning a given book, but it's possible.

For instance, let’s say your book has shown a propensity to pay off customers owed only a small amount, but is stalling on even partial payments to those with a large balance. Maybe there’s a 75% chance you’ll never see your money if your balance stays at $1,000 or increases, but if you can get it down to $500 you figure there is a 50% chance they’ll be willing to give you that to have one less person harassing them, posting in the forums, etc.

Now that needs to be a part of your calculations. If you stand pat, you still have a 75% chance of being cheated out of $1,000. If you make a $500 wager, you have a 37.5% chance of being cheated out of $1,500, and a 25% chance of being cheated out of $500. Your choices are no longer mathematically equal, as the latter is equivalent to a loss of $687.50 rather than $750.

Not every situation is the same, and this very factor can cut precisely the opposite way given a different set of evidence instead. You may, for instance, be dealing with a book that has displayed a grudging willingness to pay off some $1,000 balances, but no higher. In that case, your risk may well increase if your balance grows, but not correspondingly decrease if you bring your balance down.

But the point is, in some cases—not all—it can skew the expected return in favor of the strategy of trying to scalp/middle out of the shaky book.

Similarly, your chances of being paid might be affected by your willingness to give the book action. For evidence of this, you could consult with other people who have and haven’t been paid by this book since they became a problem, and see if there is any correlation where the book was more amenable to payout requests from folks who were “sporting” enough to continue to play into them. It also could be worthwhile to look at past cases like the Dunes, a book that staggered along in slow pay mode for months or a year or more before finally going under. During all that time that partial payments were dribbling out, was there any correlation between those who continued to give them action and those who were sent at least some of the money they were owed?

If so, and if you’re in a similar situation, then again the percentages will not remain constant and you need to adjust your calculations.

3. This is not so much an additional factor, but I want to address a factor that seemingly cuts the other way.

As some posters have pointed out, often one of the reasons that a book, including NAB, gets in trouble is precisely that its lines are weak enough to be on the wrong side of scalps more often than chance. In that case, attempting to scalp/middle your way out would actually put you in a slightly worse position mathematically, and you would have to take that into account in deciding whether to use the strategy. So, in my earlier example, instead of exchanging a 75% chance of being cheated out of $1,000 for a 37.5% chance of being cheated out of $2,000, it might be more like a 40% chance of being cheated out of $2,000.

I think this objection can be eliminated if we more carefully specify the strategy (and this is consistent with how Turk and others have described what they have in mind).

The strategy would not be to take whatever scalps or middles happen to be available, but to take only a certain subset of them. That is to say, a bettor would bet precisely what he would have bet at his legit books even if he had no account at all with the shaky book. Then and only then, he would bet the other side of those plays at the shaky book where doing so provides a scalp or middle.

Now, that subset of scalp/middle opportunities will be null if lines at the book in question are so consistently weak that as a handicapper you take this factor to be so overwhelming that you literally will never make a play at another book that doesn’t either fade them or is neutral. But except in this unrealistically extreme case, there should still be at least some occasions where you like the same side of a game that the shaky book does, and thus this strategy can come into play after all.

4. I am ignoring the “evidence” of “But I’ve been successful with this strategy, therefore I know it works” (or, for that matter, "I tried this strategy and just dug myself into a bigger hole") because it carries only infinitesimal weight. If starting tomorrow, everyone makes a note of which plays they made with the phone in their left hand, I have no doubt that some players will discover that they won at a rate higher than chance on those plays. This basically tells me nothing about whether it is a good strategy to hold the phone in one’s left hand when wagering.

5. In conclusion, I disagree with those critics who frantically warn against this strategy and label it as irresponsible, “the worst advice you could give,” etc. If one is following the version of the strategy where you only bet the opposite sides of plays that would have been warranted on their own merits at the legit books anyway, then one of two things. Either a) None of the factors mentioned above happens to be present, and so you are engaged in a pointless exercise that neither helps nor harms you, except for a trivial loss of time making the extra plays. (It is the “mind games” Ronbets mentions, or the equivalent of making meaningless plays on paper at a nonexistent book as several described.) Or b) One or more of the factors mentioned above is present, and so you are to some small degree better off pursuing this strategy than standing pat. To contend instead that this is some recklessly harmful strategy smacks of superstition, like “Don’t mention the pitcher has a no-hitter until the game is over,” or “Don’t record your bet as a winner before its over.” I don’t think the gambling gods will punish your insolence for trying to scalp/middle out of a book. If used correctly in the way I’ve described, the strategy will either be neutral or very slightly to your advantage.

Perhaps think of it as a kind of “rebate on losses” promotion at your other books. If you win your plays at your other books, then your account at the shaky book is eliminated and that’s that. Nothing to rebate, because you won your “real” bets. But if you lose your plays at your other books, then you have at least some chance of recouping that loss, as long as there is a nonzero chance the shaky book will pay you after all.

So, it’s not “Get 25% of any losses rebated to you,” but more like “Get a 25% chance of having 100% of your losses rebated to you, and a 75% chance of having none of your losses rebated to you.” If you’re just making the same plays at your legit books that you would have made anyway, how would a promotion like this hurt you?

[The Actuary]

hi Philo,

I have not had the chance to finish your entire post yet.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

But early on, I think it is a mistake to assume the likelihood is 50% for each decision,

if a book is slow paying it stands to reason their lines are weak, it seems ultimately a disproportionate amount of your success will be at the bad book and that is why it is bad to begin with.

if the argument goes it's close enough to 50% to bail out, because X is better then zero, the problem is the more desparate the bad book gets, the greater chance that will be your winning side.

TA

[The Actuary]

Wow that was a doozy of a case,

I would think only in a case where you'd think there is zero chance of payment,

would you bet against sides you like, which is at the essence of this.

if you win, then ultimately you will lose money you really thought you had no chance of collecting anyway, it seems more semantics then actually bailing out.

just my opinion of course,

TA

[count zero]

Hey, Philo, good to see you around.

Care to project what would have happened with this NAB thing in Philo's Phorum?

[buckeye]

TA,
While I understand your points I'm not sure I agree that books get in trouble because of too much opinion/gamble or that every book when in trouble starts goosing lines. But even if that were the case, you can always select ONLY lines that are consensus at the bad book and somewhat opinionated at a good book and that you like the team at the good book to cover! What Philo was referring to in 3. I'd also say it takes selectivity to find lines scalpable or middle-able and that you have a strong opinion on. That's why I found myself upping my bet size dramatically in these circumstances.

This is what I like about Philo. Months ago he corrected me on the error of "middling out" and the fallacy of playing "against" un-recoverable or questionable funds, and now he is smart enough to argue the other stance in defense of a "ganged up on buddy -turk"! Gotta like the guy! I've been known to argue both sides of an argument myself![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

I remember posting about my first middle-out and saying I never heard of anyone else doin it. I got lots of posts, at a different site, telling me it is old hat and has been done for ages to recover funds from stiffs. I understand the risks and pitfalls, but it isn't that rare an occurance from what I've gathered over the years. That doesn't make it smart, nor do the examples of some of us mitigate the risks, its just something worth thinking about and evaluating on your own. Kind of like parlays aren't for many players or middling, etc. Many say parlays are the dumbest bet you can make.

I actually wish I had been able to middle out of Cam, I definitely would have done it there. I think the sports and bet types make a difference to their "middle-out-able" status as well, along with the chances of getting paid after all.

Another factor may be how many outs you have. I think many get bit because they have many outs and go for some perks that make the book a bit more at risk to begin with. So there is a bit of gambler in many who use these outs. I know that contributed to my having 5 problems, the last two I had no opp to middle out even if I wanted to. AllWorld was lamenting the fact that players seem to be more about bonuses and perks than their post-up segregation policy to insure post-up. Course that may have just been an advertising ploy to get players feeling sorry for them too! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] Having many outs increases exposure and many who have many outs probably are more willing to try to middle out than a one out square. But you need a decent amount of outs to have any chance of doing this as well, IMO.

I can tell you this, it is NEVER FUN! It sucks bigtime! But let's not fault turk for TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME USEFULL INFO. It's up to randyrohm or whomever to use it or pass. I know I was much better off getting out quick than the mental toll and uncertainty of the long wait! But I still can't recommend it to anyone else!

JMHO

[The Actuary]

Hi Buckeye,

I'm not a scalper, in fact I have a hard time understanding most of them,

it seems they end up paying Pinnacle every week, but for some reason feel obligated to continue taking both sides,

but I just do not want to see Turk lose any more money then is already in jeopardy and although Philo posted a succint objective and mathematical justification, it seems it is fraught with subjectivity about exactly which games to use.

One other thing to add, IMHO this seems to be another case by case situation and seems shortsighted to just auto dismiss it as a solution.

TA

[buckeye]

TA,
I know that one reason you'd still play the other side at Pinn, even though losing the majority, is to decrease your exposure. If you just bet against them then you are at 100% risk, with scalps I know I bet MUCH MORE than NORMAL and wouldn't be within reason to "unload" on gambles that are closer to 55% or whatever your win% is ( as that's radical and bad $ management, IMO ). What you do instead is leave a "regular gamble" in the scalp, what I call partial scalping, and increase your odds DRAMATICALLY over just having played it straight at the better price ( or non-Pinn out ). See the basic training section on scalps where we discuss this. It is a very powerfull WEAPON even for "non scalpers" to use. The example Philo gave in it is a 2 units to 1, but I often have 21 to 20 or MORE! Depending on limits and scalp size you can have no risk and more reward than your usual bet or the same risk and many times the normal return. I've been using this technique for years and I'm no big scalper or middler - just tinker with them some. But you still need the Pinn side because it isn't like its 100% they win every opinionated line, just that they apparently win more than their share for many of us. Look into it the next time you line shop! If the game you like also has an available scalp, USE IT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE AS A CAPPER/GAMBLER NON-SCALPER! Pound both sides and leave whatever risk you would have to begin with.

GL

[The Actuary]

Buckeye,

We have diametrically opposite opinions.

It is not increasing your odds by betting into the wrong number,

it is ultimately decreasing your total return and for this decrease you recieve less exposure.

bet less on the right side, if you want less exposure it's free.

and I understand the mechanics, but if you're constantly paying one guy and collecting from another,

it's ridiculous to continue betting with the guy you keep paying.

[Dingle]

Buckeye

I like your thinking on increasing your odds, but it has to be on a scalp that is available right there and then, unless you are real good a picking out leads. I havent often wondered about the pitfalls of doing this when I have my normal play on a side. Do I want to reduce my bet size, but increase my edge? Guess its time for me to get excel out and create a sheet that can tell me straight away what decision to make.

As far as scalping out of a book. Does anyone subscribe to the idea of finding the biggest favourite you can, and scalping/playing both sides(saying this as you could play just to lose 4%), taking the fav with your strong book, and the dog with your weak book. Problem is that with US sports you'll have a hard time finding the big Moneyline numbers. Also if the bad case happens, i.e. dog wins outright, you left with a load of money in your "weak" book.

Dingle

[buckeye]

Dingle,
You are right that I meant scalps that are concurrently available, not borne out of leads. The principle is the same, but the amount you bet is so much more, in my example, that it would be too great a risk for my "unable/willing to effectively take lead" azz. I do this MOSTLY with golf moneyline matchup bets where "simultaneous" scalps are not as rare as they are in other sports and these situations don't often involve matchups where leads are viable. I'm not betting 21 units as a lead, but for a simultaneous scalp where I effectively risk 1 unit to win 4 on a favorite. For that kind of angle - hell yes I'm willing to put that much out.

TA,
I think what I am saying is just because you are always posting back up with Pinn doesn't mean you lose every bet there. Even if you lose 55% you will be posting up with them consistently. But I'm not going to stop taking advantage of scalps or middles there ( where I may bet 20 units or more ) to only bet 1-2 units on the other side elsewhere. Its not a 100% thing and I have had streaks where I've beaten Pinn just not like other outs and many report they are a predominantly "unlucky" book for them as well!

I don't trust their prowess that much just yet and besides I like to either bet my opinion ( or partial scalp off it), OR middle/scalp a bit. I'm just not into using a book's opinion to bet on. I've done it a little, but like piggy-backing it isn't the same thing for me. On sports I cap and have an educated opinion on I play my own picks, on those I don't cap well I have no real great desire to follow others or play off the book's prowess, but I'll middle/scalp where the opp presents itslf because there is more of a guarantee than if the guy or book goes cold on you. It's a bit like pro scalpers. Many will shade the scalp so that they win the max when the dog wins and break even otherwise. They shade/partial scalp down to breaking even or winning. The thought is the dog side is the sharp one. I don't do that UNLESS I have an opinon and then I shade whichever way I like not just the dog. Otherwise I want to earne off the scalp either way and not shade based on a "questionably sharp" rule of thumb.

Playing angles to help me get the most out of my capping and my opinion, or middling/scalping, is where I'm at in the evolutionary process. Betting off a book's opinion is something I've dabbled with but am not that keen on yet. Just like reading sharp books to help take leads or any of the other "reads" pros use. I'm far from that level, admittedly! I agree with your point that if their opinion is that strong then use it. I'm just not there quite yet. Have you done this a lot? If so, has it worked? Anyone else do it succxessfully ( I don't even see why you wouldn't reveal where as you are betting ELSEWHERE based on that shop's shade not at that shop, so it won't kill the goose to let us know!). BTW, I dabble with it a bit off OLY's golf lines, if they show opinion then bet the other side, its a good read!

GL2All

[The Actuary]

Buckeye, it's not the books opinion, that is not what I intended to promote.

It should be your opinion, if a number is so distorted that it creates a positive expectation regardless of side, by betting both your conceding some sort of compromise, clearly regardless of source of inspiration one of the numbers is a better bet then the other. I know you handicap, you're short changing your own skills by not completely exploiting the weaker of the numbers, and of course they both could be at a high enough straddle to be considered weak, but as a 'capper you should be able to discern the weakest.

Just my opinion,

TA

[The Actuary]

Of course it ultimately leads one to consistently bet vs people they can beat,

as a good handicapper you'll ultimately figure out which books have the better handicappers/linesmen,

and rather then be an endall to handicapping it merely is just another input in the process.

TA

[deepsouth]

Book A:

Heads -105
Tails -105

Book B:

Heads +110
Tails -120

What do you do here? Book A has the strong lines, Book B has beatable lines. In terms of expected return per dollar wagered, Heads +110 is the way to go.

But if you are trying to build up a bankroll, scalping is going to get you where you want a lot more quickly than simply taking the good side. Going back to something buckeye said a few posts ago, you can put a much higher percentage of your bankroll into play if it's a scalp. You can't bet a huge percentage of your bankroll on Heads +110; you can on Heads +110/Tails -105.

[The Actuary]

Deep I understand exactly what he's talking about and completely disagree.

You just posted bet tails at -105,

I do not have to reiterate my opinion again,

anything bet on tails -105 is ridiculous,

clearly heads plus +110 should be the only bet.

I can't help it if we disagree, but as a handicapper he is shortchanging his own talent by betting the wrong side, just like you just posted betting -105 on a coin toss when +110 is available is shortchanging the roi. You're paying a premium for your safety, you are better off just betting less on the correct price.

[Machiavelli]

TA:

If you had a $10,000 bankroll, and the limit on heads or tails was $5000, how much would you bet in this scenario?

[The Actuary]

I'm not sure,

but I certainly would not bet anything on tails at less then even money.

I understand we're headed back down the road to risk of ruin again and I'll assume there exists an optimal amount,

if forced to give an answer, you knowing how I play BJ, know if I have the edge, I'm taking as big a shot as possible, if I get beat I can always come back another day. At least I knew without doubt the shot I took was positive expectation, who knows the next time someone will offer me +110 on a coin toss, I suspect just about anyone will give me -105 anytime I want.

TA

[Machiavelli]

I hope you see (I'm sure you do) that the player has two outs that are completely and totally sound (like state lotteries or something like that) that the player can make $250 of ev by putting everything on the scalp, which is way more than the straight bet ev.

What you and I both know is, that offshore sports scalping is does not allow one that sort of availability or security of bankroll. A good scalper has at a bare minimum 20 outs, thus it is hard for him to get 1/20th of his BR on any side unless he is a credit player. And 1/20th of a bankroll is very close to an ok size for a simple straight bet on the "good" side.

(how the heck did into the role of scalper's advocate, here, anyway?)

[buckeye]

You do understand the scenario, right TA. If my unit for approx. a 10K bankroll is 2% that's 200. So I'd bet $200 to win $220 at +110.

But instead I bet 5000 @ +110 and 5250 @ -105.
Now I lose ZERO if tails hits and win 250 if my "sharp side" heads hits. I win 30 more and have risked ZERO or 200 less than above.

I understand your advocacy is to bet 5000 @ +110 but that is bad $ management ( 50% on one play ) even if that's a decent +EV play. Even if you say bet something between 200 and 5000, I advocate better $ management discipline but if you can have zero risk then why not?

Plus you could still bet 200 ( effectively ) by actually betting 5200 @ +110 and 5250 @ -105. Thus for the SAME 200 risk you now would win 470, thus having CONVERTED a +110 line to a +235 one. Isn't that the better play than +110 only at the second book? Any amount between 200 and 5000 that you might propose will still be bettered by betting it at 5K and the other side up to your deesired risk to increase your effective odds.

This is more powerful than you give it credit for, IMO, plus a 5 cent scalp is modest!

Just saw Mach's post and I agree it may not be realistic to bet your whole bankroll anyway, but you can bet less. Plus I have a different bankroll for "betting" than for scalping or middling and bet many more units on these partial scalps out of that roll not my betting one. Just need to keep that roll available and do this at outs w/o w/d fees.

JMHO

[Picksix]

Guys, I think you're both right.

I usually do what Buckeye has suggested because I'm too lazy to set what I think would be the right line and I get too pissed when I'm wrong. I know taking my profit by betting both lines is not the right play but for me it has worked. There is no risk involved, which eliminates the possible bad streak that could hurt your bankroll and it is also a lot less stressful.

I think this will support TA point:

Buckeye, use your last example,

By wagering 5200 to win 5720 (+110)and the 5250 to win 5000(-105). You would either win 470 or lose 200.

Say you do this 100 times and you win 50 and you lose 50. You would win 470*50=23,500....you would also lose 200*50=10000...so over all you would win ((13,500))

Now to use TA's way. You just wager 5200 to win 5720 on all 100 times. you would lose 50*5200 =(-260000)...you would also win 50*5720=286,000 so you would win((26,000)) or almost twice as much as the other way.

I think this clearly supports TA. However, you must be confident in you own ability to set the right line, using a coin flip it is very easy, but most scalps I run into, I am not informed enough to make a stand so I just take the risk free money and most importantly, I don't sweat my action!!!