How much cash back would make a "value bet" ?

[Landprofits]

If the guy said I could play that game at those odds but I HAD to play at £10,000 a throw, I would not play. It is the same +EV bet, but I could not afford to lose £10k, so again I would have to forgoe the EV. The first rule of gambling club is dont gamble with more than you can afford to lose.

Hence why I would not take the bet.....

You get the idea, just because something is +EV that means you should always take it given an infinite bankroll and an infinite length of time. If you dont have those, there are times and reasons to turn +EV offers down. I think so anyway.

Exactly. And in this case we only have two bets, and if you're only playing with about 3% edge, you haven't got long for the odds too turn in your favour!

very interesting.

you say not enough to make you take that bet, so going back to the original question, how much would be enough for you to take it?

At 50% cashback, I can't really ignore it, because there is so much value in that. Had I got the 20% offer, I probably wouldn't have bothered but that attitude may change as I bring more casino type offers into my activity.

[Carson]

Used to do this up to a £100 a time when sporting index ran their double profits offers on games. Was a good earner but they've not done it for months now

[advanta]

It still depends on the chances of it happening and the cost of entry as to whether it is right for you to bet on it. Just because you will always win in the long run doesnt mean you will get there, in the long run we are all dead.

The odds of winning the National Lottery are 1 in 13,983,816. If the Jackpot was £14m then buying a ticket is a value bet. Im stil not sure I would buy a ticket expecting to make money from it, it is so likely I will lose £1 I would rather keep the £1 and forgoe the EV.

Coming from another angle somebody may offer me odds of 2.2 on the toss of a coin, which is a 50/50 bet (Odds of 2). So that is value there and odds above true odds. If it cost £1 to play I would all day long without thinking, £10 I would play it, I would probably play at £100 a time. If the guy said I could play that game at those odds but I HAD to play at £10,000 a throw, I would not play. It is the same +EV bet, but I could not afford to lose £10k, so again I would have to forgoe the EV. The first rule of gambling club is dont gamble with more than you can afford to lose.

You get the idea, just because something is +EV that means you should always take it given an infinite bankroll and an infinite length of time. If you dont have those, there are times and reasons to turn +EV offers down. I think so anyway.

It is true that if the factors are all right for you then you should do +EV offers because in the long run you cant lose. You may mean this thread and it is pretty much shown that you will never get considerably over or under the EV line:
http://www.thegamblingtimes.com/boar...ndy-right.html

The concept of risk and return has been much discussed in gambling literature. For those who are interested it is worth googling the term "Kelly criterion".
Essentially Kelly bettors bet the % of their bankroll relative to their edge. So, if a rebate gives you a 10% edge (which would be roughly a 20% rebate for a one-big-bet approach), you'd bet 10% of your bankroll. Even professional gamblers don't have the balls for pure Kelly and usually use a Kelly fraction (say, a quarter) to make the bad streaks psychologically bearable.

Although I agree with Andy in general, you'd be surprised how aggressive your bet sizing can be with advantageous situations like rebates whilst maintaining an acceptably low level of going broke.

[Grandthrax]

Very interesting...

[TomYom]

The odds of winning the National Lottery are 1 in 13,983,816. If the Jackpot was £14m then buying a ticket is a value bet. Im stil not sure I would buy a ticket expecting to make money from it, it is so likely I will lose £1 I would rather keep the £1 and forgoe the EV.

assuming that there can only be one winner?