A betting strategy or betting system is a structured approach to gambling intended to counter the inherent bias held by the house in casino and card games, by bookmakers in horseracing and sports betting, and other gambling situations. A successful strategy should increase the odds of winning in order to produce long term profits from a pursuit which under normal circumstances will only ever result in a long term loss.
All successful betting systems are predicated on statistical analysis, seeking to exploit the rare circumstances when the odds are in the favour of the player. [ citation needed ] Though the basis of all risk is fundamentally the same, betting systems vary in relation to the rules and circumstances of each particular game. Well-known betting systems include:Independent events
The following betting strategies apply to games which operate on independent events. For such games, the odds of a particular outcome are identical for every bet played. No such strategy can beat the house edge (if any) in the long run, and all of them trade off many small wins for a big loss or vice versa.Horse racing systems
Horse racing betting systems are based on a number of criteria, some of which include analysis of the horses' form.
Often horse racing systems are based on financial systems such as hedging (betting on multiple outcomes in a race) and arbitrage (lay the horse a low price and back it at a high price). Other horse racing systems exist which are based on items such as horse name, jockey form, trainer form, and lane draw. Modern horse racing systems can rely on specific betting possibilities only offered on betting exchanges.
The ineffective independent event systems in the above section can also be applied to horse racing.External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
All translations of BETTING STRATEGY
sens a gent 's content
A windows (pop-into) of information (full-content of Sensagent) triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation and translation from your sites !
With a SensagentBox, visitors to your site can access reliable information on over 5 million pages provided by Sensagent.com. Choose the design that fits your site.
Improve your site content
Add new content to your site from Sensagent by XML.
Crawl products or adds
Get XML access to reach the best products.
Index images and define metadata
Get XML access to fix the meaning of your metadata.
Please, email us to describe your idea.
The English word games are:
Lettris is a curious tetris-clone game where all the bricks have the same square shape but different content. Each square carries a letter. To make squares disappear and save space for other squares you have to assemble English words (left, right, up, down) from the falling squares.
Boggle gives you 3 minutes to find as many words (3 letters or more) as you can in a grid of 16 letters. You can also try the grid of 16 letters. Letters must be adjacent and longer words score better. See if you can get into the grid Hall of Fame !
Most English definitions are provided by WordNet .
English thesaurus is mainly derived from The Integral Dictionary (TID).
English Encyclopedia is licensed by Wikipedia (GNU).
Change the target language to find translations.
Tips: browse the semantic fields (see From ideas to words) in two languages to learn more.
computed in 0.156s
Copyright © 2012 sensagent Corporation: Online Encyclopedia, Thesaurus, Dictionary definitions and more. All rights reserved.
The word strategy is derived from the Greek word stratзgos; stratus (meaning army) and ago (meaning leading/moving).
Strategy is an action that managers take to attain one or more of the organizations goals. Strategy can also be defined as A general direction set for the company and its various components to achieve a desired state in the future. Strategy results from the detailed strategic planning process.
A strategy is all about integrating organizational activities and utilizing and allocating the scarce resources within the organizational environment so as to meet the present objectives. While planning a strategy it is essential to consider that decisions are not taken in a vaccum and that any act taken by a firm is likely to be met by a reaction from those affected, competitors, customers, employees or suppliers.
Strategy can also be defined as knowledge of the goals, the uncertainty of events and the need to take into consideration the likely or actual behavior of others. Strategy is the blueprint of decisions in an organization that shows its objectives and goals, reduces the key policies, and plans for achieving these goals, and defines the business the company is to carry on, the type of economic and human organization it wants to be, and the contribution it plans to make to its shareholders, customers and society at large.Features of Strategy
Strategy is a well defined roadmap of an organization. It defines the overall mission, vision and direction of an organization. The objective of a strategy is to maximize an organizations strengths and to minimize the strengths of the competitors.
Strategy, in short, bridges the gap between where we are and where we want to be.Authorship/Referencing - About the Author(s)
Management Study Guide is a complete tutorial for management students, where students can learn the basics as well as advanced concepts related to management and its related subjects.
RPS is great first game to look at when trying to learn and understand Nash equilibrium, because it's a game everyone knows and the equilibrium is simple to see and understand. While there is a lot to learn from RPS, extrapolating results from RPS to all games needs to be done with care.Second Price Auction
A second price auction is a simple example of a game where the equilibrium strategy wins the absolute maximum possible against any opponent who makes mistakes.GTO in NLHE
So how does GTO play fair against weak players in No Limit Hold’em? Unfortunately answering that question in general isn’t possible, but by thinking about why the RPS equilibrium performs so poorly, why the second price auction equilibrium performs so well, and by analyzing some example poker scenarios we can come to some pretty strong conclusions that GTO poker will beat fishy players who make a lot of mistakes.Shove or Fold
So how can we quantify how well an Equilibrium strategy performs against weak players? In the past the only real options were to look at the performance of shove/fold strategies late in SnGs against players who fold too much, call too much, or against players who incorrectly weight hands (eg. they call with 87s but fold K3o against an opponent who is shoving 40% of hands).
56% instead of 28%)
The analysis above should already make one highly skeptical of the idea that for some reason GTO poker is likely to just break even vs. fishy players, but it is limited to very specific scenario that ignores the vast majority of the types of decisions that poker players actually make in deep stacked poker.
MP bets 6bb, Button folds, and the BB raises to 18bb, MP calls
BB bets 30bb and MP calls.
BB: 77-TT, 33, QhTh+, KhTh+, Ah2h-AhJh, 65s, 87s, T9s, JhTh
I took this solution and put it into CREV, so that I could look at how these EVs change when the tight-passive MP player plays poorly.Conclusions
In practice, I believe the best strategy is to start with something close to GTO and shift your strategy in the general direction of your opponent's weaknesses rather than trying to drastically changing your strategy to maximally exploitative every time you think you have a read on your opponents. This gives you the benefit of solid un-exploitable play as you develop your reads, combined with the payoff of moderately exploitative play as you develop reads on your opponents weaknesses. Furthermore, in a future post I'll demonstrate some specific mathematical methods that can be used to figure out exactly how one should shift from GTO based on general tendencies that exploit those tendencies while minimizing the potential for counter-exploitation by your opponent.Friday, March 21, 2014 Range Equity vs Range Balance -- Which matters more? The simplest example, the nuts/air vs. made hand
Conclusions Wednesday, March 19, 2014 GTO Poker Outside of Heads Up -- What it solves and what it does not Nash equilibria defined: GTO in Heads Up:
Suppose you are playing heads up vs a fish and you somehow are able to play perfect GTO poker, while the fish is not and makes many mistakes. You can imagine the mistakes the fish makes as him changing his own strategy from GTO to a weaker strategy. The definition above says he cannot possibly have gained EV by changing his own strategy. Furthermore, poker is zero-sum and you are the only other player so if he lost EV than you had to have gained that EV.Heads Up Subgames: GTO 3-handed
(HERO) Small Blind EV: -11 bb / 100
Big Blind EV: -8 bb / 100
(HERO) Small Blind EV: - 17 bb / 100
Big Blind EV: 2 bb / 100Conclusions: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 Range Building with Bluff Catchers
The keys to being able to actually apply game theory to improve your poker game are to identify a situation where you know strategy is weak. I find that the easiest way to spot this situations are scenarios where either:
Once you've identified a leak in your strategy, you just need to think about what your range is and what your opponents range is at various points in the hand and look for clear weaknesses. Then you can start to figure out out how to adjust your play to plug the leak.
Hero Range: 7c5c, Ah9h, QsJh
Villian Range: 6h5h, Td9d, Qc7h, 8s7d, Ks4c
Hero Range: 7c5c, Ah9h, QsJh, Qh8h
Villian Range: 6h5h, Td9d, Qc7h, 8s7d, Ks4c
In scenario two, Qh8h has about 70% equity vs the villains range and manages to average winning close to 70% of the 14 chip pot with that hand. However, what is more powerful is that adding Qh8h to the players range increases his EV with all of his other hands. This means the total EV that we gain by putting Qh8h into our river range is the 9.16bb we earn when we have Qh8h plus the additional EV that we gain by increasing our expectation with our other hands. Even if we ignore the cases when we actually have Qh8h, our average EV with our other hands has increased from 3.33bb in scenario 1 to 4.19bb. On average we will win almost an extra bb every single hand with the weaker parts of our range just by making our entire range more defensible! In a game like HU where this type of river situation can easily happen once out of every 10 hands, this type of adjustment could have a 10bb/100 impact on our winrate. We've also managed to take a line that does at least as well with Qh8h as betting the turn is likely to.Thursday, March 6, 2014 Strategies, Nash Equilibria and GTO Poker
Nash Equilibria in Poker
© Fred Nickols 2012Introduction
The concept of strategy has been borrowed from the military and adapted for use in business. A review of what noted writers about business strategy have to say suggests that adopting the concept was easy because the adaptation required has been modest. In business, as in the military, strategy bridges the gap between policy and tactics. Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap between ends and means (Figure 1). This paper reviews various definitions of strategy for the purpose of clarifying the concept and placing it in context. The author's aim is to make the concepts of policy, strategy, tactics, ends, and means more useful to those who concern themselves with these matters.
Figure 1 - Strategy & TacticsSome Language Basics
Strategy is a term that comes from the Greek strategia, meaning "generalship." In the military, strategy often refers to maneuvering troops into position before the enemy is actually engaged. In this sense, strategy refers to the deployment of troops. Once the enemy has been engaged, attention shifts to tactics. Here, the employment of troops is central. Substitute "resources" for troops and the transfer of the concept to the business world begins to take form.
Strategy also refers to the means by which policy is effected, accounting for Clauswitz famous statement that war is the continuation of political relations via other means. Given the centuries-old military origins of strategy, it seems sensible to begin our examination of strategy with the military view. For that, there is no better source than B. H. Liddell Hart.Strategy According to B. H. Liddell Hart
In his book, Strategy , Liddell Hart examines wars and battles from the time of the ancient Greeks through World War II. He concludes that Clausewitz definition of strategy as "the art of the employment of battles as a means to gain the object of war" is seriously flawed in that this view of strategy intrudes upon policy and makes battle the only means of achieving strategic ends. Liddell Hart observes that Clausewitz later acknowledged these flaws and then points to what he views as a wiser definition of strategy set forth by Moltke: "the practical adaptation of the means placed at a generals disposal to the attainment of the object in view." In Moltke's formulation, military strategy is clearly a means to political ends.
Concluding his review of wars, policy, strategy and tactics, Liddell Hart arrives at this short definition of strategy: "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfil the ends of policy." Deleting the word "military" from Liddell Harts definition makes it easy to export the concept of strategy to the business world. That brings us to one of the people considered by many to be the father of strategic planning in the business world: George Steiner.Strategy According to George Steiner
George Steiner, a professor of management and one of the founders of The California Management Review, is generally considered a key figure in the origins and development of strategic planning. His book, Strategic Planning , is close to being a bible on the subject. Yet, Steiner does not bother to define strategy except in the notes at the end of his book. There, he notes that strategy entered the management literature as a way of referring to what one did to counter a competitors actual or predicted moves. Steiner also points out in his notes that there is very little agreement as to the meaning of strategy in the business world. Some of the definitions in use to which Steiner pointed include the following:
Steiner was writing in 1979, at roughly the mid-point of the rise of strategic planning. Perhaps the confusion surrounding strategy contributed to the demise of strategic planning in the late 1980s. The rise and subsequent fall of strategic planning brings us to Henry Mintzberg.Strategy According to Henry Mintzberg
Henry Mintzberg, in his 1994 book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning , points out that people use "strategy" in several different ways, the most common being these four:
Mintzberg argues that strategy emerges over time as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality. Thus, one might start with a perspective and conclude that it calls for a certain position, which is to be achieved by way of a carefully crafted plan, with the eventual outcome and strategy reflected in a pattern evident in decisions and actions over time. This pattern in decisions and actions defines what Mintzberg called "realized" or emergent strategy.
Mintzbergs typology has support in the earlier writings of others concerned with strategy in the business world, most notably, Kenneth Andrews, a Harvard Business School professor and for many years editor of the Harvard Business Review.Strategy According to Kenneth Andrews
Kenneth Andrews presents this lengthy definition of strategy in his book, The Concept of Corporate Strategy :
"Corporate strategy is the pattern [italics added] of decisions in a company that determines and reveals its objectives, purposes, or goals, produces the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals, and defines the range of business the company is to pursue, the kind of economic and human organization it is or intends to be, and the nature of the economic and non-economic contribution it intends to make to its shareholders, employees, customers, and communities. (pp.18-19)."
Andrews definition obviously anticipates Mintzbergs attention to pattern, plan, and perspective. Andrews also draws a distinction between "corporate strategy," which determines the businesses in which a company will compete, and "business strategy," which defines the basis of competition for a given business. Thus, he also anticipated "position" as a form of strategy. Strategy as the basis for competition brings us to another Harvard Business School professor, Michael Porter, the undisputed guru of competitive strategy.Strategy According to Michael Porter
In a 1996 Harvard Business Review article  and in an earlier book , Porter argues that competitive strategy is "about being different." He adds, "It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value." In short, Porter argues that strategy is about competitive position, about differentiating yourself in the eyes of the customer, about adding value through a mix of activities different from those used by competitors. In his earlier book, Porter defines competitive strategy as "a combination of the ends (goals) for which the firm is striving and the means (policies) by which it is seeking to get there." Thus, Porter seems to embrace strategy as both plan and position. (It should be noted that Porter writes about competitive strategy, not about strategy in general.)Strategy According to Kepner-Tregoe
In Top Management Strategy , Benjamin Tregoe and John Zimmerman, of Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., define strategy as "the framework which guides those choices that determine the nature and direction of an organization." Ultimately, this boils down to selecting products (or services) to offer and the markets in which to offer them. Tregoe and Zimmerman urge executives to base these decisions on a single "driving force" of the business. Although there are nine possible driving forces, only one can serve as the basis for strategy for a given business. The nine possibilities are listed below:
It seems Tregoe and Zimmerman take the position that strategy is essentially a matter of perspective.Strategy According to Michel Robert
Michel Robert takes a similar view of strategy in, Strategy Pure & Simple , where he argues that the real issues are "strategic management" and "thinking strategically." For Robert, this boils down to decisions pertaining to four factors:
Like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that decisions about which products and services to offer, the customers to be served, the market segments in which to operate, and the geographic areas of operations should be made on the basis of a single "driving force." Again, like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that several possible driving forces exist but only one can be the basis for strategy. The 10 driving forces cited by Robert are:
The notion of restricting the basis on which strategy might be formulated has been carried one step farther by Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema, authors of The Discipline of Market Leaders . In the Harvard Business Review article that presaged their book , Treacy and Wiersema assert that companies achieve leadership positions by narrowing, not broadening their business focus. Treacy and Wiersema identify three "value-disciplines" that can serve as the basis for strategy: operational excellence, customer intimacy, and product leadership. As with driving forces, only one of these value disciplines can serve as the basis for strategy. Treacy and Wiersemas three value disciplines are briefly defined below:
Each of the three value disciplines suggests different requirements. Operational Excellence implies world-class marketing, manufacturing, and distribution processes. Customer Intimacy suggests staying close to the customer and entails long-term relationships. Product Leadership clearly hinges on market-focused R&D as well as organizational nimbleness and agility.What Is Strategy?
What, then, is strategy? Is it a plan? Does it refer to how we will obtain the ends we seek? Is it a position taken? Just as military forces might take the high ground prior to engaging the enemy, might a business take the position of low-cost provider? Or does strategy refer to perspective, to the view one takes of matters, and to the purposes, directions, decisions and actions stemming from this view? Lastly, does strategy refer to a pattern in our decisions and actions? For example, does repeatedly copying a competitors new product offerings signal a "me too" strategy? Just what is strategy?
Strategy is all theseit is perspective, position, plan, and pattern. Strategy is the bridge between policy or high-order goals on the one hand and tactics or concrete actions on the other. Strategy and tactics together straddle the gap between ends and means. In short, strategy is a term that refers to a complex web of thoughts, ideas, insights, experiences, goals, expertise, memories, perceptions, and expectations that provides general guidance for specific actions in pursuit of particular ends. Strategy is at once the course we chart, the journey we imagine and, at the same time, it is the course we steer, the trip we actually make. Even when we are embarking on a voyage of discovery, with no particular destination in mind, the voyage has a purpose, an outcome, an end to be kept in view.
Strategy, then, has no existence apart from the ends sought. It is a general framework that provides guidance for actions to be taken and, at the same time, is shaped by the actions taken. This means that the necessary precondition for formulating strategy is a clear and widespread understanding of the ends to be obtained. Without these ends in view, action is purely tactical and can quickly degenerate into nothing more than a flailing about.
When there are no "ends in view" for the organization writ large, strategies still exist and they are still operational, even highly effective, but for an individual or unit, not for the organization as a whole. The risks of not having a set of company-wide ends clearly in view include missed opportunities, fragmented and wasted effort, working at cross purposes, and internecine warfare. A comment from Lionel Urwick's classic Harvard Business Review article regarding the span of control is applicable here :
"There is nothing which rots morale more quickly and more completely than . . . the feeling that those in authority do not know their own minds."
For the leadership of an organization to remain unclear or to vacillate regarding ends, strategy, tactics and means is to not know their own minds. The accompanying loss of morale is enormous.
One possible outcome of such a state of affairs is the emergence of a new dominant coalition within the existing authority structure of the enterprise, one that will augment established authority in articulating the ends toward which the company will strive. Also possible is the weakening of authority and the eventual collapse of the formal organization. No amount of strategizing or strategic planning will compensate for the absence of a clear and widespread understanding of the ends sought.The Practical Question: How?
How does one determine, articulate and communicate company-wide ends? How does one ensure understanding and obtain commitment to these ends? The quick answers are as follows:
The ends to be obtained are determined through discussions and debates regarding the company's future in light of its current situation. Even a SWOT analysis (an assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) is conducted based on current perceptions.
The ends settled on are articulated in plain language, free from flowery words and political "spin." The risk of misdirection is too great to tolerate unfettered wordsmithing. Moreover, the ends are communicated regularly, repeatedly, through a variety of channels and avenues. There is no end to their communication.
Understanding is ensured via discussion, dialog and even debate, in a word, through conversations. These conversations are liberally sprinkled with examples, for instances, and what ifs. Initially, the CEO bears the burden of these conversations with staff. As more people come to understand and commit to the ends being sought, this communications burden can be shared with others. However, the CEO can never completely relinquish it. The CEO is the keeper of the vision and, periodically, must be seen reaffirming it.
Ultimately, the ends sought can be expressed via a scorecard or some other device for measuring and publicly reporting on company performance. Individual effort can then be assessed in light of these same ends. Suppose, for instance, that a company has these ends in mind: improved customer service and satisfaction, reduced costs, increased productivity, and increasing revenues from new products and services. It is a simple and undeniably relevant matter for managers to periodically ask the following questions of the employees reporting to them:
No matter which definition of strategy one uses, the decisions called for are the same. These decisions pertain to choices between and among products and services, customers and markets, distribution channels, technologies, pricing, and geographic operations, to name a few. What is required is a structured, disciplined, systematic way of making these decisions. Using the "driving forces" approach is one option. Choosing on the basis of "value disciplines" is another. Committing on the basis of "value-chain analysis" is yet a third. Using all three as a system of cross-checks is also a possibility.Some Fundamental Questions
Regardless of the definition of strategy, or the many factors affecting the choice of corporate or competitive strategy, there are some fundamental questions to be asked and answered. These include the following:
This paper has taken a broad, multi-faceted look at the subject of strategy. Some readers might go away disappointed that no final, unambiguous definition of strategy has been provided. The quick response is that there is none, that strategy is a broad, ambiguous topic. We must all come to our own understanding, definition, and meaning. Helping the reader do so is the chief aim of this paper.References
There are other strategy-related articles on my web site. The links are provided below. The links in red are to .pdf versions.
© Sports Predictions 2018