The Psychological Hedge -- Road to Perdition?

[Henderson]

I live in a place where sports betting is legal. I'm not much of a gambler, but every now and then I'll bet a game just to have a little extra skin to keep a game fun to watch.

But with sports teams in which I have an emotional investment, I sometimes bet against my team as a psychological hedge, to cushion a possible loss. So, for example, if Duke is playing a basketball game that I know I'll feel terrible about if they lose, I'll sometimes bet on the opponent. If Duke wins, I'm happy to lose the money (well worth it, because of my psychological investment in Duke's winning). If Duke loses, well at least I have made a few bucks with which to console myself. I do the same thing with my favorite NFL team. If they win, I'm happy to lose a few bucks; if they lose, I can at least buy myself a meal. See how it works?

Today, I bet Kansas +3. If Duke loses and doesn't go to the Final Four, I can at least buy some strong drink to drown my sorrows. If Duke wins by 4 or more, I'm happy to lose my bet (Final Four!!). If Duke wins a close game, I could end up with Duke in the FF (!!) and cash in my pocket (!).

Am I going to Hell for doing this? Does it matter that I keep my psychological hedge bets small enough that I'd rather lose the money than see Duke lose the game?

[brevity]

I live in a place where sports betting is legal. I'm not much of a gambler, but every now and then I'll bet a game just to have a little extra skin to keep a game fun to watch.

But with sports teams in which I have an emotional investment, I sometimes bet against my team as a psychological hedge, to cushion a possible loss. So, for example, if Duke is playing a basketball game that I know I'll feel terrible about if they lose, I'll sometimes bet on the opponent. If Duke wins, I'm happy to lose the money (well worth it, because of my psychological investment in Duke's winning). If Duke loses, well at least I have made a few bucks with which to console myself. I do the same thing with my favorite NFL team. If they win, I'm happy to lose a few bucks; if they lose, I can at least buy myself a meal. See how it works?

Today, I bet Kansas +3. If Duke loses and doesn't go to the Final Four, I can at least buy some strong drink to drown my sorrows. If Duke wins by 4 or more, I'm happy to lose my bet (Final Four!!). If Duke wins a close game, I could end up with Duke in the FF (!!) and cash in my pocket (!).

Am I going to Hell for doing this? Does it matter that I keep my psychological hedge bets small enough that I'd rather lose the money than see Duke lose the game?

Isn't your own doubt answering your question better than any of us could?

[Henderson]

Isn't your own doubt answering your question better than any of us could?

Sadly, no. That's why I'm asking. My moral compass on this issue is broken.

[House G]

I’ve done this for years, and lost a lot of money in the process :(. For reasons stated, Duke needs to be the favorite, and they usually are. And I also have Kansas today, which means their chance of winning is now much less than they realize lol. Since my line is 3, in all likelihood Kansas has to win by 1,2,or 3 points.
On a similar note, it doesn’t have to be your team. I bet on the Holes to win the NC before the tournament at 15-1 odds. As soon as I placed the wager, I knew they had no chance. Maybe I should put out a tout sheet each week—people would probably pay a lot to know who NOT to bet on.

[hudlow]

At the gambling table, there are no fathers and sons. ~ Chinese Proverb

[House G]

I’ve done this for years, and lost a lot of money in the process :(. For reasons stated, Duke needs to be the favorite, and they usually are. And I also have Kansas today, which means their chance of winning is now much less than they realize lol. Since my line is 3, in all likelihood Kansas has to win by 1,2,or 3 points.
On a similar note, it doesn’t have to be your team. I bet on the Holes to win the NC before the tournament at 15-1 odds. As soon as I placed the wager, I knew they had no chance. Maybe I should put out a tout sheet each week—people would probably pay a lot to know who NOT to bet on.

Meant to say Kansas likely loses by 4 or more points.

[richardjackson199]

Just be careful doing this. There was a time when I'd make the occasional cash wager on sports for similar reasons. I very much don't like Calipari and UK. Back in 2014 they were playing Wisconsin in a Final 4 game. I was on vacation in Vegas, so I laid some cash on Kentucky at -2 and watched the game in a sports bar filled oddly enough with mostly Wisconsin fans. I was of course cheering hard for Wisconsin, and the bet was only to give me some positive outcome if UK won. Wisconsin had a 2 point lead with seconds to go. Yep, then Aaron Harrison hit a 3 buzzer beater to win the game at last second, broke our hearts, and I still lost my bet.

I think that was the last time I ever bet real cash on sports. And my ability to make losing sports bets has also been um, slightly reconfirmed in future bets made just for fun.

So I think the psychological hedge is a good bet as long as it's a win-win. If it's not, be careful, it can find a way to screw you, and that hurts.

Thankfully UK lost the championship game to UConn the next game. And thankfully Wisconsin got their revenge against UK the following year, before having their hearts broken again by another team in royal blue.

This of course doesn't really apply to taking Kansas + 3 or + 3.5. It's a win-win, but much much bigger win if Duke finds a way to win. And you should still be cheering for a Duke blowout.

[richardjackson199]

I'd also add that if you see that Mike Eades is refereeing the game, you should def take Kansas + 3.5.

I rewatched the end of Duke Syracuse, and that ref really almost single-handedly killed Duke. I know I'm biased, but since we won I'm going to twerp about that ref. The replay review clearly showed on 2 angles ball going out last off Syracuse player's hand, and this was not difficult to see. His job was to get it right, and he just gave it back to Syracuse and told announcers it was too inconclusive. Syracuse then scored 2 points when Duke should have had possession.

Then Eades called a phantom foul on Carter when the Syracuse player drove and clearly initiated all contact by pushing Carter off a bit with off hand. 2 more points for Syracuse on free throws. All of this was happening in last critical minutes of game.

Then with Trent on free throw line being handed ball to shoot critical 1 and 1 (where if he misses front end Cuse can win with a buzzer beating 3), Eades goes over to monitor and starts watching film to put some extra time on clock for Syracuse's last shot. Grant Hill commented on Coach K getting livid for Eades icing Trent on critical 1 and 1 free throw. Raftery agreed with K.

Thankfully Trent channeled Apple Valley Stones on free throw line and drained both anyway. But I don't ever want to see Eades refereeing a big Duke game again. I know I will have to. Give me Roger Ayers any day - he is a good ref. I'd honestly prefer TV Teddy to Mike Eades. (I know many others will vehemently disagree, and Teddy is out for this NCAAT anyway).