[yisman]

what a move

04/21/14 11:05:02am	8 Over -105 Under -105
04/21/14 11:04:18am	8 Over -106 Under -104
04/21/14 11:03:55am	8 Over +102 Under -113
04/21/14 11:03:45am	8 Over +104 Under -115
04/21/14 11:03:29am	8 Over +108 Under -119
04/21/14 11:02:50am	8 Over +107 Under -118
04/21/14 11:02:16am	8 Over +111 Under -123
04/21/14 11:01:30am	8 Over +108 Under -119
04/21/14 11:00:35am	8 Over +106 Under -117
04/21/14 10:59:42am	8 Over +109 Under -120
04/21/14 10:59:25am	8½ Over +126 Under -139
04/21/14 10:59:14am	8½ Over +122 Under -135
04/21/14 10:59:00am	8½ Over +118 Under -130
04/21/14 10:58:47am	8½ Over +116 Under -128
04/21/14 10:51:18am	8½ Over +111 Under -123
04/21/14 10:48:46am	8½ Over +107 Under -118
04/21/14 10:47:59am	8½ Over +111 Under -123
04/21/14 10:47:15am	8½ Over +107 Under -118
04/21/14 10:35:51am	8½ Over +102 Under -113

sitting at under 8.5 -113, and then the money comes flooding in close to game time. Actually briefly went to under 8 -123 at one point!

Oh, and going back to yesterday, the opener was at 9. Opens 9, closes at 8.

Excluding Wrigley games and pitching changes, you rarely see that kind of move

[Big Bear]

[remeedella]

of course, every game haha

[yisman]

winners and losers on every game but to cause that kind of move, that's huge money being bet on the under.

[drfunkmaster]

easy over...cuz baltimore bullpen sucks,,

[No coincidences]

winners and losers on every game but to cause that kind of move, that's huge money being bet on the under.

Or books just juicing the living hell out of under backers.

[yisman]

Or books just juicing the living hell out of under backers.

not really any point

this was close to first pitch. A lot of money obviously poured in on the under in the 30 minutes before start.

[No coincidences]

not really any point

this was close to first pitch. A lot of money obviously poured in on the under in the 30 minutes before start.

Look at the price you were paying all along to take the under (up until the very end). I'm not saying money wasn't coming in on the under as well, but if books feel good about a number, why not tax the hell out of the other side to collect even more juice?

[No coincidences]

I guess it all depends on how you interpret line movement. Some gamblers believe it is completely market driven; that the quantity and quality of bets dictates a closing number, and that a move is purely based on the action a side or total is getting.

I am more of the belief that, while that is the case most of the time, books also have no problem giving out head fakes and faux line moves to manipulate or simulate action, and/or heavily tax the opposite side of a number they are confident in. Makes sense to me.

[yisman]

I guess it all depends on how you interpret line movement. Some gamblers believe it is completely market driven; that the quantity and quality of bets dictates a closing number, and that a move is purely based on the action a side or total is getting.

I am more of the belief that, while that is the case most of the time, books also have no problem giving out head fakes and faux line moves to manipulate or simulate action, and/or heavily tax the opposite side of a number they are confident in. Makes sense to me.

A 'lean' would be reflected in the opener. If a book is off market in one direction, it's either because they're slow to move or because they're taking a position.

The moves are not taking a position. A big move like this one (which was reflected across the market, at every book) is because of money or some kind of injury/lineup news (not the case here).

And your theory makes no sense because again, a lot of the move was right before betting closed. Why head fake so close to the game? If I ran a book and was playing with numbers, I'd do it so I could get as much action as possible.

[Big Bear]

yisman you got any leans tonight?

[No coincidences]

A 'lean' would be reflected in the opener. If a book is off market in one direction, it's either because they're slow to move or because they're taking a position.

The moves are not taking a position. A big move like this one (which was reflected across the market, at every book) is because of money or some kind of injury/lineup news (not the case here).

And your theory makes no sense because again, a lot of the move was right before betting closed. Why head fake so close to the game? If I ran a book and was playing with numbers, I'd do it so I could get as much action as possible.

To trap the steam chasers. If every big move right before gametime was legitimate, you could just follow the line movement and win. I think line movement is much more complicated and much less trustworthy in this day and age because everyone is privy to the same information thanks to the Internet. I just don't think it's always money that's driving the movement anymore.

[yisman]

To trap the steam chasers. If every big move right before gametime was legitimate, you could just follow the line movement and win.

No, you can't.

You can't win by chasing steam because the slow-moving books will boot you/severely limit you for doing it.

Find me one book that pays that won't kick you out for chasing steam.

And your theory has to be wrong because chasing steam does win long term. It hits about 55% (at the pre-move number, obviously not at the adjusted number) on spreads/totals. If books were screwing around like that, chasing steam might not have those results.

Chasing steam would be free money and has been like this for years if there were a slow-moving book that allowed it. But there isn't, as far as I can tell.

[No coincidences]

No, you can't.

You can't win by chasing steam because the slow-moving books will boot you/severely limit you for doing it.

Find me one book that pays that won't kick you out for chasing steam.

And your theory has to be wrong because chasing steam does win long term. It hits about 55% (at the pre-move number, obviously not at the adjusted number) on spreads/totals. If books were screwing around like that, chasing steam might not have those results.

Chasing steam would be free money and has been like this for years if there were a slow-moving book that allowed it. But there isn't, as far as I can tell.

I guess it depends on what kind of money/limits we're talking about.

Chasing steam doesn't work because not all steam is legitimate. I don't know if I would use this game as an example today, but I don't think you can just look at it as "someone lost big and was betting big on the under" and take that conclusion at face value.

I honestly, sincerely believe books don't move lines based solely on the idea that a side or total is getting hammered -- especially when you see heavy juice trailing the number the entire time. I really don't. And that makes them smart in this day and age, because something has to offset the amount of instant information readily available to the average gambler. They set trap lines at times and juice up certain numbers to collect the vig on gamblers big and small.

Books don't "screw around" when it comes to steam -- they take calculated risks when they know they can tax a gambler through a bad number on an "obvious" play (i.e., the line movement on this particular game today made the under look obvious at face value), a lot of juice, or both.

[yisman]

Look, chasing steam does work. It's documented. I have documented it myself.

If you did it for a year, I promise you'd win. It's not a question.

Everyone knows it works. No book is going to let you do it. That's why it doesn't work. Try chasing steam at SIA or Bovada. They'll boot/limit quickly, so you wouldn't make much and you'd lose an out.

So if your argument is books trick players and there's a lot of fake steam so you can't win by chasing steam, you're wrong. Ask around. I'm not the only one who has tracked it. It's a fact that it wins.

Given this, steam is real, and when there's a huge move like that, it's either from injury/lineup news or it's from large wagers. Several of them, at least.

[No coincidences]

Look, chasing steam does work. It's documented. I have documented it myself.

If you did it for a year, I promise you'd win. It's not a question.

Everyone knows it works. No book is going to let you do it. That's why it doesn't work. Try chasing steam at SIA or Bovada. They'll boot/limit quickly, so you wouldn't make much and you'd lose an out.

So if your argument is books trick players and there's a lot of fake steam so you can't win by chasing steam, you're wrong. Ask around. I'm not the only one who has tracked it. It's a fact that it wins.

Given this, steam is real, and when there's a huge move like that, it's either from injury/lineup news or it's from large wagers. Several of them, at least.

Here's the problem though -- you can't treat all steam the same. You might be able to grind out a profit as a small-time gambler strictly chasing steam, but the reason for the steam isn't always because a guy is hurt or some whale came in and pounded the under. That's an incredibly simplistic and archaic way of looking at what steam is in the modern era of gambling.

I don't know how you can identify a line drop and just automatically assume it happened because there was heavy money on that side or total in this day and age. Maybe 10 years ago, but books in the Internet era have had to smarten up and get crafty. I can all but guarantee you that, while chasing steam may win more often than not today, it isn't as profitable as it used to be -- nor should it be.

If chasing steam, beating the closer, RLM and everything else that's been a big deal through the years remains the same tried and true method to being a successful long-term handicapper, the books simply aren't doing their jobs.

[No coincidences]

Given this, steam is real, and when there's a huge move like that, it's either from injury/lineup news or it's from large wagers. Several of them, at least.

I respect you a lot yis, but that's a very elementary way of looking at it and I have a feeling a lot of books love seeing a statement like that. There is no transitive property in the gambling industry. It's never that simple, especially in 2014.

[No coincidences]

And let me add this: if I'm giving the books too much credit for their intelligence and ingenuity, so be it. I'd rather give the professionals that set and move lines for a living the benefit of the doubt than ever, ever assume they are on my side as a gambler. You have to do your best to keep pace with or even stay one step ahead and constantly adjust and/or shift the way you think, because you know they are. They have to. If not, you wind up just another victim to the game.

[yisman]

I explained perfectly well why you can't just chase steam and make unlimited amounts of money.

But it does work. That's a fact. If you say it doesn't, you're just making stuff up. If you don't believe my numbers, then I can give you SportsOptions' numbers. They've tracked steam plays for years. Same conclusion. Proven winner every single year.

It works because beating the closer works. The major markets are highly efficient.

If you're arguing beating the closer doesn't work, then you're simply saying that the major markets are not efficient. That is flat out wrong and has been proven wrong countless times.

[yisman]

I respect you a lot yis, but that's a very elementary way of looking at it and I have a feeling a lot of books love seeing a statement like that.

I promise you 'a lot of books' don't 'love' seeing a statement like that. They would prefer bettors be uninformed.

The reason I win (and I've tracked my picks on SBR, covers, and BTB) is because I have a good understanding of the market. Most people don't.

If chasing steam, beating the closer, RLM and everything else that's been a big deal through the years remains the same tried and true method to being a successful long-term handicapper, the books simply aren't doing their jobs.

You really want to claim beating the closer doesn't work? If anyone beats the closer consistently, they win. That's a fact now and that was a fact five years ago. Efficient markets.

[No coincidences]

I explained perfectly well why you can't just chase steam and make unlimited amounts of money.

But it does work. That's a fact. If you say it doesn't, you're just making stuff up. If you don't believe my numbers, then I can give you SportsOptions' numbers. They've tracked steam plays for years. Same conclusion. Proven winner every single year.

It works because beating the closer works. The major markets are highly efficient.

If you're arguing beating the closer doesn't work, then you're simply saying that the major markets are not efficient. That is flat out wrong and has been proven wrong countless times.

We're talking about different things now. I'm not contesting the idea that chasing steam overall can't be profitable -- I'm saying that in this particular case (or any random game you pick where steam is in play like this particular total), you can't just assume that the move was because of a "real" factor.

You can chase steam, but you can't blindly chase steam. And you can define it in certain instances, but that doesn't mean every single big line move happens for the reasons you mentioned.

[No coincidences]

I promise you 'a lot of books' don't 'love' seeing a statement like that. They would prefer bettors be uninformed.

The reason I win (and I've tracked my picks on SBR, covers, and BTB) is because I have a good understanding of the market. Most people don't.

I think you are underrating both the knowledge and understanding a typical gambler has now vs. in the past. Of course they would prefer bettors to be uninformed -- but that doesn't mean they are. Hell, with the Internet, you are just more informed by accident.

You really want to claim beating the closer doesn't work? If anyone beats the closer consistently, they win. That's a fact now and that was a fact five years ago. Efficient markets.

Didn't say it didn't work, but it's not what it once was and is vastly overrated. Just because it has always been a fact doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of expected success.

[whtsox13]

Yisman and NoCoin: well thought out points eloquently stated, rare for SBR.

[yisman]

You can chase steam, but you can't blindly chase steam.

Of course you can. That's my point. Blindly chasing steam works. You don't need a brain. You could program a computer to blindly chase every move and it would work.

I can personally attest that blindly chasing steam works, and I have the documented records to prove it.

If you say that you can't blindly chase steam because you have to know what caused the steam (which is impossible without an inside man, because that information is not publicly available), then you're saying chasing steam doesn't work. Guessing which moves are 'legitimate' and which ones aren't isn't chasing steam.

[yisman]

Didn't say it didn't work, but it's not what it once was and is vastly overrated. Just because it has always been a fact doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of expected success.

Well it does work. It wins in the long term.

You said:

If chasing steam, beating the closer, RLM and everything else that's been a big deal through the years remains the same tried and true method to being a successful long-term handicapper, the books simply aren't doing their jobs.

which implies that these things somehow stopped working over the years. They can't stop working unless the markets become inefficient.

RLM continues to work as well. As LT Profits. The issue of course is you need the original number, betting after the move isn't helpful.

[No coincidences]

Yisman and NoCoin: well thought out points eloquently stated, rare for SBR.

It's always an interesting debate to have. I've gone a few rounds with LT over a similar subject matter. Not to pick on LT, but he's losing his ass in recent years compared to what he once was. I don't know his methods in their entirety, but I do believe some of it has to do with the fact that what worked yesterday doesn't = future success, either in the strategy and type of research you do or the approach you take. Nor should they.

I feel like it's a constant work in progress, and you should always be open to new ideas and possibilities. Again, I may be dead wrong about line movement; it may, in fact, be dictated at all times by something as simple as injury news or big money on a given side or total. From my experiences, I tend to think there's a lot more at play and a lot more to consider in today's market, and that no line move is created equal or defined in linear terms.

[No coincidences]

Well it does work. It wins in the long term.

You said:



which implies that these things somehow stopped working over the years. They can't stop working unless the markets become inefficient.

I didn't say they "stopped working" -- I said that I don't think they don't produce the same success rate that they did before the Internet age really blossomed. Which means I think line moves are more complicated than big money or injury news moving a number, which means I disagree with the premise of your thread, which is why I posted something in the first place. I just don't think as straight-lined as you do when it comes to this. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong -- I just choose not to take these things at face value.

[yisman]

I didn't say they "stopped working"

Your post strongly implied it.

I said that I don't think they don't produce the same success rate that they did before the Internet age really blossomed. Which means I think line moves are more complicated than big money or injury news moving a number, which means I disagree with the premise of your thread, which is why I posted something in the first place. I just don't think as straight-lined as you do when it comes to this. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong -- I just choose not to take these things at face value.

I don't know what else I can say here. I can show you records proving that chasing steam works, and I'm not the only one. Not many people on the forums know about this stuff, but there are some that do, and they can say the same.

[No coincidences]

Not many people on the forums know about this stuff, but there are some that do, and they can say the same.

You make it sound like it's some sort of strategy, or some well-kept secret. Books are well aware of the fact that, if a team (especially a publicly backed team) goes from -125 to -140 before tip or first pitch, there are plenty of people out there who think that legitimately means something. You said yourself "you don't need a brain" to win chasing steam. If I know that, you know that, Brock Landers knows that and the books know that, don't you think they might counter it from time to time by throwing a few curveball moves at bettors or juicing the hell out of a number like they did this morning with that total (whether intentional or not)?

[whtsox13]

Compare and contrast: the line you gentlemen are discussing with large late movement, to the A's slow all day change from +132 to -104.

[yisman]

No, I don't.

Again, no book will allow you to win by chasing steam. They either will move the lines quickly (5 Dimes, Heritage, BKR, etc.) or boot anyone doing it (SIA, betmania, 1 vice, hrwager, and various other small books).

If what you said was true, why would people get booted constantly for chasing steam? Books should welcome it because they're throwing in fake moves (your logic).

[yisman]

You make it sound like it's some sort of strategy, or some well-kept secret. Books are well aware of the fact that, if a team (especially a publicly backed team) goes from -125 to -140 before tip or first pitch, there are plenty of people out there who think that legitimately means something. You said yourself "you don't need a brain" to win chasing steam. If I know that, you know that, Brock Landers knows that and the books know that, don't you think they might counter it from time to time by throwing a few curveball moves at bettors or juicing the hell out of a number like they did this morning with that total (whether intentional or not)?

Brock Landers doesn't know it. He thinks lines don't matter. There's a lot of people who believe the same thing.

The fact is, there's a lot of uninformed bettors out there. Check out the stuff in players talk. You constantly have people claiming moves are meaningless, lines don't matter, etc.

[yisman]

Oh, and the majority of gamblers don't read online gambling forums.

They don't know what 'RLM', 'beating the closer', or 'chasing steam' even mean.

Hence the square books catering to those people, and kicking out anyone with a clue.

[No coincidences]

If what you said was true, why would people get booted constantly for chasing steam? Books should welcome it because they're throwing in fake moves (your logic).

The only absolute here seems to be that you think line movement is always driven by legitimate means. Is that correct? I never said books manipulate lines all the time. I said they pick their spots and often juice accordingly.

Books have to throw up traps and head-fakes every once in a while for steam chasers just to keep them honest. I would say that almost goes without saying, but maybe you disagree.

[yisman]

The only absolute here seems to be that you think line movement is always driven by legitimate means. Is that correct? I never said books manipulate lines all the time. I said they pick their spots and often juice accordingly.

Books have to throw up traps and head-fakes every once in a while for steam chasers just to keep them honest. I would say that almost goes without saying, but maybe you disagree.

You did not address what I said. I'll repeat it.

If what you said was true, why would people get booted constantly for chasing steam? Books should welcome it because they're throwing in fake moves (your logic).