Thursday's card

[No coincidences]

If you can predict the true close and be out ahead of it more often than not you will come out way ahead

But you're saying lines aren't compromised and are 100% true reactions to the market, so if Team A opens at -110 and is closing at -124 or opens at +115 and is closing at +103, shouldn't you always be able to "follow the steam" of the market, so to speak, and hit well over 50 percent (more than enough to make up for the fact that you are getting "bad numbers")?

[No coincidences]

Because that late line movement gives you a value in which you can lose that small edge. Think of the poker example, imagine if instead of being a 51% favorite in an all in hand, I took away 2 cards out of the reamining deck and made you a 49.5 % underdog. You would go from a winning player to a losing player. This might take years to show up.

But if books are moving their lines based on the market's reaction and nothing else, shouldn't blindly tailing late line movement be able to produce much better than 50% winners, though, and make up for the edge you'd be losing?

I ask God this because I don't believe line movement is always on the level with regards to money coming in only, but he does.

[italianbandit]

But if books are moving their lines based on the market's reaction and nothing else, shouldn't blindly tailing late line movement be able to produce much better than 50% winners, though, and make up for the edge you'd be losing?

I ask God this because I don't believe line movement is always on the level with regards to money coming in only, but he does.

Theoretically no because that new line movement now needs you to hit at a higher percentage to be profitable in the long run.

[God1]

Theoretically no because that new line movement now needs you to hit at a higher percentage to be profitable in the long run.

[No coincidences]

Theoretically no because that new line movement now needs you to hit at a higher percentage to be profitable in the long run.

Agree, but how much higher? You're making market plays. Shouldn't that hit at a pretty damn high percentage if the lines are legitimate reactions to wagers accepted?

[italianbandit]

No. As you know the line movements don't indicate winners. The line is in a relationship with your idea of how the team is going to perform. You can't look at them as independent concepts.
There are several ways to do this but one simplified way is: Lets say you look at the Cubs game and its at +115 and they are at home. You do some handicapping and estimate that they have at around a 50 percent chance of winning and the line should be around +100. You are going to buy them, but instead you look at some porn and masturbate and by the time you come back (5 hours later) the line is -105 Cubs. Someone already saw this and bought up too much causing the market makers to adjust their poor opening estimation. The price in comparison to your handicapping no longer gives you and edge. The -105 price represents a percentage that is now higher than your 50% estimation. Originally it was lower. Instead based on your handicapping you are making a losing bet regardless of the outcome. Someone then comes along and says wow look at that sharp movement let me take the Cubs, but its too late. The folks who found the error are making the money.

I think I explained it correctly, someone correct me if I didn't.

[No coincidences]

No. As you know the line movements don't indicate winners. The line is in a relationship with your idea of how the team is going to perform. You can't look at them as independent concepts.
There are several ways to do this but one simplified way is: Lets say you look at the Cubs game and its at +115 and they are at home. You do some handicapping and estimate that they have at around a 50 percent chance of winning and the line should be around +100. You are going to buy them, but instead you look at some porn and masturbate and by the time you come back (5 hours later) the line is -105 Cubs. Someone already saw this and bought up too much causing the market makers to adjust their poor opening estimation. The price in comparison to your handicapping no longer gives you and edge. The -105 price represents a percentage that is now higher than your 50% estimation. Originally it was lower. Instead based on your handicapping you are making a losing bet regardless of the outcome. Someone then comes along and says wow look at that sharp movement let me take the Cubs, but its too late. The folks who found the error are making the money.

I think I explained it correctly, someone correct me if I didn't.

I totally agree with all of that, but a winning bet is a winning bet -- even if you get it at a line that doesn't have the value it once did.

I understand the argument if you're making it for point spreads -- i.e., you see a line you like at 6.5, it's 4 by the time you bet it, the team loses by 5 and you've just successfully shot your foot off. But other than not getting a good number, you're still just trying to find winners over losers in baseball.

Long-term are you sacrificing profit with bad numbers? Possibly, but I would think being on the "winning side" would override that because a winning bet at +115 is the same winning bet at -105 -- just with a lesser return after being hampered by the vig. Of course you have to pick at a higher winning percentage, but given you have a line's momentum on your side as long as you trust the market movement, that should be entirely possible. No?

Line movements may not always indicate winners, but there should be some sort of direct relationship to a move from -105 to -120 winning much more often than it loses because that's the side of smart money in a pure, honest market, correct?