Biggest Shocker?

[Thremp]

can you write something regarding this issue. i am curious what goes on behind the betting counter.

I have no clue what goes on behind the counter. I just wanted to point out that to many professionals who are on the other side of the the counter. I wouldn't move to the other side for 80k a year if all I had to do was pick up a check.

My point is that the best people are placing bets, not accepting them.

Not to mention the vast majority of "real" sportbetting goes on offshore. Then again Vegas puts up abs horrible numbers for a large number of events so... Who knows? I'm sure you could make a pretty easy living just betting their off numbers and arbing them out or Kelly staking them. (I know a Kelly stake will include a hedged amount, yes)

[BuddyBear]

You missed the point entirely......


Do you have any proof whatsoever that sharps win and that squares lose in the long run. How do you know this to be the case? Give me one piece of evidence that says sharps win the long run and that squares lose in the long run.

To begin, define what a sharp is and what a square is. My suspicion is that anyone according to you anyone who wins regardless of such arbitrary designation is a "sharp" and anyone who loses is a "square"....you see how ridiculous such terms are????

[donjuan]

Sharp=optimal advantage gambler
Square=long term loser, generally on the public opinion

[pokernut9999]

You 2 have gotten completely off the topic !!!!


Take it somewhere else please

[donjuan]

Pokernut,

It relates back to the original question, though. Point spread (well actually ML) would be the best way to objectively come up with the answer, assuming the spreads for these games are remotely efficient. However, Buddy Bear seems to think that the point spread is some random number with absolutely no meaning, a ridiculous assertion.

[BuddyBear]

Pokernut,

However, Buddy Bear seems to think that the point spread is some random number with absolutely no meaning, a ridiculous assertion.

Not really. The way the line is made, a group of linesmaker make thier own lines at LVSC using a blend of qualitative and quantitative techniques. Rarely are they in accord with one another. One guy might have -6.5 another -8 maybe one has -7 but in any event, numbers from linesmakers are typically discrepant (another clue that that lines are simply set forth to draw equal betting action). Then, they meet to talk about it and then finally settle on the number that serves as an opening line. The number is arbitrary b/c that -7 just as easily could have been -7.5 or -6.5.

That's it...that's all they do when they make a line. Their is nothing more sophisticated or secretive than that. Anyone can do it.....it's a process that leads to arbitrary number and if the number is off, the market corrects itself.

Why are you making this more difficult then it needs to be????

[BuddyBear]

Sharp=optimal advantage gambler
Square=long term loser, generally on the public opinion

optimal advantage bettor does not mean long-term winner does it now

Where is that evidence for showing us that sharps win and squares lose

[Thremp]

optimal advantage bettor does not mean long-term winner does it now

Where is that evidence for showing us that sharps win and squares lose

This whole thread is an abortion.

This is like jjgold giving anyone advice on gambling.

Point spreads are arbitrary numbers.
There are no long term winners.
You can't separate winners and losers in sports betting.

Though one point of contention. Not all long term winners are "sharps". You can be missing major points in the the realm of sports betting for a very long time and still show a tidy sum.

[dwaechte]

Somewhat getting back to the original discussion, but also looking for input from donjuan and BuddyBear:

I would assume that by very definition, the highest spread should be the largest upset. Or technically, the highest ML should be the greatest upset, though obviously these are highly correlated.

I have always looked at the term "sharp" as being the opinion of the most educated and informed person. If someone had all of the available information, he would have a "sharp" opinion.

Lines can probably be looked at as the cumulative thought of everyone placing/taking bets. If someone is extremely informed, they will place/take a high value of bets, and the players who are less informed will place/take a low value of bets. Obviously there are exceptions, but overall I would assume it evens out so that this is close to the case.

Lines are sharp if a high percentage of the money on each side is from informed bettors. In most cases, I think we have to assume this is the case.

If the cumulative thought is that a team should win by 40 points and they end up losing, I think you would have to say that's a bigger upset than the cumulative thought being that a team should win by 28 and they end up losing.


I may not have explained that properly, but if anyone understands what I'm saying and can refute it please go ahead.

[ShamsWoof10]

Sharps are not neccessarly optimal advantage bettors... I don't believe that because the square books with low limits have the best number and Sharps don't bet there...

IMO a Sharp, and there are not many of them, are the guys either at the site or can get information the average person can not... A Sharp with a big bankroll as an "investment" places large bets at the bigger books based on his information from either his source(s) or from what he has witnessed at the site...

IMO a Square is the general public simply put...

[pokernut9999]

Somewhat getting back to the original discussion, but also looking for input from donjuan and BuddyBear:

I would assume that by very definition, the highest spread should be the largest upset. Or technically, the highest ML should be the greatest upset, though obviously these are highly correlated.

I have always looked at the term "sharp" as being the opinion of the most educated and informed person. If someone had all of the available information, he would have a "sharp" opinion.

Lines can probably be looked at as the cumulative thought of everyone placing/taking bets. If someone is extremely informed, they will place/take a high value of bets, and the players who are less informed will place/take a low value of bets. Obviously there are exceptions, but overall I would assume it evens out so that this is close to the case.

Lines are sharp if a high percentage of the money on each side is from informed bettors. In most cases, I think we have to assume this is the case.

If the cumulative thought is that a team should win by 40 points and they end up losing, I think you would have to say that's a bigger upset than the cumulative thought being that a team should win by 28 and they end up losing.


I may not have explained that properly, but if anyone understands what I'm saying and can refute it please go ahead.

It can go both ways when you put the games in perspective.

The USC Stanford game was just another game when it was played , while the WV Pitt game had a ton riding on it at the time. I for one think it was the biggest upset just because it was the last game and a WV win meant a National championship game.

[hhsilver]

my vote was for Pitt - a week after WVU scored 66 on a pretty good Uconn team -

[BuddyBear]

This whole thread is an abortion.

This is like jjgold giving anyone advice on gambling.

Point spreads are arbitrary numbers.
There are no long term winners.
You can't separate winners and losers in sports betting.

Though one point of contention. Not all long term winners are "sharps". You can be missing major points in the the realm of sports betting for a very long time and still show a tidy sum.

1) I alluded to the fact that points spreads are constructed in such a way that makes them "arbitrary." Sure a -8 spread isn't going to be -23 but it could be -7.5 ,-9, and other close numbers. To say they are exact or precise is not an accurate statement.

2) Sure there are long term winners...show me where I said there wasn't. Althugh the reality is that almost nobody wins in sports betting (except of course on gaming forums where everyone does). I did say, however, that categorizing bettors as simply "sharp" and "sqaure" is a very poor idea. Anytime you have a variable, let's call it betting sophistication, and you collapse it as a dichotomous or binary variable you are essentially losing all meaning.

3) You can't separate winners and losers in sports betting. Ummm...sure you can but it's not as easy as you think it is? Obviously, though, how you operationalize this variable would be of interest so it is not quite clear cut. Just out of curiousity, how would you operationalize it?


Again..."sharps" and "squares" are just stupid terms used by novice bettors or guys who think they are "sharps." How many of you guys try to impress girls and say you are "sharp"...give me a break, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life...

[Thremp]

Buddy,

I will address these in point.

1) The closing line is the best indicator of what the spread should be, lest you have an opinion superior to the market in which case you can roll around in money freely.
2) I agree. I was saying those quotes tongue in cheek.
3) Now this is somewhat interesting. You've started busting out the 25c words to impress everyone. For clarity I looked up the definition (also so I could find out what it means LDO). Opertaionalize: to define a concept or variable so that it can be measured or expressed quantitatively. Quantitatively... Hrm. Now I'm sure the root of this word is "quantify", which essentially means "to count". Now, I don't know what you bet in, be it farfels, quasons, or baktoos. But I typically prefer money and given the quality of the forex markets that we have in modern society I would typically use dollars. So to answer your question. I would operationalize this concept by who has the most cheese.

You're really a joke man. You try to dress us basic concepts in 25c words to confuse the average person. Why not write in a clear and concise manner (my intent, if not always my result) so that your ideas can stand on their own right instead of forcing people to use context clues and their dictionary to find out that you're questioning whether you can separate winners and losers in sports betting by how many dollars they win.

[BuddyBear]

Sorry Thermp, I didn't realize English was your second language. Sometimes, I forget that we have a lot of European posters on here.

Basically, operationalize just means that if you have a concept--usually an abstract one (i.e. love, faith, aggressiveness, etc...) you have to measure it in the real world because it really does not exist. Therefore, you create items that measure it. Winning does not really exist...you can't touch it in the real world, you have to measure for it.

I challenged you to tell me or to operationalize "winning" bettors and "losing" bettors and I said it was not that easy even though it seems easy. Just like dichotomizing sharp/square is silly and novice at best.

Anyway, let me give you an example and you can tell me if this person is a winning gambler.....

1) The person makes 10 bets a year and loses his first 9 bets but risks everything and wins the last bet in which he bet everything. This means he is 1-9 but is +$.

So are winning bettors simply those who have more money at the end of the day, month, year, etc...

Or are winning bettors simply guys who get the best line, bet dogs, anti-public, etc.... "sharps" as you boys like to say.....

[donjuan]

optimal advantage bettor does not mean long-term winner does it now

By definition, an optimal advantage bettor wins in the long run.

[BuddyBear]

By definition, an optimal advantage bettor wins in the long run.

You have a mathematical proof for this? Otherwise, you are technically wrong.

[SBR Lou]

Why don't you boys just pull each others pants down and get it over with? This discussion isn't going anywhere and the fact is at the end of the day we're all squares and long term losers. Fading some consensus picks and betting good lines won't keep you in a huge house and afford you an easy lifestyle.

[Thremp]

Fading some consensus picks and betting good lines won't keep you in a huge house and afford you an easy lifestyle.

I'm trying to explain that it can and does for some people

But it seems I'm having trouble explaining it and being chased with circular arguments and senseless ridicule. Whatev.

[donjuan]

You have a mathematical proof for this? Otherwise, you are technically wrong.

LOL

1. Do you understand what +EV (advantage) bets are?
2. Do you understand what the long run is?
3. If you claim to understand both of these concepts and still don't think optimal (think Kelly) advantage gamblers win in the long run, you simply don't understand what they mean.

[SBR Lou]

I'm trying to explain that it can and does for some people

I know, and some people have twelve inch cocks. Nobody on this forum is one of them, well we all like to pretend we are.

[donjuan]

Crazyl,

Just because you ride the yellow bus, doesn't mean everyone else does.

[Shark79]

when I saw the subject on this thread ... I thought you guys were talking about THE SHOCKER !

[BuddyBear]

LOL

1. Do you understand what +EV (advantage) bets are?
2. Do you understand what the long run is?
3. If you claim to understand both of these concepts and still don't think optimal (think Kelly) advantage gamblers win in the long run, you simply don't understand what they mean.

I don't disagree but when you said by definition optimal advantage bettors are long-term winners, then that means there is a mathematic proof that demostrates that. So do you have one or have you seen one?

[BuddyBear]

Why don't you boys just pull each others pants down and get it over with? This discussion isn't going anywhere and the fact is at the end of the day we're all squares and long term losers. Fading some consensus picks and betting good lines won't keep you in a huge house and afford you an easy lifestyle.

agree withi crazyl here. Most everyone on here is a long term loser. Lot of guys on here like to play games like Don Juan and get in these dick measuring contests. It's like that game little girls play when they are four or five called "make believe" or "dress up" or whatever...where they like to pretend stuff.

Lot of guys on here like to pretend they are big time winners and big time rollers and pro gamblers and what not. They try to talk fancy and use big words and terms and say this and that. When it comes to posting winners, the truth comes out.

Just like this guy Robzilla...said he was hitting 75% and that 60% was a bad weekend for him. He was challenged to post his plays and sure enough, he is hitting you guessed it right around 50%.

I've been on these forums a long time.....i know how it works. Most guys on here are losers going through depression and using gambling as a high. Most guys live in apartments or efficiencies and post in their underwear like Don Juan undoubtedly.

You get use to it after a while and it becomes predictable

[donjuan]

So now you're left with semantics? I could give you a mathematical proof but I don't really feel like doing so because it would take a bit of time and I have nothing to gain from doing so.

[donjuan]

Just like this guy Robzilla...said he was hitting 75% and that 60% was a bad weekend for him. He was challenged to post his plays and sure enough, he is hitting you guessed it right around 50%.

Robzilla is a tard and pretty much everyone knows that. Where have I ever said I could hit 75% or even 60% on a mainstream sport with high limits? Have I ever claimed to be a great handicapper for mainstream sports with high limits?

[durito]

Most guys live in apartments or efficiencies and post in their underwear like Don Juan undoubtedly.

What's wrong with apartments or posting in your underwear for that matter?

[donjuan]

What's wrong with posting in your underwear?

You spent too much time in Boulder.

[BuddyBear]

What's wrong with apartments or posting in your underwear for that matter?

nothing at all. In fact, I am naked right now and having a slice of pizza and beer

[imgv94]

I did say, however, that categorizing bettors as simply "sharp" and "sqaure" is a very poor idea.

If it's such a poor idea then why do many books resort to this practice? It's a known fact and common sense that bookmakers categorize and label their players.

For example, they have players who consistently beat the line and they have players who consistently play bad lines.

If they see one of their players consistenly betting 6 team parlays, teazing games from 10 down to 4 they will categorize him as square and rightfully so cause in the "long run" that player has no chance to win long term..

Bookmakers monitor their players immediately after acquring them to see what catergory they fall under.

May I know why it's a bad idea?

[BuddyBear]

If it's such a poor idea then why do many books resort to this practice? It's a known fact and common sense that bookmakers categorize and label their players.

For example, they have players who consistently beat the line and they have players who consistently play bad lines.

If they see one of their players consistenly betting 6 team parlays, teazing games from 10 down to 4 they will categorize him as square and rightfully so cause in the "long run" that player has no chance to win long term..

Bookmakers monitor their players immediately after acquring them to see what catergory they fall under.

May I know why it's a bad idea?

Well if you read a little bit more closely you would have seen the answer and I am a little surprised that you've raised the issue given your own personal sensitivities toward the issue since many on here consider you one of the bigger "squares" around the gaming forum scene.

I'll reiterate though:

1) I didn't say there aren't "sharps" and "squares" I said anytime you dichotomize a variable that is not naturally dichotmous you essentially are going to lose quite a bit of meaning. A dichomous variable is considered a discrete categorical variable and is the lowest level of variable you can have and should be avoided unless necessary (i.e. data analysis purposes). Of course some variables are inherenently dichotomous because they can only assume two values: male/female, heads/tails, pass/fail vegetarian/non-vegetarian, left-handed/right-handed, etc...

My point was that "sharp" and "square" is a very bad idea beause people are not simply one or the other. They vary. Instead, the variable that is probably best used is something called "betting sophistication" where it is treated as a continuous variable that ranges from one end continuum of "square" and the other end continuum of "sharp." I think doing so is much more accurate.

Do you treat liberal/conservative as a simple dichotmous variable...probably not because you know people are not simply one or the other, they very from one continuum to the other with most people falling somewhere in the middle (i.e. moderate).

2) There is no agreed upon definition of what a "sharp" or "square" is. If there is not conceptual clarity of meaning, then does the phenomenon really exist? If simply categorizing people as "sharp" or "square" then it stands to reason that "sharps" will bet the same exact sides every week and "squares" will bet the same exact sides as well. Does this happen? What about when "sharps" and "squares" are on the same exact side of a game then what...do the "sharps" become squares? Or do the "squares" become sharps? Is betting San Diego this Sunday a square thing? What if a "sharp" is on San Diego...then what? What if a "square" decides to play against a few favorites this week? In addition, "sharps" have been known to use a variety of tactics such as parlays and teasers as well so such characterisistcs--while most "square"--are not always exclusive to the "squares"

3) Operationalization problems exist with trying to determing who a "sharp" and who a "square" is. In sports betting, the bottom line is winning. However, "squares" routinely win and "sharps" lose quite a bit as well. So winning rarely serves as the proper cue for determing who is "sharp" and who is "square" is even though it is the most important thing in the end. Nor is bet size important either. Instead, as you pointed out, books routinely use a variety of measures to determine your level of betting sophistication. The most common include: beating the closing line, the type of games you bet (i.e. betting Sun Belt games vs. television game), the type of bet (straight vs. o/u vs. parlays vs. teasers), time of day you place the bet (10 minutes after the lines are released vs. 10 minutes before the game starts), etc....


Are you starting to see how simple and stupid this designation is?

Unfortunately a lot of guys get hooked on such a phrase and start "fantasizing" that they are a "sharp" and should be treated as such and they got what it takes. There are a lot of phases gamblers expereince and one of them is the sharp/square phase. Eventually, after a few years of not winning and listening to the "sharps" they see that sharps are more or less long-term losers rather than long-term winners and then eventually they shift to a new phase and this time they being to realize that almost nobody wins in sports betting and that the "sharp" and "square" myth is something perpetuates by books to get you thinking that you can win. They show pictures of hot girls, fast cars, nicely dressed young men, etc..... People on here cling on to the belief that I can be a "sharp" and win too. As soon as you ask people to post their picks, almost everyone goes 50/50 in the end.

Good luck.....

[dwaechte]

Well if you read a little bit more closely you would have seen the answer and I am a little surprised that you've raised the issue given your own personal sensitivities toward the issue since many on here consider you one of the bigger "squares" around the gaming forum scene.

I'll reiterate though:

1) I didn't say there aren't "sharps" and "squares" I said anytime you dichotomize a variable that is not naturally dichotmous you essentially are going to lose quite a bit of meaning. A dichomous variable is considered a discrete categorical variable and is the lowest level of variable you can have and should be avoided unless necessary (i.e. data analysis purposes). Of course some variables are inherenently dichotomous because they can only assume two values: male/female, heads/tails, pass/fail vegetarian/non-vegetarian, left-handed/right-handed, etc...

My point was that "sharp" and "square" is a very bad idea beause people are not simply one or the other. They vary. Instead, the variable that is probably best used is something called "betting sophistication" where it is treated as a continuous variable that ranges from one end continuum of "square" and the other end continuum of "sharp." I think doing so is much more accurate.

Do you treat liberal/conservative as a simple dichotmous variable...probably not because you know people are not simply one or the other, they very from one continuum to the other with most people falling somewhere in the middle (i.e. moderate).

2) There is no agreed upon definition of what a "sharp" or "square" is. If there is not conceptual clarity of meaning, then does the phenomenon really exist? If simply categorizing people as "sharp" or "square" then it stands to reason that "sharps" will bet the same exact sides every week and "squares" will bet the same exact sides as well. Does this happen? What about when "sharps" and "squares" are on the same exact side of a game then what...do the "sharps" become squares? Or do the "squares" become sharps? Is betting San Diego this Sunday a square thing? What if a "sharp" is on San Diego...then what? What if a "square" decides to play against a few favorites this week? In addition, "sharps" have been known to use a variety of tactics such as parlays and teasers as well so such characterisistcs--while most "square"--are not always exclusive to the "squares"

3) Operationalization problems exist with trying to determing who a "sharp" and who a "square" is. In sports betting, the bottom line is winning. However, "squares" routinely win and "sharps" lose quite a bit as well. So winning rarely serves as the proper cue for determing who is "sharp" and who is "square" is even though it is the most important thing in the end. Nor is bet size important either. Instead, as you pointed out, books routinely use a variety of measures to determine your level of betting sophistication. The most common include: beating the closing line, the type of games you bet (i.e. betting Sun Belt games vs. television game), the type of bet (straight vs. o/u vs. parlays vs. teasers), time of day you place the bet (10 minutes after the lines are released vs. 10 minutes before the game starts), etc....


Are you starting to see how simple and stupid this designation is?

Unfortunately a lot of guys get hooked on such a phrase and start "fantasizing" that they are a "sharp" and should be treated as such and they got what it takes. There are a lot of phases gamblers expereince and one of them is the sharp/square phase. Eventually, after a few years of not winning and listening to the "sharps" they see that sharps are more or less long-term losers rather than long-term winners and then eventually they shift to a new phase and this time they being to realize that almost nobody wins in sports betting and that the "sharp" and "square" myth is something perpetuates by books to get you thinking that you can win. They show pictures of hot girls, fast cars, nicely dressed young men, etc..... People on here cling on to the belief that I can be a "sharp" and win too. As soon as you ask people to post their picks, almost everyone goes 50/50 in the end.

Good luck.....

BuddyBear, you're arguing that we shouldn't take an absolute stance towards categorizing players, and yet you're expressing that very opinion in an absolute "I'm right and you're wrong" manner.

Nobody is saying that every single player falls in a certain category. They may not be making that clear enough for you, but I would assume most people know this isn't a black/white issue.

Players who shop lines, have informed opinions, and play good EV wagers can generally be described as more "sharp" than players who take bad lines, and place low percentage wagers.

[BuddyBear]

BuddyBear, you're arguing that we shouldn't take an absolute stance towards categorizing players, and yet you're expressing that very opinion in an absolute "I'm right and you're wrong" manner.

I am not saying, I am not right, you're wrong. I am making a case for why saying "sharp" and "square" is not very accurate. I am not saying there aren't sharp and square players but simply lumping them up that way is not the best way to do it. Instead, treat the variable as a continuous variable with sharps and squares at opposite ends just like conservative and liberal get treated where you might have "strong liberal" and "weak liberal" but if we lump them together then they are just libeal with no distinction on the continuum.

Nobody is saying that every single player falls in a certain category. They may not be
making that clear enough for you,

Umm yes they are. Look at the previous post before mine (#101) and look at other posts in this thread.

Players who shop lines, have informed opinions, and play good EV wagers can generally be described as more "sharp" than players who take bad lines, and place low percentage wagers.

Exactly and this is my point. You have a certain abstract phenomenon, and you have observable measures and based on that you can identify where that person falls. When you say "as more sharp" you are essentially referring to where someone falls on a continuum and not on a dichotomy. You don't say, "as more male" or "as more right-handed." No, those are dichtomous but betting sophistication is not. It is a continous random variable.....

[dwaechte]

I am not saying, I am not right, you're wrong. I am making a case for why saying "sharp" and "square" is not very accurate. I am not saying there aren't sharp and square players but simply lumping them up that way is not the best way to do it. Instead, treat the variable as a continuous variable with sharps and squares at opposite ends just like conservative and liberal get treated where you might have "strong liberal" and "weak liberal" but if we lump them together then they are just libeal with no distinction on the continuum.



Umm yes they are. Look at the previous post before mine (#101) and look at other posts in this thread.




Exactly and this is my point. You have a certain abstract phenomenon, and you have observable measures and based on that you can identify where that person falls. When you say "as more sharp" you are essentially referring to where someone falls on a continuum and not on a dichotomy. You don't say, "as more male" or "as more right-handed." No, those are dichtomous but betting sophistication is not. It is a continous random variable.....

This is somewhat ridiculous because everyone in this thread is pretty much agreeing IMO, and people are just misinterpreting.

First off, I would argue that many people ARE classified as either conservative or liberal. There are tons of surveys and such that only have two possible answers : conservative, or liberal. If someone asks me if I am a conservative or a liberal, I will often just say "liberal" rather than complicate the issue by saying that I stand by the liberals on 72.3% of issues and conservatives on 27.7% of issues.

I understand what you're saying in that a continuum is certainly a better approach than a dichotomy in a case like this, but it's not always practical. Labeling and lumping people into one of two categories is a matter of simplicity. Sometimes, it's easier to do it that way. Sometimes, it makes sense to do it that way. It doesn't mean that everyone that falls under the category of a "sharp" is equally sharp. It doesn't mean everyone lumped as a "square" is equally as square.

For simplicity sake, sometimes you just have to draw a line somewhere on that continuum.

I shouldn't have said "Noone is saying everybody falls into a single category". What I should've said was, "nobody believes that there are just 2 types of bettors: a square one, and a sharp one, and that are sharps are equal and no squares are equal.

As far as I can tell, people were only arguing against you because they felt you were saying there was no difference between an informed bettor and an uninformed one. We now know that is not the case.