Arbitrage/Surebet is waste of money if you're betting the other side at Pinnacle..

[DoYouNotGetIT]

One thing I learned from my short time at SBR people will crap on your post even if you're making complete sense.

[jjgold]

I would say five dimes and bookmaker pinnacle does not have United States volume like they used to make the line sharp

Also I am sure some credit operations have very sharp lines

As far as soccer Asian books and pinnacle have the sharpest lines

As far as tennis I would say five dimes and pinnacle and a tiny bit betfair pre game

[acw]

So coach,
Regarding American sports which bookie is the smartest?

[jjgold]

That Pinnacle lean now is a waste because it is not the sharpest line anymore

I know guys in Vegas getting destroyed trying to do the Pinny lean angle

American Sports Pinnacle line not sharp anymore, soccer is their high volume sport now

Even Pinny vs UK books is getting buried with soccer..the UK Line seems sharper

[Siculamente]

Can you please write out the math for me orda? Could you also give a few other examples? thanks

[ordaflavius]

A new ideea for Sawyer.
Sorry for my english.
I make surebets and I happened the same thing like the Sawyer.
In the last 2 yers i have with pinnacle 1 withdraw and many deposits...
The pinnacle does't have much markets like score/not score, corners, bla bla etc and they have put the lines more lates that most bookies and this made the most corect lines from the bookies...
Sawyer: if you don't put the bet in to pinnacle you have risc some because you don't know if you put same stake if you put/ and if you not put at pinnacle. The example is that you have some limits . If you have limit 1000 euro at the market nonpinnacle , you put the bet...and 1-2 days later you get a new surebet and the limit for that is 200 euro....you risk to lost the bet with 1.000 euro and win the bet with 200 euro and if that happen in 10-20 days same like lost the big limits, you have discourage and this is no good for you mind.

A new ideea is this: For example if you have 2 at nonpinnacle and 2,3 at pinnacle you put so that if you win at nonpinnacle to have more profit with surebet and if you win at pinnacle , you have profit zero.
If you made clasic surebets with 2 at nonpinnacle and 2,3 with pinnacle you put 1000x2 at not pinnacle and 869,5 (870) at pinnacle. If you won at nonpinacle or pinnacle, you have the same profit (130 euro)
With my ideea , if you put 1000 euro at nonpinnacle and 770 euro at pinnacle , if you win at nonpinnacle you have profit 230 euro and you have win at pinnacle, you have profit zero . At the long tine you have more money and no risk....
Sorry again for my english, have a nice day.
PS (Sawyer: you have your own soft or you are subscription at the some service like rebelbeting, betonvalue, etc?)

[u21c3f6]

I used an exaggerated example to make the scenario easier to understand. In fact, Sawyer is placed in this same situation (NE- Ravens) every time he finds an arb involving Pinancle. The value is on the non-Pinnacle side, and he must determine if he should also play the Pinnacle side.

I sure hope Sawyer has not softened his position. As I've been writing all along, playing both sides is a viable option if you have bankroll concerns. Or you may prefer a smaller, steady income to one that will pay more but come with greater fluctations. I think Sawyer is hip to this and has not softened his position at all.

If my wager is large enough, I, too, may decide to "take some off the table" and play the other side. I realize this isn't financially smart, but can be compared to wagering on a coin flip in which I know the coin is weighted 52% heads. For $100 I would take it in a heartbeat. For $50,000 I would refuse.

mr.ed, I think the confusion comes from your mixing together two very different scenarios. From your post above, you are relating this thread to a scenario where you already have a wager and then the line moves to your advantage. In that scenario, it is more often correct to not cover the other side. However, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about a scenario where you do not have any wagers yet but you have available to you a true arb where both lines are available to you at the same moment in time. In this scenario there are some that think that you should only bet the +EV side but that is not correct in this scenario. You are almost always better off utilizing the arb (wagering on both sides) in some way as demonstrated in post #20 in response to the OP’s original scenario. Inpost #165 I linked to a thread where someone asked a question about an actual arb and in that thread many different solutions were offered to show how utilizing the arb produced superior results to just wagering on the +EV side. I hope this clarifies. If not, we will just have to agree to disagree. Joe

[mr.ed]

This is not about you.
It's never been either.

It is about concept.

You just asked me a few posts ago what I would do in a given situation. I gave you my answer, and then you say it's not about me and has never been about me.

[hutennis]

This is not about you.
It's never been either.

It is about concept.

[mr.ed]

And the point is

1. I did not impose anything. Math did.
2. Same conditions are absolutely present in a real world.

Here is why.

When you bet heads at 52% your edge is 4%
If you don't wont to expose yourself to a very substantial risk of ruin (going broke) math dictates that you cannot wager to win more than your edge. This is full Kelly. Very aggressive as it is.

So if you cannot win more than $100 with an edge of 4%, that means that your BR is $2500 max.
As I said, $100 limit is not imposed by me. It is just a function of your BR and your edge, if you want to be smart about it.

And that's where $1250 figure came from in option #2.
I did not dream it up. I just took your whole BR and divided it between two bets.
I can afford to do it now, since I can not lose.

This whole reasoning stays true in a real word exactly the same way.
Even though you have $2400 still "available" in a option#1, you can not touch it if you have any sense of self preservation.
Option #2 does not carry that burden and thus always preferable since it delivers higher EV in real money (although lower in %% terms, but who cares) with no additional risk. Actually, with no risk at all.

Unless your always bet limit, this type of analysis should always be performed when making decision to arb or not to make sure that your not shortchanging yourself.
And since betting limits is not something that done by overwhelming majority of readers in this thread, my point should be very useful indeed.

I really don't understand how something so obvious can be argued so intensely for such a long time.

The comments above do not apply to me as I am betting amounts in which I have zero risk of ruin (if you read my prior posts you will see I hit on this again and again and again.) I always include the caveat that if you do have bankroll concerns than playing both sides can be an effective tool to minimize risk.

If you are thinking there is always a risk of ruin...you would be incorrect. In my case, if things suddenly turned and went south I would simply find something else to do before exhausting my profits. I would recognize long before proifts were gone that my knack for finding (+EV) plays had suddenly vanished.

While taking both sides in an arb is an effective money management tool for many, in my situation throwing money at the (-EV) side is just plain dumb.

[hutennis]

I would pick option #2 as profits would be greater because you imposed a very low wagering limits on option #1. Naturally, I would rather wager large amounts on option #1 while leaving option #2 and the (-EV) play out of it, but given the unusual parameters of the riddle, you have forced me to take option #2. Thank goodness these low limits aren't imposed in the real world!

And the point is

1. I did not impose anything. Math did.
2. Same conditions are absolutely present in a real world.

Here is why.

When you bet heads at 52% your edge is 4%
If you don't wont to expose yourself to a very substantial risk of ruin (going broke) math dictates that you cannot wager to win more than your edge. This is full Kelly. Very aggressive as it is.

So if you cannot win more than $100 with an edge of 4%, that means that your BR is $2500 max.
As I said, $100 limit is not imposed by me. It is just a function of your BR and your edge, if you want to be smart about it.

And that's where $1250 figure came from in option #2.
I did not dream it up. I just took your whole BR and divided it between two bets.
I can afford to do it now, since I can not lose.

This whole reasoning stays true in a real word exactly the same way.
Even though you have $2400 still "available" in a option#1, you can not touch it if you have any sense of self preservation.
Option #2 does not carry that burden and thus always preferable since it delivers higher EV in real money (although lower in %% terms, but who cares) with no additional risk. Actually, with no risk at all.

Unless your always bet limit, this type of analysis should always be performed when making decision to arb or not to make sure that your not shortchanging yourself.
And since betting limits is not something that done by overwhelming majority of readers in this thread, my point should be very useful indeed.

I really don't understand how something so obvious can be argued so intensely for such a long time.

[mr.ed]

OK. You have 2 options.

If you want to bet on 52% heads coin (+EV) you can only bet $100 per flip

If you want to bet $1250 on a 52% heads coin (+EV),
you must also bet $1240 on tails with a 51% heads coin (-EV).
If both coins either heads or tails bets are paid. Otherwise, it's a push .
You always win and lose at the same time.

Which option will you take?

I would pick option #2 as profits would be greater because you imposed a very low wagering limits on option #1. Naturally, I would rather wager large amounts on option #1 while leaving option #2 and the (-EV) play out of it, but given the unusual parameters of the riddle, you have forced me to take option #2. Thank goodness these low limits aren't imposed in the real world!

[hutennis]

If above example is not going to drive it home for you, I don't know what will.

[hutennis]

If my wager is large enough, I, too, may decide to "take some off the table" and play the other side. I realize this isn't financially smart, but can be compared to wagering on a coin flip in which I know the coin is weighted 52% heads. For $100 I would take it in a heartbeat. For $50,000 I would refuse.

OK. You have 2 options.

If you want to bet on 52% heads coin (+EV) you can only bet $100 per flip

If you want to bet $1250 on a 52% heads coin (+EV),
you must also bet $1240 on tails with a 51% heads coin (-EV).
If both coins either heads or tails bets are paid. Otherwise, it's a push .
You always win and lose at the same time.

Which option will you take?

[mr.ed]

mr.ed, your scenario above is NOT the OP's scenario at all. No one has suggested covering the other side in your scenario. This is probably going to sound mean and it is honestly not meant to be mean but this is where reading comprehension and communication is vitally important. The OP (which apparently in recent posts appears to have softened his position) originally stated that given an arb (wagers at the same moment in time) that it was always a waste to wager on the -EV side and that statement without caveats is just not true which has been pointed out by some posters with examples as well. Joe.

I used an exaggerated example to make the scenario easier to understand. In fact, Sawyer is placed in this same situation (NE- Ravens) every time he finds an arb involving Pinancle. The value is on the non-Pinnacle side, and he must determine if he should also play the Pinnacle side.

I sure hope Sawyer has not softened his position. As I've been writing all along, playing both sides is a viable option if you have bankroll concerns. Or you may prefer a smaller, steady income to one that will pay more but come with greater fluctations. I think Sawyer is hip to this and has not softened his position at all.

If my wager is large enough, I, too, may decide to "take some off the table" and play the other side. I realize this isn't financially smart, but can be compared to wagering on a coin flip in which I know the coin is weighted 52% heads. For $100 I would take it in a heartbeat. For $50,000 I would refuse.

[bruceBRUCEbruce]

Plain and simple.....arb is good only when you are unable to determine which side has the value.

I'm a bit partial to the guaranteed profit, myself, small as it may be.

great thread though

[u21c3f6]

mr.ed, your scenario above is NOT the OP's scenario at all. No one has suggested covering the other side in your scenario. This is probably going to sound mean and it is honestly not meant to be mean but this is where reading comprehension and communication is vitally important. The OP (which apparently in recent posts appears to have softened his position) originally stated that given an arb (wagers at the same moment in time) that it was always a waste to wager on the -EV side and that statement without caveats is just not true which has been pointed out by some posters with examples as well. Joe.

[mr.ed]

For those who still disagree with Sawyer...try this scenario. Sawyer has +300 ML on Ravens at New England. The night before the game Brady eats bad sushi and is hospitalized and is scratched from the game.

The ML moves to New England -200. Sawyer knows he has tremendous value on Ravens +300. Yet is seems many on this forum would recommend locking up profits and taking New England at -200. That's a safe play if you have a limited bankroll. But if your sole motivation is to MAXIMIZE profits, you would not make the play on New England. You have a very strong play on the Ravens, and making a 2nd play at the TRUE line on New England has a negative expectation.

I've tried to explain this to very bright people and they still struggle to understand this. You have value on the Ravens, so making another play on New England at the true line of -200 will result in diminshed proifts long term. Sawyer discovered that value is found overwhelmingly with the smaller books. This is not surprising and could have been predicted beforehand. He will be subject to more fluctuations, but as long as Pinnacle's structure remains what it is today, there is simply no way he can do as well playing both sides when arb opportunities are identified. He will continue funding Pinnacle with smaller book money month after month after month for all eternity.

[liuyelian]

Are you aware of any "robot software" that allows one to search for middles and automatically bet them?






________________________________________ ___________________________
"Do you know those times when you've been put through so much pain you couldn't bear it? Well, that's reality for you."
I have been a FunForFreedom survivor since 7/2/12!Cheap Diablo 3 Gold
Buy Runescape Gold Buy RS Gold
Supporting Leon X Zara! <3
I have a blog!

[Sawyer]

Btw, Let me add something.

Let's say you win 50k at bookie and lose 30k in Betfair/Asian books, it doesn't mean you would make a profit of 50k if you had only bet at bookie. Why?

Because, you were risking big amounts since all your bets were "winner" bets. Since you bet both outcomes, you win regardless of result. So you can risk big amounts. Maybe %10 of your bankroll. However, if you were making straight bets, (without covering other side) you would risk LESS because of money management. You may experience losing streaks even if it's mathematically guaranteed to win at soft books. Losing streaks happen. If you bet a big portion of your bankroll such as %5 or %8, it may be very dangerous.

So conclusion,

You have 2 options.

You can create freebets without lowering your stakes. You can bet high as much you want, it's a freebet after all.

You can bet on "value bets" by obeying money management rules. Let's say your bank is 80,000. You can bet 10,000 on (possible on Major Leagues, assuming you have multiple accounts) an event if you're making an arbitrage, as freebet type. However, if you're making a straight wager, (without covering other side) you can't bet 10,000. You have to risk less, maybe 2000-2500. This is also something to consider..

Conclusion

Even if you're fanatic about arbitrage and you're a bloody arber, it doesn't make sense make a equal hedge. You must always risk more on soft book side and less on sharp book side. Just make create bets and make more profits, without risk.

Or place a "safe" amount on value bets, GL!

[Sawyer]

Good post, Bihon. I take the Arb maybe 5% of the time, the other 95% of the time I am on the value side only. The 5% is when I am unable to determine the value side.

Jumping at both sides of ARB opportunities would have resulted in deep, deep cuts into my profits over the last 14 years. This is not speculation on my part, it is fact. This is what the original poster was discovering, and he will continue to earn less month after month after month if he continues to play both sides.

Nice to see people who understands me

[Sawyer]

Wanna hear recent resulst?

1-29 May

Pinnacle -80.869€ (If you cover other side at Pinnacle)
Bookies +104.838€

1-30 April

Pinnacle -87.749€
Bookies 125.954€

Coinsidence? Not really..

As long as you pick a value bet, you don't really need to arb it. Specially if % is high, you may be leaving a fortune on table my hedging both sides.

If you want a less stressful solution, then create free bets when arbing. For example, you risk 1000€ on Sharapova 3,00 and 2000€. on Serena 1,60. If Serena wins, you win 200€. If Sharapova wins, you're breakeven.

Sure, there will be losing streaks where you lose at sharp books but over long haul, You will make more profits.

[mr.ed]

The problem with the narrow minded ones is that they jump in, ridicule the OP with the "iron clad proofs" & "indisputable evidence" and when they realise their mistake they try backpadling with some minor arguments the others bring in.

Now, betting with your entire bankroll vs a portion of it is a valid argument brought by some more reasonable people here, but in no way having this logic in mind would provoke an answer such as: "I'm really leaning toward considering it some kind of joke or maybe a level, couse anyone with anything remotely close to a reasonable intelligence simply can not come up with such an idiotic idea."
It clearly shows that the narrow minded ones had absolutely no idea what was this all about.

Back to the counter-argument, with an accent to the real life situation:
- There are max limits out there, so betting with an entire huge bankroll is not possible anyway.
- The value bets come mostly from B class bookies, where big stakes would constitute a substantial risk.
- The drawdowns for positive/advantage outcome expectance are pretty good to manage.

So yes, I would agree that for a small bankroll the sure bet would be a better and more secure choice, but for anyone serious out there the value bets would provide more profit in the long run.

Good post, Bihon. I take the Arb maybe 5% of the time, the other 95% of the time I am on the value side only. The 5% is when I am unable to determine the value side.

Jumping at both sides of ARB opportunities would have resulted in deep, deep cuts into my profits over the last 14 years. This is not speculation on my part, it is fact. This is what the original poster was discovering, and he will continue to earn less month after month after month if he continues to play both sides.

[hutennis]

Yep. Looks pretty hopeless.
But, considering the fact that in 2012 25%of Americans believe that Earth is between 5700 and 10000 years old, it's kinda expected.

[u21c3f6]

I give up. Joe.

[mr.ed]

Plain and simple.....arb is good only when you are unable to determine which side has the value. If you know which side has the value and you are in it for the long haul, play only one side. Always trust the Pinnacle number as the right number.

[bihon]

Joe, what you wrote was true for a small portfolio or a large one if arbing among reliable books.
But again, we are not talking arbing between Pinnacle and 5dimes or Heritage. The other side is almost exclusively a bookie where you can't risk more than a few hundreds, at least not me.

However for those chosing EV+ side only, I wouldn't recommend odds above 1.5 as those would require longer time for a full effect. Arbing is preferable way anyway if EV+ side is an underdog.

[u21c3f6]

Bihon, Please read this thread: http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...ml#post6622283 and in particular post #25 and give me your thoughts. Joe.

[hutennis]

You are wrong on all counts.

First.

Now, betting with your entire bankroll vs a portion of it is a valid argument brought by some more reasonable people here,

Wrong!
First complete calculations on this were done by me in a post #20. Read it.

Second.

There are max limits out there, so betting with an entire huge bankroll is not possible anyway.

Wrong!
Unless the size of your BR is so large that your every bet is a site's maximum, which is totally not applicable for an absolute majority of readers in this thread, larger and more profitable arbitrage is always there.

Third.

The value bets come mostly from B class bookies, where big stakes would constitute a substantial risk.

Risk of cancellation / non payment, as was said ad nauseum, from the beginning, is a separate issue.
u21c3f6 just mentioned it again in a post #160.

Now this is where others try to put caveats in such as I don't trust I will get paid, wager cancellation, limits etc., all valid points and must be taken into consideration. However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong.

Also you conveniently forgetting that risk of cancellation / non payment is an issue weather you arbing or not.
Your single +ev bet maybe canceled/not paid if won and they can happily let your losing bet ride very easy.

Forth.

The drawdowns for positive/advantage outcome expectance are pretty good to manage.

Really? How?
Drawdowns are random. You can have all kinds of +EV and still be beaten down mercilessly by randomness for very extended periods of time.
It's like saying that you can manage results of your +EV all-ins in poker. Ridiculous notion.

[bihon]

The problem with the narrow minded ones is that they jump in, ridicule the OP with the "iron clad proofs" & "indisputable evidence" and when they realise their mistake they try backpadling with some minor arguments the others bring in.

Now, betting with your entire bankroll vs a portion of it is a valid argument brought by some more reasonable people here, but in no way having this logic in mind would provoke an answer such as: "I'm really leaning toward considering it some kind of joke or maybe a level, couse anyone with anything remotely close to a reasonable intelligence simply can not come up with such an idiotic idea."
It clearly shows that the narrow minded ones had absolutely no idea what was this all about.

Back to the counter-argument, with an accent to the real life situation:
- There are max limits out there, so betting with an entire huge bankroll is not possible anyway.
- The value bets come mostly from B class bookies, where big stakes would constitute a substantial risk.
- The drawdowns for positive/advantage outcome expectance are pretty good to manage.

So yes, I would agree that for a small bankroll the sure bet would be a better and more secure choice, but for anyone serious out there the value bets would provide more profit in the long run.

[hutennis]

The major mistake I see in most of the answers agreeing with the OP is that when they try to compare the results between the arb and the +ev wager only, they use the same amount for each wager. In other words, assuming you have a $2,000 bankroll and there is a 50/50 event that you can get +110 on one side (5% edge) and -105 on the other side, they compare the two results using $100 wagers for both the arb and the +ev wager. This is incorrect. Yes, the $100 wager is Kelly correct if you are only wagering on the +ev wager but it is not correct if you are arbing. Since the arb is a guaranteed profit, you can use your entire bankroll. In our example, a win and a loss on the +ev wager only would result in a $10 profit after two wagers. However, the arb allows you to wager $963 on the +110 and $1,037 on the -105 for an approx. gain of $47 after two wagers. Now this is where others try to put caveats in such as I don't trust I will get paid, wager cancellation, limits etc., all valid points and must be taken into consideration. However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong. Joe.

100% correct. And this is post #160.

I said the same thing already in a post #9.
In a post #20 I made an iron clad mathematical example of why it is correct.

And yet, in a post #161 we see this unbelievable brain deadness again.

Playing value bets only using the same stake in each game produces more profit than playing sure bets.

Ok. you did not read the whole thread. You did not see post #9 or post #20.

But, common! Right in front of your eyes, in a post #160, you must see

"USING THE SAME STAKE IN EACH GAME TO COMPARE RESULTS OF ARB VS +EV IS WRONG!!!!!!! AND HERE IS WHY !!!!!!!!

It sure looks like arguing with flat earthers.
No matter what, regardless of indisputable evidence to the contrary they just keep on pushing their nonsense
"Earth is flat. Because if it would not be, water would flow right off it."

And there is nothing that can change their mind.
Seams like the smartest thing to do is to not even try.

[bihon]

However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong. Joe.

Now, I don't see this as a money management (Kelly, etc) or caveats/circumstances problem.
Playing value bets only using the same stake in each game produces more profit than playing sure bets.
And that is plain mathematically true.

[u21c3f6]

please elaborate

The major mistake I see in most of the answers agreeing with the OP is that when they try to compare the results between the arb and the +ev wager only, they use the same amount for each wager. In other words, assuming you have a $2,000 bankroll and there is a 50/50 event that you can get +110 on one side (5% edge) and -105 on the other side, they compare the two results using $100 wagers for both the arb and the +ev wager. This is incorrect. Yes, the $100 wager is Kelly correct if you are only wagering on the +ev wager but it is not correct if you are arbing. Since the arb is a guaranteed profit, you can use your entire bankroll. In our example, a win and a loss on the +ev wager only would result in a $10 profit after two wagers. However, the arb allows you to wager $963 on the +110 and $1,037 on the -105 for an approx. gain of $47 after two wagers. Now this is where others try to put caveats in such as I don't trust I will get paid, wager cancellation, limits etc., all valid points and must be taken into consideration. However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong. Joe.

[bihon]

Well, this thread is more than eight months old but there are still people not grasping the original meaning and as usual they are the ones using the terms such as "stupid", "plainly wrong" or "I'm trying really hard to come up with a single reason why..." and similar. Their insulting attitude probably cannot be cured, but needs to be addressed.

However, I guess it was the title that created the most confusion here:
"Arbitrage/Surebet is waste of money if you're betting the other side at Pinnacle".
Why Pinnacle? Doesn't one lose even more if betting another side on some other soft book?

Anyway, I want to thanks the OP Sawyer, for sharing his basicaly true statement.
In order to try to shed some more light here, let's use some simple math/example.

First of all, the OP reffered to long term strategy and not to a single bet only.
So if the odds (two way and without juice, just to simplify) are e.g. 1.5/3.0, the probabilities are 2/3 & 1/3.
Of course this means an even game after e.g. 120 games betting 100 units each game; 80x50 - 40x100 = 0 units.

If a value bet is 1.6 instead of 1.5 this would produce around 4.3% for a sure bet or ca 520 units gain in 120 games.

However by betting value bets only, the same stake would return 80x60 - 40x100 = 800 units profit or 6.7% average per game.

Yes, clearly you make more money betting value bets only vs related sure bets, but under a condition that a value bet is on one side only. If both (or more sides) are value bets then a sure bet is the way to go.

[gaebiskon]

I don't know what else to say. The above without a whole lot of caveats is just so unbelievably wrong it is mind numbing.

I am not trying to be insulting but there are many that have responded in this thread that really need to reconsider their beliefs.

Joe.

please elaborate