Tool for playing out an event over a set number of times

**doncastro** · 12-20-12, 03:29 AM

I just read this back and it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Lets say the spread is +3 with the 48.98 points. How can i work out the % of times the spread should land on this. How can i work out how that changes with a different totals number.

How can i work out the % of the spread landing on 2, 1, -1, -2 etc given the totals. How can i work out how this changes when the totals changes

My gut instinct is I will have to ''play out this event'' using an excel macro. Does anyone have any insight on this.

**doncastro** · 12-20-12, 03:33 AM

Soemthing like this

team A wins by 6 or more 11%
team A wins by 5 7%
team A wins by 4 9%
team A wins by 3 10%
team A wins by 2 9%
team A wins by 1 7%
draw 10%
team A loses by 1 9%
team A loses by 2 8%
team A loses by 3 7%
team A loses by 4 6%
team A loses by 5 or more 5%

*figures made up off the top of my head. But I hope somebody who can help gets the idea!

**cyrusii** · 12-20-12, 06:34 AM

Do a database query on historical data. That is the most accurate and easiest way to get what you want, imo.

**Waterstpub87** · 12-20-12, 08:12 AM

Without Standard Deviation, you can't play it out. How did you get your projected numbers. Unless you just made them up out of the blue, you should have historical numbers. You can get stdev off of that, and then run it out.

**HUY** · 12-20-12, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by doncastro

Hi

I have recently become interested in sports betting after becoming pretty disillusioned with poker. For my first venture right now I think I've identified a local book that is pricing up 1st quarter markets wrong in the NBA. I'm pretty new with excel and my question is this

Lets say I have team A to score 25.9901 points in the 1st quarter
I have team B to score 22.9901 points in the first quarter

This is for a +3/-3 spread and a 48.98 expected total points in the quarter. How can i play this event out thousands of times to get the standard deviation for these variables?

Thanks. Any help welcomed greatly.

Do yourself a favor and don't bet. Your statistics knowledge is non-existent.

**doncastro** · 12-20-12, 12:36 PM

Thanks. It looks like I will have to get the standard deviation from data to play it out so!! Thanks cyrusii.

@waters. That is the average vegas totals for this 1 game I chose last night from the 2 books I'm interested in as a mark. The spread is the Vegas spread. But local books are going 2.5,3.5 etc @ -110

@Huy. They are not statistics.

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by HUY

Do yourself a favor and don't bet. Your statistics knowledge is non-existent.

I don't really know who you are, but ever since you appeared, you've said the most moronic and myopic shit I've seen in a long time. What kind of contribution is this post? Nothing. The guy is trying to learn. You are too busy trying to show people what you know, and you're way off base most of the time. Jesus, you are annoying.

I edited this because I got you mixed up with hutennis. My bad carryon, friend.

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by doncastro

Thanks. It looks like I will have to get the standard deviation from data to play it out so!! Thanks cyrusii.

@waters. That is the average vegas totals for this 1 game I chose last night from the 2 books I'm interested in as a mark. The spread is the Vegas spread. But local books are going 2.5,3.5 etc @ -110

@Huy. They are not statistics.

Don, Cyrus is right. The best way is to query a database, and get actual values for games. It all starts with real game data. Good luck.

**doncastro** · 12-20-12, 01:01 PM

Cheers Miz. Would you agree with my thinking that if the spread is -2, -3 1st quarter. If I can get -1.5, -2/-2.5 @ -110 this should be a +EV bet in theory?

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Miz

I don't really know who you are, but ever since you appeared, you've said the most moronic and myopic shit I've seen in a long time. What kind of contribution is this post? Nothing. The guy is trying to learn. You are too busy trying to show people what you know, and you're way off base most of the time. Jesus, you are annoying.

I edited this because I got you mixed up with hutennis. My bad carryon, friend.

Would you be kind enough to quote some of the "most moronic and myopic shit" you are talking about?
Since I'm "way off base most of the time" it should not be hard to do, right?

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by hutennis

How do we explain?

In an absence of hard, verifiable data confirming your stories there is only one explanation.
You are falling pray to very common and well established physiological pitfalls.

Conformation bias, selection bias, hindsight bias, taxes sharpshooter fallacy, gamblers fallacy, underestimation of randomness and law of small numbers are more than enough to explain your "problems". We don't need anything else.

Start posting your picks here ahead of time and you will see that your horrible losing streaks will disappear like a fart in a wind.
That's it. Easy enough.

This should suffice

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Miz

This should suffice

Would you care to explain what you find to be moronic, myopic and way off base in this post?

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by doncastro

Cheers Miz. Would you agree with my thinking that if the spread is -2, -3 1st quarter. If I can get -1.5, -2/-2.5 @ -110 this should be a +EV bet in theory?

Possibly. The best thing you can do is get a box score database with historical lines. Then you can back test. If you have something valid, you normally see your success rate improve as the difference of your number and the line increases.

If you can get a DB with opening and closing lines (might be tough for first quarter bets) then a nice test is the line movement test. If the line movement follows your predictions, that usually means you are on to something.

You should probably read through the definitions of EV, EG, etc. Ganchrow had some really good tutorials on it. You don't have to be able to derive them, but you should just be sure you understand it all conceptually.

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by hutennis

Would you care to explain what you find to be moronic, myopic and way off base in this post?

I don't have time to try to determine the context of your gibberish. You just want others to view you as knowledgeable by using buzzwords. Just add in "Bayesian Priors" and you'll be all set. Nearly all those terms are unrelated.

hutennis actually bets +350
hutennis doesn't bet -450

I just find you annoying.

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 01:19 PM

For the record I still think HUY's post was pretty shitty and arrogant. But whatever. At least it wasn't 5 paragraphs long, and it got to the point.

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Miz

I don't have time to try to determine the context of your gibberish. You just want others to view you as knowledgeable by using buzzwords. Just add in "Bayesian Priors" and you'll be all set. Nearly all those terms are unrelated.

hutennis actually bets +350
hutennis doesn't bet -450

I just find you annoying.

Oh, you find me annoying. I see.

I just don't see how the fact that I annoy you ( which I can live with, btw) makes my statements moronic and off base.

If they are - show me why.
Your personal feelings about me should not make any difference.

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 01:29 PM

Annoying... check
Statements often don't pertain to the topic... check
Doesn't actually bet on sports... check

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 01:31 PM

not trying to be a dick to you for no reason, I just wish you'd turn your annoying switch off for a while. Just tone it down a little bit and stop trying to be a know-it-all.

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Miz

not trying to be a dick to you for no reason, I just wish you'd turn your annoying switch off for a while. Just tone it down a little bit and stop trying to be a know-it-all.

You call me a moron and keep on refusing to explain or give any reason on why.
That's not nice.
In fact, the only people I know who would do such a thing are, believe it or not, called morons.

Now, in that post I was very constructive and to the point (something that actual moron would have very hard time doing)

Not only I offer that guy a perfect explanation on why he may feel the way he feels (exactly what he asked for),
I also gave him a very practical advise on how to get out of this.

Maybe it was not the answer and/or advise he (or you) would be looking for, maybe it can even annoy some people (I dont know why it would either) but how does it make it moronic or off base? That's my question.

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 01:56 PM

Looks like your switch is stuck. Again not trying to be a dick too much. Just tone it down a little.

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Miz

Looks like your switch is stuck. Again not trying to be a dick too much. Just tone it down a little.

Tone down what? Being right?

Unless you can show where I'm wrong, I'm right.

So, again, what should I tone down. Being right?

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 02:04 PM

OK, we've established that you have an insatiable desire to be right. I wish you could transform that into a desire to be succinct.

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 02:13 PM

You keep on not making much sense.
Succinct enough?

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 02:29 PM

Actually yes. This is a huge improvement. Keep it up this way, and I'll actually pay more attention to your posts. They may have some good content buried in there somewhere, but I don't have time to read 4 paragraphs each time you post.

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 03:03 PM

10 seconds attention span is an extremely wide spread phenomena nowadays.
It is well known and being very cleverly used by those who make a living
by separating people with 10 seconds attention span from their money.

I hope it is short enough statement.

**Miz** · 12-20-12, 03:31 PM

Phenomenon is the singular of phenomena. Good attempt at trying to sound smart though. Long posts <> intelligent.

**hutennis** · 12-20-12, 05:04 PM

Great catch! Laser like focus!
You pin pointed the most important part just like that!

Using singular would most certainly convert otherwise senseless gibberish into something
that could even be considered a half way useful observation.

Great catch!