Beating the closing line in baseball: How important is it?

[MDRTYson]

+130 to +150 would not count towards this as i'm looking at line movement in the opposite direction. The opposing team's -140 open to a -160 close in your hypothetical game would count towards these records, though.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know that it was a "game" per se. Was just trying to gather what could be gained from this data, not disputing it.

In my small sample size, I captured good numbers on games I liked. Had I waited, I still would have liked most of those but may have laid off 1 or 2. Your data points to waiting and then betting the other side.

[MDRTYson]

In a nutshell:

1. Beating closing lines in MLB is possible.
2. Doing so consistently identifies you as a sharp, who will almost certainly win long term.
3. Not doing so identifies you as a losing long term bettor.
4. 2013 has so far been very generous to squares.

LOL. I don't know if I like this given my example. Better to be sharp and lose or a square and win. Hopefully things will level out!

[hutennis]

In a nutshell:

1. Beating closing lines in MLB is possible.

Yes.

2. Doing so consistently identifies you as a sharp, who will almost certainly win long term.

Yes.

3. Not doing so identifies you as a losing long term bettor.

Yes.

4. 2013 has so far been very generous to squares.

Or 2012 was very generous to squares and 2013 has so far been very generous to sharps

[matthew919]

Yes.



Yes.



Yes.




Or 2012 was very generous to squares and 2013 has so far been very generous to sharps

Your last comment completely contradicts comments 2 and 3.

[hutennis]

Your last comment completely contradicts comments 2 and 3.

In what way?

I see no connection between first 3 and the last one.

[EXhoosier10]

In what way?

I see no connection between first 3 and the last one.

What data are you using to back up "2012 was a square year and 2013 has been good for sharps?" All you've been doing in this entire thread is playing devil's advocate and passing off the burden of proof to everyone else.

From what you said, beating the closer consistently makes you a long term winner. So far in '13, beating the closing line on games with a significant line move (meaning there is likely to be something more than simply the books adjusting to get equal action) has not been profitible and instead has been in the negative by quite a bit. This shows that 'sharps' are having a bad 2013 according to the agreed upon definition of a sharp

[hutennis]

I may have a response to this tomorrow; I have to think more about it.

Will you also have something to say about my response to your questions about market efficiency and importance of stats analysis? Have you give that some thoughts?

[matthew919]

LOL. I don't know if I like this given my example. Better to be sharp and lose or a square and win. Hopefully things will level out!

Trust me- you'd rather be a sharp and lose. If only as a matter of pride. Good job on those games you mentioned; keep tracking your record. If it keeps up that way, you are doing something right, so congrats!

[Peregrine Stoop]

Absolutely correct. Research, experience, and ~30 to 40 hours/wk of hard work and you might have a shot at making a profit.

Agree completely. One guy studying 40 hours per week is smarter than the c\ thousands of bettors wagering hundreds of thousands factoring in their collective millions of hours of wisdom.

[matthew919]

It looks like as soon as I start making too much sense, the whole thread is being moved to PT where it quickly gets lost.

Let's be honest- this has never been a problem of yours. As a general rule, I avoid bashing other posters, but you've hijacked a sufficient number of threads in HTT that I'll go ahead and reply.

Your posts show that you have no solid grasp of statistical modeling, nor do you seem to understand what drives gambling markets and line movements. Instead of offering helpful advice/opinions, you cop a condescending attitude dripping with psuedo-intellectual superiority, by posing questions which are smug, hardly-veiled attempts to belittle others. Whatever happened to you as a child to make you that way, just let it go. It's a new day.

[hutennis]

Let's be honest- this has never been a problem of yours. As a general rule, I avoid bashing other posters, but you've hijacked a sufficient number of threads in HTT that I'll go ahead and reply.

Your posts show that you have no solid grasp of statistical modeling, nor do you seem to understand what drives gambling markets and line movements. Instead of offering helpful advice/opinions, you cop a condescending attitude dripping with psuedo-intellectual superiority, by posing questions which are smug, hardly-veiled attempts to belittle others. Whatever happened to you as a child to make you that way, just let it go. It's a new day.

Nice ad hominem, my friend.
I always thought though, that argument must stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of what happened to whom in a childhood, if anything.

Why don't you go to the argument itself and try to deal with it (and, hopefully, destroy it) directly, without making ridiculous personal attacks.
Let'a start with this one. You should have plenty of opportunities to show how marginal my understanding of gambling markets is.

Also would be nice to know why this advise should not be considered helpful and worthy of following.

Yeah, go ahead. Contribute. Should not be hard.

[matthew919]

Lines move on news and money flow. Both news and money flow come in a random fashion thus making line movements random.

This quote alone proves to me that you have a poor understanding of what moves lines, or the reason why that movement is meaningful and important, which was the entire purpose of this thread. It also contradicts your agreement of your first "Yes" in a previous post (the same post containing the other contradiction).

And while others here are busy posting statistics derived from actual data analysis, as well as their own personal experiences, your best contribution was to state vague opinions about things. As for the second link, I could care less about a thread dealing with arbing. Didn't read it. I have no interest in arbing.

Checking out of this thread now, but there was some great info shared here, and I wish more topics like this would pop up in HTT.

[hutennis]

Blah, blah, blah...

[EXhoosier10]

Will you also have something to say about my response to your questions about market efficiency and importance of stats analysis? Have you give that some thoughts?

You didn't really state anything worth responding to. Your thoughts summarize as follows;
"Market makers take into account every known variable perfectly (or at least +/-5 cents) and there is a 1% chance (if youre smart enough) that looking at publicly available data will be useful to one's handicapping methodology."

Since everything you've said is unsubstantiated, there isn't much reason for me to give it credence over anything that I think.

[EXhoosier10]

What data are you using to back up "2012 was a square year and 2013 has been good for sharps?" All you've been doing in this entire thread is playing devil's advocate and passing off the burden of proof to everyone else.

From what you said, beating the closer consistently makes you a long term winner. So far in '13, beating the closing line on games with a significant line move (meaning there is likely to be something more than simply the books adjusting to get equal action) has not been profitible and instead has been in the negative by quite a bit. This shows that 'sharps' are having a bad 2013 according to the agreed upon definition of a sharp

Hu, care to discuss?

[hutennis]

Hu, care to discuss?

Yes.

Does data in your analysis include all instances in all games in all sports when opener beats no vig closer?
Is every method of betting covered? (ML, ATS, O/U etc)
Probability does not know and does not care about all these varieties. It only cares about numbers and sample size.
Who gave you a right to cherry pick only segment (very small segment at that) confirming your notion?
That's classic example of conformation bias - one of the most common fallacies people can have.
It is as human as sex and BBQ. And you are falling for it like a two-legged stool.
If you do the analysis for 2012 and 2013 properly, you very well may see that 12 was indeed lucky for sharps and 13 is unlucky for squares so far. My assumption is not contradictory and as good as any until dis proven by evidence. And you don't have it.

Beating no vig closer does make you a LONG TERM winner, but, if you want to use only your segment, then who gave you a right to
talk about "so far in"13" as it is some kind of variation of LONG TERM.
You can not even start looking at the data, never mind analyzing it and draw ridiculous conclusions (like there is likely to be something more than simply the books adjusting to get equal action) with such a minuscule sample size.
Doing it shows a medieval understanding of probability and randomness

Now this.

You didn't really state anything worth responding to. Your thoughts summarize as follows;
"Market makers take into account every known variable perfectly (or at least +/-5 cents) and there is a 1% chance (if youre smart enough) that looking at publicly available data will be useful to one's handicapping methodology."

Since everything you've said is unsubstantiated, there isn't much reason for me to give it credence over anything that I think.

More than 1% in a sport betting market are winners. Probably between 2 and 3%.
But, in addition to those who compete with oddsmakers in expertise, that also includes lucky ones and non handicappers.
We are not talking about them. For handicappers, 1% is very reasonable number and represents pretty much a consensus on this subject.

Therefore, my conclusion that market is 99% efficient substantiated by universal agreement on 1% for winners number.
That's just common sense.
If someone does not agree and makes a claim that market is less efficient b/c there are more winners than 1%, then the burden of prove is in fact on him and he has to demonstrate it if he wants to be taken seriously.

Also, you asked me 3 questions. I gave you 3 answers. Why did you stop on a first one? How about the rest?

Ok, lets say we covered the second one already.
But what about this one?

Question

What about ERA, W/L record, SIERA, wRC+, pythagenport or any other public stat? All of these have been around for multiple years and smart people have surely taken advantage of them. Does looking at any of this information help a bettor find an edge?

Answer

If those who set the odds are not aware of these stats and dont include them in their calculations, then yes, those stats are gold mine providing that you use them correctly.
But if they know everything you do about ERA, W/L record, SIERA, wRC+, pythagenport etc., then, even if you use stats as well as world class
statisticians employed by those who set the odds, you gain nothing. Your efforts and knowledge and their efforts and knowledge simply get
washed and all is left is juice. Unless you line shop, of course.

Care to discuss?

[EXhoosier10]

Theorem: More than 1% in a sport betting market are winners. Probably between 2 and 3%. But, in addition to those who compete with oddsmakers in expertise, that also includes lucky ones and non handicappers.

Proof: For handicappers, 1% is very reasonable number and represents pretty much a consensus on this subject.

Conclusion: Therefore, my conclusion that market is 99% efficient substantiated by universal agreement on 1% for winners number.

And that's science, everyone! My 10 year old cousin makes arguments better than this.

I no longer care to discuss this topic with you

[hutennis]

And that's science, everyone! My 10 year old cousin makes arguments better than this.

I no longer care to discuss this topic with you

Well, you ran out gas pretty fast.
This logic thing is a bitch, is not it?
And thats why you ran out of gas
And thats why you no longer care to discuss...

Whether you like it or not it is a good argument
And whether this market is 99% efficient or 98% or 97% who cares.
Your personal chances to beat it are slim to none, And slim already left the building.

So where is the good news?
There is some.
Don't lie to yourself.
Don't jerk off your ego in pseudo smart conversations in public forums about thing you have no clue about.
Don't waste your time chasing pipe dream of "data analysis". If it had a good chance, this data would have been top secret material.
Instead, it is widely available, and it is widely available cause it is useless. For 99% of us anyway.

Be smart. Do what make sense, what is reasonable and logical.
Line shop, arbitrage, chase steam learn how to be a good trader.
Its hard, its boring and it's not sexy but it works and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to do it.

P.S.

You can also set aside 10 grand, flip a coin to chose or bet your favorite team for 50 bucks a pop.
Thas just fine. You'll get your money's worth.
Just don't put that "analytical" face mask on yourself.
It does not suit you.

[Inkwell77]

Well, you ran out gas pretty fast.
This logic thing is a bitch, is not it?
And thats why you ran out of gas
And thats why you no longer care to discuss...

Whether you like it or not it is a good argument
And whether this market is 99% efficient or 98% or 97% who cares.
Your personal chances to beat it are slim to none, And slim already left the building.

So where is the good news?
There is some.
Don't lie to yourself.
Don't jerk off your ego in pseudo smart conversations in public forums about thing you have no clue about.
Don't waste your time chasing pipe dream of "data analysis". If it had a good chance, this data would have been top secret material.
Instead, it is widely available, and it is widely available cause it is useless. For 99% of us anyway.

Be smart. Do what make sense, what is reasonable and logical.
Line shop, arbitrage, chase steam learn how to be a good trader.
Its hard, its boring and it's not sexy but it works and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to do it.

P.S.

You can also set aside 10 grand, flip a coin to chose or bet your favorite team for 50 bucks a pop.
Thas just fine. You'll get your money's worth.
Just don't put that "analytical" face mask on yourself.
It does not suit you.

One of the sharpest posts one will ever read on this site.
Please, everyone new to this, do not fall into the bs trap that sportsbetting is somehow easy and you have the "skill" to pick winners. There is a 99% chance you don't if you are betting a "large" amount of games.

[EXhoosier10]

One of the sharpest posts one will ever read on this site.
Please, everyone new to this, do not fall into the bs trap that sportsbetting is somehow easy and you have the "skill" to pick winners. There is a 99% chance you don't if you are betting a "large" amount of games.

99%? Prove it. This post isn't sharp at all, it's conjecture and some guy who can't win saying its impossible.

[hutennis]

99%? Prove it. This post isn't sharp at all, it's conjecture and some guy who can't win saying its impossible.

Google "sports betting market efficiency" and read PDFs with academic research on this subject.

One thing you will find universally accepted can be summarized by this quote from paper on fixed odds betting published
by Department of Statistics, Örebro University, Sweden.

...purpose is to test the weak form efficiency. Contrary to the semi-strong form, we do not find evidence that the market is
lacking of efficiency in this form.

In weak-form efficiency, future cannot be predicted by analyzing data from the past. Excess returns cannot be earned in the long run by using strategies based on historical data.

Since digging the past trying to predict future is what you guys are so sharply keen on, you, according to science, don't get even 1% chance. You are dead on arrival.

Now, semi strong form, that deals with new, publicly available information is not iron clad and can be exploited, but it is very, very hard, since you have to gather and analyse randomly coming new information faster and better than most of the world to gain an edge.
This is very hard to do and it costs a lot and that explains why only tiny fraction of bettors are able to do it.

Of course some people like to claim that they are part of this very exclusive club, but, in an absence of very serious evidence, those claims can be safely ignored since there is just about 99% chance that they are nothing but a fuking lying or a product of a deep delusion.

I dont know about anybody else, but for me, with an odds like that, the default position is not to believe.
It is logical. It is reasonable. And I'll stick to it.

[EXhoosier10]

The study from Örebro University, Sweden that you're referencing is testing head to head horse racing. Baseball is a completely different entity and surely you don't believe that the 30+ cent juice you get when betting head to head ponies is relevant when talking about -105/-105 baseball games.

I appreciated you trying to use proof to back up your position, but this one does not work. Surely you can point to a study saying that betting the MLB market can not be beat, right?

[hutennis]

All those studies are not about beating a particular game.
They are about market efficiency.
I cited swedish paper on ponies but i could have used american paper on NFL or MLB.
Game does not matter. Major conclusion is the same regardless.
And conclusion is Betting market is inefficient (Hurray!!!!!!!) but only in semi strong and strong forms (Oh shiiiiiit!!!!!!)

You are right, there is no study saying that MLB market can not be beat b/c it can be beat.
But it can not be beat by methods you and other like you use.

You use past data to predict future. So by definition you deal with weak form of market efficiency.
On surface it does look so bad. You have all the time in a world you need to collect any data you need and to analyze it any way you want to build a winning model.
So lets talk to some smart dudes in forums and lets get some winning patterns modeled. It does not cost much and it does not matter whether model is ready for this season or the next, as long as it's up and running at some point making millions. That's the plan, right?

Nice plan, but it wont work. Market is efficient in its week form. Weak form is unbeatable.

So, big deal, some might say, let's beat the shit out of this semi strong form. It is beatable, Is not it?
Yes it is beatable, but it is not that easy anymore! Now you have to be smarter and faster than most in a world.
If you are - congratulations. You are in a very small company.

[Carl-Haakon]

You use past data to predict future. So by definition you deal with weak form of market efficiency.
On surface it does look so bad.

Not really; I think you get confused by the fact that there are more than one definition of weak form efficiency. The one referred to here basically uses the same definition as most of the literature on horse racing, which goes something like:

Weak form efficiency: odds by themselves are not enough to make a profit (so there may be a favorite-longshot bias, for instance, but it would not be enough to make a profit).

Semi-strong efficiency: publicly available data are not enough to make a profit.

I know it's confusing, but if you read more academic papers on horse racing you'll find that this terminology is common. The only other place I've seen it in a different context is in "Signal and the Noise", where Nate Silver defines weak form efficiency as inability to make a profit from watching price charts of stocks.

Anyway, if you kept reading that paper (available here, for anyone interested), you'd see that the researchers easily found selection criteria which produced profits over their small sample, and that they found no reason to reject the idea that it is possible to make a profit by using publicly available information. Let me quote:

From the abstract:
"This paper tests the hypothesis of market efficiency for the fixed odds betting market of
Swedish trotting head-to-head matches. The hypothesis is carried out by a Wald test within a
logistic regression model. Data support rejection of semi-strong efficiency at the 5 percent
level of significance, while the weak form efficiency cannot be rejected. Moreover,
evaluation of the simple strategy to bet on those horses where, conditional on the estimated
model, the expected profit is positive results in a profit of 7.8 percent per bet."
(Emphasis mine)

From the summary:
"Moreover, the data supports that bookmakers misjudge the effects of at least two horse characteristics;
time per kilometre for the horse at the latest performed race and the percentage of the latest
ten performed races the horse has come on either second or third place. Furthermore, the
strategy only to bet on those horses where the predicted expected profit is positive yields a
profit of 7.8 percent per bet during the evaluating period."

[hutennis]

Not really; I think you get confused...

Not at All.
There is no confusion here.
Your take on Nate Silver position is misrepresentation.

He is using stock price charts not b/c that's the ONLY area where digging the past is useless.
Past fundamental information would not do you any good either.
Same is true for the last season's (or last week's, or yesterday's) scores or betting averages.

He simply had to pick a single example b/c naming all applicable examples is not practical in a short book.
It is all the same, really. Weak form efficiency is true in any speculative market.
Stocks, bonds, horse racing, baseball, commodities, what have you.

Plus, if you don't want to fall for conformation bias, you should quote not only what you seem to like but something you would like too.
For example this

Some investment strategies might be a tiny bit profitable in a world where trading was free. But in the real world, a trader needs to earn a large enough profit to cover this additional expense

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about "margin for error" protected by a vig.

In all this, the good question to ask would be:

"OK. So where does the efficient weak form stop and inefficient semi-strong form begin?"

When applied to sport betting, weak form stops at the moment when your model (no matter how sophisticated and methodologically correct it is) spits out the number, which is obviously based ONLY on information available in the past, prior to the moment this number was generated.
From that point on you are in the semi strong form land and every passing second can and will bring out the reasons, whether you are aware of them or not, that doubt validity of your number and makes is very tricky to be on the right side often enough to be a winner.

If your model gives you a number +120 for eg., and you see Pinnacle opens with +130, if you automatically assume that you posses
THE TRUTH you are hugely mistaken and will pay dearly for this mistake.

First you can be wrong to begin with b/c pinny's model is just better than yours. They used more complete data with better methods to analyse this data. I know, it is hard to imagine, but it can be true.
Second, some new information came in between the time you first saw your number and the time pinny posted its openers.
I know, that's close to impossible, but it could be true too, Right?

So, as a reasonable, critically thinking person person, you must ask yourself:

1. There is no way in a world I can proclaim myself to be a better data collector and better data analyzer than those who work for pinny.
The best I can hope for is to be at par with them. What reasons do I have to consider that to be a case?

And, even if you have iron clad reasons to be sure in it, then there must be also answer to this

2. If I am no better or worse than the are (quite a leap of faith if you ask me), then where the difference in our probability assessment comes from? What do they know that I don't? I got my number yesterday. What happened since then that I'm not aware of? Is there any way I can keep up in a timely manner with non stop, random flow of information?

In most cases, honest answers to this questions are simply not a part of our nature.
As human beings, we are programmed to explain the difference with something we like and turn the blind eye on everything we dont.

So the answers we give to ourselves petty much always are like this

1. I see no reasons why they should be in anyway better than I am, therefore they are not better.
2. The difference is explained by unfortunate position pinny find itself in all the time. Pinny is at the mercy of a dumb public and in order to balance the action always must put itself in a losing territory on a dog side by overshading favorites.

Both answers are bad, but they are good enough to make us feel good at the moment.
And that's all we care for now.

If we would lose every time we act on this delusional crap it would force us to reconsider.
But we don't lose every time and that's the problem.
Sometimes we lose (shit, i got unlucky, if only this asshole did not fumble...) and sometimes we win (aha, i was right b/c I'm good)

At the end of a long run, as life shows us over and over again, we have just about 1% chance to be right. And that's the bottom line.

[EXhoosier10]

2. The difference is explained by unfortunate position pinny find itself in all the time. Pinny is at the mercy of a dumb public and in order to balance the action always must put itself in a losing territory on a dog side by overshading favorites.

Feel free to switch dog/favorite depending on the game, but

[hutennis]

Feel free to switch dog/favorite depending on the game, but

And you feel free to guess right most of the time where the hell this coin flip lands this time, hoping and praying that your understanding of
"depending on the game" is in fact a correct one. LOL

[matthew919]

OK, I'm checking back in for a second. Last time, I promise. I am relatively new to gambling, but I've learned a ton in the past 9 months. And for the sake of anyone who reads this in the future with the intent of making money (and eventually a living) as a technical handicapper, I'll clarify a few inaccuracies above. First this statement:

If your model gives you a number +120 for eg., and you see Pinnacle opens with +130, if you automatically assume that you posses
THE TRUTH you are hugely mistaken and will pay dearly for this mistake.

Here's a valuable hint that most people do not appreciate until they have attempted this work, and have been successful at it: your line does not need to be sharper than the CRIS opener to be profitable. Another way to think about it is that books must set lines for every game. The book's lines, on average, may be more accurate than mine. In fact, they are more accurate than my lines, by a small margin, on average. And the closing lines are even sharper than mine. But that doesn't matter, because all I have to do is find the ones that are wrong. And I can. In fact, despite my lines not being as sharp (on average), than the market, I can turn a profit even on razor sharp closers.

Furthermore, this is absolutely possible to do using historical data. It does not even require a ton of advanced sabermetrics stats, just simple statistics from box scores. The limiting factor is work ethic. Because it will take you a few months, and it will be tedious. But nothing worthwhile in life is easy.

First you can be wrong to begin with b/c pinny's model is just better than yours. They used more complete data with better methods to analyse this data. I know, it is hard to imagine, but it can be true.

First, the line does not originate at Pinnacle. Second, this statement gives far too much credit to the people who do set the lines. If a random idiot like me can create lines that are on par with theirs as far as mean squared error, they are certainly not rocket surgeons.

1. There is no way in a world I can proclaim myself to be a better data collector and better data analyzer than those who work for pinny.
The best I can hope for is to be at par with them.

If you take that attitude that you are a failure, then you will fail. More likely, you will never even try, which is far worse. Also, this statement again implicitly assigns the role of linesmaker to both of players in this two player game, which I think is an inaccurate depiction of the bookmaker/advantage bettor dynamic.

If you have a decent foundation of math and programming skills, and possess the inexhaustible work ethic needed to get it off the ground, you can be successful at sports betting.

And that is the bottom line.

[djiddish98]

Weak-form efficiency only rejects abnormal profits based on past price data (technical analysis). It still leaves the door open for fundamental analysis.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weakform.asp

Semi-strong shuts the door on fundamental analysis as well.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/semistrongform.asp

[hutennis]

Weak-form efficiency only rejects abnormal profits based on past price data (technical analysis). It still leaves the door open for fundamental analysis.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weakform.asp

Semi-strong shuts the door on fundamental analysis as well.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/semistrongform.asp

As it applied to financial markets, weak form, which deals with old information, does not include fundamentals b/c there is no such a thing a old fundamentals in financial markets. All fundamentals are current (new). One has be out of his mind to trade on old financial statements when new one is already available. The only old "fundamentals"
I can think of is retarded reason that "people gotta eat no matter what so M'Donalds is a good buy always"

In sports betting there is no charts. Nobody talks about head and shoulders or double bottom or breaking through 200 day moving average. There is no such a thing as technical analysis in a stock market sense. Unless we talk about such a retarded reasons like "This team is due..." All information in sportsbetting is "fundamental" in this sense.

So for sport betting EMH can be described this simple way.

Weak form
One can not benefit from old information. Correct

Semi strong
One can not benefit from new publicly available information. Wrong

Strong.
One can not benefit from neither new public no new private information. Very wrong.

[Carl-Haakon]

Not going to get too involved here, but I think Hutennis will appreciate this direct quote from "The Signal and the Noise":

"First, there is the weak form of efficient-market hypothesis. What this claims is that stock-market prices cannot be predicted from analyzing past statistical patterns alone. In other words, the chartist’s techniques are bound to fail.
The semistrong form of efficient-market hypothesis takes things a step further. It argues that fundamental analysis—meaning, actually looking at publicly available information on a company’s financial statements, its business model, macroeconomic conditions and so forth—is also bound to fail and will also not produce returns that consistently beat the market."

Hutennis, please forget the words used in the study (since they are the source of our miscommunication here) and just focus on what the authors are actually trying to convey: they managed to make returns of 7.7 percent per bet over a sample of 744 bets. Would you consider this to be evidence for your definition of weak form, or evidence against it?

[matthew919]

One can not benefit from old information. Correct

LOL

[hutennis]

Not going to get too involved here, but I think Hutennis will appreciate this direct quote from "The Signal and the Noise":

"First, there is the weak form of efficient-market hypothesis. What this claims is that stock-market prices cannot be predicted from analyzing past statistical patterns alone. In other words, the chartist’s techniques are bound to fail.
The semistrong form of efficient-market hypothesis takes things a step further. It argues that fundamental analysis—meaning, actually looking at publicly available information on a company’s financial statements, its business model, macroeconomic conditions and so forth—is also bound to fail and will also not produce returns that consistently beat the market."

Hutennis, please forget the words used in the study (since they are the source of our miscommunication here) and just focus on what the authors are actually trying to convey: they managed to make returns of 7.7 percent per bet over a sample of 744 bets. Would you consider this to be evidence for your definition of weak form, or evidence against it?

Who they? In what Market? most importantly, What method is used?

[Carl-Haakon]

Who they? In what Market? most importantly, What method is used?

You have read the study that you quoted, I hope?

[hutennis]

I see, I'm looking for it now. What chapter?