How do you guys convert bookmaker moneylines to no-juice moneylines? Before people say that they simply multiply the odds for each event by the single number that will make the line juice-free, let me just say that this strategy is too naive, as the strongest the favorite the less juice it has. Here is the function I tend to use (for decimal odds, 2.5 % edge, 3-outcome events, e.g. pinnacle soccer). I have found though that it tends to assume that the favorites have less juice than they really have.
Converting bookmaker moneyline to no-juice moneyline
Collapse
X
-
HUYSBR Sharp
- 04-29-09
- 253
#1Converting bookmaker moneyline to no-juice moneylineTags: None -
HeeeHAWWWWSBR Hall of Famer
- 06-13-08
- 5487
#2Take past results, calculate juice in different odds bands, and make a formula. For instance, in tennis most of the juice is on the dogs (although less so with closers).
There will be all sorts of oddities unique to each sport though. In tennis there's a considerably difference between 3 and 5 setters, in football I'd imagine national differences, and in the US sports perhaps college vs pro might have quite a split.Comment -
allin1SBR MVP
- 11-07-11
- 4555
#3you have 3 way ml: 2.6, 3.1, 3
1/2.6 + 1/3.1 + 1/3 = 1.0405
2.6 x 1.0405 = 2.7
3.1 x 1.0405 = 3.22
3 x 1.0405 = 3.12
I don't know if this is what you want, and I don't know if it's accurate.Comment -
JoeyBagelsSBR Wise Guy
- 03-10-13
- 784
-
HUYSBR Sharp
- 04-29-09
- 253
#5It's not accurate, as it adds the same amount of juice to each selection. This is exactly what I warned against in my original post.Comment -
allin1SBR MVP
- 11-07-11
- 4555
#6ok. now I understand. interestingComment -
chunkSBR Wise Guy
- 02-08-11
- 808
#7No correct answer here.Comment -
EXhoosier10SBR MVP
- 07-06-09
- 3122
#8Take past results, calculate juice in different odds bands, and make a formula. For instance, in tennis most of the juice is on the dogs (although less so with closers).
There will be all sorts of oddities unique to each sport though. In tennis there's a considerably difference between 3 and 5 setters, in football I'd imagine national differences, and in the US sports perhaps college vs pro might have quite a split.Comment -
HeeeHAWWWWSBR Hall of Famer
- 06-13-08
- 5487
#9
The major issues for me are more ....
a) the tradeoff between band size and statistical validity, not an uncommon one to face.
b) various difficulties all caused by inconsistent variance between the bands (heteroscedasticity)Comment -
HUYSBR Sharp
- 04-29-09
- 253
#10I'd assume so, yes. I've only done it for tennis, which has a tidy 2800ish matches a year (2300 if you exclude those troublesome 5-setters).
The major issues for me are more ....
a) the tradeoff between band size and statistical validity, not an uncommon one to face.
b) various difficulties all caused by inconsistent variance between the bands (heteroscedasticity)Comment -
satanaSBR Hustler
- 01-05-13
- 71
-
HUYSBR Sharp
- 04-29-09
- 253
#12Comment -
HeeeHAWWWWSBR Hall of Famer
- 06-13-08
- 5487
#13
I'm comparing implied probabilities with actual results, split into various odds ranges. For example, if you bet every pinnacle opener between 1.5 and 1.6 for the last ten seasons, excluding slams, the result would be 1439 wins from 2243 matches (64.2%) - a tiny loss overall. This yield actually holds pretty much flat all the way from 1.0 to 1.6 (10488 of 13846), above which the juice starts to increase. At 3.0+, you're paying an average 10% juice.
Presumably pinnacle set out their juice this way because it optimises profit (most balanced action? attains sharpest line most quickly?).Comment -
HUYSBR Sharp
- 04-29-09
- 253
#14
I'm comparing implied probabilities with actual results, split into various odds ranges. For example, if you bet every pinnacle opener between 1.5 and 1.6 for the last ten seasons, excluding slams, the result would be 1439 wins from 2243 matches (64.2%) - a tiny loss overall. This yield actually holds pretty much flat all the way from 1.0 to 1.6 (10488 of 13846), above which the juice starts to increase. At 3.0+, you're paying an average 10% juice.
There are many scientific articles on the favorite-longshot bias, each one suggesting different explanations. My personal best guess is that favorites' prices are raised due to competition with other bookmakers, since most people like to play the favorites, especially on parlays.Comment -
buby74SBR Hustler
- 06-08-10
- 92
#15To correct for fls I use (k^d)/d to work out the true winning %. Where d is the decimal odds so 3/1 or +300 gives decimal odds of 4.0. K is a constant for each sport/bookie/juice level which you have to calculate by looking at actual odds. For uk horse racing k is 0.975 iirc. The effect of fls is quite small in two team/player sports unless there is a big difference in ability.Comment -
bihonSBR Wise Guy
- 11-03-09
- 731
#16
O.T.:
Just out od curiosity, I wonder if you can accurately calculate no juice line what possible edge one can have?
Even if you assume no juice on favorite, what can you do with it?Comment -
satanaSBR Hustler
- 01-05-13
- 71
#18To correct for fls I use (k^d)/d to work out the true winning %. Where d is the decimal odds so 3/1 or +300 gives decimal odds of 4.0. K is a constant for each sport/bookie/juice level which you have to calculate by looking at actual odds. For uk horse racing k is 0.975 iirc. The effect of fls is quite small in two team/player sports unless there is a big difference in ability.Comment -
Unknown UserSBR Rookie
- 03-23-14
- 33
#19"that favorites' prices are raised due to competition"
This is a very interesting observation. By prices being raised you mean that the payout/odds are raised on the favorite right?
That makes guessing where the vig is, a lot harder :S
Comment -
gui_m_pSBR High Roller
- 09-18-13
- 123
#20I don't think the statement is always true. I rather think the opposite regarding recreational books. In tennis, for example, recreational books have very low odds on favorites; 1st rounds of grand slams is common to see 1.005 odds and the dog with higher odds. They know the public will bet on favorites, so they charge the juice there.Comment -
HeeeHAWWWWSBR Hall of Famer
- 06-13-08
- 5487
#21I don't think the statement is always true. I rather think the opposite regarding recreational books. In tennis, for example, recreational books have very low odds on favorites; 1st rounds of grand slams is common to see 1.005 odds and the dog with higher odds. They know the public will bet on favorites, so they charge the juice there.
I haven't run the numbers on rec books, but a couple of years ago I checked out returns of various odds ranges at pinnacle. At slams, you would actually make a very small profit betting all short odds (<1.25 iirc). In best of three, there's a clear fls distribution of returns though.Comment -
arwarSBR High Roller
- 07-09-09
- 208
#22i admit i am confused here. there are formulas for converting point spreads to money lines and money lines to decimal probabilities. at pinnacle for example the overload (juice) works out to 1.024 which is one of the main reasons they are considered a reasonable benchmark. I am not sure about the 3 way plays on soccer or hockey or even tennis, though i have worked with all of these. i guess you are talking about the juice on individual plays. obviously if a favorite (which say gets 75% of the action) loses, then more juice is on the chalk. but on a -110 play on both sides it seems to me the juice is the same on either side. please explain in more detailComment -
Unknown UserSBR Rookie
- 03-23-14
- 33
#23In best of three, there's a clear fls distribution of returns though.
What does "fls" stand for?Comment -
HeeeHAWWWWSBR Hall of Famer
- 06-13-08
- 5487
#24
Lazy quick example: say you have a two-way moneyline, and the books want to offer 2/3 one side, 1/3 the other, at a total overround of 5%. The favourite fair price is thus 1.50 (aka -200). That will maybe get juiced at 2%, so they will offer 1.50*0.98 = 1.47. The other side will thus be 1/ (1.05 - (1/1.47)) = 2.705, against a fair price of 3.00, juice of 9.8%. Exact %s were pulled out of my ass, but you get the general idea.
You can see this in action in pretty much any market you care to look at. For example, pinnacle's average overround in tennis moneylines over the last decade has been 102.25%, but if you bet all odds at 10ish (+900) you'll end up with an RoI in the ballpark of -30%.Comment -
Unknown UserSBR Rookie
- 03-23-14
- 33
#25Cool. I still don't understand how they get away with that and get their books somewhat in balance but it's important to know.Comment
SBR Contests
Collapse
Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
Collapse
#1 BetMGM
4.8/5 BetMGM Bonus Code
#2 FanDuel
4.8/5 FanDuel Promo Code
#3 Caesars
4.8/5 Caesars Promo Code
#4 DraftKings
4.7/5 DraftKings Promo Code
#5 Fanatics
#6 bet365
4.7/5 bet365 Bonus Code
#7 Hard Rock
4.1/5 Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
#8 BetRivers
4.1/5 BetRivers Bonus Code