Easiest Sports to Cap?

**donjuan** · 03-09-09, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Data

Combining

with

we get

Do you need an explanation why is this another brain fart?

I hope you do realize that this is not just an exercise in critical thinking.

Feel free to spell it out rather than speaking in tongues.

**Data** · 03-09-09, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by donjuan

Feel free to spell it out rather than speaking in tongues.

Making light arrogant insults while pointing out mistakes and providing no explanations for those who did not get something is your native tongue and as such seems to be the most appropriate to speak while talking to you.

There is a difference though. I do hope that my little game will help you.

**donjuan** · 03-09-09, 04:32 PM

Fail.

**yisman** · 03-11-09, 01:30 PM

I was actually considering starting a thread on this (favorite sports to 'cap vs. easiest for you).

I have some thoughts, but I'm going to have to wait to share them.

**ByeShea** · 03-12-09, 07:06 AM

The easiest money ever made happens all the time at horse tracks. The challenge (not one I've mastered) is being disciplined and wait for the right races to bet. When capping I have a handful of signals that will almost scream to me when I see them. Granted, I could review 30 races over the course of a day and not see a single race where I'm confident of the outcome.

Thing is though, for me, if I'm at the track or a parlor and there's a race, I want to play - and I'll look for any horse and cling to some attribute like a hot trainer and thereby inject HOPE into the equation. Other times I'll be spooked off a horse I like because there's a 2-5 monster in the field (and the "favorite loses 2 times out of 3" is a constant).

A famous old-time stock speculator said that Hope and Fear are the two emotions that lose people money in the markets. I think it plays out in this game too. Hope especially so.

**Wrecktangle** · 03-12-09, 10:53 PM

Shea, sorry but with a house rake of 16-32% the ponies are anything but easy...and that's why the sport is dying off...

**Data** · 03-16-09, 10:56 AM

There have been some positive developments in the forum and I want acknowledge them by posting a few thesises on what is important to predict a winner in a contest.

- more quantifiable vs. less quantifiable
Think about Oscars, American Idol, wrestling. Apparently, it may be not difficult to predict a winner in a contest that is not very quantifiable.

- same level of quantifiability but different level of predictability
Think about betting full game vs. betting 1s half.

- Is it easier to predict a winner of a chess game or a poker heads-up match if in both contests you have a pro playing vs. an amateur?

After thinking this through, it is evident that quantifiability does not affect the difficulty of predicting a winner, the thing that matters the most is the degree of ...

**Wrecktangle** · 03-16-09, 07:25 PM

Data:

...umm, in chess you really don't have any "amateurs" as everyone has an Elo rating and from that you can directly calc the win rate of each. To my knowledge, the Official Poker Rankings system hasn't the mathematical rigor of Elo, i.e. you cannot directly calculate the win/loss % of each player from their respective ratings as it states what % of players are ranked below the player. For example, a ranking of 85.62% means that the player is ranked higher than 85.62% of other ranked players.

...and I would agree with you in that everything that is rankable is ultimately quantifiable regardless of my statement on the Poker ranking system above, you just need enough observations to apply the math. Typically, the better punters innately do this. I recall in the first few weeks of the old XFL, the best punters were ahead of the linesmakers until several games were established and then the line became harder to beat.

**ElCapitan** · 03-17-09, 10:31 AM

One thing that jumps out at me about Data's last statement regarding poker vs. chess is the tremendous amount of luck that is involved in poker that does not come into play with chess. Ultimately, in poker, the person who gets the best cards wins. Yes, yes, I know that a professional can bluff better and knows when to throw away more hands so he/she will probably win more of the coin flip type hands but you simply can not beat the luck of the cards. IMO, this is why, year after year, so many amateurs are able to win large tournaments. Do I think they are better poker players than Phil Ivey or Howard Lederer? No, they just got the right cards in the right hands.

So in answer to Data's question, I would think it would be much easier to predict the winner of a chess match.

**Karayilan9** · 03-18-09, 05:17 PM

Its easiest to pick a sport you know inside out. If you really know your sport than there is no reason to not hit over 60% long term. Most people that are in the sports market are squares who think they know about their sport but are nothing more than simple sports fans.

**Wrecktangle** · 03-19-09, 12:21 AM

So, Karayilan9...you wrote this while sitting in your limo while puffing on that Havana you just lit with a Benjamin, right?

**ijustwant2bpaid** · 03-19-09, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Hotdiggity11

I've heard everything in baseball being the hardest sport to cap but the easiest sport to make money in.

explain, an oxymoron

**Data** · 03-19-09, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Wrecktangle

Data:

...umm, in chess you really don't have any "amateurs" as everyone has an Elo rating and from that you can directly calc the win rate of each. To my knowledge, the Official Poker Rankings system hasn't the mathematical rigor of Elo, i.e. you cannot directly calculate the win/loss % of each player from their respective ratings as it states what % of players are ranked below the player. For example, a ranking of 85.62% means that the player is ranked higher than 85.62% of other ranked players.

...and I would agree with you in that everything that is rankable is ultimately quantifiable regardless of my statement on the Poker ranking system above, you just need enough observations to apply the math. Typically, the better punters innately do this. I recall in the first few weeks of the old XFL, the best punters were ahead of the linesmakers until several games were established and then the line became harder to beat.

Wrecktangle, I am afraid I am missing your point.

Also, while I do not see how this is relevant but just out of curiosity, perhaps, you can tell me what my mother's-in-law Elo is.

**Wrecktangle** · 03-19-09, 09:38 PM

Data, that made two of us...I just made a point about something I know something about, for conversations sake, perhaps. BTW, your mother-in-law, if American, hasn't an Elo, and she doesn't play chess...and I'll be right, 1 out of 10000 times.

**yisman** · 03-19-09, 09:56 PM

personally:
1)NHL
2)NBA
3)NFL
4)NCAAF
5)MLB
6)NCAAB

I don't really bother with tennis, NASCAR, or golf.

**waiverwire** · 03-20-09, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Karayilan9

Its easiest to pick a sport you know inside out. If you really know your sport than there is no reason to not hit over 60% long term. Most people that are in the sports market are squares who think they know about their sport but are nothing more than simple sports fans.

Anybody hitting over 60% long term is arguably a square for passing up an absurd number of stronly +EV opportunities.