[Wayfarer]

Suppose you take Team A @ -105
Just prior to game time the line is..
Team A +100
Team B -110
for a no vig line on Team A of +104.75

So far the closing line is beating you by 9.75 cents. I believe I recall Justin7 stating in one of his videos that 2 cents is worth about 1% in terms of an edge. That would make your current bet at -105 have value of -4.875%.
However if you were to bet Team B at -110 according to the SBR scalp calculator you would have a value of -3.475%. A difference of 1.4%.

Based on this it would appear as though in terms of long term growth you are better off making the negative value scalp as its -EV is less than just letting your bet ride.

Is my logic here well founded?

[reno cool]

no way does this make any sense. I assume you're making the original bet in the hope that the line moves the other way. You're using line movement as the sole factor in establishing value. Now that you guessed wrong, simply making another neg value bet accomplishes nothing.

[Wayfarer]

With what I proposed there are some major assumptions that I made such as the market being highly efficient, which is certainly not always the case.

But lets say you have a model which you use to set your own line. You identify a play that according to your model has value and place your wager accordingly. As long as volume is significant as time passes and game time approaches the market should be increasingly efficient which should mean if the team you bet on had value the money would come in on them. If the money moves the opposite way this could be a strong indicator that your selection was incorrect. By betting the other side you could minimize the overall -EV from the outcome of the event. Of course one must look at more than just line movement, such as cases of nationally televised games where it is very likely square money will be pooring in as game time nears resulting in potentially misleading movements in the line.

In my mind I am not naive enough to think that what I am doing is so far ahead of everyone else that I should just ingore what the market is telling me about my selections.

[Wayfarer]

Just to add I realize my thread title is misleading. As what I am discussing is not directly related to increasing growth, but minimizing loses from the negative value bets one ends up making. As reno cool correctly stated two negative bets can not become positive.

[Justin7]

Reducing the volatility increases your long-term expected growth. There are times when it makes sense to make -EV bets to lower volatility... But as your bankroll grows, it gets harder and harder to place big bets, or hedge with enough volume to control your positions.

[durito]

Ganch has a spreadsheet for this. Let me try and find it.

[Data]

see this:
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...readsheet.html

here is a recent thread on these matters:
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...lly-worth.html

[Wayfarer]

Justin7, durito and Data thanks for the help.