[u21c3f6]

Apparently, "know" means "have faith in" here. There should be something more besides faith, don't you think?

It's "know" based on experience not on faith. Once you have the experience, then you get the faith.

That is neither a true test nor even a good one.You are greatly underestimating the variance in results also known as the luck.

I do not underestimate luck. All I can say is that my results fall far outside the line that could be considered luck.

I am not a traditional handicapper. In fact I use the same "edge" (concept) for in-game betting that I used for stock option trading. In-game betting is just like stock option trading except for the compressed time-frame (and correlation issues). I don't know what others look for or what data they use for their in-game betting (stock options trading) but I can see what happens to the lines (prices) as the game (time) progresses. It is that "knowledge" that I use to make appropriate "investments".

And yes, I am being a little cryptic because the public is my competition not the bookmakers. For my edge to work I have to be doing something different than the public. If too many are doing the same thing then the edge will disappear.

My personal opinion is that I believe the best opportunity for developing a profitable sports betting strategy is through in-game wagering and that's what I did. This does not mean that someone else can't develop profitable strategies outside of in-game wagering, I just believe in-game wagering is easier to conquer than strict before the game sports wagering.

Joe.

[Data]

It's "know" based on experience not on faith. Once you have the experience, then you get the faith.

So, the faith it is. I am not saying it is good or bad I just want to call it for what it is.

I do not underestimate luck. All I can say is that my results fall far outside the line that could be considered luck.

To me, these two statements are contradictory.

I am not saying you betting approaches are wrong. I am just making a point that I have made in the past in other threads that the positive results do not make them right either as "past results do not guarantee future performance".

[spurginobili]

I have found in-game betting to be exciting and somewhat profitable. My only experience is with NBA in-game betting.

It is obviously helpful to watch the game intently and undistracted; also very helpful if you have followed the teams, coaches, and players and know their tendencies. (ex.: Kobe usually sits through most of the first half of the second quarter-etc.)

I like to simultaneously watch the game and live scores on my computer, showing quarter totals, etc. The most important thing for me is to have at least two books open on my computer so I can select the most favorable line once the quarter ends. I have found books that differ by as much as 2.5 points in a quarter line or total, although if they differ it is usually by .5 points. (Still can make the difference).

I try to keep my books’ sites open and ready (don't have to log in again) and jump on a weak number. I am not privy to the books’ minds or methodology, but they have at times posted a line that is so favorable, I wonder if they are watching the same game.

I am not a tout or a high roller, but have at times made multiple in-game bets and doubled my winnings. I don't bet large sums, remembering that there are three opportunities in a NBA game (also 2nd half line), not counting in-game final lines throughout. I usually use it as a supplement or an opportunity for small gains if I didn't make a bet before the game.

Needless to say, using in-game betting to chase losses is a losing proposition.

[Pokerjoe]

OK, but ah, the other variables are enticing as well.

1) Foul situation in hoops
2) Time left/how does that relate to your database, which presumably has historic data by quarters
3) Baseball--starting pitcher out, what does you database do now? Opening odds were determined by pitcher. How do you tie that into a database inning by inning score.

Not disagreeing, just sayin'......

Well, Peep, that's why I said it's also a battle between programs. There's no reason foul situation in hoops couldn't be accounted for in a program. There's especially no reason why "time left" shouldn't be in there. In fact, it has to be one of the first things in. And it certainly doesn't have to be a DB by quarters alone, although numbers within quarters can be somewhat extrapolated by numbers at the quarter.

As to the alleged problem of "starting pitcher out", that's no problem at all. A good DB can account for all changes. In fact, changes like that are where a DB bettor picks up advantage, not loses it.

Especially in baseball, which is so statistical, there's no way at all that anyone is going to beat a properly programmed, statistically deep database in in-game betting.

I see this issue in poker constantly. People chase 4-1 draws with 3-1 payouts because they believe in their "instincts."

BTW, I don't do in-game betting. I don't myself have the DB/programs to beat it. I'm just aware that there are people who have such programs, and concede that I'm not going to beat them by "guessing" what the odds should be.

But I'll concede at least the possibility of instinct-based betting winning at physical contact sports where you maybe just see a certain look on one team's faces and know they're beat, or the opposite, see that they're suddenly fired up. But even there, such an alleged advantage to an instinct-based bettor is probably illusory.

At baseball, and run-of-the-mill NBA regular season games and such, I'd say in-game betting is purely a math-question, and if you don't know the math (I don't) you have to stay out of the game.

People who lack understanding of math tend to fear and resist it and find it vaguely dehumanizing. They should see it as enabling, of course.

But of course, people's habit of trying to out-run the math is the reason casinos make so much money.

[Peep]

Interesting response Pokerjoe, thanks. I can see where you could allow for a starter being knocked out, but if your team is down two with five and 1/3 innings to play....

It may still be a math problem, but it is a very complicated one. Which is why you say "the better program wins".

[Unitage]

So, the faith it is. I am not saying it is good or bad I just want to call it for what it is.



To me, these two statements are contradictory.

I am not saying you betting approaches are wrong. I am just making a point that I have made in the past in other threads that the positive results do not make them right either as "past results do not guarantee future performance".

Wow troll alert!!
Contribute something to the thread, or gtfo.
Whata Data douchebag.

[Number Freak]

Pokerjoe,

Would you agree it is possible to assemble data and perform math calculations without using a DB/program?

Would you also agree that "instinct" is graded on an individual basis?


I naturally tend to agree with your high regards of math over instinct. I'll tell anyone who will listen that numbers (or tracking) will tell you more than just going by "instinct", or what you think you know. The catch is, there are different levels of instinct. Instincts are formed by observations. We all do not observe with the same degree of skill. Regarding sports (in-game or between games), if you're an especially perceptive person that notices things the average guy doesn't, and you've followed sports for a long-enough time to assemble a large sample size of "observed experience", there's no doubt you can achieve a profitable edge on instinct alone, assuming your fundamentals are sound. Instinct can also help you identify which team is more motivated better than data can. Motivation is huge. You also need good money management, discipline and patience once you realize these +EV situations may not surface every day.

When you get several situations to line up for the same event, i.e. the Lakers getting blown out in Game 4 in Houston, the body language and general reaction to the loss by the Lakers players, Magic Johnson calling Kobe and the rest of the team out on ESPN saying they disgraced the organization, him, fans, the city, etc., it all adds up to a strongly motivated effort in the next game. I also realized Houston was playing on emotion in that Game 4 after losing Yao for the rest of the year and that they would likely not sustain that in the next game. A good friend of mine called me on Monday and I told him to take the Lakers despite the -12. I said they would win by 25. I undershot it by 15. No math or numbers were going to tell me what my senses did. I'm just saying there's no universal method except for using ALL methods that are useful.

The players on the field, court, ice, whatever, use data to formulate a gameplan but when it comes down to crunch time, motivation, skill and instinct usually take over and make the difference. Sports betting can be an extension of that to some degree. You need to build the perfect beast of data, skill, instinct, MM, and discipline and there are varying degrees of each quality. The more it all comes together, the better (or "bettor") we'll be.

[Pokerjoe]

I want to be careful not to disparage "instinct." One of the very first pieces of advice I got about poker, and one of the best, was, when looking to read something on the game, I was told, "poker is a game of instinct, and you can't learn instinct from a book."

The points you outlined seem to me to be primarily pre-game points. There are certainly motivational factors that need to be considered in non-ordinary games. But the issue was in-game betting, and that's where I think the math guys would have an advantage. But there's resistance to the idea. The same resistance, really, to sabermetrics that a lot of baseball people have.

Even in motivation, you can and need to quantify that at some point. It's kind of a good idea, I think, to always, at some point, put a number on it, no matter what "it" is. You have to do that to know if "it" is priced in the line already.

So if you have Team A in motivational situation X vs Team B, you might say A normally would be favored by 7, but with situation X I'd add 3 points to their chances. So if you see the line is 7, then you say "yee haw!" and bet the ranch, if it's 10 you have no bet, and if the line is 13, you have to admit there's been too much compensation in the spread and bet the other way.

So even when using instinct, I think it's best to put a number on it in order to know value when you see it.

But as to in-game betting specifically, the program guys are going to have a huge edge over the (generally) emotionalistic approach. We tend to see game results as "right" and "definitive," whereas really they're just distributions.

But (man, I've got a lot of "buts" in this post), the human brain is the greatest computer ever, capable of fantastic and subtle calcuations, meaning sometimes instinct (the subconscious processing of information) can be a pretty interesting thing.

Nonetheless, in run-of-the-mill (non-emotional) sporting events, I'd go with the math, big-time.

[ico2525]

Qotd

I'm just saying there's no universal method except for using all methods that are useful.

[RonPaul2008]

In-Game is the best

I finally put money in Matchbook (I never had money there because I'm more quarters, halves, and props) but I finally did and messed around with the live betting. Since everyone was on the niagara/siena game I decided to try to arb it throughout the game with small amts of money on live betting. Obv. this game was back and forth which turned out ideal for live betting. It got me thinking if I could do this profitably.

So my questions are:
1. Is this profitable? I assume if it is, it is small amounts?
2. The numbers are on and off the board so quick, how can you arb it to a number you're happy with? Just practice knowing which numbers match up? I know there are arb calculators but to be so quick with the number/bet...
3. I don't expect anyone to lay it all out, but do you have any good articles I can read up on it? I have googled it, but wanted to see if someone could point me in the right direction and/or experience on the subject

Thanks for any and everything

[Number Freak]

Pokerjoe, you're absolutely right about putting a value on motivation. If you're a capper that makes up their own lines, you can't avoid it. I also agree a DB is beneficial for in-game wagering but not mandatory. I use in-game wagering and there are many ways to skin a cat, so to speak. Instinct also works well with in-game, but your instincts must be proven to be pretty accurate. Going at it by the seat of your pants or experimenting with actual money is a very dangerous idea. As long as you have a solid gameplan like Joe (u21c3f6) mentioned earlier that is proven to work and you're extremely careful, in-game is great. I just wish there was more liquidity on Matchbook. These MLB TV baseball games are anemic. Easier deposit methods for Matchbook, perhaps?

[Number Freak]

BTW, I don't do in-game betting. I don't myself have the DB/programs to beat it. I'm just aware that there are people who have such programs, and concede that I'm not going to beat them by "guessing" what the odds should be.

One more comment and then I'll shut up: the beauty of in-game is that you don't have to beat the DB people. There are plenty of bad lines posted that DB people won't be able to snatch them all up. It depends how you approach it. Heck, I'm even willing to offer a bad line (I call it "attractive") to make sure I lock up a profit before anything changes for the worst. It's all about what that person needs to lock in those green numbers. I could care less if I give someone a gift line (the more power to them) as long as I take care of my business. If it helps them secure a profit too, we're both happy.

[Unitage]

Pokerjoe,

Would you agree it is possible to assemble data and perform math calculations without using a DB/program?

Would you also agree that "instinct" is graded on an individual basis?


I naturally tend to agree with your high regards of math over instinct. I'll tell anyone who will listen that numbers (or tracking) will tell you more than just going by "instinct", or what you think you know. The catch is, there are different levels of instinct. Instincts are formed by observations. We all do not observe with the same degree of skill. Regarding sports (in-game or between games), if you're an especially perceptive person that notices things the average guy doesn't, and you've followed sports for a long-enough time to assemble a large sample size of "observed experience", there's no doubt you can achieve a profitable edge on instinct alone, assuming your fundamentals are sound. Instinct can also help you identify which team is more motivated better than data can. Motivation is huge. You also need good money management, discipline and patience once you realize these +EV situations may not surface every day.

When you get several situations to line up for the same event, i.e. the Lakers getting blown out in Game 4 in Houston, the body language and general reaction to the loss by the Lakers players, Magic Johnson calling Kobe and the rest of the team out on ESPN saying they disgraced the organization, him, fans, the city, etc., it all adds up to a strongly motivated effort in the next game. I also realized Houston was playing on emotion in that Game 4 after losing Yao for the rest of the year and that they would likely not sustain that in the next game. A good friend of mine called me on Monday and I told him to take the Lakers despite the -12. I said they would win by 25. I undershot it by 15. No math or numbers were going to tell me what my senses did. I'm just saying there's no universal method except for using ALL methods that are useful.

The players on the field, court, ice, whatever, use data to formulate a gameplan but when it comes down to crunch time, motivation, skill and instinct usually take over and make the difference. Sports betting can be an extension of that to some degree. You need to build the perfect beast of data, skill, instinct, MM, and discipline and there are varying degrees of each quality. The more it all comes together, the better (or "bettor") we'll be.

great post.

[Wrecktangle]

I contend that some freak will build a script that auto-scrapes posted game updates and autobets with another connected script. His only limitation will be the speed of the game updates (and his own connection speed).

This person could destroy this market.

[showtime]

I contend that some freak will build a script that auto-scrapes posted game updates and autobets with another connected script. His only limitation will be the speed of the game updates (and his own connection speed).

This person could destroy this market.

I pretty much only do in-game betting, and have been successful at it for a number of years now. You may find this interesting - http://www.sportsscansoftware.com/. You can back-test pricing data and automate your own systems.

[khuang]

What does this sportsscan software do? Looks like I need to pay for it.