[BernardMadoff]

OK, and in response to this.... my first post. Go read it again.

And the answer is first of all its not a coinflip and yes someone can consistently pick losers.

[hutennis]

And the answer is first of all its not a coinflip and yes someone can consistently pick losers.

Look, I'm not a Phil Jackson and I'm not about to mentor you in any way.

All I do is post well known and verifiable information that is not even being disputed in any way among people who are in sink with modern understanding of the processes that govern our life.

One of the ground rules in those circles is that if you want to be taken seriously while making claims, you have to be ready to back them up. Simply making claims is not enough. Any claim without prove can a should be dismissed without prove.

Maybe it is possible to consistently peek losers (or winners), but since it goes against of is now an scientifically established stands on this matter, your claim should be backed up by something more substantial than just your opinion. Without it, it is just a fart in a wind.

Or maybe you just confusing "consistently picking losers" and "consistently losing"?
That's a strong possibility.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

The fart in the wind could blow into your face though. You'd have to put on your best poker face not to acknowledge it.

[BernardMadoff]

Look, I'm not a Phil Jackson and I'm not about to mentor you in any way.

All I do is post well known and verifiable information that is not even being disputed in any way among people who are in sink with modern understanding of the processes that govern our life.

One of the ground rules in those circles is that if you want to be taken seriously while making claims, you have to be ready to back them up. Simply making claims is not enough. Any claim without prove can a should be dismissed without prove.

Maybe it is possible to consistently peek losers (or winners), but since it goes against of is now an scientifically established stands on this matter, your claim should be backed up by something more substantial than just your opinion. Without it, it is just a fart in a wind.

Or maybe you just confusing "consistently picking losers" and "consistently losing"?
That's a strong possibility.

So if a person has consistently picked loser or winners for 7 straight years is that enough proof?

[hutennis]

The fart in the wind could blow into your face though. You'd have to put on your best poker face not to acknowledge it.

LOLLOLOL. That's a decent argument right there.

[hutennis]

So if a person has consistently picked loser or winners for 7 straight years is that enough proof?

Not even close

[High3rEl3m3nt]

And you know why?
Because that's how nature works. Everything must be balanced. 50/50. That's the most rational state.
Anything unbalanced is being exploited and socked out of the system in a flash in order to get back to rational and balanced 50/50 ASAP.

Human brain seams to be the only place in a Universe that is most comfortable while being confused, irrational and unbalanced.

This was an interesting assumption. However, the concept of balance is a human concept, not a natural concept and has never existed. For example, the population of Vols determines the population of certain predators. A larger population of Vols will lead to a larger population of certain predators, which will then reduce the population of certain predators, which leads us back to square one. At no point in a cycle are things perfectly balanced. It was believed by ancient Greek philosphers that balance would lead to the ideal human state. However, in order to define a balanced state, you must first apply societal norms, which are not static. Because societal norms are constantly evolving, our understanding and desire to be balanced would have to continually evolve as well. Again, the idea of being balanced is a human concept, one that can never exist because it is based on variables that are constantly changing.

[jgilmartin]

So if a person has consistently picked loser or winners for 7 straight years is that enough proof?

'Years' is an arbitrary measurement. What is the # of bets over those 7 years?

[hutennis]

Thank you, you just made my point.

Vols/preditors example is exactly how natures restores the balance.

Societal ideas are the product of a confused, irrational and unbalanced human brain with all the consequences of it.

[hutennis]

'Years' is an arbitrary measurement. What is the # of bets over those 7 years?

Exactly.

Also, what is avg implied probability of your bets and how far are you from it?
And that is just to start.

There are countless other considerations too.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

The Vols Predators is an example of how two things are never perfectly balanced. At any one point, there is never a perfect number, or static number, of either. When there are too many predators, the Vol population will take a nosedive. This in turn leads to the reduction of certain population of predators, which then leads to a cycle of greater population of vols. Again, the numbers are never static, or balanced, rather, continual change and unbalance creates a cyclical effect. That is how nature works.

[hutennis]

The Vols Predators is an example of how two things are never perfectly balanced. At any one point, there is never a perfect number, or static number, of either. When there are too many predators, the Vol population will take a nosedive. This in turn leads to the reduction of certain population of predators, which then leads to a cycle of greater population of vols. Again, the numbers are never static, or balanced, rather, continual change and unbalance creates a cyclical effect. That is how nature works.

Who said anything about constant 50/50?

50/50 is an universal mean. Sure there is a variance around that mean. In nature, in sports betting, in stock market etc.
Regression to that mean asap (note, asap might take a while, depending on a process), restoring the balance is the rule.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

Who said anything about constant 50/50?

50/50 is an universal mean. Sure there is a variance around that mean. In nature, in sports betting, in stock market etc.
Regression to that mean asap (note, asap might take a while, depending on a process), restoring the balance is the rule.

Balance is never restored because it was never there in the first place. Everything is a cylclical pattern of events and reactions based on another set of events and reactions that revolves around perpetual evolution. Because nothing has ever been static, nothing has ever been balanced. The concept of balance or things being balanced is a flawed human concept.

[BernardMadoff]

So can this thread all be summed up in that there is no way someone can consistently win in sports betting? And since sports betting is a coinflip therefore no one can consistently lose either? Thats kinda funny to me.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

Bernard,

Because sports is constantly changing and the books do not account for the constant changes, but rather how the public perceives something to be, it is possible to win at sportbetting by staying ahead of the curve.

[hutennis]

So can this thread all be summed up in that there is no way someone can consistently win in sports betting? And since sports betting is a coinflip therefore no one can consistently lose either? Thats kinda funny to me.

I really don't want to insult your intelligence, but to make it less funny for you I have to remind you about little thing called juice.

This thing when applied to a otherwise =EV proposition, makes consistent winning extremely hard, to say the least.
At the same time, consistent losing becomes basically the name of the game.

As a side note, I f I have to remind you about such an elementary concept, it makes me kinda worry about quality of your claims all together.

[hutennis]

Bernard,

Because sports is constantly changing and the books do not account for the constant changes, but rather how the public perceives something to be, it is possible to win at sportbetting by staying ahead of the curve.

That will be true only if true probability is outside the margins set by oddsmakers.

Laying 11 to 10 for 53% probability is beneficial for bettor.
Laying 11 to 10 for 51% probability will simply get you a smaller loss.

Yes, for 51% -115/-105 would be a proper line.
And yes, books decided to make it -110/-110 to bring a balanced action.
So what? By peeking the "right" side you still not getting into money.

Now, if you saying that for balance action books are willing to give up EV, that would be a claim that requires a prove.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

You don't believe that true probability is outside the margins bookmakers produce? They have to shade the line outside of the true probability to account for public perception. Money is not always even, though they wish it were.

there's a reason that many public favs are not as successful against the spread as other teams.

[hutennis]

You don't believe that true probability is outside the margins bookmakers produce? They have to shade the line outside of the true probability to account for public perception. Money is not always even, though they wish it were.

there's a reason that many public favs are not as successful against the spread as other teams.

As I said, this is an exactly the kind of statement that required the statistical prove.
I'd love to see one. I hope to see one soon. It would make life so much easier.

In an absence of evidence, however, ot would be irrational to wager money on this assumption.
After all, assumption is mother of all fak ups.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

First of all, this is a great and meaningful discussion...something that's hopefully positive for the community. Not saying I know all of the answers, but hopefully by participating in this and other discussions, other, more qualified posters can get involved.

I'm turning to my bookcase dedicated to all things gambling. I remember purchasing the 2010 Statfox Edge: Football edition publication and the statistics that I'm going to cite, are directly from this publication. Also, I believe that logic is more useful than these stats from a practical perspective, as to make a profit based on these stats you would have to play every game applicable. However, they do address stat-related information that you are seeking.

Interesting facts based on the betting trends for 2.5 years in the NFL (publication was released in 2010).

-The public has backed the favorite 590 out of 681 times. In games where the public's support is 80% or greater for a single team, they have only backed the dog 3 times out of 144 NFL games.

-On NFL totals, the Over was the preferred choice in 608 of 683 games since '07.

Most publicly backed teams that have buried bettors ATS:

NFL

Dallas (Opie) 42.9% correct
Pitt (34.1%) correct
AZ 37.8% (Kurt Warner days)

NCAA

Arizona 37.5
Arkansas 37.5
LSU 36.4
Pitt 37.5
W Virginia 29.4

In high profile NFL playoff games, the public is only 37.5% ATS

There's ton of information in here and if you want a copy of all the trends, stats, etc, I'd be willing to make a copy and email it to you. Or maybe I'll scan this and post it in here.

If we look at bookmaking from a for profit perspective, we want even action which limits our liability. However, this is rarely the case, especially in games where sharps are with the public or are not touching a side or total altogether, which means it's just the public slamming a side. Now, if the lines produced were the true expected margin of victory, what do you think would happen. Instead, the bookmakers have to alter the line to prevent the above public heavy sides from hitting.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

Here's another dandy I forgot to add:

IN games where the home team has finsihed favored in the -1 to -3 range or as a pick 'em, the public has been right ATS only 41.5% of the time. Ouch.

[BernardMadoff]

I really don't want to insult your intelligence, but to make it less funny for you I have to remind you about little thing called juice.

This thing when applied to a otherwise =EV proposition, makes consistent winning extremely hard, to say the least.
At the same time, consistent losing becomes basically the name of the game.

As a side note, I f I have to remind you about such an elementary concept, it makes me kinda worry about quality of your claims all together.

If you believe everything you say let me ask, do you gamble? Chances are you do or have, if you believe what youre saying to be true wouldnt it be dumb to gamble in the first place since its a losing proposition?

[CrazyCarl]

First of all, this is a great and meaningful discussion...something that's hopefully positive for the community. Not saying I know all of the answers, but hopefully by participating in this and other discussions, other, more qualified posters can get involved.

I'm turning to my bookcase dedicated to all things gambling. I remember purchasing the 2010 Statfox Edge: Football edition publication and the statistics that I'm going to cite, are directly from this publication. Also, I believe that logic is more useful than these stats from a practical perspective, as to make a profit based on these stats you would have to play every game applicable. However, they do address stat-related information that you are seeking.

Interesting facts based on the betting trends for 2.5 years in the NFL (publication was released in 2010).

-The public has backed the favorite 590 out of 681 times. In games where the public's support is 80% or greater for a single team, they have only backed the dog 3 times out of 144 NFL games.

-On NFL totals, the Over was the preferred choice in 608 of 683 games since '07.

Most publicly backed teams that have buried bettors ATS:

NFL

Dallas (Opie) 42.9% correct
Pitt (34.1%) correct
AZ 37.8% (Kurt Warner days)

NCAA

Arizona 37.5
Arkansas 37.5
LSU 36.4
Pitt 37.5
W Virginia 29.4

In high profile NFL playoff games, the public is only 37.5% ATS

There's ton of information in here and if you want a copy of all the trends, stats, etc, I'd be willing to make a copy and email it to you. Or maybe I'll scan this and post it in here.

If we look at bookmaking from a for profit perspective, we want even action which limits our liability. However, this is rarely the case, especially in games where sharps are with the public or are not touching a side or total altogether, which means it's just the public slamming a side. Now, if the lines produced were the true expected margin of victory, what do you think would happen. Instead, the bookmakers have to alter the line to prevent the above public heavy sides from hitting.

Fading the public is a different beast than fading one guy, IMO. Vegas is known for some shady lines, especially in the NFL.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

You're right...this was more in response to his question about overall trends. Personally, I don't play NFL that much, nor BB, I like me some MLB and NHL.

[hutennis]

If we look at bookmaking from a for profit perspective, we want even action which limits our liability. However, this is rarely the case, especially in games where sharps are with the public or are not touching a side or total altogether, which means it's just the public slamming a side. Now, if the lines produced were the true expected margin of victory, what do you think would happen. Instead, the bookmakers have to alter the line to prevent the above public heavy sides from hitting.

I dont see why when dealing with unbalanced action book would have to give up EV.
They can always chock up "bad" side to the max and lay off the action they dont want, among other things.

I'm sure that some kind of apocalyptic scenario can be dreamed up, but making an argument you always have to make sure you are not getting into a "straw man" territory. That would be a fallacy.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

You asked me to show stats that supported my argument that the books do not set the line at the true margin due to the public's betting tendencies...I did just that. Explain why else some of the most publicly backed teams bury the public at that percentage if the line is set at the actual predicted magin?

[flocko76]

I really don't want to insult your intelligence, but to make it less funny for you I have to remind you about little thing called juice.

This thing when applied to a otherwise =EV proposition, makes consistent winning extremely hard, to say the least.
At the same time, consistent losing becomes basically the name of the game.

As a side note, I f I have to remind you about such an elementary concept, it makes me kinda worry about quality of your claims all together.

In post 13 you say the OP is correct, fading is illogical. however, here you say consistent losing is the name of the game. So, wouldn't fading a consistent loser (lang) make you a consistent winner, and making the OP's claim invalid?

[BernardMadoff]

In post 13 you say the OP is correct, fading is illogical. however, here you say consistent losing is the name of the game. So, wouldn't fading a consistent loser (lang) make you a consistent winner, and making the OP's claim invalid?

Dont expect an answer, he didnt answer my question. He thinks no one can win consistently which makes gambling dumb to begin with, yet Im sure he gambles or has gambled before, making him...

[20Four7]

Bernie (the swindler) Maddoff says the lang fade is down. It all depends on how you look at things. Lang's record this year: 49-75-5. If someone is that bad I will fade him. Because he is a chaser, he has cashed a few big bets chasing to get his win and connected. Hitting 40% and fading means your hitting 60%. If you can't make money at 60% your an idiot.

[evo34]

I dont see why when dealing with unbalanced action book would have to give up EV.
They can always chock up "bad" side to the max and lay off the action they dont want, among other things.

I'm sure that some kind of apocalyptic scenario can be dreamed up, but making an argument you always have to make sure you are not getting into a "straw man" territory. That would be a fallacy.

Look up "Efficient Market Hypothesis" -- esp. the part where every test of the hypothesis has shown it to be false. The reason is doesn't hold up is ******* obvious, btw. Information does not magically travel through the air and get deposited into people's brains at the same nanosecond. There is always information asymmetry, which allows individuals with superior information to gain an edge -- a sustainable edge. Additionally, no two people will react in precisely the same way to receipt of identical information. Those who possess superior information-processing methods will get ahead; those who do not will fall behind and eventually go extinct. A guy named Darwin demonstrated this phenomenon in biology.

We all understand that:

1) You have not succeeded in trading or in gambling, or presumably in any other aspect of life requiring abnormal skill.
2) Your need to feel less horrible about yourself has pushed you to project your own inadequacies upon the rest of the world. The classic, "If I'm not good at something, no one else can be" fallacy.
3) Your handle on the English language is tenuous at best. (Or, I should say, it has been that way. In your mind, prediction is impossible; so even though you've spent 187 posts butchering the language, we should assume that was just a string of bad luck and expect a coherent post from you for #188?)

There is no need to continue posting things that do nothing but reinforce what you have already established about yourself.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

Evo, I disagree with his premise, but let's not take personal shots at each other. If anything, his questions opened up things to a meaningful discussion. This kind of stuff is great for all of us. Good thoughts on Effecient Market Hypotheses. Appreciated.

[hutennis]

If you believe everything you say let me ask, do you gamble? Chances are you do or have, if you believe what youre saying to be true wouldnt it be dumb to gamble in the first place since its a losing proposition?

If by gambling you mean wagering money on uncertain outcomes, then yes, I gamble every day. A lot.
My methods are a bit different though.

Instead of trying to predict future which I consider an a physical impossibility, I try my very best, using all available tools (in most cases combination of bets, arbitrage and trading) to react to what already happened with a single goal to fight juice and stay break even for as long as i need to until randomness gets tiered torchering me up and delivers what I consider a jack pot. Then I redistribute it in a BR and start all over. Boring and tedious process. But profitable so far.

I hope I answered your question.

[BernardMadoff]

If by gambling you mean wagering money on uncertain outcomes, then yes, I gamble every day. A lot.
My methods are a bit different though.

Instead of trying to predict future which I consider an a physical impossibility, I try my very best, using all available tools (in most cases combination of bets, arbitrage and trading) to react to what already happened with a single goal to fight juice and stay break even for as long as i need to until randomness gets tiered torchering me up and delivers what I consider a jack pot. Then I redistribute it in a BR and start all over. Boring and tedious process. But profitable so far.

I hope I answered your question.

But you said no one can win long term which, by you, means its dumb to do, yet you do it. There is no way to rationalize you doing it no matter how you word it.

[hutennis]

Look up "Efficient Market Hypothesis" -- esp. the part where every test of the hypothesis has shown it to be false. The reason is doesn't hold up is ******* obvious, btw. Information does not magically travel through the air and get deposited into people's brains at the same nanosecond. There is always information asymmetry, which allows individuals with superior information to gain an edge -- a sustainable edge. Additionally, no two people will react in precisely the same way to receipt of identical information. Those who possess superior information-processing methods will get ahead; those who do not will fall behind and eventually go extinct. A guy named Darwin demonstrated this phenomenon in biology.

We all understand that:

1) You have not succeeded in trading or in gambling, or presumably in any other aspect of life requiring abnormal skill.
2) Your need to feel less horrible about yourself has pushed you to project your own inadequacies upon the rest of the world. The classic, "If I'm not good at something, no one else can be" fallacy.
3) Your handle on the English language is tenuous at best. (Or, I should say, it has been that way. In your mind, prediction is impossible; so even though you've spent 187 posts butchering the language, we should assume that was just a string of bad luck and expect a coherent post from you for #188?)

There is no need to continue posting things that do nothing but reinforce what you have already established about yourself.

Do we argue EMH here? I dont think so.

"Those who possess superior information-processing methods" are setting up a probability of the event happening. They continue to use
their "superior information-processing methods" all the way to fine tune and adjust their results every relevant step of the way.
Even if you "posses" the equally "superior information-processing methods" (pretty hard to do btw) the best you can hope for is to match
their results. But! To make sure that simply matching their results (pretty hard to do btw) will not do you any good, they apply a draconian spread on top of already hard to beat number. Now beating them becomes a task of monumental proportions. An impossible dream.
Bunch of confused people plagued by confirmation bias, hindsight bias, Texas sharpshooter fallacy, gamblers fallacy and who knows how many more brain shortcomings consider it possible to accomplish a monumental task of beating "those who possess superior information-processing methods" And draconian spread simply by looking in the past data (which is available for anyone including "those who possess superior information-processing methods") in hopes to find hidden pattern that will give them a wining edge.
In a process, they confuse randomly available lucky moments with skillful application of this "newly found winning edge". Looks like pure madness to me.

What does EMH has to do with all this? You tell me. I don't know.

Now, englisch is my second langueg. That should explain the bucherin sing.
I do my best. If my best is not good ehouf - taf sheet.

[hutennis]

But you said no one can win long term which, by you, means its dumb to do, yet you do it. There is no way to rationalize you doing it no matter how you word it.

No one can win long term by doing what I think you are doing.
Good traders have been beating negative expectation game forever.

But that's totally different ball game.