[JohnGalt2341]

If a person Won between 55% and 60% of their bets(against -110) in a given month you could easily assume that they made a nice profit.

Here's my question... if a person Beat the Closing Line 55% to 60% of the time in a given month could you also assume that they made a nice profit? Or is that not enough?

I've heard that Books consider you a "Sharp" if you consistently Beat the Closing Line. At what percentage do they start thinking that you're definitely more than a casual player?

[mathdotcom]

Given the information I can only tell you it is more likely they made a profit than not.

[BeardedTaco]

I keep hearing the expression "beating the closing line (BTCL)". Shouldn't it be "beat the no-vig closer"??

If you bet -131 right now at pinny on Texas ov +123 Tampa Bay and it closes at -132 / +124 you technically beat the closing line but you did not beat the no-vig line. In a very efficient market like MLB sides you're bet is prob -EV.

[wantitall4moi]

there is no proof that beating the closing number guarantees a profit.

people forget (or simply dont know) that correlation and causation are not the same thing nor are they connected in anyway. yet they try to make them mean not only the same thing but pair them together to prove some bastardized theory that is generally so laughable it doesnt deserve comment. This is one of them but because it has gotten so mainstream it is best to simply either ignore it and use it to your advantage and let the sheep who believe it make you rich or follow it and find out for yourself how valid it is.

generally anything that is so cut and dry isnt, and anything so 'simple' doesnt work.

[donkson]

that's a fair effort to post so much nonsense in 5 sentences.

[strixee]

I think a more valid approach is to use a sum of percentages of beating the no-vig closing line. If you'll be beating it 60% of the time by 1% and for the remaining 40% your bets will be -5% against the closer, you can't expect to make a profit.

[LT Profits]

If a person Won between 55% and 60% of their bets(against -110) in a given month you could easily assume that they made a nice profit.

Here's my question... if a person Beat the Closing Line 55% to 60% of the time in a given month could you also assume that they made a nice profit? Or is that not enough?

I've heard that Books consider you a "Sharp" if you consistently Beat the Closing Line. At what percentage do they start thinking that you're definitely more than a casual player?

I think a more valid approach is to use a sum of percentages of beating the no-vig closing line. If you'll be beating it 60% of the time by 1% and for the remaining 40% your bets will be -5% against the closer, you can't expect to make a profit.

What strixee said. It is not how often you beat the no-viig closer, but how much you beat it by on average.

[mathdotcom]

there is no proof that beating the closing number guarantees a profit.

people forget (or simply dont know) that correlation and causation are not the same thing nor are they connected in anyway. yet they try to make them mean not only the same thing but pair them together to prove some bastardized theory that is generally so laughable it doesnt deserve comment. This is one of them but because it has gotten so mainstream it is best to simply either ignore it and use it to your advantage and let the sheep who believe it make you rich or follow it and find out for yourself how valid it is.

generally anything that is so cut and dry isnt, and anything so 'simple' doesnt work.

Yeah I usually feel pretty good when the closer beats me by 10 cents.

[MonkeyF0cker]

there is no proof that beating the closing number guarantees a profit.

people forget (or simply dont know) that correlation and causation are not the same thing nor are they connected in anyway. yet they try to make them mean not only the same thing but pair them together to prove some bastardized theory that is generally so laughable it doesnt deserve comment. This is one of them but because it has gotten so mainstream it is best to simply either ignore it and use it to your advantage and let the sheep who believe it make you rich or follow it and find out for yourself how valid it is.

generally anything that is so cut and dry isnt, and anything so 'simple' doesnt work.

Simple question (for which I'm sure I'll either get a meandering, nonsensical answer or nothing at all): Why do books limit and/or boot players who bet off-market numbers consistently?

[CHUBNUT]

Simple question (for which I'm sure I'll either get a meandering, nonsensical answer or nothing at all): Why do books limit and/or boot players who bet off-market numbers consistently?

While thats a valid point it has to be pointed out that those bettors limited/ booted havent nessesarily made a profit.

[mathdotcom]

While thats a valid point it has to be pointed out that those bettors limited/ booted havent nessesarily made a profit.

Anyone looking for a flat out guarantee of profits while gambling is deluding himself.

A book could offer +120 on heads/tails in the superbowl and it could take you more than a lifetime to make a profit on this. So what?

[mikeanite]

If a person Won between 55% and 60% of their bets(against -110) in a given month you could easily assume that they made a nice profit.

Here's my question... if a person Beat the Closing Line 55% to 60% of the time in a given month could you also assume that they made a nice profit? Or is that not enough?

I've heard that Books consider you a "Sharp" if you consistently Beat the Closing Line. At what percentage do they start thinking that you're definitely more than a casual player?

i like someone to answer his second question.

[mathdotcom]

i like someone to answer his second question.

Every book is different

[MonkeyF0cker]

While thats a valid point it has to be pointed out that those bettors limited/ booted havent nessesarily made a profit.

Well, that ONLY adds to my point. Why would they be scared of someone that hasn't even shown a profit?

[LT Profits]

Simple question (for which I'm sure I'll either get a meandering, nonsensical answer or nothing at all): Why do books limit and/or boot players who bet off-market numbers consistently?

While thats a valid point it has to be pointed out that those bettors limited/ booted havent nessesarily made a profit.

Well, that ONLY adds to my point. Why would they be scared of someone that hasn't even shown a profit?

Monkey OWNED the guy here, but that probably won't stop Chubnut from coming back with a War and Peace response.

[hutennis]

Betting off-market numbers, although in and of itself does not guaranty long term profit at all (off-market number still in most cases -EV/break even) does lower book's edge thus creating unwanted variance.
Some books might be hard pressed to find a good reason to put up with small profit/high variance proposition. They simply don't have to. Not a good business.

They have 2 choices.
Either they have to become more efficient to avoid possibility of off-market numbers even be there for half-squares to start messing things up. That could be to some extend hard and expensive.
Or they simply take half-squares out the easy way.
Looks like an easy choice to make.

Could that be an answer to your question?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Betting off-market numbers, although in and of itself does not guaranty long term profit at all (off-market number still in most cases -EV/break even) does lower book's edge thus creating unwanted variance.
Some books might be hard pressed to find a good reason to put up with small profit/high variance proposition. They simply don't have to. Not a good business.

They have 2 choices.
Either they have to become more efficient to avoid possibility of off-market numbers even be there for half-squares to start messing things up. That could be to some extend hard and expensive.
Or they simply take half-squares out the easy way.
Looks like an easy choice to make.

Could that be an answer to your question?

That is such an absurd post. How can betting off-market numbers lower a book's edge unless the off-market number intrinsically has value to the bettor? Not possible. Unwanted variance? If the number is off-market, that probably means that the book is taking one-sided action. Balancing books to a greater degree LOWERS variance. It does NOT increase it.

[hutennis]

That is such an absurd post. How can betting off-market numbers lower a book's edge unless the off-market number intrinsically has value to the bettor? Not possible.

Hah. Funny.

If market (let's say pinny) is -104/-106 and some sleeping at the wheel shop still has it at -102/-118, -102 is off-market number. Yes, it is the best line for that side you can find but it is still -EV. There is still no intrinsic value for a bettor in it.

For book the problem is that they will not get much action at all at -118. As much as squares want to take the favorite they will not, not in volume anyway - too expansive. It's already -111 in any other square place.

So, as a punishment for sleeping at the wheel, book will get hit by half-squares who hunt "off-market" -102.
Shitload of bets with 0.49% edge instead of usual 4.9% or so will produce unwanted variance (lower edge = higher variance) with very tiny EV to show for it. Bad business.

To avoid being exposed to such a scenario, book in question either has to run its operation better (good business but it's hard) or it can simply boot/limit off market hunters thus exchanging tiny EV for less negative variance. Good business. And it's easy.

Absurd?

[Duff85]

If you are hitting above 50% of your plays over an extended sample - your not doing it right.

[durito]

Hah. Funny.

If market (let's say pinny) is -104/-106 and some sleeping at the wheel shop still has it at -102/-118, -102 is off-market number.

No, -102 is not an off market number in that example. You are not going to get booted for betting numbers that are 2c better than current pinny price.

[durito]

If you are hitting above 50% of your plays over an extended sample - your not doing it right.

do tell

[hutennis]

Its not about nominal cents. But since you dont seam to see it, OK.

Pinny is -200/+180. Lazy book is -230/+186.
Now it's 6c better than pinny and still a looser.
Do you want me to make it 15c example? I can.

[durito]

Didn't say it was about cents.

Your second example is still not considered an off-market line by anyone except you.

[hutennis]

Yeah, Yeah. True off market would number be a better than pinny's no vig.
I know that. There would be no big mystery for booting/slashing limits there.

But for some reason my limits were slashed to 10x lower simply for betting numbers better than pinny's posted.
And I think i know the reason.

[Duff85]

do tell

Far from me explaining something to a poster who is far sharper than myself.

Hitting above 50% over an extended sample would mean that the player is not backing long shots and therefore not making the most of every opportunity that they can pursue. Not that any of us do get everything we can get - but I think far too many people are focused on hitting a certain percentage of their plays and not on increasing their overall turnover on as many +ev bets as possible.

[donkson]

Hitting above 50% over an extended sample would mean that the player is not backing long shots and therefore not making the most of every opportunity that they can pursue.

it doesn't mean that at all. it's a possibility but not a rule.

[mathdotcom]

So tired of these discussions. BTCL and you will win, period. No more discussion.

[hutennis]

So tired of these discussions. BTCL and you will win, period. No more discussion.

Don't attempt to BTCL unless you know why you should expect to BTCL or you will lose.
If you only think you know you will lose.
On your way (could be a long way) to losing you will be confused by random lucky developments.
Those will keep you in the game until you lose.

[mathdotcom]

Nope. If somehow by fluke youre able to pick games in the morning that BTCL every day, you will win and dont need to know why.

[hutennis]

Nope. If somehow by fluke youre able to pick games in the morning that BTCL every day, you will win and dont need to know why.

Thats what I've been saying all the time. This forum is full of biases and fallacies.

Math, what you are doing is commonly known in physiology as "straw man" fallacy.
You create fantastic, out of this world scenario that looks like a great counter argument.
This is wrong.

Here is the definition of "straw man"

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

[mathdotcom]

Don't attempt to BTCL unless you know why you should expect to BTCL or you will lose.

Read your own words. If I blindly bet at a book who offers #s 1 minute before game time that beat the Pinnacle closing line, I do not need to know why this is good to make a profit.

What you just said is definitely wrong. So you have to work on your logic or your English, one of the two.

[hutennis]

Don't attempt to BTCL unless you know why you should expect to BTCL or you will lose.

This would only be definitely wrong if this

If I blindly bet at a book who offers #s 1 minute before game time that beat the Pinnacle closing line

would have any reasonable chance to be definitely right.

But it has none. Your "If" is a Taxes size "If". It's nothing more but a fantastic scenario that does not happen in real life.
And that makes your "logic" nothing more but a typical "straw man" fallacy.

[mathdotcom]

Youre cracking me up hutennis.

For one, you should sign up at some more books. There are lines better than the closing line all over the place. And Im not even talking about smaller markets where there are even more such opportunities just sitting there all day. And I havent even brought up steam chasing yet. I know plenty of bonus whores who slowly wondered why they kept having to reload their Pinnacle account year after year and then stopped hedging fully.

Anyways even a 10 year old can tell you why its a good thing to buy a share of Google at a price lower than it closes at the end of the day.

[hutennis]

Youre cracking me up hutennis.

For one, you should sign up at some more books. There are lines better than the closing line all over the place. And Im not even talking about smaller markets where there are even more such opportunities just sitting there all day. And I havent even brought up steam chasing yet. I know plenty of bonus whores who slowly wondered why they kept having to reload their Pinnacle account year after year and then stopped hedging fully.

If you make money from line shopping, steam chasing or bonus whoring then fine.
Those are legit and understandable ways. Just don't call yourself (not necessarily you personally, but in general) a bright handicapper with amazingly developed model that allows you to BTCL on a consistent basis. Be honest.

Anyways even a 10 year old can tell you why its a good thing to buy a share of Google at a price lower than it closes at the end of the day.

Now you are cracking me up.
Now you are falling hard for what is commonly known as hindsight bias.

Sure it would be great to buy Google for less than it closes at the end of the day.
Would be nice to know, though, how do you know where will it close beforehand? Crystal ball maybe?

Anyways, if I have to point out such a elementary, even for 10 year old, logical shortcomings, it makes me wonder how confused you may be in a bit more complicated areas.

[mathdotcom]

huetennis suffers from horrible reading comprehension skills -110
huetennis suffers from horrible reasoning ability -110

Will take $10,000k a side. Absolutely NO correlated parlays allowed.