I think longevity is overrated, I think more importantly you have to beat the line over a long period of time at a book you can actually bet at. 1000 bets to me still has lots of deviation and its really hard to get to 1000 bet games
-
Comment -
yes I am very limited because I cannot find more than maybe 4ish bets per day avgComment -
Do you only bet like 1 sport?
On a Saturday in late November through Mid March, there are likely 120+ NCAA basketball games, 6-15 NBA games, 6-15 NHL games on top of everything else. That is more than 250 side/total options, your really telling me that you think 98.4% of them are priced correctly?Comment -
8/25 Giants MLB 8/25 Giants MLB 8/26 Mystics WNBA 8/26 Mystics WNBA 8/27 Nationals MLB 8/27 Astros MLB 8/27 Yankees MLB Comment -
the last week
8/22 Marlins MLB 8/22 Nationals MLB 8/22 Mariners MLB 8/23 Nationals MLB 8/23 Tigers MLB 8/23 Rockies MLB 8/23 Sun WNBA 8/23 Sparks WNBA 8/24 Nationals MLB 8/24 Alouettes CFL 8/24 Twins MLB 8/24 Diamondbacks MLB 8/25 Giants MLB 8/25 Giants MLB 8/26 Mystics WNBA 8/26 Mystics WNBA 8/27 Nationals MLB 8/27 Astros MLB 8/27 Yankees MLB Comment -
I cant add here is last week
8/19 Braves MLB 8/19 Yankees MLB 8/19 Nationals MLB 8/19 Aces WNBA 8/20 Red Sox MLB 8/20 indians MLB 8/21 Tigers MLB 8/21 Mets MLB 8/21 Morelia MX 8/21 Puebla MX 8/21 Wings WNBA 8/21 Wings WNBA 8/22 Marlins MLB 8/22 Nationals MLB 8/22 Mariners MLB 8/23 Nationals MLB 8/23 Tigers MLB 8/23 Rockies MLB 8/23 Sun WNBA 8/23 Sparks WNBA 8/24 Nationals MLB 8/24 Alouettes CFL 8/24 Twins MLB 8/24 Diamondbacks MLB 8/25 Giants MLB 8/25 Giants MLB 8/26 Mystics WNBA 8/26 Mystics WNBA 8/27 Nationals MLB 8/27 Astros MLB 8/27 Yankees MLB Comment -
10k bets minimum per year imoComment -
30 a day, wow, that seems very cool, I have no idea how that is even possible but if so that is greatComment -
I always thought this as well, but am extremely interested in Joe's counterpoint. While the closing line gospel is groundbreaking for many, Joe introduces an exception to the established wisdom. I think Joe agrees that if one has enough closing line value they will win (and please do correct me if I'm wrong Joe). Danshan demonstrated with his database evidence above, and we know from Pinnacle's business model, and we know how most sharps think, that this is now a well-established rule in the Sportsbetting handbook. However it may not be necessary.
I am intrigued by Joe's idea that while generally the close is efficient and represents an accurate line of 50/50, some lines are not efficient- some might be 60/40 while others are 40/60, some are 55/45 while others are 45/55. But what does one do with this knowledge? Many could use this knowledge to fool themselves that a system that the market has no regard for is a winning system. To discover exceptions where the market is off, like Joe has, would require advanced techniques or modeling. Joe, after all, is not some forum newbie; he's been doing this an extremely long time and even published a book on it. So knowing the close may not be efficient in all cases would likely be more harmful than helpful to most. Danshan appears to be the resident watch-dog to convince everyone of this, which is a great service to the community. Closing line value is so important because it allows verification of one's methods apart from wins and losses alone. Just going by wins and losses, without closing line value, requires a leap of faith. It's a very difficult leap to make. Closing line value gives one sanity.
A few other points on Joe's case. First, he does get some degree of closing line value. I'm not sure if it was this thread but I was reading through quite a few "closing line" threads. He said he generally gets about 50% moves in his favor/35% against/15% neutral. While not overwhelming closing line value (and we don't know the specifics of how far the good ones move etc.) it is not as if the market is totally indifferent to these plays. I would be curious whether Joe or people who follow Joe move the line on his plays. There are bettors who win who don't have a public following, who aren't touts, who can bet their unit at offscreen books that don't trigger a market move. I would suspect this is the case and it would be great if Joe can share this answer, for academic purposes. I think it would better illustrate what is happening in the market. In other words, if Joe quietly bet and won and the market did not respond that would be different than if he pounded the board and the market brought the plays back and he won. Hope you can share a little with us Joe!
Thicht
Comment -
Sharp bettors play the numbers/math game. Square bettors play the team comparison game. Both can be successful long term. I am sure your question is about being successful long term. I will answer it like this:
You need a positive ROI over many bets. You must have a methodology for picking the games based on the lines given. Even the most simplistic methodology will suffice. Your edge is revealed through your ROI. You need a large sample size. 300 similar bets based on THE SAME METHODOLOGY will do. You can't vary your methodology. You have got to see if that methodology has an edge.
I will give an example:
During the last 3 or 4 NBA seasons the Western Conference is far and away the better conference. The better teams reside in the West. Since this is so very much common knowledge, I know the lines will be inflated when an Eastern NBA team plays at a Western Conference foe. I simply took the road Eastern Conference team this past year when they are the dog and raked in some great results. 89-65 +12.5% ROI.
That was a successful methodology and the type of thing successful bettors look for and succeed with.Comment -
^ lol
That's down right stupidity.Comment -
I think we can clearly see the market is efficient and we have long term data to support that. To believe that someone has some sort of insight that would make the entire betting community wrong on a particular game I think would be misguided. Beating the line is hard and frustrating and weI always thought this as well, but am extremely interested in Joe's counterpoint. While the closing line gospel is groundbreaking for many, Joe introduces an exception to the established wisdom. I think Joe agrees that if one has enough closing line value they will win (and please do correct me if I'm wrong Joe). Danshan demonstrated with his database evidence above, and we know from Pinnacle's business model, and we know how most sharps think, that this is now a well-established rule in the Sportsbetting handbook. However it may not be necessary.
I am intrigued by Joe's idea that while generally the close is efficient and represents an accurate line of 50/50, some lines are not efficient- some might be 60/40 while others are 40/60, some are 55/45 while others are 45/55. But what does one do with this knowledge? Many could use this knowledge to fool themselves that a system that the market has no regard for is a winning system. To discover exceptions where the market is off, like Joe has, would require advanced techniques or modeling. Joe, after all, is not some forum newbie; he's been doing this an extremely long time and even published a book on it. So knowing the close may not be efficient in all cases would likely be more harmful than helpful to most. Danshan appears to be the resident watch-dog to convince everyone of this, which is a great service to the community. Closing line value is so important because it allows verification of one's methods apart from wins and losses alone. Just going by wins and losses, without closing line value, requires a leap of faith. It's a very difficult leap to make. Closing line value gives one sanity.
A few other points on Joe's case. First, he does get some degree of closing line value. I'm not sure if it was this thread but I was reading through quite a few "closing line" threads. He said he generally gets about 50% moves in his favor/35% against/15% neutral. While not overwhelming closing line value (and we don't know the specifics of how far the good ones move etc.) it is not as if the market is totally indifferent to these plays. I would be curious whether Joe or people who follow Joe move the line on his plays. There are bettors who win who don't have a public following, who aren't touts, who can bet their unit at offscreen books that don't trigger a market move. I would suspect this is the case and it would be great if Joe can share this answer, for academic purposes. I think it would better illustrate what is happening in the market. In other words, if Joe quietly bet and won and the market did not respond that would be different than if he pounded the board and the market brought the plays back and he won. Hope you can share a little with us Joe!
Thicht
A cannot do it so we look for some other measuring stick since beating the line enough to cover margin is very tough
B Think that winning is all that matters and got winners blindness
Large or respected bettors create ripples or votes if you will when they place a bet
the market does one of two things it jumps on the ripple and votes with it or it goes against it and the line goes back to where it was pre ripple. It is very rec bettor to think you got more information about a game than the entire betting consensus of the world. Just look at the "pro" advice you can get online or the "pro" picks on forums and the web they dont talk about value in the line cause they cant, value in the line requires skill. Anyone can say the Browns wont cover because of their shitty D but who can tell you before a line comes out the Browns will close at 6 point dogs. This alone should show you the different skill level.
A guy who says the Patriots will beat the Jets tomorrow is lucky and is irresponsible but a guy who can tell you how many times the Patriots would beat the Jets over 1000 games (knows the line) is skilled.
We cant accurately predict the outcome of a single game but we can accurately predict the outcome of 1000 games if anyone could accurately predict the game I mean how could we bet on it. If the dice had 5 on all sides, we could and would not want to play dice for money anymore.Comment -
I believe in the closing line for myself. However, I also do believe that Joe is correct. The standard for me to ever follow that advice would be different and would require a much different methodology. You demonstrate here a methodology that is clearly elementary, referencing silly toutish arguments such as the Browns won't cover because of their bad defense in order to prove your point. Well I agree this type of methodology would not convince me either. But rather than create an easy strawman argument referencing a poor tout argument, why not look at something more convincing that doesn't beat the close. How about Joe's argument in this very thread. Joe does not sell his picks, Joe even agrees with you (I could quote it at length but he clearly thinks an argument like you posed is ridiculous). But he also thinks there are some well-researched arguments that are not ridiculous. There may be some SDQL analysis that is unincorporated into the line for example. To know that however, you must be an SDQL expert AND a modeling expert (or some other way to know the line is fair such that you can know whether the angle is incorporated). To be one or the other alone may not be sufficient. So if one is not both, and that's certainly almost always the case, then they should stick to methods that beat the closing line. That's what I do so its ironic I'm now arguing the other side. But I believe it does exist even if its something I have never explored.Comment -
I guess the thing is why is the line Nationals -116 right now, lets explore it from that angle.
I say its -115 because -116 was too favored and -114 was too dog now if someone with a bigger vote comes in and says Nats should be more favored it will move -116 and then we will ask the question to the world again and they will agree or they will buy it back to -115 and you think that is a numbers game, call it randomness, or anything else besides the to me vary obvious fact that is the most current accurate handicap on this game at this point and if it closes their that is the most accurate guess of the implied probability available but you think Joe can do it better than that with his computer and internet connection after the world has done this back and forth vetting process for 24ish hours and come to the conclusion that the closing is fair.Comment -
I think we forget what the closing line is actually, what do you think it represents in say the MLB or NFL a major sport with worldwide bettors?Comment -
I think if you get a good grasp on what the closing line is that will tell you a ton about why you need to disregard it or respect it.
I am not doubting Joe's abilities but I am a bettor by heart and I think I would bet on the WORLD of betting experts combined over Joe and that is without even knowing Joe. Even though there is a real possibility Joe is better BUT even if he is, I am probably not or can many beat the WORLD at capping like Joe does!Last edited by danshan11; 08-27-18, 01:16 PM.Comment -
Originally Posted by keel44 
Sharp bettors play the numbers/math game. Square bettors play the team comparison game. Both can be successful long term. I am sure your question is about being successful long term. I will answer it like this:
You need a positive ROI over many bets. You must have a methodology for picking the games based on the lines given. Even the most simplistic methodology will suffice. Your edge is revealed through your ROI. You need a large sample size. 300 similar bets based on THE SAME METHODOLOGY will do. You can't vary your methodology. You have got to see if that methodology has an edge.
I will give an example:
During the last 3 or 4 NBA seasons the Western Conference is far and away the better conference. The better teams reside in the West. Since this is so very much common knowledge, I know the lines will be inflated when an Eastern NBA team plays at a Western Conference foe. I simply took the road Eastern Conference team this past year when they are the dog and raked in some great results. 89-65 +12.5% ROI.
That was a successful methodology and the type of thing successful bettors look for and succeed with.
No, that was just pure luck. I can find a similar "stat" for every single competition in the world.
Yes the sample size says it could be luck, but you cant deny that I thought the lines were inflated and then I end up profiting. You got to read the markets and understand the nature of the sport and compare to two.
Comment -
what does the line value say on that history?Comment -
The sample size isn't the issue.Comment -
Perception is not reality. The lines are a reflection of perception. As a bettor you must take a calculated stand against an over/under exagerated perception.Comment -
The point is "your" impression went agains the impression of hundreds of thousands of other people that set the line (the market) so your impression may have "seemed" correct this time because you won...but it was actually wrong because you did not beat the closing line. You just got lucky and thanked your impression for it. If your impression was the lines were actually overinflated and you bet the other way, you would not have been "wrong" either...you would have been unlucky.
Your own impressions can never beat the market long term, they can only get you lucky or unlucky for a while but you will always, always end up paying the juice over the long term.Comment -
I think this is a perfect example, I think people should look at this closely and decide whether you would keep betting or stop based on these results
Date Team League Close Bet At Bet Amt Result O/U Spread Actual CLV 7/20 Sky WNBA -114 -108 1.08 L U181 1.35% 7/22 Dream WNBA -116 -108 1.08 L O163 1.78% 7/24 Mystics WNBA -103 -105 1.05 L 4.5 -0.48% 7/24 Dream WNBA -125 -106 1.06 L O155.5 4.10% 7/31 Dream WNBA -133 -107 1.07 L O161.5 5.39% 8/1 Mercury WNBA -159 -107 1.07 L U175 9.70% 8/2 Minnesota WNBA -123 -107 1.07 L O151 3.47% 8/3 Sky WNBA -137 -107 1.07 L O167.5 6.12% 8/5 Wings WNBA 112 -107 1.07 L -1.5 -4.52% 8/5 Aces WNBA -139 100 1.00 L 10.5 8.16% 8/8 Wings WNBA -105 -105 1.05 L 2 0.00% 8/12 Sparks WNBA -125 -107 1.07 L 1 3.86% 8/17 Sparks WNBA -150 -107 1.07 L o156 8.31% 8/21 Wings WNBA 102 -105 1.05 L 6.5 -1.71% 8/21 Wings WNBA -133 -108 1.08 L U180.5 5.16% 8/23 Sun WNBA -127 -106 1.06 L -3.5 4.49% 8/23 Sparks WNBA -122 -108 1.08 L 5 3.03% 8/28 Storm WNBA 110 100 1.00 L U177 -2.38% Comment -
Danshan, does your spreadsheet automatically calculate that "Actual CLV" or do you have to manually enter that? If manual, what tool are you using to calculate it?Comment -
if(E166<0,ABS(E166)/(ABS(E166)+100),1-E166/(E166+100))) is the formula I use to calculate implied win probability based on US odds and I subtract that from the bet line.
Date Team League Close Bet At Bet Amt Result O/U Spread Actual CLV Win Amount Bought Here Closed Here 8/26 Mystics WNBA -159 -110 1.10 W O159 9.01% 2.10 52.38% 61.39% Comment -
and remember that is straight gross line value to determine an actual edge you need to remove the marginComment -
Great - thanks.Comment -
How do you explain when the #1 public favorite of the day drifts in price and then *surprisingly* loses? That's a textbook trap, because logically when all the money goes on the favorite the price should drop. Sorry bookies, I'm not falling for your shenanigans.Comment -
Because sometimes a big favourite simply loses a game. Stop thinking it's a conspiracy if some favourite that had a lot of money on it loses, if the bookies knew what was going to happen they would create what you would call a trap and make that favourite a +5000 dog so they can take a few hundred million on that side.
Comment -
Hey Gaze, how you been? I think if a big fave starts to drop its usually because they were overvalued and the sharps waited for the limits to go high enough and they faded them. Another scenario is a book will at times overprice a big fave trying to get some nerf money on them at a high price and then they have more room to cover the back with the super high price. I think there are lots of reasons why the line moves but none of those has anything to do with them losing or winning. if a team is implied by closing line to win 59% of the time minus margin they usually win 58.99% of the time. I think its a trap for you because you are fading that big fave and the book with the fave dog bias will charge you a little extra on those fades.
here is a link that might help
Comment -
imagine if right now the "book" knew the yankees were losing tonight on purpose and they were the only one that knew it, they would first off be selling their houses and buying the shit out of the dog at every book and second would put that line at like you said +2000 and let people go nuts taking the yankees, now that is a trap brother!
offering 100 to 10 signup bonuses today only on Yankees bets!
why stay at -340 and get a few bucks on the Yankees when they could put that baby at +140 and take every bet made today!Comment -
Gaze the next time you see a trap BEFORE the game starts come on here and give us the initials or something not enough info to bet it but enough info we can verify it after, do it like ten times and lets see how your traps work outComment -
Of course the bookies don't know for sure a fav will lose. But yesterday there was a fav that opened at +118 5 days ago and closed at +129 despite everyone and their mother betting on them. The average square was salivating at the value, thinking they have a good 60% chance to win. But the bookies don't just give out 37% roi favs to the public like candy. They knew the fav only had 35-40% chance to win for whatever reason, and the sheep fell into a -10-20% roi trap.Comment
