[MonkeyF0cker]

hutennis,

Does money wagered move lines at "oddsmaker" books? If so, why?

Pretty simple question. Doesn't need a setup, hutennis.

[chunk]

What would be your way to see through and analyze from EV standpoint something that was originated by mysterious, known to be conning and ruthless sources with mysterious intentions? What if they are inviting bunch of lambs in the slaughterhouse? How do you plan to get out if it the whole thing end up being not what it seems to be at first glance? Why take that risk if you can simply pick up great EV with very well understood origins? Does not it seem more rational choice?

Absolutely a rational choice and I agree with you. I do believe, however, that in some circumstances +EV can be created by better prices, so why not? I don't doubt for a second that there are dubious motives out there and all kinds of shenanigans, but I frankly don't concern myself with that. I respect openers, I respect closers, and I don't for a minute doubt the expertise of oddsmakers. I just attempt to find the best price that I can and with some luck, hopefully I can cut a modest slice.

[chunk]

i am prolly grossly over-simplifying, but aren't books (even pinny to a smaller extent) just playing a game between offering fair odds (odds that r built around the probability of an event happening) and making as much money as possible?

i do believe that oddmakers at sharp books r prolly better than nearly all other handicappers, but IMO the traders r playing a game of maximising profits w us. our job is to catch them cheating.

I mean they must see all of my (and a bunch of others') pathetic attempts to handicap and say to themselves something like "if we set the line here we'll make more money cos of all the idiots (like me) who can't do simple (or not so simple) maths and will think they have an edge here."

when u see/hear traders at bookies speak they r always talking about volume of bets, historical betting patters and such. i believe to them this is just as relevant to setting the line as the oddsmaker's numbers.

this isn't as simple as a competition against those oddsmakers, is it?

I've seen some of the interviews with the traders/oddsmakers of some of the reputable books. Seems like so much lip service to me. They aren't going to give up a thing. I don't think that they would stray to far from the math though.

[hutennis]

Yes. There must be a bet sizes that "oddsmakers" books must respect.

But they dont simply respect size. Mostly, respect comes from not being able to pinpoint, on the spot, the source and its intentions.
So it is non stop high stakes poker game going on. And while strength of your hand is not completely clear, its better be save than sorry
and adjust. Good business practice.

If some rich fish would want to bet farm, I don't think they would blink.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Yes. There must be a bet sizes that "oddsmakers" books must respect.

But they dont simply respect size. Mostly, respect comes from not being able to pinpoint, on the spot, the source and its intentions.
So it is non stop high stakes poker game going on. And while strength of your hand is not completely clear, its better be save than sorry
and adjust. Good business practice.

If some rich fish would want to bet farm, I don't think they would blink.

How do they know he's a rich fish? Why would they need to profile players if nobody can beat their "oddsmaking?" If they move the line on a wager, how do they know they haven't moved off of fair value and given value to other bettors? How does "respect" of the bettor influence the actual probability of an outcome?

[subs]

I don't think that they would stray to far from the math though.

have u seen stan james or paddy power odds (they can be awful). just wanted to state the bloody obvious in that probability doesn't exactly = odds all the time, and that IMO there r other pressures on traders. i mean if the markets were always efficient why wouldn't books auto move on air all the time, i'm asking rather than asserting anything?

and if, as Hu asserts, pinny or whoever has inside/extra info, why would they reveal it? just offer slightly better than market price on the wrong side, the pinny stopper on the other.

oddsmakers don't set lines, traders do. to me, if this was a game of subs -vig Vs mr pinny linesmaker i wouldn't b playing, but it isn't

Hu r u hoping some1 gets mad and starts spilling his ricebowlz. (i am)

"peer reviewed" LOL.

[mlfan]

You are kidding me right? Or playing dummy again? Never heard about HU poker?

Well, Lets go back to the argument.

My assertion is that if poker player can run above/below expectation for 20000 hands and much more, then what stop sports bettor, who also deals with probabilities, from running above/below expectation for as much?

Yes, poker players do fold hands preflop and those hands should not be counted. That's like passing up on a wager in SB. I agree.
For that reason, I brought up form of poker called Heads-Up (HU) or One-on-One, where people play pretty much every hand, see pretty much every flop and routinely see 50% of showdowns. Every time you see a flop is like making a sport bet.
Every decision you made can be evaluated in terms of probabilities using special software, so your average probability can be very closely approximated for any given period. Sport bettor can not be that precise.

So if in this form of poker people can run hot or cold for the number of hands that would be equal to a multiple lifetimes worth of wagers in sportsbetting and back it up with kind of numbers sport bettor can't even dream about (unless you want to say that implied probability at every point is in fact actual probability i.e market is very efficient), why is that not reasonable to assume that what is true for one probability contest is also true for another? If one can be hot/cold here for that long, one also can be hot/cold there for as long.

No? Why?



Seeing the flop gives you new probability of winning, which, if the hand stops right there, is a part of your average probability for a given period.
What's wrong with that?

expectations in poker software is only calculated for all in situations. If you have a person with 1 allin in 20,000 hands, his expectation is based solely on that 1 allin. The other 19,999 is irrelevant.

[hutennis]

How do they know he's a rich fish? Why would they need to profile players if nobody can beat their "oddsmaking?" If they move the line on a wager, how do they know they haven't moved off of fair value and given value to other bettors? How does "respect" of the bettor influence the actual probability of an outcome?

OK, I see. We are back to market efficiency.

Lets do it one more time.

If you can manipulate, corrupt, fix, use inside information etc., market, for you personally, is inefficient.
You will beat "oddsmakers". They will more than respect you. They will be afraid of you.
If you can do those things then there is nothing to argue about. You got it. For you, market is inefficient.

If your methods of gathering and analyzing new relevant information are superior to "Midas" then yes,
you may have an edge and market may be somewhat enefficient.
Why "may have", "may be", "somewhat"?
B/c given the amount of money, effort and expertise it must take to create and maintain constant sharpness of something as sophisticated as "Midas", hope to come up with something substantially better, even having the same resources, does not seem to be too realistic.
Yes, there is no need to maintain the best form in every sport, which makes things easier, but in a sport of choice there is a need to be that much sharper to overcome juice, which makes things harder.
So, all in all, the whole advantage thing is constantly balancing on thin margins.
Those who have resources, money, cutting edge constantly updating knowledge to be on margins with "oddsmakers" will be respected and
watched, if possible, b/c they are essentially "oddsmakers" too. And sometime EV will sway their way.
That's why I used "may have", "may be", "somewhat".
Now, how many dozens of those people in a world? I don't know. Not many.
If you are one of them, then you got it again. Market is somewhat inefficient, as far as you are concerned.


If you try to gain an edge over market by gathering and analyzing past data, you are poor delusional soul who is not bright enough to see the obvious.

What is obvious?
There nothing in a data you are looking at that no one seen before.
There is nothing you can do, outside of making discovery in a field of applied mathematics, to analyse this data in any way it was not analysed before.
Every last drop of usefulness has been already squeezed out. End of story.

Most of the past data is supplied to us by books. They sponsor OddsPortal and alike.
Why would they not only give away, but pay money to give away information if that would have any chance of hurting them in any way?
Because there is no chance. There is a very good chance though, that the more we "analyse" past data the more likely it is that we'll find
"winning" pattern everyone else missed and will make a -EV wager while totally convinced we have an edge. Its like pure gold for books.

Have you seen those boards with numbers over roulette tables in casino?
That's what it is. Past data. They even give you specially printed tables and pencils so you don't forget to "analyse"
Smart move, is not it? Drop on roulette went up 30% since past data (boards with numbers) and opportunity to analyse it became available.

The conclusion.

If you are not one of a those few who can corrupt, fix, manipulate and if you are not one of those few dozens who can can be on margins with "oddsmakers" by being essentially "oddsmakers" themselves, if don't belong to these two categories, then market as a whole is efficient.
The fact that it's not perfectly efficient for someone else somewhere out there should not play any role in your decision making process.

P.S. Sleeping beauties are always appreciated.

[MonkeyF0cker]

How is the market inefficient for one, but not all? Uhh. LOL.

Why would books be scared of a "dozen people" who can beat them? Why would they waste so many resources profiling EVERYONE if such a small percentage can only gain a very small edge? Why do so many books fail? How could ANY book possibly fail if the market "oddsmakers" are THAT good?

[hutennis]

How is the market inefficient for one, but not all? Uhh. LOL.

Because one has methods at his disposal that are unavailable for all.

Why would books be scared of a "dozen people" who can beat them? Why would they waste so many resources profiling EVERYONE if such a small percentage can only gain a very small edge?

For the same reasons casinos see card counters, who can only gain a very small edge as a serious threat to a bottom line.

Why do so many books fail? How could ANY book possibly fail if the market is the "oddsmakers" are THAT good?

For the same reason casinos, being even in a better position with unbeatable edge in every game, go out of business.



Side note.

If you can not find answers to such an elementary questions yourself, I don't see how you can be in a position to to expect to beat a very sophisticated game. You simply not sharp enough. In fact you are not sharp at all.
Positive results you had so far, if any, can be safely attributed to luck.

Or you simply play dummy again.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Because one has methods at his disposal that are unavailable for all.

Apparently, you don't understand what market efficiency means.

For the same reasons casinos see card counters, who can only gain a very small edge as a serious threat to a bottom line.

How many card counters get kicked out of casinos? I live in Las Vegas and I've never even HEARD of one getting the boot for counting other than stories from DECADES ago. I think you watch too many movies.

For the same reason casinos, being even in a better position with unbeatable edge in every game, go out of business.

So you think 99% of brick and mortar casinos fail? LOL. That's how many offshore sportsbooks fail. Casinos have a MUCH greater overhead than offshore sportsbooks BTW. If it were as easy as you say for them, that number would be next to zero.

Side note.

If you can not find answers to such an elementary questions yourself, I don't see how you can be in a position to to expect to beat a very sophisticated game. You simply not sharp enough. In fact you are not sharp at all.
Positive results you had so far, if any, can be safely attributed to luck.

LOL. I'm asking your OPINION. I already know the answers. You don't seem to know much of anything, however. I find it rather amusing that you think that sportsbooks have all of these resources to create PERFECT lines, but almost nobody else could possibly do better - especially considering that they can make money allowing the market to shape the lines for them.

Why does 5Dimes (who clones Pinnacle) kick out players for winning? Why would anyone but a "dozen" players ever get kicked out of a book like theirs for winning?

[hutennis]

Apparently, you don't understand what market efficiency means.

So what is that I don't understand?

I'm sure it would be something like "efficiency is efficiency is efficiency. By definition. Either market is or is efficient. You cannot be a little bit pregnant."

I can't see how it can be anything else.

If that's the case, you should get out more often.
Or at least google EMH to read shitload of material about different forms with a different levels of efficiency.
Would not hurt.

[MonkeyF0cker]

So what is that I don't understand?

An efficient market is defined as one where the price reflects ALL information available to ALL participants.

[MonkeyF0cker]

So what is that I don't understand?

I'm sure it would be something like "efficiency is efficiency is efficiency. By definition. Either market is or is efficient. You cannot be a little bit pregnant."

I can't see how it can be anything else.

If that's the case, you should get out more often.
Or at least google EMH to read shitload of material about different forms with a different levels of efficiency.
Would not hurt.

Jesus Christ. Maybe you should be banned.

It's MARKET EFFICIENCY, moron. IT'S NOT INDIVIDUAL EFFICIENCY.

[hutennis]

It is not some abstract "market efficiency".
It is efficient market hypothesis you are talking about.

And it comes in 3 forms.

1 form produces efficient market conditions to any and all participants. No matter who they are individually.
And 2 forms produce market conditions that are inefficient to a different degree, depending on who individual participants are.

This all is very well established by now.
I have no idea what you are screaming about.

[hutennis]

An efficient market is defined as one where the price reflects ALL information available to ALL participants.

That's is wrong. Plain and simple.
Nobody looks at market efficiency in such a oversimplify way anymore.

All information can not be available to ALL participants.
Only PAST information can be available to ALL participants.

And thats exactly the reason why you cannot take advantage of it.

[chunk]

Ok, so here's a question. How dumb is the guy who isn't concerned whether the market is efficient or not?

[hutennis]

It depends on how much he stands to loose due to his arrogance.

[chunk]

So if one believes the market to be efficient, how would one best use that to their advantage?

[hutennis]

That would be an oxymoron.

You can not take advantage of market that is efficient.
By definitions it is unexploitable.

[chunk]

So in your opinion it would follow then that those who believe the market to be efficient are either pissing into the wind or are one of the dynamic dozen...No?

[cyberbabble]

Most proponents of efficient theory HYPOTHESIS use the full name. It is called hypothesis or theory for a reason.

There are several questions to consider.

Can I use historical statistics to predict the outcome of a game more accurately than by randomly flipping a coin? Yes, I can based on past results. Can I prove that I can continue to do this? No, I can't.

Can I predict more accurately than the other people trying to do the same thing? Probably not. It doesn't require the any efficient market theory to say probably not. If I accept the idea that there are other players with far greater knowledge, experience, and resources to devote to their predicting efforts, then I probably can't predict better than they do. If they can predict better than me, then they end up with my money.

[hutennis]

So in your opinion it would follow then that those who believe the market to be efficient are either pissing into the wind or are one of the dynamic dozen...No?

No. Those who believe that market is inefficient and don't belong to a dinamic dozen are pissing into th wind

[MonkeyF0cker]

It is not some abstract "market efficiency".
It is efficient market hypothesis you are talking about.

And it comes in 3 forms.

1 form produces efficient market conditions to any and all participants. No matter who they are individually.
And 2 forms produce market conditions that are inefficient to a different degree, depending on who individual participants are.

This all is very well established by now.
I have no idea what you are screaming about.

The EMH states that it comes in weak form, semi-strong form, and strong form.

In weak-form efficiency, future prices cannot be predicted by analyzing prices from the past. Excess returns cannot be earned in the long run by using investment strategies based on historical share prices or other historical data.

In semi-strong-form efficiency, it is implied that share prices adjust to publicly available new information very rapidly and in an unbiased fashion, such that no excess returns can be earned by trading on that information.

In strong-form efficiency, share prices reflect all information, public and private, and no one can earn excess returns.

IT DOES NOT COME IN INDIVIDUAL FORM. How many fukking times must this be said?

[MonkeyF0cker]

To even assume that the EMH applies in any way, shape, or form to sports markets is an ABSOLUTE stretch to begin with.

I know MANY traders on the OPTIONS/STOCK EXCHANGES (for which the EMH was postulated to begin with) who think the EMH is a joke and work FUNDAMENTALLY and PROFITABLY with AMH principles.

[thom321]

I don't understand how Pinny could possible have first hand knowledge of any and all new information that comes out, for potentially 100's of games/markets at the same time. If they did, why would they bother with setting greatly different limits for certain markets and games? If they know they always have the most accurate odds, why not offer MLB size limits on all sports and leagues they offer?

[wrongturn]

I don't understand how Pinny could possible have first hand knowledge of any and all new information that comes out, for potentially 100's of games/markets at the same time. If they did, why would they bother with setting greatly different limits for certain markets and games? If they know they always have the most accurate odds, why not offer MLB size limits on all sports and leagues they offer?

Don't know where you got the impression that Pinny know everything, because they don't. They shape their lines mainly from bet input from large player base (profile), with timed limit increase mechanism.

[thom321]

wrongturn,

I don't for one second believe that they do. I was referring to what hutennis seems to imply in his posts.

[kilmerAsHolliday]

Good thread, hutennis droppin big boy knowledge

[MonkeyF0cker]

Good thread, hutennis droppin big boy knowledge

LOL.

[thom321]

I wish more people would listen to hutennis and Burton Malkiel. It would definitely benefit me.

[hutennis]

I does seem irrational to continue to discuss serious ideas in the environment they don't belong.
Especially if most of them don't apply to most here. Rather to none.

One statement though, which always starts this bedlam is relevant and does apply to pretty much everyone.
Every one in SB, in a options market, futures market, stock market, real estate market or any other speculative market.

Copying quote posted by MF.

In weak-form efficiency, future prices cannot be predicted by analyzing prices from the past. Excess returns cannot be earned in the long run by using investment strategies based on historical share prices or other historical data.

This means, that those who try to built models based on historical data with a goal of predicting future results are delusional and simply wasting their time that would be better spent concentrating on perfecting line shopping.
Moreover they also expose themselves to a highly probable large loses.

Any positive results anyone may have so far by doing it, if those claims are not just lies made on internet forum for "feel good" reasons, are simply lucky coincidence and most likely will disappear in a future and will turn into losses.
Very few of most fortunate and oldest may continue to be lucky for the rest of their life, but this does not make relying on past data to predict future a valid strategy.

That's where I usually start and Ill be happy to defend this particular statement.
This should not be too hard, b/c there is absolutely no acceptable evidence anywhere to the contrary.
If some one can point out any solid study (anecdotal personal experiences and unsubstantiated claims don't count) proving that my statement is wrong, i'll be very, very interested to take a look at it.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If that definition of weak form efficient holds true for any market, as you say, how do so many day hedge fund and derivative traders and firms make their living almost exclusively using predictive models? They're all lucky. Huh? LOL. Okay.

Are all of the prop trading firms in Chicago and NYC going to go broke eventually? And, if you try to use the excuse that they have inside information, the VAST majority of them do not. Not only is it a crime, but most of them work at a desk staring at numbers and plots all day.

[MonkeyF0cker]

And anyone that stubbornly believes everything that they read, especially when one of those things is a hypothesis that is not even CAPABLE of being proven true and is widely used schizophrenically in the finance world where it originated, is pretty ignorant.

Ask any asset manager at any firm in the world if markets are efficient. They'll look at you with an "Are you stupid?" face and ask you how you think they've had their job for 20 years.

[hutennis]

If that definition of weak form efficient holds true for any market, as you say, how do so many day hedge fund and derivative traders and firms make their living almost exclusively using predictive models? They're all lucky. Huh? LOL. Okay.

Are all of the prop trading firms in Chicago and NYC going to go broke eventually? And, if you try to use the excuse that they have inside information, the VAST majority of them do not. Not only is it a crime, but most of them work at a desk staring at numbers and plots all day.

You are simply misinformed.

Most successful traders make their living by applying solid trading principals and reacting to market developments rather than predicting market direction. Library can be filled with books on this subject.

Those who try to live by predictive models, (LTCM, MF GLOBAL is the beginning of a very long list) failed spectacularly.

Again, statements like "so many day hedge fund and derivative traders and firms make their living almost exclusively using predictive models" simply show that you have very little clue on a subject.
Someone mentioned "Market Wizards" by Jack Schwager somewhere in this forum.
Try to read this book for starters and see for yourself what best traders of our generation have to say about value of prediction.