[mathdotcom]

i am convinced hutennis' posts are generated by randomly selecting words out of a dictionary

[chunk]

He can be entertaining though.

[chunk]

Sorry, too many adult beverages last night.

[HUY]

Yeah, just ban hutennis already, he must be the most obvious troll ever to post on a forum.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If you get MonkeyF0cker and Mathdotcom to agree, I'll revoke the HTT suspension. But in general, I find his posts more harmful than helpful, and deliberately so. The idea of HTT was to remove drivel... Less crapage you'd see in PT.

I'm fine if he stays.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Whether the subject matter is politics, poker, sports betting or anything else, there is no bigger ASSBAG in this forum than MonkeyFocker.

He will only post to criticize as he's full of piss and vinegar.

Bitterness like that can only come from a lifetime of FAILING.

Spot on. As always.

[hutennis]

Well, looks like my ban is lifted and I can crap up HTT a bit more with my useless trolls felled with nonsense nobody can benefit from.
So, here we go!

HOLY SHIT.

Game opens at CRIS at Team A -120, Team B +100
No injuries, lineup changes, referees, weather updates are announced.
Steam move results in Team A +100, Team B -120 at CRIS
AcmeRecSportsbook.com still has Team A -120, Team B +100
Why is betting Team B +100 at AcmeRecSportsbook.com better than betting Team A +100 at CRIS?

What we got over here is a classic instance of “pretended knowledge”, or what Nobel Prize laureate and father of behavioral physiology Daniel Kahneman calls “What you see is all there is” cognitive illusion. In your case it is “What I know is all there is”
It is extremely common and a great source for all kinds of problems.

We, as human beings, just love to simplify, to make up story from the little we know but do not allow for what we don’t know.
Furthermore, after story is made up it becomes our baby. We love it, cherish it and protect it.
The dreadful conformation bias kicks in and we start looking only at the information that confirms our beloved story.
Anything disconfirming is ignored.
So, in all likelihood, the argument that oddsmakers are way more sophisticated bunch that you give them credit for and thus a lot more
than just “injuries, lineup changes, referees, weather updates” is going into setting the odds, in other words, there is something you don’t know
that is crucial for making the right decision whether -120 is equal to +100 or not and whether it is all just steam and shit, will be promptly rejected and may be even ridiculed.
Go ahead. I don’t mind. I’m sticking with Nobel Prize guy though.

You have said that the rec book would boot you for betting the Team B +100...why would they care if no one can set a more accurate line than the oddsmakers?

They would care because they are not oddsmakers. Their job is to promptly follow oddsmakers.
And, in unlikely event that Nobel prize guy is right and you are wrong, we can say that this time they did not do their job too well,
allowing bunch of steam chasers to take advantage of them and beat them to the number.
I think they may not like being taken advantage of too much and may boot.
Ridiculously farfetched assumption, I understand, but still…

You have been asked this exact question at least 3 times and have been unable to answer, yet you refuse to acknowledge that it is a 'good argument'.

As we can see, your argument is truly great! Untouchable!
I did my best though. I’m sure my best is not good enough either.
After all, who needs all this physiological bullshit, albeit established by some of the smartest people in a world
with a single goal of protecting us from ugly mistakes that inevitably cost us a boatload of money?
Who gives a crap that money saved is money earned?

Hutennis, if you cannot give people over here what they really want – a magical formula that will allow them turn garbage into gold -
What is the point in posting? Why are you here?

Good question. After all, whom people who put all these banners up like more? Those who search for magic formulas or those who try to spread and absorb money saving ideas? Why am I getting banned again? Trolling?

[allin1]

Good question. After all, whom people who put all these banners up like more? Those who search for magic formulas or those who try to spread and absorb money saving ideas? Why am I getting banned again? Trolling?

Rest assured that Justin7 who is the moderator of this forum did not ban you for sharing as you put it "money saving ideas". He doesn't like bookies more than you do and he would rather help people save money than feed to them illusions that make the bookies rich.

The think thank was probably created for people that claim or believe that you can have success with math models that use statistics, probabilities etc. If you don't agree with such beliefs maybe that's why you were banned. If some guys have a sub-forum about soccer it doesn't help if some guy comes and says "soccer sucks. American football rules." The same with the think tank, if you are against what the think tank stands for, then your posts are by definition off topic and disrupting normal on-topic discussion and maybe that's why you were considered a troll.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]

I like your posts, I like the debates you start, but I can understand why you were considered a troll and temporarily banned. My suggestion would be that you can start a topic of your own and post only there and ask permission that it would be accepted in the think tank sub-forum. You can write there responses, opinions even about other posts from other topics, but this way, not creating off-topic interventions that could disrupt the discussions.

[hutennis]

Rest assured that Justin7 who is the moderator of this forum did not ban you for sharing as you put it "money saving ideas". He doesn't like bookies more than you do and he would rather help people save money than feed to them illusions that make the bookies rich.

I'm resting assured.

The think thank was probably created for people that claim or believe that you can have success with math models that use statistics, probabilities etc. If you don't agree with such beliefs maybe that's why you were banned. If some guys have a sub-forum about soccer it doesn't help if some guy comes and says "soccer sucks. American football rules." The same with the think tank, if you are against what the think tank stands for, then your posts are by definition off topic and disrupting normal on-topic discussion and maybe that's why you were considered a troll.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]

I like your posts, I like the debates you start, but I can understand why you were considered a troll and temporarily banned. My suggestion would be that you can start a topic of your own and post only there and ask permission that it would be accepted in the think tank sub-forum. You can write there responses, opinions even about other posts from other topics, but this way, not creating off-topic interventions that could disrupt the discussions.

First, outside of excellent Granch posts on essential math issues and similar by others, I have never seen anything here remotely resembling "on topic discussion".
Any attempt to start one is being promptly killed by very valid reason. No meaningful methods that work will be reviled or discussed in depth on a public internet forum. It's simply counterproductive.

Second and most important.
Dont take it the wrong way, but you dont seem to understand how things work.

The ONLY way to come up with working idea is to be able to defeat logically or, better yet, empirically, each and every argument on why this idea is wrong and should not work. Again this is the ONLY way. If you don't do that you will inevitably end up with a lot of eggs on your face and, in speculative markets such as SB, with a lot less money in your pocket.
All I do is supply arguments (they should be welcome, btw) that say why the ideas I see here are bogus and should not work.
That does not mean that they are, but unless you can defeat my arguments, they are.
So, there is nothing off-topic or disrupting here. Simply good old scientific approach that works forever.
If this is not being liked here, collectively, then don't kill the messenger and don't call yourself "an aspiring handicappers".
Because you are not. You are simply bunch of guys who like delusional, ignorant state of confused empty dreams.

P.S. You read my post with a bunch of thoughts on why jgilmartin is dead wrong and decided to reply with bunch of thoughts on why am I being banned. What about subject matter? Anything?

[allin1]

I'm resting assured.




First, outside of excellent Granch posts on essential math issues and similar by others, I have never seen anything here remotely resembling "on topic discussion".
Any attempt to start one is being promptly killed by very valid reason. No meaningful methods that work will be reviled or discussed in depth on a public internet forum. It's simply counterproductive.

Second and most important.
Dont take it the wrong way, but you dont seem to understand how things work.

The ONLY way to come up with working idea is to be able to defeat logically or, better yet, empirically, each and every argument on why this idea is wrong and should not work. Again this is the ONLY way. If you don't do that you will inevitably end up with a lot of eggs on your face and, in speculative markets such as SB, with a lot less money in your pocket.
All I do is supply arguments (they should be welcome, btw) that say why the ideas I see here are bogus and should not work.
That does not mean that they are, but unless you can defeat my arguments, they are.
So, there is nothing off-topic or disrupting here. Simply good old scientific approach that works forever.
If this is not being liked here, collectively, then don't kill the messenger and don't call yourself "an aspiring handicappers".
Because you are not. You are simply bunch of guys who like delusional, ignorant state of confused empty dreams.

P.S. You read my post with a bunch of thoughts on why jgilmartin is dead wrong and decided to reply with bunch of thoughts on why am I being banned. What about subject matter? Anything?

hutennis as I said I like your posts exactly for the reasons you mentioned. I love the debates, the arguments. I was just trying to guess why you got banned. It was a simple honest guess that can easily be wrong.


my reply was just for your remark about your ban and being accused of trolling. This thread already has a lot of posts about your ban so that's why I decided to make the off-topic post as an exception. I hope you didn't get me wrong, while others were shouting to get you banned I was the one who said I like your posts.

Please excuse my stupidity if it bothered you. I was just trying to find a solution for you to be welcomed on this sub-forum because I really don't want you to be banned again. You guys are way smarter then me, so there is no point in me posting on the subject matter. Sorry for the off-topic it's not like it will happen again and again and again. I will enjoy "in silence" from now on.

[jgilmartin]

Well, looks like my ban is lifted and I can crap up HTT a bit more with my useless trolls felled with nonsense nobody can benefit from.
So, here we go!



What we got over here is a classic instance of “pretended knowledge”, or what Nobel Prize laureate and father of behavioral physiology Daniel Kahneman calls “What you see is all there is” cognitive illusion. In your case it is “What I know is all there is”
It is extremely common and a great source for all kinds of problems.

We, as human beings, just love to simplify, to make up story from the little we know but do not allow for what we don’t know.
Furthermore, after story is made up it becomes our baby. We love it, cherish it and protect it.
The dreadful conformation bias kicks in and we start looking only at the information that confirms our beloved story.
Anything disconfirming is ignored.
So, in all likelihood, the argument that oddsmakers are way more sophisticated bunch that you give them credit for and thus a lot more
than just “injuries, lineup changes, referees, weather updates” is going into setting the odds, in other words, there is something you don’t know
that is crucial for making the right decision whether -120 is equal to +100 or not and whether it is all just steam and shit, will be promptly rejected and may be even ridiculed.
Go ahead. I don’t mind. I’m sticking with Nobel Prize guy though.



They would care because they are not oddsmakers. Their job is to promptly follow oddsmakers.
And, in unlikely event that Nobel prize guy is right and you are wrong, we can say that this time they did not do their job too well,
allowing bunch of steam chasers to take advantage of them and beat them to the number.
I think they may not like being taken advantage of too much and may boot.
Ridiculously farfetched assumption, I understand, but still…



As we can see, your argument is truly great! Untouchable!
I did my best though. I’m sure my best is not good enough either.
After all, who needs all this physiological bullshit, albeit established by some of the smartest people in a world
with a single goal of protecting us from ugly mistakes that inevitably cost us a boatload of money?
Who gives a crap that money saved is money earned?

Hutennis, if you cannot give people over here what they really want – a magical formula that will allow them turn garbage into gold -
What is the point in posting? Why are you here?

Good question. After all, whom people who put all these banners up like more? Those who search for magic formulas or those who try to spread and absorb money saving ideas? Why am I getting banned again? Trolling?

I understand that English is not your first language. I wouldn't be able to engage in a debate about anything meaningful in another language, so I'm not bashing you for this. But 99% of your post had nothing to do with what I was asking you, and you still didn't answer the question, so I'm not sure if you even understand the question. Using the example above:

You acknowledge that betting steam is a profitable technique. If the game opens at CRIS at Team A -120, Team B +100 and a steam move results in Team A +100, Team B -120 (also at CRIS). Would you agree that Team B was probably priced in the bettor's favor when it was at +100?

[hutennis]

Here is the first version

Game opens at CRIS at Team A -120, Team B +100
No injuries, lineup changes, referees, weather updates are announced.
Steam move results in Team A +100, Team B -120 at CRIS
AcmeRecSportsbook.com still has Team A -120, Team B +100
Why is betting Team B +100 at AcmeRecSportsbook.com better than betting Team A +100 at CRIS?
You have said that the rec book would boot you for betting the Team B +100...why would they care if no one can set a more accurate line than the oddsmakers?

Al of a sudden, here is the second one.

If the game opens at CRIS at Team A -120, Team B +100 and a steam move results in Team A +100, Team B -120 (also at CRIS). Would you agree that Team B was probably priced in the bettor's favor when it was at +100?

You post 2 different questions in those two versions.
Why? You don't want to continue to discuss your miserably failed #1 and found nothing better but make a condescending remarks about me not being able to understand English and basically change the subject?
Nice try.

I do have an answer to your second one too.
But what about first? What did not I understand?
Where did my English failed me?
Why my respond is irrelevant? Word to word.

[jgilmartin]

You post 2 different questions in those two versions.

Not at all; as you appeared to have no idea what I was actually asking you, I was attempting to ask the question one step at a time.

I do have an answer to your second one too.
But what about first? What did not I understand?
Where did my English failed me?
Why my respond is irrelevant? Word to word.

This is the only somewhat relevant part I can find:

They would care because they are not oddsmakers. Their job is to promptly follow oddsmakers.

Yes, rec books copy openers from sharp books and move on air based on sharp books. But why would they care if you bet Team B +100 after CRIS moved, but before they moved their own line? If the opening number was already perfectly priced based on the information available, there would be no reason for them to care. Betting steam is profitable because the people originating the steam moves are better at setting lines than the oddsmakers (i.e. they are making +EV bets). If you are able to get the same number they got, you are, as a whole, making +EV bets. Get it?

[MonkeyF0cker]

hutennis,

Does money wagered move lines at "oddsmaker" books? If so (it does), why?

[chunk]

hutennis as I said I like your posts exactly for the reasons you mentioned. I love the debates, the arguments. I was just trying to guess why you got banned. It was a simple honest guess that can easily be wrong.


my reply was just for your remark about your ban and being accused of trolling. This thread already has a lot of posts about your ban so that's why I decided to make the off-topic post as an exception. I hope you didn't get me wrong, while others were shouting to get you banned I was the one who said I like your posts.

Please excuse my stupidity if it bothered you. I was just trying to find a solution for you to be welcomed on this sub-forum because I really don't want you to be banned again. You guys are way smarter then me, so there is no point in me posting on the subject matter. Sorry for the off-topic it's not like it will happen again and again and again. I will enjoy "in silence" from now on.

You have nothing to apologize about. If everyone had to quit posting for being wrong or misguided, all you would hear would be crickets on these forums.

I also agree with you about Hutennis. Could you imagine what it would be like if everyone agreed with one another and just patted each other on the ass all of the time? Boring with a capital B. Debate is a good thing for many reasons and can be entertaining too. It is difficult sometimes because most speak in generalities most of the time for obvious reasons. Unless one speaks of the math tutorials that is.

[hutennis]

Yes, rec books copy openers from sharp books and move on air based on sharp books. But why would they care if you bet Team B +100 after CRIS moved, but before they moved their own line? If the opening number was already perfectly priced based on the information available, there would be no reason for them to care.

What you seem to be missing is that CRIS -120/+100 and CRIS +100/-120 are not a result of steam move and you are putting carriage ahead of the horse.

As "What you see is all there is" principal predicts, you are making a cognitive error assuming that in absence of injuries, lineup changes, referees and weather update there is nothing else that would justify line change but what you call a steam move. You fail to allow for the fact that there are fundamental reasons you don't know about and thus don't include them in your reasoning. You simply don't believe that someone in a world can use more sophisticated approach in odds setting than simply paying attention to very widely available factors. And you are wrong.

The truth is that if CRIS , or somebody of their caliber, jumps from -120/+100 to +100/-120 they have a reason you don't even know exists.
As soon as they do jump, the first number is not "properly priced" anymore. It is simply irrelevant. Just like last year's snow.
You don't even care if it ever been there. All that matters now is new number +100/-120. Consider it like brand new openner.
And that openner is set by people who are better than 99.999% of those who are involved in SB. Whether they call themselves oddsmakers or anything else makes no difference to you. All that matters is that you are not one of them. For sure.

Now, if there is a sleeping beauty out there like our rec. book, that is slow to react to a line change and still has it -120/+100,
that where the steam moves comes in. Remember, -120/+100 is not "proper number" anymore. It used to be.
Now it is a huge miss pricing that caries huge advantage for a players and players do rush in to take advantage of it, thus generating the steam.
Notice, nobody rushes at CRIS to scoop +100/-120 "bargain". There is no steam there.
Everybody runs to a rec. book to get as much +100 as they can get their hands on while sleeping beauty is snoring.
And when it finally wakes up and changes number to match CRIS, the steam is gone. Just like that.
Rec. book does not like, for obvious reasons, what just happened and boots fuking wise guys who just snatched bunch of EV from it.
Natural reaction.

To summarize.

1. If you don't know or can not imagine something, it does not mean it is not out there. It is. And it will mess you up.
Dont fall for "What I see is all there is". Oh, yeah. When dealing with this argument, don't attack a "straw man" on me either.

2. Number is perfect and reflects all available (not necessarily to you, though) information until and unless new number based on new available (not necessarily to you, though) information comes in. At this point first number becomes nothing.

3. There are no people who are better than oddsmakers at setting the odds. People who are better than oddsmakers at setting the odds are essentially oddsmakers. We can talk about them separatly, if it makes you feel better or gives you some kind of hope, but what's the point? Does it make any difference if I say there are 100 oddsmakers and 200 essentialy oddsmakers in a world or I would simply say there are 300 oddsmakers in a world?

4. First - fundamental move and only then steam move to take advantage of opportunities if they are there. Not another way around.


Get it?

[chunk]

Am I missing something here? First of all if you own the game at the original price, it certainly is relevant...at least to the owner. Secondly, you may be giving the geniuses too much credit here. You can move Cris openers 10 cents with a $500 wager.

[nate turner]

Whether the subject matter is politics, poker, sports betting or anything else, there is no bigger ASSBAG in this forum than MonkeyFocker.

He will only post to criticize as he's full of piss and vinegar.

Bitterness like that can only come from a lifetime of FAILING.

coming from a racist turd.i'm laughing so hard!

[hutennis]

Am I missing something here? First of all if you own the game at the original price, it certainly is relevant...at least to the owner.

If you own the game at the original - it's yours. Enjoy.
That's not we are talking about. We are talking about relevancy of original in general after new comes in.
And it is not.

Secondly, you may be giving the geniuses too much credit here. You can move Cris openers 10 cents with a $500 wager.

I have no idea, but again, if its true. then Cris is not a genius i was talking about.
Let's change it to pinny then.

[jgilmartin]

It's a simplification used to create an example. CRIS represented sharp books. I could have invented hypothetical line moves for the first ten books on the Don Best screen but assumed people would understand the concept.

[hutennis]

It's a simplification used to create an example. CRIS represented sharp books. I could have invented hypothetical line moves for the first ten books on the Don Best screen but assumed people would understand the concept.

That was understood. At least by me.

[jgilmartin]

What you seem to be missing is that CRIS -120/+100 and CRIS +100/-120 are not a result of steam move and you are putting carriage ahead of the horse.

As "What you see is all there is" principal predicts, you are making a cognitive error assuming that in absence of injuries, lineup changes, referees and weather update there is nothing else that would justify line change but what you call a steam move. You fail to allow for the fact that there are fundamental reasons you don't know about and thus don't include them in your reasoning. You simply don't believe that someone in a world can use more sophisticated approach in odds setting than simply paying attention to very widely available factors. And you are wrong.

The truth is that if CRIS , or somebody of their caliber, jumps from -120/+100 to +100/-120 they have a reason you don't even know exists.
As soon as they do jump, the first number is not "properly priced" anymore. It is simply irrelevant. Just like last year's snow.
You don't even care if it ever been there. All that matters now is new number +100/-120. Consider it like brand new openner.
And that openner is set by people who are better than 99.999% of those who are involved in SB. Whether they call themselves oddsmakers or anything else makes no difference to you. All that matters is that you are not one of them. For sure.

Now, if there is a sleeping beauty out there like our rec. book, that is slow to react to a line change and still has it -120/+100,
that where the steam moves comes in. Remember, -120/+100 is not "proper number" anymore. It used to be.
Now it is a huge miss pricing that caries huge advantage for a players and players do rush in to take advantage of it, thus generating the steam.
Notice, nobody rushes at CRIS to scoop +100/-120 "bargain". There is no steam there.
Everybody runs to a rec. book to get as much +100 as they can get their hands on while sleeping beauty is snoring.
And when it finally wakes up and changes number to match CRIS, the steam is gone. Just like that.
Rec. book does not like, for obvious reasons, what just happened and boots fuking wise guys who just snatched bunch of EV from it.
Natural reaction.

To summarize.

1. If you don't know or can not imagine something, it does not mean it is not out there. It is. And it will mess you up.
Dont fall for "What I see is all there is". Oh, yeah. When dealing with this argument, don't attack a "straw man" on me either.

2. Number is perfect and reflects all available (not necessarily to you, though) information until and unless new number based on new available (not necessarily to you, though) information comes in. At this point first number becomes nothing.

3. There are no people who are better than oddsmakers at setting the odds. People who are better than oddsmakers at setting the odds are essentially oddsmakers. We can talk about them separatly, if it makes you feel better or gives you some kind of hope, but what's the point? Does it make any difference if I say there are 100 oddsmakers and 200 essentialy oddsmakers in a world or I would simply say there are 300 oddsmakers in a world?

4. First - fundamental move and only then steam move to take advantage of opportunities if they are there. Not another way around.


Get it?

Difficult to have a meaningful discussion about oddsmakers with someone who makes up his own definition of the word 'oddsmaker'. I'm glad I now know that steam originates from somewhere, though.

[hutennis]

Difficult to have a meaningful discussion about oddsmakers with someone who makes up his own definition of the word 'oddsmaker'. I'm glad I now know that steam originates from somewhere, though.

Please give me your definition of the word "oddsmaker".

And i'm glad we now know that steam has a reason to jump to existence.

[chunk]

Please give me your definition of the word "oddsmaker".

And i'm glad we now know that steam has a reason to jump to existence.

It might be more interesting to know what the "fundamental" move that oddsmakers make for no apparent reason after they hang the openers.

[hutennis]

It might be more interesting to know what the "fundamental" move that oddsmakers make for no apparent reason after they hang the openers.

No apparent to who?

[chunk]

No apparent to who?

Sorry if I'm a little slow today, but you stated the book makes a fundamental move, then comes the steam. What do you mean by fundamental or in reality is it a reaction to steam play.

[hutennis]

Fundamental is move warranted by a new information, whatever that information might be.

in reality is it a reaction to steam play.

Steam play originated by whom?

[chunk]

Fundamental is move warranted by a new information, whatever that information might be.



Steam play originated by whom?

Can't say that I'm an expert on the subject, but I sure see the term thrown out there a lot. My interpretation is that it originates with syndicates or someone like BW who come in with large amounts at several outlets.

[wrongturn]

hutennis, if you own a book that provides high limit, and there are 10 players who hit one line at max limit, like 10K per bet. So you have 100K exposure on one team. Without any other new information, what do you do?

[hutennis]

Can't say that I'm an expert on the subject, but I sure see the term thrown out there a lot. My interpretation is that it originates with syndicates or someone like BW who come in with large amounts at several outlets.

Aha. Great.

So now we have at least 2 reasons for steam play.

1. Sleeping beauty rec. book, that forgot to adjust to the market thus creating boat load of well understood EV for anyone who is fast enough to grab it.

2. Mysterious move made with the size market has to respect, originated by mysterious sources with mysterious intentions.


Which one would you like to participate in?

[MonkeyF0cker]

hutennis,

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

You seem to be avoiding this question, hutennis.

[hutennis]

See above. We are getting to it right now.
I'm waiting for chunk to make a choice.

[chunk]

Aha. Great.

So now we have at least 2 reasons for steam play.

1. Sleeping beauty rec. book, that forgot to adjust to the market thus creating boat load of well understood EV for anyone who is fast enough to grab it.

2. Mysterious move made with the size market has to respect, originated by mysterious sources with mysterious intentions.


Which one would you like to participate in?

I personally would opt for #2, but only if I see value on the other side. Seems to me that you wouldn't be at said rec book for long if opting for #1.

[subs]

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?

[hutennis]

I personally would opt for #2, but only if I see value on the other side. Seems to me that you wouldn't be at said rec book for long if opting for #1.

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?

Making money even not for a long time still seem to be a better choice for me than being constantly invited to meet a firing squad.