Statistical significance of betting system

gojetsgomoxies · 03-12-19, 04:55 PM

Dan, i mostly agree with you...

but that University of Chicago top financial professor suggests that the game outcome reverses the "open to close" movement and game outcomes end up back near the open, which i find hard to believe. but that's what it said.

2 things i will say,

i don't like studies that go back too far......... how betting was in 1998 is not highly relevent to today, other than timeless fear/greed type ideas. of course, you need a sufficient number of years of data but not too many i think

in the nba especially, you would definitely have to ignore massive line movements because most of those are based on new information, not market efficiency, per se.

tsty · 03-12-19, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by gojetsgomoxies

in the nba especially, you would definitely have to ignore massive line movements because most of those are based on new information, not market efficiency, per se.

huh?

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by SD07

Guys, is winning 5 fights out of a 7 fight parlay your first time placing a parlay bet have any significance?

sample size too small, and most importantly how did you do against the line?

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 05:16 PM

ok say there are a few type of bettors

can beat the line and tons of games to overcome variance -will win
can beat the line and very few games -cant overcome variance will eventually but variance could cause lots of pain
cant beat the line and can pick winners -might win if its true and he wont ever know forever if its true

which one do you want to be?

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by gojetsgomoxies

Dan, i mostly agree with you...

but that University of Chicago top financial professor suggests that the game outcome reverses the "open to close" movement and game outcomes end up back near the open, which i find hard to believe. but that's what it said.

2 things i will say,

i don't like studies that go back too far......... how betting was in 1998 is not highly relevent to today, other than timeless fear/greed type ideas. of course, you need a sufficient number of years of data but not too many i think

in the nba especially, you would definitely have to ignore massive line movements because most of those are based on new information, not market efficiency, per se.

I don't think any historical data supports that argument but most of the data I look at is post-2004

the NBA models are sharp because of the huge number of possessions so there is not a bunch of movement so you are correct most major movement is injury related ( AKA new information) but if you check the NBA over the last couple of years there is sufficient data to support the NBA having A enough volume and B sufficient line movement to beatable.

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 05:31 PM

most people have this in their head

I have seen water, so I know water is real
I have just bet and won and never set a line or beat the line and I have done it for seasons, or I see touts on the internet doing it for real. I see systems that are 10000-888 in the past 12000 records so systems can work. I understand how people feel that way cause they have seen it. If you see something, it is hard to call it bullshit right after.

The problem is that is why betting works as a business for books. People know they can win because people do win! The problem is we don't understand the math or don't take it in is probably more accurate.
1000 guys bet ten win, and out of those ten, one is perhaps actually skilled, and I am talking long term (1000s of games)
The skilled guy will keep winning year after year season after season
the other 9 disappear and the new 9 come up and scream at the top of their lungs that they dont need to beat the line "this ticket will cash" and more BS. the cycle starts over every now and then, we forget about the 9 old winners that are now losers and we find 9 new guys to say "WOW he is awesome" until these new 9 flame out.

it is why so many people scream and yell and piss and moan and cry and hate and just cant believe how dumb people like danshan "are clueless think you can only win beating the line what an idiot"

so the forum or bettors see and hear from those 10 and only one of them is saying this is how and the other 9 are saying this is how and the 9 are wrong and 1 is right but of course we here 9 louder than 1

SD07 · 03-12-19, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by danshan11

sample size too small, and most importantly how did you do against the line?

Sorry I'm not familiar with sports gambling jargon. What do you mean by beat the line? I was 2 fights away from winning over 3 BTC with a .1 btc bet. It was my first ever parlay. I'm guessing winning parlays in MMA is extremely difficult due to the massively lopsided judging.

Can anyone that bets MMA here confirm this?

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 07:13 PM

google beating the closing line in sports betting, you will get a ton of good info with that, best of luck!

gojetsgomoxies · 03-12-19, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by tsty

huh?

i'm saying that in studying how efficient the "open to close" movement is in terms of getting a more effiicent line that you have to disregard major news, in which case the information on the bet is completely different.... a line didn't move 4 points because the "open was inefficient", it moved because LAL decided to sit LBJ, for example

gojetsgomoxies · 03-12-19, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by danshan11

I don't think any historical data supports that argument but most of the data I look at is post-2004

the NBA models are sharp because of the huge number of possessions so there is not a bunch of movement so you are correct most major movement is injury related ( AKA new information) but if you check the NBA over the last couple of years there is sufficient data to support the NBA having A enough volume and B sufficient line movement to beatable.

no offense but i'll take a university of chicago finance professor over a random internet person any day of the week

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 08:02 PM

I know university professor who thinks the earth is flat, he is from Colorado!

there is just no data to support that, I cannot find any relevant data that supports the opening line being more efficient than the closing line. the argument is basically irrelevant anyway, I mean either way we know the line is still efficient. the data shows the line is efficient, tons and tons of studies show this

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by gojetsgomoxies

i'm saying that in studying how efficient the "open to close" movement is in terms of getting a more effiicent line that you have to disregard major news, in which case the information on the bet is completely different.... a line didn't move 4 points because the "open was inefficient", it moved because LAL decided to sit LBJ, for example

I said that already, tsty is a waste of time, he just calls people dumb and shoots out dumb one liners and never ever explains his position, I just skip him in any conversation he jumps in

tsty · 03-12-19, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by gojetsgomoxies

i'm saying that in studying how efficient the "open to close" movement is in terms of getting a more effiicent line that you have to disregard major news, in which case the information on the bet is completely different.... a line didn't move 4 points because the "open was inefficient", it moved because LAL decided to sit LBJ, for example

if LBJ sat and the line wasn't changed then it becomes inefficient..

SD07 · 03-12-19, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by danshan11

google beating the closing line in sports betting, you will get a ton of good info with that, best of luck!

I don't really care too much about odds or lines as long as I'm winning. At least that's what I'm doing with my main strategy, finding an edge and betting on expected outcome. That's the one that I won 5 out of 7 with a couple of weeks ago. The system that I was recently working on that went 67-33 in 100 fights didn't do too well for me this past weekend. The fighter that I bet on ended up losing. It doesn't seem nowhere near as good as my main strategy. I just thought I would try exploring additional systems.

danshan11 · 03-12-19, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by SD07

I don't really care too much about odds or lines as long as I'm winning. At least that's what I'm doing with my main strategy, finding an edge and betting on expected outcome. That's the one that I won 5 out of 7 with a couple of weeks ago. The system that I was recently working on that went 67-33 in 100 fights didn't do too well for me this past weekend. The fighter that I bet on ended up losing. It doesn't seem nowhere near as good as my main strategy. I just thought I would try exploring additional systems.

good luck in MMA!

semibluff · 03-12-19, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by SD07

I don't really care too much about odds or lines as long as I'm winning. At least that's what I'm doing with my main strategy, finding an edge and betting on expected outcome. That's the one that I won 5 out of 7 with a couple of weeks ago. The system that I was recently working on that went 67-33 in 100 fights didn't do too well for me this past weekend. The fighter that I bet on ended up losing. It doesn't seem nowhere near as good as my main strategy. I just thought I would try exploring additional systems.

If you don't care about odds or lines then you don't have a strategy, let alone a main strategy. Very simply if you think outcome A has a 60% chance and outcome B has a 40% chance then you should only be betting on A if your bets are going to show a net profit if A wins 60 times out of 100, and betting on B if there's going to be a net profit after 40 wins in 100. If not you just a recreational gambler that's going to lose money. There's nothing wrong with that but delude yourself that you're unlucky with results or that you're going to be successful in the future. My advice is don't bet with real money, at least not until you do care about odds and lines and have some idea of what NOT to do.

SD07 · 03-13-19, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by semibluff

If you don't care about odds or lines then you don't have a strategy, let alone a main strategy. Very simply if you think outcome A has a 60% chance and outcome B has a 40% chance then you should only be betting on A if your bets are going to show a net profit if A wins 60 times out of 100, and betting on B if there's going to be a net profit after 40 wins in 100. If not you just a recreational gambler that's going to lose money. There's nothing wrong with that but delude yourself that you're unlucky with results or that you're going to be successful in the future. My advice is don't bet with real money, at least not until you do care about odds and lines and have some idea of what NOT to do.

What's the point in looking at lines when judges get like 50% of decisions wrong? I can care about lines but MMA isn't like other sports in its predictability. You can get everything right but then lose because of poor judging. I have a strategy in place that seems to have been working, it just doesn't occur much. I am trying to build on that strategy now.

SD07 · 03-13-19, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by danshan11

good luck in MMA!

Thanks mate

Gaze73 · 03-13-19, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by SD07

What's the point in looking at lines when judges get like 50% of decisions wrong? I can care about lines but MMA isn't like other sports in its predictability. You can get everything right but then lose because of poor judging. I have a strategy in place that seems to have been working, it just doesn't occur much. I am trying to build on that strategy now.

If they get 50% of decisions wrong then half of those will go in your favor and cancel each other out in the long run. You think other sports don't have referees making questionable or legit game-changing calls? Anyway, if you don't know the approximate EV of your bets then you will never win.

Alfa1234 · 03-13-19, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by SD07

What's the point in looking at lines when judges get like 50% of decisions wrong? I can care about lines but MMA isn't like other sports in its predictability. You can get everything right but then lose because of poor judging. I have a strategy in place that seems to have been working, it just doesn't occur much. I am trying to build on that strategy now.

Lines are everything. Think about it this way: you like a fighter and bet him at +250. Would you have bet him if he was priced at -500? Or at -200? See my point, lines are everything. Would you have made a profit with your 67-33 system if the odds you had bet were all priced at -700? Your edge is based on the odds you get, not on winning percentage. I can have a losing system with a 99.9% win rate if the odd's I'm betting are all priced at -100000.

danshan11 · 03-13-19, 08:51 AM

I would say 99% of bettors bet and they do not have a fair line that they created. they just think the Jets are gonna cover 6 and thats it. that is probably 98% of bettors or more.

bettingman6 · 03-14-19, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by SD07

What's the point in looking at lines when judges get like 50% of decisions wrong? I can care about lines but MMA isn't like other sports in its predictability. You can get everything right but then lose because of poor judging. I have a strategy in place that seems to have been working, it just doesn't occur much. I am trying to build on that strategy now.

You can win or lose basketball or football bets due to poor officiating, too.

bettingman6 · 03-14-19, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by gojetsgomoxies

Dan, i mostly agree with you...

but that University of Chicago top financial professor suggests that the game outcome reverses the "open to close" movement and game outcomes end up back near the open, which i find hard to believe. but that's what it said.

2 things i will say,

i don't like studies that go back too far......... how betting was in 1998 is not highly relevent to today, other than timeless fear/greed type ideas. of course, you need a sufficient number of years of data but not too many i think

in the nba especially, you would definitely have to ignore massive line movements because most of those are based on new information, not market efficiency, per se.

Although I haven't done any studies on this, I've noticed a similar pattern with spreads myself. It seems that the line moves, and then reverts back to the original line a lot of the time.

That's why I'd recommend betting if there was just a line move in your favor. If the line comes from -8 to -7, it seems to go back to -8 more often than it goes down further to -6.

danshan11 · 03-14-19, 03:46 PM

this all might be true but those small movements back and forth are usually not enough to cover the margin.

here is the nuggets game the other night

dont count the last 10 that was before limits

danshan11 · 03-14-19, 03:47 PM

this line moved and never came back and it never moved enough really to overcome the vig of a typical book