can we time the market?

**milwaukee mike** · 10-16-19, 06:46 PM

each play would be independent of the others, so it would be no more useful than martingaling roulette

markets and trends can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent

**zorba74** · 10-17-19, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Believe_EMT

say we have a handful of handicappers we follow. sport is irrelevant. all that is relevant to us and our investing, is that they have a verifiable record over 300+ plays with at least 55% winners (pretty rare, world class level at -110 odds) and hopefully, as little impact on the market as possible. meaning we get the line they post 99% of the time.

This wouldn’t be considered world class level or even that significant (It’s a hell of a start though).

Originally posted by Believe_EMT

can we time the market?

The best times to invest in verified +EV Cappers are:

1. At the bottom of a Drawdown (historically speaking)

2. Right now

**Believe_EMT** · 10-19-19, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by zorba74

This wouldn’t be considered world class level or even that significant (It’s a hell of a start though).

i doubt we even have a single 'capper' on SBR that can 52% over 300 games.

i agree with most things you post sir, but would like to debate this one further.

my approach is built on a foundation of truths, as i see them, uncovered over 20+ years. chief among those is EMT. fukk yes the market is efficient. the bigger the market, the larger the limits, the higher information saturation....the more efficient.

but what does that mean? again, just my thoughts, it means any time someone uses the term Edge, they're likely wrong 85% or more of the time.

admittedly, 55% being world class, is not my original thought. Edward told me that years ago and it stuck with me. And i have seen it verified year after year after year.

do you believe a capper can hit 60% over 300+ plays?

**Believe_EMT** · 10-19-19, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by milwaukee mike

each play would be independent of the others, so it would be no more useful than martingaling roulette
markets and trends can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent

agree with the second point completely. i rarely venture over 2% for a play as one way to insulate from the silliness of math.

on the first point though, i might annoying specific here and ask your thoughts.

our capper doesn't move markets, hits 56% over 350 plays in the nfl at -110, but currently is 11 - 17 L28.

you don't feel a case could be made for an expected regression (in this case would we call it progression) to the mean? (although your second point above somewhat answers this).

**StackinGreen** · 10-19-19, 11:38 AM

I think at any given time if you asked a decent 'capper to start, there would be a good number of guys who would be in the 50s, % wise. If you asked all comers and posed a challenge, try to hit 60% over the next 300 picks of yours, that number would be exceedingly small.

Here's the thing, I think guys can even do the 60% but they'd have to be (and you would too) patient enough to wait over a 10 year period. That's how you beat the "market."

I know professionals that do it with more plays and smaller EV, but they are doing it in a way I can talk about later, where they are beating the lines you would get as a layman here; possibly the best way of saying this is that they have ways to get enough money on "off lines" before the "market/book" can correct it.

**zorba74** · 10-19-19, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Believe_EMT

admittedly, 55% being world class, is not my original thought. Edward told me that years ago and it stuck with me. And i have seen it verified year after year after year.

This may be a semantic issue. It is given enough data points (plays) but it falls short if done over ~300 plays.

Originally posted by Believe_EMT

do you believe a capper can hit 60% over 300+ plays?

@ 1.91 (-110) Odds? It’s possible but highly improbable.

**HedgeHog** · 10-19-19, 03:18 PM

The current bet you're making has no memory of your recent wins or losses. There is zero correlation. So each bet is independent and its size should correspond to the actual edge you have on that single event alone.