The myth of market efficiency

[Gaze73]

Team 1 is priced at evens with true odds being 55%
Team 2 is priced at evens with true odds being 45%
Team 3 is priced at evens with true odds being 65%
Team 4 is priced at evens with true odds being 35%

Yay, 50% winrate. Good job market, you're too good. How could one possibly make money in such a shark tank?

[Gaze73]

I just watched a Billy Walters interview: "Your lines are often different from the bookmakers." "Yes, substantially. The bigger the difference the larger bet I make." How can the market be both substantially wrong and efficient?

[EVPlus]

Well, there are certainly moments of inefficiency, which the savvy bettor can exploit provided he has done the necessary work. In addition to capping games in the morning, I run a post mortem at night - whether I won or lose - to see if my models need slight adjustments.

He also needs to be able to keep a cool head if his play turns sideways. Emotional discipline is what so many amateur bettors lack; they're little more than dopamine junkies looking for their next fix.

[Fullkelly]

It is not a myth. The closing line is pretty accurate. The reason lines move is sharp bettors are extracting value and hence making prices more accurate before post.

[Gaze73]

It is not a myth. The closing line is pretty accurate. The reason lines move is sharp bettors are extracting value and hence making prices more accurate before post.

Pretty accurate lmao. Clueless market is clueless.

[Stin]

Pretty accurate lmao. Clueless market is clueless.

Is it pinny closing line?

[Gaze73]

Yeah pretty much, I bet mostly 1-60 mins before game.

[Believe_EMT]

how is this conversation still being had?

1. an efficient market is one in which all knowable information is know and accounted for in the price of the asset.

you keep making these threads rambling about how amazing your results are

i've never seen them

never seen anything posted before game time

for my own understanding, you're claiming a line one hour or less from closing is LESS efficient than the opener?

post some legit data or please just stfu

[Gaze73]

how is this conversation still being had?

1. an efficient market is one in which all knowable information is know and accounted for in the price of the asset.

you keep making these threads rambling about how amazing your results are

i've never seen them

never seen anything posted before game time

for my own understanding, you're claiming a line one hour or less from closing is LESS efficient than the opener?

post some legit data or please just stfu

Read the OP again until you get it. Do you think that the next 1000 soccer favs that close at 2.0 will all have 48-50% chance to win? Is it so hard to believe that 50 of them have only a 40% chance to win? If you think the market gets every game right you're insane. If you don't think that then I'm right.

And I have an NHL thread as an example. But to people like you I just keep getting lucky all the time so what does it prove? Also my record posted above is legit but according to you every odds range should eventually get into the red and lose on juice because muh efficient market.

[Alfa1234]

Read the OP again until you get it. Do you think that the next 1000 soccer favs that close at 2.0 will all have 48-50% chance to win? Is it so hard to believe that 50 of them have only a 40% chance to win? If you think the market gets every game right you're insane. If you don't think that then I'm right.

And I have an NHL thread as an example. But to people like you I just keep getting lucky all the time so what does it prove? Also my record posted above is legit but according to you every odds range should eventually get into the red and lose on juice because muh efficient market.

The market closing line is efficient over a large sample, no-one here claims it's 100% efficient for every game so it's definitely possible to "select" those games where the market is off. I have yet to see someone do it over a large sample size though, so somehow I don't believe you have now magically found that formula if any of your previous posts are an indication. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. From what I gather you are looking at something along the lines of form from favourites and are betting the dogs at high odds. I assure you anything that simple has been priced in and you have simply been getting lucky. At those odds, variance goes a long way. So does survivership bias. As I said somewhere else: come back in a year or 2 when you've made 1k + plays on these.

You won't, either because you'll have lost your shirt or because you are have become a pro.

[Gaze73]

it's definitely possible to "select" those games where the market is off.

So "picking winners" is a legit strategy after all. Beating clv is for people who don't have the skill to bet on closing lines.

[Alfa1234]

So "picking winners" is a legit strategy after all. Beating clv is for people who don't have the skill to bet on closing lines.

so it's definitely possible to "select" those games where the market is off. I have yet to see someone do it over a large sample size though,

Your replies are becoming slightly moronic again. I'm done.

[Gaze73]

Your replies are becoming slightly moronic again. I'm done.

It's not my problem you're a moron who can't pick winners. Go grind your 2% clv at -110 over thousands of bets lmao.

[rustie]

Read the OP again until you get it. Do you think that the next 1000 soccer favs that close at 2.0 will all have 48-50% chance to win? Is it so hard to believe that 50 of them have only a 40% chance to win? If you think the market gets every game right you're insane. If you don't think that then I'm right.

And I have an NHL thread as an example. But to people like you I just keep getting lucky all the time so what does it prove? Also my record posted above is legit but according to you every odds range should eventually get into the red and lose on juice because muh efficient market.

Sorry but where is your nhl thread ?

[rustie]

Is this you DJ ? lol

[Bsims]

Another thread needing ending.

[Gaze73]

Another thread needing ending.

Ok boomer.

[tsty]

Ok boomer.

haha at least you make one good post

imagine being a poor boomer in 2019 relying on gambling to continue your retirement lol

sad life

[TommieGunshot]

It is not perfectly efficient. But when you find a 30% edge, for you to not make multiple max bets until the market odds are much closer to true odds is really weird. So weird, the stuff you're saying is virtually meaningless.

[rustie]

Such a great guy , trying to educate the masses when he could be out making a killing off all the inefficient markets out there, come on guys cut the "boy" some slack, he's trying to help us all,and he takes all this time to spend on this forum to enrich our gambling experience's. ( maybe with all your winnings you can now afford to move out of your mothers basement) . And I say this fully expecting a full on attack on my character . ( This is to be expected from a Trump supporter ) Make a big enough lie and someone is bound to believe you. Yours truly Rustie.

[Gaze73]

It is not perfectly efficient. But when you find a 30% edge, for you to not make multiple max bets until the market odds are much closer to true odds is really weird. So weird, the stuff you're saying is virtually meaningless.

Ever heard of bankroll management? Let's say there's a dog @7.4 but my pick is so good that the true odds are @5, so it's a 48% roi pick with a 20% chance to win. Would you bet your entire bankroll here if the true odds were in fact @5?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Take this to saloon please.

[gojetsgomoxies]

i thought i posted this but i don't see it.

if you look at the stock market and market efficiency, there are 3 levels academics talk about:

weak
semi-strong
strong

weak efficiency would mean it's moderately easy to beat the market (i think).

strong means that there is no such thing as valuable inside information, which of course is absurd.

the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the stock market and betting markets are not easily beatable, or anything close to it.... with betting, you are paying generally 5% commision, and require 52.5% win rate (or something like that) at -110. even if you aren't a loser, long stretches of 50% win rates (very very common) grind down a positive ROI very very quickly.

three things about betting markets vs. stock market:

1) betting market you don't need to worry about sentiment as much. you think rutgers is going to get killed on weekend. if it happens, you win. stock market = people are still bullish on rutgers even given big loss so you haven't won yet.. this is big reason academics love betting markets. very binary in results.

2) line shopping is big in betting markets. probably what long-term winners do most.

3) can get very soft lines on obscure stuff. usually, very low limits.

[Gaze73]

the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the stock market and betting markets are not easily beatable, or anything close to it.... with betting, you are paying generally 5% commision, and require 52.5% win rate (or something like that) at -110. even if you aren't a loser, long stretches of 50% win rates (very very common) grind down a positive ROI very very quickly.

Do you know why I took Shakhtar X2 @7.4 instead of Shakhtar +2.5 @1.91/-110? Because spreads are much more efficient in all sports. An upset either happens or it doesn't, I don't want to risk big on the spread and see the dog get blown out 4:0.

[TommieGunshot]

Ever heard of bankroll management? Let's say there's a dog @7.4 but my pick is so good that the true odds are @5, so it's a 48% roi pick with a 20% chance to win. Would you bet your entire bankroll here if the true odds were in fact @5?

I would be willing to bet up to half-Kelly, about 3-4%. But I would not be able to get close to that, because the book would move the line after each limit bet.

If your entire bankroll is less than what a limit bet is, it is clear you are not getting the type of edge you claim you are getting

[Waterstpub87]

i thought i posted this but i don't see it.

if you look at the stock market and market efficiency, there are 3 levels academics talk about:

weak
semi-strong
strong

weak efficiency would mean it's moderately easy to beat the market (i think).

strong means that there is no such thing as valuable inside information, which of course is absurd.

the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the stock market and betting markets are not easily beatable, or anything close to it.... with betting, you are paying generally 5% commision, and require 52.5% win rate (or something like that) at -110. even if you aren't a loser, long stretches of 50% win rates (very very common) grind down a positive ROI very very quickly.

three things about betting markets vs. stock market:

1) betting market you don't need to worry about sentiment as much. you think rutgers is going to get killed on weekend. if it happens, you win. stock market = people are still bullish on rutgers even given big loss so you haven't won yet.. this is big reason academics love betting markets. very binary in results.

2) line shopping is big in betting markets. probably what long-term winners do most.

3) can get very soft lines on obscure stuff. usually, very low limits.

From the CFA Exam:

1. Weak Form: Technical Analysis doesnt work, but fundamental analysis would
2. Semi-Strong : No public information is going to help you
3. Strong: You can't beat it

Most analogous:
1. That trend betting stuff wont work
2. Don't bother capping the games
3. You can't win.

Always been a number #1 believer

[Gaze73]

I would be willing to bet up to half-Kelly, about 3-4%. But I would not be able to get close to that, because the book would move the line after each limit bet.

If your entire bankroll is less than what a limit bet is, it is clear you are not getting the type of edge you claim you are getting

Oh look, we got another multimillionaire over here, this place seems to be crawling with them. You're saying you wouldn't be able to bet 4% of your BR on a champions league game before kickoff/live across multiple asian books? Maybe with a 10 million roll you could move the global line down to 6.5 which would still be great value.

But I guess I should work on my conservative staking, for me it's a 1% bet because the risk-reward ratio is very high. Putting 4% on a 20% long shot seems like such a gamble. The bigger the odds the bigger my edge is but I still bet more on the smaller odds because they're less likely to lose. It would seem weird to risk 2% at evens and 4% at 7.4. Assume Shakhtar +2.5 was a 14% roi play and X2 was 48%. Would you bet more on X2 than the spread? Would you bet on the spread at all with a projected 60% chance to win? If you were to bet full kelly on both X2 and the spread you'd be exposing like 20% of your BR on one huge dog.

[Gaze73]

From the CFA Exam:

1. Weak Form: Technical Analysis doesnt work, but fundamental analysis would
2. Semi-Strong : No public information is going to help you
3. Strong: You can't beat it

Most analogous:
1. That trend betting stuff wont work
2. Don't bother capping the games
3. You can't win.

Always been a number #1 believer

1. Depends on leagues. England Premier is not the same as Tasmania or Norway 3.
2. Depends on what you mean by public information. I could go on 10 different free websites to analyze one game. Are you saying a blind bet would be just as good?
3. I wonder if there is even such a thing as a strong efficiency since humans are so stupid.

[cashin81]

1. Depends on leagues. England Premier is not the same as Tasmania or Norway 3.
2. Depends on what you mean by public information. I could go on 10 different free websites to analyze one game. Are you saying a blind bet would be just as good?
3. I wonder if there is even such a thing as a strong efficiency since humans are so stupid.

would be a good point if you were an alien.

[Gaze73]

would be a good point if you were an alien.

At least I'm not an illegal alien.

People who PM me should enable their PMs so I can reply

[TommieGunshot]

Oh look, we got another multimillionaire over here, this place seems to be crawling with them. You're saying you wouldn't be able to bet 4% of your BR on a champions league game before kickoff/live across multiple asian books? Maybe with a 10 million roll you could move the global line down to 6.5 which would still be great value.

If you have a 40% edge at 7.4 odds and the market is so inefficient you can find a few of those bets per day, and you bet conservatively (quarter Kelly), starting with only one years salary from a minimum wage job, you would have that $10 million in under 1.5 years (and $125 million after two years). Bet even more conservatively, like the 1% you talk about, and it would still be over $2 million after two years and $20 million after three years. And if you started with more than a minimum wage bankroll, it would be a lot higher than that. Seeing as you've been starting posts with extraordinary claims here for over five years. . .

It would seem weird to risk 2% at evens and 4% at 7.4. Assume Shakhtar +2.5 was a 14% roi play and X2 was 48%. Would you bet more on X2 than the spread? Would you bet on the spread at all with a projected 60% chance to win? If you were to bet full kelly on both X2 and the spread you'd be exposing like 20% of your BR on one huge dog.

Full Kelly on the +2.5 would be 16%. Full Kelly on the 7.4 would be 7.5%. But that changes when multiple wagers are going on at the same time. And it changes even more when they have such a strong correlation. The math is all there: http://www.herrold.com/brokerage/kelly.pdf

Based on that, a conservative estimate would have full Kelly a little over 10% on the +2.5 and 5% on the 7.4. I am of the opinion that full Kelly should be considered maximally aggressive, and fractional Kelly (quarter to half) is almost always best.

[Waterstpub87]

1. Depends on leagues. England Premier is not the same as Tasmania or Norway 3.
2. Depends on what you mean by public information. I could go on 10 different free websites to analyze one game. Are you saying a blind bet would be just as good?
3. I wonder if there is even such a thing as a strong efficiency since humans are so stupid.

I'm not saying anything. Read the post I quoted. The only thing I'm saying is that shit like "teams price at 4.5 have covered 60% over the past 6 years" is shit. Otherwise, I think most markets are beatable especially things like Norway 3, whatever that is.

[Gaze73]

If you have a 40% edge at 7.4 odds and the market is so inefficient you can find a few of those bets per day, and you bet conservatively (quarter Kelly), starting with only one years salary from a minimum wage job, you would have that $10 million in under 1.5 years (and $125 million after two years). Bet even more conservatively, like the 1% you talk about, and it would still be over $2 million after two years and $20 million after three years. And if you started with more than a minimum wage bankroll, it would be a lot higher than that. Seeing as you've been starting posts with extraordinary claims here for over five years. . .

Full Kelly on the +2.5 would be 16%. Full Kelly on the 7.4 would be 7.5%. But that changes when multiple wagers are going on at the same time. And it changes even more when they have such a strong correlation. The math is all there: http://www.herrold.com/brokerage/kelly.pdf

Based on that, a conservative estimate would have full Kelly a little over 10% on the +2.5 and 5% on the 7.4. I am of the opinion that full Kelly should be considered maximally aggressive, and fractional Kelly (quarter to half) is almost always best.

How many long term unemployed people do you think have 15 grand just lying around for betting? "6 in 10 Americans don't have $500 in savings," and that figure includes employed people obviously. I had to start over from scratch so my BR is shit, but I'm certain of my edge (which still grows over time as I collect more live data) and that's all that matters. Do you know why I learned to beat Pinnacle? Because in 2020 I'll start charging for my picks and I want my clients to have big limits at mature odds which is much, much better than those guys who focus on 1 tin pot league at bet 365 with their inside info which drops the odds like a rock. There's also a handful of other guys who make profit at Pinnacle but their volume is 90% less than mine.

Full kelly is insane, you'd have to be a robot to bet e.g. 16% of 100k on one spread. 8% is huge too. Works on paper but if the BR can't be easily replenished nobody is going to risk that much. Quarter kelly sounds good for my style.

[TommieGunshot]

How many long term unemployed people do you think have 15 grand just lying around for betting? "6 in 10 Americans don't have $500 in savings," and that figure includes employed people obviously.

You have a clear path to earning millions every year. The fact that you have been unwilling to do things differently than typical Americans in order to follow through on that path says a lot.

[Gaze73]

You have a clear path to earning millions every year. The fact that you have been unwilling to do things differently than typical Americans in order to follow through on that path says a lot.

There's no such thing as a clear path to millions, it's a jungle out there. It took several thousands of hours of work to find a viable path and it will take a few more months to really make sure it'll be a smooth ride. But the fact that I'm on a realistic path to millions already proves that I do things differently than typical Americans.

Anyway, people here who allegedly made millions prove my point about the market. It doesn't matter if you bet on early lines or midday or late lines. What matters is that even in this day and age it's still very possible for a solo guy with just a bunch of spreadsheets and algos to effectively beat oddsmakers and millions of people. No inside info needed, because inefficiencies are everywhere.