[u21c3f6]

mr.ed, your scenario above is NOT the OP's scenario at all. No one has suggested covering the other side in your scenario. This is probably going to sound mean and it is honestly not meant to be mean but this is where reading comprehension and communication is vitally important. The OP (which apparently in recent posts appears to have softened his position) originally stated that given an arb (wagers at the same moment in time) that it was always a waste to wager on the -EV side and that statement without caveats is just not true which has been pointed out by some posters with examples as well. Joe.

[bruceBRUCEbruce]

Plain and simple.....arb is good only when you are unable to determine which side has the value.

I'm a bit partial to the guaranteed profit, myself, small as it may be.

great thread though

[mr.ed]

mr.ed, your scenario above is NOT the OP's scenario at all. No one has suggested covering the other side in your scenario. This is probably going to sound mean and it is honestly not meant to be mean but this is where reading comprehension and communication is vitally important. The OP (which apparently in recent posts appears to have softened his position) originally stated that given an arb (wagers at the same moment in time) that it was always a waste to wager on the -EV side and that statement without caveats is just not true which has been pointed out by some posters with examples as well. Joe.

I used an exaggerated example to make the scenario easier to understand. In fact, Sawyer is placed in this same situation (NE- Ravens) every time he finds an arb involving Pinancle. The value is on the non-Pinnacle side, and he must determine if he should also play the Pinnacle side.

I sure hope Sawyer has not softened his position. As I've been writing all along, playing both sides is a viable option if you have bankroll concerns. Or you may prefer a smaller, steady income to one that will pay more but come with greater fluctations. I think Sawyer is hip to this and has not softened his position at all.

If my wager is large enough, I, too, may decide to "take some off the table" and play the other side. I realize this isn't financially smart, but can be compared to wagering on a coin flip in which I know the coin is weighted 52% heads. For $100 I would take it in a heartbeat. For $50,000 I would refuse.

[hutennis]

If my wager is large enough, I, too, may decide to "take some off the table" and play the other side. I realize this isn't financially smart, but can be compared to wagering on a coin flip in which I know the coin is weighted 52% heads. For $100 I would take it in a heartbeat. For $50,000 I would refuse.

OK. You have 2 options.

If you want to bet on 52% heads coin (+EV) you can only bet $100 per flip

If you want to bet $1250 on a 52% heads coin (+EV),
you must also bet $1240 on tails with a 51% heads coin (-EV).
If both coins either heads or tails bets are paid. Otherwise, it's a push .
You always win and lose at the same time.

Which option will you take?

[hutennis]

If above example is not going to drive it home for you, I don't know what will.

[mr.ed]

OK. You have 2 options.

If you want to bet on 52% heads coin (+EV) you can only bet $100 per flip

If you want to bet $1250 on a 52% heads coin (+EV),
you must also bet $1240 on tails with a 51% heads coin (-EV).
If both coins either heads or tails bets are paid. Otherwise, it's a push .
You always win and lose at the same time.

Which option will you take?

I would pick option #2 as profits would be greater because you imposed a very low wagering limits on option #1. Naturally, I would rather wager large amounts on option #1 while leaving option #2 and the (-EV) play out of it, but given the unusual parameters of the riddle, you have forced me to take option #2. Thank goodness these low limits aren't imposed in the real world!

[hutennis]

I would pick option #2 as profits would be greater because you imposed a very low wagering limits on option #1. Naturally, I would rather wager large amounts on option #1 while leaving option #2 and the (-EV) play out of it, but given the unusual parameters of the riddle, you have forced me to take option #2. Thank goodness these low limits aren't imposed in the real world!

And the point is

1. I did not impose anything. Math did.
2. Same conditions are absolutely present in a real world.

Here is why.

When you bet heads at 52% your edge is 4%
If you don't wont to expose yourself to a very substantial risk of ruin (going broke) math dictates that you cannot wager to win more than your edge. This is full Kelly. Very aggressive as it is.

So if you cannot win more than $100 with an edge of 4%, that means that your BR is $2500 max.
As I said, $100 limit is not imposed by me. It is just a function of your BR and your edge, if you want to be smart about it.

And that's where $1250 figure came from in option #2.
I did not dream it up. I just took your whole BR and divided it between two bets.
I can afford to do it now, since I can not lose.

This whole reasoning stays true in a real word exactly the same way.
Even though you have $2400 still "available" in a option#1, you can not touch it if you have any sense of self preservation.
Option #2 does not carry that burden and thus always preferable since it delivers higher EV in real money (although lower in %% terms, but who cares) with no additional risk. Actually, with no risk at all.

Unless your always bet limit, this type of analysis should always be performed when making decision to arb or not to make sure that your not shortchanging yourself.
And since betting limits is not something that done by overwhelming majority of readers in this thread, my point should be very useful indeed.

I really don't understand how something so obvious can be argued so intensely for such a long time.

[mr.ed]

And the point is

1. I did not impose anything. Math did.
2. Same conditions are absolutely present in a real world.

Here is why.

When you bet heads at 52% your edge is 4%
If you don't wont to expose yourself to a very substantial risk of ruin (going broke) math dictates that you cannot wager to win more than your edge. This is full Kelly. Very aggressive as it is.

So if you cannot win more than $100 with an edge of 4%, that means that your BR is $2500 max.
As I said, $100 limit is not imposed by me. It is just a function of your BR and your edge, if you want to be smart about it.

And that's where $1250 figure came from in option #2.
I did not dream it up. I just took your whole BR and divided it between two bets.
I can afford to do it now, since I can not lose.

This whole reasoning stays true in a real word exactly the same way.
Even though you have $2400 still "available" in a option#1, you can not touch it if you have any sense of self preservation.
Option #2 does not carry that burden and thus always preferable since it delivers higher EV in real money (although lower in %% terms, but who cares) with no additional risk. Actually, with no risk at all.

Unless your always bet limit, this type of analysis should always be performed when making decision to arb or not to make sure that your not shortchanging yourself.
And since betting limits is not something that done by overwhelming majority of readers in this thread, my point should be very useful indeed.

I really don't understand how something so obvious can be argued so intensely for such a long time.

The comments above do not apply to me as I am betting amounts in which I have zero risk of ruin (if you read my prior posts you will see I hit on this again and again and again.) I always include the caveat that if you do have bankroll concerns than playing both sides can be an effective tool to minimize risk.

If you are thinking there is always a risk of ruin...you would be incorrect. In my case, if things suddenly turned and went south I would simply find something else to do before exhausting my profits. I would recognize long before proifts were gone that my knack for finding (+EV) plays had suddenly vanished.

While taking both sides in an arb is an effective money management tool for many, in my situation throwing money at the (-EV) side is just plain dumb.

[hutennis]

This is not about you.
It's never been either.

It is about concept.

[mr.ed]

This is not about you.
It's never been either.

It is about concept.

You just asked me a few posts ago what I would do in a given situation. I gave you my answer, and then you say it's not about me and has never been about me.

[u21c3f6]

I used an exaggerated example to make the scenario easier to understand. In fact, Sawyer is placed in this same situation (NE- Ravens) every time he finds an arb involving Pinancle. The value is on the non-Pinnacle side, and he must determine if he should also play the Pinnacle side.

I sure hope Sawyer has not softened his position. As I've been writing all along, playing both sides is a viable option if you have bankroll concerns. Or you may prefer a smaller, steady income to one that will pay more but come with greater fluctations. I think Sawyer is hip to this and has not softened his position at all.

If my wager is large enough, I, too, may decide to "take some off the table" and play the other side. I realize this isn't financially smart, but can be compared to wagering on a coin flip in which I know the coin is weighted 52% heads. For $100 I would take it in a heartbeat. For $50,000 I would refuse.

mr.ed, I think the confusion comes from your mixing together two very different scenarios. From your post above, you are relating this thread to a scenario where you already have a wager and then the line moves to your advantage. In that scenario, it is more often correct to not cover the other side. However, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about a scenario where you do not have any wagers yet but you have available to you a true arb where both lines are available to you at the same moment in time. In this scenario there are some that think that you should only bet the +EV side but that is not correct in this scenario. You are almost always better off utilizing the arb (wagering on both sides) in some way as demonstrated in post #20 in response to the OP’s original scenario. Inpost #165 I linked to a thread where someone asked a question about an actual arb and in that thread many different solutions were offered to show how utilizing the arb produced superior results to just wagering on the +EV side. I hope this clarifies. If not, we will just have to agree to disagree. Joe

[ordaflavius]

A new ideea for Sawyer.
Sorry for my english.
I make surebets and I happened the same thing like the Sawyer.
In the last 2 yers i have with pinnacle 1 withdraw and many deposits...
The pinnacle does't have much markets like score/not score, corners, bla bla etc and they have put the lines more lates that most bookies and this made the most corect lines from the bookies...
Sawyer: if you don't put the bet in to pinnacle you have risc some because you don't know if you put same stake if you put/ and if you not put at pinnacle. The example is that you have some limits . If you have limit 1000 euro at the market nonpinnacle , you put the bet...and 1-2 days later you get a new surebet and the limit for that is 200 euro....you risk to lost the bet with 1.000 euro and win the bet with 200 euro and if that happen in 10-20 days same like lost the big limits, you have discourage and this is no good for you mind.

A new ideea is this: For example if you have 2 at nonpinnacle and 2,3 at pinnacle you put so that if you win at nonpinnacle to have more profit with surebet and if you win at pinnacle , you have profit zero.
If you made clasic surebets with 2 at nonpinnacle and 2,3 with pinnacle you put 1000x2 at not pinnacle and 869,5 (870) at pinnacle. If you won at nonpinacle or pinnacle, you have the same profit (130 euro)
With my ideea , if you put 1000 euro at nonpinnacle and 770 euro at pinnacle , if you win at nonpinnacle you have profit 230 euro and you have win at pinnacle, you have profit zero . At the long tine you have more money and no risk....
Sorry again for my english, have a nice day.
PS (Sawyer: you have your own soft or you are subscription at the some service like rebelbeting, betonvalue, etc?)

[Siculamente]

Can you please write out the math for me orda? Could you also give a few other examples? thanks

[jjgold]

That Pinnacle lean now is a waste because it is not the sharpest line anymore

I know guys in Vegas getting destroyed trying to do the Pinny lean angle

American Sports Pinnacle line not sharp anymore, soccer is their high volume sport now

Even Pinny vs UK books is getting buried with soccer..the UK Line seems sharper

[acw]

So coach,
Regarding American sports which bookie is the smartest?

[jjgold]

I would say five dimes and bookmaker pinnacle does not have United States volume like they used to make the line sharp

Also I am sure some credit operations have very sharp lines

As far as soccer Asian books and pinnacle have the sharpest lines

As far as tennis I would say five dimes and pinnacle and a tiny bit betfair pre game

[DoYouNotGetIT]

One thing I learned from my short time at SBR people will crap on your post even if you're making complete sense.

[OnkelChris]

One thing I learned from my short time at SBR people will crap on your post even if you're making complete sense.

It is the combination of stupidity and very little sex.

[messithekid]

One question for Sawyer... i believe you have a pretty good strategy but i was wondering, if you make all those large bets on soft books and keep winning there 100k+ per month, while losing money at pinnacle, how come they haven't limited you yet at soft books?

[OMGRandyJackson]

The thing I dont get is, Sawyer's way still has an element of risk. There is absolutely no guarantee that the side you are betting with pinnacle will ALWAYS lose long term.

So why take on risk, when you can guarantee profit?

[HUY]

One question for Sawyer... i believe you have a pretty good strategy but i was wondering, if you make all those large bets on soft books and keep winning there 100k+ per month, while losing money at pinnacle, how come they haven't limited you yet at soft books?

He's lying.

[acw]

So why take on risk, when you can guarantee profit?

Well, if you are given the choice between taking US$1 for free or betting US$1 and have a 50% chance of winning US$5, what would you do?

There is a limit to how much you can bet risk free and many over the years will have discovered that dropping the Pinnacle bets is a way of earning more. BetFair is a similar story.
Personally I still managed to beat Pinnacle and BetFair, but I will not deny that it was so little that I decided to leave it for what it was.

[u21c3f6]

Well, if you are given the choice between taking US$1 for free or betting US$1 and have a 50% chance of winning US$5, what would you do? ...

Your example is very far removed from reality and not to the point of discussion of this thread. Joe.

[gartca]

I gave up reading sports betting forums probably 5 years ago. I happened to read this thread today. I actually do this exact thing. I used to scalp and I always had to reload at Pinny. I felt good scalping opportunities dried up, so for the last 3 years I have been betting football at Sportsinteraction against the pinny line when there was a difference on key numbers. My experience:

3 years ago: +20
2 years ago: +10
Last year: -20
This year: even

Also about +10 doing the same for March Madness. I almost stopped after last year but I am not betting huge amounts and will see how this year turns out.

I like this method because i don't have time anymore for screen watching or keeping a ton of books. Because I am getting good numbers I figure I should at a least break even over the long run with minimal effort .

[ordaflavius]

If you doing arbitrage, you need to calculated to have profit only on nonpinacle bookyes. If your bet will be win at pinnacle , your profit will be aprox. zero. It's good to have profit only to nonpinacle bookyes, because you will win more at nonpinacle....
Sorry for english

[joey86bu]

Great posts Sawyer!!!
Obv if you're going to have exposed positions though you're not going to be betting the same amount as you would arbing so net profits would be lower. As a former arber and part of a group chat, the peeps lost pinny and won the soft books as he said.
So why take on risk, when you can guarantee profit? someone asked...........
Because you do get limited eventually and finding gray areas to continue to do it can be worrisome (those who have arbed know what I'm talking about).
But adjusting bets for a proper BR would mean you could bet wayyyyyyyyy longer than just arbing (as you're betting $100 a game instead of trying to pound 3k-ish on each side) (plus softbooks will have ur acct limited in 14 days-ish).
If you want to go the extra mile you can target games where the value is on the underdog or under as the public loves to bet favorites and overs.

[spargament]

I can't understand why Hutennis is so agressive. He acts like a troll, lol. "Ignore" button is very useful against trolls.

I had an interesting experience with my arbitrage/surebets between other books and pinnacle and wanted to share it. Well, if you don't want to cover your bet at Pinnacle, it's up to you. But over long haul, you may left a fortune on the table. Yes, your overall bankroll will grow no problem but why not maximize your profits? While withdrawing money from other books, you reload your pinnacle account over and over again. I lived this. My this idea is based on my experiences. Not talking about theories here..

Surebet is a great way to win money but if the odds you're betting are "value bets", you will make money anyway.

Regards,

Sawyer

CHRIST because you don't listen and don't understand the conceptual basics surrounding the idea you're heralding as genius.

[statnerds]

if you can't build an arbing strategy based solely on live betting slowly push your chair away from the table, stand up and exit to your left.

[joey86bu]

Good discussion in this thread, but there have been a few statements that arbitrage's advantage is that it is risk free and thus allows you to bet more of your bank roll than if you just played one side of a value bet. This assertion ignores the fact that arbing is inherently risky due to rapid line adjustments (before you can place the second bet) and bookmaker cancellations. I had to stop arbing because I was constantly worried one bookmaker would cancel one of my bets (happened once, but I won my other side). I think playing the value side with a controlled portion of your bank roll is actually a safer play.

vnvn +1

[joey86bu]

Well, I said I usually cover my action in soccer since it's very unpredictable sometimes. Always hedge in soccer and tennis as long as you don't have any opinion about event. Sometimes, I like chances for X side to win and I find good odds, I don't hedge. Let it ride baby!

I'm not expecting everybody to understand. It's not complicated but it's not possible to understand it without living it. When you experience it, you realize. As long as you bet value lines/odds, you will be plus! Period. Except tennis, lol. I love tennis! Line movement, Moneyway, beating closing line don't mean a thing in tennis. It's an unique sport for betting but people really hate tennis when Nadal, Raonic, Gasquest lose, lol.

tennis also has diff rules from book to book which can suck.

[Optional]

if you can't build an arbing strategy based solely on live betting slowly push your chair away from the table, stand up and exit to your left.

Doesn't this leave you extra exposed to the risk of a bet cancel? Which seems to happen a lot more often and is tougher to argue against with live betting.

[DeathAdder]

Doesn't this leave you extra exposed to the risk of a bet cancel? Which seems to happen a lot more often and is tougher to argue against with live betting.

It does. It happens quite a lot too!

[ace7550]

Any US players do arbitrage? can you recommend the books you use for arbitrage since US players can't use pinnacle?

This thread is awesome. I have been doing this for a while. Didn't realize it was a "thing"

I live in the US and I do arbitrage all day everyday when I am at work. I'm in front of a computer anyways. I make an average of $3,000 a month just hedging bets for small profits. I have been doing this for about 2 years. youwager and gtbets are two of my favorites. Heritage and Looselines are good too. There are lots of nuances in this game, like recognizing when a line is going to be cancelled or not. My rule is that if it's too good to be true it probably is.
A useful technique is to use Pinnacle without actually making a bet on Pinnacle. To do this I align my books on SBR so that all the books I have money in are on the left. Then I put Pinnacle all the way to the right. I watch the lines and when Pinnacle changes I know the other books are soon to change too. I just bet accordingly, wait for the lines to change, and then hedge.

Thanks for making this thread Sawyer. It's fascinating to me. BOL arbitagers! Oh wait...luck has nothing to do with it

[bozeman]

Ok my 5 cents here... Hm..

first of all i have been using a similar strategy before i found a better one and it works better than most of the crap posted at this forum

second of all - all of u guys who say oh it is stupid - have the point and have no point at the same time - u think sawyer is nuts or his idea is nuts, because u take a math approach to sports - crunch number as if it were roulette black and white instead of two live teams - if that was true - sawyers idea would have been non-sense. however, if u look at it from a standpoint of whether pinnies "opinion" on who will actually win is so strong they are nostradamus-like and can tell the future, cause they have lnowledge we dont- this approach is one of the most solid sports bettin systems.

[Slanina]

Is there a particular sport that happens more often with arbitrage?