[sweep]

Curious to hear some feedback

[Optional]

Check out 5mike5's Thread in the NASCAR forum Sweep.

He has won 4 or 5 figures on about 20 of the 26 races so far this year dutching every week.

[sweep]

Check out 5mike5's Thread in the NASCAR forum Sweep.

He has won 4 or 5 figures on about 20 of the 26 races so far this year dutching every week.

That's AWESOME, I gotta run out soon but I will def check it out...Thanks OPTI!

Didnt even cross my mind about nascar, was only really thinkin horses. What a great fukkin idea!

[hutennis]

That's AWESOME, I gotta run out soon but I will def check it out...Thanks OPTI!

Didnt even cross my mind about nascar, was only really thinkin horses. What a great fukkin idea!

It does not really matter weather it nascar, horses, correct soccer score or anything else that you can dutch
There is no free lunch anywhere and I really don't see why is that such a great fukkin idea. Just because results are on a win side lately? It does not take that much to go broke either.

[Optional]

You're right hutennis. Without good capping it just increases your chances at being -EV.

And to be frank, 5mike5 is not a mathematical capper, and does not really consider odds apart from getting the best he can on the runners he wants to cover.

But, since he arrived here halfway through last NASCAR season he has posted his roster every week and claimed a +250 to +400 size win the vast majority of weeks. A 16 race streak without a loss at one stage.

I don't really understand how he keeps doing it. But he does. And this thread title really piqued my interest if one of you regular TT guys can explain it, or how unlikely it is he can keep doing it, mathematically.

[Sawyer]

It does not really matter weather it nascar, horses, correct soccer score or anything else that you can dutch
There is no free lunch anywhere and I really don't see why is that such a great fukkin idea. Just because results are on a win side lately? It does not take that much to go broke either.

Don't be so jeleaous Hupenis

If some people are good at it, JUST RESPECT.

5mike5's Thread looks interesting. Nice work Mike

[hutennis]

You're right hutennis. Without good capping it just increases your chances at being -EV.

And to be frank, 5mike5 is not a mathematical capper, and does not really consider odds apart from getting the best he can on the runners he wants to cover.

But, since he arrived here halfway through last NASCAR season he has posted his roster every week and claimed a +250 to +400 size win the vast majority of weeks. A 16 race streak without a loss at one stage.

I don't really understand how he keeps doing it. But he does. And this thread title really piqued my interest if one of you regular TT guys can explain it, mathematically.

That's what dutching is.
You can not cover all outcomes by definition or would have a guaranteed loss because of vig, so you cover most likely outcomes only and that creates a lot of small (in percentage terms) wins.
But when the long shot you did not cover wins, you have one rare but huge loss so you lose everything you previously won and then some. There is nothing in a Universe that stops it (losing) from happening
two three times in a row. Then it is lights out basically.

[hutennis]

Don't be so jeleaous Hupenis

If some people are good at it, JUST RESPECT.

5mike5's Thread looks interesting. Nice work Mike

Jealous to what? Luck?
Respect what? Recklessness based on ignorance?

[Optional]

That's what dutching is.
You can not cover all outcomes by definition or would have a guaranteed loss because of vig, so you cover most likely outcomes only and that creates a lot of small (in percentage terms) wins.
But when the long shot you did not cover wins, you have one rare but huge loss so you lose everything you previously won and then some. There is nothing in a Universe that stops it (losing) from happening
two three times in a row. Then it is lights out basically.

Well yeah. But 75% win rate with minimum +250 odds is the example. You're just spouting theory. Albeit 'obviously true' in most cases.

If you can't explain 5mike5, please leave it alone eh?

[swordsandtequila]

Jealous to what? Luck?
Respect what? Recklessness based on ignorance?

This post right here is why you get flamed in every thread you post in. Empty assumptions based on nothing, or dare I say, ignorance. You know nothing about Mike, or his capping abilities, yet you assume he's lucky and reckless. I'll back his Nascar knowledge and capping ability over yours every day and twice on Sundays. I don't doubt you're an intelligent person, but your social skills suck.

[hutennis]

This post right here is why you get flamed in every thread you post in. Empty assumptions based on nothing, or dare I say, ignorance. You know nothing about Mike, or his capping abilities, yet you assume he's lucky and reckless. I'll back his Nascar knowledge and capping ability over yours every day and twice on Sundays. I don't doubt you're an intelligent person, but your social skills suck.

Look. I really know nothing about Mike.

Maybe he is one of those 7 in a 1000 who handicaps better than market.
Maybe he is a great line shopper and that helps tremendously, although has nothing to do with handicapping.
Maybe he simply has the run of a lifetime because somebody has to, and only those who have continue to post. Threads with normal distribution usually die in a first couple of weeks and nobody remembers them.

I don't know and I don't care. I'm not tailing and I'm not fading.
If you do, you should care.

All I know is that in and off itself dutching has absolutely no built in advantages for player, although for those who are easily confused by short term results it may look like it has.

If someone will find this absolutely correct statement to be useful - I'm glad. How bad my social skills are would not matter. Only quality of information given.
If people are more interested in a dangerous bullshit presented using great social skills they can find plenty of it over here too.

So it is different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Avskum]

Only quality of information given.

Sorry bud but your post before this One had absolutly 0 quality information given.

What iv read about you so far I feel You have Good understanding of betting and the industry. Don't waste it on Beeing ignorant

[hutennis]

Sorry bud but your post before this One had absolutly 0 quality information given.

What iv read about you so far I feel You have Good understanding of betting and the industry. Don't waste it on Beeing ignorant

These are two posts before last one.

It does not really matter weather it nascar, horses, correct soccer score or anything else that you can dutch
There is no free lunch anywhere and I really don't see why is that such a great fukkin idea. Just because results are on a win side lately? It does not take that much to go broke either.

That's what dutching is.
You can not cover all outcomes by definition or would have a guaranteed loss because of vig, so you cover most likely outcomes only and that creates a lot of small (in percentage terms) wins.
But when the long shot you did not cover wins, you have one rare but huge loss so you lose everything you previously won and then some. There is nothing in a Universe that stops it (losing) from happening
two three times in a row. Then it is lights out basically.

If I understand you correctly, they have absolutelly 0 quality information given.
That means that it is nothing but useless crap.
In addition, according to you, those posts reviealed my ignorance on a subject.
Basicaly, based on those two posts, the conclusion is I don't know what I'm talking about.

Can you tell me where am I wrong?

[indio]

Never thought something as simple and basic as creating your own entries and multiple entry futures bets had an industry name.

Of course this an effective method, and in many ways. You accentuate your edges while also reducing variance.

If there is a tournament, and there are 3 entries with some perceived value offered at 8-1,12-1, and 15-1, I can simply combine the 3 for a price of 3-1.

Most futures markets are vulnerable, so many places juice it up to compensate, but there are many places that will still offer holds less than 15% on 15+ entries futures markets, and while betting 2 or even 4 team markets with holds in that neighborhood is suicide, spreading that out over 15 + entries will almost ensure there are a few +EV selections in the bunch.

If you are astute enough to find these, you reduce your variance by "dutching" these, and is a very effective method.

The poster who thinks it's almost impossible (7/1000) to be better than market needs to learn a lot. If you think futures markets are that precise, you're living in fantasy land. I'm not saying books are giving the store away, because their futures markets are good enough to make a nice profit , but practically every futures market you can find throughout a given year (there will be thousands) will have some +EV selections in them. Not so easy to always find them, that's for sure, and even if you do, variance can keep you on losing streaks that will test your sanity. But they're there,rest assured.

[hutennis]

Never thought something as simple and basic as creating your own entries and multiple entry futures bets had an industry name.

Of course this an effective method, and in many ways. You accentuate your edges while also reducing variance.

If there is a tournament, and there are 3 entries with some perceived value offered at 8-1,12-1, and 15-1, I can simply combine the 3 for a price of 3-1.

Most futures markets are vulnerable, so many places juice it up to compensate, but there are many places that will still offer holds less than 15% on 15+ entries futures markets, and while betting 2 or even 4 team markets with holds in that neighborhood is suicide, spreading that out over 15 + entries will almost ensure there are a few +EV selections in the bunch.

If you are astute enough to find these, you reduce your variance by "dutching" these, and is a very effective method.

The poster who thinks it's almost impossible (7/1000) to be better than market needs to learn a lot. If you think futures markets are that precise, you're living in fantasy land. I'm not saying books are giving the store away, because their futures markets are good enough to make a nice profit , but practically every futures market you can find throughout a given year (there will be thousands) will have some +EV selections in them. Not so easy to always find them, that's for sure, and even if you do, variance can keep you on losing streaks that will test your sanity. But they're there,rest assured.

OK. Let me learn from the best then.

You see, I don't really think it is almost impossible to be better than market.
I just look at numbers and it sure looks to me that that's the case.

Here is what I look at.

It is an universal concensus that 98% of participants in this field lose long term.

So it is 980 out of 1000.

There are 3 ways to be a wiiner in this game.

1. You can be better handicapper than odds makers.
2. You can win by using non hadicapping means (arbitrage, manipulation, steam chasing etc.)
3. You can simply be very lucky. After all, 1 guy out of 10000 will flip 13 heads in a row without being expert coin flipper, just by luck. So why not?

So just to make it simple

7 for number 1
7 for number 2
6 for number 3.

So 14 (not 7) out of 1000 deserve to be a winners.
And every unsubstantiated claim to be a winner in sportsbetting has 986 in 1000 chances to be wrong.

Now, please tell me, if this simple logic is , according to you, not correct, what do I need to learn to come to a different, and according to you, correct conclusion?
Please inlighten me on what the correct number of deserving winners would be and why.

Now duching.

Here is the latest Super Bawl futures from pinnacle. Sharpest and least expensive of them all, imho.

6013 Houston Texans 498 16.72% 6002 Atlanta Falcons 711 12.33% 6027 San Francisco 49ers 735 11.98% 6019 New England Patriots 817 10.91% 6012 Green Bay Packers 855 10.47% 6003 Baltimore Ravens 892 10.08% 6021 New York Giants 1931 4.92% 6025 Pittsburgh Steelers 2154 4.44% 6001 Arizona Cardinals 2351 4.08% 6024 Philadelphia Eagles 2466 3.90% 6026 San Diego Chargers 2652 3.63% 6009 Dallas Cowboys 2830 3.41% 6010 Denver Broncos 2830 3.41% 6006 Chicago Bears 3070 3.15% 6028 Seattle Seahawks 4332 2.26% 6004 Buffalo Bills 4662 2.10% 6022 New York Jets 5158 1.90% 6007 Cincinnati Bengals 5196 1.89% 6011 Detroit Lions 6888 1.43% 6018 Minnesota Vikings 9166 1.08% 6020 New Orleans Saints 9166 1.08% 6016 Kansas City Chiefs 9169 1.08% 6032 Washington Redskins 10662 0.93% 6005 Carolina Panthers 11904 0.83% 6023 Oakland Raiders 12692 0.78% 6030 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13933 0.71% 6031 Tennessee Titans 16917 0.59% 6015 Jacksonville Jaguars 25200 0.40% 6029 St. Louis Rams 27737 0.36% 6017 Miami Dolphins 30216 0.33% 6014 Indianapolis Colts 32696 0.30% 6008 Cleveland Browns 62674 0.16% 121.64%

The hold on this thing, as you can see is almost 22%!!!
Pretty stip hill to clime, if you ask me.

Well, can some +EV situations be squised out of this list?
Probably.
How many people out of 1000 will be able to do it?
Just about 20. 6 of them by luck.

If you don't agree - why.

So, I'm ready. Let's the learning begin!

[indio]

First off, you should learn how to calculate hold rates properly. A 121.64 market has a theoretical hold of 17.79%

Secondly, Pinnacle is not always the least expensive in regards to futures, nor are they always the "sharpest". I've seen them have hold rates as low as 8% for 150 entry golf fields when they include a field bet, and I've seem them drift upwards towards 15-20% on some things. I've seen 5 Dimes offer conference futures markets with holds around 5%. I once calculated 5 Dimes hold on Champions League futures and it was 2% But that's besides the point.

When golf season is in full bloom, you can get odds to finish Top 10, Top 5, and win outright on 150 golfers every week. You can also get first round leader props on 150 golfers. Do you think these bookmakers are studying weather reports on the difference of weather conditions on a course from 7am, 11am, and 3pm? Do you think they're analyzing whose teeing off in the morning vs. the afternoon and making adjustments? Do you think they know if certain second tier golfers have an affinity for a certain type of layout that might make that players true price different than just being based on recent form? The answer is NO. Are there golf handicappers spending 20 hours a week doing things things looking to get a 10%-15% edge, the answer is YES. Are there many of these, NO.

When I bet an each way (Win/Place) on Porto to win the Champions League in 2004 at 33-1, was there an edge on that bet even though the total market was probably at 118%? YES. Did I also get lucky, YES. When I had an each way on Villareal at 40-1 to win the Champions League in 2006, was there an edge on that bet? YES. Was I unlucky to miss a penalty kick in the semi-finals YES.

When Europa League futures are put out at the final 32 with a hold of 12%, do they usually overvalue Premiership teams like they did last year with Man City and Man U who really could have cared less, YOU BET. Do bookmakers analyze the side of the draw teams are on, and calculate the true chances of 4 teams on one side of the draw? SOMETIMES.

I could go on for 25 paragraphs, but with you, I don't think there's any point. Judging by various posts in other threads you've made, you are a very negative person, always looking to scoff at anyone's theories pertaining to anything. You're the type most of us loathe, the type who thinks they are the smartest guy in the room, but almost never is. Someone who always uses sarcasm to try and embarrass another posters views, because you feel it's erroneous. Fact is, you're usually embarrassing yourself as your blatant lack of comprehension is magnified by your hilarious self -assurance when being wrong, obviously masking a deep seeded lack of self-worth brought on by the fact that probably no one can stand you.

As a final note, you think 1 player out of 10,000 will flip 13 heads in a row? Well I'll tell you what, you take 15% juice of the top, and offer me 8500-1 on doing just that, and I'll make 500,000 $1 bets on doing just that. Can you tell me your expected win/loss (easy), and can you tell me the EXACT % chance that I will win $25,000 or more making these bets (a little harder)?

Perhaps there are some simple math things you don't know?

[indio]

You also asked for where your "conclusions" were skewed? Well, first off, where is it universally accepted that exactly 98% of people who bet sports lose? Is that a Berkley Labs study with a sample of 2,000 people based on the profit/loss of 3 year periods with a margin of error of +/- 3% ? That statement in itself is ridiculous.

The original topic was the efficiency of markets, where you base your opinion that there cannot be value in markets with higher holds because 98% of people lose, which you then make an even more ridiculous notion by categorizing the 2% into sub-categories. None which have any relevance. The actual reality is, many sports bettors are betting +EV selections and still losing money and going broke, because money management and betting strategy, along with emotion is what causes most gamblers to lose. Just because sports bettors are losing does not equate that there are little to no edges in futures markets.

I could give 100 gamblers $1000 and tell them I will give them 6-1 odds on rolling a 7 on dice. They can only roll 10 times, and must risk at least $100 on each roll. Each and every bet is a huge 16.67% edge, and yet some of these 100 gamblers will go broke or lose money. Why? Is it because there is no market edge on their bet? Of course not, every single bet is a player edge. Every player has a 16%+ chance of going broke, and a 48.44+% of losing money. That means, if all 100 gamblers used the safest strategy possible, there is still a 41.5% chance that at least half will lose money, even though 1,000 +EV bets were made and not a single -EV bet was made.

So how many sports bettors lose is hardly an accurate indication of 10+ entry market efficiency.

[hutennis]

What a disappointment!

I have an enormous respect for the market.
It is my firm belief that anyone with any, slightest sense of self-preservation should be very humble and respectful to the field where one has only 2% chance to come out ahead in a long run.
I thought I would be given a reason to relax, that my believes are over kill, that attitude “if somebody can do it – I can do it” is good enough.

I am extremely skeptical about anyone who claims, without substantial supporting evidence, that he is beating this game easily (or hardly), using this or that, b/c extreme skepticism should be a default position for anyone in a right mind when odds are 98 out of 100 that this self-proclaimed "winner" is full of shit.
I thought I would be given a reason to jump in joy that I don’t have to work as hard as I do on my daily quest for an edge in the environment where countless hordes of very smart people are mercilessly competing for the same thing.
I hoped I would be given a reason to relax, b/c all it takes is to find somebody who would tell the story that I love to hear and would love to happen to me and just tail him or try to duplicate what he sais he does without any understanding of what is that I'm dealing with.

I was told that if those are my firm believes I have a lot o learn, and I was ready and willing to learn like no one else!

But instead I got a couple of fascinating memoires, a few “is it simple –NO, is there somebody who can do it – YES” clichés and that’s about it.
Oh, and some personal attacks, of course.

What a disappointment!

P.S.

Thank you for correcting my overround/theoretical hold blunder.
Will not happen again.

And yes, I’m keenly aware that 2^13 = 8192.
I just rounded it up for that sake of an argument.
You did not have to go hard core on that.

[hutennis]

I could give 100 gamblers $1000 and tell them I will give them 6-1 odds on rolling a 7 on dice. They can only roll 10 times, and must risk at least $100 on each roll. Each and every bet is a huge 16.67% edge, and yet some of these 100 gamblers will go broke or lose money. Why? Is it because there is no market edge on their bet? Of course not, every single bet is a player edge. Every player has a 16%+ chance of going broke, and a 48.44+% of losing money. That means, if all 100 gamblers used the safest strategy possible, there is still a 41.5% chance that at least half will lose money, even though 1,000 +EV bets were made and not a single -EV bet was made.

So how many sports bettors lose is hardly an accurate indication of 10+ entry market efficiency.

Looks like you making my case now

If that's what 16.67% edge can lead to, beating the market is even harder than I thought! LOL

[MonkeyF0cker]

I love how the claim that 2% of sports bettors win long term is an indisputable fact now.

As if every market participant is running some form of statistical analysis anyway...

How many actually are? 1%?

[sweep]

[hutennis]

I love how the claim that 2% of sports bettors win long term is an indisputable fact now.

As if every market participant is running some form of statistical analysis anyway...

How many actually are? 1%?

It is not a fact, of course. It is a concensus.
And it is reasonable number, concidering that mid to high 90th where failing rate for speculative fields is in general.

But if it 5%, so what?

I have an enormous respect for the market.
It is my firm belief that anyone with any, slightest sense of self-preservation should be very humble and respectful to the field where one has only 5% chance to come out ahead in a long run.

I am extremely skeptical about anyone who claims, without substantial supporting evidence, that he is beating this game easily (or hardly), using this or that, b/c extreme skepticism should be a default position for anyone in a right mind when odds are 95 out of 100 that this self-proclaimed "winner" is full of shit.

Messege is still the same.
And it is a right one.

[Avskum]

sorry if you got me wrong I was reffering to this post :

Jealous to what? Luck?
Respect what? Recklessness based on ignorance?

[MonkeyF0cker]

It is not a fact, of course. It is a concensus.
And it is reasonable number, concidering that mid to high 90th where failing rate for speculative fields is in general.

But if it 5%, so what?





Messege is still the same.
And it is a right one.

When you lump coinflippers into the same pile as those using sound statistical methods, it most certainly is not the right message.

[hutennis]

sorry if you got me wrong I was reffering to this post :

Oh, I see.


Well, like I said, this is my default position.
Very reasonable one, at that.

There is nothing personal in it, I'm not putting anyone down, but I'm sorry, there is nothing in that thread that would give me a reason to change my mind.
"Dutching" a very few huge dogs out of very long roster, through in some parlays and having favorable results for a few weeks has luck, as a most reasonable explanation, written all over it.
Am I 100% correct - no. But chances are, in a absence of very substantial evidence, in a high 90th that I am.

Would he personally agree with this? Of course not.
It is in our nature to attribute success to an above average abilities and failure to a bad luck.
It has be with us for countless of thousands of years and it's rooted very deeply.

Do people who look at this stuff with admiration, counting money they could have made like my comments?
Of course not. Because threads like that give them a hope.
Hope that now they maybe finally found IT.
Maybe dutching nascar IS that secret way they've be searching for.
It sure looks easy. Much easier than flipping burgers, painting houses, getting ready for tough employment prospects after finally getting what seems to look more and more like useless diploma etc.

My comments are nothing but a dream killer for them.
They like it like they would like sharp stick in a eye and they choose to ignore the obvious.
There is nothing new about it. It is all physiological and very well established. Rows of books are written on this phenomena.
But, who gives a crap. Couple of month in a money weigh so much more than all wisdom in a world.

Dreams, sweet dreams.

[hutennis]

When you lump coinflippers into the same pile as those using sound statistical methods, it most certainly is not the right message.

I realy don't see what there is lumping anyone with anyone, but that's OK

[flocko76]

I realy don't see what there is lumping anyone with anyone, but that's OK

why are you still here when you bring nothing to the table?

[hutennis]

why are you still here when you bring nothing to the table?

I guess it depends on what you expect.

If you are waiting that someone gives you a winning formula then
you better not to hold your breath.

At very least, I bring some common sense which, if used, can help to sort things out,
can help you to become immune to all kinds of garbage
and can help you to start thinking for yourself in a right direction.

Using common sense together with never ending search for knowledge enables you to find, sooner or later,
right methods by first eliminating all the wrong ones.

If this does not make mathematical sense, if that not how world works, if this is way over my head
(there is no shame in being honest with yourself), if that does not pass the smell test, then what else is out there?

How about this? Let’s see what is involved. Let’s see if I can handle it?
Do I have what it takes (above all - abilities, but also time, money, energy).

Since it is a zero sum game who is gonna lose so I can win. This crowd or those people?
Do any of them look like someone I can beat? What mistakes do they make that I can exploit for money?

Do I know enough? Where and how can I get missing information?
Does the information I’m getting make sense based on what I know about how world works?
Am I being sold a bill of goods? Am I being fed from big steaming pile of bullshit?

List can go on and on. Its complicated task to win money.

But you can do a lot by using common sense and thinking for yourself in a right direction and it is all up to you.
Basicaly, you have no choice. This is the only way.

[flocko76]

It does not really matter weather it nascar, horses, correct soccer score or anything else that you can dutch
There is no free lunch anywhere and I really don't see why is that such a great fukkin idea. Just because results are on a win side lately? It does not take that much to go broke either.

I guess it depends on what you expect.

If you are waiting that someone gives you a winning formula then
you better not to hold your breath.

At very least, I bring some common sense which, if used, can help to sort things out,
can help you to become immune to all kinds of garbage
and can help you to start thinking for yourself in a right direction.

Using common sense together with never ending search for knowledge enables you to find, sooner or later,
right methods by first eliminating all the wrong ones.

If this does not make mathematical sense, if that not how world works, if this is way over my head
(there is no shame in being honest with yourself), if that does not pass the smell test, then what else is out there?

How about this? Let’s see what is involved. Let’s see if I can handle it?
Do I have what it takes (above all - abilities, but also time, money, energy).

Since it is a zero sum game who is gonna lose so I can win. This crowd or those people?
Do any of them look like someone I can beat? What mistakes do they make that I can exploit for money?

Do I know enough? Where and how can I get missing information?
Does the information I’m getting make sense based on what I know about how world works?
Am I being sold a bill of goods? Am I being fed from big steaming pile of bullshit?

List can go on and on. Its complicated task to win money.

But you can do a lot by using common sense and thinking for yourself in a right direction and it is all up to you.
Basicaly, you have no choice. This is the only way.

<br><br>

&nbsp;Stop&nbsp;

constructive criticism is what i want. but your first post here is the same as all your posts. From what i see, if you want to bet nascar dutching IS the method to use. just because you can't handicap nascar doesn't mean those that do are just "flipping coins" or lucky.

[hutennis]

<br><br>

&nbsp;Stop&nbsp;

constructive criticism is what i want. but your first post here is the same as all your posts. From what i see, if you want to bet nascar dutching IS the method to use. just because you can't handicap nascar doesn't mean those that do are just "flipping coins" or lucky.

What makes you think that what you see IS ALL THERE IS?
How do you know that what you see is not just looks like what you think it is?
How do you know that is not just an illusion?

[swordsandtequila]

What makes you think that what you see IS ALL THERE IS?
How do you know that what you see is not just looks like what you think it is?
How do you know that is not just an illusion?

And how do you know it is? Math without context and the ability to apply it is meaningless. There are other factors involved in handicapping besides math. As a self-professed math guy you should know it's important to know all the variables involved. You're making blanket statements without knowing one damn thing about the guy. Nobody is claiming they've found the solution, the winning formula. OP posed a general question. You're just a contrarian, we say white you say black. It's boring.

[Duff85]

First off, you should learn how to calculate hold rates properly. A 121.64 market has a theoretical hold of 17.79%

Secondly, Pinnacle is not always the least expensive in regards to futures, nor are they always the "sharpest". I've seen them have hold rates as low as 8% for 150 entry golf fields when they include a field bet, and I've seem them drift upwards towards 15-20% on some things. I've seen 5 Dimes offer conference futures markets with holds around 5%. I once calculated 5 Dimes hold on Champions League futures and it was 2% But that's besides the point.

When golf season is in full bloom, you can get odds to finish Top 10, Top 5, and win outright on 150 golfers every week. You can also get first round leader props on 150 golfers. Do you think these bookmakers are studying weather reports on the difference of weather conditions on a course from 7am, 11am, and 3pm? Do you think they're analyzing whose teeing off in the morning vs. the afternoon and making adjustments? Do you think they know if certain second tier golfers have an affinity for a certain type of layout that might make that players true price different than just being based on recent form? The answer is NO. Are there golf handicappers spending 20 hours a week doing things things looking to get a 10%-15% edge, the answer is YES. Are there many of these, NO.

When I bet an each way (Win/Place) on Porto to win the Champions League in 2004 at 33-1, was there an edge on that bet even though the total market was probably at 118%? YES. Did I also get lucky, YES. When I had an each way on Villareal at 40-1 to win the Champions League in 2006, was there an edge on that bet? YES. Was I unlucky to miss a penalty kick in the semi-finals YES.

When Europa League futures are put out at the final 32 with a hold of 12%, do they usually overvalue Premiership teams like they did last year with Man City and Man U who really could have cared less, YOU BET. Do bookmakers analyze the side of the draw teams are on, and calculate the true chances of 4 teams on one side of the draw? SOMETIMES.

I could go on for 25 paragraphs, but with you, I don't think there's any point. Judging by various posts in other threads you've made, you are a very negative person, always looking to scoff at anyone's theories pertaining to anything. You're the type most of us loathe, the type who thinks they are the smartest guy in the room, but almost never is. Someone who always uses sarcasm to try and embarrass another posters views, because you feel it's erroneous. Fact is, you're usually embarrassing yourself as your blatant lack of comprehension is magnified by your hilarious self -assurance when being wrong, obviously masking a deep seeded lack of self-worth brought on by the fact that probably no one can stand you.

As a final note, you think 1 player out of 10,000 will flip 13 heads in a row? Well I'll tell you what, you take 15% juice of the top, and offer me 8500-1 on doing just that, and I'll make 500,000 $1 bets on doing just that. Can you tell me your expected win/loss (easy), and can you tell me the EXACT % chance that I will win $25,000 or more making these bets (a little harder)?

Perhaps there are some simple math things you don't know?

Good post. Particularly liked the golf example. Hutennis getting bitch slapped once again.

[Kolotoure]

A lot of people ITT seem to be ignorant of what a significant sample size is

[hutennis]

And how do you know it is? Math without context and the ability to apply it is meaningless. There are other factors involved in handicapping besides math. As a self-professed math guy you should know it's important to know all the variables involved. You're making blanket statements without knowing one damn thing about the guy. Nobody is claiming they've found the solution, the winning formula. OP posed a general question. You're just a contrarian, we say white you say black. It's boring.

This is a very important question, b/c it shows that you need to learn a lot about the most important thing - knowing how the world works.
What if in a court room prosecutor would ask defense attorney:
"How do you know that your client did not break a law?"
Impossible, right? Why? Because they are trained professionals, they know better.
This called presumption of innocent. It is not defense’s job to prove anything.

Same thing here.

When I deal with any hypothesis, in this case it would be "mike's threads show that dutching nascar is a great way to win in that market", it is not my job to convince myself that this hypotheses is true.
If anything, it is my job is to try to falsify it. And in this case it's not hard to do at all.
On another hand, for him to prove that hypothesis is correct would be a monumental task.
But until and unless he does it (not you for yourself, him for you), "This is an illusion" is a position that must be taken. In general, the more skeptical you are, the better off you are going to be.

When you search, interpret and remember information in such a way that it systematically impedes the possibility that hypotheses could be rejected, you fall hard for what is commonly known as Conformation Bias.

In practical terms, if you have a habit of falling for conformation bias in sports betting you going to lose a lot of money.

Look, being contrarian is not such a bad position to be in,
but in this case it's not about being contrarian.

You say white because you think it looks like white to you and if it looks then it must be. (really??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o)
I say black, or rather it is not white, because the probability that it is not is huge and there is nothing proving that it is white in a first place. If the goal is to find the truth, I don't know how that can be boring.

[swordsandtequila]

This is a very important question, b/c it shows that you need to learn a lot about the most important thing - knowing how the world works.

In practical terms, if you have a habit of falling for conformation bias in sports betting you going to lose a lot of money

What a pompous ass. I think I know how the world works, thanks for your insight. I feel comfortable laying + odds that I'm a bit older than you, and have experienced a bit more of the world than you. You make a lot of assumptions with no actual facts. You assume that everyone is stupid (rather you're smarter), they all follow blindly, nobody does research or has any knowledge whatsoever on the sport they bet. Nobody asked for a lecture, nobody asked you to hold their hand, and surely nobody asked for your condescension. That's all for me.