A question about variance

[Roger T. Bannon]

As an individual bettor, the way you can determine variance from losing is to ask yourself if you would make the same bet again. If the answer is No, you know you had a bad bet. If you are modeling this is harder to do because you do not really know how to make a judgment. The stats say it was a good bet so you just have to go by CLV and if you have CLV, it should eventually start working.

[Gaze73]

The linesmaker is way better than the average bettor but nearly as good as winning bettors.

Interesting. I was always wondering why they work for the bookies when they could just win with their skills. You know how bookies make traps on big public favorites? The linemaker setting the trap is the one who knows which favorite is terrible value, therefore he should know when to bet against them. I wonder how many linemakers bet in their free time.

[Roger T. Bannon]

There are no traps. If a linesmaker could set a trap, they could set openers. They will watch sharp bettors and move lines according to the way that they bet. But if you watch the lines, they will frequently get smoked the other way doing so. They just put up the best line they can for the moment. It may be wrong 15 minutes later.

[StackinGreen]

As an individual bettor, the way you can determine variance from losing is to ask yourself if you would make the same bet again. If the answer is No, you know you had a bad bet. If you are modeling this is harder to do because you do not really know how to make a judgment. The stats say it was a good bet so you just have to go by CLV and if you have CLV, it should eventually start working.

This is the difference between good bettors and players who aren't good, or don't know why they actually bet games (drunk, momentum, tilt). I've never regretted a bet, that's the sign of a bad bettor, a guesser essentially. If I play a hunch or am bombed or whatever, I know that's the reason - it's never handicapping.

[StackinGreen]

Interesting. I was always wondering why they work for the bookies when they could just win with their skills. You know how bookies make traps on big public favorites? The linemaker setting the trap is the one who knows which favorite is terrible value, therefore he should know when to bet against them. I wonder how many linemakers bet in their free time.

As Roger says, they just trap people who don't know numbers or aren't paying attention to the historical surroundings of a game and its intricacies. As the word trap suggests, of course, it's just for fools. When you can take either side, by definition, there's no such thing.

[slapshot]

when i read about "linemakers" in this thread you make it sound like it's a person....some kind of a sharp who scratches his head and posts a probability on each every game.

take a look at a book and the number of events to bet on...and all markets within each event....bookmakers would need to have thousands of staff hired to produce odds on everything that's offered.

it doesn't work like that....the "linemaker" is a machine call it artificial intelligence where all known data about a game is thrown into....the output is a probability.

then a human is needed for supervision and fine tuning.

btcl wins sometimes...losses sometimes...it's not fool proof guaranteed winning formula.....that is my conclusion researching nba from 2014-2018 pinnacle lines.

[Roger T. Bannon]

This is the difference between good bettors and players who aren't good, or don't know why they actually bet games (drunk, momentum, tilt). I've never regretted a bet, that's the sign of a bad bettor, a guesser essentially. If I play a hunch or am bombed or whatever, I know that's the reason - it's never handicapping.

I would say the opposite. If you have not regretted a bad bet, you probably were not capable of knowing you made one.

[Gaze73]

Look at Liverpool today, my model says it's a trap with a 50% chance of winning but the public is happy to take terrible -156 odds.

[Roger T. Bannon]

The line on Liverpool has come down from -151 to -130. I don't know how that would be a trap.

[Gaze73]

The line on Liverpool has come down from -151 to -130. I don't know how that would be a trap.

It went from evens to -156. I say that evens was the correct price and the sheeple walked into a trap.

[Roger T. Bannon]

It went from evens to -156. I say that evens was the correct price and the sheeple walked into a trap.

That is not what I am seeing but maybe you are looking at something different. I don't think there are going to be any -130s on a European soccer match as a trap. You will get your doors blown off with those kind of traps.

[Gaze73]

That is not what I am seeing but maybe you are looking at something different. I don't think there are going to be any -130s on a European soccer match as a trap. You will get your doors blown off with those kind of traps.

I meant today's game. The public wins today but I do well fading these favs. The public always loses in the long run. You know how I know? Years ago when I started betting on soccer, I just followed the crowd on the most popular favorites. And guess what, it was 35% draws and 15% losses. Public favs suck.

[Roger T. Bannon]

I meant today's game. The public wins today but I do well fading these favs. The public always loses in the long run. You know how I know? Years ago when I started betting on soccer, I just followed the crowd on the most popular favorites. And guess what, it was 35% draws and 15% losses. Public favs suck.

If you want to bet against the "public," it might not be such a bad idea. It will probably not be profitable but it could break even. European soccer is a pretty sophisticated market so I would not start counting any chickens.

[Gaze73]

I actually have another trap fade in play, Preston +0.75. 1st vs 19th in the league at -130, of course the public loved the home side but the bookies aren't idiots. It's 1:1 now, the fav just had the first shot on goal in 60 minutes. Any square can back the league leader against the bottom third of the table, that's why it can't be a good play.

[d2bets]

If you want to bet against the "public," it might not be such a bad idea. It will probably not be profitable but it could break even. European soccer is a pretty sophisticated market so I would not start counting any chickens.

I'd say it's increasingly harder to tell exactly who is the "public" and what they are "on".

[StackinGreen]

I would say the opposite. If you have not regretted a bad bet, you probably were not capable of knowing you made one.

Of course, you'd have to define terms. The fact that I'm a +EV bettor means you are wrong, even if your explanation does sound alluring.

[StackinGreen]

I'd say it's increasingly harder to tell exactly who is the "public" and what they are "on".

If it isn't precisely the definition it is close; understanding the number of bets on a team (meaning small bets, non sharps) and amount of money wagered to deduce the large bets. Most data sources these days typically know the $20-50 bettors vs the $1000 bettors. That's the public and who they are on, typically. Occasionally it can get confusing if the sharps and public are sorta on the same side because the books believe in their number or model and are fighting both that particular week (or are ok with the risk).

[Gaze73]

I'd say it's increasingly harder to tell exactly who is the "public" and what they are "on".

I'm in the blue 4.6%