[statnerds]

Or isn't it?

would love to get some discussion going on this one...

[LT Profits]

Very simple; Compare NFL limits at Pinnacle with their limits in other sports.

[BigdaddyQH]

It depends on where you play. Some books have higher limits for the NFL than any other sport. Others have the same limits for both NFL and College Football.

[roasthawg]

Very simple; Compare NFL limits at Pinnacle with their limits in other sports.

I imagine the higher limits have a lot to do with liquidity.

[Dunder]

Overall amount bet on a market and itīs efficiency are proportional. Itīs that simple.

[blix177]

Currency market more efficient, a few trillion dollar change hand every year. People that arb Currency play in the millions per transaction, with .01% margin on 3 way arbs.

[statnerds]

Overall amount bet on a market and itīs efficiency are proportional. Itīs that simple.

i agree with that to a point, but also feel there it is impossible to reach peak efficiency. much like the stock market, there are informed, uninformed, technical bettors that don't watch the games they play on (Dr Bob), pure risk takers looking for action, people that follow touts blindly and all kinds of other bettors.

i always look at it like the stock market. the books are just brokers and provide a marketplace, for a fee, for investors to say i'm smarter than you. then my mind shifts to how to recognize errors and take advantage.

Much like the colts, cowboys and steelers being huge public teams. those teams are going to face inflated lines nearly every week. it is artificial efficiency.

and this is off topic, but i finished the last 10 years and favs of exactly 3 points won by a FG 9.71% of the time. however, that accounts for every game. if we just focused on games the favs won, it jumps to 17.2%. i find that quite amazing.

[durito]

What are the colts, cowboys, and steelers ATS records the last 5-10 years?

Pretty much throws your theory out the window.

[smitch124]

What are the colts, cowboys, and steelers ATS records the last 5-10 years?

Pretty much throws your theory out the window.

A question for you regarding this. I assume these 3 teams are very close to 50% against the spread against the closing number the last 5-10 years. I wonder, though, if fading these teams before close taking advantage of an edge against them would be profitable and that type of play is what brings the market to efficiency at close?

[PAULYPOKER]

It depends on where you play. Some books have higher limits for the NFL than any other sport. Others have the same limits for both NFL and College Football.

babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble

[statnerds]

What are the colts, cowboys, and steelers ATS records the last 5-10 years?

Pretty much throws your theory out the window.

are you saying the public doesn't favor certain teams every week? just trying to be clear exactly which theory got thrown out the window. it is your position that every team receives equal action from the general betting public?

oh wait, i get it. another one liner that adds zero to the discussion while you continue to hide behind "i'm smarter than you" type posts.

in the future please keep you shit-talkin out of my threads, you have nothing to offer to me in the way of improving my capping or working through theories. SBR is a huge forum, think it is big enough not only for both of us, but for you to avoid me as well.

[Johnny 55]

Statnerds:

You are missing one very important point in your discussion of this topic and really all others.

Durito is smarter than you and not by a small margin.

Any unbiased observer who reads a sampling of both your posts would come to this conclusion rather quickly, so instead of chastising him for what you take to be his condescending one liner posts, you should swallow your pride and learn from them.

[statnerds]

Statnerds:

You are missing one very important point in your discussion of this topic and really all others.

Durito is smarter than you and not by a small margin.

Any unbiased observer who reads a sampling of both your posts would come to this conclusion rather quickly, so instead of chastising him for what you take to be his condescending one liner posts, you should swallow your pride and learn from them.

that is the point isn't it? find me a sample of his posts that have more than one sentence in them. so if he truly is so much smarter than myself and nearly every other poster on SBR, why is there no proof of it.

and i should learn what from a one sentence post exactly?

i'm 55% L2 years NFL, over 225 plays....yourself?

[durito]

are you saying the public doesn't favor certain teams every week? just trying to be clear exactly which theory got thrown out the window. it is your position that every team receives equal action from the general betting public?

The betting public does not drive the betting market anymore, sharp money does. Squares can back the hell out of "public" teams every week, the odds aren't gonna get moved or the sharps will play the other side. It's not 1985 anymore.

oh wait, i get it. another one liner that adds zero to the discussion while you continue to hide behind "i'm smarter than you" type posts.

.

I don't see this. I suggested you take a look at the data behind you statement. You will find those teams are actually above 50% ATS recently. (just slightly)

in the future please keep you shit-talkin out of my threads, you have nothing to offer to me in the way of improving my capping or working through theories. SBR is a huge forum, think it is big enough not only for both of us, but for you to avoid me as well.

Ok. I hope you keep gambling.

[Dunder]

i agree with that to a point, but also feel there it is impossible to reach peak efficiency. much like the stock market, there are informed, uninformed, technical bettors that don't watch the games they play on (Dr Bob), pure risk takers looking for action, people that follow touts blindly and all kinds of other bettors.

This line of argument confuses efficiency with accuracy. In an efficient market, letsīs say a sides bet for an NFL play-off game, the market will knock and opening line into shape quite quickly, adjustments thereafter will tend to be relatively small.

If there is a (illogical) public lean towards one team that does not make a market less efficient, only less accurate, the two are not always the same thing.

To take your stock market analogy, the tech bubble of the late 1990īs was not a product of market inefficiency, it was simply, as Mr. Greenspan said "irrational".

[donjuan]

that is the point isn't it? find me a sample of his posts that have more than one sentence in them. so if he truly is so much smarter than myself and nearly every other poster on SBR, why is there no proof of it.

and i should learn what from a one sentence post exactly?

i'm 55% L2 years NFL, over 225 plays....yourself?

The last time anyone helped you out you couldn't even type a single word "thanks" in response.

[statnerds]

The betting public does not drive the betting market anymore, sharp money does. Squares can back the hell out of "public" teams every week, the odds aren't gonna get moved or the sharps will play the other side. It's not 1985 anymore.

exactly. it is not 1985 anymore. anyone with a computer and an ISP can bet now. the market is bigger than ever. there is not enough sharp money in the world to offset the public any longer. moreover, the public has the chance to bet Sunday Night on the following weeks games. these people have to be effecting early line moves. unless you are going to attribute the majority of early line moves to sharp money. in which case you will find those lines moves to also be at or around 50%.

you see this is where logic is always thrown out the window. we hear that well over 90% of all gamblers lose, which means sharp money is less than 10%. so we cannot have it both ways. either sharp money moves lines, in which case it loses as much as it wins, or it doesn't and the public has some influence. sharp money really wants to lay more than 4 on the 18th ranked defense in the NFL with a rookie CB that replaced a rookie CB?

[statnerds]

This line of argument confuses efficiency with accuracy. In an efficient market, letsīs say a sides bet for an NFL play-off game, the market will knock and opening line into shape quite quickly, adjustments thereafter will tend to be relatively small.

If there is a (illogical) public lean towards one team that does not make a market less efficient, only less accurate, the two are not always the same thing.

why am i having trouble with this one? it makes sense on the surface and makes me consider the millions of $$$$ that will be on each side making a line move more and more unlikely, as you accurately state.

i think you broke it down very well, but is there any other way you can illustrate accuracy vs efficiency to help me get it? i consider myself of average intelligence but i am having trouble getting my head around it.

[Raleigh77]

statnerds, you are a damn fool.

[donjuan]

exactly. it is not 1985 anymore. anyone with a computer and an ISP can bet now. the market is bigger than ever. there is not enough sharp money in the world to offset the public any longer. moreover, the public has the chance to bet Sunday Night on the following weeks games. these people have to be effecting early line moves. unless you are going to attribute the majority of early line moves to sharp money. in which case you will find those lines moves to also be at or around 50%.

you see this is where logic is always thrown out the window. we hear that well over 90% of all gamblers lose, which means sharp money is less than 10%. so we cannot have it both ways. either sharp money moves lines, in which case it loses as much as it wins, or it doesn't and the public has some influence. sharp money really wants to lay more than 4 on the 18th ranked defense in the NFL with a rookie CB that replaced a rookie CB?

LOL

[statnerds]

statnerds, you are a damn fool.

perhaps you could elaborate on your assertion so that not only i can learn, but current members of SBR could benefit as well.

[statnerds]

LOL

prove me wrong or kindly shut the fukk up

[Busterflywheel]

WNBA is the easiest...Ask anyone who caps in Vegas as a professional or a vegas runner etc..CANT WAIT

[Thremp]

prove me wrong or kindly shut the fukk up

You were already proven wrong. Your thesis (which you didn't even bother to test) is absurd. You're a total failboat at this.

[byronbb]

we hear that well over 90% of all gamblers lose, which means sharp money is less than 10%. so we cannot have it both ways. either sharp money moves lines, in which case it loses as much as it wins, or it doesn't and the public has some influence. sharp money really wants to lay more than 4 on the 18th ranked defense in the NFL with a rookie CB that replaced a rookie CB?

The first part assumes square betters and sharp bettors bet the same amount of money, which is obviously nonsensical. In the second part, are you referring to the superbowl line?? The superbowl is a rare event where public money outweighs the sharp action.

[blix177]

The betting public does not drive the betting market anymore, sharp money does. Squares can back the hell out of "public" teams every week, the odds aren't gonna get moved or the sharps will play the other side. It's not 1985 anymore.

I beg to differ, when I drop $3k, the lines move 5 cent normally. Sometimes dropping $1-2 pushing NBA side off .5 point. I am not sharp money, yet i move the line. Over at 5dimes, it seem you can move 2-3cent with just $500 on reduce bets.

[Thremp]

This is not "moving the line".

[statnerds]

Proven wrong, check my signature. all i keep reading is bullshit posers pretending to know something.

Why should i assume that Sharp money is on the same side of every game every time?

squares outnumber sharps by what, 9 to 1 at least?

seems not enough posters and bettors ever stop to ask why. you should be question every stat, every angle, every theory that you ever encounter. instead you line up, money in hand ready to break the book.

[donjuan]

Tell us again how the 3 pushes 2.5% of the time in NFL. You're trying to reinvent the wheel and failing epically at it at the same time.

[statnerds]

Tell us again how the 3 pushes 2.5% of the time in NFL. You're trying to reinvent the wheel and failing epically at it at the same time.

In God we trust, all others bring DATA

imagine me coughing while saying "poser!!!"

[donjuan]

You caught me. I'm a poser with no knowledge on anything related to sports betting. Enjoy your deposits.

[Thremp]

i agree with that to a point, but also feel there it is impossible to reach peak efficiency. much like the stock market, there are informed, uninformed, technical bettors that don't watch the games they play on (Dr Bob), pure risk takers looking for action, people that follow touts blindly and all kinds of other bettors. i always look at it like the stock market. the books are just brokers and provide a marketplace, for a fee, for investors to say i'm smarter than you. then my mind shifts to how to recognize errors and take advantage. Much like the colts, cowboys and steelers being huge public teams. those teams are going to face inflated lines nearly every week. it is artificial efficiency. and this is off topic, but i finished the last 10 years and favs of exactly 3 points won by a FG 9.71% of the time. however, that accounts for every game. if we just focused on games the favs won, it jumps to 17.2%. i find that quite amazing.

Proven wrong, check my signature. all i keep reading is bullshit posers pretending to know something. Why should i assume that Sharp money is on the same side of every game every time? squares outnumber sharps by what, 9 to 1 at least? seems not enough posters and bettors ever stop to ask why. you should be question every stat, every angle, every theory that you ever encounter. instead you line up, money in hand ready to break the book.

can you rejoin these?

[statnerds]

Enjoy your deposits.

i hate making deposits.

i've made 6 deposits in the last 12 months. put $300 in 5Dimes Dec 2008. RAS turned that into $1,200 in a month. after winning about $475 on the Superbowl for hitting the Over big (lucky i know, thanks ref for calling that safety) and a bunch on props. so then $1,000 of that went to Bookmaker, deposit number 2, which was a mistake cause they suck for MLB lines, will strictly use 5Dimes this season.

i made 3 deposits this NFL season, although 2 of those weren't made by me. won money beating the Prick twice, so does that still count? if so, deposits 3 and 4. pulled some money from 5Dimes to fund Betonline cause of a 35% bonus, but the fukkers failed to mention it had to be used as one free play. will never return there, but still that is deposit 5 nonetheless.

signed up for Carib so i could enter the SB Block contest for free and when the fukkers offered me 50% on initial deposit with $250 max bonus, i had to take it. which meant getting more money from bookmaker and then sending it to Carib.

so i made 6 deposits in a year, and only the first 1 used money from my bank account. thanks your interest. down to 4 books at the moment and a local.

oooh, you were being a cool guy jokester again, i get it. good one.