[Toples]

how did you guess
yes, i was searching for value, so most plays were dogs
anyway this was back in 2006 or something like that.

[Fullkelly]

sorry i got it wrong, but not too much. must have input wrong numbers. its 20% to be losing after 250 bets

i use binomial distribution to calculate your chances (since its win-lose situation). i dont think SD applies to this one since you get only 1 or 0 as your values. you dont have Gauss curve but only 2 vertical lines.

anyway, if you do the binomial distribution on your problem this is what you get: on average you hit 50% at +112. you need 119+ winning bets to profit. its gets you loss 20% of time (118 or worse). i think its pretty self evident since you only have to miss 7 more to lose.

My record was 108-142, with a slight lean towards underdogs so if you throw that into a binomial calc at a.48 prob of success it is like a 5-7% chance of it happening. So basically I am running bad, but not horrible. Once every twenty seasons or so. Once I get to 1,000 plays luck should not really matter at that point assuming I keep crushing the closing line.

[jtoler]

If you think about it from a gambling perspective then "beating" the closer should probably amount to losing money more times than not. Think of it like this, we know overall most gamblers lose and we know the number of casual/non-professional gamblers vs. sharps/professional gamblers is much greater. In most cases the money from the casual/non-professional gamblers, whom we know mostly lose, is going to be moving the line simply because of the sheer greater number of them. Most of the time it will be that way Id imagine and a lot moreso on more popular/public events than your more remote/nondescript games. Thats without going into great detail on the subject. I think a lot of things come into play, like what part of the season in the particular sport one is losing while beating the closer. We know earlier in seasons the number man doesnt know the teams as well. This is very basic thinking on my part I admit and this is why true handicappers have their own numbers. Because say youre beating the closer very often but losing, well youre getting a better number than most, but the line was OFF from the start so it didnt matter and/or youre just picking the wrong sides to begin with. If I got down on a -3 and by game time its bet up to -7 and my team loses then what difference did it make. Therefore it works hand in hand beating the closer is great, but being on the right side regardless is better.

[Toples]

My record was 108-142, with a slight lean towards underdogs so if you throw that into a binomial calc at a.48 prob of success it is like a 5-7% chance of it happening. So basically I am running bad, but not horrible. Once every twenty seasons or so. Once I get to 1,000 plays luck should not really matter at that point assuming I keep crushing the closing line.

You know that 24 losing streak i had? it makes you think, and calculate, and learn more about betting.
With -105 lines and few bookies to get best odds i think you can make a living if you can afford to bet big. You would need to hit only like 50,5% to break even. Or go tout if you do more

But beware of closing line, just like jtoler said. You dont always get EV+ on closing lines. Actually, I win betting closing lines in some sports regularly. Closing lines can be as wrong as opening ones and i take advantage of that.

[Waterstpub87]

If you think about it from a gambling perspective then "beating" the closer should probably amount to losing money more times than not. Think of it like this, we know overall most gamblers lose and we know the number of casual/non-professional gamblers vs. sharps/professional gamblers is much greater. In most cases the money from the casual/non-professional gamblers, whom we know mostly lose, is going to be moving the line simply because of the sheer greater number of them. Most of the time it will be that way Id imagine and a lot moreso on more popular/public events than your more remote/nondescript games. Thats without going into great detail on the subject. I think a lot of things come into play, like what part of the season in the particular sport one is losing while beating the closer. We know earlier in seasons the number man doesnt know the teams as well. This is very basic thinking on my part I admit and this is why true handicappers have their own numbers. Because say youre beating the closer very often but losing, well youre getting a better number than most, but the line was OFF from the start so it didnt matter and/or youre just picking the wrong sides to begin with. If I got down on a -3 and by game time its bet up to -7 and my team loses by 10 what difference did that make. Therefore it works hand in hand, beating closer is great but you also need to be on the right side.

The counter argument to this is:

When I bet the pass line at craps, and everyone else does as well, the odds do not move to -120. Because the book knows there is no edge. The book is unsure if there is an edge or not in sports betting, therefore they move the line to adjust to this.

If books are profiling winners ahead of time based on past performance, and they adjust the line based only on former winners, the moves will be sharp and beating the closing line indicates future winning.

Consider also that the Sharp has a larger bankroll than the square and bets more. 1 Sharp putting down 5,000 counteracts many square bets of 25.

The whole "The public loses thing" is from the vig. it isn't from picking wrong. Its from having a negative EV from the start. Square people also bet teasers and parlays, causing them to lose more quickly than people who aren't complete fools.

The problem your second part is the losing by 10 is only one result. Instead consider that you played the same football 10,000 with the exact same players, conditions, ect. How many times would the -3 to -7 matter? The true and actual point spread would be the average of these 10,000 game winning margins.

I've tested it before on a seasons worth of baseball money lines, and beating the close correlated very highly with edge, to the point that theoretical hold was almost equal to realized winning.

[Fullkelly]

If you think about it from a gambling perspective then "beating" the closer should probably amount to losing money more times than not. Think of it like this, we know overall most gamblers lose and we know the number of casual/non-professional gamblers vs. sharps/professional gamblers is much greater. In most cases the money from the casual/non-professional gamblers, whom we know mostly lose, is going to be moving the line simply because of the sheer greater number of them. Most of the time it will be that way Id imagine and a lot moreso on more popular/public events than your more remote/nondescript games. Thats without going into great detail on the subject. I think a lot of things come into play, like what part of the season in the particular sport one is losing while beating the closer. We know earlier in seasons the number man doesnt know the teams as well. This is very basic thinking on my part I admit and this is why true handicappers have their own numbers. Because say youre beating the closer very often but losing, well youre getting a better number than most, but the line was OFF from the start so it didnt matter and/or youre just picking the wrong sides to begin with. If I got down on a -3 and by game time its bet up to -7 and my team loses by 10 what difference did that make. Therefore it works hand in hand beating the closer is great, but being on the right side regardless is better.

Most square gamblers lose because they are betting into a efficient market price at post time. They are giving the bookmaker +110 on a coin flip. Look at point spread data and it is easy to see that at close the vast majority of the time the market has a true or fair price. Bookmakers always beat the closing because they are getting +110 or 5% edge on all coin flips. BTCL isn't really even debatable.

Here is a updated article from Pinnacle that flat out shows BTCL over 400,000 matches and shows exactly how it works.

https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-...RJX78P6NRD6ZYK

[jtoler]

Most square gamblers lose because they are betting into a efficient market price at post time. They are giving the bookmaker +110 on a coin flip. Look at point spread data and it is easy to see that at close the vast majority of the time the market has a true or fair price. Bookmakers always beat the closing because they are getting +110 or 5% edge on all coin flips. BTCL isn't really even debatable.

Here is a updated article from Pinnacle that flat out shows BTCL over 400,000 matches and shows exactly how it works.

https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-...RJX78P6NRD6ZYK

I agree on the sheer logic of your post before opening link.

[jtoler]

The counter argument to this is:

When I bet the pass line at craps, and everyone else does as well, the odds do not move to -120. Because the book knows there is no edge. The book is unsure if there is an edge or not in sports betting, therefore they move the line to adjust to this.

If books are profiling winners ahead of time based on past performance, and they adjust the line based only on former winners, the moves will be sharp and beating the closing line indicates future winning.

Consider also that the Sharp has a larger bankroll than the square and bets more. 1 Sharp putting down 5,000 counteracts many square bets of 25.

The whole "The public loses thing" is from the vig. it isn't from picking wrong. Its from having a negative EV from the start. Square people also bet teasers and parlays, causing them to lose more quickly than people who aren't complete fools.

The problem your second part is the losing by 10 is only one result. Instead consider that you played the same football 10,000 with the exact same players, conditions, ect. How many times would the -3 to -7 matter? The true and actual point spread would be the average of these 10,000 game winning margins.

I've tested it before on a seasons worth of baseball money lines, and beating the close correlated very highly with edge, to the point that theoretical hold was almost equal to realized winning.

Do you have any stats on the starting number vs. the closing number? Like Ive seen plenty of stats in all sports where in every sport for like the last 30 years fav/dog is around 50% and Im assuming thats the opening line and not the closer.

[Toples]

The counter argument to this is:

When I bet the pass line at craps, and everyone else does as well, the odds do not move to -120. Because the book knows there is no edge. The book is unsure if there is an edge or not in sports betting, therefore they move the line to adjust to this.

If books are profiling winners ahead of time based on past performance, and they adjust the line based only on former winners, the moves will be sharp and beating the closing line indicates future winning.

Consider also that the Sharp has a larger bankroll than the square and bets more. 1 Sharp putting down 5,000 counteracts many square bets of 25.

The whole "The public loses thing" is from the vig. it isn't from picking wrong. Its from having a negative EV from the start. Square people also bet teasers and parlays, causing them to lose more quickly than people who aren't complete fools.

The problem your second part is the losing by 10 is only one result. Instead consider that you played the same football 10,000 with the exact same players, conditions, ect. How many times would the -3 to -7 matter? The true and actual point spread would be the average of these 10,000 game winning margins.
I've tested it before on a seasons worth of baseball money lines, and beating the close correlated very highly with edge, to the point that theoretical hold was almost equal to realized winning.

the public is also losing from being wrong+vig of course
just take a look at some of contest here. its exactly what i heard people saying about casual gambler - they go below 50%
here is beat the prick group record:
WLT: 24237-25214-1674
Percent: 49.01 %

here id beat the bag group record:
WLT: 20468-20733-1239
Percent: 49.68 %

other groups have too few members to be relevant

[Waterstpub87]

Do you have any stats on the starting number vs. the closing number? Like Ive seen plenty of stats in all sports where in every sport for like the last 30 years fav/dog is around 50% and Im assuming thats the opening line and not the closer.

I would assume that means closing line, the opener is more dependent on which book, IE Betonline opens first (12 PM), then bookmaker (2PM), then pinnacle (2:30 PM) then heritage (3 pm), then betphoenix (8 AM the next day). By the time betphoenix opens, tons of money has been bet meaning their opener is less inefficient if they copy other books, which they do. The close is more likely to be similar among books, and is more widely reported.

Do you mean which way the line moves? or results? I don't have any statistics either way.

[Fullkelly]

Do you have any stats on the starting number vs. the closing number? Like Ive seen plenty of stats in all sports where in every sport for like the last 30 years fav/dog is around 50% and Im assuming thats the opening line and not the closer.

Those stats are typically closing lines. Pretty even split between underdogs and favorites. Used to be a slight bias to overs and favorites, but not enough to beat the juice.

If you looked at every major sport and looked for lines that moved 3 points or more from open and you were able to bet the original number it will start to become very clear that the closing is more efficient. You would see the closing line spreads are hitting around 50% and losing because of juice and the ones that were able to bet -3 and the line closes -6 would be hitting about 55-58% and overcoming the vig and making 5-10% EV.

[jtoler]

I would assume that means closing line, the opener is more dependent on which book, IE Betonline opens first (12 PM), then bookmaker (2PM), then pinnacle (2:30 PM) then heritage (3 pm), then betphoenix (8 AM the next day). By the time betphoenix opens, tons of money has been bet meaning their opener is less inefficient if they copy other books, which they do. The close is more likely to be similar among books, and is more widely reported.

Do you mean which way the line moves? or results? I don't have any statistics either way.

Nah not which way but just opening vs. closing. Like if that nearly 50% across the board in all sports fav/dog is for the closing line then I wonder what is the percentage of those same exact games with the opening line. Just trying to get an idea since we're talking beating the closer, such prob doesnt exist though, you give the example of different opening numbers, but each book doesnt close at the same number either.

[jtoler]

Those stats are typically closing lines. Pretty even split between underdogs and favorites. Used to be a slight bias to overs and favorites, but not enough to beat the juice.

If you looked at every major sport and looked for lines that moved 3 points or more from open and you were able to bet the original number it will start to become very clear that the closing is more efficient. You would see the closing line spreads are hitting around 50% and losing because of juice and the ones that were able to bet -3 and the line closes -6 would be hitting about 55-58% and overcoming the vig and making 5-10% EV.

Oh ok, I havent seen it ever saying how many pts the line moved before.

[Waterstpub87]

Nah not which way but just opening vs. closing. Like if that nearly 50% across the board in all sports fav/dog is for the closing line then I wonder what is the percentage of those same exact games with the opening line. Just trying to get an idea since we're talking beating the closer, such prob doesnt exist though, you give the example of different opening numbers, but each book doesnt close at the same number either.

I would assume its likely the same. Small random variations expected.

Most books close within a half point of each other in major sports. Sometimes when it is off, it is due to errors.

[semibluff]

the public is also losing from being wrong+vig of course
just take a look at some of contest here. its exactly what i heard people saying about casual gambler - they go below 50%
here is beat the prick group record:
WLT: 24237-25214-1674
Percent: 49.01 %

here id beat the bag group record:
WLT: 20468-20733-1239
Percent: 49.68 %

other groups have too few members to be relevant

I wouldn't put too much faith in the BTP and BTB numbers. Firstly there are some unusual statistical trends happening in the NFL this year. Secondly it's an air-betting tournament and some will play it differently than they will do with real cash. For example if the Prick is 0-2 going into Sunday it's a decent strategy to pick -120 options rather than +100 options if you believe the odds are correct and you're trying to win weekly points. If he's 2-1 with winners at -105 then picking -120 options is probably not going to get it done. I run a simplified zero juice money-line pick'em on NFL games with a non-changing line set on Tuesdays. Members can change their picks at any time before kickoff. It's a small group of 'non-gamblers' but I was still surprised to find more than half of the picks were on the Texans at -517 even though they could have taken the Colts at +517 on Sunday. I put it down to air-betting on tournaments. I know BTP and BTB are specifically NOT money line tournaments, but...up to and including week 6 favourites and home teams were performing extremely poorly against the money line. It's possible some who were following such teams were also doing badly in tournaments and then dropped out. If so there would have been a higher proportion than expected who picked underdogs for the last 3 weeks when favourites did very well. Whatever factor(s) is responsible it's not just on SBR that i'm seeing low pick % success this year.

[u21c3f6]

... BTCL isn't really even debatable. ...

Actually, BTCL is very debatable, especially the way many try to apply it to wagering.

If we had a set of data and we wanted to get an idea of what information that set of data could supply, we would take a RANDOM sample of statistical significance and get our statistical inference. The way many look at BTCL is actually backwards. They are trying to take the results of a set of data and apply it to a NON-RANDOM sample. Not good. In this scenario, the NON-RANDOM sample may in fact not mimic the results of the data set.

I am not saying that it is impossible to win by trying to BTCL, what I was trying to show was that just because some or most of your NON-RANDOM wagers BTCL does not mean that you have an edge because those wagers may not mimic the results of the data set.

This is really a much larger discussion but I will leave it here.

Joe.

[turbobets]

Update Fullkelly?

[Fullkelly]

Still down, but results are starting to turn back closer to break-even. I have been making less plays. I would say within 3 months the chances of me being positive again are very high. I am still beating no vig closers at about a 80% clip. I have been doing some arbing and middling when I think lines have moved too far.

[turbobets]

November was rough on my end especially the NBA but making a comeback this month. Thanks for the update.