 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
If this is based upon nothing but "I like these" without an exact calculation about their win probability and which odd you should take to have a +EV, you are doomed long term. Not saying you can't have a nice 10% ROI your first few hundred picks, but it will become increasingly more unlikely the longer you go on.Originally Posted by Gaze73
I put the rough % in the brackets, the edge is big enough. Home favs are for squares.
yet we are here and you have deposited for the 100th time and have a bankroll of 100
also u21 books might not pay you out for CLV but every single book will ban you for steam chasing
now that is a guarantee
Not remotely enough of a sample size.
Football markets are very, very sharp. You haven't got the faintest hope of beating them long-term.
if you are betting 3 to 4% of your bankroll on +300 +400 dogs you are going to go broke even if you are superman skilled. You have to adjust your bankroll based on the implied win probability, that is why I hate the 1% idea.
you should be betting X.XX to win 1% of BR on faves and .XX to win 1% of BR on dogs, this minimizes your long term exposure and will keep you in the game longer with or without an edge. This staking method simply lets you have more money on things more likely to happen.
I'm sorry to say, but if you think your "rough win percentage" is anywhere near correct in those huge markets...you are quite delusional. Not trying to bring you down, but coming back to earth would be good for your finances. Do you honestly believe you can calculate those % more correct than a betting market that bets literally millions on those games? There is no such thing as a 10% edge in those markets.
100th time? I just made the first deposit this year. I didn't steam chase, I liked the team even before the steam, I just didn't have time to cap it earlier. Still, the thing about pinnacle is that they don't ban anyone. And according to your master theories my play on Tecnico was around -5% long term because the market is efficient, lol.
Wrong. I know many people who are absolutely crushing it with zero losing months and I'm pretty sure I became one of them. The betting market is like a 50k piece puzzle and I already have 35k pieces in place.
Joe I make this simple argument lets say you selected every game last season at the closing line example below
NFL bet at closing
LOSING SEASON
ATS: 128-120-13 (0.37, 51.6%)
NFL adjusted beating the line by .5 point
141-120 54% win
BIG WINNING SEASON
NCAAF
56% win% with half point
ATS: 423-357-33 (0.43, 54.2%)
BOTH ARE WINNING SEASONS
NCAABB
LOSING SEASON
52.4% half point
ATS: 1719-1622-71 (0.36, 51.5%)
WINNING SEASON
this simply shows you that it is a true winning method to long term success by beating the line by a half point
Combined
2142-1979-117 betting at closing line 51.9% win percentage
2259-1979 53.3% Win% if you can beat the line by a half point
assuming -110 you need 52.3% to break even
so even to me and I am very slow and have a hard time seeing things this shows me clearly I would rather beat the line by a measly half point and of course if possible pay less vig!
so to win long term you need to beat the line by a half point or pay less juice, both methods are winners, can you pay less juice?
It's nice to dream, but those people are messing with you. Just don't get your hopes up too much.
Is this guy lucky? It's almost as if 10% roi is actually realistic to achieve.It's nice to dream, but those people are messing with you. Just don't get your hopes up too much.
No, he's not lucky. Now show me the markets and bookies he used.
its not "impossible" but it is very hard to find, I have made on my sbr thread 120ish picks and have one where the value was over 10%ROI, 1 out 125 and that 1 is probably just lucky or a guy like ROnaldo got scratched late or BRady got caught with a flat ball before kickoff.
forget about gaze he is a lost cause, he got lucky at 2 +300 soccer games and now has solved the entire betting world and in 6 months pinnacle will be called Gaze. He is a true lost cause. I guess as long as there are Gazes out there, the fake touts will keep raking in the cash!
Danshan, This analysis replicates the same statistical inference error of the 50/50 discussion. If you could get a half point on each and every game then maybe you would have an edge and be profitable dependent on how much vig you paid. If you cannot get a half-point on each and every game, we would be back to one trying to get a half-point on a non-random selection of games. Sometimes you might, other times you might not and maybe actually be on the wrong side of the move. In addition, even when you get the half-point, there is only a small chance that it will come into play.
You cannot apply the results of the aggregate to an individual event.
Joe.
if you are using a measuring stick for 1 game you will believe a ton of crazy things. We usually dont get a half point on every game. The moral of this story was to try and show you that beating the line by more than margin is how you can win, nothing else.
you cant see that you would have won if you had the half point? there is no debate about it, if you got the half point you would have won.
this sentence, I dont even know what this means sorry
"This analysis replicates the same statistical inference error of the 50/50 discussion" can you say that in dummy terms, so I can understand, maybe give me an example like I did?? thanks for the replies!
betting for most is the silver spoon argument
that you can buy a silver spoon for a nickel and sell it for a dime and make a nickel profit
yes it makes sense but as soon as you add in costs, loss, returns, marketing and blah blah that profit is gone. Betting is similar
I know football I can pick winners, I believe you and unfortunately 99.99% of that info is already in the line
I can manage a bankroll, well it can take upward of 1000s of games to even get to your edge IF AND A BIG IF you actually have one.
I have the best model ever, well shit changes and models disappear faster than they do from Charlie Sheens house after they read the HIV announcement on TMZ.
winning is impossible for 99% and for the other 1% they must deal with
bankroll, neg streaks, variance, books closing or limiting action, theft from shady books, models dying, lost hours of time and money, lost edge and more.
this shit is not easy and 99% of the people that make money in this game dont bet at all or only do it recreationally.
You are not talking about the closing line here. Math says if you beat the closing line by half a point, you will win long term. You cannot "beat" a non-closing line that way obviously as the market can move in any direction. If you were to beat the line by half a point the day before the game, you could argue you have half a point "headstart" on the market move and statistically would probably beat the closing line by half a point on average as well, but the results would have more variance.
what is a non closing line?
Hehehe, I just meant any line that isn't the closing line, so everything that comes before that line (say the line 5 hours before kickoff).
This is where we differ. Getting a half-point on a non-random selection does not necessarily mean that you have an edge on that game. You may have an edge but only if your overall results for your non-random selections are profitable. You may think that my edge is fake if I don't beat the closer or get the extra half-point but my results say otherwise meaning that even if you beat the closer and/or got an extra half-point on the other side of my wagers you would not be profitable on those wagers even though theoretically you had the advantage.
The point is, we can both be profitable using different methods. We just can't be on opposite sides of events a significant amount of the time.
Joe.
So what you're saying is, you've found a way to filter the non-efficient closing lines and have found value in those specific closing lines? How large is your sample size?
Also, please remember I'm talking about a very large sample size in my posts above. If you were to bet on 10k+ games and beat the closing line by half a point on average you would be making money. That can still mean you were 10 points off on half the games. It doesn't matter though if you beat the other 50% of the closing lines by 11 points.
Last edited by Alfa1234; 08-25-18 at 06:00 PM.
what you dont understand is what a half point means
if the line is +10 -110 it would be +10.5 -120 or so which obviously changes the implied win probabliity
First, to clarify, I don't only wager on closing lines, I also sometimes wager on lines nearer to the opening and sometimes I even beat the closer but that is not my focus. And no, I don't beat the closer often enough or by enough of a spread to account for my profitability. Whether or not I wager nearer the opening or the close is determined by the criteria that determined the event selection.
Second, as to sample size, I really do not want to discuss my personal figures other than to say that I have been doing this successfully for over 40 years and my results are well beyond 3 sd's. I have only had 1 losing year and that was my very first year. I actually started out wagering on horses and it was that experience where I learned the concepts and methods that I have used to make money on various endeavors including horses, jai alai, greyhounds, hedging, live wagering and sports wagering (taxes paid as necessary for any of you IRS agents out there).
To continue, it does not matter whether you (group you not you personally) believe me or not. But you know whether or not you are profitable (unless you are fooling yourself). If you are profitable, great, continue what you are doing. Nothing I write should interfere with that. But if you are not profitable, then you have to or at least should question what you are doing and/or whether or not what you believe is true or not.
I am not really a gambler, I was attracted to wagering more for the puzzle of it, not because I was a sporting nut. I needed to "solve" the puzzle. I will not discuss specific criteria but when I have some time I will write about how I started and how the light bulb moment came for me.
As a starter , there was a post that reminded me of how I started that asked essentially what happens to your wager if Judge and Stanton are scratched. I know I can Google it but I won't and didn't. I have heard the name of Judge, I think I heard that he is a home run hitter but I had no clue who Stanton is and I have no clue what positions these two play or for that matter I can't even remember what team the post mentioned (Yankees?). To relate that to my story from the mid 70's, another horse player asked me who I wagered on and I told him and then he asked me who was riding the horse and I told him I didn't know and of course he told me that I couldn't bet on a horse if I didn't know who was riding him! Of course that is not true and part of my story if and when I get around to posting it.
Again, good luck to all regardless of what method(s) you use.
Joe.
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: dpark80
|
first thing is margins and methods used 40 years ago are not USUALLY relevant now with the invention of the internet and overseas books.
second thing is I dont doubt anyone's success, I have used a coin flip simulator for 1000s of 1000s of tries and have seen a ton of different results, so now doubt (not saying you) but even someone without a clue and throwing darts to pick could be a long term winner, for arguments sake Warren Buffet could just be lucky.
third thing you are one of many people who tell me I just win and I say to them prove it, I proved to you how you could win by beating the line but you cant prove to me how you can win by not beating the closing line.
I think it is very poor judgement to let guys like Gaze think the line means nothing just pick winners and you will win or how a guy winning this season is worth tailing or paying to get his picks. if you run a simple simulator you will see very quickly that 1000 flips can show you very quickly how heads is better than tails or how horrible an idea heads is. this can happen over and over. You might be the 1 out of 1,000,000,000,000 people that is smarter than the entire efficient market and betting community and can win long term like that but for the rest of us its best to make sure you are beating the line.
if you bet the Yankees -150 and they close -150 , what does that say about your bet to you?
If I bet -150 and it closes -150, it tells me shit I had no edge and I am going to lose the juice.
if I bet -150 and it closes -130 , it tells me I was wrong and took a bad number and will lose juice plus something
if I bet -150 and it closes -180, it tells me I was right and took a value number and I will win by the net edge on that
this is me saying this on each bet but in reality none of these is true until you are 1000s or 10000s of bets in, variance can show up anytime, at the beginning the middle or the end or a couple times in between.
If I bet -150 it's because my model shows it's good value with a 65+% chance to win. Just like there are trap favs there are also trap dogs who make you think they have a good chance but they're terrible value.
This is extremely interesting to me because I have always taken it as a given that not beating the closing line cannot possibly be profitable over the long term. My own fairly large sample size is a clear example of this and I've never before spoken to anyone serious that says otherwise.
A few remarks that spring to mind. The closing line efficiency is something that's only been happening in the last say decade or so. The weight of money, exchanges etc just didn't come into play that much before so could it be you have actually BEEN beating the closing line in the last decade but you have not checked this? Also, I'm inclined to believe that if you are talking about horse racing/greyhound racing that closing lines may be off a bit sometimes. Those markets are completely different as opposed to other sports like say soccer and I have observed some "bandwagon" behaviour that is fairly easily influenced by a limited number of bloggers and influencers, often with the intent to shorten 1 price for trading purposes (and that can completely mess up a market).
Last edited by Alfa1234; 08-26-18 at 04:19 AM.
The problem with that reasoning is, if you are time and time again not beating the closing line, you model is actually off. You could easily be profitable for 1k+ bets though. Again, I'm talking about a large sample size.
From my vast experience in horse racing I can easily conclude that the market is dumb as rocks. Yes, 1000 horses running at even odds will win at 50% and horses running at 4/1 will win ~19%, but a pro doesn't bet on every single race, he picks 5 horses out of 200 that run in a day, and he can pick them at "Betfair starting price" with supreme confidence that the pick will be profitable no matter the starting price, because he knows that the market hasn't caught up to his models on those 5 horses. I applied the very same principles on soccer and it's exactly the same. In short, some favs are overrated and some dogs are ridiculously underrated at the closing price due to the basic psychology of the masses. That's where I come in and hoover up the coins.
if your model shows it at a 65% chance of winning and this is consistently happening your model needs work.
this believe here is exactly how the market works.
people dont know anything about value or why a line is what it is and they bet on which team has nice shoes
people dont care about juice because they are just picking winners and it does not matter if you have to bet 150 or 180 you will win anyway
people dont understand that 99.99% of factors that create a line are the same things you are using to say they are gonna "cover"
people think they have an edge and dont have one at all, I was in Vegas at a craps table(i love craps, cant help it) and a guy was getting pissed he was losing, he had 2 funny beliefs
#1 he thought he had an edge by betting the 6 8 and a hard 10 when he rolled a 10
#2 he thought he was having bad luck not that the house had a built in advantage
guy said he had been to Vegas a 1000 times and I believe him, he knew everything about everything but did not know shit about odds, variance, true edge and sample size.
1-5% positive return on turnover over 1,000+ bets
you are talking about the one out of 10000 guys right?
How can you be sharp if there's no longevity? It's just luck until then.
Reply With Quote