[Ruifgalmeida]

I think SBR should create a Sub-forum for (Stupid)System, this way everybody is happy

[HedgeHog]

I think SBR should create a Sub-forum for (Stupid)System, this way everybody is happy

Everything stupid is reserved for Players Talk Forum.

[Peeig]

Everything stupid is reserved for Players Talk Forum.

[dooman14]

ties just pick ties

[jscar3]

for stupid people

[20Four7]

well justin I believe you got your work cut out for you. Given it seems SBR doesn't want winning players, or insightful posts I doubt you will be able to moderate the Think Tank into something useful. SBR did nothing when fishhead took it over and will do nothing with certain posters filling it with crap.

GL

[Flying Dutchman]

well justin I believe you got your work cut out for you. Given it seems SBR doesn't want winning players, or insightful posts I doubt you will be able to moderate the Think Tank into something useful. SBR did nothing when fishhead took it over and will do nothing with certain posters filling it with crap.

GL

I'd guess that the sharper players see this as good. Who really wants a whole bunch of sharp players? Books lose more, then there is less for the "real" sharps to win as they really are fighting over the table scraps the big guys in the biz (casinos) leave on the table whilst chopping up the "lesser-lights."

Whole food chain gets messed up...

[Justin7]

If 30 players get promoted from square to sharp, the food chain won't even blink.

[donjuan]

If 30 players get promoted from square to sharp, the food chain won't even blink.

Depends on the market of course. You think 30 new advantage players betting exclusively props wouldn't cause the prop food chain to blink?

[Justin7]

Depends on the market of course. You think 30 new advantage players betting exclusively props wouldn't cause the prop food chain to blink?

Props are special. They are a "promotion pool". Most guys that beat props build up a bank, and move on to bigger pastures. Nothing is wrong with making $50 ev a bet, but bigger players won't waste their time on it. The prop market is an oddity in that regard - players that beat it don't usually stick around.

[jscar3]

not now! Just found my magic touch.

[Rufus]

A system is any type of betting that doesn't care what the spread or money line is. If you follow this, you will lose. Please don't clutter up the Think Tank with losing systems.

Wow. That's a strong blanket statement. Are you saying that the market is so sharp NOW that there are no persistent inefficiencies? I agree that markets tend toward efficiency, but it does not follow that they will be perfectly efficient and that there will be no weak-form or semi-strong form inefficiencies (read "Predictably Irrational by Dan Arriety). Betting underdogs every NFL game in teh 1980s made money. That no longer exists because the market is more efficient. But those types of opportunities still exist...they're just harder to find, but they are there.

[Rufus]

I'd guess that the sharper players see this as good. Who really wants a whole bunch of sharp players? Books lose more, then there is less for the "real" sharps to win as they really are fighting over the table scraps the big guys in the biz (casinos) leave on the table whilst chopping up the "lesser-lights."

Whole food chain gets messed up...

Agreed. And that is why I am reluctant to post in forums.

[Justin7]

Rufus,

How can you tell if a market inefficiency is still there? If you don't consider the spread/ML/total, you can't tell. And believe me... any approach that wins will eventually dry up.

[blix177]

With regards to contest I think system plays has value. Betting a few heavily correlated plays regardless with the spreads works. Because your objective is to win to contest and in order to win you will need to be in +unit by a large number. My guess is that if you bet a few games that are heavily correlated i.e over with, -1.5 and the ml. You will increase your volatility. Therefore the odds that you will be high in +units increases. Of course the odds of you being heavily in the -units increase by = amount. But being up say 10 units and down 50 units in most contest is the same, you don't win.

[TheAccountant]

Rufus,

How can you tell if a market inefficiency is still there? If you don't consider the spread/ML/total, you can't tell. And believe me... any approach that wins will eventually dry up.

In a market with any amount of efficiency, a winning approach will eventually dry up. But no market is pefectly efficient, and the sports betting market is far from it.

Isn't the idea to exploit that inefficiency before it drys up, therefore causing it to dry up, rather than simply waiting for others to exploit the inefficiency until it drys up?

[Rufus]

In a market with any amount of efficiency, a winning approach will eventually dry up. But no market is pefectly efficient, and the sports betting market is far from it.

Isn't the idea to exploit that inefficiency before it drys up, therefore causing it to dry up, rather than simply waiting for others to exploit the inefficiency until it drys up?

Agreed.

[romanowski]

In a market with any amount of efficiency, a winning approach will eventually dry up. But no market is pefectly efficient, and the sports betting market is far from it.

Isn't the idea to exploit that inefficiency before it drys up, therefore causing it to dry up, rather than simply waiting for others to exploit the inefficiency until it drys up?

either way, you have to consider the market to see if their implied odds still show an inefficiency in comparison with yours

[TheAccountant]

either way, you have to consider the market to see if their implied odds still show an inefficiency in comparison with yours

I see your point - there would be no way to determine if odds were inefficient if you completely ignore the market price. System plays such as play favorites that lost three times at home (completely made up for examples) can provide a basis for thought, but still will only be logical up until some price. I do believe that these systems provide a great basis - but I agree they can't be followed blindly.

[Wrecktangle]

Getting back to the original point of the thread. I'm thinking I don't completely agree with it anymore. it seems that some systems can be based on some sort of market inefficiency, but on the whole I believe most are based on statistical quirks. For example, I believe most all underdog systems are grounded on the fact that "the market" hates to be on ugly dogs. Or that any system based on a number of losses or wins is grounded on the fact that the market is gaining a bias on the winner or loser, however slight.

For sure at least one system: take the steam play, is a winner often enough to where books will toss you out if you chase them consistently.

So perhaps we ought to have a Systems section where we can tease those out.

[Todd Deville]

If you take the steam play, you're betting with or against the money?

[LT Profits]

If you take the steam play, you're betting with or against the money?

On at a slow moving book.

[donjuan]

Getting back to the original point of the thread. I'm thinking I don't completely agree with it anymore. it seems that some systems can be based on some sort of market inefficiency, but on the whole I believe most are based on statistical quirks. For example, I believe most all underdog systems are grounded on the fact that "the market" hates to be on ugly dogs. Or that any system based on a number of losses or wins is grounded on the fact that the market is gaining a bias on the winner or loser, however slight.

For sure at least one system: take the steam play, is a winner often enough to where books will toss you out if you chase them consistently.

So perhaps we ought to have a Systems section where we can tease those out.

See the original post. It says "without regard to spread or moneyline". Chasing steam certainly is with regard to spread/price.

[frankzig]

same goes for me!

[CaptainPrice]

Just trying to cause a riot??

[dinaro7]

just stay awat from parleys

[underthe total]

if players would learn to bet just with rotation #'s and not look at who is playing or who is pitching, booking would come to an end.

[sharpcat]

Greek Sports Picks is now 28-5 in their "MLB Lock of the Day." Today, their pick was the Over of 9 1/2 in the Rockies and Brewers game. It easily covered with 15 runs scored combined between the 2 teams. Try their free pick for tomorrow by dialing their toll free number: 1 - 888 - 608 - 7487. Their free picks record is 14-5. TRY IT NOW! BREAK THE BOOKIES!!! ITS EASY MONEY!

Handicappers digest says these guys are on a 1- 20 run

[Francesco]

dont agree

[pilike]

agreed with 1st one

[Joe Dogs]

Start a systems forum......you never know,you just might find a diamond in the ruff.

[DukeJohn]

Start a systems forum......you never know,you just might find a diamond in the ruff.

I 2nd that. I still have no way to find an advantage in any sport except MLB, NBA, NHL. Of course then again, I get to have March and September off, so maybe I don't want to find advantage in other sports lol.

[ZombieWolverine]

Those NFL ,NBA ,NHL and tennis I have better chance of winning than MLB ,dont get me wrong I made a couple wins in the MLB but not like the others ,as far as a system goes its hard to have one when theres to many variables involve ,like weather condition ,ect and so forth .

[acarmelo1]

MY picks are the system

[yanky yank]

I think this forum is great