 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 | ||
Wong's Sharp Sports Betting Win-Loss Rarity
In Wong's book Sharp Sports Betting he talks about determining the rarity of a win-loss record, but he assumes each team has the same vig for each contest.
For those that have read his book or heard of this, do you know how to determine the rarity if the vig is different for each team?
Last edited by sycoogtit; 04-21-10 at 09:41 PM. Reason: though each time had to be -110, but actually just the same vig
I may be a little off on this maybe someone else will verify this:
Standard deviation= The square root of your variance.
variance= n * p * q
n= number of samples
p= probability of win
q= 1-p (or probability of loss since we only have 2 outcomes)
So the standard deviation would be the square root of {npq}
divide your total of excess wins by your standard deviation to get your amount of standard errors.
2 standard errors= 1 in 100 rarity
3 standard errors= 1 in 1,000 rarity
4 standard errors = 1 in 10,000 rarity
so 1,000 games at 50% win would be: Variance= 1,000 * .5 * .5= 250
standard deviation= SqrRt of 250= 15.8
so a record of 560-440 would have 60 excess games above our probability 50%
so divde 60 by 15.8 = 3.797 and this would give you roughly 4 standard errors for a 1 in 10,000 rarity in occurrence.
I may be wrong here for I am not exactly a math whiz so hopefully somebody will correct me if I am wrong.
Last edited by sharpcat; 04-21-10 at 10:38 PM.
|
|
Wong should have stuck to blackjack, if anything, he proved that math doesn't have any business in sports betting. One of the guys I mentioned earlier that tried to go tout and then had to go paid forum to make any money. And he is supposedly the best 'math guy' out there.
That's why, to this day, books like Pinnacle shade against Wong NFL teasers. Right? LOL.Originally Posted by wantitall4moi
You've been railing against using math/statistics in sports betting to anyone who will listen the past couple days. So if you can't win with math, how do you win then wantitall?
Have you read the whole book? Sure it doesn't give away all the secrets but there is plenty of valuable (math-based) information in there. It covers all the fundamentals you need to understand before moving on to more advanced methods. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a successful long-term sports bettor who hasn't read Wong or at the very least, apply his methods (knowingly or not).
Thanks for the great reply sharpcat.I gave you a couple points.
Wong didn't even write that chapter in his book, so calling them "Wong teasers" is really a misnomer.That's why, to this day, books like Pinnacle shade against Wong NFL teasers. Right? LOL.
according to who.
That matters. I appreciate the digression. The fact is, Wong teasers (as most people call them) were responsible for universally changing widely available NFL teasers odds and it remains a testament to the fact that math plays a significant role in sports betting.
wantitall,
What gives? You and I have had some very good quant discussions in years past (when I posted under daringly). But now, you have been trolling against math since you came to SBR. The big winners in sports betting win with math. While there are other ways to beat sports, the correct statistical analysis of years of data, plus the current year will consistently yield profits.
Please don't post this crap in the HTT - keep it in the Player's Talk. Unless you really believe what you say, and are ready to go to the mat defending your statement.
Math is good for risk aversion not predicting the outcome of the games. I have read for years where guy used to use Pinnacle as a market, guess what, if you remember the pinnacle market was set by guys that bet early and often and moved their lines for them. I dont know how many posts I wrote about Pinnacle and their lines especially baseball, back in the day. In 2003 I had 5 or 6 K overnight limits for baseball, by the all star break I think they were 3 or 4K the next year they were 1500. But you could still hammer them because their software was screwed so a 1500 bet would always move the line at least a penny, and never more than 3 cents so you could always get a new line to bet. Thus bypassing their limits. Then I was stupid and talked about it and sometime in August they changed the software, but my limits were raised to 2500.(if I remember correctly its been awhile it may have been 3K) And at that point not even two people betting their openers for max would move the line. So were they sharper than everyone else or just fix their software?
Regardless, people were using their lines throughout that time period to set the market. Despite the fact that Pinnacle had switched not only its software but its limits, at least for some people. So I dont want to debate what Pinnacle does. I was with tem for a long time, even after they closed shop to Americans I was betting there another whole season.
As far as Wong goes. I will stand by what I said, he didnt write half the stuff in that book that has his name on it. But it doesnt matter anyway since most of it is garbage anyway. Similar to those MTI books that people like to use. It is a way to promote some system or angle, mix in some math, that is more or less correct, (but meaningless to sports betting) and go from there to sucker in people who believe in that crap.
As I have stated a million times, there is no such thing as probability or odds of this team beating that team by a certain spread. Just like there is no way to mathematically prove what chance or probability a game has of landing on a certain spread (pushing) thus trying to figure out what a half point is worth in that situation. because all you are going by are databases and past results that arent even the same. I have 3 databases for the NFL, 5 for MLB, NONE of them have the same results when I do a search. So if the results from the past cant even be agreed upon how can they be used in the future?
The very 'best' one I have has openers and closers and some line moves (not all). But even using that one you have to try and figure who moved the line and why. But it is good to have because it proves to me when i do a search that lines moves are wrong and right at the same rate as games that dont move. In other words, not even lines moves are a good indicator. I am sure some are based on information, and I am sure those are probably more right than they are wrong, but I am also able to see that the guys moving the line are still wrong.
You can talk sample size, variations, regressions, whatever you want. None of it matters in sports betting. Regression MAYBE simply because linesmakers will sometimes look at streaks and shade a line one way because they know people will play that side, but most books will keep a decent line and just jack up the vig these days.
Final statement, Lakers are at at least 15-1 SU against the Thunder. 8-1 since they moved to OK City. And the only game they have lost to them was a month ago after the Lakers had pretty much sewn up first place in the west (at least in their minds). Tonight LA is +160 or so on the ML. So any math guy would have to think that is a gift I suppose when you look at the past history of these two teams, and the fact that this is the play offs and you cant take nights off. Because after all 15/16 is a 93.75% chance of winning SU, and even if you just used road stats it is still 3/4 (75%) in OKC. Which is the most relevant number.
Ah no, some of us use math that's a bit more complicated than what you learned in 3rd grade.
1) identify a situation that has an edge
2) use math to quantify that edge
I don't see the problem. (and my math is very basic, nothing advanced).
Last edited by Dark Horse; 04-22-10 at 11:33 AM.
Not using complicated math, Lakers 15-1 at a dog price leads me to believe OKC wins not lose.?
Like I said I could post all that crap math and stats bullshit myself, but why bother you guys seem to know it all.
K.I.S.S. Stands for keep it simple shithead (yeah I changed the last one).
Thats why I love guys like Wong and the touts over at his site. Colin Caster, fezzik when he was there, goats, stevie y, all those so called geniuses. Selling their box seats plays and burying guys every single season, and usually betting at books that I was at and thus giving me better numbers on the teams I liked.
So yeah use your advanced math all you want, when I see someone post a winning public record or retire from the money they make from sports betting I will believe it. But when I see guys crash their forums because their picks are no better than what a guy flipping a coin could do I will believe that.
I can get wanting to charge for plays using an edge you think you have and not wanting to post that edge. But when the edge is clearly not working then what kind of an edge is it?
Guys that really have something that works arent going to post it, period end of sentence. And even the guys that charge for it and get customers arent winning.
As far as a team that is 15-1 against another team and is a +160 dog, I dont know what kind of math you would have to invent that would say that based purely on the numbers, which is what math is all about, you wouldnt bet the Lakers with both hands. Because there isnt a single math related reason to bet OKC, not on past performance, recent or otherwise when it comes to playing the lakers.
Thats not math, that is the theory that books are smarter than everyone else and thus they 'know' the Lakers are going to lose.
Or it is a trap and they are trying to trick people into betting OKC and win it al when the Lakers do what they always do...beat OKC.
Neither of those theories is based on math thats for sure.
This might be 3 posts in a row, but I just read soemthing interesting and thought I would comment.
Grancherow, the guy that seems to be the patron saint of this board says he had a degree from Brown. How ironic so do I. As awell as a master, not in math (obviously) but in history and philosophy.
But I also remember winning quite a bit of money off those math guys,(mentioned that in some thread somewhere).
Now whether or not the guy was there from 1987 to 1991 I have no idea. But if he was I can tell you he didnt leave a winner, assuming he was gambling on campus. Because only 3 guys ever left ahead in those 4 years I was there. And one of them only made on bet and quit.
I have been around along long time, talked to guys that could make your head spin with their theories and their systems and all that. In fact a guy that made 3 of my databases graduated 2 years after I did from Brown. But he was smart enough to realize you couldnt figure it out with math. He utilized his brain for something a little more reliable.
Anyone that really has a good math degree shouldnt be dicking around with sports betting anyway. Leave that to the guys with English degree, or history degrees or sociology degrees that cant teach, drop out of law school, or cant hack a 9-5 at whatever job they are over qualified for.
I don't even know what to say.
so if you bet on a ML of say -190 because you think that team is most likely going to win that game 60% of the time, it would make no sense take the price into consideration???
considering that a team at -190 needs to win 65.5% of the time you would be an idiot to take this bet. How would you know this without math?
When scalping a bet how do you know how much to risk on your second bet to ensure max value?
When thinking of betting a "middle" how do you know if you are getting value or just throwing money away?
If you are implying there is no way to invent a winning "system" I will accept that, but to say that math has no place in a game who's foundation is based solely on mathematical probabilities is flat out idiotic.
I don't understand why you would take a stance against math. Just use it to the degree that works for you.
A challenge in sports betting, in my opinion, is that it requires a mindset that is capable of being very flexible, as in being open to new and unexplored possibilities, as well as very exact (in a manner that obviously benefits from the use of math).
Usually, people lean one way or the other. Most mathematicians that I've come across are excellent data crunchers, but their mind is not comfortable with 'the great unknown' and its hidden laws (they may not appreciate that the laws they use in math were once hidden). And intuitive gamblers, who might at times be on the verge of ideas that could redefine game theory, typically lack the mathematician's edge and fail to distill discoveries into their simplest essence.
Without the 1% inspiration, there are no new ideas. Without the 99% perspiration, new ideas are merely unfulfilled potential.
(Is it possible to use only math in sports betting and be successful? I think so. Didn't Wong include a chapter about props? That is, if he wrote it...)
Wantitall,
The problem you bring up with push rates (that your different dbs all have different numbers) would be remedied by using a radius of 0.5 or 1 from the closing spread (it would also broaden the sample size without really affecting the result). Secondly, I'd be curious to know what column headings your dbs have? The line and score data is useful, but it's hard to make money with that bare of a database. Do you have the basic box score stats? Other more unique stats (wind direction for baseball, points in the paint for basketball, etc.)? Having databases is nice but you also need to know what to do with them.
Thirdly, there are plenty of quantitative handicappers who have posted winning records. Justin7 is one (though you chose to dismiss it) but Wrecktangle is another - he has documented winning records at a different forum where he exclusively uses mathematical modeling to generate his plays. Of course his dbs have a wealth of data, beyond simply the odds and scores.
Lastly, I haven't been around that long but my guess is that advances in computer programming since your days at Brown have changed the game completely. I don't think it's valid to use anecdotal evidence from 20 years ago about how math guys couldn't (or didn't try to) win at sports betting to discredit the use of math in 2010.
One other thing - I have to believe you weren't serious with this argument. There are so many flaws with this, I don't even know where to start. Hopefully you said it in a sarcastic tone because if you really believe this is the extent of the math that the "math guys" do then you are more foolish than I thought. What does how the Lakers fared against the Thunder 5 years ago when there were completely different players have to do with anything? No one in the Think Tank - or anyone else I would imagine - uses databases this way.
He is basing his theory against math on the silly stats that touts use!!!!
F.Y.I. when guys talk about using math and databases we are not looking for "the Bulls are 8-1 ATS when playing the Cavaliers at home off of a road loss of 10+ pts."
lol........you are confusing statistical math with idiots like Brandon Lang!!!!!!!
yes mate this is confusion
I remember once having a conversation with Ganchrow about the weak. His view was that the weak were to be assisted and helped. I view the weak as a perverse anomaly that my eugenics program has not fully wiped from existence. I feel like this thread would be a great piece of evidence to sway his views.
This is the only part of your post that I remotely agree with... and not that most databases are worthless but simply that your database integrity is absolutely vital to turning a consistent profit in a pretty sketchy market. You're wrong about the math though... you just have to really know how to dig to get what you want. It's not easy but it's there.
Reply With Quote
sycoogtit gave sharpcat 2 SBR Point(s) for this post.
