Beating No Vig Lines/Closing Lines

**MooDao** · 10-01-10, 01:52 PM

Yep you're right the vig free number is the one in the middle of the - and +.

**roasthawg** · 10-01-10, 02:26 PM

In your example you made a bad bet because you did not beat the closing line.

**Justin7** · 10-01-10, 02:37 PM

If you bet on A at +133, and it closed at +120/-130, you made a good bet. If you took B at -143, and it closed at -130, you were the book's chump.

**bztips** · 10-01-10, 02:39 PM

My opinion only -- I think the idea that "beating the closing line is a must to winning" is crazy, mainly because NO ONE can do it consistently. If you could consistently predict which way the line was going to move until it closes, you may as well buy your Mansion now, because that means you can essentially print money.

A much more realistic goal (IMO) is to try to make +EV bets consistently -- depending on how the line moves after you've made your bet, your "estimated" EV may obviously go up or down (and in some cases could actually go negative), but on average if you're making bets that are +EV at the time you place your bet then you should come out ahead long term (only exception might be in highly volatile markets). That should be your goal, which makes much more sense than spending all your time trying to predict which direction the line is going to move.

**jgilmartin** · 10-01-10, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by bztips

NO ONE can do it consistently

It depends what you mean by 'consistently' I suppose. No one can do it every time, but people can do it two thirds of the time; do you consider that 'consistently'?

**MadTiger** · 10-01-10, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by bztips

My opinion only -- I think the idea that "beating the closing line is a must to winning" is crazy, mainly because NO ONE can do it consistently. If you could consistently predict which way the line was going to move until it closes, you may as well buy your Mansion now, because that means you can essentially print money. A much more realistic goal (IMO) is to try to make +EV bets consistently -- depending on how the line moves after you've made your bet, your "estimated" EV may obviously go up or down (and in some cases could actually go negative), but on average if you're making bets that are +EV at the time you place your bet then you should come out ahead long term (only exception might be in highly volatile markets). That should be your goal, which makes much more sense than spending all your time trying to predict which direction the line is going to move.

Great post, but don't underestimate the need to at least have somewhat of a clue as to what the line will do in the remaining time to the start of the event. You have to at least have a reasonable justification for why you are pulling the trigger on the bet now instead of later.

**bztips** · 10-01-10, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by jgilmartin

It depends what you mean by 'consistently' I suppose. No one can do it every time, but people can do it two thirds of the time; do you consider that 'consistently'?

Yes, I would think that someone who can predict the line movement correctly 66% of the time has a big advantage. I just don't know anyone who can do that; maybe you do.

Originally posted by MadTiger

Great post, but don't underestimate the need to at least have somewhat of a clue as to what the line will do in the remaining time to the start of the event. You have to at least have a reasonable justification for why you are pulling the trigger on the bet now instead of later.

I respectfully disagree. For example, I've developed a model for MLB that spits out probabilities; if the predictions of the model are significantly different from the current line, I bet it. I really don't have any clue whether the line I'm betting on is going to stay where it is, move toward me, or against me. But as I said, the prediction from my model has to be SIGNIFICANTLY different from the line, so small moves one way or the other won't drastically affect my estimated EV. Admittedly, I haven't (yet) carefully looked at the subsequent line moves to see if there's anything systematic that I can find relative to what my model is saying -- that's on my to-do list.

Having said all that, I agree that IF you happen to have some basis for knowing which way the line is likely to move on a given game, then yes that's very valuable information. I just think it's probably a very tough thing to do consistently.

**CMangano** · 10-01-10, 04:03 PM

Thanks for all the great info everyone.

**Shonner** · 10-01-10, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by CMangano

I have a question regarding beating closing lines. I understand that beating closing lines is a must to winning long term. The tough part is how can you do it? So here is a thought I had and I wanted some feedback to see if I am way off-base here or on the right track.

Let's say Pinny has the following line for a game that starts in 3 hours:

Team A +130
Team B - 140

Now, that would make the no-vig line +135/-135, correct? Now lets say some other book has Team B at -133. That is 2 cents better than the no-vig line, so that should be a good play, right? So let's say I jump on it and make the bet. Well, 3 hours later when the game start Pinny has the closing lines of:

Team A +120
Team B -130

Now my Team B -133 doesn't look so good. So the question I have is, did I still make a good bet by beating the no-vig line, or is it a bad bet because I didn't beat the closing line?

no, you calculated the no vig line incorrectly. it is not 135. in ganchs excel function spreadsheet it shows you how to calculate it, you just can't take the middle because the sides are not weighted equally. i asked how to caluclate the no vig line on a ML and someone helped me last week

**Shonner** · 10-01-10, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by bztips

Yes, I would think that someone who can predict the line movement correctly 66% of the time has a big advantage. I just don't know anyone who can do that; maybe you do.

I respectfully disagree. For example, I've developed a model for MLB that spits out probabilities; if the predictions of the model are significantly different from the current line, I bet it. I really don't have any clue whether the line I'm betting on is going to stay where it is, move toward me, or against me. But as I said, the prediction from my model has to be SIGNIFICANTLY different from the line, so small moves one way or the other won't drastically affect my estimated EV. Admittedly, I haven't (yet) carefully looked at the subsequent line moves to see if there's anything systematic that I can find relative to what my model is saying -- that's on my to-do list.

Having said all that, I agree that IF you happen to have some basis for knowing which way the line is likely to move on a given game, then yes that's very valuable information. I just think it's probably a very tough thing to do consistently.

yeah people act like the closing line is God, they say you beat it in the long run. probably true, but i'm not a huge closing line guy like some are.

**donjuan** · 10-01-10, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by bztips

My opinion only -- I think the idea that "beating the closing line is a must to winning" is crazy, mainly because NO ONE can do it consistently. If you could consistently predict which way the line was going to move until it closes, you may as well buy your Mansion now, because that means you can essentially print money.

A much more realistic goal (IMO) is to try to make +EV bets consistently -- depending on how the line moves after you've made your bet, your "estimated" EV may obviously go up or down (and in some cases could actually go negative), but on average if you're making bets that are +EV at the time you place your bet then you should come out ahead long term (only exception might be in highly volatile markets). That should be your goal, which makes much more sense than spending all your time trying to predict which direction the line is going to move.

Steam chase/pick off shaded lines at rec books 5 minutes before close and you'll beat the closer just about every time.

**Data** · 10-01-10, 07:16 PM

This discussion reminds of the sharks, the real ones, and the smaller predators that follow them. Most of the ocean fauna just wants to be the happy shark followers. There are some "sharps" here who have made it to be those little nasty creatures and now they are talking down the aspiring fish. bztips, you are trying to tell people they can grow to be the sharks. They cannot. There are not that many people who are capable of this.

Still, good for the others, for those who know what they want and what they can do. However, your suggestions are distracting for them. There is always a possibility that you are just showing off but you just do not seem to be the type.

**CMangano** · 10-01-10, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Shonner

no, you calculated the no vig line incorrectly. it is not 135. in ganchs excel function spreadsheet it shows you how to calculate it, you just can't take the middle because the sides are not weighted equally. i asked how to caluclate the no vig line on a ML and someone helped me last week

Ya, I realize that my no vig calcs were wrong now. Thanks.

**SolidDala** · 10-02-10, 09:07 AM

that's a start, have you learned how to calculate it right then and why its that number? Ganchs excel function is great, but it doesnt learn you why and how it spits out the right number. One can't start with B or even D, one must understand A first

**bztips** · 10-02-10, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Data

This discussion reminds of the sharks, the real ones, and the smaller predators that follow them. Most of the ocean fauna just wants to be the happy shark followers. There are some "sharps" here who have made it to be those little nasty creatures and now they are talking down the aspiring fish. bztips, you are trying to tell people they can grow to be the sharks. They cannot. There are not that many people who are capable of this.

Still, good for the others, for those who know what they want and what they can do. However, your suggestions are distracting for them. There is always a possibility that you are just showing off but you just do not seem to be the type.

data, not sure what you are trying to say here. Believe me, I do not consider myself a shark; unless, by that you mean someone who knows technically how to create a statistical model with the goal of generating +EV bets given the posted line. Are you saying that most people are incapable of even trying to do that??? Really, anyone who has some decent Excel skills and a little statistical knowledge can do it (or at least TRY to do it -- no guarantee that they'll be successful, and of course the more statistics you know, the better.)

**Pokerjoe** · 10-02-10, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by CMangano

I have a question regarding beating closing lines. I understand that beating closing lines is a must to winning long term.

This is a misunderstanding. Beating closing lines is NOT a must to winning long term. BTCL is the Emperor's New Clothes of sportsbetting.

One of these days I'll take the time to write an essay explaining the myth and misunderstanding of BTCL. But not on a CFB Saturday.

**Data** · 10-02-10, 12:32 PM

bztips, I am talking about setting and achieving the goals. From end results perspective, it is much better to have a realistically achievable albeit a smaller goal and to have some support along the way than to work towards an unachievable sky-high dream. About 50% of population are capable of trying creating models but about 98% of them are guaranteed to fail to achieve profitability. This is why the latter path is unsuitable and calling to try it out is not a good advice while given to about 99% of population.

**Data** · 10-02-10, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Pokerjoe

This is a misunderstanding. Beating closing lines is NOT a must to winning long term. BTCL is the Emperor's New Clothes of sportsbetting.

One of these days I'll take the time to write an essay explaining the myth and misunderstanding of BTCL. But not on a CFB Saturday.

I agree with this while looking from modeler's perspective. However, creating models is only one of the methods. It is certainly the most lucrative one but also is the most difficult and the most rare. The most of the successful bettors are the Pilot Fish. BTCL is their mantra and their light. It does work for them and there is no point dismissing this.

**Flight** · 10-05-10, 09:42 PM

Pokerjoe, I would like to read your take on BTCL.

I consider it to be my mantra. I use the closing line like a grade on a report. I take it so far as I care more about where the closing line lands than where my bet outcomes land sometimes. I have lost bets before where I don't feel as bad because I had +4 and the market closed at +3. Perhaps it is Emperor's Clothes on me, but it's the only other good feedback I get other than an acct balance.

**Pokerjoe** · 10-05-10, 11:55 PM

I'll write it up when I get the chance, then. And I'd better do it soon because I'm already time-crunched, and basketball is on deck, LOL.

**wrongturn** · 10-06-10, 07:48 AM

If you believe picking games randomly at no vig line gives you around 0 profit long term, then beating the no vig closing line in large volumes should be profitable, no?

**u21c3f6** · 10-06-10, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by wrongturn

If you believe picking games randomly at no vig line gives you around 0 profit long term, then beating the no vig closing line in large volumes should be profitable, no?

That is the catch. You cannot wager on any random game at no vig or better, only the games which the market allows you to do this. Those results may or may not be the same as a truly random sample.

Joe.

**Peregrine Stoop** · 10-06-10, 01:42 PM

I'm also a BTCLt-1 disciple mainly due to time opportunity cost v benefit trade-off. However, I look forward to anything Pokerjoe has to say on the topic.