Why Is Beating Closing Line +EV?

[CMangano]

Maybe I am not understanding it fully, but from what I have read the closing ML is usually 50/50. So the dog wins half the time and the fav wins half the time. This can't be right, can it? In that case, someone who always bets the dog at the closing number can't lose. They will win half their bets at + vig. In this same example someone who beats the closing line on the fav will lose, since they will win half their bets at - vig.

So assuming the above is not fact, can someone please explain why beating the closing line is +EV?

[sharpcat]

Would you also assume that the closing line on a ML of -220/+200 is 50/50?

[trixtrix]

dog= ats dog such as +6, NOT +200

[Shonner]

Maybe I am not understanding it fully, but from what I have read the closing ML is usually 50/50. So the dog wins half the time and the fav wins half the time. This can't be right, can it? In that case, someone who always bets the dog at the closing number can't lose. They will win half their bets at + vig. In this same example someone who beats the closing line on the fav will lose, since they will win half their bets at - vig.

So assuming the above is not fact, can someone please explain why beating the closing line is +EV?

Hey guy, I understand you are new and we are all new at one point, but I do not recommend posting in the handicap think tank until you learn the basics. There are plenty of articles, posts, and videos that explain how betting works. Once you have the basics down you can learn about the closing line and +EV and what.

To answer your question, this is what they are referring to:

Closing line at Pinny or Matchbook (which is considered the sharpest and the "true line"):

Fav -3.5 -104
Underdog +3.5 -112

If you were able to get the underdog at +4 -102 you would have beaten the "closing line" of the book(s) that are considered the sharpest and the most accurate. Not all lines are accurate.

I don't know if this makes sense or not to you, but like I said...start at step 1, read up on the basics of betting the move to the think tank to try and learn.

[CMangano]

Would you also assume that the closing line on a ML of -220/+200 is 50/50?

If they both win half the time in that scenario then no. Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by 50/50 on the closing line. I assumed it meant the "favorite" won 50% of the time and the "underdog" won 50% of the time. So in your -220/+200 example out of 100 bets -220 would pay 50 times and +200 would pay 50 times. That is the part I am struggling with as that just can't be right, can it?

[MadTiger]

The are talking about with the points (runs, goals, etc.)

A line of Dallas -6 against Kansas City would end up going 50/50. If they played 1000 times, Dallas would whoop that ass about 50% of the time, and cover the 6 points by winning by 7 or more, and Kansas City would scrap out a few outright wins, or lose by 5 or less points, about 50% of the time. There will be a certain amount of ties (pushes) as well, where the score will be Dallas winning by exactly 6. The corresponding MLs bet straight up (without points) wouldn't go 50/50.

[sharpcat]

dog= ats dog such as +6, NOT +200

you guys are killing me here.

The moneyline example was to prove a point, a simple point to get the wheels rolling in the OP's head rather than just handing out answers (which seems to be the new trend around here).

If a closing line on a point spread was 6 -110/-110 suggesting a no-vig line of -100/+100 therefore representing a 50/50 win probability than it would be absolutely ridiculous for anybody to think that a line of 6 -125/+105 would still be suggesting a 50/50 probability, much like a ML of -220/200 would not suggest a 50/50 win probability.

This meaning that "NO" taking a dog (dog referring to an underdog ATS) at +$$$$ would not be profitable blindly betting long term because theoretically the dog now has less than a 50% chance of winning.

[CMangano]

I think I got it (maybe).

Lets assume a no vig closing line of -110/110. That means if this is indeed the correct line or the sharpest line, and the game was played enough times for things to average out, both sides would break even, right? Therefore, if over that same time you got the favorite for -108, you would actually have +EV because you are getting the favorite for 2 cents better than their correct odds. The same holds true for the underdog if you got them over +110.

Is that how it works?

[CrimsonQueen]

I think I got it (maybe).

Lets assume a no vig closing line of -110/110. That means if this is indeed the correct line or the sharpest line, and the game was played enough times for things to average out, both sides would break even, right? Therefore, if over that same time you got the favorite for -108, you would actually have +EV because you are getting the favorite for 2 cents better than their correct odds. The same holds true for the underdog if you got them over +110.

Is that how it works?

Yes, that is how it works.

you can do this with +200/-200 (no vig for the example) and it will break even 50/50 but not on outright wins...just it will break even in terms of if you bet 100 on each side, in the long run you'd break even. IE, the +200 line will win 1/3 of the time while the -200 line would then win 2/3 of the times.

[sharpcat]

I think I got it (maybe).

Lets assume a no vig closing line of -110/110. That means if this is indeed the correct line or the sharpest line, and the game was played enough times for things to average out, both sides would break even, right? Therefore, if over that same time you got the favorite for -108, you would actually have +EV because you are getting the favorite for 2 cents better than their correct odds. The same holds true for the underdog if you got them over +110.

Is that how it works?

NO but getting closer.

you would need to get either side of the line at +$$$ to be profitable.

If a line with vig is -110/-110 it is suggesting that it is a 50/50 situation therefore the line (commonly refered to as the NO_VIG line) should be +/-100.

At -108 you are essentially just minimizing your expected losses in order to be profitable you would need to beat the no-vig line of +/-100.

[CrimsonQueen]

And in the long run, in my above example, if you got the dog at +250 each time, you'd eventually be a millionaire

[CrimsonQueen]

NO but getting closer.

you would need to get either side of the line at +$$$ to be profitable.

If a line with vig is -110/-110 it is suggesting that it is a 50/50 situation therefore the line (commonly refered to as the NO_VIG line) should be +/-100.

At -108 you are essentially just minimizing your expected losses in order to be profitable you would need to beat the no-vig line of +/-100.

Sharpcat, he IS talking about a no vig line, only in his example he used +110/-110. So getting the -108 would be profitable, if the -110 is indeed the correct 50/50 spot. (and conversely the +110 would be profitable at +111)

[CMangano]

Thanks for your help everyone. I now see why this is +EV. Now all I gotta do is beat the closing lines! LOL

[sharpcat]

Sharpcat, he IS talking about a no vig line, only in his example he used +110/-110. So getting the -108 would be profitable, if the -110 is indeed the correct 50/50 spot. (and conversely the +110 would be profitable at +111)

OK I thought he meant -110/-110 but just realized that he typed -110/110.

Yes if the no vig line was +/- 110 and you got -108 theoretically long term you should grind out a small profit or break even though beating the closer by .02 cents is pushing it because each individual line is not going to be dead accurate but over a large sample you would be surprised at how accurate the lines are.

The closer you are to the closing # the higher your risk of variance giving you a beating in the long run.

[CrimsonQueen]

Thanks for your help everyone. I now see why this is +EV. Now all I gotta do is beat the closing lines! LOL

lol...well... something like that!

[GiveMeaBJ]

It's pretty simple. Not a hard concept. You take UCLA +24. UCLA closes +21.

Who is getting the better of it?

[pedro803]

It's pretty simple. Not a hard concept. You take UCLA +24. UCLA closes +21.

Who is getting the better of it?

right, in this example you got three extra points, or you beat the closing line be three points -----> +EV

[statnerds]

And to beat the dead horse a little more:

Do you assume the market is efficient?

[LT Profits]

And to beat the dead horse a little more:

Do you assume the market is efficient?

This very theory is based on market being efficient. That seems like a safe bet in the major sports.

[pedro803]

It's pretty simple. Not a hard concept. You take UCLA +24. UCLA closes +21.

Who is getting the better of it?

a few more whacks at the dead horse if I may......

.....and back to what may have been part of the original posters question -- how does this theory play when talking moneyline instead of pointspread.

well the corallary is that the money would even out rather than the number of wins -- that is if the moneyline is +200/-200 then I think we would expet the favorite to win 2/3 of the time or 66.66666% of the time and if you bet either side over time the money should average out to zero (note there is no vig here). Maybe some of you math guys can tell me if I am correct?

[LT Profits]

a few more whacks at the dead horse if I may......

.....and back to what may have been part of the original posters question -- how does this theory play when talking moneyline instead of pointspread.

well the corallary is that the money would even out rather than the number of wins -- that is if the moneyline is +200/-200 then I think we would expet the favorite to win 2/3 of the time or 66.66666% of the time and if you bet either side over time the money should average out to zero (note there is no vig here). Maybe some of you math guys can tell me if I am correct?

Again it goes back to beating the closing line, and yes same rules apply to MLs. If you get -175 or +240 early in that same game, you will take the 66.7/33.3 split.