-
Comment -
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.Comment -
Interesting informations... Iìll study them. tyComment -
The reasoning makes sense. Tough crowd here. And that's putting it nicely.
FWIW, you're one of two posters who's stuff I printed out. The other is Ganch. I like reading stuff like this because it often triggers creative processes in my own mind. That's the true value, to me. We can use more creative thinkers, but it's unlikely that this will happen, because of the thought police in here who seem intent only on chopping down every imperfect theory. I suppose it must be perfect first, in their minds. Fat chance of anybody ever posting such a theory.Last edited by Dark Horse; 10-15-10, 07:49 AM.Comment -
This isn't just an imperfect theory.
As Justin pointed out, it's a system, not a model.
We can find all sorts of these "inefficiencies" or (according to Data) "variances" if we data mine enough; that doesn't mean they have any value to a bettor going forward.Comment -
or they could still have the same value going forward, nobody knows. if a method has been proven successful without any doubt, the method has already been history.Comment -
My last word on this issue (off to Vegas until Monday). What no one seems to understand is this model is based on the LTR. The Dogs covering at 54% and Overs at 56% are by-products of the system, they are the results of the bets, not the reason for them.
A little background on my work. For years I've maintained a database just for college CPs with the primary component being the LTR. Several years ago, when good books would take many CPs, I based my bets on the relative relationship between the line and the total (LTR). My study showed that if the LTR was 4.5 or less it was a good bet to bet both ways F/O and D/U (regardless of the line or total). When good books shut down CPs (at least the ones that were profitable), I changed gears. I studied the relationship between the D/O and the F/U when there was a very low LTR. After much analysis I discovered that if the LTR was 2 or less, again regardless of the line or total numbers, that the D/O came in at twice (or better) than the F/U. When you apply logic you can see why this is. But if you just bet these randomly, and not calculate the LTR, you would lose unless the LTR happened to be 2 or less. With more work, I determined, in increments of .20 (eg, 2-1.8, 1.8-1.6, etc.) the actual value projected.
Now the "market" can be efficient or not efficient, it doesn't matter to me. If they post lines and totals, and they meet my LTR criteria, I'll bet them.
Lastly, many bettors PM, e-mail, and call me on a regular basis for advice and opinions. Justin7 is one who has e-mailed or called me numerous times asking advice on teasers and other betting methodologies I use. I have shared some proprietary information with him that he uses extensively. My only stipulation was that he not disclose any of this information on any forum (or in his book). As far as I know he has honored that trust. I've been asked many times, why post any of your work, it's not in your best interest? The answer is simple, I'm altruistic by nature and will help others anyway I can (yes, I can just see the "eye rolls", but that's the way it is). Some, maybe many, just aren't interested in unproven methodologies by me or anyone else, I respect that and wish them well.
I'm off to Sin City
Comment -
It's really simple. It is based on numbers and PROBABILITY, just like the the old correlated parlays with the F/O and D/U.Comment -
except the old correlated parlays can still work with a 50/50 split in outcomes of both the spread and total.
this 'system' cannot. The dog and/or the over has to hit way above 50/50 for it to work.
Go through the 2x2 box I put up earlier and see it for yourself.
While the correlated fave/over and dog/under can work by both becoming larger chances but balancing, The dog/over cannot go up with the fave/under decreasing unless you believe the ATS and total markets are not efficient.Comment -
Now I am connecting the dots on Justin's scary word in his book.My last word on this issue (off to Vegas until Monday). What no one seems to understand is this model is based on the LTR. The Dogs covering at 54% and Overs at 56% are by-products of the system, they are the results of the bets, not the reason for them.
A little background on my work. For years I've maintained a database just for college CPs with the primary component being the LTR. Several years ago, when good books would take many CPs, I based my bets on the relative relationship between the line and the total (LTR). My study showed that if the LTR was 4.5 or less it was a good bet to bet both ways F/O and D/U (regardless of the line or total). When good books shut down CPs (at least the ones that were profitable), I changed gears. I studied the relationship between the D/O and the F/U when there was a very low LTR. After much analysis I discovered that if the LTR was 2 or less, again regardless of the line or total numbers, that the D/O came in at twice (or better) than the F/U. When you apply logic you can see why this is. But if you just bet these randomly, and not calculate the LTR, you would lose unless the LTR happened to be 2 or less. With more work, I determined, in increments of .20 (eg, 2-1.8, 1.8-1.6, etc.) the actual value projected.
Now the "market" can be efficient or not efficient, it doesn't matter to me. If they post lines and totals, and they meet my LTR criteria, I'll bet them.
Lastly, many bettors PM, e-mail, and call me on a regular basis for advice and opinions. Justin7 is one who has e-mailed or called me numerous times asking advice on teasers and other betting methodologies I use. I have shared some proprietary information with him that he uses extensively. My only stipulation was that he not disclose any of this information on any forum (or in his book). As far as I know he has honored that trust. I've been asked many times, why post any of your work, it's not in your best interest? The answer is simple, I'm altruistic by nature and will help others anyway I can (yes, I can just see the "eye rolls", but that's the way it is). Some, maybe many, just aren't interested in unproven methodologies by me or anyone else, I respect that and wish them well.
I'm off to Sin City
You never know if some of the people who trashes your ideas are actually afraid of you talking too much. I find your postings are among the most useful on this site.Comment -
Good luck in Vegas, come back with a couple bags full of cash.My last word on this issue (off to Vegas until Monday). What no one seems to understand is this model is based on the LTR. The Dogs covering at 54% and Overs at 56% are by-products of the system, they are the results of the bets, not the reason for them.
A little background on my work. For years I've maintained a database just for college CPs with the primary component being the LTR. Several years ago, when good books would take many CPs, I based my bets on the relative relationship between the line and the total (LTR). My study showed that if the LTR was 4.5 or less it was a good bet to bet both ways F/O and D/U (regardless of the line or total). When good books shut down CPs (at least the ones that were profitable), I changed gears. I studied the relationship between the D/O and the F/U when there was a very low LTR. After much analysis I discovered that if the LTR was 2 or less, again regardless of the line or total numbers, that the D/O came in at twice (or better) than the F/U. When you apply logic you can see why this is. But if you just bet these randomly, and not calculate the LTR, you would lose unless the LTR happened to be 2 or less. With more work, I determined, in increments of .20 (eg, 2-1.8, 1.8-1.6, etc.) the actual value projected.
Now the "market" can be efficient or not efficient, it doesn't matter to me. If they post lines and totals, and they meet my LTR criteria, I'll bet them.
Lastly, many bettors PM, e-mail, and call me on a regular basis for advice and opinions. Justin7 is one who has e-mailed or called me numerous times asking advice on teasers and other betting methodologies I use. I have shared some proprietary information with him that he uses extensively. My only stipulation was that he not disclose any of this information on any forum (or in his book). As far as I know he has honored that trust. I've been asked many times, why post any of your work, it's not in your best interest? The answer is simple, I'm altruistic by nature and will help others anyway I can (yes, I can just see the "eye rolls", but that's the way it is). Some, maybe many, just aren't interested in unproven methodologies by me or anyone else, I respect that and wish them well.
I'm off to Sin City
Comment -
Comment -
I think I should illustrate my point. Lets say we have a market on a fair coin flip with a no-vig price of -100. After 200 flips the "heads" came in at 53%. I bettor notices this and starts betting "heads". On the next 100 flips he wins 54 times. He claims his system works and shares that with the forum. People with a clue do not buy this. However, there is no reason to say that this is not going to work going forward because the market was inefficient and now this must have gotten adjusted.Comment -
Another issue I do not see addressed to my liking so far is how this system is "similar" to correlated parlays and how it is not. For obvious reasons we are going to look at efficient markets of the sides and the totals.
If we have two correlated outcomes while each outcome has a 50% probability parlaying these two outcomes allows us to create an +EV opportunity. Since the outcomes are correlated their "share" of going 2-0 is going to be more than a "fair share" of 25%. If the outcomes are correlated enough to overcome vig, we have an +EV bet. Note, we bet more on the outcome that happens more often than it "should" comparing to the case if the parlay legs were uncorrelated. It is like having almost two units on the second leg instead of one unit. So, similarly, for events with negative correlation if we could somehow either bet less on the second game if we win the first game or bet more on the second game if we lose the first game then this would create an +EV opportunity as well. However, placing straight bets cannot help achieving this. As the old adagio goes, you cannot create an +EV opportunity by making -EV bets.Last edited by Data; 10-16-10, 11:52 AM. Reason: corrected strategy to use while betting negatively correlated eventsComment -
Do I really have to do the math here??? As others have stated, the OP's sample is inefficient. Whether you think he drew that sample from a market that's efficient is another story. But the "evidence" that the sample he's working with is inefficient is overwhelming in one case (Overs) and somewhat weaker, but still pretty strong in the other case (Dogs).
Using OP's data and "stats methodology 101":
Z-score for Overs (253 covers in 451 trials) is 2.59 --> you're out in the 99th percentile
Z-score for Dogs (247 covers in 458 trials) is 1.68 --> 90th percentile
His data doesn't exhibit just normal variation around .5, which is what you seem to be saying.Comment -
ok, data. We're on the same page.
Comment -
San Jose St vs Boise St is a play today for this. San Jose St +24.5, total under 30, both for the first halfComment -
where is RAINMAN when you need him?
Comment -
bztips love the avatarComment -
Boise crushed them quickly and took a rest in 2nd halfComment -
how did it do yesterday?Comment -
For the San Jose St vs Boise game, the total over 30 1st half hit, and the dog +24.5 missed. If you bet them at -110, you lost around 4% due to the vig.Comment -
an observation
Efficiency in the markets can, I think, be generated only in a global sense--and it is due to this very universal nature of efficiency that subsets (half-time) will exist that are inefficient in nature. In some sense, it resembles the three-body problem in gravitation--the precise relationship obtainable when two bodies interact is perturbed by the addition of a third, and renders precision impossible.
In the financial markets, some idea of this can be obtained by examining the long-term bias against technical analysis and for fundamentalists, and comparing the results when this bias changed to favor technical over fundamental market approaches. Today, a synthetic approach is preferred--that is, the two strategies have equilibrated and the market has discounted their effectiveness. Hedging practices and so forth notwithstanding, which tend to imbalance these two wings by pricing manipulations, a third strategy (there may be others) is seen developing in market analysis that ignores pricing based or fundamentals based artifacts and examines situational issues.
I am on observer of the financial markets, and I do know several extremely successful bettors whose primary methods are centered on data-mining strategies. I think there will ALWAYS be inefficiencies in market pricing, and the best efficiency possible is that which sees market participants preoccupied with the current winner: the loser directs his attention to the source of greatest, most prevalent hemorrhage, and away from the tolerable, least significant danger. Even though successfully controlling the risk of the former, the strategies adopted actually support and nurture the dangers of this new, third approach. Much the same will, I think, obtain in the sports market. Most mathematical approaches to this market have enjoyed success because that market has, for a long time, been conducted in a climate where the cumulative effect of the wagering capital of the small bettor has been the primary trend-establishing force. With the increased success of mathematically sophisticated bettors in that market and the correspondingly greater market share they wield in result of it, inevitably the market will retool its armor to protect itself from the methods these investors use. It is true that the most successful implementations of these strategies will persist into tomorrow, but that has much to do with the evolution of the strategies in response to the market's reactions. It will be increasingly difficult for new entrants in the market to succeed using these methods because of a) lack of experience in the development of these strategies and the counter-strategies formulated against them increases the vulnerability of those who would subsequently wish to use them too; and b) the increasingly negligible edges remaining to the employers of said strategies once these opposing forces approach equilibrium argues against any but the most fortunate from competing successfully. But there is always the "third body" perturbing the system, an alternative approach.
At least, that's the way I see it. So, this fellow is not so much systematizing, he is methodologizing. You must admit he is, at the very least, implementing a favorite method of science, hypothesizing, collecting data to support or deny the theory, and then proceeding with the implementation--while, of course, protecting the bottom line with mm. I assume this goes without saying?
getreal-Comment -
It appears OP believes he has uncovered a scenario where two events are more likely to go 2-0 than 0-2, all the while taking small losses on the more common 1-1, and in turn hoping to combat the small losses with the 2-0 vs 0-2 ratio.Comment -
Comment -
Welcome, getreal.
Your first post sounds and looks like you took it straight out of a textbook (or published article). Very well written, but IMO very wrong.
Disagree entirely with this conclusion. He is most definitely NOT hypothesizing and then collecting data to test the theory -- in fact, just the opposite. He's data mining pure and simple, there's no theory or hypothesis-testing anywhere -- he's simply found a subset of data that happens to show a trend, and that is not a "favorite method of science".Comment -
I'm wrong so often, I've decided to have engraved upon my tombstone "I think I'm dead, but I may be mistaken".
But: Isn't his hypothesis "data-mining provides an edge"; examining sub-sets for that edge; then implementing any he finds?
There is an interesting interview in "Market Wizards II" that exposes the thinking; if you'd like, I can dig the specific reference for you.
getreal-Comment -
uh, yeah. Great use of the scientific method. Here's another nugget using that technique from the immortal Marc Lawrence, handicapper extraordinaire:
Teams with a bye in Week 6 of the college football season, coming off back-to-back losses, including a spread loss in its last game, and facing an opponent off a win, are 17-4 ATS in their next game!!! Brilliant!
Comment
