If lines are so efficient

**rfr3sh** · 11-22-10, 05:17 PM

well...did you check injuries, maybe a goalie change etc
the line gets sharper as more information is available

**Stocks** · 11-22-10, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by rfr3sh

well...did you check injuries, maybe a goalie change etc
the line gets sharper as more information is available

It don't look like theres any major injurys. As far as the line gets sharper closer to game time that would make sense if the line started at -109 got bet to -125 and then sharpen to say -120 or something like that but to come all the way back past where it started dose'nt make sense.

**noober** · 11-22-10, 06:38 PM

If the lines were efficient we would all be wasting time.

**trixtrix** · 11-22-10, 06:59 PM

lines are not efficient, that's why there are so many sportsbetting millionaires posting on sbr

**Flight** · 11-22-10, 07:13 PM

Oscillation and change of direction do not imply inefficiency. Only a change in consensus. Also, limits can change over time... some bettors will not play openers until limits are raised... or perhaps place small wager on one side and then come over the top on the other side.

There are lots of explanations. Do you agree?

**Peregrine Stoop** · 11-22-10, 07:52 PM

OP apparently doesn't understand want semi-strong efficiency is

**bamacards** · 11-22-10, 08:10 PM

that is big move for a hockey match

**Stocks** · 11-22-10, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Flight

Oscillation and change of direction do not imply inefficiency. Only a change in consensus. Also, limits can change over time... some bettors will not play openers until limits are raised... or perhaps place small wager on one side and then come over the top on the other side.

There are lots of explanations. Do you agree?

This is what I was thinking if Johnny Sharp Bettor makes a lage wager on Tampa to move the line to make Tampa a bigger favorite then it should be only to come back and make an even larger wager on Boston because thats the team he really liked from the get go.

If this were the case then the line is'nt really efficient because it was manipulated by Johnny Sharp Bettor so he could get the line he wanted.

**Flight** · 11-23-10, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Stocks

If this were the case then the line is'nt really efficient because it was manipulated by Johnny Sharp Bettor so he could get the line he wanted.

You're right, if lines are easily manipulated, efficiency drops. In any decent size market (Yes NHL is efficient, check the limits at your favorite book) I would venture a guess that this type of manipulation is rare and may only occur close to open at ~$500 limits. I was just providing anecdotal examples of how a line could be shaped. This is really no different than stock market price shaping. What do you think drives those prices?

At the macro level:
1) confidence
2) information
3) fear (risk avoidance)
4) etc

At the micro level:
1) noise
2) more noise

**RickySteve** · 11-23-10, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by noober

If the lines were efficient we would all be wasting time.

Not all of us.

**tcmoody33** · 11-23-10, 11:23 AM

seems like theres a lot of explanations. did anyone look up if there were any injuries? how did they come up with that bucs sf spread this weekend wtf

**wrongturn** · 11-23-10, 11:29 AM

Nothing is absolute efficient. It is just as efficient as it can be, but not more efficient than it needs to be.

**Stocks** · 11-23-10, 12:07 PM

Heres what I was thinking when I started this thread about lines being efficient then I got side tracked with the hockey lines and never really said what I wanted to say.

Using the theory that lines are efficient with the closing line being most efficient. In theory would that make it so if people blindly bet the closing line they would be breakeven minus the juice.

If the above is true then to make this efficient line the books and sharp bettors should be on the same page or even just sharp bettors but I think we can say linesmakers are sharp aswell.

So if a game starts at -109 goes to -128 then back to -109 and keeps going to +111 then the books and sharp bettors are not on the same page and the sharp bettors are not on the same page as each other so how can this line be efficient.

Also I was thinking what if the sharpest line was the line the books started with at -109. I mean if the linesmakers were handicappers and I got to think the way they create they're lines its as if they were. If this were true then the linesmakers who are sharp capped this game at -109 and there were odds of +111 out there then this would be a situation where a handicapper would bet the +111 if they capped it at -109.

What I'm saying is if we were as sharp as the linesmakers and I'm guessing most are not and we capped this game at -109 and the odds were actually +111 we would be betting this game. Anyway anyone ever check to see if the +111 side would be profitable in games where the odds went one way then back the other way like this.

**JustinBieber** · 11-23-10, 12:38 PM

Line movement == efficiency

**Vegas_bond** · 11-23-10, 02:27 PM

It doesnt matter where the line starts; what is really important is how much it moves, up or down.

**JR007** · 11-23-10, 08:41 PM

I have consulted with some of the contributors of the Conquering risk book...usually when the line steams up then goes back......the books may be offering a "scalp" or could be bettors buying back positions

**Thremp** · 11-24-10, 10:51 AM

The square steam theorem is one of the most overblown theories I've ever heard. If you could tell when square money was coming in, call me in three years, take a picture of yourself on your yacht and post "fuk u Thremp", I'll be pwned. I'm not good enough to tell that stuff (actually I'm not really good at anything), so whatev. I just doubt that playing market movement based on understanding which moves are sharp/square requires a skillset that its application in this fashion would result in the lowest possible growth of your BR short of lighting it on fire.

**uva3021** · 11-24-10, 12:22 PM

the direction of line movement says very little to the eventual outcome of the event

in that sense lines are efficient since randomness and unpredictability are preserved, if they weren't the books would be vulnerable

**ThaddeusB** · 11-24-10, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Stocks

Using the theory that lines are efficient with the closing line being most efficient. In theory would that make it so if people blindly bet the closing line they would be breakeven minus the juice.

This is true irregardless of efficiency. Blindly betting ANY line will result in break even minus juice over the long run. The reason is that you'll be on the +EV side just as often as the -EV side.

**skrtelfan** · 11-24-10, 10:41 PM

There are certainly obvious examples of "square money" but I doubt they exist in hockey outside of perhaps the Stanley Cup finals, and generally at the inflated square lines at the usual square books the limits are low.

**Stocks** · 11-25-10, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by ThaddeusB

This is true irregardless of efficiency. Blindly betting ANY line will result in break even minus juice over the long run. The reason is that you'll be on the +EV side just as often as the -EV side.

LOL your right I did'nt really think about it like that.

What I meant is if lines are efficient the final outcome of a game would end up on each side of the line 50% of the time so it dose'nt matter what side you bet you should end up 50%. But if they were'nt efficient then the final outcome could end up 60% of the time on one side and 40% on the other side and someone could bet the 40% side more often like back in the day when books would shade the line more towards the favorite or public team so most bettors would'nt be betting the +EV side as often as the -EV side.

I dont know if that makes sense or not it makes sense in my head but putting it to words is a different story.

**Pokerjoe** · 11-27-10, 02:33 AM

Efficiency is a relative state on a continuum, not an absolute. The very statement "sportsbetting lines are efficient" is a lazy, even nonsensical description. They can only be relatively efficient; it makes no sense to say they ARE efficient. They lie somewhere between absolute inefficiency (making every game pick'em) and absolute efficiency (making every line exactly equal to the long-run average actual win chance).

Lines can only be relatively efficient, and every market (that is, every single wager opportunity) needs to be separately appraised for that quality.

And, btw, relative inefficiency would only help those who could spot it, otherwise a player would still be in a coin-flip situation. And where players can spot the inefficiencies, they (the relative inefficiencies, not the players) disappear, in time (well, at least down to transaction costs).

But then again, just because no one can spot the inefficiencies doesn't mean they don't exist, and it's amazing to me that people can be so arrogant as to think that what they don't know, no one can know.

That's why I think it makes no sense to worry about line efficiency generally. It's a pointless concern, a useless semantics in this context, and it's ridiculous that so many people keep bringing it up. Maybe sophomore econ classes should just be banned generally, LOL. This isn't the stock market with it's constant, circular, self-defining efficiency; this is a very small market, with a nearly completely independent result definer (the game!).

The only thing that matters is the degree to which you can yourself spot relative market inefficiencies in specific wagering opportunities. That is, can you make money. And only the results of many decisions will answer that question.

If, after many wagering decisons, you're losing, you can and should say the market was too efficient for you to beat. What you should not do is say it's too efficient for anyone to beat. Those who say "no one can beat it, it's efficient" are being petulant, ignorant and egotistical.

But the opposite is also true, in that those who, after many wagering decisions, are winning, should not say "the market is inefficient." They should only say "It's likely that it's been somewhat inefficient." No matter how deep is your sample of winning bets, you may only have been lucky; no matter how actually skill-dependent was your winning, the market may adapt and neutralize your past advantages.

You guys are giving me a headache. Well, that and going 0-6 on NBA tonight, LOL.

Good luck going forward.

**subs** · 11-27-10, 06:52 AM

thanks Pokerjoe for this and your many other fine contributions.

hope you have better luck tomorrow.

**Wrecktangle** · 11-27-10, 08:10 AM

Nice post, poker. Too much time is spend on arguing how efficient the market is/isn't, what really matters is: are you better than it in the sport you've chosen.