How to not steam?

**Pokerjoe** · 11-23-10, 02:26 AM

Your first sentence is contradictory. You say you handicapped it as an easy cover, then later, in the same sentence, say you weren't very sure of the play. Handicapping it as an easy cover means you ARE very sure of the play. That's what "easy cover" means.

Most likely, you are backfitting your feelings. After seeing the game come in the way you leaned, you remember your capping as being a strong play. But if the game had come out differently, you'd remember it differently, something like, "Yeah, I was wise to doubt SD and over, good for me."

And your idea about prime time games is wrong, Rocks. Or someone told you wrong. Prime time games need not be avoided any more than they need be bet. A game's primetimeness is irrelevant to a wager decision (although the square money it draws may make it slightly more likely that you'll find value in it).

Good luck.

**splash** · 11-23-10, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Pokerjoe

And your idea about prime time games is wrong, Rocks. Or someone told you wrong. Prime time games need not be avoided any more than they need be bet. A game's primetimeness is irrelevant to a wager decision (although the square money it draws may make it slightly more likely that you'll find value in it).

What? No. MNF lines are super efficient because they draw tons of money. It's far less likely you'll find value in it.

**HilltopTony** · 11-23-10, 09:44 AM

Primetime Games are the toughest to bet

**Wrecktangle** · 11-23-10, 09:48 AM

Never a problem for me, as the modeling (if done right) takes the "should I, or not?" out of it.

As to MNF's lines being super efficient, there is some evidence to the contrary since so much non-pro money is on it. A few years back I did a study on it and if you believe in Mean Squared Error as being an indicator of line efficiency (I do) MNF was slightly worst on average than Sunday games, but not enough to be conclusive. But on the other hand, since MNF is now on cable vs broadcast TV, things have changed somewhat, but we haven't a large enough data sample to say much.

**IrishTim** · 11-23-10, 10:00 AM

This is something I've flip-flopped on a few times. Is efficiency a product of just pure volume or is it the ratio of sharp money to square money? I've changed my mind on this a lot the last couple months.

**That Foreign Guy** · 11-23-10, 10:37 AM

If you think squares on average have a correct estimate but with a larger error than sharps then more square money = more efficiency (at a slower rate than sharp money).

If you think squares on average have an incorrect estimate and sharps on average have a correct estimate then the ratio of square:sharp determines accuracy.

**Pokerjoe** · 11-23-10, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by splash

What? No. MNF lines are super efficient because they draw tons of money. It's far less likely you'll find value in it.

You have some evidence for this statement that it's "far" less likely? By evidence, I mean that you have an effective and objective bet method that makes far fewer picks on MNF compared to other NFL games? Or do you have some evidence that the line/score variance for MNF is "far" less than for other games? I think maybe you're just throwing myths around, but I'd love to see good evidence that you're right. Present it.

My football model, which is exceptionally good for totals anyway, makes no more or fewer picks on MNF than any other games. Further, it makes more picks, with more profit, on bowl games than on regular season CFB. IOW, bowl game totals, to me, are weaker than regular season totals, and MNF games are neutral relative to other regular season NFL games (admittedly and necessarily small samples in both cases, obv).

**Pokerjoe** · 11-23-10, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by HilltopTony

Primetime Games are the toughest to bet

That's merely an opinion, and not an argument. Argue your case, please. I'd be interested to hear it.

**Nuggz** · 11-23-10, 06:35 PM

Primetime games are virtually the same as any other game, the only difference being more square money. The line probably gets pounded the wrong way more often actually. Any difference is most likely insignificant.

**Pokerjoe** · 11-23-10, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Pokerjoe

Your first sentence is contradictory. You say you handicapped it as an easy cover, then later, in the same sentence, say you weren't very sure of the play. Handicapping it as an easy cover means you ARE very sure of the play. That's what "easy cover" means.

Most likely, you are backfitting your feelings. After seeing the game come in the way you leaned, you remember your capping as being a strong play. But if the game had come out differently, you'd remember it differently, something like, "Yeah, I was wise to doubt SD and over, good for me."

And your idea about prime time games is wrong, Rocks. Or someone told you wrong. Prime time games need not be avoided any more than they need be bet. A game's primetimeness is irrelevant to a wager decision (although the square money it draws may make it slightly more likely that you'll find value in it).

Good luck.

The bold print line is the response to OP's post, and that's what the thread should be about: the selective memory of bettors, which can indeed lead to second guessing and tilt.

The underlined line is important to the discussion that's taken off here (but isn't much important to OP's post).

To the question of betting primetime games, are you guys are saying that if a line should be pick and instead it's 3, you'll bet it if it's on Sunday morning but not if it's on Sunday night?

If a wager has value, you bet it, and if it doesn't, you don't, and primetime status is IRRELEVANT (to value, not to cause for value). You neither need to bet the Super Bowl nor need to avoid it. What you need to do is find value. Period. Always.

As to this thread's basically tertiary topic, about whether primetime games are more efficient markets: I doubt it. I see no evidence for it; I see, in my own numbers, some evidence against it. My numbers suggest (and yes, they're just mine, but at least they're numbers, and not guesses, hunches, opinions, mythology, etc), that CFB bowl games and CBB March Madness games are more likely to have value. IOW, the lines are weaker. IMO, obv. But I think most regular bettors agree. Bowl games and March Madness games are juicier, not drier.

**splash** · 11-24-10, 12:20 AM

I have closing line and results data dating back to 1995. It will take me some time to figure out how to sort out the non Sunday games though.

**BeatingBaseball** · 11-24-10, 01:18 AM

Have to say there's a lot of intelligence showing in the analysis on this thread.

Selective memory is certainly a common affliction. It may well be what Rocks has fallen prey to. Since he indicated he has winnings to protect, however, it may also be that he really did have the play solidly capped - but was subconsciously looking for a reason not to pull the trigger. He may have been listening to that little voice in the human head that always says - whenever something is trending - "this can't continue."

Disciplined modelers may not have to deal with psychological aspects such as this nearly as much as those of us who use less objective criteria to make a play - but it's a problem that defeats a lot of good handicappers. That voice is part of human nature - but in gambling the voice is usually wrong. We obviously have to learn to ignore it in a losing streak if we are going to survive - but we also have to ignore it when we are running well if we are going to maximize our gain. Successful gambling is a lot about turning human nature on its head.

The main thing here, however, is that - for whatever reason - Rocks made the decision not to make the play. Once you do that - you have to turn the page. Can't waste your valuable time and energy resources second guessing it. The only play that matters is the next one.

**andywend** · 11-24-10, 02:06 AM

Rocks, there is NO SUCH THING AS A "CORRECT PLAY" and your "EASY BET" terminology is a joke.

As far as the NFL is concerned, EVERY SINGLE GAME is a prime time game and all of them are handicapped as such.

You can go into any of the major Las Vegas strip hotel properties and as long as you have the cash, you should have no problem betting $1 MILLION on any game you choose. You might have to break it up some and possibly have to deal with the line moving a 1/2 or possibly a full point but thats all.

The point of my reply is twofold:
1. You shouldn't feel bad about not pulling the trigger on San Diego
2. Because you're laying -110 on an even money proposition

There is a very easy way to tell how accurate posted lines are and that is by how much books will let you bet on them.

For example, NFL games have the highest limits with baseball checking in 2nd. One type of bet that has very low limits are college basketball totals because the oddsmakers just don't have a very good handle on setting those lines.

This is why quality handicapping services like RAS concentrate on college basketball totals because they are able to find greater line errors.

**BeatingBaseball** · 11-24-10, 10:30 AM

No question, andy, that your basic point - re all NFL game lines being extremely efficient - is correct. They are the most rock solid numbers in sports.

But as to the ease of getting down $1 million on any NFL game you choose - in today's corporate Las Vegas it would be nowhere near as easy as you think. I can't disagree that it should be - but even the biggest hotels are very cautious about money movements of that size coming out of nowhere - even on an NFL game - and for a lot of reasons. One is that the suits have very little gamble in them. At the LV Hilton and on the Strip you would have to break a play like that up quite a bit against the limits. They are very cautious about getting out of balance on a game and would want to ladder it up. You could certainly get it down by spreading it around town, but to get it in at any one property in one day would generally require very strong, longstanding relationships with the house. Unless they really needed the side, it would actually be easier to do with Pinny.

No question that limits tell you all you need to know about the confidence the linemaker has in his number, however.

**shipitkthx** · 11-24-10, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by andywend

You can go into any of the major Las Vegas strip hotel properties and as long as you have the cash, you should have no problem betting $1 MILLION on any game you choose.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOL

I would lay some some serious cash against you being able to bet 1 million on the strip on a damn monday night game, let alone an early sunday game. MAYBE if you are a rated pit player betting a thousand a hand on 6:5 blackjack while your wife is playing $500 slots all week at every major property. Then you MIGHT have a chance of getting down 1 million at legit Vegas books. Vegas ain't what it used to be.

**BeatingBaseball** · 11-24-10, 03:01 PM

To take that play, shipit, they would also have to be totally convinced the player was a genuine, out-and-out, perfect square with absolutely no chance of having any non-public information.

**DogLover** · 11-24-10, 06:15 PM

Bets that you don't take always win.

**COYLO** · 11-24-10, 07:14 PM

could someone explain what steam means in betting terms??

**BeatingBaseball** · 11-24-10, 08:05 PM

Steam is actually a sudden rush of one way action on a game, assumedly wise guy money that is hitting the betting window, which forces a linemaker to move the price in an effort to make the other side a more attractive proposition and balance the action.

In the case of the title of this thread the term is misapplied. The question posed in the title is really about how to maintain emotional stability and not "tilt" when something happens which could get you upset.

**COYLO** · 11-24-10, 08:18 PM

thanks for that.

**skrtelfan** · 11-24-10, 10:37 PM

Yeah I was just about to post the same thing, you should say "How not to tilt" because steam in a sportsbetting sense means something else entirely.

**ClimbSomeRocks** · 11-26-10, 04:43 PM

great replies here. Thanks guys

**dialup_king** · 11-30-10, 11:03 PM

After a while, it is hard to bet more than $500 a game in LAs Vegas without filling out forms and showing ID

**Bosseman22** · 12-01-10, 09:35 PM

most places don't care how much you bet they ask the questions when you start winning