OK, I went back and re-read Ganch's article, and I now see more clearly the argument you're making. Although I think you're being slightly unfair to me since one can infer from his method that if and when public line movements occur, one can/should update your prior "niche" model.
-
Comment -
Perhaps you should step back and realize that I'm not a blind square newb when it comes to this. I understand that the edge to be obtained is not very large. I understand that not every factor has an effect on probability, but many do. When I first came to SBR and asked questions in the tank, people told me I'd have to do my own work and come up with my own strategies. I still take all the help I can get when it comes to model building or new ideas, but I also think for myself. There's too many robots in the tank that simply abide by what a professional handicapper does or says and assume all other ideas to be worthless. You're stubborn to the point that you'll reject an outside idea faster than you'll question an existing professional standard. I think many of you are in for a rude awakening in the coming years when innovation and open-mindedness will be essential to keep out of the red. I don't have a model for any sport right now. I'm looking to build some. But while I will include standard stats, I will also look into the things that are more difficult(yet possible) to quantify. This past NFL postseason I bet on the Packers in every single round because I knew that they were undervalued EVERY SINGLE ROUND. I did this without following sharp action or looking up stats. I did this because I knew that team, I knew the seemingly insignificant reasons why they were undervalued, I knew how and why they weren't perceived to be as good as they were, and I knew why the markets would be set like they were. The Packers closed as smaller underdogs or bigger favorites than they opened every time. All the sharps in the world and I certainly had something in common with regard those games. I guess I just got lucky. I guess you just can't quantify "meaningless shit."Comment -
Confused as to what you believe is innovative or open-minded about your methods. It seems to me everything you've described in this thread is similar to what the majority of sports bettors do (attempting to gain insight by watching games). Perhaps I have misunderstood your point.Comment -
What's different is knowing why "Lester has been good" is not a reason to bet on him and "Lester is overvalued in the opening line" is a reason to bet against him. Question: Would you guys rather build a model based on runs for/against and a pitcher's whip and other stats or build a model based on individual match-ups within that game(match-ups which are known very well when you have intimate knowledge of a team)? Just as whip is a stat, market and sportsbook perception of players and teams is a stat.Comment -
Why couldn't you build the model using individual statistics without having intimate knowledge of the team? There is an incredible amount of data available for baseball; you can get a very good idea of how a player performs in various situations.Comment -
What does watching a game have to do with whether you choose to build your model around a pitchers WHIP and other stats or on individual player match-ups?
Either way there are a ton of stats available that can more accurately quantify anything that you think you saw on the field without fluctuating up and down depending on what type of mood you were in when you watched the game.
As suggested above it seems as if you are approaching handicapping from the same angle as 99% of sports bettors and simply tacking "model" on the end in order to justify it as some type of sophisticated method.
Just my opinion that in a sport like baseball with an endless supply of available stats that there is nothing that you could see in the game that you could not see more clearly in the stats. Your time watching the game looking to gain an edge would be much better spent watching Dog the Bounty Hunter.Comment