[bztips]

I bet often on cardinal games because they are my team. I also win many $$ on those games. When I see a line I think about what the public likely thinks. Since I know my team much better than the public I can tell when the line is off and I usually have an advantage. That is likely what he means by value.

Example: Tomorrow - cards/pirates - cards much better team than pirates. Lohse has a terrible era. cards -126. However, I think Lohse will be fine tomorrow. I see value in it. Line should be higher.

Gee, and if you were a Pirates fan, I'm sure you would see value in the Pirates +116.

Amazing how people rationalize bets on their favorite teams.

[u21c3f6]

No it isn't, beyond the trite fact that it settles the bet. The line does not have to matter in finding an edge.

Consider a line in a large market, like MNF. Let's say you don't know what the line is. Nonetheless you can safely assume that line is pretty fair, whatever it is. IOW, it doesn't matter what the line is, you can generically assume accuracy.

Now suppose you get inside info that the starting QB for one team is injured, and you already know his sub sucks.

You have an edge. The line doesn't matter. You can assume edge without regard for the line.

You don't need to know who's at home, who's been winning or losing, what other injury info is out there, what the weather is going to be, nothing.

You can bet the line, no matter what it was. And if it moves 3 points against you, you know the info is out, again without regard for what the line is.

There are plenty of times when you can assume edge without regard for the line. But believe me I know full well how offensive such thinking is to many players. People do get insulted by my approach sometimes, which is why I don't much like to post picks.

http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mes...rest-year.html

Maybe it's in the name but this looks like something that I would write.

And IMO most get offended because they don't take the time to understand the concept in context. Unfortunately, it is not easy to convince someone (not that I necessarily want to) who doesn't take the time to look at and understand what has been written. There are many that hold onto "truths" that are just not true even though they are not profitable. More often than not they have excuses as to why they should have been profitable and how next time will be different and go ahead and do the very same things expecting different results.

And let me point out that just because someone is profitable using a certain "method" does not mean that someone else cannot be profitable using a completely different "method".

Joe.

[Pokerjoe]

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


I feel bad for you, Justin clean this up.

Justin is probably bright enough to understand my post. He seems to have some understanding of math, as opposed to the majority here in TT who merely know how to calculate.

And, btw, your inability to understand the difference between math and mere calculation IS the difference.

My favorite math prof in college started off his course by holding up a calculator and saying, "This is not a sentient being. It has no intelligence and thus is incapable of math. Don't be like it."

[Pokerjoe]

Maybe it's in the name but this looks like something that I would write.

And IMO most get offended because they don't take the time to understand the concept in context. Unfortunately, it is not easy to convince someone (not that I necessarily want to) who doesn't take the time to look at and understand what has been written. There are many that hold onto "truths" that are just not true even though they are not profitable. More often than not they have excuses as to why they should have been profitable and how next time will be different and go ahead and do the very same things expecting different results.

And let me point out that just because someone is profitable using a certain "method" does not mean that someone else cannot be profitable using a completely different "method".

Joe.

True.

Most bettors have zero idea of the benefits of math in sportsbetting. They are the lowest level.

But those who have math and nothing else are only at the next level, not the highest level.

[donjuan]

Joe,

If you have this inside info but no knowledge of what the fair line is without the injury, how do you know whether or not this info has already been incorporated into the line?

[That Foreign Guy]

Now you're in the world of meta-info (info about the info) - When did the injury happen (more recent is better than old)? How close is your source (player's doctor is way better than his maid's cousin's drinking buddy)? Did the line make an "unexplained" move since the injury happened (or info started leaking)?

That part of things is easier than getting the info in the first place IMO.

My example is "fixed" soccer matches, but there were two on the same day last season - one I heard about on a forum the line had already started to move quite heavily (the draw was about half or less normal draw odds). The other I heard about from a friend with good connections in Polish football the line hadn't moved at most bookies (interestingly it had started to move at Eastern European bookies) was where you'd expect it for a normal match.

Pretty easy to tell the difference.

[Peeig]

Its probably easier to just learn the mathaments instead of trying to find sources that can figure out when matches are fixed, or get injury info ahead of everyone else.............those sound difficult to attain, while learning the math involved is pretty much all out on public forums.

[Pokerjoe]

Joe,

If you have this inside info but no knowledge of what the fair line is without the injury, how do you know whether or not this info has already been incorporated into the line?

Senor Juan, I'm actually pretty big on putting a number on things when possible. People reading my posts ITT might think otherwise, but I was only responding to OPs Q about whether it was possible to make good bets without regard for the line (which is not the same thing, I want to say again, as betting without shopping, which is foolish).

But using secret knowledge of a major injury as an example, changes from the opener should suffice. If you know that a major player is out and can find no public acknowledgement of that fact, you can probably assume value. But if the line has moved even without public acknowledgement, you might want to assume the info has been incorporated, all without regard for the line itself, i.e, all by only looking at the line movement, or lack of it.

My main point is that the line is basically "right." So if you see the game differently than everyone else, if you have a special insight, you can fairly assume value, or at least assume that if you're right in your insight, you'll have value betting.

If you put 10 ordinary variables X in an equation with special variable Y, or you put the line itself in with special variable Y, you'll end up in the same place, because the line is made up of a mass of opinons more or less shaped by the ordinary variables (wins, losses, PF, PA, public injury info, etc) to begin with.

This is true of systems betting, which I don't do, but can theorize are possibly successful (just, not the silly ones you find at Statfox and such). If you identify variable X as a profitable bet when present, you can bet it when present without regard for the line. You'll be assuming that the line is long-term neutral; your sample in support of variable X being the proof, inasmuch as it's proof of anything. That leaves you subject to betting on the variable even if it does later become incorporated into the line, because you'll have no way of knowing whether it is except for results, so I'm not advocating it. I'm just saying it's possible.

More importantly, I'm saying it's possible to have a valid bet based entirely on instinct. Lines are based, for the most part, on how much better one team is than the other. That's by far the bulk of it. If you have an instinct, not about which team is how much better than the other, but rather about how they'll actually play that day, you can assume value, sure

I'm also saying it's pretentious to deny the impossibility of instinct in this game, and bad math philosophy to deny the existence of that which can not be well quantified.

I have to put in something of a LOL because I rarely bet this way myself. The vast, vast majority of my bets are numbers-based. But when I have an instinct, I'm not afraid to bet it because my win rate on those rare occasions dwarves that of my other bets.

[lasker]

Excellent post PokerJoe, really. If there was still a nomination feature, I would nominate it

[donjuan]

Senor Juan, I'm actually pretty big on putting a number on things when possible. People reading my posts ITT might think otherwise, but I was only responding to OPs Q about whether it was possible to make good bets without regard for the line (which is not the same thing, I want to say again, as betting without shopping, which is foolish).

But using secret knowledge of a major injury as an example, changes from the opener should suffice. If you know that a major player is out and can find no public acknowledgement of that fact, you can probably assume value. But if the line has moved even without public acknowledgement, you might want to assume the info has been incorporated, all without regard for the line itself, i.e, all by only looking at the line movement, or lack of it.

My main point is that the line is basically "right." So if you see the game differently than everyone else, if you have a special insight, you can fairly assume value, or at least assume that if you're right in your insight, you'll have value betting.

If you put 10 ordinary variables X in an equation with special variable Y, or you put the line itself in with special variable Y, you'll end up in the same place, because the line is made up of a mass of opinons more or less shaped by the ordinary variables (wins, losses, PF, PA, public injury info, etc) to begin with.

This is true of systems betting, which I don't do, but can theorize are possibly successful (just, not the silly ones you find at Statfox and such). If you identify variable X as a profitable bet when present, you can bet it when present without regard for the line. You'll be assuming that the line is long-term neutral; your sample in support of variable X being the proof, inasmuch as it's proof of anything. That leaves you subject to betting on the variable even if it does later become incorporated into the line, because you'll have no way of knowing whether it is except for results, so I'm not advocating it. I'm just saying it's possible.

More importantly, I'm saying it's possible to have a valid bet based entirely on instinct. Lines are based, for the most part, on how much better one team is than the other. That's by far the bulk of it. If you have an instinct, not about which team is how much better than the other, but rather about how they'll actually play that day, you can assume value, sure

I'm also saying it's pretentious to deny the impossibility of instinct in this game, and bad math philosophy to deny the existence of that which can not be well quantified.

I have to put in something of a LOL because I rarely bet this way myself. The vast, vast majority of my bets are numbers-based. But when I have an instinct, I'm not afraid to bet it because my win rate on those rare occasions dwarves that of my other bets.

You are basically right for the injury info stuff (assuming you know it's a major impact on the game like a Peyton Manning to backup type injury move) but I still think betting on instinct is spurious as you tend to have so few plays like this that you don't get anything resembling a reasonable sample size for years (decades?) and in that time the market can easily become more efficient or account for whatever you are instinctively accounting for. The same applies for systems unless you have a really good reason for the market to stay inefficient in the future.

[Pokerjoe]

Thank you, Lasker.

Don Juan, no doubt. And as I've said, most of my plays are numbers-based.

But maybe it's because I've been playing poker for a living for more than 20 years that I've learned to value instincts. And I wouldn't say the market "easily" gets more efficient about the vaguer variables that instint covers. Markets can easily get more efficient about processing hard information, such as the stats. But the soft, intangible information like motivation is exactly the kind of variable markets stuggle to get efficient about.

The brain is a thinking machine vastly superior to any computer. That which the brain can not even articulate (instincts) is that which it can not program a machine to calculate on its behalf because computer programming is, to some extent, articulated (programmable) thought.

Just because someone can not tell you why they think something is true doesn't mean they're wrong. Just because someone can go through a thought process point by point doesn't mean they're right. IF they can go through it point by point it becomes testable, which is great. But lack of testability isn't the same as lack of validity.

Of course, instinct betting allows for great delusion, and that delusion is the source of bookie profits. "Instincts" is most often a nice word for guessing, and if people win guesses they think "I knew it!" and this selectively reinforces their "talent." If they lose, they think "Well, I was forcing it, that's all."

[donjuan]

Joe,

Markets can and do account for motivation, though. A prime example is NBA playoff spreads where lines 15 years ago may not have fully accounted for changes in motivation throughout a series but nowadays that is accounted for. Now perhaps you are able to identify situations which are less quantifiable than this but it seems these situations would be rare enough that you'd never get a decent sample size to know whether there is actually an edge.

Another thing about instincts is that your poker instincts are surely from a combination of a good math background and tons of experience. For example you might make a snap call with A high based on your instincts but those instincts at the very least come from an intuitive understanding of that person's range and your pot odds, which ultimately leads us back to math. If you use these instincts in sports betting, where is the basis for these instincts coming from?