Tieing the Closing Line as it Relates to BTCL; Logical Flaw?

[ABanks]

Often times when betting baseball the price of a certain team will have the most value when the lines close. For example: yesterday (May 24th) the Cardinals opened up at -130 at the Padres and closed at -108. At no point during the day could you get a better price than -108 on the Cardinals. This is just one example, but this happens routinely in baseball.

My question is how can you reconcile taking the closing line on the Cardinals with the theory of beating the closing line? In this case you tied the closing line (actually you lost to the no vig closing line) and got maximum value on the Cardinals but you didn't beat the closing line. (The Cardinals ended up winning)

I am confused as to how these situations fit in/relate to BTCL.

[That Foreign Guy]

Yeah BTCL is a total scam. The maths geeks had a meeting and decided we needed a slogan to rival "never get beat by the hook". You caught us.

The closing line isn't perfect but on average it is more accurate than anything else publicly available. Over a sufficiently large sample size actual results are better but there is a problem with that.

In situations where the line moves one way and still hasn't settled (if it was -108 for the last four hours that suggests -108 is fair a lot stronger than moving down 2 cents every 5 minutes in the last hour).

If you're consistently betting drifters (ice? that's the opposite of steam) it probably doesn't matter if you tie the closer or not.

[donjuan]

Often times when betting baseball the price of a certain team will have the most value when the lines close. For example: yesterday (May 24th) the Cardinals opened up at -130 at the Padres and closed at -108. At no point during the day could you get a better price than -108 on the Cardinals. This is just one example, but this happens routinely in baseball.

My question is how can you reconcile taking the closing line on the Cardinals with the theory of beating the closing line? In this case you tied the closing line (actually you lost to the no vig closing line) and got maximum value on the Cardinals but you didn't beat the closing line. (The Cardinals ended up winning)

I am confused as to how these situations fit in/relate to BTCL.

Possibly because getting the best line on a team has nothing to do with BTCL or market efficiency?

[uva3021]

Is -108 the market price? You have to ask yourself what is the market, what book sets the market, and the sportsbooks for which you have accessibility. BTCL is a valid methodology because in off-shore betting there is considerable variation in prices.

[That Foreign Guy]

BTCL is a valid methodology because the closing line is generally a better estimate of probability than earlier lines.

Imagine all bookies except betfair closed.

You back a team at 3.00 (100 to win 200 profit) and they shorten to 2.00 (even money). You can then lay them risking 150 to win 150 and get 50 guaranteed money. That's the EV you gain by BTCL made concrete.

BTCL doesn't require multiple books (if anything that makes it harder to determine what market price is).

[Pokerjoe]

If a football game is +2, and I'm leaning toward the dog, and it creeps up to +3 at game time, I'll like the dog more and will be happy to have only tied the closing line (assuming there weren't any rogue 3.5s out there). It's ridiculous to live in fear of steam. It's ridiculous to be ignorant of steam, or to have no respect for it at all, or to not anticipate it, or to not try to get down before it moves the line against you and kills your betting opportunity, but it's also ridiculous to discount the possibility that a line move can create a betting opportunity.

[chunk]

If a football game is +2, and I'm leaning toward the dog, and it creeps up to +3 at game time, I'll like the dog more and will be happy to have only tied the closing line (assuming there weren't any rogue 3.5s out there). It's ridiculous to live in fear of steam. It's ridiculous to be ignorant of steam, or to have no respect for it at all, or to not anticipate it, or to not try to get down before it moves the line against you and kills your betting opportunity, but it's also ridiculous to discount the possibility that a line move can create a betting opportunity.

I have no argument with anything that you've said here and in the example that you give it would make sense to look for the key number. We all would like the best price of course, but it to time the market seems to me to be difficult at best. I was curious too....what exactly do you mean to be ignorant of steam?

[smoke a bowl]

I have no argument with anything that you've said here and in the example that you give it would make sense to look for the key number. We all would like the best price of course, but it to time the market seems to me to be difficult at best. I was curious too....what exactly do you mean to be ignorant of steam?

He means you have to know steam exists,be able to recognize it, and take it into consideration(he said it would be RIDICULOUS to be ignorant of steam meaning you should have knowledge of it and take it into consideration). At least I think that's what he's saying.

[chunk]

He means you have to know steam exists,be able to recognize it, and take it into consideration(he said it would be RIDICULOUS to be ignorant of steam meaning you should have knowledge of it and take it into consideration). At least I think that's what he's saying.

Thanks Bowl, yes I know that steam exists and it's certainly not difficult to recognize after the fact. Maybe it was just as simple as that.

[donjuan]

BTW, can we get rid of the notion that you tie the closer if you bet the closer? BTCL refers to the no-vig close.

[Thremp]

If you can beat widely available numbers, start shopping for yachts.

[Flight]

If you estimate the Cardinals at -120, bet them at -110 and not at -130.

BTCL is symptomatic, not causative.

A hypothetical: if you knew ahead of time the line will move from -130 open to -110 close, what would you do? And I'm not talking about this particular game, but rather numerous games over time.

[Pokerjoe]

If you can beat widely available numbers, start shopping for yachts.

Ah, our beloved Thremp appears, with another childishly cryptic comment. How's it going there in Duhsville, Thremp? You still get off on the second floor of the skyscraper every day, refusing to believe there are higher levels? You're the Grand Master of what's inside the box, I give you that.

For fun--and it's is fun to pick on Thremp because he thinks he's not defenseless--let's expose his statement's triteness, by translating it thusly: "If you can make money, you will have money."

Brilliant, really.

"If you can beat widely available numbers, start shopping for yachts."

Just, incredibly insightful.

Of course, if you can beat non-WA numbers, you will make money.

In fact, if you can beat ANY numbers, you will make money, because (no drumroll needed) that's what beating numbers means.

Here's some more, similar statements. I don't know that Thremp wrote them, but certainly someone of similar intellect did:
If you can buy low and sell high on the stock market ...
If you can figure out when to hold them and when to fold them ...
If you can ... ah, you get the point.

I actually don't actually brutalize other posters, as a rule. But when those who themselves love to ridicule others--and that's Thremp--open themselves up for it, I figure they're fair game for a taste of their own medicine.

Now, to be fair, Thremp's statement was an attempt at mockery at the very idea of beating WA numbers. But what does that mean, besides that he's a constant mocker? It means that he's given up on handicapping, that he basically denies it's possible to win with it. Because, of course, if you and I can't dunk, all those ESPN highlight reels must be photoshopped.

Yet here's the great logical flaw of the obsessive BTCL'er: the only reason the CL is sharper than the OL is because someone at some point is handicapping. That is, the very basis of the reason the CL is sharper disproves the idea that WA numbers can't be beat. Either the CL moves from the OL randomly--in which case it wouldn't be sharper--or it moves because of handicapping, in which case successful handicapping must be possible.

At least you'll get the last word ITT, Thremp. I'll be playing cards everyday for the next six weeks and won't have time to respond further here. Enjoy.

[Pokerjoe]

BTW, can we get rid of the notion that you tie the closer if you bet the closer? BTCL refers to the no-vig close.

That's a valid point. It isn't really the issue ITT, but technically, senor juan is right, and we've been a tad sloppy in our jargon here.

[Pokerjoe]

If you estimate the Cardinals at -120, bet them at -110 and not at -130.

BTCL is symptomatic, not causative.

A hypothetical: if you knew ahead of time the line will move from -130 open to -110 close, what would you do? And I'm not talking about this particular game, but rather numerous games over time.

Exactly. I've beaten my head against the wall trying to explain this concept around here. You're welcome to take over the job, lol.

[That Foreign Guy]

If you estimate the Cardinals at -120, bet them at -110 and not at -130. BTCL is symptomatic, not causative. A hypothetical: if you knew ahead of time the line will move from -130 open to -110 close, what would you do? And I'm not talking about this particular game, but rather numerous games over time.

I bet the other team at +110 or greater and then if I get that down I bet the team at -110.

Then I go yacht shopping.

[Thremp]

Let me add another line to the prior statement:

If you can beat WA numbers, start shopping for yachts.
If you can beat non-WA numbers, start shopping for a dinghy.

Again, anyone who claims they can beat closing numbers in any sport worth giving a shit about is either 1) rich 2) lying 3) about to get rich.

Pokerjoe, what happened to your efforts to rename Bayes Theorem after yourself?

[luegofuego]

Thremp,

You're twisting their arguments to make them sound a lot more ludicrous than they are. I'm sure that PokerJoe is in agreement that if you consistently bet into closers, without inside information or some kind of insanely sophisticated model, you will lose. All they're saying is that sometimes, even very liquid markets are not 100% efficient. It's not a very shocking position to have.

[Thremp]

Can you articulate his argument in a coherent fashion? He's attempted this and after several iterations all I can remember is how he didn't know wtf Bayes Theorem was and tried to name a back of napkin interpretation after himself.

[luegofuego]

You mean this:

BTCL is symptomatic, not causative.

?

I thought that summed it up decently

[mikeybets]

its all about multiple books and shopping for the best line

[Thremp]

Yeah...

You realize Flight wrote that?

[illfuuptn]

its all about multiple books and shopping for the best line

lol you missed the "players talk" exit

[illfuuptn]

Oh and I'll take Thremp over almost everyone on SBR in a true challenge of handicapping/betting intellect. But to add to the discussion...It's without a doubt possible to beat WA closing numbers in ANY sport. The only problem is that by betting then as opposed to at opening you are cutting out 80% of your +ev plays.

[mikeybets]

blah blah blah

[Thremp]

I don't handicap anything. So you'd lose even against Conquering Risk-style models.

[underthe total]

If you can beat widely available numbers, start shopping for yachts.

i agree with this statement as it was intended, you can defiantly change your lifestyle.

but i am an example

i went on a unbelievable run , un real, huge. spent 3/4 of it, responsibly. a full NFL season and then into half of the MLB season. finding outs to grind it out becomes an issue. the %'s caught up like they should have and the down side made me feel like a broke degenerate.

MLB
NFL
College Foots

in that order most profitable, but you are going to clear a % of your volume. so you gotta put a lot of volume out there, have the money to sustain losers, and i mean long losing streaks, deep losing streaks. But in the end there will be profit.

to say shop for yachts is an overstatement, but i am assuming your statement in intent was meant like this

you can make a living doing this. or you can make a very nice retirement doing this, but probably not both unless you use the money made to invest.

problem with that is that its a GRIND. a daily weekly monthly, year long grind. i find very little time to do any other business. it is very time consuming.

you think for one second you got this game beat, and reality brings you back down.

[underthe total]

If you estimate the Cardinals at -120, bet them at -110 and not at -130. BTCL is symptomatic, not causative. A hypothetical: if you knew ahead of time the line will move from -130 open to -110 close, what would you do? And I'm not talking about this particular game, but rather numerous games over time.

bet +120 and down to +110 if you can but no less

[luegofuego]

Yeah...

You realize Flight wrote that?

So?

[Thremp]

Thremp, You're twisting their arguments to make them sound a lot more ludicrous than they are. I'm sure that PokerJoe is in agreement that if you consistently bet into closers, without inside information or some kind of insanely sophisticated model, you will lose. All they're saying is that sometimes, even very liquid markets are not 100% efficient. It's not a very shocking position to have.

You waffle between "they" and "Pokerjoe". Dunno why. I assume its because you struggle with English.

Can you articulate his argument in a coherent fashion? He's attempted this and after several iterations all I can remember is how he didn't know wtf Bayes Theorem was and tried to name a back of napkin interpretation after himself.

I clearly refer to Pokerjoe here...


So? You suck at reading? You type out bizarre nonsense? So....?

[luegofuego]

75% of the time, you sit behind your keyboard, smugly thinking your owning the shit outta someone, when all you're really doing is squabbling semantics. I can just envision you mentally high fiving yourself right now. I'll pass this time tyvm

[Thremp]

Yeah, in this case I'm pretty clearly owning you since you're getting involved in a conversation you didn't bother to read thoroughly in a language you struggle to understand. I think pokerjoe mostly makes delusional, convoluted rants which are difficult if not impossible to understand since he explains commonly understood ideas (Bayes Theorem) in a back of the napkin fashion with names like "The Pokerjoe Uncertainty Principle". You gloss over the entirety of this and make a snarky comment. I ask you politely to explain. You then cite a concise statement from another poster that is erudite and no one would have any problem with. Somehow in your mind you've managed to think that there is a "they" (much like Dark Horse's view on "the cult" or any other deluded person), when in reality this is a collection of different posters with different (though occasionally similar) ideas some of whom do not understand even the most basic of terminology. Perhaps you should white knight a more deserving target instead of getting spanked like a child when trying to "explain" something to me?

Short version: Learn to read bruh.

[luegofuego]

[COLOR=#000000 !important]"If you can beat widely available numbers, start shopping for yachts."

"You then cite a concise statement from another poster that is erudite and no one would have any problem with."

lol

By the way, it seems as though you're confusing "this thread and this argument" with "Thremps war with the rest of the world". I didn't get involved in the latter. I'm clearly regretting not showing more restraint in the former aswell.
[/COLOR]

[Thremp]

I have no clue what you're talking about now. I'd wager that no one else does as well.