The misunderstanding of "beating the closing line."

[sharpcat]

This misunderstanding of trix is just remarkable. You bet something at +100 (for 1u). Because you beat the closing line often enough, the average price you can play the other side for just before tipoff is +102 (say the line has moved to -110 your side/ +102 other side on pinny). If you buy off all of your plays, you will lock in a small profit. BECAUSE you btcl. If you don't btcl, then you can't do this. What he's saying isn't rocket science.. and it doesn't matter at all WHY the line moves the way it does, just that you predict accurately (on average) that it will.

True, but if you beat the closing line 70% of the time and lock in an average profit of 2% than 30% of the time you will have to hedge out of your position for a loss of 6%. This scenario would yield to an EV of -0.40 and it is highly unlikely that one would be capable of beating the closing line 75% of the time or better. This is greatly overlooked by arb players sure in a perfect world if you beat the closer 100% of the time you would have a guaranteed profit by hedging but when attempting an arb while anticipating line moves there is indeed risk involved.

I think most here understand the fictional scenario that Trix is referring to but the topic of the thread would than be asking just how profitable you would be long term if you were able to beat the closing line 75% of the time or better betting straight up.

Point is that the topic has to do with whether beating the closing line has any statistical significance and Trix misunderstood pointing out that if you beat the closer you could lock in a profit (which again is untrue because it is fully possible that one could consistently beat the no-vig line yet not be presented with an arb opportunity).

I do not misunderstand Trix but I do understand that what he is referring to was not intended as part of the debate that the OP was getting at.

Is the market efficient enough that the no-vig line represents the true win probability for every game therefore would beating this number give you a statistical advantage? IMO this is the topic of the thread arbing has nothing to do with statistics in this discussion.

[Shonner]

This misunderstanding of trix is just remarkable. You bet something at +100 (for 1u). Because you beat the closing line often enough, the average price you can play the other side for just before tipoff is +102 (say the line has moved to -110 your side/ +102 other side on pinny). If you buy off all of your plays, you will lock in a small profit. BECAUSE you btcl. If you don't btcl, then you can't do this. What he's saying isn't rocket science.. and it doesn't matter at all WHY the line moves the way it does, just that you predict accurately (on average) that it will.

i (we) understand what you are saying but again no one was talking about arb here.

you clearly missed the intended purpose of the post

plus, it's been proven that arb'n plays decreases EV. to disprove your theory, if you "beat" the closing line, you should have +EV, right? why decrease EV to guarantee a return? that's the argument i do not want to get into because everyone has their own theory of expected return vs. expected growth and it has been posted about numerous times.

again, no one was talking about arb'n. trixtrix just never understood the purpose of the thread and caused a lot of confusion by bringing arb into a non-arb topic.

[Shonner]

Is the market efficient enough that the no-vig line represents the true win probability for every game therefore would beating this number give you a statistical advantage? IMO this is the topic of the thread arbing has nothing to do with statistics in this discussion.

agreed 100%. the point of the thread was: if you beat the closing line consistently, will you earn a profit in the long run (i.e., is the market truly efficient)? period.

[RonPaul2008]

I don't understand this, I think you are confusing arbitrage with middle ops, btcl and arb can be mutually exclusive

A middle is 'statistical arbitrage'

[trixtrix]

plus, it's been proven that arb'n plays decreases EV.

okay, show me proof.

hint: you cannot unless you believe market is efficient. which leads to...

to disprove your theory, if you "beat" the closing line, you should have +EV, right? why decrease EV to guarantee a return?

this is disproving a theory? lol

if you truly understood the theory, then you realize the EV comes from btcl.

you only decrease ev if market is efficient and closing line is more -ev then the opener line. but this whole thread started b/c op wants to DISPROVE that theory by saying btcl is not profitable to it not being perfectly correlated to market efficiency.. so which side of the argument do you want to take?

1.) btcn correlates to market efficiency, which makes arbbing the closer would generate less ev, in which case you disagree w/ op entire argument

2.) or btcn is not correlated w/ market efficiency, in which case you should always arb and guarantee yourself a return. b/c arbbing in this case would not decrease ev at all

whichever argument you make, you're backtracking on your original argument that btcl is not riskless (it is) and independently profitable (it is)

[trixtrix]

True, but if you beat the closing line 70% of the time and lock in an average profit of 2% than 30% of the time you will have to hedge out of your position for a loss of 6%. This scenario would yield to an EV of -0.40 and it is highly unlikely that one would be capable of beating the closing line 75% of the time or better.

what the hell are you talking about? show me the numbers that demonstrates btcl 70% of the time would not average out a profit by arbbing, that's just nonsense numbers you pulled out of the air to make your argument look more reasonable

for the LAST TIME: op is arguing the btcl is unprofitable, b/c it is not perfectly correlated w/ the efficiency of market.

i pointed out that notion is false, it DOES NOT matter if btcl has any correlation w/ market efficiency, b/c it is INDEPENDENTLY +EV

stop arguing in circular logic to defend an argument you already lost, just accept it and move on

[Firefox14]

I'm lost......Maybe we should all speak English so everyone, including the greener than green individuals understand what everyone is saying. Questionable terms include vig, arb, etc. As an outsider looking in, maybe it'd be better to agree to disagree?

[tomcowley]

You don't agree to disagree when the argument is over whether 2+2 equals 4 or 5.

[Thremp]

Aside from the argument that Justin7 articulates that mentions many strong economic reasons for market efficiency, the argument trixtrix makes is that you can make money regardless of what the market does (if the market moves to magical random numbers).

If you make claims such as Data, you'll be wildly wealthy very quickly and move the market or you're FOS. Its an easy game.

[Shonner]

okay, show me proof.

hint: you cannot unless you believe market is efficient. which leads to...


this is disproving a theory? lol

if you truly understood the theory, then you realize the EV comes from btcl.

you only decrease ev if market is efficient and closing line is more -ev then the opener line. but this whole thread started b/c op wants to DISPROVE that theory by saying btcl is not profitable to it not being perfectly correlated to market efficiency.. so which side of the argument do you want to take?

1.) btcn correlates to market efficiency, which makes arbbing the closer would generate less ev, in which case you disagree w/ op entire argument

2.) or btcn is not correlated w/ market efficiency, in which case you should always arb and guarantee yourself a return. b/c arbbing in this case would not decrease ev at all

whichever argument you make, you're backtracking on your original argument that btcl is not riskless (it is) and independently profitable (it is)

let's agree to disagree. you and everyone else are clearly on different pages.

i will leave it at this: you say that beating the closing line is riskless. it is?

so if the line closes at jets -3 and i got jets -2, i'm 100% assured of winning?

right guy...

no need to write anything more on this.

you arb players are clueless sometimes.

[Shonner]

okay, show me proof.

hint: you cannot unless you believe market is efficient. which leads to...


this is disproving a theory? lol

if you truly understood the theory, then you realize the EV comes from btcl.

you only decrease ev if market is efficient and closing line is more -ev then the opener line. but this whole thread started b/c op wants to DISPROVE that theory by saying btcl is not profitable to it not being perfectly correlated to market efficiency.. so which side of the argument do you want to take?

1.) btcn correlates to market efficiency, which makes arbbing the closer would generate less ev, in which case you disagree w/ op entire argument

2.) or btcn is not correlated w/ market efficiency, in which case you should always arb and guarantee yourself a return. b/c arbbing in this case would not decrease ev at all

whichever argument you make, you're backtracking on your original argument that btcl is not riskless (it is) and independently profitable (it is)

what i was saying was: that if your first wager was +EV by the time the line was near close, why would you make a 2nd wager (at closing line, which would be -EV because it's 'efficient') just to get an arbitrage opportunity?

everyone knows that arbitrage decreases EV in most cases

[Shonner]

okay, show me proof.

hint: you cannot unless you believe market is efficient. which leads to...


this is disproving a theory? lol

if you truly understood the theory, then you realize the EV comes from btcl.

that's exatly what i said. if you beat the closing line you should have +EV in most cases. so why arb a 2nd bet off a 'efficient' closing line (that indpendently is -EV)?

you're lost kid

[Shonner]

t.

i pointed out that notion is false, it DOES NOT matter if btcl has any correlation w/ market efficiency, b/c it is INDEPENDENTLY +EV

this just gets better.

so you are saying if you beat the closing line in an inefficient market you still have +EV?

in an inefficient market beating the closing line would mean absolutely nothing.

the whole premise of "beating the closing line = +EV" is based on an efficient market. if the market is not efficient, there's no value in beating the closing line because it's not the true value anyways; it's basically an incorrect line and who cares if you beat it.

you're so lost.

[Monte]

so why arb a 2nd bet off a 'efficient' closing line (that indpendently is -EV)?

you're lost kid

Easy, coz with arbing you can put much more money into "play" without fear.
If you can arb $3k bets you make more $$$ in the long run compared to playing $1k +ev bets and letting them ride.
Ofc you can say that it isn't easy to get 3k bets down, but i also doubt many ppl here have the balls to make standalone bets >1k. All figures just as example ofc, you get the idea...

[tomcowley]

let's agree to disagree

Sure. On whether or not you're a complete moron.

i will leave it at this: you say that beating the closing line is riskless. it is?

so if the line closes at jets -3 and i got jets -2, i'm 100% assured of winning?

Yes, you ******* dumbass, it's riskless when you also bet the other team +2 at >+110 at closing time and lock in a profit (on anything but jets by 2 which is a push)

If you BTCL by trix definition (your original bets become on average +ev arbs with the closing line), and lock in your profit/loss in every game, you've guaranteed yourself a profit no matter who wins any game, how efficient the market is, and how much of an ignorant blowhard Shonner is, just by BTCL.

[Thremp]

I blame Heyward for the harshness in the prior post.

But really... Shonner... you sound like statnerds 2.0

That isn't a compliment.

NB: Basically you're ignoring any other viewpoints put forth, ignoring evidence, ignoring basic math, etc etc. Then continuing with a fairly ridiculous line of thinking. In addition you still have not separated the ideas of btcl and market efficiency.

[tomcowley]

I wish he'd hit his head a little harder. Then he could have shit the bed in an actual bed instead of in my game.

[trixtrix]

if shonner didn't post at the same time as the game this afternoon, i'd swear he's playing defense for dallas

[Shonner]

Sure. On whether or not you're a complete moron.

Yes, you ******* dumbass, it's riskless when you also bet the other team +2 at >+110 at closing time and lock in a profit (on anything but jets by 2 which is a push)

If you BTCL by trix definition (your original bets become on average +ev arbs with the closing line), and lock in your profit/loss in every game, you've guaranteed yourself a profit no matter who wins any game, how efficient the market is, and how much of an ignorant blowhard Shonner is, just by BTCL.

and what happens when you're not able to lock in that arb bet at closing time? sharpcat posted on this earlier. there's no guarantee of an arb bet when you're not betting simultaneously. how about all those times you weren't able to get the arb bet in at closing line? nice -EV wagers tough guys.

i assure you me and everyone else knows what an arb bet is.

convo is useless at this point. i should have dropped out a while ago like sharpcat, can't talk sense with arb guys

[Shonner]

Sure.

If you BTCL by trix definition (your original bets become on average +ev arbs with the closing line), and lock in your profit/loss in every game, you've guaranteed yourself a profit no matter who wins any game, how efficient the market is, and how much of an ignorant blowhard Shonner is, just by BTCL.

point is that's not what BTCL is you moron. BTCL is based on market efficiency. LOL

you fail to explain all those bets that you're not able to "arb" and "BTCL" - although arbing has nothing to do with BTCL in reality. what about those???

again the convo is useless when you have to sit here and debate with someone that can't get the basic definition of "BTCL" correct.

we all know how to arb bets. the word ARBITRAGE had absolutely NO business being in this thread at all.

that is it checking out.

[trixtrix]

motion to move this thread out of think tank and into players talk

[Data]

the word ARBITRAGE had absolutely NO business being in this thread at all.

Billy Joel says it does.

[trixtrix]

point is that's not what BTCL is you moron. BTCL is based on market efficiency. LOL

you fail to explain all those bets that you're not able to "arb" and "BTCL" - although arbing has nothing to do with BTCL in reality. what about those???

again the convo is useless when you have to sit here and debate with someone that can't get the basic definition of "BTCL" correct.

we all know how to arb bets. the word ARBITRAGE had absolutely NO business being in this thread at all.

that is it checking out.

dude, your top is spinning so hard that i fear your entire being is going to become unraveled, none of your 9 posts made any sense

you're basically acting like a child covering your ears and throwing a tantrum and you have to be right, even though it's been pointed out to you from multiple posters vastly more experienced that you unquestionably wrong.

my suggestion it to take it easy for a few days and goto players talk, think tank is for posting thoughts, not ramblings

[Data]

If you make claims such as Data, you'll be wildly wealthy very quickly and move the market or you're FOS. Its an easy game.

Actually, making such claims is neither that much rewarding nor taxing. However, becoming wealthy this way still takes time. And now the most important part, make sure you do not try this at home.

[tomcowley]

point is that's not what BTCL is you moron. BTCL is based on market efficiency. LOL

LOL. You literally don't even know what the term you're talking about means. It means having a bet better than the closing line. Beating.. The... Closing... Line.. obviously this is brain science and rocket surgery all in one.

you fail to explain all those bets that you're not able to "arb" and "BTCL" - although arbing has nothing to do with BTCL in reality. what about those???

You mean the ones I actually do explain here?

lock in your profit/loss in every game

again the convo is useless when you have to sit here and debate with someone that can't get the basic definition of "BTCL" correct.

Tell me about it. Maybe Justin7 will write a sports betting dictionary you can buy, but you wouldn't believe that either.

[Data]

Maybe Justin7 will write a sports betting dictionary you can buy, but you wouldn't believe that either.

So far, your weakest point in this thread.

[Shonner]

dude, your top is spinning so hard that i fear your entire being is going to become unraveled, none of your 9 posts made any sense

you're basically acting like a child covering your ears and throwing a tantrum and you have to be right, even though it's been pointed out to you from multiple posters vastly more experienced that you unquestionably wrong.

my suggestion it to take it easy for a few days and goto players talk, think tank is for posting thoughts, not ramblings

All you guys posting about Arbitrage, thank you all for your insight. I'm quite sure my 12 year old could figure out that if I bet philly -3 +102 and NYG +3 +104 that I guarantee a profit.

Thank you for your great insight, but this type of non-sense had no business being in this thread.

You clearly missed the point of the thread as mentioned by numerous posters.

Promise this is my last post for this thread.

Keep the insults coming though, I am over here.

[trixtrix]

You clearly missed the point of the thread as mentioned by numerous posters.

who are you referring to besides yourself and sharpcat? (i think i'll coin this defense "appealing to the majority")

sharpcat has already left the thread, likely b/c he understood the pt we were making more than you

[sharpcat]

who are you referring to besides yourself and sharpcat? (i think i'll coin this defense "appealing to the majority")

sharpcat has already left the thread, likely b/c he understood the pt we were making more than you

Sorry Trix,

I did not leave instead I have a life outside of this forum.

Only point you have made is that if one were to beat the closing line on every single bet he made he could guarantee himself a profit. ............No shit

Though if you were to beat the closing line by so much that you were able to arb your play would that not lead one to believe that he has a very strong position on his wager as is considering that he is now getting better odds than what the book is getting and expecting to profit from?????? Which again was the original topic of this thread.

As I stated earlier if you are an arb player and do not realize that if you find yourself arbing out of 40% of your plays you are going to take a loss you should get out of the game.

The reason you will take more of a loss arbing out of your play than you will gain arbing plays that moved in your favor is simple, If a line moves in your favor you may gain a 10% edge against the closer but if the line moves against you since you already paid juice on your original play and now the line has moved against you you are likely paying 3X juice if not 4X juice by arbing out your play. With this knowledge unless you were betting your arb plays simultaneously you would have to be capable of predicting the line movement 75%+ of the time in order to break even arbing plays by anticipating line movements.

Sure if you could arb 2 lines simultaneously you could guarantee a profit, but as PokerJoe eluded to in his original post the question lies in whether you stand to be more profitable by taking the weak side of the line.

What if the closing no-vig line was +100 and you bet it at +110? So say you were fortunate enough to find the other end at +105 you would guarantee yourself a $2.44 profit on a opening $100 bet. Many would argue that by sticking with your original bet you would stand to profit $5 on an opening bet of $100.

This is what the OP was referring to.

Sure if you beat the closing number enough to be scalpable and if you beat it 100% of the time you could "guarantee" a profit, but this was not the simplistic scenario that the OP was referring to.

Please people even Fishhead the leader of the SBR arb players would not come into this thread and argue this.

If anticipating line moves could earn you guaranteed profits arbing, could it guarantee you double the profits by remaining with your original wager on the weak line? This thread had nothing to do with arb bets if you do not have an answer on topic please do not respond if this discussion even slightly involved the retarted idea of arbing I am sure that the OP would have posted this thread in Players Talk so that all of the geniuses over there could have contributed their input on it.

I am not stating that arb play does not have a purpose in a handicappers arsenal I am only saying that it does not have a part in this thread.

[Thremp]

Citing Fishhead as an "expert" may be the highlight of this thread.

[RonPaul2008]

that's exatly what i said. if you beat the closing line you should have +EV in most cases. so why arb a 2nd bet off a 'efficient' closing line (that indpendently is -EV)?

you're lost kid

It's only negative EV in most cases if the person doesn't know what he is doing.
Lines rarely move all one direction and don't come back the other way some.
And if you are not willing to risk the max you can bet on the original line...why not bet the max and middle back some of it even if the 2nd bet isn't +EV...it's certainly better then better less the the max since the middle is +EV.

[sharpcat]

Citing Fishhead as an "expert" may be the highlight of this thread.

Wo said this?

Is players talk considered experts?

[Justin7]

Easy, coz with arbing you can put much more money into "play" without fear.
If you can arb $3k bets you make more $$$ in the long run compared to playing $1k +ev bets and letting them ride.
Ofc you can say that it isn't easy to get 3k bets down, but i also doubt many ppl here have the balls to make standalone bets >1k. All figures just as example ofc, you get the idea...

At a certain point, your bankroll becomes so large, arbing is throwing money away.

[Pokerjoe]

i'm surprised at the level of incomprehension in this thread, for the last time: BTCL != market efficiency

if you can BTCL, then you are guaranteed risk-free profit EVEN if the market you're betting on is strongly INEFFICIENT

the opening post confuses one theory w/ another, and therefore invalidates the whole argument before it began.

market efficiency concept is NOT the same as BTCL concept, even if there could be correlation between the two

LOL, I knew when I started this thread it would be similar to trying to explain the proper solution to the Monty Hall problem.

Read more carefully, Trix. I am not confusing anything.

BTCL doesn't tell a player how to make money. It's putting the cart before the horse, as as such is trivial. It's semantically worthless from the player's POV.

If you want to make money, learn the skills that BTCL reflects. But don't kid yourself that anyone makes money BTCL. You make money with +EV bets. That EV may be generally revealed by BTCL, but it is not caused by it.

[Pokerjoe]

this is NOT a difficult concept guys, and we don't need big words to describe it:

if the current price of a stock is 45$, and you know the stock price will close at 46$ or higher at the end of the day; even if you're POSITIVE the price movement is INEFFICIENT, and stock is really worth 44$ or less; you should STILL buy it at 45$ and then sell it at 46$ after the price move. it does not MATTER if the stock was really worth 44$, if you can buy at 45$ then sell 46$ then you can still guarantee profit b/c you BTCL.

justin is arguing there is close to 100% correlation between BTCL and market efficiency, some of you are arguing there's close zero% correlation between the two concepts, it might be that the truth is somewhere in the middle

but that does not in any way invalidate the btcl concept.

Again, Trix, DUH! You just aren't getting it. Of course you make money if you buy low and sell high.
But that doesn't tell anyone how to make money. It simply rephrases things. It's like saying "the way to make money ... is to make money!"