[Pokerjoe]

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.

This is true, and irrelevant.
Stating that the result--BTCL--is positive is not stating the skill that leads to the positive result.

[Pokerjoe]

Trix, Justin, TomC, I respect all you guys, but you're missing the boat here. You're arguing points I'm not debating.

I'm not at all saying that BTCL isn't a reflection of the various skills that go into beating this game. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be a player's general measure (although I will say that obv making money is the goal in the long run, and as your betting sample increases, ROI becomes a better measure than your BTCL rate). Certainly from a book's POV, BTCL suffices.

I'm saying a player's focus should be on the skills BTCL reflects. Telling someone "buy low, sell high" isn't telling them anything useful in terms of beating the market.

Justin, in comments on your video about BTCL, notice the questions about how to BTCL? They arose because just telling someone to BTCL isn't helpful. BTCL rate can reflect a player's progress in becoming sharper, but other than the feedback it provides, it won't help anyone become sharper.

BTCL is the effect, not the cause; the symptom, not the disease; the result, not the skill.

And with that in mind, I'm surprised any of you aren't understanding.

[trixtrix]

I'm saying a player's focus should be on the skills BTCL reflects. Telling someone "buy low, sell high" isn't telling them anything useful in terms of beating the market.
.

lol, yes it is, this is first thing you tell beginner and just btcl is equivalent of that

there are various way to achieve it, but first you must state what the end-goal is of a problem, otherwise you leave noobs nowhere to even become focused on.

but the pt that you're missing here, is that there are numerous ways to make money in sports
1.)BTCL
2.)Market efficiency
3.)Correlated Parlays
4.)Modeling

all these could be correlated to an certain extend but are certainly independently profitable.

telling people btcl is not an important measure by itself is just as wrong, as saying modeling does not work, or there is no efficiency in the market, or there is no such thing as +ev cp subsets.

your op demonstrates your need to somehow obfuscate that notion, by pointing out various ways that one can achieve btcl w/out "true" market efficiency; so my argument is: even if what you said was true, and btcl was simply achieved through magical fairy sprays, it is STILL profitable.

Hence your thesis is rejected.

[RockyV]

Interesting post. Didn't understand everything that was said here, though. Hrm.

Suppose there are 10,000 games under consideration. Let's assume that the closing line is correct roughly half the time. That is, taking the over means I'll win 50% of the time.

Alright, so this means that the closing line gets 5000 games correct. And if I only meet the closing line, I'll win only 50% of my bets...meaning I'm losing money longterm (due to vigorish).

Now, some other guy beats the closing line 60% of the time, and also bets on the same 10K sample of games. We believe that this guy will make enormous amounts of money, simply because he is (roughly speaking) buying coinflips which pay out $1 each and thus have fair value of 50 cents for a cheaper price than fair value (I say roughly speaking, because we believe that the closing line is right roughly half the time of the time.)

So yes, beating the closing line 60% of the time is a great way to make money.

But suppose a bettor never beats the closing line? Does this mean he is losing money longterm? If he is betting on all 10K games, then he has to be, assuming that we believe that the closing line is correct half the time. Effectively the bettor is paying 52 cents to flip a coin that pays him a dollar if it comes up heads. If you do this on all 10K games, for sure you'll lose money.

But suppose instead the bettor is only betting on some small subset of games? Remember, the closing line is going to be wrong half the time. So in this example, it is wrong on roughly 5000 games. So going against the closing line is not necessarily a money-losing strategy, assuming that you are able to find a collection of games for which the closing line is wrong. And given that the closing line is wrong on half of games, this probably is not impossible to do.

(BTW, I've sort of equated this market-efficiency hypothesis with the idea that the closing line is correct roughly half the time. But I'm not an economist, so am not sure if this equivalence is correct. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Pokerjoe]

I suppose I should have broken my OP into two parts. First, and mainly, is what I said just above. That's by far the main point of my OP.

But I don't mind arguing also that the worshipping of the CL is overdone. I think some people are unable or unwilling to distinquish between the set of "all bets ever made" and the subset of "the single bet you are considering."

Are you all saying that it is impossible for there to be value in the CL? You probably don't want to say that, but I don't want to assume. Maybe you do.

Will you say it's impossible for the CL to be less accurate than an earlier line? You probably don't want to say that, either, but you might. I don't want to put words into your mouth.

To me, my point in opposition to obsessive belief in the CL as perfect is mundane. But it seems oddly offensive to some people.

If all you do is read lines, than you might say no, the CL is the definer, the last word, the end of the story, a miracle of modern market forces. But can't you see that what you're doing then is saying that because you can't do something (win betting into the CL), no one can? I can't personally dunk a basketball. That doesn't make Lebron's career a photoshop effect.



BTW, it prob goes without saying that in the above post the Justin I was referring to is 7; to the other Justin ITT, Bieber, I can only say that either you read so poorly you can't understand what I'm saying, or you write so poorly you can't express what you understand.

[Pokerjoe]

lol, yes it is, this is first thing you tell beginner and just btcl is equivalent of that

there are various way to achieve it, but first you must state what the end-goal is of a problem, otherwise you leave noobs nowhere to even become focused on.

but the pt that you're missing here, is that there are numerous ways to make money in sports
1.)BTCL
2.)Market efficiency
3.)Correlated Parlays
4.)Modeling

all these could be correlated to an certain extend but are certainly independently profitable.

telling people btcl is not an important measure by itself is just as wrong, as saying modeling does not work, or there is no efficiency in the market, or there is no such thing as +ev cp subsets.

your op demonstrates your need to somehow obfuscate that notion, by pointing out various ways that one can achieve btcl w/out "true" market efficiency; so my argument is: even if what you said was true, and btcl was simply achieved through magical fairy sprays, it is STILL profitable.

Hence your thesis is rejected.

I have to give up on you, Trix.

For example, the first line in bold: I have not anywhere said BTCL isn't an important measure. I have several times pointed out its usefulness as a measure.

Further, I very, very much pointed out the exact opposite of of your second bolded statement: BTCL is NOT achieved through magical fairy sprays. That's exactly my point ... and you, through sheer force of will, read my post and got it backwards?

I imagine that you're bright enough to later understand that your response ITT has been a brain fart. I hope so.

But, /thread for me. I mean, I'm amazed that people think I'm arguing against BTCL as a reflection of the skills useful for making money in this biz, or that others think I'm saying the CL isn't on average more efficient than the OL, or any of the other remarkable ways some of you have found to fail here.

Been fun, though. Good luck.

[RockyV]

Err, reread my above post, I realize now that "closing line correct half the time" as an implication/equivalent way of expressing market efficiency is slightly wrong. A better way to state is that if you could bet closing lines at no-vig prices, you'd break even in the long run.

[wrongturn]

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

Correct. Some people argue that arb generates larger EV because you can bet bigger. That is only larger in dollar but less in percentage (normally by half). It makes sense to arb to build bankroll in stable fashion, but arguing is always better is just wrong.

[Thremp]

Here is something to think about.

Lets assume you're striking a bargain with a omniscient sports betting god. He allows you to beat the closing line 100% of the time, but only when its the wrong side of the closing line. You are allowed to arb off your position but not use this information to place your own wagers.

Is this good or bad?

Note the difference between market efficiency (being indicative of the true odds of an event happening) and btcl. Note that you'll make money with this process regardless of how often the event happens. While many people use the closing line as a proxy for the "true odds" it has little bearing on the example that beating the closing line can make you money regardless of extra information. If you can beat the closing number, you can just cover the other side.

There is much speculation on what exactly arbers do and how often they're right or wrong. I find this all rather painfully absurd. While I won't appeal to my prior expertise in this matter as I didn't lead lines and buyback routinely, I can say that an argument based on speculation without evidence is pointless and counterproductive.

[trixtrix]

I have to give up on you, Trix.

For example, the first line in bold: I have not anywhere said BTCL isn't an important measure. I have several times pointed out its usefulness as a measure.

Further, I very, very much pointed out the exact opposite of of your second bolded statement: BTCL is NOT achieved through magical fairy sprays. That's exactly my point ... and you, through sheer force of will, read my post and got it backwards?

I imagine that you're bright enough to later understand that your response ITT has been a brain fart. I hope so.

But, /thread for me. I mean, I'm amazed that people think I'm arguing against BTCL as a reflection of the skills useful for making money in this biz, or that others think I'm saying the CL isn't on average more efficient than the OL, or any of the other remarkable ways some of you have found to fail here.

Been fun, though. Good luck.

lol @ brain fart (you stated "we don't get paid to btcl, we get paid to beat the spread"), i hope 20 brain farts later you realize just how wrong that statement is

i understood your op fine, maybe it's you who need to go back and change the thesis. for 3 pages now, i've been trying to impress upon you that the assertion btcl is only useful when based on market efficiency is INCORRECT. when you understand that, you would've actually understood my pt.

in mean time, why don't you just change your thesis, here's a few that would be more valid:

1.) one can be profitable WITHOUT BTCL:
answer: this is correct, +ev cps are a good example of that, as you don't need to btcl, you just need the degree of correlation to be strong enough to overcome the vig inherent.

2.) one can achieve btcl through other means besides market efficiency:
answer: i'm sure you'll get more critics for this statement, but as a thesis opening statement that is fine.

instead your thesis was this:
3.) achieving btcl is unprofitable UNLESS there is market efficiency involved:
answer: first, notice the differenced between thesis 3) and thesis 2), one is arguing the correlation between market efficiency and btcl, the other is arguing the profitability of btcl.

i pointed out thesis 3.) is WRONG, btcl is independently profitable irregardless of market efficiency, it amazes me that some people are having such difficulty comprehending this

[Shonner]

l]i pointed out thesis 3.) is WRONG, btcl is independently profitable irregardless of market efficiency, it amazes me that some people are having such difficulty comprehending this[/COLOR]

You are 100% incorrect, again. BTCL is only effective given the assumption that the market is efficient. If the market that you are using to determine "The Closing Line" is an inefficient market, then the whole BTCL = +EV is thrown out the window. Why can't you understand that? Let me explain with an example:

At Pinny (assumption that Pinny close line is sharp), a few whales that aren't sharp decide to lay HUGE money on a side. The side was at -3 after sharp action, and after their HUGE whale bets, that same side moves to -4. Now, again, after sharp action the true, efficient line was -3. Because these SQUARE millionares decided to throw their money on the favorite, it threw the line way out of whack, it made the closing line of -4 inefficient per say. This is what an inefficient market is -- a market that's not correct.

Now you go to another book and you get the same line at -3.5. If you look at the Pinny closing line of-4, you say "I BEAT THE CLOSING LINE, I HAVE +EV". But that's not true, the closing line of -4 is INEFFICIENT because of the idiot, millionaire whales and therefore represents an inefficient market.

THIS IS WHY BEATING THE CLOSING LINE IN AN INEFFICIENT MARKET IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY PROFITABLE IRREGARDLESS OF MARKET EFFICIENCY. GOD YOU ARE SO IGNORANT.

[Thremp]

Shonner,

No. Its not. You're pretending you can never hedge.

[trixtrix]

You are 100% incorrect, again. BTCL is only effective given the assumption that the market is efficient. If the market that you are using to determine "The Closing Line" is an inefficient market, then the whole BTCL = +EV is thrown out the window. Why can't you understand that? Let me explain with an example:

At Pinny (assumption that Pinny close line is sharp), a few whales that aren't sharp decide to lay HUGE money on a side. The side was at -3 after sharp action, and after their HUGE whale bets, that same side moves to -4. Now, again, after sharp action the true, efficient line was -3. Because these SQUARE millionares decided to throw their money on the favorite, it threw the line way out of whack, it made the closing line of -4 inefficient per say. This is what an inefficient market is -- a market that's not correct.

Now you go to another book and you get the same line at -3.5. If you look at the Pinny closing line of-4, you say "I BEAT THE CLOSING LINE, I HAVE +EV". But that's not true, the closing line of -4 is INEFFICIENT because of the idiot, millionaire whales and therefore represents an inefficient market.

THIS IS WHY BEATING THE CLOSING LINE IN AN INEFFICIENT MARKET IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY PROFITABLE IRREGARDLESS OF MARKET EFFICIENCY. GOD YOU ARE SO IGNORANT.

if sbr had a wall of shame, i'd recommend this post

[Shonner]

Shonner,

No. Its not. You're pretending you can never hedge.

this is not about hedging.

any idiot knows hedging properly can guarantee profit.

good lord.

[trixtrix]

Now you go to another book and you get the same line at -3.5. If you look at the Pinny closing line of-4, you say "I BEAT THE CLOSING LINE, I HAVE +EV". But that's not true, the closing line of -4 is INEFFICIENT because of the idiot, millionaire whales and therefore represents an inefficient market.

first of all, if pinny has -4 -105, and you go bet -3.5 -110 at a another book, you're NOT btcl. understanding what the push rates are for the spread would be a good starting step for you

so let's use a better example, pinny has closing price of -3.5 -105/ +3.5 -105, let's say if by some magical mechanization you determine the most efficient price is -1 +100/+1 +100, so pinny's closing line is totally inefficient.

then you see another book offering -3 -110. should you take the -3 -110 at the book EVEN THOUGH you know the efficient/fair price of the line is -1. YES YOU SHOULD, that was my pt in the entire thread. b/c you DON'T CARE what the efficient price is, it DOES NOT MATTER.

you take -3 -110 at the book and ARB back at pinny drop-down menu of +3 +116, or attempt to middle the game at +3.5 -105 on pinny. Either approach yields a risk-free profit IRREGARDLESS of the efficient line, b/c you btcl.

THIS IS WHY BEATING THE CLOSING LINE IN AN INEFFICIENT MARKET IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY PROFITABLE IRREGARDLESS OF MARKET EFFICIENCY. GOD YOU ARE SO IGNORANT.

keep it up w/ the name-calling when you're clearly wrong lol, that'll illustrate the pt even more prominent

[Shonner]

if sbr had a wall of shame, i'd recommend this post

Disprove it tough guy. And we are not talking about hedging and arb bets.

That was never supposed to be part of the convo.

Everyone knows that BTCL = +EV is based on market efficiency.

How many people have to tell you that you're wrong before you believe it?

Actually, you never understood the post to start, so you're confused, not wrong.

[Shonner]

first of all, if pinny has -4 -105, and you go bet -3.5 -110 at a another book, you're NOT btcl. understanding what the push rates are for the spread would be a good starting step for you

so let's use a better example, pinny has closing price of -4 -105/ +4 -105, let's say if by some magical mechanization you determine the most efficient price is -1 +100/+1 +100, so pinny's closing line is totally inefficient.

then you see another book offering -3 -110. should you take the -3 -110 at the book EVEN THOUGH you know the efficient/fair price of the line is -1. YES YOU SHOULD, that was my pt in the entire thread. b/c you DON'T CARE what the efficient price is, it DOES NOT MATTER.

you take -3 -110 at the book and ARB back at pinny drop-down menu of +3 +116, or attempt to middle the game at +4 -105 on pinny. Either approach yields a risk-free profit IRREGARDLESS of the efficient line, b/c you btcl.



keep it up w/ the name-calling when you're clearly wrong lol, that'll illustrate the pt even more prominent

I know how to use the half point calc to determine +/- EV, you are taking the post out of context.

Again, my 12 year old understands the concept of -110 / +116 on the same line is risk free. LOL. That's not rocket science and has nothing to do with an efficient market. You're so wrong.

This is the last post, 100% serious this time. This thread is dumbing me down. Talking with idiots who clearly don't understand simple math.

[trixtrix]

I know how to use the half point calc to determine +/- EV, you are taking the post out of context.

Again, my 12 year old understands the concept of -110 / +116 on the same line is risk free. LOL. That's not rocket science and has nothing to do with an efficient market. You're so wrong.

This is the last post, 100% serious this time. This thread is dumbing me down. Talking with idiots who clearly don't understand simple math.

what? talking about dumb posts, you didn't even understand taking -3.5 -110 when the fair line is -4 is not btcl, lol

[Thremp]

this is not about hedging. any idiot knows hedging properly can guarantee profit. good lord.

Why are you arguing then? This is such a trivial issue that I'm stunned it took over 100 posts to have you state my clarification is obvious (and exactly what everyone else is saying). Perhaps calming down and reading what other people are writing would behoove you.

[Shonner]

first of all, if pinny has -4 -105, and you go bet -3.5 -110 at a another book, you're NOT btcl. understanding what the push rates are for the spread would be a good starting step for you

so let's use a better example, pinny has closing price of -3.5 -105/ +3.5 -105, let's say if by some magical mechanization you determine the most efficient price is -1 +100/+1 +100, so pinny's closing line is totally inefficient.

then you see another book offering -3 -110. should you take the -3 -110 at the book EVEN THOUGH you know the efficient/fair price of the line is -1. YES YOU SHOULD, that was my pt in the entire thread. b/c you DON'T CARE what the efficient price is, it DOES NOT MATTER.

you take -3 -110 at the book and ARB back at pinny drop-down menu of +3 +116, or attempt to middle the game at +3.5 -105 on pinny. Either approach yields a risk-free profit IRREGARDLESS of the efficient line, b/c you btcl.



keep it up w/ the name-calling when you're clearly wrong lol, that'll illustrate the pt even more prominent

I think everyone clearly understood when you are doing arbitrage betting you don't care about the closing line. That's given. Your goal is to create an arbitrage opportunity, the closing line/market efficiency mean absolutely nothing. It doesn't matter when you are able to lock in arbitrage, whether the opening or closing line.

& smart guy, for the record - if you could get +3 +116 at Pinny and the true market value was +1 +100, you probably shouldn't arb your bet because it decreases EV. As Justin has stated numerous times.

I showed this thread to a few of my buddies and they were laughing their asses off.

You make arbitrage players look bad.

[Shonner]

Why are you arguing then? This is such a trivial issue that I'm stunned it took over 100 posts to have you state my clarification is obvious (and exactly what everyone else is saying). Perhaps calming down and reading what other people are writing would behoove you.

Because you arb guys misunderstood the topic of the post. It's like coming in and saying 2+2 = 4. Duh.

Obviously if you can get 2 bets at +100 or greater with the same line its' guaranteed profit. Jesus Christ.

But this thread had nothing to do with arb betting, it had to do with beating closing lines to generate profit based on market efficiency.

[trixtrix]

I showed this thread to a few of my buddies and they were laughing their asses off.

well if your buddies are laughing their asses off, i guess that proves your point then

You make arbitrage players look bad.

hilarious, talking about who looks bad when you don't even understand taking -3.5 -110 when -4 is the fair line is NOT btcl

[trixtrix]

I think everyone clearly understood when you are doing arbitrage betting you don't care about the closing line.

YES YOU DO CARE ABOUT THE CLOSING LINE, god even when you try to sound smart you fail at the most basic level. YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THE EFFICIENT/FAIR LINE.

it's clear you don't understand the point, and the appeal to majority defense is invalid whether you refer to "everyone" or your "buddies"

[tomcowley]

this is not about hedging.

any idiot knows hedging properly can guarantee profit.

good lord.

And when can you hedge properly? Oh yeah, maybe it's when you beat the closing line. So I guess any idiot (except you) knows that BTCL can guarantee profit.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I tend to respect the market. It's not entirely efficient. However, lines generally trend toward efficiency. If there isn't a large imbalance in wagering between sides and the market moves against me (above a threshold), I become concerned that I may not have access to certain information that other participants in the market may be privvy to and may buy it back.

[Shonner]

And when can you hedge properly? Oh yeah, maybe it's when you beat the closing line. So I guess any idiot (except you) knows that BTCL can guarantee profit.

I don't think anyone is doubting that you can hedge bets and guarantee profit. It doesn't take a genius to realize that you inherently "beat" the closing line and I use that in quotes for a reason. Hedging has been proven to be a poor long term strategy in most cases, but that is another story.

For the 500th time, that has nothing to do with the intended purpose of this thread which was discussing straight wagers and beating the closing line ON A STRAIGHT WAGER for purposes of earning a profit in the long term. The thread was about market efficiency, not scalping.

But thank you again for shining the light on us and letting us know that if you get -3 -110 and +3 +120 you are guaranteed a profit

[trixtrix]

But thank you again for shining the light on us and letting us know that if you get -3 -110 and +3 +120 you are guaranteed a profit

no problem, "we" also let "you" (singular form) know that taking -3.5 when closing line is -4 is probably not such a great idea.. again also common knowledge to "everyone" apparently, but you still chose to use it as a poor example

actually the pt is that btcl is independently profitable

which is the OPPOSITE for what you stated here "THIS IS WHY BEATING THE CLOSING LINE IN AN INEFFICIENT MARKET IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY PROFITABLE IRREGARDLESS OF MARKET EFFICIENCY. GOD YOU ARE SO IGNORANT."

[Justin7]

People have been throwing some increasing jabs back and forth. Play nice. Next jabber will get hit by a 2x4.

[Data]

Three pages worth of pointless arguing, all due to using vague terms. Whatever Ts call "market efficiency" the Ss call BTCL. While Ts' position is theoretically correct, I fault trixtrix in starting this pointless brawl by using unconventional, yet, again, correct meaning for BTCL. The Ss have less experience and were confused by Ts' terminology. How exciting.

[pedro803]

Justin7, if you don't mind sharing, I have been wondering about your quantitative roots -- obviously you are a quant guy, or at least you are in touch with your quantitative side

and I have read somewhere on here that you are an attorney -- I don't remember ever hearing about an attorney with a quantitative emphasis -- although I'm sure there are some, there's probably an attorney for everything

what are your quantitative roots, were you interested in statistics before you began exploring sports betting? Did you study some stats at school? (I don't doubt your prowess--I consider it a given that you are knowledgeable in statistics I am just curious as to how you came into your quantitative skills)



thanks!

[trixtrix]

Three pages worth of pointless arguing, all due to using vague terms. Whatever Ts call "market efficiency" the Ss call BTCL. While Ts' position is theoretically correct, I fault trixtrix in starting this pointless brawl by using unconventional, yet, again, correct meaning for BTCL. The Ss have less experience and were confused by Ts' terminology. How exciting.

you blame me for being correct? when is it considered to be starting something when you just wants to correct a wrong position/argument?

hilarious, the critics while being wrong, deserves a pass b/c they are more "inexperienced", instead of maybe advicing them to become sharper and more "experienced" by less arguing and more listening

[Justin7]

pedro,

I studied computer engineering and mathematics before law school.

[sharpcat]

As has became evident in this thread there is no correct answer some guys agree with argument A and some agree with argument B.

In a scenario which is a matter of opinion there is no side which is right or wrong this is a debate.

What is sad is that guys have become so obsessed with proving their side of the debate to be the one and only correct answer that they find themselves on SBR for 3 days hitting the refresh button every half hour and approaching a simple debate in a very childish "I am right, you are wrong" manner.

[trixtrix]

As has became evident in this thread there is no correct answer some guys agree with argument A and some agree with argument B.

In a scenario which is a matter of opinion there is no side which is right or wrong this is a debate.

What is sad is that guys have become so obsessed with proving their side of the debate to be the one and only correct answer that they find themselves on SBR for 3 days hitting the refresh button every half hour and approaching a simple debate in a very childish "I am right, you are wrong" manner.

yea shonner can get like that

[Data]

you blame me for being correct?

You were correct in "where-are-we?-you-are-on-an-air-balloon" kind of way. Correct yet pointless. Again, that you call BTCL is not what is conventionally called BTCL. Yes, you can call it this way and confuse less experienced posters for no reason as this will not teach them anything. Your terminology is unconventional and pointless because your application of BTCL has nothing to do with TCLs at all. You can buy back at ANY point in time, not necessarily taking TCLs while what you call "market efficiency" is comparing the lines the bettors got down at against TCLs specifically and finding out whether or not they BTCL.