Is it Variance?

[statnerds]

The last few years I have increased my self-awareness and realized I don't know everything about sports investing. This lead me to seek out more successful gamblers and just plain smarter people.

Another thing it did was alter my view of sports investing. the philosophical angle has increased.

Finally bringing me to the point of this thread.

Since May1st, MLB Favorites are 836-556 +77.87 Units.

Now that is one large sample size. But nothing compared to the 23,000+ game sample size I accumulated over the last 9 seasons. Let's just say the last 1,400 games are abnormal when compared to the rest.

Which gets me arguing in circles with myself. Sometimes it is best to just things down and let outside eyeballs add clarity. So...

1. How can we determine it is Variance and not just a new reality? What is to say that favorites won't continue at 60%?

2. In the context of the previous 9 seasons results, how do we know that this 1,400 game stretch isn't actually the norm and the 23,000+ prior was Variance. Meaning if I took a 25 year sample, maybe the previous 9 seasons represented the Variance.

All input is welcome, just make the criticism constructive so that myself or others can learn.

[wantitall4moi]

thats why math doesnt work in sports gambling, because you just dont know. Past results dont predict future events.

It would be akin to looking at 1400 spins of a roulette wheel or 1400 rolls of dice and then comparing them to 23000 spins or rolls. And then seeing how each results works out. With them however we do know the true odds of each thing occurring. But if you took the results without knowing you would probably be getting a lot of results that werent close to the true odds. And then trying to determine what the true odds were, or maybe just calling your results 'the odds'. So without math to back it up we would be guessing. But we know that is variance.

That is why taking even a huge sample size in sports results isnt going to do anything for you. The biggest thing is the dynamic nature of the lines, they are constantly changing, and thus you cant even identify them correctly. Do you use the opening number? The closing number? The extremes? Or the number you personally got? Some people think books are better at 'predicting' and give more wieght to openers, others swear 'sharp' people can beat the line consistently enough so 'closers' are better (flawed since closers arent always the extreme and they sometimes move enough to make both sides a winner) or you could take the extremes, then take vig off each side and get an average and try that. Many ways people try and fix an unweighted probability on something. But unless you use your own algorithm then it is all going to be based off that posted line somehow.

So math is a hard sell. Sure some of it works, mostly because the margin of error is so large it cant help but work, but getting that strict space where it is always going to work, or at least enough to be valid has eluded people forever. Mostly because the books use the same math that most guys are going to use. So, like I said unless a guy comes up with a completely new formula to battle their math then it will be tough to beat. Thats why getting the extremes on their lines is the most important factor, it is where the margin of error is least available to them and if they were 'wrong' in the first place where your chances are greatest to beat them.

Its the same thing with the -3 in the NFL, before 2001 games lined -3 landed on 3 around 12-13%, since 2001 they have pushed at about 8%. With line shopping that can be dropped to 6%. So did it really change that much? Why did it change? There are factors, but none of them significant enough to cause a 50% decrease. But the NFL is on its own because the sample sizes are so small that even 20 years of data might not be enough to get a large enough number to work with, and since they change the rules so often it is nearly impossible to get it 'right'. Because once you thik you have it figured out they change the rules of the game and change the whole system.

So like I say math cant be used the way math should be. You can look at it, you can plug it in, but you cant explain why something does work or doesnt work based on it.

[That Foreign Guy]

I bet there's some sort of statistical test for precisely this question.

I'm too lazy to google it but it might be a Z test.

[statnerds]

Thanks for the input. I must humbly disagree with comparing the results of favorites to a six-sided die or a roulette wheel with 38 possible outcomes.

I do agree that just about any equation or mathematical application is already employed by books, unless it is useless, then it is not. that is why handicapping individual games, in my misguided opinion, is a futile exercise.

And I thank you because your post did help spark another potential avenue that I will pursue. Again, more on the philosophical side.

But math is everything. Life on Earth is math. Living plants are math. The entire universe is math.

[chunk]

No argument here about the significance of math, but to discount deviations from the dogma is a mistake in my opinion. Furthermore, there are many here that will say that there is nothing to be gained when exploring the philosophy of gambling....really? Is math the end all when it comes to probability estimates with human input? Unless someone has a model with superior AI, I don't think that one can really give credibility to claims of "Knowing their edge" to any statistically significant advantage where you can apply a betting strategy that is predicated on something more than estimates. We've all heard the old adage about rather be lucky than good, but to survive in this racket, you need to be lucky AND good.

[wantitall4moi]

Thanks for the input. I must humbly disagree with comparing the results of favorites to a six-sided die or a roulette wheel with 38 possible outcomes.

I do agree that just about any equation or mathematical application is already employed by books, unless it is useless, then it is not. that is why handicapping individual games, in my misguided opinion, is a futile exercise.

And I thank you because your post did help spark another potential avenue that I will pursue. Again, more on the philosophical side.

But math is everything. Life on Earth is math. Living plants are math. The entire universe is math.

LOL you watch too much SyFy channel.

As for the roulette wheel and the dice anaolgy. Those have mathematical certainties, that have been proven. But if you play the "lets assume we dont know game" and just took a print out of results over a fixed sample size and mined that for data. It is exactly the same thing people do getting data and results for sporting event. Because sporting event outcomes dont have a mathematical certainly, at least that we prove. Beyond one side will win and one side can lose (in some cases a tie is possible) we cant prove anything else.

As long as humans play and officiate the games human error will be the bane of all math guys.

[Pokerjoe]

But math is everything. Life on Earth is math. Living plants are math. The entire universe is math.

No. Math is a human construct which we apply to the world around us, a construct we use to describe the world around us, but it is not in the world around us. It has a great functional use, but it is an application, a toy, a tool, a fiction, a philosophy, not a reality.

Math geeks often like to think math is everything, because they're good at math and who wouldn't want "what they're good at" to be everything? Artists are the same way, they like to say, "Everything is art!"

But just like artists are typically bad at math (not all; Da Vinci rules), math types are typically bad at art. Notice how they often embarrass themselves in these forums when it comes time to read and write?

Probably if 8th grade algebra students had the arrogance for it, they'd describe calculus as convoluted; math types often describe arguments that way, and for the same reason.

Mistaking calculation for intelligence is a hallmark of the typically not-too-bright math geek. Don't be one. The complete failure of math-types in, for example, economics (which used to be dominated by philosophers) is a shining example of the limits of math, and the general un-intelligence of math types.

Quants don't make money in markets. Quants make money by convincing non-quants that quants can make money in markets. And it's actually the hedge fund marketers that do the real cleaning up. Chartists are full of crap, with no proven ability to win going forward. Yet chartists still abound (and the connection to OP is that his idea is basically trend charting).

As to your point, you're right that this isn't roulette, because it's a market, and inefficiencies are possible. Further, markets have memory. They're self-aware. A roulette wheel, coming black 10x straight, can't think, "Hmm, time for a red!" and casinos aren't going to change the price on black, either.

But markets, observing that MLB faves have been covering more than their due, can react, "Hmmm, time to bet faves!" driving the fave's price up, taking away the profits. And if the market isn't doing that? There's a reason.

Here's the inherent problem (and why z-scores are useless here): the larger the sample, the greater the validity, but the greater the validity, the greater the market's awareness of it, and thus the greater the likelihood the market will act such that the sample isn't valid going forward.

IOW, going forward, no one (and no formula) can say that the past aberration in MLB fave win rates will continue. You are, of course, free to bet it does. But I'd suggest you first understand that the past results can equally well be interpreted to mean, "Wow, baseball dogs are so due!"

[WendysRox]

No. Math is a human construct which we apply to the world around us, a construct we use to describe the world around us, but it is not in the world around us. It has a great functional use, but it is an application, a toy, a tool, a fiction, a philosophy, not a reality.

Math geeks often like to think math is everything, because they're good at math and who wouldn't want "what they're good at" to be everything? Artists are the same way, they like to say, "Everything is art!"

But just like artists are typically bad at math (not all; Da Vinci rules), math types are typically bad at art. Notice how they often embarrass themselves in these forums when it comes time to read and write?

Probably if 8th grade algebra students had the arrogance for it, they'd describe calculus as convoluted; math types often describe arguments that way, and for the same reason.

Mistaking calculation for intelligence is a hallmark of the typically not-too-bright math geek. Don't be one. The complete failure of math-types in, for example, economics (which used to be dominated by philosophers) is a shining example of the limits of math, and the general un-intelligence of math types.

Quants don't make money in markets. Quants make money by convincing non-quants that quants can make money in markets. And it's actually the hedge fund marketers that do the real cleaning up. Chartists are full of crap, with no proven ability to win going forward. Yet chartists still abound (and the connection to OP is that his idea is basically trend charting).

As to your point, you're right that this isn't roulette, because it's a market, and inefficiencies are possible. Further, markets have memory. They're self-aware. A roulette wheel, coming black 10x straight, can't think, "Hmm, time for a red!" and casinos aren't going to change the price on black, either.

But markets, observing that MLB faves have been covering more than their due, can react, "Hmmm, time to bet faves!" driving the fave's price up, taking away the profits. And if the market isn't doing that? There's a reason.

Here's the inherent problem (and why z-scores are useless here): the larger the sample, the greater the validity, but the greater the validity, the greater the market's awareness of it, and thus the greater the likelihood the market will act such that the sample isn't valid going forward.

IOW, going forward, no one (and no formula) can say that the past aberration in MLB fave win rates will continue. You are, of course, free to bet it does. But I'd suggest you first understand that the past results can equally well be interpreted to mean, "Wow, baseball dogs are so due!"

thank you.

[sneak-a-peak]

No. Math is a human construct which we apply to the world around us, a construct we use to describe the world around us, but it is not in the world around us. It has a great functional use, but it is an application, a toy, a tool, a fiction, a philosophy, not a reality.

Math geeks often like to think math is everything, because they're good at math and who wouldn't want "what they're good at" to be everything? Artists are the same way, they like to say, "Everything is art!"

But just like artists are typically bad at math (not all; Da Vinci rules), math types are typically bad at art. Notice how they often embarrass themselves in these forums when it comes time to read and write?

Probably if 8th grade algebra students had the arrogance for it, they'd describe calculus as convoluted; math types often describe arguments that way, and for the same reason.

Mistaking calculation for intelligence is a hallmark of the typically not-too-bright math geek. Don't be one. The complete failure of math-types in, for example, economics (which used to be dominated by philosophers) is a shining example of the limits of math, and the general un-intelligence of math types.

Quants don't make money in markets. Quants make money by convincing non-quants that quants can make money in markets. And it's actually the hedge fund marketers that do the real cleaning up. Chartists are full of crap, with no proven ability to win going forward. Yet chartists still abound (and the connection to OP is that his idea is basically trend charting).

As to your point, you're right that this isn't roulette, because it's a market, and inefficiencies are possible. Further, markets have memory. They're self-aware. A roulette wheel, coming black 10x straight, can't think, "Hmm, time for a red!" and casinos aren't going to change the price on black, either.

But markets, observing that MLB faves have been covering more than their due, can react, "Hmmm, time to bet faves!" driving the fave's price up, taking away the profits. And if the market isn't doing that? There's a reason.

Here's the inherent problem (and why z-scores are useless here): the larger the sample, the greater the validity, but the greater the validity, the greater the market's awareness of it, and thus the greater the likelihood the market will act such that the sample isn't valid going forward.

IOW, going forward, no one (and no formula) can say that the past aberration in MLB fave win rates will continue. You are, of course, free to bet it does. But I'd suggest you first understand that the past results can equally well be interpreted to mean, "Wow, baseball dogs are so due!"

Great post! Definitely one of the most intelligent posts I've seen here on SBR

Its been said many times that over 90% of gamblers lose

So I find it interesting that people who post here are always continually looking at past results to try and predict future results. Databases/backfitting ect....

Common denominator?

Through lots of trial by error I have found a very unique approach that goes exactly against 9 out of 10 gamblers thinking.

Its like 2 clouds around here-

One big one going this way >>>>>>>>>>>> (((((((((((())))))))))))))

and one small one going the other way ((())) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[Sean81]

PokerJoe Thanks for the read.

Lots of good points but a disagree with a couple points:

1. You downplay "math" types and say economics used to be dominated by "philosophers". I understand your larger point but a vast majority of those philosophers were also mathematicians.

2. You claim chartists are full of crap, then in the next paragraph state the difference between a roulette wheel and markets is markets have memory. That's what charting is about.

maybe I read it wrong but thanks again for the post.

[evo34]

Quants don't make money in markets. Quants make money by convincing non-quants that quants can make money in markets. And it's actually the hedge fund marketers that do the real cleaning up. Chartists are full of crap, with no proven ability to win going forward. Yet chartists still abound (and the connection to OP is that his idea is basically trend charting).

Your credibility just went from non-zero --> zero. If you've applied yourself to trading and have not discovered a way to make a profit consistently (with your own money), you're simply not a good problem solver.

[statnerds]

Mistaking calculation for intelligence is a hallmark of the typically not-too-bright math geek. Don't be one. The complete failure of math-types in, for example, economics (which used to be dominated by philosophers) is a shining example of the limits of math, and the general un-intelligence of math types.

As to your point, you're right that this isn't roulette, because it's a market, and inefficiencies are possible. Further, markets have memory. They're self-aware. A roulette wheel, coming black 10x straight, can't think, "Hmm, time for a red!" and casinos aren't going to change the price on black, either.

But markets, observing that MLB faves have been covering more than their due, can react, "Hmmm, time to bet faves!" driving the fave's price up, taking away the profits. And if the market isn't doing that? There's a reason.

Here's the inherent problem (and why z-scores are useless here): the larger the sample, the greater the validity, but the greater the validity, the greater the market's awareness of it, and thus the greater the likelihood the market will act such that the sample isn't valid going forward.

IOW, going forward, no one (and no formula) can say that the past aberration in MLB fave win rates will continue. You are, of course, free to bet it does. But I'd suggest you first understand that the past results can equally well be interpreted to mean, "Wow, baseball dogs are so due!"

I think perhaps we are not on the same page as to what was intended with the phrase "the universe is math"

As I have stated, my sports investing is taking on a more philosophical aspect than it ever has. My ideas tend to run much larger than any one side or team or designated sample "being due". To this end, the universe is math refers to not-too-bright math geeks like the gravitational equations by Newton or Galileo, and E=MCsquared, or stephen hawking's use of math to prove that everything that would fall into a black hole would be destroyed, thus the loss of information, (a 30 year old equation proven wrong because the universe can never lose information), or the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, all the way up to Tegmark's claim that the entire physical world is completely mathematical. I'm sure they will be happy to hear their futile efforts in a useless field have been properly disposed of by Pokerjoe.

Now, i hold the same feeling toward Time that you do for math. Time is a man made construct with an arbitrary starting point. The universe is unaware that it is 13.4 billion years old. Time holds zero meaning to the universe.

You presented two conflicting ideas at the same time. One, that the market will take note of the faves covering at a rate higher than expected based on historical data, and take this is a cue to bet more faves. And then you state the market is 'self aware'.

A 'self aware' market would realize that stretches of Variance are to be expected. these stretches will run for an unpredictable amount of time before regressing to the mean. There is no such thing as a team being "due".

Furthermore, to your point of lopsided money pushing the price of favorites higher, this does not hold true as bettors do not set the opening price, the books do. So when the average opening line is higher now than it was in July, how are you going to explain that it is because favorites are receiving more action? Are the books adjusting their openers higher and guessing people are still going to push them higher? Or, are they setting those opening lines higher because reams and reams of data tell them favorites will regress to the mean? The book isn't looking to outfox anyone, it is trying to make betting strictly favorites or dogs a losing proposition over the course of a season(s). So you can't make claims that a self aware market would also believe dogs are due. The biggest mistake made by gamblers is the handicapping of individual contests. On that point you are correct. over 99% of the things that can be known about a contest are known and they are already factored into the line. Also known as EMT.

There isn't value in the dogs because they are "due". There is value in the dogs because the opening price is higher than it should be based on historical data.

[statnerds]

So I find it interesting that people who post here are always continually looking at past results to try and predict future results. Databases/backfitting ect....

There is no attempt afoot to predict the future. The people trying to predict the future are the ones wrapped up in the day to day match-ups and results.

Is a pitcher with an ERA or 3.00 going to give up 2 runs if he pitches 6 innings in his next start?

Is a .250 hitter guaranteed to get a hit if he gets 4 AB's in his next game?

[CHUBNUT]

If you want to find any answers on sports betting dont bother here. This place is just for math geeks to tell you that you havent a clue, post some nonsense without answering your question and wallow in their perceived superiority. I'll give you one bit of advice, the more you go down the math road the more disillusioned you will become and end up in here talking the same nonsense just to convince yourself your right. That aside, Pokerjoe is not in that mold and always posts exceptional advice.

THAT FOREIGN GUY, save yourself the post about my gambling problem and concentrate on your own. Beside your betting, your knowledge of good food needs teaching especially on expeditions to London.

[wantitall4moi]

If you want to find any answers on sports betting dont bother here. This place is just for math geeks to tell you that you havent a clue, post some nonsense without answering your question and wallow in their perceived superiority. I'll give you one bit of advice, the more you go down the math road the more disillusioned you will become and end up in here talking the same nonsense just to convince yourself your right. That aside, Pokerjoe is not in that mold and always posts exceptional advice.

THAT FOREIGN GUY, save yourself the post about my gambling problem and concentrate on your own. Beside your betting, your knowledge of good food needs teaching especially on expeditions to London.

Daringly (Justin7) railed on me once in this forum for busting the math guys and wondered why I was so against them. saying I was 'trolling' them. These types of threads are exactly the reason why. because in the end math guys troll just as much if not worse than the gamblers do.

Math is math and if you have a formula awesome, use it. But when someone give real world data and you still try to claim it wont work you just look like a frigging idiot. But that is what math guys do. You can cash tickets for years, and then when you try and explain something to them they swear up and down it never worked or wont work because the math isnt right.

Complete frigging joke. Then people wonder why it is the same 5 or 6 guys left in this place all talking to each other. because they all share the same braincell and anyone that doesnt think like them gets laughed at.

But if homogenization is what you want then this place is great for that. Dont post an independent thought or angle because it wont work according to all the braniacs here. Thats why I dont get into specifics. Because why would anyone want to help a bunch of self righteous assholes actually learn something about betting?

But I really shouldnt be too hard on them because they and their math make it possible for actual gamblers with experience and a little bit of knowledge make money hand over fist. So they server their purposes. because the more they scream something doesnt work, the more advantage guys playing it will have.

Anyways, carry on....

EDIT: actually this isnt the main thread, the main thread where they are all being pompous asses is the bill the cop one.

[Pokerjoe]

PokerJoe Thanks for the read.

Lots of good points but a disagree with a couple points:

1. You downplay "math" types and say economics used to be dominated by "philosophers". I understand your larger point but a vast majority of those philosophers were also mathematicians.

2. You claim chartists are full of crap, then in the next paragraph state the difference between a roulette wheel and markets is markets have memory. That's what charting is about.

maybe I read it wrong but thanks again for the post.

I should say first that I love math. If I could only teach my own kids one thing it would probably be probability theory.

There is certainly no reason an intelligent person shouldn't appreciate and use math. By math types I mean those that don't understand that calculating isn't math, and thus don't understand that calculation for it's own sake isn't good math. The best math prof I had in college started off his class by holding up a calculator and saying "This machine is incapable of thought and thus can not do math. Don't emulate it."

Adam Smith, Karl Marx, others, certainly were comfortable with math, but they used it, instead of were used by it. Modern econ, to too much extent, has degenerated into useless quants (though behavioral econ is very, very cool).

As to charting ... I imagine you've read such books as Random Walk Down Wall Street, or The Black Swan, and others. I wouldn't say charting is valid. Yes, as I said, there's a difference between roulette and a market, but that doesn't mean it's possible to interpret past results to predict the future in either.

And then I should conclude by saying AGAIN that I love and value math. I am so not anti-math. I'm anti wrongful use of math. I'm anti throwing math at problems because "math is what I know." Like using Z because you learned Z, not because this is a good place for it. Using Z without understanding the philosophy behind it, and thus using it wrongly, is pointless, yet common.

[Pokerjoe]

I think perhaps we are not on the same page as to what was intended with the phrase "the universe is math"

As I have stated, my sports investing is taking on a more philosophical aspect than it ever has. My ideas tend to run much larger than any one side or team or designated sample "being due". To this end, the universe is math refers to not-too-bright math geeks like the gravitational equations by Newton or Galileo, and E=MCsquared, or stephen hawking's use of math to prove that everything that would fall into a black hole would be destroyed, thus the loss of information, (a 30 year old equation proven wrong because the universe can never lose information), or the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, all the way up to Tegmark's claim that the entire physical world is completely mathematical. I'm sure they will be happy to hear their futile efforts in a useless field have been properly disposed of by Pokerjoe

Now, i hold the same feeling toward Time that you do for math. Time is a man made construct with an arbitrary starting point. The universe is unaware that it is 13.4 billion years old. Time holds zero meaning to the universe.

You presented two conflicting ideas at the same time. One, that the market will take note of the faves covering at a rate higher than expected based on historical data, and take this is a cue to bet more faves. And then you state the market is 'self aware'.

A 'self aware' market would realize that stretches of Variance are to be expected. these stretches will run for an unpredictable amount of time before regressing to the mean. There is no such thing as a team being "due".

Furthermore, to your point of lopsided money pushing the price of favorites higher, this does not hold true as bettors do not set the opening price, the books do. So when the average opening line is higher now than it was in July, how are you going to explain that it is because favorites are receiving more action? Are the books adjusting their openers higher and guessing people are still going to push them higher? Or, are they setting those opening lines higher because reams and reams of data tell them favorites will regress to the mean? The book isn't looking to outfox anyone, it is trying to make betting strictly favorites or dogs a losing proposition over the course of a season(s). So you can't make claims that a self aware market would also believe dogs are due. The biggest mistake made by gamblers is the handicapping of individual contests. On that point you are correct. over 99% of the things that can be known about a contest are known and they are already factored into the line. Also known as EMT.

There isn't value in the dogs because they are "due". There is value in the dogs because the opening price is higher than it should be based on historical data.

There's too much to dig into here, Stats, lol. I've got things to do, so I can't respond to the depth I'd like, though I'd enjoy the discussion.

I'll just say that I dispute your semantics about math. I said math is not in the universe. Math can describe the universe (functionally), which leads to understanding, and that has tremendous value. But water doesn't freeze at 32 degrees, 32 degrees is a label we apply to when water freezes. There's an important philosophical difference, and I'd say the great physicists are inherently aware of it.

The mathematicians you named are NOT "math types". They are highly intelligent people who use math properly and brilliantly, not randomly and inappropriately, like most math guys at your local college, who fixate on the calculations. Feynman once complained about the math types by saying all they ever did was look for answers in books, and never gave themselves a chance to discover something new.

I'll put it this way: if a problem can be solved by something found in a book, it isn't a problem it's just a chore.

Great mathematicians look at the universe and carefully apply, or even develop, a math to understand it.

Math types, otoh, look at what they've learned in class and seek to apply it to the universe because ... it's what they learned in class, and it was hard, and they invested a lot into the learning, and have a lot of ego wrapped up in the fact of their learning and so math becomes "that which must be used."

Math and art both have great value. But just like I'd say "poet types" are really clueless about the world sometimes because they won't learn elementary math, "math types" are equally clueless because they won't value art. Monet expresses as well as any mathematician, but he uses the appropriate form.

And more interesting is that both types really can't see the other's view. It's as if they were color blind, couldn't see red, but even refused to believe red existed because they couldn't see it. In poker, there are guys, coming off the internet games, usually, who flat out reject the idea that it's possible to read opponents, because they themselves, asperger's or whatever, can't do it. And there are old school live players who flat out think math is useless in poker.

[Pokerjoe]

Your credibility just went from non-zero --> zero. If you've applied yourself to roulette and have not discovered a way to make a profit consistently (with your own money), you're simply not a good problem solver.

FYP.

[evo34]

Is trading really a -5% edge enterprise for you?

[Wrecktangle]

ummm, I have a lot of respect for Poker, but I must disagree: knowing a few of them, Quants make serious money being Quants vice being snake-oil salesmen.

[tachi]

Life on Earth is math. Living plants are math. The entire universe is math.

it's the opposite.
The birth of life is irrational.

The logic/science/math can't explain how the life is created.

[craigpb]

To answer the original, you will never know because sports are played by humans against humans, not simulations on a computer. Besides mistakes caused by all kinds of factors they could make, they could play above or below their actual ceiling within each play or within each game for that particular day. Or are they playing like that only due to the opponent? Can never be sure.

So what I try to do is find out why they are playing like that or why they played like that and use that to make a prediction. Using common sense, human info, and the main reasons behind the why and then using that create a story of what happened and what most likely will happen next game is what works for me.

[affest]

I odn't think math involved here

[wantitall4moi]

To answer the original, you will never know because sports are played by humans against humans, not simulations on a computer. Besides mistakes caused by all kinds of factors they could make, they could play above or below their actual ceiling within each play or within each game for that particular day. Or are they playing like that only due to the opponent? Can never be sure.

So what I try to do is find out why they are playing like that or why they played like that and use that to make a prediction. Using common sense, human info, and the main reasons behind the why and then using that create a story of what happened and what most likely will happen next game is what works for me.

This is why math and looking at past results fail. Because just on the surface you look at results, how many of those results had back up personnel in, even for one play, but that one play literally changed the outcome of the game sither versus the spread or a straight up win or loss? Then there are fluke plays that people forget about, or letting someone do something and gambling so you can try and do it back to them, a la Holmgren in the Superbowl. Or a totally blown call by an official.

Every game is situational. People think that over long term it will all even out, but it doesnt because the situations overlap into areas they dont belong, and thus they skew what might actually be valid.

While trying to take this stuff out can be seen as 'better' in some ways, it is worse in others. Emotions and feelings play a part in these games and streaks. Confidence is a big think, as is pride.

If these were sims or video games sure some of it could be validated, but looking at numbers, results, odds, and percentages isnt going to give you everything you need. And in a lot of cases not even enough to beat the spread enough to be valid.

[bztips]

Every game is situational. People think that over long term it will all even out, but it doesnt because the situations overlap into areas they dont belong, and thus they skew what might actually be valid.

While trying to take this stuff out can be seen as 'better' in some ways, it is worse in others. Emotions and feelings play a part in these games and streaks. Confidence is a big think, as is pride.

If these were sims or video games sure some of it could be validated, but looking at numbers, results, odds, and percentages isnt going to give you everything you need. And in a lot of cases not even enough to beat the spread enough to be valid.

Hilarious! Sort of a sports betting version of Luddism.

[Inspirited]

wantitall4moi keeps spreading disinfo and no one is calling him out. always remember that people around here like to spread disinfo because everyone who bets is in a contest against each other. he knows he's playing people here and is probably having a lot of fun doing it. i will keep my mind clear of his disinfo. if you want to believe it go ahead. i aint gonna do it!

[Nookx]

I found this thread amusing because so many people don't know whats going on. There is so much misinformation in this thread I hope no one takes it seriously.

EDIT: Yes based on the numbers you posted originally it can be variance.

[Pancho sanza]

wantitall4moi keeps spreading disinfo and no one is calling him out. always remember that people around here like to spread disinfo because everyone who bets is in a contest against each other. he knows he's playing people here and is probably having a lot of fun doing it. i will keep my mind clear of his disinfo. if you want to believe it go ahead. i aint gonna do it!

No one bothers to call him out because everyone knows he's a clueless moron.

[Wrecktangle]

This is why math and looking at past results fail. Because just on the surface you look at results, how many of those results had back up personnel in, even for one play, but that one play literally changed the outcome of the game sither versus the spread or a straight up win or loss? Then there are fluke plays that people forget about, or letting someone do something and gambling so you can try and do it back to them, a la Holmgren in the Superbowl. Or a totally blown call by an official.

Every game is situational. People think that over long term it will all even out, but it doesnt because the situations overlap into areas they dont belong, and thus they skew what might actually be valid.

While trying to take this stuff out can be seen as 'better' in some ways, it is worse in others. Emotions and feelings play a part in these games and streaks. Confidence is a big think, as is pride.

If these were sims or video games sure some of it could be validated, but looking at numbers, results, odds, and percentages isnt going to give you everything you need. And in a lot of cases not even enough to beat the spread enough to be valid.

Interesting. Next time I see BW on the course, I'll tell him he can fire all those modelers he has on staff.

[wantitall4moi]

Interesting. Next time I see BW on the course, I'll tell him he can fire all those modelers he has on staff.

ahh more BW fairytales, you need to go to EOG where the guy is a deity.

BW does one thing...he creates his own moves and "market" to go with the present vernacular people love so much.

That guys rarely if ever bets a game one way, yet people seem to think he is some sort of picking machine.

back in the day when you could actually make a bet for an amount that mattered you could move the number yourself, he just took his stolen money and put it to a whole other level. And continues to do it. No big secret. If you can use your money to break even then have enoug sapd to push it another 10-12 points thenhow can you lose? You bet every game you thikn you have an egde in at a number, then by the time everyone gets done trying to chase you or pick up your crumbs you have 8-20 cents on the other side all you need to do is figure out what to do to maximize your profits both ways. With him it is about volume as well. More money bet at +ev more money you get back regardless of who wins. Simple buy low sell high. It isnt rocket science. He could fire everyone he pays, then he could bet his plays on his own, leak what he plays and then wait for the fall out. But that probably wouldnt work long term because BW best asset is the fairy ale status he has obtained because enough people spread propaganda about him and enough people still believe it.

[statictheory]

There isn't value in the dogs because they are "due". There is value in the dogs because the opening price is higher than it should be based on historical data.

For years math geeks and engineers have tried to build all kinds of indicators etc in the stock market.
pretty much all worthless because they are trying to take a market that involves human emotions and quantify it with their available math in order to try and make sense and simplify something that cant be simplified to a simple indicator.
Historical data of your dogs example gives you the result but not all the variables that make up the result, so there is no way to be confident your historical data is going to be relevant going forward.
Making a model using statistical analysis has to be a step, but not an end in itself.

[chunk]

Another one that gets it.

[Wrecktangle]

ahh more BW fairytales, you need to go to EOG where the guy is a deity.

BW does one thing...he creates his own moves and "market" to go with the present vernacular people love so much.

That guys rarely if ever bets a game one way, yet people seem to think he is some sort of picking machine.

back in the day when you could actually make a bet for an amount that mattered you could move the number yourself, he just took his stolen money and put it to a whole other level. And continues to do it. No big secret. If you can use your money to break even then have enoug sapd to push it another 10-12 points thenhow can you lose? You bet every game you thikn you have an egde in at a number, then by the time everyone gets done trying to chase you or pick up your crumbs you have 8-20 cents on the other side all you need to do is figure out what to do to maximize your profits both ways. With him it is about volume as well. More money bet at +ev more money you get back regardless of who wins. Simple buy low sell high. It isnt rocket science. He could fire everyone he pays, then he could bet his plays on his own, leak what he plays and then wait for the fall out. But that probably wouldnt work long term because BW best asset is the fairy ale status he has obtained because enough people spread propaganda about him and enough people still believe it.

Fairy tales...right. These fairy tales are squeezing the market to the point to there is not much left for for the rest of us, especially ham-and-eggers like you. Unfortunately, BW isn't the only guy doing this.

[statictheory]

ummm, I have a lot of respect for Poker, but I must disagree: knowing a few of them, Quants make serious money being Quants vice being snake-oil salesmen.

These days the high frequency traders are king, but they are more about speed than most anything else. They have spent large sums on computing power and access to gain fractions of a second on the competition, rather than being able to decipher the market.

[Peregrine Stoop]

For years math geeks and engineers have tried to build all kinds of indicators etc in the stock market. pretty much all worthless because they are trying to take a market that involves human emotions and quantify it with their available math in order to try and make sense and simplify something that cant be simplified to a simple indicator. Historical data of your dogs example gives you the result but not all the variables that make up the result, so there is no way to be confident your historical data is going to be relevant going forward. Making a model using statistical analysis has to be a step, but not an end in itself.

comparing financial markets to sports betting markets in this sort of way is dumb