Does anyone profit long term?

[coldhardfacts]

I'm afraid I don't see your logic here.

If the line moves in your favor (say you bet it at -3 and it moves to -3½), then all else being equal the line at which you already bet (the -3 in this case) was the "smart" bet. This says nothing about the current line, but only about the line before the movement.

If, however, you're arguing that if a line moves in your favor prior to your having bet it (which would I suppose technically be moving against you), you should bet less at the new spread, then I'd have to agree with your assertion.

The pertinent question is really whether 3½-point favorites cover a 3-point spread more frequently than 3-point favorites.

Since 1985 in the NFL 3-point faves have covered a 3-point spread about 49.48% of the time (774 data points), while 3½-point favorites have covered a 3-point spread about 50.96% of the time (416 data points).

Is this difference statistically significant? No. There's insufficient NFL game data to make such a determination. Nevertheless, the trend is clear. Generally speaking, higher spread favorites cover a given spread more frequently than lower spread favorites or underdogs. This trend is evident across leagues and sports and while data anomalies certainly do exist the bulk of the evidence points in the same direction.

Even more relevant, however, is the situation where a single bet is available at two different books at two different spreads (we'll assume identical payout odds to keep it simple). Clearly the favorite is more likely to cover at the book with the lower absolute spread and similarly the dog is more likely to cover at the book with the higher absolute spread. That this is true follows directly from first principles of probability. The notion that in so straightforward a case the difference in edge across these two bets can't be readily calculated is clearly preposterous. As such, if given a choice between the two wagers, it would naturally follow that advantage bettors would in general choose to risk more on the wager with the more favorable spread (i.e., the bet with the demonstrably higher edge) than on the wager with the less favorable spread.

I don't know if this discussion is too esoteric, or if I'm not making myself clear. Although MrX certainly seems to get it.

But everything, EVERYTHING you're saying supports my point entirely.

[BuddyBear]

the last 5 or so posts by CHF haven't made any sense to me.....

[Sinister Cat]

the last 5 or so posts by CHF haven't made any sense to me.....

I think there is some confusion in this thread over the meaning of "line moving in my favor", etc. There might have been some misinterpretation because, although the common usage is such that a favorable move in a line after a bet is placed is the opposite direction of one when a game is contemplated but not bet yet, this isn't the usage that's been understood for all posts.

At least, CHF's posts only make sense to me if I think there's been a mix-up there.

[cobra_king]

CHF

If everything Ganch said in his post supports your point entirely, than clearly you aren't articulating your point very well as it seems that you are saying that whether you are laying 3 or 3.5 is irrelevant in the long term as long as you are on the "proper" side. This clearly is faulty logic and must be reconsidered. Maybe you are not trying to say this, but this is how it is being read by many in here.

[coldhardfacts]

I think there is some confusion in this thread over the meaning of "line moving in my favor", etc. There might have been some misinterpretation because, although the common usage is such that a favorable move in a line after a bet is placed is the opposite direction of one when a game is contemplated but not bet yet, this isn't the usage that's been understood for all posts.

At least, CHF's posts only make sense to me if I think there's been a mix-up there.

Favorable line move:

My side is favored by 3 1/2 (before I bet)

The line moves to 3 (in other words, in my favor).

According to Durito's advice (and apparently BB's, although I am having trouble understanding him), I should bet more on the game than if it stayed at 3 1/2 or moved the other way, since there's a better chance I'm going to win THIS PARTICULAR GAME. (And this assertion is dubious in itself, as I explained earlier.)

But my point:

Let's say there's also another game where I like a 3 1/2 point favorite, and the line doesn't move or moves against me. I don't think there is necessarily a better chance I will win Game A (laying 3) than Game B (laying 3 1/2), so there is no reason for me to bet more on Game A than Game B.

Clear enough?

[durito]

no entiendo

[coldhardfacts]

CHF

If everything Ganch said in his post supports your point entirely, than clearly you aren't articulating your point very well as it seems that you are saying that whether you are laying 3 or 3.5 is irrelevant in the long term as long as you are on the "proper" side. This clearly is faulty logic and must be reconsidered. Maybe you are not trying to say this, but this is how it is being read by many in here.

No sir, that is not at all what I'm saying.

See my previous post.

[coldhardfacts]

no entiendo

English, please.

[pimike]

What are you trying to say? That nobody in the world can profit long term against the books?

And by long term i mean 10+ years

Gambling is done by impulse not by managing your money. Anybody even myself who has been betting for 10 years even more than that will lose more than they will win, its just a fact.

I have had NIGHTS were I won 50,000 just to turn around and lose 70,000 the rest of the year. So for the year I'm down 20,000. We seem to forgot how much we lose.

So No you can not make money
/profit long term. I play becuase I enjoy it but please don't fool your self. Becareful, cause we all eventually lose more than we started with.

[LT Profits]

Gambling is done by impulse not by managing your money. Anybody even myself who has been betting for 10 years even more than that will lose more than they will win, its just a fact.

I have had NIGHTS were I won 50,000 just to turn around and lose 70,000 the rest of the year. So for the year I'm down 20, 20,000. We seem to forgot how much we lose.

So No you can not make money
/profit long term. I play becuase I enjoy it but please don't fool your self. Becareful, cause we all eventually lose more than we started with.

That may be true about 90% of the public, but the other 10% are not impulsive and do win long term, and a percenatge of that 10% do it exclusively, making a living off of this.

[durito]

Gambling is done by impulse not by managing your money. Anybody even myself who has been betting for 10 years even more than that will lose more than they will win, its just a fact.

I have had NIGHTS were I won 50,000 just to turn around and lose 70,000 the rest of the year. So for the year I'm down 20,000. We seem to forgot how much we lose.

So No you can not make money
/profit long term. I play becuase I enjoy it but please don't fool your self. Becareful, cause we all eventually lose more than we started with.

Just because you cannot do something, it does not mean that other people can't.

[durito]

English, please.

let me try this from another angle.

say you really like team A to win easily. team A is favored by 8pts. before you bet you notice that pinnacle and cris have moved the line to -6. however, you are not funded at any online books and can only bet with your local, who keeps the line at -8. do you still bet it?

[pimike]

That may be true about 90% of the public, but the other 10% are not impulsive and do win long term, and a percenatge of that 10% do it exclusively, making a living off of this.

The last time I was in Vegas I spoke to the locals at three sports books and due to the variety of wagers now being offered verses years back. The actual concesus of actually making a proit is down to about 5-7% SIR.

But even at that or 10% we can see this is a very low percent of being able to master this. Out of the number of people gambling today which is very high, therfore I do believe the number mentioned by the locals is about 5% now.

Good point LT, and thanks for brining this to the attention of our younger posters. I would hate to mislead them thinking there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

As always LT you give accurate details.

[Brady2Moss]

If you know you are going to lose and you only "gamble" due to excitement, then that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Why the hell would you waste money on something that has no value.

Go waste your money on something useful then, like a hooker or some drugs. At least those will give you something in return.

If you only gamble to get the "rush" then you have a serious problem.

I have intentions to profit...

[bigugly]

And who are you to judge how someone else should spend their money?

And then you seem to recommend hookers and drugs as an alternative...

[Brady2Moss]

hookers and drugs arent far from gambling... genius...

[coldhardfacts]

let me try this from another angle.

say you really like team A to win easily. team A is favored by 8pts. before you bet you notice that pinnacle and cris have moved the line to -6. however, you are not funded at any online books and can only bet with your local, who keeps the line at -8. do you still bet it?

NEVER an issue, so not even worth discussing. I always have enough funds in all of my outs (and I recommend at least 5, btw) to cover any bet I want to make.

My philosophy is, if you're not going to take this sh#t seriously, don't do it all.

[MrX]

NEVER an issue, so not even worth discussing. I always have enough funds in all of my outs (and I recommend at least 5, btw) to cover any bet I want to make.

My philosophy is, if you're not going to take this sh#t seriously, don't do it all.

Pretend that a hub is down preventing you from reaching Pinny and Cris. Would knowing that -6 is available affect how (or whether) you bet at -8?

[coldhardfacts]

Pretend that a hub is down preventing you from reaching Pinny and Cris. Knowing that -6 is available there would this affect your bet at -8?

And Matchbook, and 5 Dimes, and ABC, and WSEX? OK, not that this situation would ever happen in the real world, especially since my locals are sharp enough to adjust for any line changes, but the answer is YES, if I felt that the favorite was still worth a play at -8, and there is no way I could get down at anything less, I would still make the bet.

[Dazzez]

Where do I sign up to be coldhardfacts' bookie?

[MrX]

And Matchbook, and 5 Dimes, and ABC, and WSEX? OK, not that this situation would ever happen in the real world, especially since my locals are sharp enough to adjust for any line changes, but the answer is YES, if I felt that the favorite was still worth a play at -8, and there is no way I could get down at anything less, I would still make the bet.

Okay. I think that your answer to this is inconsistent with your stance on the original question.

We already know from previous posts that if you were able to make the bet at -6 you would not assign more value to it even though you were going to play it at -8. Essentially you are saying that the availability of -6 represents new information and you assign the same value to your bet at -6 as you had to your bet at -8.

You can't have it both ways, though. If -6 now has the same value, then -8 must now have less value. To remain consistent with your original stance, the availability of -6 must devalue your bet at -8.

[Brady2Moss]

I think CHF is a moron and should stop posting in my thread...

[coldhardfacts]

I think CHF is a moron and should stop posting in my thread...

Done. And, I have to say, the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the posters, as evidenced by their idiotic questions, criticisms, and inability to see any viewpoint other than their own narrow ones, explains alot about why I'm able to beat the sports game. One is only as good as their competition.

When I started reading and posting at this site, I expected to encounter intelligent, open minded gamblers who might be able to participate in engaging dialog about the subject. Not imbeciles who don't have basic reading comprehension skills, or ask sophmoric questions like "can you win at sports gambling?"

I still think this site provides a valuable service, and occasionally one can learn a thing a two from reading certain posters (Ganchrow, for one.) But you can rest easy, I won't insert myself into any more of these fruitless debates.

[BuddyBear]

Not sure what you are talking about CHF. Lot of guys engaged in you in good conversaton. Most of what you were saying didn't make sense to me.

[pimike]

Not sure what you are talking about CHF. Lot of guys engaged in you in good conversaton. Most of what you were saying didn't make sense to me.

[MrX]

It's too bad that personal attacks took over this thread.

We were actually skirting around an interesting subject.

[MrX]

Not that my opinion matters much, but in my opinion it would be great if the think tank was the one place on here that people dug deep to avoid personal attacks.

I know it's hard. I know you're all much smarter than the other posters and it's frustrating trying to explain such simple concepts. Still, any hope of discussing anything interesting goes away once we start calling each other morons and such.

Sorry if this was too snarky. I'm drunk.

[Art Vandeleigh]

Some people have very low tolerance when they are being told over and over again by someone that 2+2=5, or the equivalent.

[slacker00]

Anyone on this forum profit long term, im talking 5+ years, for real?

I just want to know if it is even possible, or If im wasting my time...

It's possible. But there are many more losers than winners. Many of the losers think they are winners. It takes a lot of statistical analysis, and a large sample size of bets, to know for sure if you are one of the winners or not.

[coldhardfacts]

OK, I will try to explain one more time, as simply as I possibly can:

I made the statement that I bet the same amount on every game, after weighing a number of factors related to that particular matchup. ONE of those factors is the line or odds on that game.

Durito asked, legitimately, why I don't increase my bet if I think I'm getting a more favorable line than I expected to get.

I responded that, for a number of reasons, it has been my experience that the there is not a correlation between this variance (expected line to actual line) and my winning percentage. In other words, I don't win a greater percentage of bets where the line is 2 points better than my "established" line than where it is 1 point better. I feel that I have basically an equal chance of winning any bet that is a "play" for me, based on the factors I alluded to above.

I never said that one shouldn't try to get the best line they can whenever they can. I never said that my philosophy was the only one that was correct, only that it worked for me. I never said one's chances of winning ANY PARTICULAR GAME aren't enhanced if they can get a better line.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

[coldhardfacts]

Okay. I think that your answer to this is inconsistent with your stance on the original question.

We already know from previous posts that if you were able to make the bet at -6 you would not assign more value to it even though you were going to play it at -8. Essentially you are saying that the availability of -6 represents new information and you assign the same value to your bet at -6 as you had to your bet at -8.

You can't have it both ways, though. If -6 now has the same value, then -8 must now have less value. To remain consistent with your original stance, the availability of -6 must devalue your bet at -8.

And, just to respond to your point, (since you are one of the few on here who tries to explain what exactly you don't understand about what I'm saying rather than stating something insipid like "I don't understand" without any specifics as if I'm supposed to understand what they're talking about): The fact that -6 is now available doesn't tell me anything. WHY is it -6? Is the public heavily betting the side? Is there a key injury? Has some tout service given it out as a play? I clarified that I would only make the bet IF IT WAS STILL A PLAY FOR ME. Absent any additional important knowledge (e.g., the injury), I have no reason not to make the play. All hypothetical in any case.

[durito]

You need to learn to respect the market.

You should keep records of the opening and closing line for all of your bets. You will see better results on the games where you beat the closing line than on the one's where you don't.

[coldhardfacts]

You need to learn to respect the market.

You should keep records of the opening and closing line for all of your bets. You will see better results on the games where you beat the closing line than on the one's where you don't.

I see your point, and I'm not trying to be arrogant, but I respect my judgment and analysis far more than I respect the market. I do try to identify the causes of any significant line moves, but the "market" that moves the lines generally consists of the public, which by and large, is comprised of losers.

One year I actually did track the results of gameday line moves. And, just as I suspected, roughly half of the games moved in the direction of the winning side, and half in the direction of the losing side.

[MrX]

Here are a couple of extremes cases.

Consider a model that only predicts market inefficiencies, not outcomes. An example would be a model that finds that in a particular league, home underdogs yield a +E.V. of 5% when betting the best line 10 minutes prior to close.

So, with 11 minutes prior to close, you are preparing to make the proper Kelly bet to win 5% of your bankroll on a +6 line. At the 10 minute mark, the line moves to +6.5. Because of the nature of your model, you will assign the same value, and bet the same amount at +6.5 than you would have at +6.

Now consider a math model with perfect information and perfect ability to predict win percentages. This model predicts 4% E.V. at +6. Once the line moves to +6.5, the model will obviously assign more value to the game at +6.5 (unless it predicts that the favorite NEVER wins by exactly 6) and you will properly bet more at +6.5.

I think that most models fall somewhere in between. If your model loves a game at +6 and the market moves to +8 (with no additional information that you are aware of), you most likely have even more value at +8 than you thought you did at +6. However, the move probably also indicates that there is some information not accounted for in your model. You most likely didn't have the edge that you thought you had at +6.

[LT Profits]

And, just as I suspected, roughly half of the games moved in the direction of the winning side, and half in the direction of the losing side.

Yes BUT if you got the early line before the move, you'd pick up more winners that lost vs. the closing line.