Is Fading Illogical?

[CrazyCarl]

I can't make any sense out of the whole fading craze that goes on here. Just go look in the service plays section, there are seriously people who think Lang is bad enough to track and play the opposite of him every single day.

Does this make any sense?

To simplify the discussion, let's just talk about sides/totals. If these are generally a coinflip, can someone really be bad enough to stumble on the opposite of value consistently? I don't really think it makes sense. If you can't find value, or, very rarely, then your floor should still be 50% on these over the long run.

[Ra77er]

Your overthinking it, Lang really is that bad.

[CrazyCarl]

Your overthinking it, Lang really is that bad.

I put this in the "thinktank" for a reason. If you're going to say that stuff, can you at least back it up with even a somewhat long period of time? Isn't the "Lang Fade" a loser so far in 2012? Even if it's not, that's not really what this thread is about.

[Easy-Rider 66]

Do not fade/tail unless someone provides a reason to why they like a specific play. Not going to blindly place a bet because someone says it's a winner.

[CrazyCarl]

Do not fade/tail unless someone provides a reason to why they like a specific play. Not going to blindly place a bet because someone says it's a winner.

Getting off track, but what if that person has won 5 out of 5 seasons with ~100 plays every season in a particular sport. Then would you?

[Easy-Rider 66]

Getting off track, but what if that person has won 5 out of 5 seasons with ~100 plays every season in a particular sport. Then would you?

Good ?. I would have to know that they are the real deal. Then I might consider it. I was mainly referring to posters on SBR telling the world to tail them on a specific play with no collaborating rationale as to why.

[Ra77er]

I put this in the "thinktank" for a reason. If you're going to say that stuff, can you at least back it up with even a somewhat long period of time? Isn't the "Lang Fade" a loser so far in 2012? Even if it's not, that's not really what this thread is about.

I don't really think there is any "thinktank" in the question at all. In a perfect world everyone hits 50% but that doesn't happen because not all sides and totals are coinflips. The number may appear as though they are but there is an edge to be found or else every sports bettor that's successful has just hit an incredible stretch of variance.

[Ra77er]

And btw if you really are reading the service forums, you will find Lang's track record. There are a crew of faithful faders that ride along every day. If you want to see if he is a good capper or not...compare his numbers to the closing number. Guy seriously has a dartboard.

[CrazyCarl]

I don't really think there is any "thinktank" in the question at all. In a perfect world everyone hits 50% but that doesn't happen because not all sides and totals are coinflips. The number may appear as though they are but there is an edge to be found or else every sports bettor that's successful has just hit an incredible stretch of variance.

I'm not saying no one is good enough to find enough value to hit over 50% over the long run. I'm saying that if you can't find value, you can't find the opposite of it, either. The bad swings are variance and Lang's theoretical floor should be 50% over the long run since they might as well be betting sides at random, which hit at 50%.

[Ra77er]

Actually no...having to lay 11-10 makes it less than 50% but I see where you are trying to go. You have to understand that books aren't hanging the true line of a game, they are trying to balance both sides of a game as evenly as possible. If you believe in a handicapper having an edge through modeling etc then you have to believe that there is a mispriced number and therefore you aren't getting a theoretical 50/50 bet. If Atlanta Over 7.5 true line is -135 and yet you can get it at -11o, Lang takes the Under and you see the total close in your favor or even move to 8 then I don't think its theoretically 50/50 anymore. If we were talking about real life flipping quarters and Lang was hitting 35% then yes...over time I would expect him to hit 50%......his handicapping methods or lack thereof would need a serious overhaul to even come close to 52%. PM Uzisuicide, I'm sure he would be willing to share how much he has won and the records of Lang.

[CrazyCarl]

Actually no...having to lay 11-10 makes it less than 50% but I see where you are trying to go.

Wasn't talking about the amount won, I was talking about win percentage.

You have to understand that books aren't hanging the true line of a game, they are trying to balance both sides of a game as evenly as possible. If you believe in a handicapper having an edge through modeling etc then you have to believe that there is a mispriced number and therefore you aren't getting a theoretical 50/50 bet.

Lang cannot find anything that is mispriced if he is bad, so if you are simply looking at all sides, then you get a 50% number.

If Atlanta Over 7.5 true line is -135 and yet you can get it at -11o, Lang takes the Under and you see the total close in your favor or even move to 8 then I don't think its theoretically 50/50 anymore.

Line should move for him sometimes and against him at other times, since he has no clue what he's doing it's just dumb luck (or lack thereof).

If we were talking about real life flipping quarters and Lang was hitting 35% then yes...over time I would expect him to hit 50%......his handicapping methods or lack thereof would need a serious overhaul to even come close to 52%. PM Uzisuicide, I'm sure he would be willing to share how much he has won and the records of Lang.

If I read the results in the latest thread correctly, the Lang Fade is down for the year.

[hutennis]

I don't really think there is any "thinktank" in the question at all. In a perfect world everyone hits 50% but that doesn't happen because not all sides and totals are coinflips. The number may appear as though they are but there is an edge to be found or else every sports bettor that's successful has just hit an incredible stretch of variance.

The total number of bettors is so large and the total number of "successful" bettors (and their sample sizes) is so small that "incredible stretch of variance" is simply an overwhelmingly the most reasonable, and therefor true, explanation for "success".

There is a number of well known psychological reasons why this will never be accepted.

[hutennis]

OP, you are correct.

It is equally as hard to hit over 50% as it is to hit under 50%.

"Faders" are as much of a deluded bunch as "edge seeking modelers".

There is a number of well known psychological reasons why this will never be accepted.

[Ra77er]

Alright I'm not gong to debate what anyone believes...if you think its variance cool, if you think every side and total is a 50/50 bet cool, if you think a handicapper can have an edge or a bet can have value then how can you believe that every side and total is a 50/50 proposition? Strictly speaking if a total/side bet is 50/50 then yes......every bet would be illogical because in the long haul your never going to win/lose.

[Ra77er]

I don't knock another man's hustle, if a guy likes to fade a handicapper, use his gut, follow his favorite espn caster, model, sim the ps3 2k times over and call it accuscore, JM system, who cares. If it's winning for you then I say go with it. Besides its all 50/50 anyway right?

[hutennis]

The problem is not that is 50/50.
The problem is that it is 50/50 minus commission.

[BernardMadoff]

I can't make any sense out of the whole fading craze that goes on here. Just go look in the service plays section, there are seriously people who think Lang is bad enough to track and play the opposite of him every single day.

Does this make any sense?

To simplify the discussion, let's just talk about sides/totals. If these are generally a coinflip, can someone really be bad enough to stumble on the opposite of value consistently? I don't really think it makes sense. If you can't find value, or, very rarely, then your floor should still be 50% on these over the long run.

What makes you think this statement is true?

[CrazyCarl]

What makes you think this statement is true?

I don't have the stats to back it up, but I imagine someone does.

I bet if you flip a coin 5000 times and throw a dart at NFL teams 5000 times, you'll get similar results.

[BernardMadoff]

I don't have the stats to back it up, but I imagine someone does.

I bet if you flip a coin 5000 times and throw a dart at NFL teams 5000 times, you'll get similar results.

I dont agree. What about say college basketball, not that hard to win with that I dont think. Also with NFL, some of the same people do well over in over, (reminds me of in Rounders when Damon's gf insists that poker is luck and his response is that the same people are at the final table every year) its seen in Hilton contests, perhaps even some on this board, with anything, the more work you put into it, the more knowledgeable you are about something, the better one should do. I think the problem with gambling is that many people dont put in the work perhaps required in order to do well at it, as with anything knowledge is key. Also I dont see gambling being much different than the stock market and we know there are certain people who continuously do well in that.

[CrazyCarl]

I dont agree. What about say college basketball, not that hard to win with that I dont think. Also with NFL, some of the same people do well over in over, (reminds me of in Rounders when Damon's gf insists that poker is luck and his response is that the same people are at the final table every year) its seen in Hilton contests, perhaps even some on this board, with anything, the more work you put into it, the more knowledgeable you are about something, the better one should do. I think the problem with gambling is that many people dont put in the work perhaps required in order to do well at it, as with anything knowledge is key. Also I dont see gambling being much different than the stock market and we know there are certain people who continuously do well in that.

You're misunderstanding me, I believe. What I'm saying is not anything along the lines of "poker is luck", and I don't believe that.

Do I think dogs hit right around 50% And unders? Yup.

[hutennis]

reminds me of in Rounders when Damon's gf insists that poker is luck and his response is that the same people are at the final table every year

This was true 20 years ago when the WSOP field was the size of today's small charity tournament.
Try to find a familiar face at final table nowadays.

Also I dont see gambling being much different than the stock market and we know there are certain people who continuously do well in that.

This has never been true at all.

[hutennis]

Do I think dogs hit right around 50% And unders? Yup.

In an absence of evidence to the contrary, 50/50 stands.

[BernardMadoff]

This has never been true at all.

Really, how so? And Im not talking about every aspect of the stock market, but rather the basic idea, as in trying to predict when a certain team is going to over or underperform based on the price.

[BernardMadoff]

You're misunderstanding me, I believe. What I'm saying is not anything along the lines of "poker is luck", and I don't believe that.

Do I think dogs hit right around 50% And unders? Yup.

But the thing is, its not like a gambler is going to go just bet everything on the board, its up to the gambler to find what he likes then bet, thats how money is made. Picking where you feel you have an edge. Lets say youre right and unders do hit at 50% across the board no matter what, then its up to the gambler, if he likes unders, to find those unders as opposed to the over on a particular game and vice versa.

[hutennis]

Really, how so? And Im not talking about every aspect of the stock market, but rather the basic idea, as in trying to predict when a certain team is going to over or underperform based on the price.

It is so much so, I don't even know where to begin.

In short, direction of stock prices is unpredictable. End of story.

[BernardMadoff]

It is so much so, I don't even know where to begin.

In short, direction of stock prices is unpredictable. End of story.

Direction of stock prices is unpredictable end of story? Makes no sense, if nobody knew anything about it that would be a coin flip also.

[Ra77er]

Bernie your not getting anywhere with these guys....everything's 50/50 no one knows shit. Walk away while you can.

[hutennis]

Direction of stock prices is unpredictable end of story? Makes no sense, if nobody knew anything about it that would be a coin flip also.

I mean, common!!! Is this a level, or you are genuinely surprised?

Makes no sense b/c you can prove otherwise or it simply does not feel that way?
Makes no sense based on what?
Where do you get your information?
How long have you been involved and to what expend?

[HauntingTheHoly]

What I do is cap the shit out of games, then fade myself on 60% of them. It's great.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

A logical approach:

If someone were capping sides and they ended up consistently losing using their approach, then they are just as successful at picking the outcome of the game as someone who applied a different strategy and ended up on the winning end for the same number of games and sample size. Either way, the individual's capping abilities are exposing an edge, whereas because one guy wins and the other loses, only the winner is labeled as successful.

[hutennis]

Bernie your not getting anywhere with these guys....everything's 50/50 no one knows shit.

And you know why?
Because that's how nature works. Everything must be balanced. 50/50. That's the most rational state.
Anything unbalanced is being exploited and socked out of the system in a flash in order to get back to rational and balanced 50/50 ASAP.

Human brain seams to be the only place in a Universe that is most comfortable while being confused, irrational and unbalanced.

[Ra77er]

hutennis you need to lay off the herbs pal, I'm happy you have reached zen...I respectfully disagree with your statements and now I will take my leave....Master Splinter

[BernardMadoff]

And you know why?
Because that's how nature works. Everything must be balanced. 50/50. That's the most rational state.
Anything unbalanced is being exploited and socked out of the system in a flash in order to get back to rational and balanced 50/50 ASAP.

Human brain seams to be the only place in a Universe that is most comfortable while being confused, irrational and unbalanced.

Someone told me Phil Jackson posts here, now I believe it.

[CrazyCarl]

But the thing is, its not like a gambler is going to go just bet everything on the board, its up to the gambler to find what he likes then bet, thats how money is made. Picking where you feel you have an edge. Lets say youre right and unders do hit at 50% across the board no matter what, then its up to the gambler, if he likes unders, to find those unders as opposed to the over on a particular game and vice versa.

OK, and in response to this.... my first post. Go read it again.

[EVPlus]

It's a mistake to blindly fade.

It's a mistake to blindly follow.

I laugh at, as well as pity, the rubes that use this strategy.

You fade or follow when you genuinely believe that you have an edge. Now the trick is knowing when that genuine belief has merit or it's simply greed, laziness, and overwhelming lack of insight.