My Shrine of Academic Articles: All Things Sports Gambling

[buby74]

Lets do this! post an article and lets start discussing. Monkey has made his views clear so unless he wants to engage constructively i think he should be banned from a subforum as he has sent his signal and is now producing noise

[CHUBNUT]

Monkeyfucker is wrong. Just because he cant see past the obvious he assumes everyone else is the same, why he and posters like durito waste their time on here repeating the same old post is bewildering. Then again they probably have nothing else to do with their time but kick the same old can around time and time again.

Personally I enjoy these threads even if I have read it all before and the reason is that several of my profitable strategies over the years have been brought about by someone elses view which on the face of it seemed tame but provided me with a positive twist to my own thinking. Sports betting is not a static situation and there's always room for change in ones opinion, a spark from another poster can be very rewarding to those with an open mind.

[mathdotcom]

If you haven't been exposed to Markov Chains or regression, you should be reading books - not papers.

OOooooh ca-runch

[mathdotcom]

Mind you, I have another laptop with at least 50 more articles (some may be duplicates--can't remember). I have not read all of these articles, but I think it would be great to use this thread for a meaningful, roundtable discussion. How intellectual--not pseudo intellectual, is SBR?

Please refrain from nonsensical posting. I am not going to make every article available, rather I'll post an article upon a worthy request and will give the community an opportunity to read and discuss it (sport gambling book club style). If nothing comes out of this, then I won't bother. Hopefully insight, criticisms, arguments for additional research, etc. will occur.



Available Articles:

"A Birth Process Model for Association Football Matches"
"A Markov Chain Approach to Baseball"
"Algorithms for Optimal Allocation of Bets on Many Simultaneous Events"
"An Evaluation of Major League Baseball Offensive Performance Models"
"Analyses of Sports Data by Using Brivariate Poisson Models"
"Assessing Sports Advisory Services: Do They Provide Value for Football Bettors?"
"Beating the Books: Are there Patterns in NFL Betting Lines?"
"Do Motives Matter?: Modeling Gambling on Sports Among Atheletes"
"Dynamic Modeling and Prediction of English Football League Matches for Betting"
"Exploring Baseball Hitting Data: What About Those Breakdown in Statistics?"
"Identifying Investor Sentiment from Price Paths: The Case of Football Betting"
"Improved NCAA Basketball Tournament Modeling via Point Spread and Team Strength Information"
"Market Efficiency and Profitability Wagering in the NHL: Can Bettors Score on Longshots?"
"Markowitz Portfolio Theory for Soccer Spread Betting"
"Modeling Pitcher Performance and the Distribution of Runs Per Inning in MLB"
"Modeling Association Football Score and Inefficiencies in the Football Betting Market"
"More Probability Models for the NCAA Regional Basketball Tournaments"
"Multi-level Modeling of Dyadic Data in Sport Sciences"
"Predictions for National Football League Games Via Linear Model Methodology"
"Stopping Strategies and Gambler's Ruin"
"Testing Market Efficiency Evidence from the NFL Sports Betting Market"
"Testing Rationality in the Point Spread Betting Market"
"The Kelly Criterion and Bet Comparisons in Spread Betting"
"Valuation of Soccer Spread Bets"
"Why are Gambling Markets Organized so Differently from Financial Markets?"
"Winning Strategies for Wagering on National Football League Games"

I haven't read most of these, but what I will say is that the market efficiency ones are totally useless from a betting perspective. Levitt's paper, ironically, is probably the worst as he tries to test market efficiency using contest data. My favorite part of that contest is that the next best thing to winning the contest was coming in last place

[cyberbabble]

Part of the problem is that SBR is being operated as profit making business. They sell advertising based on quantity of posts/members, not based on quality.

I would point out to SBR management that adding a new subforum doesn't really cost anything. The mod position might get more complicated. In any case, there are members that would like to try a subforum for "serious" posts.

Delete the worthless posts without comment. The SBR post count won't be hurt. The people with the deleted posts can spend their time complaining in Players Talk. It is really quite simple, adult behavior is expected. Does anyone really think Monkey, Mathey, and similar are going to quit posting because a few of their posts are deleted? Set up a subforum with some rules and enforce the rules.

People here already give away software, data files, etc. People here try to engage in useful discussion. Encourage this behavior.

Do people provide good information for free? Google "fivethirtyeight ncaa" for an example. A legit guy discusses a model for the NCAA basketball tournament. Has everyone here read this? Probably not. Are there people here that would find this interesting? Probably. Will it make me rich? Probably not.

Do some people think they can make money without any effort or that someone will give them a guaranteed winner? Yes.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

I am checking in with a friend and having him look into the legality of me posting these articles. They all come from a subscription-based service. A poster attached several articles and maybe we can start there in the meantime.

I think it's difficult for some people to accept that ALL I want to do is discuss the good, bad, and the ugly. I have and could continue to read these on my own...some are above me, some are on the same wavelength, and others are on the simpler side. None of my past research has made me turn a leaf and led me to a pot of gold and I suspect that future research won't change that. This is just a simple hobby (sports gambling and reading statistical research) and I don't want it to be anything more than that. My hobbies become more enjoyable when I can discuss different aspects with others. These are my motivations for the thread. The last thing I want to happen is to create and contribute to a thread, where those that take risks and share their opinions are lambasted by "argument snipers," ---people that don't contribute but only criticize and shoot down others' ideas.

[cyberbabble]

High3r -

We understand what you are trying to do, even the "argument snipers". They are not that stupid (or maybe they are). The underlying problem is SBR wants volume to sell advertising. Management would have to go along.

Since the scheme of giving SBR PRO status to people that sign up at sports books has collapsed, maybe management will be receptive to trying something new to build membership. They don't get as much affiliate money from sports book signups now, but they might be able to increase internet activity.

Sad but true story. A month or so ago, I was trying to decide which book to signup with to get PRO status. Didn't make it. A few days too slow to achieve the exalted PRO status.

[AngryPlanets]

I am checking in with a friend and having him look into the legality of me posting these articles. They all come from a subscription-based service. A poster attached several articles and maybe we can start there in the meantime.

I think it's difficult for some people to accept that ALL I want to do is discuss the good, bad, and the ugly. I have and could continue to read these on my own...some are above me, some are on the same wavelength, and others are on the simpler side. None of my past research has made me turn a leaf and led me to a pot of gold and I suspect that future research won't change that. This is just a simple hobby (sports gambling and reading statistical research) and I don't want it to be anything more than that. My hobbies become more enjoyable when I can discuss different aspects with others. These are my motivations for the thread. The last thing I want to happen is to create and contribute to a thread, where those that take risks and share their opinions are lambasted by "argument snipers," ---people that don't contribute but only criticize and shoot down others' ideas.

High3r, I wouldn't worry too much about the legality of posting the articles. I just did simple google searches using a couple of the titles of the articles you listed that I was most interested in. I haven't found any that were more than a couple clicks away. If you don't feel comfortable posting the articles, someone can just post a link to wherever it is already uploaded.

[AngryPlanets]

If you ran this sub-forum, how would you propose running it? In general, SBR wants as much interaction as possible. Everyone reading, and as many posting as possible... Although I agree that the signal to noise ratio causes problems.

As somebody else suggested, maybe this single sub-forum could be the one that emphasizes quality over quantity. I don't see it interfering with the rest of SBR.

And to be honest, I don't envision myself "running" the forum. Smart people working together to a common goal tend to be self-organizing. I am just volunteering to have access to the 'delete' button on the occasions that the sub-community deems it necessary. I bet there would be others who would gladly volunteer for this as well.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

edit

[Dark Horse]

The problem with academic articles on specific sports is that it is generally assumed the author understands the sport, because he has researched it. In all likelihood, he has only a surface understanding, in which case he will start out from a wrong foundation, yet provide a 'scientific' basis by using all the right jargon. (I recently came across nonsensical references to hockey and soccer that fit that mold. Why get into endless discussions to point out the mistakes? If people want to use the wrong information, let them. How else do you think sports bettors make their money?). The guys that did make a difference, the sabermetricians in baseball, knew everything about the sport. The field of horse racing has produced plenty of insightful books, and I believe it is because the juice starts out at -120. It would require expertise just to play even. In fact, I may publish a book about horse racing. lol

[High3rEl3m3nt]

Dark Horse, I would agree that in a lot of cases that this is true, which will be something that the SBR community will discuss. At the same time, there are plenty of articles that have a firm foundation. Many of baseball's earliest stat nerds were researchers, professors, etc. who applied their disciplines to baseball and helped birth sabermetrics. In fact, I could make the argument that "knowing" a sport creates a research bias, which can have a negative consequence on a scientific approach. Great post!

[cyberbabble]

"Then again, how many academics of above average intelligence would publish something that could make them millions if they didn't publish it?"

Thorpe and blackjack. The original concept of card counting was published by another researcher before Thorpe. Thorpe took it and did the work to refine the card counting. Apparently some people took Thorpes work and made millions.

Ziemba and horse racing tote board betting. I doubt that anyone made millions.

These are legitimate academics that published potentially profitable information.

Correlated parleys and Wong/basic teasers seem to be valuable to know about.

These things get burned out after a while. I don't know if it smart to publish this information, but it happens. Perhaps people will publish their less profitable ideas to make a reputation and keep the good ones quiet. Perhaps someone will publish an unprofitable concept that can be applied to a different sport. Perhaps someone will suggest a change that make an unprofitable concept into a profitable one.

There is a demand for reasonable, rational, polite discussion. The problem is how to get there.

[Dark Horse]

I'm all for breaking a sport down into its components, and looking at each component individually. That could result in plenty of interesting discussion, without giving away any 'secrets'.

[Dark Horse]

"Then again, how many academics of above average intelligence would publish something that could make them millions if they didn't publish it?"

Thorpe and blackjack. The original concept of card counting was published by another researcher before Thorpe. Thorpe took it and did the work to refine the card counting. Apparently some people took Thorpes work and made millions.

Ziemba and horse racing tote board betting. I doubt that anyone made millions.

These are legitimate academics that published potentially profitable information.

Two, including a card counter.

And I'm pretty sure that Ziemba was off.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Monkeyfucker is wrong. Just because he cant see past the obvious he assumes everyone else is the same, why he and posters like durito waste their time on here repeating the same old post is bewildering. Then again they probably have nothing else to do with their time but kick the same old can around time and time again.

Personally I enjoy these threads even if I have read it all before and the reason is that several of my profitable strategies over the years have been brought about by someone elses view which on the face of it seemed tame but provided me with a positive twist to my own thinking. Sports betting is not a static situation and there's always room for change in ones opinion, a spark from another poster can be very rewarding to those with an open mind.

Another one that thinks that 2+2 can equal 5.

Whatever. Carry on.

This thread will probably provide me with some laughs at least.

[MonkeyF0cker]

There is a demand for reasonable, rational, polite discussion. The problem is how to get there.

Of course, there is demand. Where does the supply come from? People already profitably modeling? No. A bunch of mathematically-challenged posters trying to hack through a collection of academic papers on a public forum? Highly doubtful.

There is a reason that this thread is full of leeches who talk a big game about "constructive" discussion when they've never contributed an ounce of value to the forum themselves. It's not because they have something to offer to the discussion. So why would anyone with any intimate knowledge of statistics and sports betting join the discussion - especially knowing that anything valuable that they offer will be essentially worthless over time? They'd simply test their own ideas individually. What incentive do they have to offer their ideas publicly?

The very nature of the sports markets make it a competition between not only bettors and books but also bettor versus bettor. Is the idea of a collective braintrust utopian? Yes. Realistic? Not even close.

[Optional]

What are you expecting by making this thread? You want open, public discussion on what works and what doesn't?? Good luck with that.

What is there to discuss? The articles are implementations of basic statistical methodologies. Either they work or they don't. If you think profitable handicappers are going to come in here and publicly provide methodologies that improve upon these articles, you're an ignorant fool. And if the dim-witted lot of you who can't figure this stuff out on your own actually would figure anything out, I hope you enjoy the three days of profitability you'll have from it. Maybe you're too dense to realize that people on the other side of the counter also peruse this site.

By the way, I've provided more help and information to posters here than you ever will. If you don't like my delivery, too fukkin bad. Grab yourself a tissue.

Even my snark provides more information than you do.

If you haven't been exposed to Markov Chains or regression, you should be reading books - not papers.

The entire point of me being in this thread was to ask the question of what possible benefit you think you would get from trying to do it publicly and collectively.

There is none.

So you're telling me that I should spend time in Player's Talk when it's quite clear that's exactly where you stumbled over here from? LOL. Irony at its best.

What is MEANINGFUL discussion? Isn't it exactly what I stated? What else could possibly be meaningful? Why do you keep avoiding this question?

You're just talking in circles, coming in here with a bunch of papers that you downloaded, hoping that someone will help you make sense of it.

"Here's a bunch of papers. Discuss." = "Help me. I'm lost."

Let's just call a spade a spade.

LMAO. A guy with 26 posts (every single one of them as useless as the next) is nominating himself to moderate a "constructive" forum. The irony in this thread is hysterical.

Another one that thinks that 2+2 can equal 5.

Whatever. Carry on.

This thread will probably provide me with some laughs at least.

Does the thought of a bunch of people who don't know it all discussing stuff bother you so much that you feel the need to make soooo many attempts to derail it?

Also wondering if it's some sort of schtick or you really are this objectionable?

If you don't want to share your wonderful wealth of knowledge so be it. You can **** off now.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Does the thought of a bunch of people who don't know it all discussing stuff bother you so much that you feel the need to make soooo many attempts to derail it?

Also wondering if it's some sort of schtick or you really are this objectionable?

If you don't want to share your wonderful wealth of knowledge so be it. You can **** off now.

Derail it? LOL. I highly doubt I carry that much weight. I'm just pointing out simple realisms. Some of you like to dream apparently.

The funny thing is that all of you keep responding to me rather than starting an actual discussion about these papers. What are you waiting for? Someone who actually knows what they're talking about? That's what I thought. Don't prove me right or anything.

[shari91]

Opti, truly, no one is going to share their knowledge in here. Notice how no one's saying anything and they're just trying to nail MF? MF knows how I feel about his posts here at this point... he's provided so much valuable stuff that he's coasting now. He just gets frustrated with dinky donk stuff. I get that. Yet he pisses me off as a Mod because he pisses others off. He gets that too.

And I also get how some of us try to figure this stuff out from Apr 30/11. However everyone - including Justin7 - will agree that there are certain basics we need to learn about stats, etc that we won't find from papers if we want to truly step up our sports betting. And then when we learn that, we'll realise that the linesmakers have already figured that into every line we see. That was MF's point - although he was cranky about it. The stuff that might still be useful, we can't find in papers now. Everyone has read them. Just like everyone reads every forum. When you figure something out... or at least want to try... you sshhhhhhhhhhhh.

[hutennis]

...there are certain basics we need to learn about stats, etc that we won't find from papers if we want to truly step up our sports betting. And then when we learn that, we'll realise that the linesmakers have already figured that into every line we see. The stuff that might still be useful, we can't find in papers now. Everyone has read them. Just like everyone reads every forum. When you figure something out... or at least want to try... you sshhhhhhhhhhhh.

It is amazing how such simple and natural concept (all relevant stuff is priced in already in a liquid enough markets) is such a deep mystery for so many people.

One thing I would add.
Even if you are lucky or skilled enough to discover something undiscovered by anyone else in a world, it is still almost never is going to do you any good unless you have a quantitative prove that impact of your discovery is big enough to overcome the premium applied on top current market price.
Another words, discovering something that would TRULY (good luck quantifying that, btw) give you 1.2% edge over
current market is still not enough when you pay 2.5% juice. You simply will bleed out at a slower rate.

[AngryPlanets]

Opti, truly, no one is going to share their knowledge in here. Notice how no one's saying anything and they're just trying to nail MF?

So a bunch of people ask for an area to have intelligent discussions without people like MF crapping it up, and you then ask when no one is having these discussions while MF is crapping it up?

And I also get how some of us try to figure this stuff out from Apr 30/11. However everyone - including Justin7 - will agree that there are certain basics we need to learn about stats, etc that we won't find from papers if we want to truly step up our sports betting. And then when we learn that, we'll realise that the linesmakers have already figured that into every line we see.

This is complete gibberish, but it sounds like you're saying the 'everyone' will admit there are things we need to discuss, but then we will realize that those aren't things we need to discuss? So discussion would both be useful and not-useful. It's the Schrodinger's cat of internet forums.

That was MF's point - although he was cranky about it.

He has never made this point, but nice try. His point, repeatedly, is that people won't share information, so he is going to ensure that people don't share information.

The stuff that might still be useful, we can't find in papers now. Everyone has read them. Just like everyone reads every forum. When you figure something out... or at least want to try... you sshhhhhhhhhhhh.

wtf does this mean? Everyone has already read the papers that they are asking to be posted? And then we found the information that might be useful isn't in them? And then we (for some reason) "sshhhhhhhhhhhh"?

[durito]

Why don't you discuss it here in the think tank. There is no traffic, there is really no need for another sub-forum.

[cyberbabble]

Wowie!!
This thread might actually get interesting.
Shari steps up to defend Monkey. Did poor Monkey get his feelings hurt?

The OP apparently has the knowledge, has done the work, and would like to meet someone that is interested in academic research of sports statistics. He isn't asking for Monkeys inside secrets or how to get rich without any work. Let him post. He says he reads academic papers for fun. Probably not many people do that, maybe somebody here does. Some people here have posted about the MIT Sports Analytics conference. They might be interested other academic research papers.

Monkey is sharp? I don't know. Running people off that may have something to contribute is stupid, not sharp.

Monkey is cranky because there are a lot of stupid, lazy people in the world? Perhaps drugs or Yoga meditation would help.

[Optional]

Derail it? LOL. I highly doubt I carry that much weight. I'm just pointing out simple realisms. Some of you like to dream apparently.

It does not require weight, or even much smarts, to derail a thread. Just trolling it like you do in virtually every single think tank thread.

And yes, a lot of us gamblers do like to dream.

The funny thing is that all of you keep responding to me rather than starting an actual discussion about these papers. What are you waiting for? Someone who actually knows what they're talking about? That's what I thought. Don't prove me right or anything.

I'm sure it is funny for you. All trolls seem to take a perverse pleasure in destroying threads.

Opti, truly, no one is going to share their knowledge in here. Notice how no one's saying anything and they're just trying to nail MF? MF knows how I feel about his posts here at this point... he's provided so much valuable stuff that he's coasting now. He just gets frustrated with dinky donk stuff. I get that. Yet he pisses me off as a Mod because he pisses others off. He gets that too.

And I also get how some of us try to figure this stuff out from Apr 30/11. However everyone - including Justin7 - will agree that there are certain basics we need to learn about stats, etc that we won't find from papers if we want to truly step up our sports betting. And then when we learn that, we'll realise that the linesmakers have already figured that into every line we see. That was MF's point - although he was cranky about it. The stuff that might still be useful, we can't find in papers now. Everyone has read them. Just like everyone reads every forum. When you figure something out... or at least want to try... you sshhhhhhhhhhhh.

We have been here around the same length of time Shari (I think?) and although you probably read this section a lot more than me these days, I'm pretty sure MonkeyF and his ilk have been repeating this same mantra ad-nauseam for years, and have upped the intensity to the point the Think Tank is a horrible and useless section to the vast majority of us in the last 12 months.

And if that was MFs point, is he too illiterate or socially awkward to be able to express it within a dozen or so obnoxious posts?! You seem to think he he is switched on, but I doubt he is even above average smart Shari. No one who is feels the need to stamp out any "competition" this hard. He fears competition because he knows he does not have the talent to compete without an advantage of some sort. A very sad type of individual really.

No one here has asked a soul to give away secrets or even spoon feed them.

Everyone in this thread knows that no-one who has it all worked out will be dropping in to give them the master plan to follow.

Why repeat those complaints multiple times in so many threads? To troll is obviously the main reason. Or do you really disagree?!

The OP tried to have a discussion amongst those that are yet to learn it all. How in hell is that such a terrible thing that it needs MF, with your support, to derail it?

Let the rest of us dumbies work it out together. Maybe even have a laugh at the sillyness, but why try soooo hard soooo often to prevent it?

The Think Tank used to be here to help people learn how to become sharp. Ganchrow spent all day giving sensible answers to 'dumb' questions. A couple of weeks reading old posts and then asking a few questions of Ganch set me up to start playing smart. I had no idea of basic concepts back then, but if I turned up to SBR today I'd be made to feel like a pariah for daring to even ask for help in here!

I don't care about the papers or this thread personally, my reaction comes from hitting the umpteeth TT thread in a row only to see this prize dickhead trolling it.

What a waste of a great resource this section has become.

[MonkeyF0cker]

LOL. And they're still talking about me rather than the papers. Amazing.

I've contributed more to this forum than all of you combined ever will. When any of you provide simulators and other software that you WROTE yourself to the forum then maybe you can utter a phrase like "constructive." None of you have though, and I seriously doubt any of you will in the future. You don't have a fukking leg to stand on. You can call some of my recent posts trolling (especially when someone is posturing). However, in the process, I'm correcting the person that posted. If you can't see through that, it's your loss.

The fact of the matter is that there is at least one solid thread here for virtually every sports betting fundamental. Yet, time and time and time again, the very same questions are asked AD NAUSEUM without the SLIGHTEST amount of effort by the poster to search the forum for an answer and sort it out themselves. This place was an excellent resource several years ago because not only was the content new, but posters weren't lazy assholes that expected other people to do their work for them. Some of us that have been here since the beginning are sick of it. The answer is already here. If you aren't going to put in the effort to do a simple search, you don't deserve the answer.

This thread is no different. It's a half-assed, lazy attempt at trying to understand the content of those papers. The papers are entirely straightforward. If you have any type of statistical pedagogy, there is virtually nothing to discuss with other people. And if you have no statistical background, you should be reading BOOKS instead - as I stated earlier. The OP is clearly trying to take a shortcut and so are all of the freeloaders that are whining about me.

There is a very big difference between offering answers to calculating no-vig lines, push rates, Kelly staking, etc. and modeling. Public sharing of the former concepts don't cut into a person's bottom line. They may make a bettor more educated, but that's generally as much information as people are willing to give out. However, when you get into the areas of modeling, people protect their ideas. I have yet to see any discussion in this thread. You're only proving me right. And if, as you say, I were trying to derail the thread, you'd be falling right into my hands. My intention wasn't to derail the thread. My intention to state a reality, and how many of you have proven me wrong? None.

So, please, let's get the discussion going so that you can offer me something for free and I can pound the sh1t out of it and leave you nothing but scraps.

Thanks in advance.

[jgilmartin]

There is a very big difference between offering answers to calculating no-vig lines, push rates, Kelly staking, etc. and modeling. Public sharing of the former concepts don't cut into a person's bottom line. They may make a bettor more educated, but that's generally as much information as people are willing to give out. However, when you get into the areas of modeling, people protect their ideas. I have yet to see any discussion in this thread. You're only proving me right. And if, as you say, I were trying to derail the thread, you'd be falling right into my hands. My intention wasn't to derail the thread. My intention to state a reality, and how many of you have proven me wrong? None.

Very well stated.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

"Lol, And they're still talking about me rather the papers. Amazing."

Is not this what you desire? When you mention that you have made more contributions to the forum than all of us combined, you sound like an attention whore. I wanted to create an open forum for discussing research. I was hoping to avoid attention whores. Personally, I'd like to see what you contributed and I didn't realize that these threads existed. Wouldn't a more positive result occur if you just said, "Hey guys. I am the godfather of models and meaningful contribution and I have already been where you guys want to go. You should just look at my thread and praise me." Instead, you hide your objective, or maybe you don't even realize it. An ego can create a POV logjam and prevent someone from recognizing that not everyone has the same motivations. I do find it odd that you would bash what I am wanting to do by stating that to do so publicly would be stupid, when it sounds like you publicly made contributions that are supposedly searchable. Or maybe they aren't public as SBR's search function appears flawed. I have tried to use it and have been unable to find posts past a certain date. Also, did you explain the process behind your models, or did you just produce them for others to use? Again, this is not what I want. I want to analyze the process. You probably can't see this, but you're contradicting yourself. With your argument, no one in their right mind would share anything worthwhile, but you've shared and contributed more than the lot of us ever could and it was perfectly okay for it to be public. I hope it brought you lot's of internet glory--though it sounds like you haven't had your fill.

For me, this is just a hobby. I read a post where you stated that you were a professional poker player for a stint. Well done. I can see that you likely take gambling more seriously than me. I never want gambling to be my main source of income. I am not cut out for it.

Though it's useless, as it seems that once your mind's made up, there's no amount of convincing otherwise that another possibility may exist, but I am not asking anyone to spoon-feed me anything. This would be the antithesis to the bottom-line of my objective. The reason I wanted to share academic articles is because not everyone has access to these articles. If I wanted to debate a certain concept or approach to a concept discussed in an article with another poster--something I thoroughly enjoy, I need them to read the same article. Again, you are making quite a few judgments based upon a limited point of view of others.

Obviously, as you are lurking and waiting for posters to say something that you can destroy, SBR is not the right venue for what I am hoping to achieve. I want everyone to be able to share and ask questions without being preyed upon by an ego-maniac who is hell bent on derailing a thread that does not bow down to his past, public contributions. Therefore, it seems like private messaging, emailing, or yahoo pass-protected group is the only way to monitor the discussion so that it can stay on point. I guess you win, Monkey. The discussion won't occur publicly on SBR, but it will occur.

[princecharles]

Very exciting post.
Maybe someday it will stop being misdirected so obviously and get on with talking about some of these modalities, even at a safe arm' legnth distance.

Monkey, I follow you, you're very sharp. I just hate seeing you act like that useless Mathdotcom guy.
Your stuff is in a different league..

[mathdotcom]

Destructive criticism is probably even more valuable than constructive criticism.

You should thank someone for shooting your method down before you lose your BR and figure it out the hard way.

Monkey's point is that the TT now is just like a lot of fat people on January 1. They decide they want to lose weight and start asking questions like, What's the best exercise I should do? What time of day should I work out? Will I lose more weight if I wear light clothes instead of dark clothes? They like the idea of losing weight and love to discuss it but never get their hands dirty and get their ass moving.

We all know these people in the form of pseudo-entrepreneurs. The type that says Oh there's a lot of demand for this product, I should get into industry X. Then they blow $50,000 on a training course of some sort and then never follow through.

We see a lot of pseudo bettors here who just like to discuss -104/-106 hypotheticals until the cows come home, and then argue with guys who have been applying the theory for a decade like durito/MF. This is why they don't provide full answers to things anymore, they're tired of holding these wanna be bettors' hands, and are 100x more likely to answer a question like "I have collected data on X and want to predict Y, but I'm getting results Z and I wonder what I'm doing wrong" rather than the vague hold-your-hand question of "How do I get Y?".

[MonkeyF0cker]

"Lol, And they're still talking about me rather the papers. Amazing."

Is not this what you desire? When you mention that you have made more contributions to the forum than all of us combined, you sound like an attention whore. I wanted to create an open forum for discussing research. I was hoping to avoid attention whores. Personally, I'd like to see what you contributed and I didn't realize that these threads existed. Wouldn't a more positive result occur if you just said, "Hey guys. I am the godfather of models and meaningful contribution and I have already been where you guys want to go. You should just look at my thread and praise me." Instead, you hide your objective, or maybe you don't even realize it. An ego can create a POV logjam and prevent someone from recognizing that not everyone has the same motivations. I do find it odd that you would bash what I am wanting to do by stating that to do so publicly would be stupid, when it sounds like you publicly made contributions that are supposedly searchable. Or maybe they aren't public as SBR's search function appears flawed. I have tried to use it and have been unable to find posts past a certain date. Also, did you explain the process behind your models, or did you just produce them for others to use? Again, this is not what I want. I want to analyze the process. You probably can't see this, but you're contradicting yourself. With your argument, no one in their right mind would share anything worthwhile, but you've shared and contributed more than the lot of us ever could and it was perfectly okay for it to be public. I hope it brought you lot's of internet glory--though it sounds like you haven't had your fill.

For me, this is just a hobby. I read a post where you stated that you were a professional poker player for a stint. Well done. I can see that you likely take gambling more seriously than me. I never want gambling to be my main source of income. I am not cut out for it.

Though it's useless, as it seems that once your mind's made up, there's no amount of convincing otherwise that another possibility may exist, but I am not asking anyone to spoon-feed me anything. This would be the antithesis to the bottom-line of my objective. The reason I wanted to share academic articles is because not everyone has access to these articles. If I wanted to debate a certain concept or approach to a concept discussed in an article with another poster--something I thoroughly enjoy, I need them to read the same article. Again, you are making quite a few judgments based upon a limited point of view of others.

Obviously, as you are lurking and waiting for posters to say something that you can destroy, SBR is not the right venue for what I am hoping to achieve. I want everyone to be able to share and ask questions without being preyed upon by an ego-maniac who is hell bent on derailing a thread that does not bow down to his past, public contributions. Therefore, it seems like private messaging, emailing, or yahoo pass-protected group is the only way to monitor the discussion so that it can stay on point. I guess you win, Monkey. The discussion won't occur publicly on SBR, but it will occur.

Unreal. You have had every opportunity to discuss the papers here. I am not stopping you.

Egomaniac? LOL. I state a reality. 14 people come into the thread, all of which have contributed essentially nothing to past discussion here, and talk about ME not being "constructive." I have every right to call them out and point out the ridiculousness of their statements.

And until you start proactively analyzing these papers, I have every single right to think you're attempting to freeload and take shortcuts (which won't work anyway - you NEED to understand the underlying applications of theory). Don't get mad at me for pointing out your indolence.

[hutennis]

This is my contribution in this thread.

Even if you are lucky or skilled enough to discover something undiscovered by anyone else in a world, it is still almost never is going to do you any good unless you have a quantitative prove that impact of your discovery is big enough to overcome the premium applied on top current market price.
Another words, discovering something that would TRULY (good luck quantifying that, btw) give you 1.2% edge over
current market is still not enough when you pay 2.5% juice. You simply will bleed out at a slower rate.

Please, point out the ridiculousness of this statement.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Jesus. If you have a 1.2% edge over the market, what does 2.5% juice have to do with anything? Do you have any idea what the term edge actually means? Obviously not.

[mathdotcom]

MF , am currently at the poker room, estimate my edge at 5% but the rake is curiously set at 100%. But i have an edge.

[MonkeyF0cker]

MF , am currently at the poker room, estimate my edge at 5% but the rake is curiously set at 100%. But i have an edge.

LOL. That's a sweet edge.