Ok, I'll play. My POV is that, yes one can be profitable for long periods of time ( avoiding stating long term for all of the stat guys). This may have even happened long enough that if one could "stay lucky" for a few more years then C'est la vie. I share your cynicism in many ways. What differentiates you and I is empirical evidence.
Attn Justin and other SBR $harps, I need your opinion.
Collapse
X
-
chunkSBR Wise Guy
- 02-08-11
- 808
#106Comment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#107
which seems to be an ideal place, b/c a prevailing philosophy here is totally contrarian to mine.
it important for me to make sure that my believes are sound since I wager meaningful somes of money
based on them.
The best way I know how to how to check it out is to present them for review by others, in this case in a form
of discussion, in hopes that they will be destroyed by thoughtful, substantiated, rational arguments.
No matter how much I try to defend them.
Why is it important?
Because if my current believes will be proven to be a mistake by thoughtful, rational
and substantiated arguments I'll be very happy and will certainly save a lot of money
by not continuing wagering under false assumption.
And if not, then my chances that I'm on a right track are that much better.
I think it is wonderful, very rational approach.
At least to my knowlage, that's how it works in science and I'm a big believer in science.
iComment -
chunkSBR Wise Guy
- 02-08-11
- 808
#108I have a set of belives on a subject that is being discussed on this public forum,
which seems to be an ideal place, b/c a prevailing philosophy here is totally contrarian to mine.
it important for me to make sure that my believes are sound since I wager meaningful somes of money
based on them.
The best way I know how to how to check it out is to present them for review by others, in this case in a form
of discussion, in hopes that they will be destroyed by thoughtful, substantiated, rational arguments.
No matter how much I try to defend them.
Why is it important?
Because if my current believes will be proven to be a mistake by thoughtful, rational
and substantiated arguments I'll be very happy and will certainly save a lot of money
by not continuing wagering under false assumption.
And if not, then my chances that I'm on a right track are that much better.
I think it is wonderful, very rational approach.
At least to my knowlage, that's how it works in science and I'm a big believer in science.
iComment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#109Ok, I'll play. My POV is that, yes one can be profitable for long periods of time ( avoiding stating long term for all of the stat guys). This may have even happened long enough that if one could "stay lucky" for a few more years then C'est la vie. I share your cynicism in many ways. What differentiates you and I is empirical evidence.
calculating chance of outperforming mature market.
I think, though, that it is very possible that you are confusing your understanding of your personal experience and empirical evidence.
interpritations of personal experience is very subjective and produced by brain which is prone to a massive mistakes.
imperical evidence on another hand are by definition objective and usually produced in a controlled environment.Comment -
chunkSBR Wise Guy
- 02-08-11
- 808
#111In this case I can't really say anything since discussing some one's wishful thinking has nothing to do with
calculating chance of outperforming mature market.
I think, though, that it is very possible that you are confusing your understanding of your personal experience and empirical evidence.
interpritations of personal experience is very subjective and produced by brain which is prone to a massive mistakes.
imperical evidence on another hand are by definition objective and usually produced in a controlled environment.
Wishful thinking......hardly, I'm way to old to be a dreamer. I'm really not sure what "outperforming a mature market" really means, but I suspect it means that you are a true believer that the market is efficient. If so, does that mean one is doomed to failure?
The empirical evidence that I alluded to would be considered objective by anyone.Comment -
chunkSBR Wise Guy
- 02-08-11
- 808
#112[QUOTE=hutennis;15154224]Care to name a few?[/QUOTE
You stated previously that you risk meaningful sums of money based on your beliefs. I read that as large wagers being made by you in the context of sports wagering (I assume that you have positive expectations). Please enlighten me if I misinterpreted your statement. If not, it would be in direct conflict with many of your previous statements concerning randomness and the virtual impossibility of success in the market place.Comment -
rm18SBR Posting Legend
- 09-20-05
- 22291
#113i think you can beat bodog props in the long run from that sample except they will ban you if you keep winning and other books are harder to beat.Comment -
Cheme82SBR Hall of Famer
- 09-03-08
- 7823
#114Just like Pinnacle or Greek are considered by some to have sharp game lines. Which books do you consider to have sharp prop lines? (which ones are hard to beat?)Comment -
rm18SBR Posting Legend
- 09-20-05
- 22291
#115I dont know really in this day most prop departments are copycat off of pinnacle and greek, but the thing that makes bodog easier to beat than most and is reflective in your average line of -106 is they move off of square action in props and other markets so someone will make a bet with real bad value and then you come back on the other side and the clients on 5 dimes or bookmaker are not going to make that bet. Overall I do not consider any book to be very efficient in props but bodog is real bad + juice is high making most other books tougherComment -
Cheme82SBR Hall of Famer
- 09-03-08
- 7823
#116Gotcha, thanks.Comment -
Inkwell77SBR MVP
- 02-03-11
- 3227
#117Some of these responses from HUTENNIS have to be jokes....
I'm wondering if he/she just wants someone to prove him/her wrong thus revealing something they worked on.
HUTENNIS, How do you feel about Wong Teasers?Comment -
HUYSBR Sharp
- 04-29-09
- 253
#118It's painfully obvious that hutennis is a troll and he has managed to get us all into his game. Congrats.Comment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#119
It has worked in a past but since books have adjusted and applied countermeasures (sort like continues shuffle in BJ)
the whole strategy is pretty much a shadow of it former self.
That being said, if you deal with a book that has not adjusted, you have an edge with WT.Comment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#120
OK, no trolling anymore. LOL
Let’s get to the point.
The point is handicapping .
This is how most people over here understand handicapping process.
1. Research. Collecting data.
Using whatever method available, from simple copy/paste to sophisticated scraping technics,
thousands of data points are collected let’s say in excel. Most people here can only do copy/paste,
So they constantly on a look out for tips on how to be more proficient in their data collecting.
Any good piece of VB code they can get their hands on considered to be a giant lip forward on the way
to become a true handicapper. Very naïve.
2. Modeling.
Now we have a data and it’s time to create a model.
Model seems to be some kind of macro with some sort of statistical analysis built in that will go over collected data points
looking for most profitable situations with highest statistical significance.
So if we were able to find parameters X,Y,Z delivering profit $$$ and z-score on this combination
Is 2.5 we got ourselves a pretty good model indeed.
Most people stop right there, call it handicapping and get really excited.
They post question about calculating edge so they can apply Kelly and get maximum growth out of their discovery.
I reply with a comment that they can’t get anything out of past results. As far as future profits are concerned past results are useless
and get slammed.
In fact, they have as much right to call themselves a handicappers as guy who sprayed side of the barn with machine gun and then painted a bullseye around largest random clusters has a right to call himself a sharpshooter.
If someone does not understand the analogy – think longer.
If you understand, but don’t agree – I’m sorry, you are wrong. Analogy is perfect.
So what is missing here?
What is missing is an understanding of a scientific method.
We don’t have working model here. We only have hypothesis to work with.
Now we need to make a prediction (parameters XYZ will continue to make $$$ with statistical significance) and test this prediction
using fair (controlled) experiment.
Now, this is long, slow and complicated process. At best, it is just one game per day, you know. In some sports it is one per week!
It may take just a couple of days to collect past data and come up with macro and it takes years to test it.
(not to complicate things farther I will give you an assumption that ordinal conditions never change.)
That is why it takes years for pharmaceutical companies to bring new drug on a market.
Lets say you got your conformation. Your prediction is tested and you like the results. Is that it?
Not at all. To complete process you must submit your experimental data for a peer review.
This is usually group of very qualified people who are very unfriendly to your whole idea and will do their best to pick it apart.
It is unpleasant but an absolute must to make sure that you did not make intentional or unintentional mistakes which would make your results look better than they otherwise should be.
Well, you can always say:”FU hutennis! FU you and your scientific BS! There are people on this forum who won millions using past data, excel and a few statistical tricks!” That’s what Matthy just said.
That would be a text book example of a conformation bias. Mathy is only using the evidence that confirm his believe that past data, excel and little bit of statistic is all it takes. Nothing is said about those who lost millions doing just that.
It’s like declaring dolphins a super smart, friendly animals with predisposition to help people who got in trouble in a ocean b/c there are numerous reports that dolphins help people to survive by pushing them to a shore.
Too bad, we can not interview those who drown when pushed away from the shore.
If we could, we would see that it’s about 50/50 and dolphins do not have a super natural urge to help man kind but simply an animals who like to play with objects struggling in the water.
So, “FU hutennis” is always an option. If you can not do it the right way, you can always settle for trying to get lucky and declare your lucky results to be a product of skilful handicapping. After all, skillful handicapping is possible. There is somebody out there (maybe even on this forum) who can do it. You can always say you are one of them and tell to fuk off to any one who would dare to doubt.Last edited by hutennis; 06-23-12, 03:34 PM.Comment -
chunkSBR Wise Guy
- 02-08-11
- 808
#121I must say that I so like the analogy!Comment -
MonkeyF0ckerSBR Posting Legend
- 06-12-07
- 12144
#122
P.S. - You have some serious shortcomings in understanding statistics as evidenced by the rest of your post. Although your analogy works for many who come in here asking if their method has any statistical significance, it certainly doesn't apply to many here who have never needed to ask the question.Comment -
mathdotcomSBR Posting Legend
- 03-24-08
- 11689
#123All in favor of banning hutennis?
Aye.Comment -
jerrySBR High Roller
- 05-14-08
- 111
#125Aye.Comment -
GunShardSBR Posting Legend
- 03-05-10
- 10031
#126I prefer to spot bet and not do these daily betting like the stock market.
I make a bet once a week or even once a month and get a higher win ratio by doing this.Comment -
yismanSBR Aristocracy
- 09-01-08
- 75682
#128
Have no fear, you will be neither nominated nor elected.
Justin please ban hutennis and wantitall4moi from the think tank. They constantly troll posts and never back up any of their anecdotal crap that they post with hard evidence. Those that have been doing this for years can reasonably work out who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. All of the evidence that they have posted either suggests that they are lifetime losers or that they are intentionally hijacking the think tank. I'd lean to the former.
I think it's a mixture of both.[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]Comment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#129
If not, I have no idea why you can't just quote that post line by ridiculous line and beat the crap out of it.
You not authorized to talk about scientific method?
Or is it something about dolphins?
Dolphins. That's gotta be it.
Are they all transformed aliens?Comment -
MonkeyF0ckerSBR Posting Legend
- 06-12-07
- 12144
#130Because it's all garbage.Comment -
yismanSBR Aristocracy
- 09-01-08
- 75682
#132oh, so you were being sarcastic with the beginning of it.[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]Comment -
Cheme82SBR Hall of Famer
- 09-03-08
- 7823
#133Yes sir.Comment -
Duff85SBR MVP
- 06-15-10
- 2920
#134I guess those of us with an edge should be happy that hutennis is around. His misinformation will throw some off the scent of becoming profitable (and cutting into some of our edges), while the money he donates to books keeps us all in business. Thanks hutennis for being a life long loser.Comment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#135
This is the post I really like in this thread. From uva3021
A z-score comparing yourself to plays you have already made is merely trivial and tells you nothing. What you want to do is find x number of games that you didn't bet on in the past that fit a similar profile and see how well you would have done. Then you can compare
Now we need to make a prediction (parameters XYZ will continue to make $$$ with statistical significance) and test this prediction using fair (controlled) experiment.Comment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#136=Duff85;15173254His misinformation will throw some off the scent of becoming profitable (and cutting into some of our edges),Comment -
mathdotcomSBR Posting Legend
- 03-24-08
- 11689
#137hutennis,
gambling value expectation z-score not future know expected unpredictable don't unknown know anything why past future test random unpredictable uncertainty risk market million bankrupt efficiency gambling value expectation z-score not future know expected unpredictable don't unknown know anything why past future test random unpredictable uncertainty risk market million bankrupt efficiency gambling value expectation z-score not future know expected unpredictable don't unknown know anything why past future test random unpredictable uncertainty risk market million bankrupt efficiency
Agree?Comment -
yak merchantSBR High Roller
- 11-04-10
- 109
#138OK, no trolling anymore. LOL
Let’s get to the point.
The point is handicapping .
This is how most people over here understand handicapping process.
1. Research. Collecting data.
Using whatever method available, from simple copy/paste to sophisticated scraping technics,
thousands of data points are collected let’s say in excel. Most people here can only do copy/paste,
So they constantly on a look out for tips on how to be more proficient in their data collecting.
Any good piece of VB code they can get their hands on considered to be a giant lip forward on the way
to become a true handicapper. Very naïve.
2. Modeling.
Now we have a data and it’s time to create a model.
Model seems to be some kind of macro with some sort of statistical analysis built in that will go over collected data points
looking for most profitable situations with highest statistical significance.
So if we were able to find parameters X,Y,Z delivering profit $$$ and z-score on this combination
Is 2.5 we got ourselves a pretty good model indeed.
Most people stop right there, call it handicapping and get really excited.
They post question about calculating edge so they can apply Kelly and get maximum growth out of their discovery.
I reply with a comment that they can’t get anything out of past results. As far as future profits are concerned past results are useless
and get slammed.
In fact, they have as much right to call themselves a handicappers as guy who sprayed side of the barn with machine gun and then painted a bullseye around largest random clusters has a right to call himself a sharpshooter.
If someone does not understand the analogy – think longer.
If you understand, but don’t agree – I’m sorry, you are wrong. Analogy is perfect.
So what is missing here?
What is missing is an understanding of a scientific method.
We don’t have working model here. We only have hypothesis to work with.
Now we need to make a prediction (parameters XYZ will continue to make $$$ with statistical significance) and test this prediction
using fair (controlled) experiment.
Now, this is long, slow and complicated process. At best, it is just one game per day, you know. In some sports it is one per week!
It may take just a couple of days to collect past data and come up with macro and it takes years to test it.
(not to complicate things farther I will give you an assumption that ordinal conditions never change.)
That is why it takes years for pharmaceutical companies to bring new drug on a market.
Lets say you got your conformation. Your prediction is tested and you like the results. Is that it?
Not at all. To complete process you must submit your experimental data for a peer review.
This is usually group of very qualified people who are very unfriendly to your whole idea and will do their best to pick it apart.
It is unpleasant but an absolute must to make sure that you did not make intentional or unintentional mistakes which would make your results look better than they otherwise should be.
Well, you can always say:”FU hutennis! FU you and your scientific BS! There are people on this forum who won millions using past data, excel and a few statistical tricks!” That’s what Matthy just said.
That would be a text book example of a conformation bias. Mathy is only using the evidence that confirm his believe that past data, excel and little bit of statistic is all it takes. Nothing is said about those who lost millions doing just that.
It’s like declaring dolphins a super smart, friendly animals with predisposition to help people who got in trouble in a ocean b/c there are numerous reports that dolphins help people to survive by pushing them to a shore.
Too bad, we can not interview those who drown when pushed away from the shore.
If we could, we would see that it’s about 50/50 and dolphins do not have a super natural urge to help man kind but simply an animals who like to play with objects struggling in the water.
So, “FU hutennis” is always an option. If you can not do it the right way, you can always settle for trying to get lucky and declare your lucky results to be a product of skilful handicapping. After all, skillful handicapping is possible. There is somebody out there (maybe even on this forum) who can do it. You can always say you are one of them and tell to fuk off to any one who would dare to doubt.
This is actually the first post that you've made that has any semblance of an answer to your "World is Flat" view of sports betting. And while yes 99.8% of people do exactly what you describe and have no real advantage, that doesn't mean the 0.2% don’t win.
(Insert meaningless analogy here to offset all stupid dolphin analogies).
So your whole argument revolves around the following?
1. People are too stupid to do anything correctly.
2. Dividing your data into Training Sets and Testing Sets has no value in building a model because they are both in the past. And we know that absolutely nothing that happens in the past can affect the future.
3. If a model generates 3 picks a day, and makes money consistently for 20 years in a row that is not confirmation enough as I must submit my model to "peers" to confirm the obvious math before I can feel good about myself.
4. Markets are so efficient that they pretty much can’t be beat and a model could only spit out one play a week, yet at the same time so inefficient that if you have an advantage it will be there for years while you confirm it with your scientific method? But the advantage (while not possible) is not enough because having your liberal d-bag professor friends inflate your self-esteem by confirming your hypothesis and eroding your advantage is much more important than making money.
I digress, but I'll agree with you that most people can't make money no matter what they come up with, and most people that try to use statistics to handicap probably just fool themselves at first, but the idea that sports betting is unbeatable and that looking at past events to help predict future events is even more useless is quite a declaration. Sure people have different levels of understanding and training when it comes to statistics but people have to start someplace. Me f…ing up a regression in a spreadsheet 15 years ago is no worse than me really having no idea what I’m doing setting up a GARCH model in Matlab today, but in all cases I’m responsible for making sure what I’m betting makes money, statistics and the scientific method be damned.
And speaking of people starting somewhere; the Think Tank is really a waste of space and talent. If anyone comes in here to try to learn something, they get one thing; belittled. Belittled for trying something stupid, belittled for trying to beat sports betting in the first place, belittled for not have a grasp of advanced statistics, etc, etc. You would think that a forum where some the smartest and best handicappers frequent would be alive with activity, but it’s pretty evident that isn’t the case, I wonder why?
I get that nobody is going to line up to give away their advantage in here, and there will be disagreements, but I’ve been running around the internet gambling forums for a long time, and I’ve never seen a more hostile, unfriendly and unhelpful place.Comment -
hutennisSBR Wise Guy
- 07-11-10
- 847
#139This is actually the first post that you've made that has any semblance of an answer to your "World is Flat" view of sports betting. And while yes 99.8% of people do exactly what you describe and have no real advantage, that doesn't mean the 0.2% don’t win.
(Insert meaningless analogy here to offset all stupid dolphin analogies).
So your whole argument revolves around the following?
1. People are too stupid to do anything correctly.
2. Dividing your data into Training Sets and Testing Sets has no value in building a model because they are both in the past.
It seems that sport betting world is the last place to be in a dark about it. I wonder why.
And we know that absolutely nothing that happens in the past can affect the future.
"Affect" and "predict" is not the same thing.
3. If a model generates 3 picks a day, and makes money consistently for 20 years in a row that is not confirmation enough as I must submit my model to "peers" to confirm the obvious math before I can feel good about myself.
except maybe laughing all the way to the bank. We would have to take your word for it, congratulate you and wish you all the best in a future. I was not even talking about something that has such a fabulous record, albeit only in your words.
Again "if I say so, you must believe me" attitude is unique for sport betting forums world only. It would be very hard laughed at any where else.
Otherwise. some form of peer review is essential if you are serious about being right.
4. Markets are so efficient that they pretty much can’t be beat and a model could only spit out one play a week, yet at the same time so inefficient that if you have an advantage it will be there for years while you confirm it with your scientific method? But the advantage (while not possible) is not enough because having your liberal d-bag professor friends inflate your self-esteem by confirming your hypothesis and eroding your advantage is much more important than making money.
Overall, it becomes painfully apparent that great jurist Oliver Holmes was so right when he said:
"Trying to educate a bigot (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is like shining light into the pupil of an eye - it constricts."Comment -
allin1SBR MVP
- 11-07-11
- 4555
#140And speaking of people starting somewhere; the Think Tank is really a waste of space and talent. If anyone comes in here to try to learn something, they get one thing; belittled. Belittled for trying something stupid, belittled for trying to beat sports betting in the first place, belittled for not have a grasp of advanced statistics, etc, etc. You would think that a forum where some the smartest and best handicappers frequent would be alive with activity, but it’s pretty evident that isn’t the case, I wonder why?
I get that nobody is going to line up to give away their advantage in here, and there will be disagreements, but I’ve been running around the internet gambling forums for a long time, and I’ve never seen a more hostile, unfriendly and unhelpful place.Comment
SBR Contests
Collapse
Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
Collapse
#1 BetMGM
4.8/5 BetMGM Bonus Code
#2 FanDuel
4.8/5 FanDuel Promo Code
#3 Caesars
4.8/5 Caesars Promo Code
#4 DraftKings
4.7/5 DraftKings Promo Code
#5 Fanatics
#6 bet365
4.7/5 bet365 Bonus Code
#7 Hard Rock
4.1/5 Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
#8 BetRivers
4.1/5 BetRivers Bonus Code