[EDDIE MONEY LINE]

Ok, now I might get dogged on for asking this, but I'm curious. Has anyone, (either here or someone your know) honestly won consistently in a sport just with intuition and instincts. I have been led to believe that most successful sports bettors have won b/c of a system of some sort.

Can anyone just by looking at lines, and knowing public plays, and having a good feel for the game and players involved, home court advantages so on and so forth, consistently pick winners. 55% + long term.

Anyone here, or someone you know???

I'm looking for truthful answers, not a dik comparing contest here.

Thanks

[durito]

No.

[LT Profits]

Can't be done because Math is very important in betting

[FreeFall]

I don't know anyone capable of doing this.

[AbeFroman]

A measure of this being very unlikely is ESPN's Streak for the Cash. Most gamblers are bound to, at some point, chase a loss, or bet just for the sake of action, and begin screwing up their record, money management, etc. by the end of their playing period. Therefore, it seems incredibly difficult to think someone could consistently pick winners just by looking at minimal information.

[u21c3f6]

I think the term you are looking for is: experience.

Someone with successful experience can look at something and "see" where the advantage lies and then knows how to exploit it. But that ability comes from having done the "work" previously. They do not have to re-learn what works and what doesn't.

Joe.

[mjespoz]

I certainly can't & I don't know of anybody else that can either.
IMHO, I don't believe that it's possible to win CONSISTANTLY without being able to quantify (at least approximately) the positive expectation in any given bet. This requires mathematics/statistics and cannot be judged by intuition and instinct...

Cheers,
mjespoz

[That Foreign Guy]

Can anyone [win] just by looking at lines, and knowing public plays, and having a good feel for the game and players involved, home court advantages so on and so forth, consistently pick winners. 55% + long term.

Yes, but what you've described is a far cry from "just ... intuition and instincts".

[FourLengthsClear]

In very inefficient markets and minority sports (say speedway or Italian basketball) it is possible at low limits.
You would expect to be booted from nearly every book that offers these markets before long though.

[CHUBNUT]

why is it constantly assumed on here that you have to be one or the other

[EDDIE MONEY LINE]

why is it constantly assumed on here that you have to be one or the other

What do u mean?

[Power Play]

I don't use any complex statistical models and I hit over 53% on fair -110 lines over last 1000+ plays. Since I bet only 1% roll per bet I have not even doubled my roll yet but hey I'm winning. 55%+ is rough though if you know a small time sport well I guess you can do it.

[saratoga1927]

If you talk to math guys "most" of them will tell you it's not possible. If you talk to the guys who do have the ability of which you speak, everyone of them will tell you it can be accomplished; but again not by those who don't possess said ability. Anyone who tells you something can't be accomplished unless you do it their way is just ignorant at best.

[NickTheGrip]

cant be done without math

[Ruifgalmeida]

In markets that I know very well, I dont need any math, I simply look at lines and bet the lines that are way off.

[Broken-Ear Glen]

IMO it's all about what he said ^^^ finding lines that you think are way off.

[illfuuptn]

Say you have a baseball game that has a Big public favorite at -140 and the other side is +130. The book will OBVIOUSLY shade the line a little(I'm willing to listen to theories of why they wouldn't). So the no vig line would technically be something like -133/+133. The no vig line suggests the +130 team has a 42.918455% chance of winning the game. In order to justify betting them, they would have to be better than the available line which means they'll have to win more than 43.478261% of the time. So this team needs to be .559806% more likely to win than the line suggests in order for you to be +ev. IMO, it's ridiculous to think you can't identify a half percent edge just by watching. However, you need to have an eye for those things. I'm a huge Red Sox fan and I watch their games and constantly identify when players on my team are overrated or underrated by the market. If I know Lester has been less than impressive but squeaked out with a few lucky 2-run outings lately then I know the rest of the market sees him as solid while I have reason to believe he hasn't been.

[EDDIE MONEY LINE]

If you talk to math guys "most" of them will tell you it's not possible. If you talk to the guys who do have the ability of which you speak, everyone of them will tell you it can be accomplished; but again not by those who don't possess said ability. Anyone who tells you something can't be accomplished unless you do it their way is just ignorant at best.

I hear that...you from Saratoga, Ny???

[EDDIE MONEY LINE]

In markets that I know very well, I dont need any math, I simply look at lines and bet the lines that are way off.

This can work occasionally I guess...but what is telling you these lines are way off? What are you determining this against?

[Salmon Steak]

Anything is possible but you will want to make as many plays as possible. The more plays you make the more you can (win/lose). If you know everything about everything maybe you can guess. The difference between -110 and -120 might be the reason you don't take a bet. You have to know this mathematically. I did not read justin7's book in the sbr store but I bet it is a good thing to read. I would read that.

[byronbb]

It probably WAS possible before computers, which is why the myth of it being possible now is so persistent.

[bztips]

Say you have a baseball game that has a Big public favorite at -140 and the other side is +130. The book will OBVIOUSLY shade the line a little(I'm willing to listen to theories of why they wouldn't). So the no vig line would technically be something like -133/+133. The no vig line suggests the +130 team has a 42.918455% chance of winning the game. In order to justify betting them, they would have to be better than the available line which means they'll have to win more than 43.478261% of the time. So this team needs to be .559806% more likely to win than the line suggests in order for you to be +ev. IMO, it's ridiculous to think you can't identify a half percent edge just by watching.

That's great, but you're going to have be betting for an awfully long time to see your 0.5% edge add up to anything. For every $10,000 you bet, you're squeezing out 50 bucks. Woo hoo!!!

[illfuuptn]

That's great, but you're going to have be betting for an awfully long time to see your 0.5% edge add up to anything. For every $10,000 you bet, you're squeezing out 50 bucks. Woo hoo!!!

Read it again. I didn't say it gave you a .5% edge, I said you need to overcome .5% to get an edge. My guess is you can identify up to a 4% edge based solely on watching(and being very sports betting factor savvy) games. Therefore you can get a 3.5% edge by watching. Typically I think you could find about a 2% edge from this. Add in real modeling and you can bump it up to 5%.

[bztips]

Read it again. I didn't say it gave you a .5% edge, I said you need to overcome .5% to get an edge. My guess is you can identify up to a 4% edge based solely on watching(and being very sports betting factor savvy) games. Therefore you can get a 3.5% edge by watching. Typically I think you could find about a 2% edge from this. Add in real modeling and you can bump it up to 5%.

Ok, my bad on what you said. Nevertheless, your assertion that you can identify a significant edge based solely on watching your favorite team is not very convincing. If that's the approach you're going to take, then for every occasion where you claim to be able to identify when players on your team are over- or underrated, it's just as likely that there are also players on the opposing team that the market may not be valuing properly.

Bottom line is you need to be able to set a line INDEPENDENTLY of the published line. I'd guess that's not what you're advocating. When you "know Lester has been less than impressive but squeaked out with a few lucky 2-run outings lately", do you automatically think you have an edge, regardless of whether the line is -130 or -140? If so, you have no chance of being successful in the long term.

The idea that you can "eyeball" what the correct line should be just by watching one team closely is ridiculous.

[illfuuptn]

Ok, my bad on what you said. Nevertheless, your assertion that you can identify a significant edge based solely on watching your favorite team is not very convincing. If that's the approach you're going to take, then for every occasion where you claim to be able to identify when players on your team are over- or underrated, it's just as likely that there are also players on the opposing team that the market may not be valuing properly.

Bottom line is you need to be able to set a line INDEPENDENTLY of the published line. I'd guess that's not what you're advocating. When you "know Lester has been less than impressive but squeaked out with a few lucky 2-run outings lately", do you automatically think you have an edge, regardless of whether the line is -130 or -140? If so, you have no chance of being successful in the long term.

The idea that you can "eyeball" what the correct line should be just by watching one team closely is ridiculous.

1.) Knowing these things about the other team would increase the edge, but not knowing them doesn't do anything. Sometimes the other team will be overvalued and other times they will be undervalued. In the end those two factors will push and me knowing my team will provide the edge.

2.) IDK where to even begin on your second bolded statement. You don't always have to set your own line. You can also identify factors that give you an advantage and you still get to the same place. It's the same thing as building a model. If I were to build a model, the "lester factor" that I described would be one of my inputs. Do you understand now?

[sharpcat]

1.) Knowing these things about the other team would increase the edge, but not knowing them doesn't do anything. Sometimes the other team will be overvalued and other times they will be undervalued. In the end those two factors will push and me knowing my team will provide the edge.

2.) IDK where to even begin on your second bolded statement. You don't always have to set your own line. You can also identify factors that give you an advantage and you still get to the same place. It's the same thing as building a model. If I were to build a model, the "lester factor" that I described would be one of my inputs. Do you understand now?

Not sure why anyone would go to the lengths to create a predictive model if they do not feel it is accurate. What you are implying is that not being a fan of the remaining 29 teams, that your model is inaccurate for 97% of the league because it can not factor in what you can see as a fan.

What really puzzles me would be how you would quantify the "lester effect"?

[Data]

What really puzzles me would be how you would quantify the "lester effect"?

While I dislike the method as it is on the basis that it provides no way of knowing whether the perceived edge still exists at a certain point in time (which, I believe, can only lead to losses), a framework for quantifying this outlined here: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...tribution.html.

[bztips]

1.) Knowing these things about the other team would increase the edge, but not knowing them doesn't do anything. Sometimes the other team will be overvalued and other times they will be undervalued. In the end those two factors will push and me knowing my team will provide the edge.

2.) IDK where to even begin on your second bolded statement. You don't always have to set your own line. You can also identify factors that give you an advantage and you still get to the same place. It's the same thing as building a model. If I were to build a model, the "lester factor" that I described would be one of my inputs. Do you understand now?

I'm guessing from these comments that you've never built a model, which allows you to quantify your edge.

Your argument appears to be that just knowing there's a "Lester factor" is enough. Sorry, that's not enough. Does it give you a .01% edge, a 1% edge, or a 10% edge? If you don't have any idea, then you shouldn't be betting. Because your complete uncertainty regarding your edge means that it could in fact be zero.

While I dislike the method as it is on the basis that it provides no way of knowing whether the perceived edge still exists at a certain point in time (which, I believe, can only lead to losses), a framework for quantifying this outlined here: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...tribution.html.

Data, I agree in principle. But let's not be under any illusions about illf's approach, which is light years away from Ganch's advice regarding timing: "it's imperative that when building a model one attempt to incorporate timely broad-based market information (e.g., widely available market indicative lines) into one's forecasts.

The idea that eyeballing one specific team is akin, in principle, to building a model (the only difference being in the amount of edge you gain), is completely bogus IMO.

[saratoga1927]

I hear that...you from Saratoga, Ny???

No Eddie, I'm from CT but go to the Spa EVERY year.

[Data]

let's not be under any illusions about illf's approach, which is light years away from Ganch's advice regarding timing: "it's imperative that when building a model one attempt to incorporate timely broad-based market information (e.g., widely available market indicative lines) into one's forecasts.

I am unsure what do you mean here. The way I understand what Ganchrow was suggesting is that, just like that quote suggests, illfuuptn can use his "model" weighting its input lightly and the market's input much heavier.

The idea that eyeballing one specific team is akin, in principle, to building a model (the only difference being in the amount of edge you gain), is completely bogus IMO.

I think it perfectly falls under "niche knowledge" that Ganchrow was talking about in the article I referred to.

[illfuuptn]

I am unsure what do you mean here. The way I understand what Ganchrow was suggesting is that, just like that quote suggests, illfuuptn can use his "model" weighting its input lightly and the market's input much heavier.



I think it perfectly falls under "niche knowledge" that Ganchrow was talking about in the article I referred to.

Thanks for showing up bj. Thank you for Data for having a brain and supporting an unpopular yet nonetheless valid strategy.

[horsiehung]

good wuestion..i'm going to reread this post when i have more time..i like what people have posted, and seem to be saying

[Data]

Thank you for Data for having a brain and supporting an unpopular yet nonetheless valid strategy.

I am sorry to disappoint. I was merely talking about quantifying this strategy. However, I do not support it due to my stated belief that it can only lead to losses. That belief is based on the simple idea I presented here: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...kely-lose.html.

Your strategy is just another example of a huge array of strategies where the bettor follows a strategy (a system, a tout, a black box) that was successful in the past without knowing if its edge is still there. The problem the follower will face over and over again is what should he do after a series of losses (stopping vs. continuing). Case in point: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...-bad-runs.html. The only meaningful answer to the follower's dilemma is to stop following the system after its first loss. Obviously, this affair will be very short. Otherwise, sticking with the system is likely a better approach than jumping in and out but it too guarantees losses due to staying with the system that no longer has the edge for too long.

[bztips]

I am unsure what do you mean here. The way I understand what Ganchrow was suggesting is that, just like that quote suggests, illfuuptn can use his "model" weighting its input lightly and the market's input much heavier.



I think it perfectly falls under "niche knowledge" that Ganchrow was talking about in the article I referred to.

Data, I hope you're not really suggesting that illf's method of "closely" following (only) his favorite team and making a bet based on that, is even remotely related to Ganch's method of updating your edge calculation (which illf doesn't even bother with in the first place) based on observed line movements as the event gets closer.

As I already stated, illf doesn't have any valid basis on which to even get an initial estimate of his edge. From what he's described, he doesn't even try. That's a sure recipe for failure.

[Data]

Data, I hope you're not really suggesting that illf's method of "closely" following (only) his favorite team and making a bet based on that, is even remotely related to Ganch's method of updating your edge calculation (which illf doesn't even bother with in the first place) based on observed line movements as the event gets closer.

No, I am not, mainly due to the fact that Ganchrow's article has nothing to do with monitoring line movements.

As I already stated, illf doesn't have any valid basis on which to even get an initial estimate of his edge. From what he's described, he doesn't even try. That's a sure recipe for failure.

And as I already stated, while I dislike this strategy, it fits whatever Ganchrow is talking about here:

Even with a relatively paltry model, if one properly conditions one's prior forecasts on the information made implicitly available via publicly available lines, profit opportunity may abound.

and here:

We're making explicit the notion that one doesn't need to be smarter than the market at each and every turn in order to be profitable. But rather by simply establishing a "knowledge niche" as a prior model and then updating it via market info, opportunities can abound.

A simple hypothetical:
Let's say you find such a knowledge niche at a particular categorical level of NCAA Football that conditionally models win probability as some function of field goal this or that blah blah blah.

Now obviously by its nature this is not going to be an all-encompassing model, but that doesn't imply it need be valueless.