Delusional or what?

[chunk]

Is it just me, or are there other out there that have been modestly successful for a long enough time where you almost think that you might know what you're doing. Each year, you say to yourself....ok here comes the regression, but the worst you see is a 52% season. If one is really that lucky, then I say just sit back and be grateful....or can this stuff actually be beaten year after year?

[LT Profits]

Is it just me, or are there other out there that have been modestly successful for a long enough time where you almost think that you might know what you're doing. Each year, you say to yourself....ok here comes the regression, but the worst you see is a 52% season. If one is really that lucky, then I say just sit back and be grateful....or can this stuff actually be beaten year after year?

Impossible to answer without knowing the approach used. And win% isn't as important as money won.

[GunShard]

I usually experiment with betting styles play points on Covers.com before using real money. You should do the same and find out what you did right and what you did wrong in the long run.

[chunk]

Hoops and football ATS for the most part.

[hutennis]

If you don't accept luck as an explanation, there has to be something else then. Even if you can't quantify this "something", at very least
you should be able to explain to yourself where it comes from.
"I found something in a past data that every one else (including those who equipped 1000 times better than I am to analyze past data) missed" is not a good explanation.
"I just have a great feel for the game" is not a good explanation.
"I have a neck for picking winners" is not a good explanation.

No matter how you slice it, luck is, in fact, most reasonable explanation in overwhelming majority of cases in a such land of small sample sizes as SB is.

Even if your model "generates 3 picks a day for 20 years and you are winning year after year" (as someone put it in another thread)
it still means nothing.
First, years dont matter. Number of bets does.
And it is simply not enough bets to get excited.
All we know that you are winning after 20000 picks. So what?
It is exactly like if you win after 20000 hands of poker (one wager = one hand). Happens all the time.
People run above expectation for x times that much easily.
Try to go at 2+2 poker forum and claim that you are a winning poker player b/c you have a winning record after
20000 hands. You'll be laughed at so hard your head will spin.
Why?
Because in poker world people know that long run is really, really long.
Because in poker world, unlike in SB, we don't guess probabilities. We know them. (in all in situations for sure)
Thanks to software like Poker Tracker, finding thousands hands streaks where you won having the worse of it on average (or lost having the best of it) is just a few clicks away.
In a result oriented world of incomplete information such as SB, evaluations like this are unavailable, so it is pretty much up to our brain
to explain us what's going on.
And explanation is pretty much always the same. If we are winning - we are good. If we are losing - we are unlucky.
Same old crap.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If you don't accept luck as an explanation, there has to be something else then. Even if you can't quantify this "something", at very least
you should be able to explain to yourself where it comes from.
"I found something in a past data that every one else (including those who equipped 1000 times better than I am to analyze past data) missed" is not a good explanation.
"I just have a great feel for the game" is not a good explanation.
"I have a neck for picking winners" is not a good explanation.

No matter how you slice it, luck is, in fact, most reasonable explanation in overwhelming majority of cases in a such land of small sample sizes as SB is.

Even if your model "generates 3 picks a day for 20 years and you are winning year after year" (as someone put it in another thread)
it still means nothing.
First, years dont matter. Number of bets does.
And it is simply not enough bets to get excited.
All we know that you are winning after 20000 picks. So what?
It is exactly like if you win after 20000 hands of poker (one wager = one hand). Happens all the time.
People run above expectation for x times that much easily.
Try to go at 2+2 poker forum and claim that you are a winning poker player b/c you have a winning record after
20000 hands. You'll be laughed at so hard your head will spin.
Why?
Because in poker world people know that long run is really, really long.
Because in poker world, unlike in SB, we don't guess probabilities. We know them. (in all in situations for sure)
Thanks to software like Poker Tracker, finding thousands hands streaks where you won having the worse of it on average (or lost having the best of it) is just a few clicks away.
In a result oriented world of incomplete information such as SB, evaluations like this are unavailable, so it is pretty much up to our brain
to explain us what's going on.
And explanation is pretty much always the same. If we are winning - we are good. If we are losing - we are unlucky.
Same old crap.

Uhh. You're comparing apples to oranges. (What's new?)

Try 20,000 all-ins (not just hands). Then, it's a fair comparison to 21,915 wagers in sports.

[hutennis]

Uhh. You're comparing apples to oranges. (What's new?)

Try 20,000 all-ins (not just hands). Then, it's a fair comparison to 21,915 wagers in sports.

Whats wrong with just hands?

In order for you to have a right to request just all ins you have to prove with the same mathematical certainty asa in all ins
that each and every one in your 21915 wagers has +EV

Can you do that?

And if you can't, mix is fair.

[hutennis]

In fact, I don't know how can be mathematically sure about your edge in any wager.
Unless, of course, you assume that market you compare your wager to is 100% EFFICIENT EVERY TIME.

And if you do, are not you totally making my case.LOL?

[easyliving]

If I bet a limited # of games (around 200) per year I think I can hit somewhere between 55-60%.Of course this requires great patience and Im not sure if I have it. I might deposit a grand on a sportsbook I don't use and try this with the start of the NFL season but then again the NFL season is still couple months away and I probably wont

[MonkeyF0cker]

Whats wrong with just hands?

In order for you to have a right to request just all ins you have to prove with the same mathematical certainty asa in all ins
that each and every one in your 21915 wagers has +EV

Can you do that?

And if you can't, mix is fair.

Uhh. Because you fold hands. Just like most people don't bet every game.

That's why.

I can't believe that needs explaining.

[LT Profits]

If I bet a limited # of games (around 200) per year I think I can hit somewhere between 55-60%.Of course this requires great patience and Im not sure if I have it. I might deposit a grand on a sportsbook I don't use and try this with the start of the NFL season but then again the NFL season is still couple months away and I probably wont

This goes back to what I said about money won being more important than win percentage. It is better to hit 54% over 1000 plays than 60% over 200.

[hutennis]

Uhh. Because you fold hands. Just like most people don't bet every game.

That's why.

I can't believe that needs explaining.

Please.

Anything that saw flop is a fair game.
In HU it would be 95% of hands dealt or so.

It is sickening for how long HU player can run below (above) expectation.
20000 is a joke.

Again.
Thanks to value calculating software like pokerrazor, poker players are light years ahead of sport bettors in terms of probability calculation.
At any point during the hand, even if hand did not see showdown, our probability estimation vs random or range is very sharp.

That's the reason, that claims and ideas that are so popular here would be a laughing stock in the environment where numbers and not an assumptions rule.

[chunk]

In fact, I don't know how can be mathematically sure about your edge in any wager.
Unless, of course, you assume that market you compare your wager to is 100% EFFICIENT EVERY TIME.

And if you do, are not you totally making my case.LOL?

I tend to agree that (with straight wagering) it would be very difficult, if not impossible to quantify edge with accuracy. It would follow, therefore, that even though one has shown success over many years of sports betting that it would be difficult to "prove your edge" if the sample size needs to be that massive.

I suppose that many years of success can be just a long streak of luck...I think that many grapple with that and maybe the brain does fool one into believing that one actually "knows something". I don't completely buy it, but can't discount the possibility.

As I have said in another thread a while back, if it is just luck, I hope that it continues for a little longer because then it won't matter one way or the other.

[hutennis]

Chunk, it's not about years. No one cares about years.
Probability does not know what "the year" is.
It is all about flips.

One can do 200 flips a year or 200 flips a day.

I understand, that using "years" as a measure of how long your run is probably makes you feel nice.
After all, saying I've been winning for years sounds kinda nice, impressive, important, sharp, whatever.

But it is nothing but self delusion.

3*365*20 is a different story.
Now we have a number to consider.

And based on a huge amount of data supported by very sharp numbers it is very clear that we can not even begin to take luck out of equation when looking on results with such a small sample size as 20000 or so.

[chunk]

I would never argue against the power of numbers and I don't have the expertise to to try to get to technical. I hope that I'm not being naive here, but it seems to me that we're not talking about absolutes. After all, the game is being played by humans...it's not a deck of cards or a fair coin.

BTW, I couldn't care less about the feel good aspect and don't claim to be "sharp". Hell, I still have paper everywhere and would probably be considered old school.

[subs]

put us out of our misery chunk...

number of bets, and how many units have u won/risked?

we r all pissing in the dark without this, no?

i'm sure that u already know that what u have done is, statistically speaking, extremely unlikely.

[chunk]

About 300 plays/year hoops and football. Don't vary too much from flat betting, so approx. 56% should tell you enough. I'm not arguing that I could be one lucky sumbitch...just wanted to get some input of others because I tend to agree with the luck aspect.

[chunk]

Goes back about 8 years when I started keeping accurate records once I had more time to devote to the hobbies.

[subs]

the binom.dist suggests u r a smart rather than lucky sumbitch, do u track against the closer?

b very interested to see how u did vs the market. at the very least might make Mr tennis rethink a little. certainly makes me jelly, but in a good way.


well done, nice to see a successful capper.

[hutennis]

So, 2400 plays.
Win prob 50%
56% wins.
Probability of wining at least 1344 out of 2400 by being lucky 0.0000.

Nice. Great to see a successful capper.
Common respond in SB forum.

In any other place when people make a claim of having 0.0000 probability of being lucky the respond would be

Nice. Can I see a supporting data?
Or at least, can you start posting your picks ahead of time so we can track for ourselves?

Answer very well can be

- No. this is proprietary information and you just have to take my word for it.

- Ok. In this case the probability that your claim will be given any kind of consideration or weight in any argument is 0.0000.

- So what? I know that I'm telling the truth. And that's all that matters to me.

- Very well then. Nice chatting with you.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Please.

Anything that saw flop is a fair game.
In HU it would be 95% of hands dealt or so.

It is sickening for how long HU player can run below (above) expectation.
20000 is a joke.

Again.
Thanks to value calculating software like pokerrazor, poker players are light years ahead of sport bettors in terms of probability calculation.
At any point during the hand, even if hand did not see showdown, our probability estimation vs random or range is very sharp.

That's the reason, that claims and ideas that are so popular here would be a laughing stock in the environment where numbers and not an assumptions rule.

So, now it's only 95% of hands and EVERY hand that anyone plays is HU?

LOL.

Okay, guy.

P.S. - Seeing the flop does not necessitate having any advantage in terms of probability of winning the hand at showdown. How are you ALWAYS so wrong?

[hutennis]

So, now it's only 95% of hands and EVERY hand that anyone plays is HU?

LOL.

Okay, guy.

You are kidding me right? Or playing dummy again? Never heard about HU poker?

Well, Lets go back to the argument.

My assertion is that if poker player can run above/below expectation for 20000 hands and much more, then what stop sports bettor, who also deals with probabilities, from running above/below expectation for as much?

Yes, poker players do fold hands preflop and those hands should not be counted. That's like passing up on a wager in SB. I agree.
For that reason, I brought up form of poker called Heads-Up (HU) or One-on-One, where people play pretty much every hand, see pretty much every flop and routinely see 50% of showdowns. Every time you see a flop is like making a sport bet.
Every decision you made can be evaluated in terms of probabilities using special software, so your average probability can be very closely approximated for any given period. Sport bettor can not be that precise.

So if in this form of poker people can run hot or cold for the number of hands that would be equal to a multiple lifetimes worth of wagers in sportsbetting and back it up with kind of numbers sport bettor can't even dream about (unless you want to say that implied probability at every point is in fact actual probability i.e market is very efficient), why is that not reasonable to assume that what is true for one probability contest is also true for another? If one can be hot/cold here for that long, one also can be hot/cold there for as long.

No? Why?

P.S. - Seeing the flop does not necessitate having any advantage in terms of probability of winning the hand at showdown. How are you ALWAYS so wrong?

Seeing the flop gives you new probability of winning, which, if the hand stops right there, is a part of your average probability for a given period.
What's wrong with that?

[MonkeyF0cker]

You are kidding me right? Or playing dummy again? Never heard about HU poker?

Well, Lets go back to the argument.

My assertion is that if poker player can run above/below expectation for 20000 hands and much more, then what stop sports bettor, who also deals with probabilities, from running above/below expectation for as much?

Yes, poker players do fold hands preflop and those hands should not be counted. That's like passing up on a wager in SB. I agree.
For that reason, I brought up form of poker called Heads-Up (HU) or One-on-One, where people play pretty much every hand, see pretty much every flop and routinely see 50% of showdowns. Every time you see a flop is like making a sport bet.
Every decision you made can be evaluated in terms of probabilities using special software, so your average probability can be very closely approximated for any given period. Sport bettor can not be that precise.

So if in this form of poker people can run hot or cold for the number of hands that would be equal to a multiple lifetimes worth of wagers in sportsbetting and back it up with kind of numbers sport bettor can't even dream about (unless you want to say that implied probability at every point is in fact actual probability i.e market is very efficient), why is that not reasonable to assume that what is true for one probability contest is also true for another? If one can be hot/cold here for that long, one also can be hot/cold there for as long.

No? Why?



Seeing the flop gives you new probability of winning, which, if the hand stops right there, is a part of your average probability for a given period.
What's wrong with that?

Jesus Christ.

Not worth my time.

[Kolotoure]

How is every hutennis post so long without him ever saying anything?

[hutennis]

Jesus Christ.

Not worth my time.

Yeah. That's what I thought.
A bit too much common sense for a change.

[Justin7]

Hutennis,

Please stop posting in the HTT. If you post again in this forum in the next 30 days, you will receive an extended ban. Your comments are misleading, confusing, and have no redeeming values. They exist solely to undermine education of new bettors.

If anyone sees him post in this forum in the next 30 days, please send me a pm.

[chunk]

the binom.dist suggests u r a smart rather than lucky sumbitch, do u track against the closer?

b very interested to see how u did vs the market. at the very least might make Mr tennis rethink a little. certainly makes me jelly, but in a good way.



well done, nice to see a successful capper.

As they say.....past success doesn't guarantee future success. I always approach this stuff with humility and balance with a guarded confidence. It's a lot like golf...as soon as you think you have it down, it bites you in the arse.

I don't pay much attention to beating or tracking closing lines. I like to play openers for certain plays and have no problem going against line moves ( even steam ) after due diligence. I line shop and take the best price available. I have tried to predict the market in terms of movement, but I find it very difficult and am wrong as much as right. I don't want to open that can of worms about beating closers. I know that is a popular mantra around here.

[chunk]

Just my humble opinion, but I don't see a problem with someone playing devil's advocate concerning sports betting. Hutennis even has a valid point here and there.

[subs]

So, 2400 plays.
Win prob 50%
56% wins.
Probability of wining at least 1344 out of 2400 by being lucky 0.0000.

Nice. Great to see a successful capper.
Common respond in SB forum.

In any other place when people make a claim of having 0.0000 probability of being lucky the respond would be

Nice. Can I see a supporting data?
Or at least, can you start posting your picks ahead of time so we can track for ourselves?

Answer very well can be

- No. this is proprietary information and you just have to take my word for it.

- Ok. In this case the probability that your claim will be given any kind of consideration or weight in any argument is 0.0000.

- So what? I know that I'm telling the truth. And that's all that matters to me.

- Very well then. Nice chatting with you.

what a dumb convo that would b.

supporting data is worthless unless logged by 3rd party.
IMO, chunk doesn't fit into the attention whore profile.
i was hoping we would see something from another solid capper. clearly, i was just stating the bloody obvious.



anyway Hu, what the ****, can't some1 be better than u (or good enough to win at ~ 56%) without u crying bullshit. y does that hurt ur brain so much. the market does not seem to me as efficient as u may think that it is. it is beatable @ 300 plays per year just by line shopping alone.



FWIW J7, i am w Chunk. let the tank deal w Hu. unless some1 is spamming or deliberately, ridiculously over-obnoxious.... people can tell the difference between Hu and MF, chunk and the many other great posters. the dissing is often way more interesting than the OP.

[Justin7]

i am w Chunk. let the tank deal w Hu. unless some1 is spamming or deliberately, ridiculously over-obnoxious.... people can tell the difference between Hu and MF, chunk and the many other great posters. the dissing is often way more interesting than the OP.

If you get MonkeyF0cker and Mathdotcom to agree, I'll revoke the HTT suspension. But in general, I find his posts more harmful than helpful, and deliberately so. The idea of HTT was to remove drivel... Less crapage you'd see in PT.

[andywend]

So, now it's only 95% of hands and EVERY hand that anyone plays is HU?

LOL.

Okay, guy.

P.S. - Seeing the flop does not necessitate having any advantage in terms of probability of winning the hand at showdown. How are you ALWAYS so wrong?

Whether the subject matter is politics, poker, sports betting or anything else, there is no bigger ASSBAG in this forum than MonkeyFocker.

He will only post to criticize as he's full of piss and vinegar.

Bitterness like that can only come from a lifetime of FAILING.

[allin1]

Whether the subject matter is politics, poker, sports betting or anything else, there is no bigger ASSBAG in this forum than MonkeyFocker.

He will only post to criticize as he's full of piss and vinegar.

Bitterness like that can only come from a lifetime of FAILING.

Not everyone can be a gentleman as Justin7. He answered politely in private to about 30pms about sports betting regardless of my stupidity.

I noticed too that monkeyf and math treat most of their posts like it's a pissing contest, resorting to sarcasm and arrogance to prove they are smarter, better, richer, but most of the times they probably are. Even though their attitude can be disappointing, their contribution to this forum is immense and deserve respect as bettors if not as how they conduct debates on forums.

Regarding the topic and the ban of hutennis, I actually enjoy his posts and the debates he starts. Too bad though that the big names are sick and tired of replying to his posts.

[hutennis]

they are not sick and tierd.
They simply dont have good arguments.

Personal experience, personal opinion, wishful thinking and alike are not arguments.

What I say here is very much in tune what some of the best traders, scientist and thinkers of our generation found to be correct. My delivery method is a huge suspect, thats given. But the message is correct.

If I have to chose whose opinion to trust, best of the best or some random guy on a public forum whose words i have to just trust or whose status i have to respect for some unsubstantiated reason, my choice is easy.

Not only it is easy. It is also rational.

Rational choices are not very popular among sportbettors, apparently. I'm sure books like it a lot.

[Cheme82]

The thing with smart people is that they are still people. Some are extremely polite and some are extremely rude. Some are good people, some are bad. Some are generous, some are greedy. Like I said in another thread, in the end, we are all the same.

[jgilmartin]

they are not sick and tierd.
They simply dont have good arguments.


Personal experience, personal opinion, wishful thinking and alike are not arguments.


What I say here is very much in tune what some of the best traders, scientist and thinkers of our generation found to be correct. My delivery method is a huge suspect, thats given. But the message is correct.


If I have to chose whose opinion to trust, best of the best or some random guy on a public forum whose words i have to just trust or whose status i have to respect for some unsubstantiated reason, my choice is easy.


Not only it is easy. It is also rational.


Rational choices are not very popular among sportbettors, apparently. I'm sure books like it a lot.

HOLY SHIT.


Game opens at CRIS at Team A -120, Team B +100


No injuries, lineup changes, referees, weather updates are announced.


Steam move results in Team A +100, Team B -120 at CRIS


AcmeRecSportsbook.com still has Team A -120, Team B +100


Why is betting Team B +100 at AcmeRecSportsbook.com better than betting Team A +100 at CRIS?


You have said that the rec book would boot you for betting the Team B +100...why would they care if no one can set a more accurate line than the oddsmakers?


You have been asked this exact question at least 3 times and have been unable to answer, yet you refuse to acknowledge that it is a 'good argument'.