I hope that makes sense.
-
Comment -
Good luck next week RLM players....Comment -
It seems that the three 1/2 point RLMs won this week: NO and St. Louis, and Buffalo. Maybe 1/2 point is good enough in the NFL?
However, I checked this out for college and it didn't fair very well. Wouldn't the logic be the same? It went 5 and 8 for college.
My opinion: Vegas can never get even action on all the games. The games, in general are rarely going to be balanced. You can see that by looking at the data on the SportsInsights site. They can try and move people to one side or the other to help their cause. That being said, why not just go with all the teams that Vegas supposedly needs; supposedly because even though one team has 60% of the bets they might not have 60% of the money.
Had you done that so far this week you would be 8 and 3 with San D and Chicago pending.
This doesn't prove anything of course, and next week could be just the opposite, but I find it interesting nonetheless.Comment -
Lol, im just hoping for some more obvious RLM. And I dont really follow college football because CAL sucks. Not proud of being a CAL bear.Comment -
Yes, college did not fare that well this week (Wisconsin was a prime example of a backfire - Vegas is as vulnerable as we are!). However, the underlying basis for why playing RLMs is still sound. (I did take the Ball State and Arizona State RLMs wins this week besides Wisconsin though....see BTP contest picks)
If Vegas cannot get 50/50 bets for each game, why would they want to make their situation worse by moving the line in the opposite direction? Why would they want the line to push people the bet in a certain way? It doesn't make sense.
Are you saying Vegas knows just as little as the common bettor? RLMs will not always pan out, but overall I still don't see why Vegas would post lines that move against common sense.
If you don't believe in the underlying basis of RLMs then move to other threads.
Otherwise give me a compelling reason for why I would not want to put my money where Vegas is putting their own cash.
If you don't feel RLMs are a sound investment - like the majority of bettors on this site then that is your opinion.
I still think Vegas doesn't like to gamble, and if they are forced to - Vegas will have a compelling reason (inside info, better handicapping....) to do so (a reverse line move).
Vegas and the Books that sponsor this site would prefer that bettors follow the crowd; and if you prefer to handicap games then you should do so. However, when the line moves against what you think it should do, then it makes sense to ask why - versus taking the line for what Vegas feeds you....
This week's RLM were poor by definition, but if you took them further (handicapped them), they did present good betting opportunities.Comment -
Jon- thanks for your posts in this thread. I appreciate you tracking/explaining RLMs for usComment -
I am merely making an observation: to wit: had you gone with all of the teams that had the smallest percentage of bets (ostensibly, teams that the bookies needed) then you would have gone 8-4 with one game to go. So if you think about it, you should be able to see that I am agreeing with you. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Nowhere did I mention my disbelief--nor did I criticize RLMs. In fact, I find the theory quite interesting.RLMs will not always pan out, but overall I still don't see why Vegas would post lines that move against common sense. If you don't believe in the underlying basis of RLMs then move to other threads.
I just took it one step further and looked at something a little different to see what happened.
If discussion, and/or criticism isn't wanted when an idea is posted, you're right...I'm on the wrong forum. The fact of the matter is that I thought I posted an interesting observation stemming from the original idea of RLMs.
I guess I was wrong, and in the future I'll keep such observations to myself.Comment -
All observations and inferences are appreciated TGoat. Keep it up. Can't wait to try next weekend.Comment -
Tgoat, sorry if my post went the wrong way and insulted you. I did not mean to attack you or your post, and I have given retribution in the form of SBRpoints.
You are correct in that RLMs do not work out at times, and should be used carefully, and my comments were out of line.
I am just wary of the many posters (ghosts, jerks) who spit on everything and everybody on this forum. At times I feel SBR deliberately antagonizes posters for their own benefit and I have been the target of these attacks myself (and a bit hypersensitve). At times threads degenerate into pissing matches, and this thread (I hope) should be above that.
Clearly, this topic is of interest to me, and I am guilty of taking a sharp tone in my previous post. At times, it seems better to just post meaningless neutral comments on other threads and not offend anyone.
I feel many of SBR's threads are useless garbage (take a look a a recent post titled "RushL was right") and a pit of disinformation, and many posters just post to tick other posters off without providing any real value (and to pad their post counts or to fulfill some SBR contractual obligation) or post to present emotional fodder (a spill off of reality TV). Perhaps this is all SBR wants - who knows? - but I can go to The Rx or EOG for that crap. Paranoid? GD right I am.
TGoat, I encourage you to keep posting in this thread, and your observations on College RLMs were basically correct this week. Also you were correct that the NFL RLMs were of shaky merit this week (based on 0.5 RLM value) and at best were a minor bet at best. No betting strategy is 100% perfect (making 53% is hard enough), and all I want is something that goes beyond the useless rah-rah home baised or superficial "lock" of the week mentality. I have found that you can handicap a game any way you want (see Dr. Bob's free stats versus situational computations - an argument/illustration on how handicapping really is - in a general sense - an art form), and somehow RLMs may go beyond (or assist) personal handicapping methods.
On the other hand, I DO NOT encourage you to pay for line movement or betting percentages through such websites as SportsInsights because that is beyond what the average small time bettor should do. (Paying for "touts" is in the same line - a waste of money)
I also encorage you (and others) to post insights as to why RLMs are wrong (besides noting Win/Losses for the week and saying the data provided is a joke)
I want members of this forum to win money from the Books.
RLMs, in my opinion, are something the average bettor has little understanding of, and RLMs are something that we (as SBR posters) should take advantage of - if the opportunity presents itself - and if the opportunity is indeed free, understandable, available to all, real and/or valid.Comment -
Oakland and Dallas with a little so far. People are pounding the Saints and that line is holding steady.Comment -
Excellent call. One of the requirements for a RLM that is generally accepted by everyone on this board is a movement of 1 point, and over roughly 8,000-10,000 bets on the game.
The Atlanta Falcons and Dallas Cowboys game opened up at Atlanta +3 with 74% of the public betting on Atlanta. The line has now moved to Atlanta +4, causing an RLM of 1 point.
On the Raiders Jets game, the line opened at -7 for the Jets with 76% on the Jets and 1200 bets made. The current line has moved down to Jets -6, also an RLM of 1 point.
The only thing to wait on now is for the bets made to exceed 8,000 roughly and hopefully maintaining that 1 point movement.
Hopefully this works guy. I don't like putting my money on Oakland but I just may this weekend!
Comment -
To clarify, we should be betting on Dallas and Oakland this weekend. Hope it all makes sense.Comment -
came here to post the oaktown and cowboys as potential canidates but it looks like you already beat me too itComment -
does anyone keep track of NCAA RLM?Comment -
No, I don't keep track of RLM for college football. Stop watching college after CAL blew everything.Comment -
There are quite a number of RLMs in NCAA Football every week.
Personally, I like to narrow it down, and it has been noted that RLMs are on a a bit more shaky ground.
Here are a few to consider this week; however, the bet sizes right now are too small for me to call them RLMs. (I like bet numbers to be greater than 10,000 in NCAA football, the RLM to be a home team, and RLMs to be a minimum of 1.0 - a personal preference)
NCAA RLMs of Home teams with RLM of 1.0 or greater
(10/20/09)
UTEP (14% on 2832 bets) +7 (open) to +8: RLM 1.0
Michigan State (15% on 2046 bets) +2.5 (open) to +1: RLM 1.5
New Mexico (27% on 156 (way too small) bets) +4 (open) to +3: RLM 1.0Comment -
Yes. Correct.
Glad someone is paying attention!
Sorry. My mistake.
Let's try this one:
Missouri (29% with 1168 bets) +13.5 (open) to +12.5: RLM 1.0
and as before:
Michigan State (15% on 2046 bets) +2.5 (open) to +1: RLM 1.5
New Mexico (27% on 156 (way too small) bets) +4 (open) to +3: RLM 1.0
Again, correct me if I am wrong.....Comment -
Early RLM Update (My RLM criteria for this post: Home teams with RLM >= 1.0):
NCAA Football:
Missouri (29% with 1168 bets) +13.5 (open) to +12.5: RLM 1.0
Michigan State (17% of 2407 bets) +2.5 (open) to -1: RLM: 3.5
Out - New Mexico (40% of 175 bets) +4 (open) to +2.5: RLM 2.5 - Problem on the 40% line (Not really an RLM unless the bets are less than 40%). - This shows how a few bets in a small sample can skew the betting percentages.
NFL:
Dallas Cowboys (32% of 3036 bets) -3 (open) to -4: RLM 1.0
Oakland Raiders (28% of 2164 bets) +7 (open) to +6: RLM 1.0
All these RLMs are too early (too few bets - l prefer a minimum of 8000 NFL or 10,00 NCAA bet sample) to characterize (unless you are line hunting and caught the moves early....).
Regardless of the ultimate line shift, I still think when a RLM occurs, and enough bets are made, Vegas has placed their bet and the Books are looking for the majority of bettors to lose (while taking the minority's side) since the relative goal of a 50/50 distribution is not possible - otherwise why would they move the line to their own detriment?
You could argue that "steam" (a large (and I mean REALLY LARGE) monetary bet made by a group of a small number of "investors" eg. insiders) is involved here, (and it may indeed apply), but as a casual observer - steam is too difficult a concept to determine here. If a steam move (or even a potential steam move) is responsible for a RLM, then that may apply to why some RLMs are destined to fail, and why some will argue determining RLMs a pointless exercise.
Doesn't that imply RLMs are also a means of chasing "steam?"
Yes, and that is the reason why ( a guess really) the Books have shifted the line (a RLM), to possibly prevent more "steam" moves from emerging. (Again, I do not imply that I fully understand "steam," and ask that others who are more knowledgeable and experienced fill in what is wrong here)
There it is, the reason why you need to handicap these games, figure out the value of the lines given, and why using RLMs on their own as a betting determinant is not a wise play (see previous posts indicating last weeks NCAA RLMs did poorly).
This is one possible reason why TGoat's observations were indeed valid, and ultimately why I am looking at RLMs right now, and expecting some drop-off rate. As of now, it seems NFL RLMs are doing quite well....Comment -
Good call TGoat. Really appreciate it.Comment -
The public is absolutely drilling the Colts and the line is holding steady. I believe the line could have been -17 and people would still bet the Colts. There's something to be said about that.Comment -
I wonder if there is a way (or a site) that shows you the amount of money bet as well as the total number of bets.
Let's say the Colts-Rams game breaks down this way: $300,000 on the Rams and $350,000 on the Colts. This would be very revealing. Even though 90% of the bets are on the Colts, you would know almost certainly that the big betters (sharps?) are on the Rams and the small bettors (public?) are on the Colts. [I think.]
It might also explain why they're not moving the line.Comment -
I'm kind of new to this whole RLM stuff, but I'm picking it up bit by bit.
So is this one example for this week: The Texas/Missouri game? According to Bet Tracker, the line for the game has moved from Texas -13.5 to Texas -12.5, and the public is on Texas @ 71% currently. So would this currently be a RLM? I also read earlier itt that it's wise to wait until roughly 9-10k bets have been placed before this could be trusted. So I'll just keep an eye on this for now and not shove a bunch of units on it until a certain # of bets have been placed......
Love the site. Look forward to comparing notes with you all.
Comment -
Yes, this is a College RLM. And yes, some recommend that you wait for around 10K bets. But...the jury is still out as far as college RLMs are concerned. It might be prudent to just keep track of them for the time being.
Also, if you have the ability, backtesting over multiple years would be a great idea. A lot of these "methods" can do very well over a certain time span, but fail miserably over multiple years. It would be a disaster to bet on these and kill the books this year, only to have it turn on its head next year.
The NFL RLMs are a bit more trustworthy...so far.Comment -
Yes, i've heard RLM is not very effective on college football games. Just sticking with RLM for the NFL.Comment -
"Comment -
Alright guys, the Dallas/Atlanta game has exceeded 8000 bets placed and there IS RLM on that game. I'm gonna take it now.
Any objections?Comment -
I think SportsInsights does that - but you have to pay.......
No free sites, that I know of, provides that informtation.
Only "raw" betting percentages for a few select sites (also bringing into question the validiy of the sampling population for their data.) To get a better feel of how the "public" is betting the game, I think at least 2 of 3 free sources should be used to validate the betting percentages (Free SI sites, SBR line data, and ,possibly, sportsbook spy).Comment -
I have looked at SportsBookSpy and I do not like their data. Their opening lines (and to a lesser extent, their current lines) are not in agreement with Pinacle, 5Dimes, Sports Insights, etc. In fact, in many cases I think they are off by quite a bit.
After much cross checking, SportsInsights (Bet Tracker) lines seem to be right in line. If you want to check it for yourself, compare BetTracker's opening and current lines with SportsBookSpy and you'll see what I mean.
I e-mailed them about this and the reply was to the effect that they use BetUS and Sportbet among others that they wouldn't name.
Their second explanation was the following:
"Also note that Pinnacle does not use a dime line (they use a 5 cent line) and this would explain the difference."
This makes no sense to me because Pinnacle's lines are in agreement with BetTracker and most of the other top books. Besides, what does a five cent line have to do with the opening line? If SportsBookSpy says the opening line is -6 and everyone else has it at -8, then something is off somewhere. In my opinion it has nothing much to do with the five cent line. [If I'm wrong, please correct me.]
Therefore, I use Sports Insights Bet Tracker almost exclusively now, because it seems to smoothly coincide with SBRs line of top books...and also with many of the casinos in Las Vegas.
Comment -
Tgoat. Yes, I agree.
Thanks for the insight.
Sportsbook spy is a bit marginal; however, there is little else out there regarding public bet data.
Any suggestions other than SI and SBR? I will try and find other public bet data as well....Comment -
"Comment -
starting to see a little RLM on the VikingsComment
