-
Comment -
Let’s talk about today’s Winnipeg vs. Edmonton total and the market around it.
.....edited........
...I’ve talked about key numbers in totals and 51 can be considered a key number, as it is in the NFL. Right now, Pinny charges -117 for the Under 51 but won’t seem to come off of the 51. Much of the world either resigned themselves to 51 (-110), as they usually deal in (-110’s) or succumbed and dropped to 50.5.
Pinny pulled a move this morning to generate sales in the OVER. Likewise, houses like 5 Dimes are putting the over 50.5 at less cost (-102).
These books know their customers and Pinny knows, with teams only 3 games in, the real sharp money has not hit the CFL markets; you’ll know when it does, the lines will sharpen for sure.
My point is that the books don’t just need over bettors because many are buying the Unders and there is a fear of being one sided. The professional groups representing sharp money know about cost. If any are dabbling with these ratings, they, like I suggested before, wouldn’t pay too much for Under 51. The -117 by Pinny suggests they are just trying to make it harder to swallow the Under.
If they needed to make it easier to buy the Over, they would adjust to 50.5.
For the remaining bettors, 50.5 to 51 makes less difference and it’s a matter of getting +104 (the Over price). Likewise, the Under 50.5 at 5 Dimes, a line that’s adjusted down still costs -108 while the Over sits at -102.
While some of you may wonder if I should be concerned about Pinny offering plus odds on the Over in reference to my post about underdogs money lines being profitable for the books; considering the sale to generate volume earlier, the effort to hinder the Under side currently, and the level of market participants in this game this week, I’m starting to like my UNDER bet.
I mentioned I would try to teach a little in this thread and I offer this knowledge and analysis for the esoteric.
Good Luck.
edit: The paragraphs removed from the post above deal with strategies used to move money by means of taking positions at books. Removing them, while takes out good knowledge, still leaves plenty of bookmaking mechanics to be observed.Last edited by KVB; 07-25-15, 07:45 PM.Comment -
Nice job on Edmonton guys. My AFL play was a disaster. Nothing I had said TB would score 16... Oh well. Move onComment -
The total for Hamilton at Saskatchewan tomorrow sits at 56 and is just too high to buy. I still think there are pressures to raise that line, but that may manifest solely in having to lay for Over 56.
Should that line move to 56.5, from the early open of 53.5, I can tell you some fairly sharp money is considering countering public opinion and taking the Under. So Over 56 is getting the worst of it while Under counters the public. If you’re a gambling man, the Under at market close could be a possibility. For purposes of this thread I’m leaving it at that, not putting anything bold yet.
The basic, unsophisticated models suggest Hamilton a clear winner. But Saskatchewan hasn’t won a game yet. Their offense has been better than average while the defense a bit suspect. Hamilton had one game where the wheels came off of the opponent and they scored 52 points by themselves. With Hamilton in slight question and bettors trying to get Saskatchewan to win a game, this line had some originators opening at Saskatchewan -1, that line quickly going to a pick, then getting picked up worldwide as Saskatchewan -1 again.
Earlier I posted this…
Well Edmonton won, giving me a reason to buy Saskatchewan.
Let’s talk about reasons…So let’s start with the biggest elephant in the room…Saskatchewan hasn’t won a game. The guy who seeks this bet is one of those “streak breakers” I talked about earlier. If he wants them to win, -1 wouldn’t make much difference to him.
How about that unsophisticated line? Since week 3 it has been 9-2 against the spread. Streak breakers want that to regress for sure, another reason to buy Saskatchewan.
The underdogs have covered an overwhelming number of games this year and streak breakers look for the favorite. Conveniently, books around the world opened with Saskatchewan -1.
I have other market metrics I don’t want to share yet that also give streak breakers cause to buy Saskatchewan to win.
Oh, and remember this post?
Many different streak breakers are aligned and this could spell trouble. On the flipside, there is a reason bettors bet that way.
But it is for the above reasons, and certain money line formula considerations, that I am picking up Hamilton +1 (-101) over Saskatchewan.
This is a contrarian play. Let's see if I have been patient enough. Instead of making the necessary adjustments, the storyline may be one of even more distress in Saskatchewan.
My only warning to you is that we are countering a very strong force in North American professional sports that gives home teams love.
Good Luck
Comment -
Not only has the Riders offense been better than average. They are the highest scoring team in the league & still haven't posted a W.
If you think Saskatchewan is going to win, you must think they are gonna try to play a little defense.Comment -
You’re right Jay, but eventually the crew in Saskatchewan in going to have to make some adjustments. I just hope not yet.
I do have one more bit of insight about the bettors this week and the flow of money. Those streak breakers I’m hoping lose today have already lost some key bets this week. Another upset when Calgary fails to cover for a 5th straight game. Trying to get Toronto, who’s covered every spread to fail also failed, an upset again.
The bright spot so far for those streak breakers was in the total markets where Calgary played in their first Over this year…a bet I lost when going for the Under.
Admittedly though, those Totals markets generally see less action each week.
A lack of streak breakers’ discipline and patience is what I seek tonight as those bettors who haven’t done so well, yet understand the balancing nature of the markets, seek to get redemption in a “chase” sort of way with a Saskatchewan win.
It’s a bit like a Sunday or Monday night NFL game, the books love those games. This is CFL’s swing game for the week.
Remember fellas, I’m bringing a perspective of market analysis involving both the numbers and the participants. I hope some of this insight is helpful as you add your own layers of more subjective, matchup type analysis.
I do have an idea for what I expect to see in this game and may react accordingly at halftime.
Comment -
Just fade guys in this thread. Don't even have to watch games. Just collect moneyComment -
Here comes that steam on Saskatchewan.
I'm going against the public with some Hamilton +2 (-105) and +1.5 (+102) versus Saskatchewan.
Good Luck guys.
Comment -
Here's some fade material:
HAM ml +105
HAM/SAS o56.5
HAM tt o28
I rarely play multiple plays in a game, so this could spell disaster.Comment -
Let's get this Guy.
My whole position is with the points. A way out of this for the books is Saskatchewan winning by 1 point. A push would basically screw, forever, the bettors chasing a Saskatchewan win.
Pinny is holding over 6% on the money line and everyone's forcing -125 on the winner. Unsophisticated steam will be hitting the spread, not the moneyline.
This game could be interesting with Saskatchewan possibly taking a lead then disappointing in the end.
Comment -
Looks like we got to the same place with very different approaches. GL to us!Let's get this Guy.
My whole position is with the points. A way out of this for the books is Saskatchewan winning by 1 point. A push would basically screw, forever, the bettors chasing a Saskatchewan win.
Pinny is holding over 6% on the money line and everyone's forcing -125 on the winner. Unsophisticated steam will be hitting the spread, not the moneyline.
This game could be interesting with Saskatchewan possibly taking a lead then disappointing in the end.
Comment -
The total us gonna be closeComment -
Tied at half, virtually no new market information so bettors are offered essentially the same bets as when the game began.Comment -
Yup. FGs ain't gonna cut it in the 2h. Unfortunately I won't be watching. GL guysComment -
Comment -
FWIW, I believe Fezzik's 3* CFL play was o56 last night. I think that puts him at 0-2 in his last 2 CFL 3* plays.Comment -
I have a terrible short term memory....who's Fezzick?
I have a terrible short term memory....who's Fezzick?Comment -
^ Tout on one of the other sites. Claims to know CFL. He posted a video about how scoring will start increasing in Week 5 b/c of rule changes.
Anyway, here's what I came up with. Some weird #s in a couple of games. Gonna have to dig deeper. (Keep in mind, this is all from backward looking data. It doesn't account for injuries, etc. This is just a starting point I use for trying to identify plays.)
BC/Winnipeg -- WIN -20 Total: 56 (Model isn't impressed with BC's two wins over SSK. This looks unreliable.)
SSK/EDM -- EDM -15.2 Total: 48.8
MTL/CGY -- CGY +3.2 Total: 42.3
TOR/HAM -- HAM -4.9 Total: 64.6 (I would consider this unreliable b/c this is HAM's first home game. Doesn't mean I won't play something, just don't think the model is telling us much here.)Comment -
Awesome info.
I like the Montreal under already.Comment -
At one point the game was Sakatchewan 21-Hamilton 20, teasing the above reality. In the end, Saskatchewan disappointed.
Saskatchewan took the first lead, 3-0. Only to have a tie at half. Saskatchewan scored first with a TD in the 2nd half.
Finishing with a 3rd string QB the way they did was surely disappointing.
Why do I write this; to pat myself on the back? No, you can tell I don't chest thump winners; we'll do a quarterly review soon with results.
I write this because I want to stress the importance of making notes and understanding why things occur, when they occur, in the situation they occur.
That may sound a little thick but know that I am debating what is better for the Forum, next week’s plays or a simple review of the season so far. So much can be learned from both.
I suggest reading my posts again, from the beginning. There is almost enough information and examples so far in this thread to equal a college course. There are details and leans that should be reviewed. We are dealing, at some level, with a rinse and repeat sort of knowledge and the CFL has been a fine example this year.
I did a review earlier in response to Khan. While that review seemed extensive, it was to show the different ways at which one could examine their work. The most unique piece of information you can have is that which is created when you track your bets.
I intend to do another review, including results, of first quarter of CFL this year. I said we would beat the markets one quarter of a season at a time. Let’s see how we did.
As the season progresses I may be sending some of you PM’s, instead of posting, with certain thoughts to help fill in some difficult gaps. Some lessons just have to be kept low key.
Another thing, this thread is becoming like a course in that early concepts will be expanded upon as the market gets more sophisticated. So, if you are following along, you need to learn the stuff from earlier.
Finally, if you are lucky enough to have followed along, word for word, in much of this thread, you may feel like you are getting something unusual and special. Well, you are. This is some of the most unique analysis you will ever see in the sports markets. Understanding and mastering some of the concepts laid down in this thread will cut years off your learning curve, I assure you.
Comment -
What do you mean when you say the CFL market will become more sophisticated?
Do you mean more efficient?Comment -
Yes, that's part of it for sure. Remember this is as much about numbers as it is about the market. But when I say the market, I mean everything. Some of my earlier posts at SBR talked about a three way street...oddsmaker, bookmaker, and bettor. Anymore, the oddsmaker and bookmaker are the same, but these three are the participants.
In reality, we are competing against, not the book, but the other bettors in the marketplace. It's our opinion, our lines, against theirs. Make no mistake, even though he’s a middle man, the book competes to beat the bettor, he takes positions…we've seen that above.
We have a better chance of beating other gamblers than taking on the books, but we will pick our battles…I hope that makes sense.
We’ve had it easy so far. The bettors are easy to lead around early in the season, psychologically, they’ve been made.
But as more sophisticated, sharper money comes in, making those lines more efficient, we shouldn't forget to account for the psychology and decision making processes of those sharper bettors…surely the bookmakers will.
It’s a matter of sophistication on all levels. We have to understand our competition and they are getting sophisticated. Thankfully, the books have revealed some secrets, now it’s a cat and mouse game of deception.
So with that in mind, we’ll do what we can to follow that money around, pick off what the books do, accept the traps if we fall into them, ride some sharp waves, sniff out manipulation and, most importantly, learn from any mistakes.
One quarter of a season at a time.
Comment -
Guys, I've looked at it 3 times now and can't figure out why my numbers on the Winnipeg game are so off. There's a mistake somewhere on the side, I just haven't found it yet. So I don't think I'll be using those numbers for this week's games.
On the other two, I tentatively like EDM tt o29.5 and CGY tt u26. I also think the u47.5 deserves a further look in the CGY game (and possibly MTL +4.5).
Interested in other thoughts as well...
Comment -
KVB you are sharp and should not be speaking like this on a public forum. I appreciate it though.Comment -
Strength of schedule is definitely a factor to include in your numbers but I think it’s a bit too soon to consider it. If teams have just begun to develop sharper stats with four weeks of play, how can we determine the strength of their opponents? At the time the game was played, few teams have had opponents with 4 games under their belts.
This is a good link, a little bit on sharper strength of schedule:
Also, if you say the model isn’t impressed with BC’s two wins over SSK, why not? I’m not trying to argue, I’m just noting that while they gave points up in those games, they also scored enough to win. The only really bad, extreme, stat with Saskatchewan is that they are 0-5, but when BC played them, they were only 0-2 and 0-3.
In a professional football league, especially one with so few teams, there will be a certain degree of parity through the season and extreme stats can be misleading. After all, that 0-5 team has scored a lot of points this season.
Team record won’t be a very useful stat in the end, but could be throwing that BC line off a bit. A preliminary score of 38-18 would be -20 with a total of 56. I think you’re right to question it. With BC favored, I just don’t think the books are letting us off that easy…I think this first game is just a little tighter.
Comment -
I’ve mentioned that I usually make several different lines for each game, and then compare them to the market. The interesting thing about the first game this week between British Colombia and Winnipeg has to do with the range of these lines.
One preliminary prediction I have, which I consider pretty sharp, is British Colombia winning 30-27. The line opened at -5 and dropped to -4.5, towards the 3 point margin mentioned. I don’t think sharps came up with a 3 point line then bought off of 5 towards that 3. The line simply isn’t that sharp and that is a small overlay.
Instead, I think we have undue pressure on Winnipeg because of data out there. I can make two equally unsophisticated lines. One gives BC up to an 8 point lead, while one gives Winnipeg a slight half point edge.
It’s these guys, with the Winnipeg winner that I expect to get dropped this first game. You see, for a sharp bettor, this spread is a pass…it’s just too close.
I believe that the books have created a situation where a dangerous population of bettors has been left out and that just leaves the less dangerous players.
Of those players, it is those with a Winnipeg to win line that may be the most emboldened. So many other lines I can create, all fairly weak (as well as the sharper one above), have Winnipeg in a close one that it makes sense that the line moved down a half point.
Those that are working with a line of BC winning by 5 to 8 points will never be a threat to the books, never. Most sharps probably won’t touch that spread but some may hit the BC winner. The others are looking at Winnipeg, and with a 3 point showing last week, that may be in question.
While I expect the -4.5 to pressure downward toward the 3 points, I wouldn’t be surprised if it the volume is so light that it held at 4.5, trying to draw the underdog money. With this in mind, and considering some unnamed market metrics, I am going ahead and entering the market at British Colombia to win at -200 as well as British Colombia -4.5 over Winnipeg.
Last week I said this…
Even though the handle may not be as high in the first game this week, I feel the same way about losses and wins and the money beginning to flow.
Last week, I lost my first two bets, but made a bit of a recovery at the end of the week.
Good Luck
Comment -
It’s funny what a 3 point game can do to a bettor. Winnipeg scores 3 points on the road and many bettors are more likely to look for a Winnipeg rebound and a good showing at home…after all they are pros and have motivation, right? In contrast, with a 3 point showing, bettors don’t usually look for the next game to rebound in the Total market.
It’s generally harder to swallow an over bet when your team just scored 3 points in their last game. Yet, the lines being created all indicate anywhere from 54 to 57 points. My sharp line being the highest at 30-27; or 57 points.
Because of the 3 point game, one could argue that line was going to drop no matter where it opened. Opening the line closer to the predictions with a 53 or 54 point line would have risked a public siding of the Under.
Accordingly, the total opened a little lower, at 50, dropping to 49.5, perhaps because of Winnipeg’s three point outing and a small, but ultimately inconsequential question with their QB. Looking closer, we can realize that, while Winnipeg struggled, it was Edmonton’s defense that may have caused the Winnipeg stumble. But Edmonton’s not in this game, and ratings indicate a higher scoring game, but the line dropped a half point. What gives?
Sure the near goose egg by Winnipeg is influential but I have another assertion. Looking at the markets we see the next day’s game is also sitting at 49.5, but that line opened at 49. I believe both lines have been made to equal 49.5 in effort for opportunistic books, taking advantage of the market factors, to once again split the money, the flow of money that is.
The Over seems like a good bet in this game, especially with line as low as it is, and we may see some late, sharper, action come in lifting that line. Like I said, for the most part the action is probably not very heavy on this game; the books have kept it that way. That said, I am going to pass on the total for now, I think we have some time but feel the clearer bet may be in the next game.
Comment -
This week may already have a mistake. We did not move fast enough on Friday’s Saskatchewan versus Edmonton game. The line opened at Edmonton -11.5. I like the underdog at this level and think Saskatchewan +10.5 is good line. We are currently seeing a 10 point line around the world.
I am now looking at Saskatchewan +10.5 (-120) but will hold off here. The goal is to catch the books with a middle bet. +10.5 and -9.5 are actually not bad shots here.
If I see signs of downward pressure, I may pull the trigger, but the moves may be over now.
Comment -
Just announced that Drew Willy will start for Winnipeg: http://cfl.ca/article/report-willys-...idered-serious. Line has already dropped to +3 and the total bumped up slightly to 50.Comment -
Hey guys, I am new around here, though, I am already impressed by your skills in the art!
I am also using a good old model, I made long time ago, most recently for CFL... I was just reading the posts of KVB, when exactly as he explained, the lines started moving. Pretty right into the bull's eye. My model was giving some values between 51.3 - 52.2 for the BC@WIN game before.
Comment -
I can tell you this much, when a player is listed as “OUT” by Vegas, he is usually out. When a player is listed as “questionable,” there is a question. When a player is listed as “probable,” it almost always means he will be playing.
Winnipeg’s QB has been listed as probable all along. So, now they announce he’s going to play, not really new info to those of us who know, yet the line drops, even below the three.
I believe we have a situation where the books have generated a little early steam on Winnipeg. I figured there would be Winnipeg pressure, and this additional, “apparently” news driven pressure simply makes the BC bet a little sweeter. Around the world the line is -3 and even -2.5 in places. I still think the action isn’t as heavy as it looks and note that Pinny still offer -4.5, is paying +107.
Since the movement has played out so well and I entered the market seemingly early, I am taking advantage of a new market entry point. My current BC -4.5 costs -110, the price wasn’t mentioned above. I am adding British Colombia -2.5 (-110), British Colombia -4.5 (+107) and British Colombia -155 to beat Winnipeg.
I haven’t mentioned a lot about how money management plays into the multiple positions I take on issues, that’s meant for the review. Just know that any of the bold lines bought are, by themselves, considered good buy points.
One may question why I would give up 2 points for a mere +107 at Pinnacle. Let’s just say I know Pinnacle, and win or lose, in this moment that bet is worth it, in my opinion. I am, in a sense, dollar cost averaging.
This last point could be controversial but I’m trying to say that if you didn’t get -4.5 at (-110), don’t be afraid of the (+107). This could be a trap, though not likely, and I supposed the ultimate judge will be whether we get a 4 or 5 point game; but if you are here for the long haul, you should be fine with -4.5 (+107), if here for the short term, take the -2.5 and don’t look back.
Let’s get this.
Comment
