Settle This For Me ... PLEASE

[EaglesPhan36]

For those who have missed CrazyLou's tennis threads this week, the subject of "value" is being brought to the forefront. The claims have been made by many on the board.

If I beat the line that everyone else gets, I'll be a winner in the long run.

Or something along those lines. Lou even went as far as to say that the outcome of the bet was irrelevant as he felt it was most important to be getting the most value on a line. That I find utterly ridiculous, but like I said I want to hear everyone else on this.

Now sure, I do agree that if I like a bet I'll feel bad if I get it at say -130 when everyone else got it at say +100 or -110 or something like that ... but at the end of the day if it's a winner, it's a winner. If it's a loser, it's a loser.

Chime in here ...

A. Value
B. Correct Picks

I'm sure the mathematicians amongst us will chime in with the value argument and I would like to hear it, but for me there's one goal in this game and two things you do get there.

Goal: Making $$$$
Road to $$$$: Pick Winners, Manage Money

So let's hear it, I want to see all the different sides of this argument for both "value" and "winning".

[Irish Jet]

The outcome irrelevant?

LOL

[Justin7]

If you get value, you'll win long-term. I'm more impressed by someone that gets value than picks correctly. Any idiot can guess "heads or tails" correctly. But if you can tell me that Google will go up $20 tomorrow before it does, I'm on it.

[Mudcat]

Now sure, I do agree that if I like a bet I'll feel bad if I get it at say -130 when everyone else got it at say +100 or -110 or something like that ... but at the end of the day if it's a winner, it's a winner. If it's a loser, it's a loser.

That's short-sighted in my book.

As far as I'm concerned finding value on lines is everything. It's the difference between winning and losing.



Now DO NOT take this to mean I am backing Lou on the way he does things.

[pavyracer]

If the bet loses and you beat the closing line the only value is losing slightly less than what you would have lost with a bad line.

If the bet wins is irrelevant because both lines, closing line and the earlier better one, are causing losses to the book.

In my 25 years of gambling I have never met a book manager saying: "Well we got beat by 1000 bettors today but we were lucky only 200 beat the closing line."

[SBR Lou]

The outcome irrelevant?

LOL

The outcome of one individual game is totally irrelevant. If I am getting the best available number and I know what the fair value of the line is, why would it matter to me if the pick lost that day? It means virtually nothing, I feel no elation if it wins and I don't steam if it loses.

I think anyone who feels the highs and lows after a win or loss is probably not managing their risk well.

[Chi_archie]

the diff between the "best" cappers and the "worst cappers.... might be like 3-4.5% at most over a period of 2-3 years... and both those extremes prob only encompass 2% or so on either end of the bell curve... the other 94% of people that are hitting between 49-51% NEED to line shop, and get the best number, find +ev bets, beat the closer, take advantage of any arb or scalp situations..... if we hope to make any long term profit....

[EaglesPhan36]

Lou, I just won't ever understand your reasoning on this. The emotional part, yes that makes sense. If you experience highs and lows, you'll be making bets larger than you can afford.

I understand about finding fair value or thinking you have found fair value, but to say the outcome of an "individual" wager does not matter makes zero.zero.zero sense to me. Those individual wagers are what add up to a net loss or a net profit regardless of your value found in a line. From what you say, you are happier to beat the closing line rather than getting a winning pick. Again, totally baffles me unless you're speaking Albanian and I am speaking English.

[SBR Lou]

I understand about finding fair value or thinking you have found fair value, but to say the outcome of an "individual" wager does not matter makes zero.zero.zero sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. If I know what my edge is, I can calculate what % of the time I can expect to lose. It sounds like you might be too concerned with short-term results.

From what you say, you are happier to beat the closing line rather than getting a winning pick.

I'd rather lose with a good number than win with a bad one because I know the latter will just be as a result of getting lucky.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Lou, you said a -560 play had a fair value of -800.

How did you come up with this?

[Irish Jet]

The outcome of one individual game is totally irrelevant. If I am getting the best available number and I know what the fair value of the line is, why would it matter to me if the pick lost that day? It means virtually nothing, I feel no elation if it wins and I don't steam if it loses.

I think anyone who feels the highs and lows after a win or loss is probably not managing their risk well.

I disagree with this. I think it's natural to be happy after winning money regardless of how it was won.

I agree that value is important in the long term, but the outcome is relevant, that's where the money is.

You saw great value in Jankovic to the point where you said you'd "liquidate your possessions" on her, obviously (I'm hoping) that was exaggerated but it's something that many bettors will do, they will put it all on the line occasionally on a heavy favorite.

Now just because they may have "great value" on that play, do you really think that'll make their loss any less devastating, both financially and emotionally?

Value is important, I've never questioned that but the results, especially with your style of betting (At least from what I've seen so far) on heavy faves is crucial. With the amount people have on favorites, they often can't afford an individual upset.

[EaglesPhan36]

So for example Lou, I know you like Roger Federer tomorrow at -318 or whatever you quoted. So if he wins and you took the line at say -340, you'd consider that winning with "luck" rather than skill because you got a worse line? I'm just going based on what you said.
I'm just trying to understand the rationale here.

[Chi_archie]

Eagles,

I think you and lou are looking at this differently... LOU, is talking long-term.... you're whole career of betting.... say its 30 years.


basically the outcomes don't matter.... in Lou's view is because after 30 years, you will be right around 50% if you aren't a total square..... Lou is taking this into account with his argument.... that you aren't gonna hit 56% over a large sample size..


I think you are looking at it like one play or one night of 3 plays...

yeah you might get horrible lines and go 3-0 on the night and the outcomes DO MATTER...but only in the short term... in the long term it will all even out....

do outcomes matter? sure... but the point is that no one is gonna go 0 for 25,000 plays or 25,000 for 25,000.... pretty much EVERYONE will hit around 12,500 plays out of 25,000... you can pretty much take that to the bank.

where people get in trouble, is going on a good run for a few months or a year... and thinking they are gonna hit 58% forever...

[pavyracer]

If CrazyLou has a bankroll after 30 years losing -500 or more bets frequently I would shave my head if it's not bald by then.

[SBR Lou]

So for example Lou, I know you like Roger Federer tomorrow at -318 or whatever you quoted. So if he wins and you took the line at say -340, you'd consider that winning with "luck" rather than skill because you got a worse line? I'm just going based on what you said.
I'm just trying to understand the rationale here.

If I have a play, I know it has value up to a certain point. The further away from a good number you go the more your edge shrinks, so one needs to determine what the cutoff point actually is and adjust their wager size accordingly.

[Justin7]

So for example Lou, I know you like Roger Federer tomorrow at -318 or whatever you quoted. So if he wins and you took the line at say -340, you'd consider that winning with "luck" rather than skill because you got a worse line? I'm just going based on what you said.
I'm just trying to understand the rationale here.

If you laid -340 when the fair line is -320, you're a chump for taking -340. Win or lose, you were the book's chump.

If you laid -520 when -600 was fair, you're sharp, win or lose. Even if you lost 10 -500 bets in a row.

The real question is: what is the fair number? If you're not asking this, you're not winning.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Price is everything.

[Karayilan9]

The key is finding the balance, there is no point trying to find value if you can't cap a sport. Value is subjective, if you can't make sound picks your looking for value where it can't be found.

You goto learn to walk before you run, focusing solely on value while ignoring your capping is a road to disaster.

Chi_Archie
where people get in trouble, is going on a good run for a few months or a year... and thinking they are gonna hit 58% forever...

Why don't you think a capper can hit 58% or more long term? From my experience it could be attainable.

[sweetjones55]

It's all about wins and losses. I would love to be the "chump" who gets the inflated lines but always wins.

[EaglesPhan36]

If I have a play, I know it has value up to a certain point. The further away from a good number you go the more your edge shrinks, so one needs to determine what the cutoff point actually is and adjust their wager size accordingly.

But you didn't answer the question Lou.


I understand the value in getting a line and not overpaying substantially for one, but I don't think your phrasing that you're "lucky" if you win on a line that is a little inflated is correct.

If you pick Federer based on intangibles, head-2-heads, research, etc. and find him to have the clear edge ... if you pay -318 or -340 and he wins, you did your due diligence and picked a winner if he wins. You're not skilled at -318 and lucky at -340.

I guess that is my problem with some of what you say, semantics and how you phrase it. Thanks to others who have added more explanation too, some I agree with, some I disagree with - but it is all great input.

[betplom]

Going all in an a "value" play is a good idea before the result is known, then when it loses you comfort yourself by talking about the long term importance of getting a good number.

[tacomax]

For those who have missed CrazyLou's tennis threads this week, the subject of "value" is being brought to the forefront. The claims have been made by many on the board.

You're mixing up what CrazyLou says about value and what, say, Justin7 knows about value. My guess is that Crazylou wouldn't know what value is if it pulled down his pants and fukked him in the arse screaming "I AM VALUE, I AM VALUE".

[EaglesPhan36]

[MonkeyF0cker]

But you didn't answer the question Lou.


I understand the value in getting a line and not overpaying substantially for one, but I don't think your phrasing that you're "lucky" if you win on a line that is a little inflated is correct.

If you pick Federer based on intangibles, head-2-heads, research, etc. and find him to have the clear edge ... if you pay -318 or -340 and he wins, you did your due diligence and picked a winner if he wins. You're not skilled at -318 and lucky at -340.

I guess that is my problem with some of what you say, semantics and how you phrase it. Thanks to others who have added more explanation too, some I agree with, some I disagree with - but it is all great input.

Is it lucky if you paid -105 for a coinflip and won? It's lucky to a certain degree but not entirely. You simply overpaid for the wager. Long term you won't find success doing this on a consistent basis as your win percentage will fall in line with the fair odds of your collective wagers in the end.

[Netprofit]

"Value" argument is valid - the only problem with Lou is his value argument is "ARGUMENT" only but no "VALUE" or wrong value assessment, as simple as that.

[tacomax]

If you pick Federer based on intangibles, head-2-heads, research, etc. and find him to have the clear edge ... if you pay -318 or -340 and he wins, you did your due diligence and picked a winner if he wins. You're not skilled at -318 and lucky at -340.

If you take -318 when the true line is -340 then the outcome of the wager isn't relevant. In the long run (or specifically over a large sample size), you'll be a winner. This is like getting +105 odds on a coin-flip.

If you take -340 when the true line is -318 then the outcome of the wager isn't relevant. In the long run (or specifically over a large sample size) you'll be a loser. This is like getting -105 odds on a coin-flip.

[SBR Lou]

You want an example of value: I took Fed at +1150 in early May, before the tournament began he hit as low as +500 some places. And now, he will be favored once he reaches finals.

I also had Nadal to lose at +270, which already hit, when mostly the entire board fancied Nadal at over -300 pre-tourney.

So yes, CrazyLou only bets favorites.

Enjoy the finals, guys. I know I will.

[Netprofit]

Federer will not win - please tell the board when are you hedging instead of claiming that you have done so after he lost.

[SBR Lou]

Federer will not win - please tell the board when are you hedging instead of claiming that you have done so after he lost.

Not hedging.

Also have him as a play over Monfils.

[The HG]

If you laid -340 when the fair line is -320, you're a chump for taking -340. Win or lose, you were the book's chump.

If you laid -520 when -600 was fair, you're sharp, win or lose. Even if you lost 10 -500 bets in a row.

The real question is: what is the fair number? If you're not asking this, you're not winning.

But if you made 10 bets at -520 where the fair line was -600, the chances of you losing 10 in a row would be 1 in 280 million.

So yes if you lay -520 when the fair odds were -600, you are sharp, win or lose. But if you lay -520 thinking the fair odds were -600 and you lose several times in a row, it might be time to rethink your original win/lose-irrelevant satisfaction at having gotten "value" on your bets.

[raydog]

You're mixing up what CrazyLou says about value and what, say, Justin7 knows about value. My guess is that Crazylou wouldn't know what value is if it pulled down his pants and fukked him in the arse screaming "I AM VALUE, I AM VALUE".

haha, this could very well be true. since he posted that the fed/mon line was way off, its done nothing but move against him at pinny. but, here is the problem. with so many bettors placing homer bets with their heart on monfils, is this an accurate way to judge this line? i simply dont agree that if you place bets strictly on where "you" think there is value and dont really care who is playing, if you win at all, its not worth your while. (is lou saying that he would bet on me if i were a +2million dog??? i think thats what he is sayin and you know what...there is still no value there.)

of course, its always best to try to get the best #, that goes without saying. if you only have access to 1 or 2 books, i dont see a way to win if you are just beating a closing line, even if its pinny. there are too many donks who gamble and its a fact that more gamblers lose than win. there has to be some capping involved! the books make a living off of gamblers who "think" they know what a "value" # is.

in my opinion, the reason why guys like justin, nicky and monkey stress the value or best # theory so much is because these guys do more arb/scalping than capping and trying to pick a winner. maybe not monkey as much as the other two, but you know what im saying. if you have access to 20 books or more, yes, it can be more of a numbers game, but i see too many factors mixed in with just trying to beat one books numbers and paying less attention to the capping aspect and actually picking the winner.

[Chi_archie]

The key is finding the balance, there is no point trying to find value if you can't cap a sport. Value is subjective, if you can't make sound picks your looking for value where it can't be found.

You goto learn to walk before you run, focusing solely on value while ignoring your capping is a road to disaster.



Why don't you think a capper can hit 58% or more long term? From my experience it could be attainable.

if you do this for ten years, betting big $ you'll have 5 mansions in 4 countries and 20 cars and a fleet of planes.... I've not heard of too many "professional Gamblers" that are that prosperous

[SBR Lou]

focusing solely on value while ignoring your capping is a road to disaster.

My model knows what players serve % are, what their tendencies are, how they perform when down a set, up two breaks, I can tell you all of this based on surface, situation, whether the event is a major, masters, challenger. That is just scratching the surface and that's just the widely available public information.

When I say looking for "value", I'm not simply talking about beating Pinny by 20 cents, I'm factoring in all of the above and knowing precisely what my edge is in relation to the market.

[EaglesPhan36]

Your model sounds more complex than F-ing particle physics.

[Karayilan9]

EaglesPhan
If you pick Federer based on intangibles, head-2-heads, research, etc. and find him to have the clear edge ... if you pay -318 or -340 and he wins, you did your due diligence and picked a winner if he wins. You're not skilled at -318 and lucky at -340.

In my opinion finding value is important once you've capped the game.

For example, in soccer, the Uefa cup final, I capped Shakhtar Donetsk to win the final as a heavy favorite against Werder Bremen, this was at the time against the general consensus. Bremen were the well known German team, known across Europe, who beat a few favourites like AC Milan and Hamburg to get to their position. Shakhtar were the unheard of Ukranian team who the public thought got to the final by fluke.

Now after I capped Shakhtar, I went onto the next step of trying to find value, they opened @ +200 to lift the cup, I knew it would rise once the public actually found out who Shakhtar was so I took it big. By game time they were +110 and were now favorites and they ended up winning the cup quite convincingly.

There was value for me because of how I capped the game, the value is subjectively based on your picks, if you can't cap you won't find value, that's why its not all about just value in my opinion.