is this guy skilled or is this guy lucky

[danshan11]

kinda seems to me like both

he is saying the ROI should be 2% but its actually 6%, any opinions from anyone what is going on?

https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Betting-Strategy/using-closing-line-to-test-betting-skill/7E6JWJM5YKEJUWKQ

[MC PICKS]

You make your own luck.

[MC PICKS]

[jjgold]

All bs

[Hman]

You make your own luck.

[danshan11]

my argument is if closing line value is accurate and he shows he should get 2% ROI and if he is actually getting 6% roi over 1200 records it seems to me
A survivorship bias
B the line is not accurate
or maybe a combo

can we actually use closing lIne to estimate ROI or not?

[danshan11]

nobody has an opinion on this, I am really curious the variation of CLV to ROI is curious at least

[Bostongambler]

Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

[danshan11]

yeah inspiring LOL
I am curious how a 2.5% expected ROI turns into a 6% actually ROI

[Biff41]

The books are hiring math wonks and cappers who use the best statistical systems and come up with a reasonably accurate line. There may be a few (very few) cappers out there who combine statistics with other methods. Maybe a capper is good with the emotions or motivations of a team..maybe a capper has some psychic or remote view skills. Who knows but if it works it works.

[danshan11]

the bettor seems to think the CLV is important and the article does not seem to try or know what is the explanation of this increased actual ROI

[Biff41]

I am not a math guy but am just guessing that suppose a third of the bettors in his sample use a system that doesnt involve following changes in odds, they simply bet the team they think will win. The other 2/3 of sample bettors either have 2 systems one of which involves monitoring line changes or some of the second group make their decision solely based on line changes. So the group doing line change only capping would have to be weeded out to get a closer closing profit comparison.

[danshan11]

it is only one bettor's record

[danshan11]

the 1100 bets he reviewed are 1 bettors and he beat the line by 2.5% but was winning at 6%

[danshan11]

I contacted Joseph B and he said the bettor is now at 2500 bets and everything is the same

all major markets and his ROI is roughly 6% and the expected ROI is still 2.6%

what the heck is going on here, I am so confused!

[RangeFinder]

the bettor seems to think the CLV is important and the article does not seem to try or know what is the explanation of this increased actual ROI

Very simple to explain. His sample size is not large enough. When he gets to over 10k events, his actual ROI will be much closer to his expectations if he his accurate with his line as compared to the books closing number.

[danshan11]

2500 bets is not a good enough sample size?

[RangeFinder]

2500 bets is not a good enough sample size?

No, not even close. You need about 10,000 samples to determine whether or not there is an actual edge mathematically. Statistics 101.

[danshan11]

No, not even close. You need about 10,000 samples to determine whether or not there is an actual edge mathematically. Statistics 101.

man that PHD Joseph Buchdahl has in math is useless, he says the chance of that guy being lucky is 18 deviations off. he also said it is damn near impossible what he is doing by luck, I think he used 1 in gazillion 10 zeros!
what an idiot wonder how he wrote all those books and does all those statistic classes ???