[hels]

I have always viewed flat betting as somewhat of a bumpy ride. Alot of uphills with flat betting.

And the goal is to not crash your car and continue to get better gas mileage each trip you take.

[hels]

Why do you continue to post?

You have already admitted many times before that you no longer wager on sports because once the glory days of arbitrage and bonus whoring dried up you have been unable to adapt and can no longer profit from sports wagering. So just because you are unable to adapt you feel the need to come to the boards everyday and tell everyone that because you are no longer able to profit that it means nobody can????? I hate to break it to you but the way you were making money in the glory days did not make you a genius, any idiot should have been able to arb and whore their way into profits. Get over yourself!!!!!



By far the most idiotic rant I have ever heard from you

If I like the yankees and book A is offering them at -220 and book B is offering them at -190 you are actually going to sit here and tell me that I do not have an increased advantage long term with a lower?

WTF would you flat bet and not exploit your increased advantage????

Excellent point. When online books first started there were discrepancies everywhere with lines. Books were begging you to join and lines were easily exploited.

This reminds me of online poker when it first started. I was propping and getting up to 180% rakeback at some sites. You could easily get 100% or 110% rakeback at so many sites you were stupid to play on stars/party where 30-37% was the max. Mansionpoker was the best as I got in at 160% rakeback. They eventually cut it down but w/e... You can't get these type of rakeback numbers anymore and there aren't many new fish showing up each day.

[jolmscheid]

While I agree that one does not exactly know their edge, I think one can have a range for their bet sizes. For example:

A proposed edge of say 1-3% could be a 1% wager

A proposed edge of 3-5% could be a 1.25% wager

A proposed edge of 5%+ could be a 1.5% wager

This way you are in essence still using the kelly criteria but fractional so that the plays where the edge may be mis-calculated will not kill you. And of course those wager sizes are in relation to ones CURRENT bankroll...

What do you think dark horse, 4LC, and others?

[thetrinity]

ive done everything, but i think the best strategy is to bet a unit every game except for rare situations. teams u have good reads on, multiple trends suggesting one team is a very strong play, etc. in these situations id say bet 1.5-2 units on the games, dont believe in "big bets" where if u lose you put yourself in a big hole.

[broadway6]

They're some 50 pound brains in here. Who knew Sbr had these types of posters.

[wantitall4moi]

Why do you continue to post?

You have already admitted many times before that you no longer wager on sports because once the glory days of arbitrage and bonus whoring dried up you have been unable to adapt and can no longer profit from sports wagering. So just because you are unable to adapt you feel the need to come to the boards everyday and tell everyone that because you are no longer able to profit that it means nobody can????? I hate to break it to you but the way you were making money in the glory days did not make you a genius, any idiot should have been able to arb and whore their way into profits. Get over yourself!!!!!



By far the most idiotic rant I have ever heard from you

If I like the yankees and book A is offering them at -220 and book B is offering them at -190 you are actually going to sit here and tell me that I do not have an increased advantage long term with lower odds?

WTF would you flat bet and not exploit your increased advantage????

I never said I dont bet I said I dont do it for my sole source of income anymore.

Of course you have an advantage at -190 over -220, but that doesnt give you an expectation on how much to bet for kelly. Kelly wants to know your advantage, not how much the price is. So to flip it around do you think your advantage with -190 over -220 is 15%? Thus you would wager whatever Kelly says to wager at -190? If you do then youre a frigging imbecile. All -190 is is a better price. It in no way shape or form should make your expectation any more or less than -220 should. Despite what some people will try and claim.

Flat betting at -190 versus -220 already gives you an advantage as well it is built in to the price difference. If you bet 500 @ -220 youre going to get back 227.27. If you bet 500 @ -190 you will get back 263.16. Where is the need to make a larger bet size?

To ascertain an advantage with 2 different lines on the same team in the same game like this then you have to make a lot of assumptions. One that the book posting -190 is both legit and able to determine 'value' as well as the book that is posting -220. You have to also (guess) why a book is posting a number so far off another books numbers. Now if these numbers come about in a 'normal' course of a betting day then you have to then figure out which number was more 'correct. If it opened -220 and moved to -190 what number is 'stronger'? meaning was the book 'smarter' or the bettors who bet it enough to move it 'smarter'? I know the answer to that , or at least what most people think. That doesnt make it right or wrong. It just represents a move.

But none of this stuff represents an ADVANTAGE in regards to what probability a player has on winning. Which is what Kelly wants to know. It bases the bet size on the probability advantage of the play. So do you take the -220 line and call that a 68.75% win probability but tie it into the -190 line you can get somewhere else? So a -190 line with a 68.75% 'win probability' means you bet 9.375% of your bankroll? Or do you try to be more 'scientific" and call a -220/190 line a 'fair' -205 and calculate your 'advantage' there at 67.2 and use that for your kelly and that gives you a 4.9% bankroll size bet.

All these math formulas and approaches just assume and want you to do way too much. Even if you try and determine your advantage based on two numbers you dont really know if youre right or wrong. Because the only thing that determines that is the result of the contest wagered on.

But if you can tell me the probability of The Yankees winning when you have lines of -190 and -220 based on those odds alone then you can do something no one can do. No matter if the lines were available simultaneously or whether they were available through out the day.

[FourLengthsClear]

While I agree that one does not exactly know their edge, I think one can have a range for their bet sizes. For example:

A proposed edge of say 1-3% could be a 1% wager

A proposed edge of 3-5% could be a 1.25% wager

A proposed edge of 5%+ could be a 1.5% wager

This way you are in essence still using the kelly criteria but fractional so that the plays where the edge may be mis-calculated will not kill you. And of course those wager sizes are in relation to ones CURRENT bankroll...

What do you think dark horse, 4LC, and others?

It really depends on how confident you are on your calculated edge and what the basis is for that confidence is.

If you have a model (or other method) that has and continues to produce good results in terms of a) the closing line being closer to your projection than the line I bet and b) real world results - over many thousands of plays then your main concern is maximising growth.

You can never "know" your edge for a given wager and rule number one (no matter whether you are flat betting or using any graduated method) is not to over bet. If you have a reasonable basis trusting your calculated edge then fractional Kelly is the way to go. If you do not have that reasonable basis then Kelly should not be used and it is probably the case that should not be making any play.

[wantitall4moi]

I should amend what I said above -190 is only advantageous if you like that side. -190/+170 or so will be the line at that book. -220/+190 more than likely at the other. So obviously if you like the opposite side then you'll then have to compare +170 and +190. Value and advantage is always in the eye of the beholder. Which adds yet another wrinkle into this whole discussion.

[jolmscheid]

Good point 4LC...can I ask, in your opinion, what is the MAX edge you think there is? I mean, my model has been doing well, but sometimes my model has a 10%+ edge....that's where the kelly betting then gets HUGE...that's kind of why I was considering a range of edges...

[FourLengthsClear]

Good point 4LC...can I ask, in your opinion, what is the MAX edge you think there is? I mean, my model has been doing well, but sometimes my model has a 10%+ edge....that's where the kelly betting then gets HUGE...that's kind of why I was considering a range of edges...

Varies a lot from sport to sport and bet type.

I have seen prop bets that were hideously mispriced giving +EV of 30+%. OTOH in major sports/leagues sides/totals anything over 6 or 7% would tend to suggest something is wrong with the model.

[dj_destroyer]

Fractional Kelly will be your best friend in that case.

But the more probable case is that your model is wrong and you don't have a 10% edge.

[dj_destroyer]

FLC said it quicker and more informatively. Too sharp for me.

[jolmscheid]

Varies a lot from sport to sport and bet type.

I have seen prop bets that were hideously mispriced giving +EV of 30+%. OTOH in major sports/leagues sides/totals anything over 6 or 7% would tend to suggest something is wrong with the model.

Thanks 4LC...that's kinda what I figured!

[hutennis]

This is about as productive as trying to debate a creationist on the age of the planet. If one believes it impossible for a probability estimation to have any value whatsoever, the other points are totally irrelevant.

Who is a creationist here?

I don't know whether it is possible or not to outperform odds setters. All I'm saying I don't see any credible evidence supporting claim that it is.

It seems that even matching (which is not enough by a long shot) their results would be a daunting task giving the fact that one will be fighting an uphill battle against a motivated bunch of skilled professionals armed to the teeth with everything they ever needed to win (unlimited supply of any data imaginable, latest hard/software, proven scientific methods and much, much more)

And what is on another side?
Confused, for the most part, individuals who, after endless moving over excel tables and predictably falling pray to all kinds of fallacies, "discover" new (to them) pattern and, without any consideration that this patter could have been already discovered and priced in by someone else, naively declare it an edge?

I mean, unless you do what you have to do on their level of professionalism and competence, and then some!!!, what do you have going for you, really? Feel for the game? C'mon!

[FourLengthsClear]

Who is a creationist here?

I don't know whether it is possible or not to outperform odds setters. All I'm saying I don't see any credible evidence supporting claim that it is.

It seems that even matching (which is not enough by a long shot) their results would be a daunting task giving the fact that one will be fighting an uphill battle against a motivated bunch of skilled professionals armed to the teeth with everything they ever needed to win (unlimited supply of any data imaginable, latest hard/software, proven scientific methods and much, much more)

And what is on another side?
Confused, for the most part, individuals who, after endless moving over excel tables and predictably falling pray to all kinds of fallacies, "discover" new (to them) pattern and, without any consideration that this patter could have been already discovered and priced in by someone else, naively declare it an edge?

I mean, unless you do what you have to do on their level of professionalism and competence, and then some!!!, what do you have going for you, really? Feel for the game? C'mon!

Opening lines should therefore be as close/far from real world results as closing lines, right?

[jgilmartin]

Opening lines should therefore be as close/far from real world results as closing lines, right?

Damn it, FLC, you are too fast .

[hutennis]

All the way from open to close you are fighting against timing, randomness and juice, which does not make your overall task any easier.

[FourLengthsClear]

All the way from open to close you are fighting against timing, randomness and juice, which does not make your overall task any easier.

You avoided the question. If closing lines were demonstrated to be a better representation of a fair line than opening lines over a sample of 10s of thousands, what would that suggest?

[Darkside Magick]

all i know by studying the kelly papers, reading the materials from "fortune's formula" and looking at data. kelly betting beats flat betting by lights years...in one parts of the data ...each betting system was given a $1 to start with. the systems was

1.bet-it-all
2.martingale
3.flat betting
4.full kelly


after 500 bets..bet it all was broke after 3 bets....martingale was broke after 19 bets

flat betting made 7 dollars..the kelly bettor made 74.16


with half kelly ..the bettor made 16.07 ...more than double than the flat bettor


each bet had a 55% prob.

[wantitall4moi]

Opening lines should therefore be as close/far from real world results as closing lines, right?

In the major spread based sports they are. Basically openers are around 11.8 points 'off'; closers are 11.9 off by average. So if you want to get hyper technical openers (books numbers) are 'better' but for the most part none of them are all that close.

[hutennis]

I'd say that for the purpose of making money it is irrelevant.
At any point up to close it is an opener + all additional factors and information that arrived randomly, absorbed by market and then spitted out nicely juiced up.
So yes, added to your original task of outperforming pros on a initial probability estimate now you have to deal with randomness having an implacable timing doing so. And a juice of course.

[SportsMushroom]

all i know by studying the kelly papers, reading the materials from "fortune's formula" and looking at data. kelly betting beats flat betting by lights years...in one parts of the data ...each betting system was given a $1 to start with. the systems was

1.bet-it-all
2.martingale
3.flat betting
4.full kelly


after 500 bets..bet it all was broke after 3 bets....martingale was broke after 19 bets

flat betting made 7 dollars..the kelly bettor made 74.16


with half kelly ..the bettor made 16.07 ...more than double than the flat bettor


each bet had a 55% prob.

doesnt kelly adjust your unit size according to your edge?

if every bet had a 55% chance of winning, then you would end up betting the exact same amount on every bet

so in essence flat betting and kelly should have produced the same results, what am I not getting?

[Darkside Magick]

doesnt kelly adjust your unit size according to your edge?

if every bet had a 55% chance of winning, then you would end up betting the exact same amount on every bet

so in essence flat betting and kelly should have produced the same results, what am I not getting?

the flat bettor do not adjust..he bet the same amount every time...the prob is the edge in essence

the kelly bettor readjust after every bet

[SportsMushroom]

the flat bettor do not adjust..he bet the same amount every time...the prob is the edge in essence

the kelly bettor readjust after every bet

then the results are skewed and biased


flat bettors like me adjust unit size as bank roll grows

the results of the study would have been more or less the same for flat and kelly betting had unit size been adjusted for flat betting as bankroll grew


like all biased experiments and studies, a desired result was selected and the tests were run in such a way as to guarantee the desired result



the only reason to use kelly over flat betting is to make sure you bet more when you have a bigger edge, but the truth is most people dont know how to calculate their edge accurately, and the rest think that they can


calculating your edge involves a lot of subjective calculations, you ask 100 people to calculate the edge on the same bet, each one will come up with a different figure, and although kelly can lead to faster BR growth, it can also lead to $0 balance just as fast

[Darkside Magick]

in the study the flat/fixed bettor started with 10% of the the dollar and and does not vary...basically in the study the flat/fixed bettor use 10 per cent of bankroll on each bet and it does readjust after each bet

[SportsMushroom]

in the study the flat/fixed bettor started with 10% of the the dollar and and does not vary...basically in the study the flat/fixed bettor use 10 per cent of bankroll on each bet and it does readjust after each bet

Im sorry you will have to explain it better, I dont understand

[wantitall4moi]

Because that 'test' has a built in assumption of a winning record of course a system that says bet more with a bigger chance of winning is going to out perform other approaches. Full kelly at 55% and -110 is 5.5% I think. So if a flat bettor wagers 5.5% of their bankroll and increases their amount as their bankroll grows they will stay right in line with kelly.

People took a result and worked backwards to get the scenario they wanted. That is the biggest flaw when guys start trying to use math, and I have mentioned it in this thread about 3 times now.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I never said I dont bet I said I dont do it for my sole source of income anymore.

Of course you have an advantage at -190 over -220, but that doesnt give you an expectation on how much to bet for kelly. Kelly wants to know your advantage, not how much the price is. So to flip it around do you think your advantage with -190 over -220 is 15%? Thus you would wager whatever Kelly says to wager at -190? If you do then youre a frigging imbecile. All -190 is is a better price. It in no way shape or form should make your expectation any more or less than -220 should. Despite what some people will try and claim.

Flat betting at -190 versus -220 already gives you an advantage as well it is built in to the price difference. If you bet 500 @ -220 youre going to get back 227.27. If you bet 500 @ -190 you will get back 263.16. Where is the need to make a larger bet size?

To ascertain an advantage with 2 different lines on the same team in the same game like this then you have to make a lot of assumptions. One that the book posting -190 is both legit and able to determine 'value' as well as the book that is posting -220. You have to also (guess) why a book is posting a number so far off another books numbers. Now if these numbers come about in a 'normal' course of a betting day then you have to then figure out which number was more 'correct. If it opened -220 and moved to -190 what number is 'stronger'? meaning was the book 'smarter' or the bettors who bet it enough to move it 'smarter'? I know the answer to that , or at least what most people think. That doesnt make it right or wrong. It just represents a move.

But none of this stuff represents an ADVANTAGE in regards to what probability a player has on winning. Which is what Kelly wants to know. It bases the bet size on the probability advantage of the play. So do you take the -220 line and call that a 68.75% win probability but tie it into the -190 line you can get somewhere else? So a -190 line with a 68.75% 'win probability' means you bet 9.375% of your bankroll? Or do you try to be more 'scientific" and call a -220/190 line a 'fair' -205 and calculate your 'advantage' there at 67.2 and use that for your kelly and that gives you a 4.9% bankroll size bet.

All these math formulas and approaches just assume and want you to do way too much. Even if you try and determine your advantage based on two numbers you dont really know if youre right or wrong. Because the only thing that determines that is the result of the contest wagered on.

But if you can tell me the probability of The Yankees winning when you have lines of -190 and -220 based on those odds alone then you can do something no one can do. No matter if the lines were available simultaneously or whether they were available through out the day.

You have to be the worst poster of all time.

[135steward]

You avoided the question. If closing lines were demonstrated to be a better representation of a fair line than opening lines over a sample of 10s of thousands, what would that suggest?

I'm not looking for a fight. But to answer your question: More information is available at the close than at the open.

[FourLengthsClear]

I'm not looking for a fight. But to answer your question: More information is available at the close than at the open.

True enough and that kinda fits with the statement made by hutennis earlier.

It is, of course, impossible to quantify what it is that generates line movement in terms of "new information" versus "weight/source of money", however I am sure that very few would dispute a correlation between market depth (volume) and efficiency.

There will always be those who say that edge cannot be quantified with sufficient accuracy for Kelly to be used viably in sports betting. They are entitled to that POV.

[That Foreign Guy]

I bet 0.1% of my bankroll for every post in the most recent thread in think tank about flat betting or Kelly.

[wantitall4moi]

True enough and that kinda fits with the statement made by hutennis earlier.

It is, of course, impossible to quantify what it is that generates line movement in terms of "new information" versus "weight/source of money", however I am sure that very few would dispute a correlation between market depth (volume) and efficiency.

There will always be those who say that edge cannot be quantified with sufficient accuracy for Kelly to be used viably in sports betting. They are entitled to that POV.

Not true Vegas Superbowl results show it. Vegas has won 20 of the last 22 superbowls. Even without factoring in Props. That game obviously takes in the most volume. I would also be willing to say that world cup games in Soccer are no more efficient than any run of the mill sports offering on a Tuesday night.

Lines go up and down based on guys thinking they see a bargain. This whole 'market' phenomenon is simply one of the more current sale pitches guys who think they are smart like to spout about. Ask Fezzik how the market was this year. Or anyone who tries and beats steam or 'market' moves. They all got buried. basically because the moves where not even close to being right.

Obviously without full disclosure of action from books or their 'rules' as to why lines do what they do it is all still speculation. But despite all these new and improved ways of gambling vegas and the offshore books all somehow seem to not only stay in business but flourish. While citing reduced limits and books running scared can be valid, most any book in Vegas will take any size bet during the Super Bowl, so that basically contradicts your whole statement right there. As it pertains to high volume and 'efficiency of market'.

[jgilmartin]

In the major spread based sports they are. Basically openers are around 11.8 points 'off'; closers are 11.9 off by average. So if you want to get hyper technical openers (books numbers) are 'better' but for the most part none of them are all that close.

Hmm...not sure on your 1. timeframe, 2. sportsbook(s) source, or 3. what you consider to be "major spread sports", but if you take the past 5 seasons of NBA and NFL spreads:

NBA
-----
Opener was off by an average of 9.18 points
Closer was off by an average of 9.13 points
If you had bet every opener that eventually closed at a worse price, you would have hit 53.2%

NFL
-----
Opener was off by an average of 10.96 points
Closer was off by an average of 10.89 points
If you had bet every opener that eventually closed at a worse price, you would have hit 54.0%

Clearly a hypothetical scenario, but to suggest that openers are as sharp or sharper than closers is simply not accurate (in major markets at least).

[FourLengthsClear]

Hmm...not sure on your 1. timeframe, 2. sportsbook(s) source, or 3. what you consider to be "major spread sports", but if you take the past 5 seasons of NBA and NFL spreads:

NBA
-----
Opener was off by an average of 9.18 points
Closer was off by an average of 9.13 points
If you had bet every opener that eventually closed at a worse price, you would have hit 53.2%

NFL
-----
Opener was off by an average of 10.96 points
Closer was off by an average of 10.89 points
If you had bet every opener that eventually closed at a worse price, you would have hit 54.0%

Clearly a hypothetical scenario, but to suggest that openers are as sharp or sharper than closers is simply not accurate (in major markets at least).

Quite. A mean average is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

[FourLengthsClear]

a) Not true Vegas Superbowl results show it. Vegas has won 20 of the last 22 superbowls. Even without factoring in Props. That game obviously takes in the most volume. I would also be willing to say that world cup games in Soccer are no more efficient than any run of the mill sports offering on a Tuesday night.

Lines go up and down based on guys thinking they see a bargain. This whole 'market' phenomenon is simply one of the more current sale pitches guys who think they are smart like to spout about. Ask Fezzik how the market was this year. Or anyone who tries and beats steam or 'market' moves. They all got buried. basically because the moves where not even close to being right.

Obviously without full disclosure of action from books or their 'rules' as to why lines do what they do it is all still speculation. But despite all these new and improved ways of gambling vegas and the offshore books all somehow seem to not only stay in business but flourish. While citing reduced limits and books running scared can be valid, most any book in Vegas will take any size bet during the Super Bowl, so that basically contradicts your whole statement right there. As it pertains to high volume and 'efficiency of market'.

a) You are arguing against yourself. The mist efficient market should be the hardest to beat for the player, right?

b) You are willing to say lots of things, nearly all of which are complete garbage.