I want answers on line number theory

[Snowball]

At a time when so many bettors glance at a line, and go with their gut... or sometimes when near-instantaneous decisions are required... do you have an unlucky or lucky line preference? There is stats on this... somewhere. Even if they've never been tabulated, a near-impossible achievement, but today, recently, not impossible with the right software, and access... there are answers. REAL NUMBERS on this.. but what are they? My experience suggests...

-1000 bad
-900 good
-850 bad
-800 good
-750 bad
-725 bad
-700 good
-650 good
-600 bad
-550 bad
-500 bad
-475 good
-450 good
-425 bad
-400 bad
-375 bad
-350 good
-325 bad
-300 good
-280 bad
-270 bad
-265 good
-260 bad
-255 bad
-250 bad
-245 bad
-240 good
-235 good
-225 bad
-220 bad
-215 good
-210 bad
-200 good
-195 bad
-190 good
-185 good
-180 bad
-175 bad
-170 bad
-165 good
-160 good
-155 bad
-150 good
-145 bad
-140 bad
-135 bad
-130 good
-125 good
-120 bad
-115 good
-110 neutral
+100 good
+105 bad
+110 good
+115 bad
+120 bad
+130 bad
+135 good
+140 bad
+145 good
+150 bad
+155 bad
+160 bad
+165 good
+170 good
+175 bad
etc.

[d2bets]

lololol which book?

If -850 is bad and -800 is good then what happens when one book has -850 and the other has -800?

Line number theory is a figment of your imagination and biases.

[Snowball]

lololol which book?

If -850 is bad and -800 is good then what happens when one book has -850 and the other has -800?

Line number theory is a figment of your imagination and biases.

The book doesn't matter at all.
How can you say it's a figment of my imagination without data ?
Do you reckon every line is exactly .500 +/- .005 ? I doubt it.

[d2bets]

The book doesn't matter at all.
How can you say it's a figment of my imagination without data ?
Do you reckon every line is exactly .500 +/- .005 ? I doubt it.

So if -800 is good and -750 is bad:
Book 1: Team A -800/Team B +600
Book 2: Team A -750/Team B +550

Is Team A good or bad? Depends on which book I reference? Makes no sense. So you're going to lay -800 because you're lucky at that number but won't lay -750 because that isn't lucky?

See how stupid this is? I don't need data for hocus pocus.

[Bostongambler]

Only way to play into it and even then the house hold has the advantage is parlay once it crosses nearer to the -750.

[Snowball]

So if -800 is good and -750 is bad:
Book 1: Team A -800/Team B +600
Book 2: Team A -750/Team B +550

Is Team A good or bad? Depends on which book I reference? Makes no sense. So you're going to lay -800 because you're lucky at that number but won't lay -750 because that isn't lucky?

See how stupid this is? I don't need data for hocus pocus.

Lines are fungible. Why end with two? What if there are 3,4, even 50 lines on any given event with live action. In the course of an event, the line moves many times. So you've got the opener, without much variation.. then you've got the LM, with some variation, then the live action that is all over the place.. None of which matters if the numbers at all times are crunched to a sum total of bets placed, at each number. After the tally of all bets and all odds taken is delivered, the experiment repeats until a data sheet develops. Lines without bets do not count.

[Snowball]

Only way to play into it and even then the house hold has the advantage is parlay once it crosses nearer to the -750.

You could look at all the bets you've made and discover some rather interesting data. Lucky numbers might be different for each person, but I suspect some are just bad lines and others are better lines. It could have to do with the extent of expected advantage. For example, -120 is a little juiced but not enough to be considered a substantial team advantage. It's a suckers bet. Why is -170 a bad bet, because it lacks the conviction of -200. You pick one of these decent lines and martingale it. Show me how many -150's in a row will lose. People martingale teams, but teams go on losing streaks. Odds ? I doubt it. There is no physical correlation. No coin flip. No loaded die. Track the -200s and wait for two in a row to lose, then chase it. Or, for less risk, chase dog lines.

[d2bets]

You could look at all the bets you've made and discover some rather interesting data. Lucky numbers might be different for each person, but I suspect some are just bad lines and others are better lines. It could have to do with the extent of expected advantage. For example, -120 is a little juiced but not enough to be considered a substantial team advantage. It's a suckers bet. Why is -170 a bad bet, because it lacks the conviction of -200. You pick one of these decent lines and martingale it. Show me how many -150's in a row will lose. People martingale teams, but teams go on losing streaks. Odds ? I doubt it. There is no physical correlation. No coin flip. No loaded die. Track the -200s and wait for two in a row to lose, then chase it. Or, for less risk, chase dog lines.

Dude, I thought you were smarter than this.

If you notice something like this in your results, it's because the sample size is small.

[Bostongambler]

You could look at all the bets you've made and discover some rather interesting data. Lucky numbers might be different for each person, but I suspect some are just bad lines and others are better lines. It could have to do with the extent of expected advantage. For example, -120 is a little juiced but not enough to be considered a substantial team advantage. It's a suckers bet. Why is -170 a bad bet, because it lacks the conviction of -200. You pick one of these decent lines and martingale it. Show me how many -150's in a row will lose. People martingale teams, but teams go on losing streaks. Odds ? I doubt it. There is no physical correlation. No coin flip. No loaded die. Track the -200s and wait for two in a row to lose, then chase it. Or, for less risk, chase dog lines.

You lost me at lucky numbers. Three words that always rein true. “Math Don’t lie”

[Snowball]

Dude, I thought you were smarter than this.

If you notice something like this in your results, it's because the sample size is small.

You know, part of being "smart" is asking questions and thinking them through once you have enough to decide whether or not something should be dismissed or explored. I'm not committing to an opinion on this. I'm just throwing it up for discussion.

I do suspect there are better lines than others, both on the ML and the ATS.

Is that a possibility that you categorically reject?

[d2bets]

You know, part of being "smart" is asking questions and thinking them through once you have enough to decide whether or not something should be dismissed or explored. I'm not committing to an opinion on this. I'm just throwing it up for discussion.

I do suspect there are better lines than others, both on the ML and the ATS.

Is that a possibility that you categorically reject?

I'm not sure what "better lines than others" means. I always want a better line, obviously.

[Barrakuda]

This thread is sad.

[semibluff]

Saloon.

[TommieGunshot]

This thread is sad.

I love it. One of the best things I've ever seen here. Please come up with more stuff like this.

[Mike Huntertz]

You lost me at lucky numbers. Three words that always rein true. “Math Don’t lie”

Yup, math don't lie.

[d2bets]

Yup, math don't lie.

Needs to be on an SBR t-shirt.

Front: Math Don't Lie!
Back: But thomorino does!

[pavyracer]

The line doesn't win games. Being on the right side of the fix is what matters.

[OldBill]

I want 3 minutes of my life back after reading this

[johnnyvegas13]

This can’t b a real thing

[slapshot]

At a time when so many bettors glance at a line, and go with their gut... or sometimes when near-instantaneous decisions are required... do you have an unlucky or lucky line preference? There is stats on this... somewhere. Even if they've never been tabulated, a near-impossible achievement, but today, recently, not impossible with the right software, and access... there are answers. REAL NUMBERS on this.. but what are they? My experience suggests...

-1000 bad
-900 good
-850 bad
-800 good
-750 bad
-725 bad
-700 good
-650 good
-600 bad
-550 bad
-500 bad
-475 good
-450 good
-425 bad
-400 bad
-375 bad
-350 good
-325 bad
-300 good
-280 bad
-270 bad
-265 good
-260 bad
-255 bad
-250 bad
-245 bad
-240 good
-235 good
-225 bad
-220 bad
-215 good
-210 bad
-200 good

how big is your sample size?
obscure patterns can be found in small sample sizes.

do you mean these good and bad lines applies to moneyline or draw option also?
any league.....any sport?

[TheGoldenGoose]

I’ve been playing around with a moneyline parlay system in ncaa baskets. It’s funny how you started with -1000 because that’s where I find the losing ends and the winning starts.

-13 pts roughly equivalent to -1000 ml.
-14 = -1250
-15 = -1450
-16 = -1650
-17 = -1750
Parlay 7 or 8 of these lines seams to work but there are random variables that can rear it’s ugly head. Road games, injures, etc.

[TheGoldenGoose]

BTW this Thread reminds me of a detailed discussion across the street at covers.com some years ago where a baseball line of -210 was constantly a loser as opposed to -200 which won consistently more often.
Go figure.