POLL: Does a line reflect probability?

[WendysRox]

Moved this to PT. It might have been HTT-ish, but I think Wendy is just stirring up stuff.

In this thread, you can unleash a little more anger if you like.

OK... maybe I am confused as to what the different forums are for. Sorry for mis-posting. And, no I'm not just stirring stuff up. After posting in a few other threads, it seemed to me that some people thought the lines can predict probability, that's all. And, I thought that was absurd, so I said so. Didn't know you had to agree with the vets around here or keep your mouth shut.

[WendysRox]

You would expect the +140 dog to win 100/(100+140) or ~42% of the time.

If we look at Pinnacle's moneylines for NFL preseason, we can see that this roughly equates to a spread of +3/-3. Yes, this isn't ideal, but I don't have historical moneylines along with my spread info. Someone please correct me if a +140 dog is not equal to roughly a +3 spread.

However, Lo and behold, looking at my (again, questionable) historical data, I see -3 faves winning outright at a ~58.85% clip.

How are probabilities not involved here?

If this is true, than I will be the first to admit that I am wrong. Can you supply an easy way to confirm this? Perhaps a spreadsheet link or something?

[sharpcat]

You do not have to agree with the vets I think many in the think tank are there because they are looking for new ideas that may help open their mind and may assist them in advancing their game.

What you are doing is attempting to reinvent the wheel by introducing a block with an axle on it. Basically the idea you are presenting is elementary level handicapping, it is the most basic theory of the book making industry that beginning handicappers are introduced to it is nothing new. Yes books move lines when action is unbalanced because unbalanced action is an indicator that their original assessment of the outcome of the event was not accurate.

If a MLB game is set with a total of 7 -110/-110 this implies that there is a 50% chance that the game goes over 7 and a 50% chance it goes under 7.

[WendysRox]

You do not have to agree with the vets I think many in the think tank are there because they are looking for new ideas that may help open their mind and may assist them in advancing their game.

What you are doing is attempting to reinvent the wheel by introducing a block with an axle on it. Basically the idea you are presenting is elementary level handicapping, it is the most basic theory of the book making industry that beginning handicappers are introduced to it is nothing new. Yes books move lines when action is unbalanced because unbalanced action is an indicator that their original assessment of the outcome of the event was not accurate.

If a MLB game is set with a total of 7 -110/-110 this implies that there is a 50% chance that the game goes over 7 and a 50% chance it goes under 7.

Man, I'm really not trying to be a pain in the ass here. And, I'll totally agree that I am a beginner in these areas. I guess I'm, no... I KNOW I'm stubborn. And, I am just not yet convinced that the bold part of your statement is true. I would say that they adjust their line because unbalanced action is an indicator that their original assessment of the action on the event was not accurate.

But, it's time to go home from work and drink a frosty beverage with the fiance... So, I'll bid you farewell until tomorrow. No hard feelings... but you could be a little nicer to the n00bs around here

[WendysRox]

I compare sports betting and the racing parimutuelsas all in the same. The public and sharps together make the final odds. The favorite to the longest priced horse. The favorite usually looks like the winner and the longest odds looks like a last place finisher. The odds in the LONG RUN will reflect this. The shorter odds animals will win the most and the odds get longer from there. The trick is to find those dogs or horses in certain races where the odds don't match your opinion on what the track odds dictate. The favorite doesn't always take first and the longest shot on the board does win sometimes and all those horses in between finish first sometimes also.

So it's the same thing with sports betting. Find those teams where there is value in the odds.

I agree with this by the way...

[WendysRox]

The stats cited in Post #13 don't do anything to refute the basic known empirical fact that a higher percentage of 10-point NFL favorites win than 7-point favorites, who in turn win at a higher rate than 3-point favorites, who in turn win at a higher rate than 3-point underdogs, etc. etc.

and i agree with this.

[ProfaneReality]

The public is almost irrelevant. They merely contribute money to the pool, which feeds sportsbooks and professional players.

and, SBR

you pompous douche.

[jerryhugo]

LOL. If you even knew a single local, you'd know that they have an unbalanced position on most NFL games. They are gambling, but +110 beats coinflippers in the long run. Furthermore, since they accept parlays, do you really think they have balanced action on every possible parlay combination that they take? ROFL.

i agree with that

[WendysRox]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcowley
LOL. If you even knew a single local, you'd know that they have an unbalanced position on most NFL games. They are gambling, but +110 beats coinflippers in the long run. Furthermore, since they accept parlays, do you really think they have balanced action on every possible parlay combination that they take? ROFL.

i agree with that



Actually, I do as well... I was speaking about "even action" with regard to the larger offshore books. As for the locals that I know, they WILL lay off larger wagers occassionally. But, then again, as I said before, most locals are gamblers themselves. They are just gambling that the public is going to lose in the long run, a notion with which I also agree.