I hate when line movement tricks me into thinking im on the 'right side'

[mofome]

AFAIK it wasn't. It was merely an example to illustrate a point that you clearly made no attempt to understand.

Now, what should have been the point spread for this game that corresponds with your ±900 ML?

exactly. so, asu was the right side if you could get a make-believe line. thanks. bye.

[donjuan]

Uh, no? I got ASU +2.5 -105 and am more than happy with that line, given the closing line at Pinny was ASU +1.

Still waiting on that point spread, but not expecting an answer any time soon because you refuse to admit you were wrong and any answer you give will either make you look like even more of an idiot than normal or will simply prove you wrong.

[mofome]

Uh, no? I got ASU +2.5 -105 and am more than happy with that line, given the closing line at Pinny was ASU +1.

Still waiting on that point spread, but not expecting an answer any time soon because you refuse to admit you were wrong and any answer you give will either make you look like even more of an idiot than normal or will simply prove you wrong.

im wrong, about what? i didnt have asu +3 +100 or asu +17 or any of those right side bets. i had asu +2 and i was on the wrong side. im glad you are happy with the ass kicking you took tonight. pat yourself on the back. i want you to be happy with yourself.


you also said you were going to explain to me how line movement matters, even though i already pointed that obvious fact out today. if we were in a debate, and my stance was that water is not wet, and your stance was that it is, you're still the wrong side. you're dismissed.

[donjuan]

You are quite good at evading the question about what the point spread should have been. Still stand by your "9 times out of 10" abortion of a post?

[mofome]

You are quite good at evading the question about what the point spread should have been. Still stand by your "9 times out of 10" abortion of a post?

eh, maybe asu wouldnt win any of'em? idk.

[donjuan]

OK, you're even dumber than I thought. Good night.

[mofome]

OK, you're even dumber than I thought. Good night.

[Thremp]

mofome,

Are you seriously just a troll? I mean I have nothing better to do right now other than take more money from people I don't know. But really... Are you this fricking stupid or do you just pretend?

[mofome]

mofome,

Are you seriously just a troll? I mean I have nothing better to do right now other than take more money from people I don't know. But really... Are you this fricking stupid or do you just pretend?

what, you cant read? i cleaned up here. do you and your pal always take the wrong side together? not much up for debate here. allow me to recap things for you.

1) asu was the wrong side. don denies that.
2) don said the reason he was here was to let me know that line movement matters. i had already said the exact same thing today. after pointing that out, don kept talking. predictably, don was not being honest with us. thats not very nice of him.
3) your pal said that asu +3 +100 was the right side. if i had said that, you would be calling me an idiot. if i could have hacked into dons name and said something, that would have been it. the lord shined on me and don wrote something that ridiculous. you come at me regardless of the threads content, you just dont like me. thats fine, but dont pretend you've got an actual point here. im not sure why you think you're as intelligent as you think you are, but im happy that you do. the reality of the world need not effect your day.

carry on.

[Thremp]

Okay...

Just saying "I R DROOLUR" would've saved me a lot of reading.

[mofome]

Okay...

Just saying "I R DROOLUR" would've saved me a lot of reading.

i r droolur
what are you stupid
you're dumbo
you stink


yeah, those have been used before. get creative or try to be of some use to someone. you're not one of those guys that got ASU +3 +100 are ya? if so, i apologize, clearly im out of my league in this instance.

[Ganchrow]

For what it's worth this argument actually illustrates quite nicely the contrast between the frequentist approach to probability (highlighted by mofome) and the Bayesian approach (highlighted by donjuan).

donjuan, from his Bayesian perspective, is arguing that the prior probability of an ASU victory may be deduced by examining (among other a priori factors) the price that the marketplace was ascribing to an ASU bet. After the game has concluded, the posterior probability may then be deduced in light of that victory (as but a single realization of the game outcome) but nevertheless tempered by the prior probability estimate.

From mofome's frequentist perspective, however, there's no differentiation between prior and posterior probabilities. The probability of an event is simply defined as the hypothetical relative frequency of the event occurring were it to be repeated an arbitrarily large number of times and (at least in theory) there's absolutely nothing subjective about it.

The big advantage of frequentism is that its conclusions represent an almost Platonic ideal of probability. To the frequentists with their hypothesis tests and Venn diagrams, probability is an objective measure of reality, which even if not precisely knowable (except in the limiting case), can nevertheless be estimated to any arbitrary degree of precision merely by continuing to repeat an experiment. This is attractive because it tends to coincide with what most of us imagine when we consider the concept of probability. This does work extremely well with repeatable events, the likelihood of which can be estimated via the Monte Carlo method (such as, say, the likelihood of dealing a 3-suited flop, or the variance associated with a particular staking strategy).

The intuitive appeal of the frequentist approach, however, is often mitigated by the fact that it's not of as much use in decision theory in general (or sports betting in particular) as the Bayesian approach. While Bayesian inference allows one to determine the (subjective) likelihood of the success of a trial that's never been attempted in the past (such as he likelihood of a given total going over or under in the first game played following a rules change), the very concept of such an estimation isn't even defined within frequentism.

The truth is, however, that while at odds, frequentism and Bayesianism are not mutually exclusive. It's the inability to reconcile the two that leads to flawed modes of thinking such as that evidenced within this post. Sometimes it pays to be a frequentist (such as when estimating the push likelihood of a given spread), and sometimes it just makes more sense to play the role of the Bayesian (such as when deciding whether to place a bet on a game in particular conditioned on that given spread and push likelihood).

Anyway, both belief systems do have their merits. I personally find it interesting that the long-running animosity between Frequentist and Bayesian Tribe members has manged to find its way even onto this forum. It's like the Bloods and the Crips.

As the old saw go, "a frequentist is a person whose long-run ambition is to be wrong 5% of the time," while "a Bayesian is one who, vaguely expecting a horse, and catching a glimpse of a donkey, strongly believes he has seen a mule."

[pico]

i am not sure about "almost always"
what about today´s move on totals PHO/LAC... 106.5 to 109
who can bet over 108.5???
some second half movements are strange tooi do not say "movement is in 50%+ wrong" but "almost always" seems to be strong statement

one thing i have learned from betting half time line is that there are lot of money from people who make 2nd half bets to hedge their game bet. so i see the line move 20 cents one side then all of the sudden moves 40 cents the other way. line movement for 2nd half is really hard to figure out what is going to happen in the 2nd half. even watching the game does not help...sometimes i think 1st half and 2nd half are two complete different games.

[mofome]

Ganchrow, impressive post.

[pico]

For what it's worth this argument actually illustrates quite nicely the contrast between the frequentist approach to probability (highlighted by mofome) and the Bayesian approach (highlighted by donjuan).

donjuan, from his Bayesian perspective, is arguing that the prior probability of an ASU victory may be deduced by examining (among other a priori factors) the price that the marketplace was ascribing to an ASU bet. After the game has concluded, the posterior probability may then be deduced in light of that victory (as but a single realization of the game outcome) but nevertheless tempered by the prior probability estimate.

From mofome's frequentist perspective, however, there's no differentiation between prior and posterior probabilities. The probability of an event is simply defined as the hypothetical relative frequency of the event occurring were it to be repeated an arbitrarily large number of times and (at least in theory) there's absolutely nothing subjective about it.

The big advantage of frequentism is that its conclusions represent an almost Platonic ideal of probability. To the frequentists with their hypothesis tests and Venn diagrams, probability is an objective measure of reality, which even if not precisely knowable (except in the limiting case), can nevertheless be estimated to any arbitrary degree of precision merely by continuing to repeat an experiment. This is attractive because it tends to coincide with what most of us imagine when we consider the concept of probability. This does work extremely well with repeatable events, the likelihood of which can be estimated via the Monte Carlo method (such as, say, the likelihood of dealing a 3-suited flop, or the variance associated with a particular staking strategy).

The intuitive appeal of the frequentist approach, however, is often mitigated by the fact that it's not of as much use in decision theory in general (or sports betting in particular) as the Bayesian approach. While Bayesian inference allows one to determine the (subjective) likelihood of the success of a trial that's never been attempted in the past (such as he likelihood of a given total going over or under in the first game played following a rules change), the very concept of such an estimation isn't even defined within frequentism.

The truth is, however, that while at odds, frequentism and Bayesianism are not mutually exclusive. It's the inability to reconcile the two that leads to flawed modes of thinking such as that evidenced within this post. Sometimes it pays to be a frequentist (such as when estimating the push likelihood of a given spread), and sometimes it pays to be a Bayesian (such as when deciding whether to place a bet on a game in particular conditioned on that gievn spread and push likelihood).

Anyway, both belief systems do have their merits. I personally find it interesting that the long-running animosity between Frequentist and Bayesian Tribe members has manged to find its way even onto this forum. It's like the Bloods and the Crips.

As the old saw go, "a frequentist is a person whose long-run ambition is to be wrong 5% of the time," while "a Bayesian is one who, vaguely expecting a horse, and catching a glimpse of a donkey, strongly believes he has seen a mule."

this is how most of us think, shit there are so many factors goes on during a game. you can have a complex model that has over 200 variables which include a proxy for every player on the roster, but it might not perform any better than looking at their past performance and make an educated guess.

bayesain approach seems more natural to sportsbetting. i bet when poeple are making their bets, they look at all the data and think about it a little bit and say something like, "i think dallas should cover".

the frequentist approach works well with holdem, but i do see players play using the bayesian approach. for example, i saw some player goes, "he is twiching his fingers when he check raised me, so he must have the nuts...i fold"

imo, other than mlb, it is pretty hard to use frequenist approach to make a prediction.

[BuddyBear]

This argument is retarded. I've gone over this with Don Juan numerous time. He is recalcitrant till the end. It's just a dissonance reduction strategy that he and other "sharps" use. This is what the "sharps" say to comfort themselves. Well if I win...i was on the "right side"...if I lose, i was still on the "right side" even though I lost. In short, "sharps" are never on the "wrong side" of a game....Sharps pretty much brainwash themselves into believing that every pick they make is the "right side" no matter what. You can have a home dog +3 and get blown out by 30....and then they come back and say, well betting home dogs are a long term profitable strategy so it was the "right side"....it's pointless to argue with these people.

Sorry but anyone who had ASU +2.5 and thought they were on the "right side" needs to watch the game a little more closely next time. Their 10 pts in the 1H were gift points. and then they had a bunch of garbage tds at the end to give a misleading final score. Texas flat out dominated. McCoy's numbers weren't even that impressive. Texas just destroyed ASU...the game wasn't even competitive. ASU was the wrong side and wrong by a mile...

However, ASU +2.5/+3 was the "right price" There is a huge conceptual difference between "right side" and "right price" They are not the same thing at all. If you beat the closing number...good for you, you still lost though no matter how you rationalize it! Although beating the closing number is important to long-term success. No denying that....

Mofome and DJ aren't even arguing the same thing in this thread.....

[mofome]

This argument is retarded. I've gone over this with Don Juan numerous time. He is recalcitrant till the end. It's just a dissonance reduction strategy that he and other "sharps" use. This is what the "sharps" say to comfort themselves. Well if I win...i was on the "right side"...if I lose, i was still on the "right side" even though I lost. In short, "sharps" are never on the "wrong side" of a game....Sharps pretty much brainwash themselves into believing that every pick they make is the "right side" no matter what. You can have a home dog +3 and get blown out by 30....and then they come back and say, well betting home dogs are a long term profitable strategy so it was the "right side"....it's pointless to argue with these people.

Sorry but anyone who had ASU +2.5 and thought they were on the "right side" needs to watch the game a little more closely next time. Their 10 pts in the 1H were gift points. and then they had a bunch of garbage tds at the end to give a misleading final score. Texas flat out dominated. McCoy's numbers weren't even that impressive. Texas just destroyed ASU...the game wasn't even competitive. ASU was the wrong side and wrong by a mile...

However, ASU +2.5/+3 was the "right price" There is a huge conceptual difference between "right side" and "right price" They are not the same thing at all. If you beat the closing number...good for you, you still lost though no matter how you rationalize it! Although beating the closing number is important to long-term success. No denying that....

Mofome and DJ aren't even arguing the same thing in this thread.....

i was arguing the side, big don made it about fake prices. dons has never and will never be wrong, i think thats obvious. not in a debate or with a play. asu was the wrong side, thats a fact, not an opinion. i got my ass kicked with asu and hope to do better today.

[donjuan]

This argument is retarded. I've gone over this with Don Juan numerous time. He is recalcitrant till the end. It's just a dissonance reduction strategy that he and other "sharps" use. This is what the "sharps" say to comfort themselves. Well if I win...i was on the "right side"...if I lose, i was still on the "right side" even though I lost.

Do you not think it is possible to be on the right side of a bet that loses? It doesn't need to be sports betting. It can be poker, blackjack or any other game of chance where random events on a probability distribution occur.

In short, "sharps" are never on the "wrong side" of a game....Sharps pretty much brainwash themselves into believing that every pick they make is the "right side" no matter what. You can have a home dog +3 and get blown out by 30....and then they come back and say, well betting home dogs are a long term profitable strategy so it was the "right side"....it's pointless to argue with these people.

Let's say I have a bet at -110 on Team A, which has a 55% chance of winning. I also have a bet on that same game on Team B -10 at +3000, which for the sake of argument has a 10% chance of covering. I'm on the right side of both games, even if Team B wins by 5.

Sorry but anyone who had ASU +2.5 and thought they were on the "right side" needs to watch the game a little more closely next time. Their 10 pts in the 1H were gift points. and then they had a bunch of garbage tds at the end to give a misleading final score. Texas flat out dominated. McCoy's numbers weren't even that impressive. Texas just destroyed ASU...the game wasn't even competitive. ASU was the wrong side and wrong by a mile...

A sample size of one game is not enough to make this conclusion.

However, ASU +2.5/+3 was the "right price" There is a huge conceptual difference between "right side" and "right price" They are not the same thing at all. If you beat the closing number...good for you, you still lost though no matter how you rationalize it! Although beating the closing number is important to long-term success. No denying that....

Mofome and DJ aren't even arguing the same thing in this thread.....

Please define "right price" and "right side".

[donjuan]

i was arguing the side, big don made it about fake prices. dons has never and will never be wrong, i think thats obvious. not in a debate or with a play. asu was the wrong side, thats a fact, not an opinion. i got my ass kicked with asu and hope to do better today.

Unfortunately throwing random emoticons into your posts doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

[durito]

The Suns beat the Clippers by 20 last night in Los Angeles.

Does that mean the Suns are 23.7 pts better than the Clippers (home ct with both teams rested is approx. 3.7pts)?

If so, why aren't they favored by 28pts tonight?

One game is completely meaningless. Just because Texas dominated ASU last night doesn't mean they would win 9 out of 10. That's ridiculous.

[Thremp]

Unfortunately throwing random emoticons into your posts doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person that shizzy annoys. Beer clinking glasses are the hallmark of a "I have no clue what I'm talking about" post.


But I digress... This whole thread is ridiculous. Theres like 5 people who make money who post that mofome is brain damaged and then a slew of streak/gut/feeling bettors who're also "winners" who are like "LOLZ ASU is wrong side unless you got +20 LDO"

[mofome]

if they played this bowl game again next week, what would the line be? asu +1 where it closed? asu +2.5?




as for durito, the nba regular season is a bit different than a bowl game. also, in a game that matters, the suns would beat the clip at least 8 of 10, imo. i cashed the suns -8, that was a nice gift.

im over 56% in the nfl this year, thremp, and im up in ncaaf as well. i do just fine. fact is, asu was not the right side last night. thats not up for debate. its interesting that don makes up fake lines, and im the idiot. i played asu last night, i guess im a sharp. well, i can recognize that i was on the wrong side when i lose, so maybe not?



asu +2.5 -110 was the wrong side last night. congrats to those that won and congrats to those that are able to recognize which was actually the right side.

[mofome]

Unfortunately throwing random emoticons into your posts doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

yeah, but this is brilliant:

Obviously it depends on the line you got for ASU. If you got ASU +3 +100, then yes I think that was the right side.




if you got a line you couldnt possibly get, then you were on the right side. thats sound logic.

[donjuan]

Mofome,

Why do you refuse to tell us what you believe the correct line was on last nights game?

[donjuan]

if you got a line you couldnt possibly get, then you were on the right side. thats sound logic.

Once again, you completely missed the point. You must actively try to miss the point.

[5 star bomb]

I dont really know what to say to everyone in here backing ASU and saying they were the right side but you are totally clueless! Honestly did we all watch the same game last night because Texas man handled ASU in the 1st half, yeah there were some turnovers that Texas capitilized on but hell thats part of the game.

[Patrick McIrish]

It's obvious some of the more basic handicapping information isn't being understood in this thread, no need to mention names. If I could suggest two things to improve this site it would be a picks forum like the RX has, be perfect for Dan, and a technical forum that Ganchrow would be perfectly suited for. Peep ran one at the RX for a while, MW had one that was even better as big boys like Machiavelli and other sharps would often take questions from the masses. No offense but there is a large percentage of us squares around here, help us learn John!

[mofome]

Once again, you completely missed the point. You must actively try to miss the point.

actually, i replied to exactly what you said. you said it depends on the line you got. you then said that you think +3 +100 would have been the right side. you couldnt actually get that line. yeah, you say something ridiculous and then blame me. thats neat.

if the game was being played next week and the line was 2.5 again, you would bet on asu?

[Patrick McIrish]

For the record, the number you play into versus the closing line is a big indicator to books for a reason. I've been soft booted out of places while I was losing because I was beating the closing numbers on a routine basis. Draw your own conclusions from there but you are not going to win every +EV event you bet money on.

[5 star bomb]

Once again, you completely missed the point. You must actively try to miss the point.

Not a surprise coming from Donjuan, the same guy that laughed at me for saying the Red Sox were the best team in baseball and still are. HAHAHAHA, hey Donjuan im still waiting for you to break down the yanks/red sox pitching staffs buddy. Go get your Pecota and break down the #'s. See how far it gets you buddy. You didnt make much sense in the baseball predicition thread just like in this thread your not making a whole lot of sense... put down the crack pipe bro

[durito]

OK, let's say Texas and Arizona St. get to play again next weekend (also on a neutral field) and you have to set a line on this game.

Do you rely entirely on yesterdays game result?

Do you instead use each teams season performance, yet still factor heavily yesterday's result?

Or, do you treat yesterdays game as one game in each teams season and evaluate from there?

[donjuan]

actually, i replied to exactly what you said. you said it depends on the line you got. you then said that you think +3 +100 would have been the right side. you couldnt actually get that line. yeah, you say something ridiculous and then blame me. thats neat.

Whether or not that specific line was available is irrelevant, something that is clearly over your head. It was simply an example.

if the game was being played next week and the line was 2.5 again, you would bet on asu?

If the game was played again next week, the game would be played under different conditions.

[mofome]

OK, let's say Texas and Arizona St. get to play again next weekend (also on a neutral field) and you have to set a line on this game.

Do you rely entirely on yesterdays game result?

Do you instead use each teams season performance, yet still factor heavily yesterday's result?

Or, do you treat yesterdays game as one game in each teams season and evaluate from there?

i really basically on the indvidual matchups. i would look at how easily texas could move the ball on the ground vs what asu could do. i would look at how difficult first downs were for asu to get while texas made the look routine. a lot of things would obviously be different in a new game. deflected ints, and coaches grabbing footballs....i just think that texas could put asu away if needed and therefore a line of less than 3 would be off, imo. i bet on asu last night and i was happy to see the late line move, but i wouldnt make that bet again next week. maybe asu would win, no one here knows....im just giving my opinion. the fact is, not many asu players would start for texas, and that showed in last nights matchup.

[5 star bomb]

If the game was played again next week, the game would be played under different conditions.

What does that have to do with anything man? Both teams would have to play under the "different conditions" What are you trying to say? Weather or what? You make ZERO sense man. Texas whooped their ass last night man just get over it and stop making yourself sound like a fool all the time

[mofome]

yeah, different conditions. what was it, 21-0 and texas ball till the coach came onto the field? if that doesnt happen, maybe its 28-0 and asu never bounces back? who knows.