Outside The Box

[donjuan]

I guarantee you "Big Al" down at the local bar bookin bets for the week didn't read any text books.

Big Al would be more optimal if he did sit down and read up on things like Kelly. And optimal is the key word in any serious gambling discussion.

[katstale]

I promise!!

[HedgeHog]

I don't think you're right. See, for example, Does Sportsbook.com Set Pointspreads to Maximize Profits? Tests of the Levitt Model of Sportsbook Behavior by Paul, Rodney J. and Weinbach, Andrew P., The Journal of Prediction Markets, Volume 1, Number 3, December 2007 , pp. 209-218(10):

No, SB screws anyone that wins--that's their business model (lines don't matter). If you're arguing SB, go back to the main forum with the youngsters. Good luck getting paid.

[katstale]

Big Al would be more optimal if he did sit down and read up on things like Kelly. And optimal is the key word in any serious gambling discussion.

I don't want to go in this direction, but let me explain what the key word is Don....

Paid!! As in, did I get.....? I promise i will never mention Kelly or any other person's theories in this thread.

I will also add, if anybody is reading in this thread who makes their living picking against the spread.... don't waste your time here. You got it goin on. You don't need my help.

[HedgeHog]

Optimal, Efficient, Etc are all vague without explanation. Books want max profit with min risk--and that means balancing action. It's a basic business model.

[donjuan]

Paid!! As in, did I get.....?

Are we talking about SBR's rating system now? Getting paid is, indeed, important but you won't get paid much if you don't make +ev bets.

[HedgeHog]

Are we talking about SBR's rating system now? Getting paid is, indeed, important but you won't get paid much if you don't make +ev bets.

Does +Ev matter if you're betting at Sportsbook.com.

[donjuan]

Optimal, Efficient, Etc are all vague without explanation. Books want max profit with min risk--and that means balancing action. It's a basic business model.

I basically already defined efficiency. A perfectly efficient line is one that cannot be beaten without inside information (all public information is built into the line). An inefficient line is one that is off from fair value and can be beaten. The more the line is off from fair value, the more inefficient it is.

Optimal is simply the best decision you can make in a given situation.

Books want max profit with min risk--and that means balancing action. It's a basic business model.

If this is true why does almost every book known to man ban or limit winning bettors?

[donjuan]

Does +Ev matter if you're betting at Sportsbook.com.

Yes.

[HedgeHog]

I basically already defined efficiency. A perfectly efficient line is one that cannot be beaten without inside information (all public information is built into the line). An inefficient line is one that is off from fair value and can be beaten. The more the line is off from fair value, the more inefficient it is.

Optimal is simply the best decision you can make in a given situation.



If this is true why does almost every book known to man ban or limit winning bettors?

Winning bettors are in the minority...1-2 %. It improves their profitabilty to kick them out. Really doesn't address the main issue.

[teazeman]

Does +Ev matter if you're betting at Sportsbook.com.

i just spit coke on my screen

[HedgeHog]

Yes.

Not if you don't get paid. Great I made a 100k there, but I can't get paid. That's better than the 1k winner not getting paid. Congrats, you were ripped off more than some other loser. It's monopoly money unless it hits your account, buddy.

[katstale]

I was speaking of "getting paid" not as in SBR terms, but as in how one makes a living. Do I earn and receive a pay day from my wagers?

As to whether a book pays or not and as to whether they will kick you out--those are other discussions.

Impt, but not impt to this discussion.

In this discussion, we assume you know better than to play at stiff books and will be paid for your efforts.

[HedgeHog]

i just spit coke on my screen

Apparently they haven't stolen your money yet. Another genius with a D- Book.

[teazeman]

Apparently they haven't stolen your money yet. Another genius with a D- Book.

another genius that was smart enough to never trust them with my money


you obviously missed what i found funny about your post, didn't think there were any players on the boards that weren't aware of their LONG HELD reputation of being a STIFF BOOK, forgive me as i didn't realize you were new to this.

[teazeman]

In this discussion, we assume you know better than to play at stiff books and will be paid for your efforts.

i assumed the same as well, my mistake apparently.

[HedgeHog]

another genius that was smart enough to never trust them with my money


you obviously missed what i found funny about your post, didn't think there were any players on the boards that weren't aware of their LONG HELD reputation of being a STIFF BOOK, forgive me as i didn't realize you were new to this.

My bad, Teaze. I misunderstood your post.

[donjuan]

I was speaking of "getting paid" not as in SBR terms, but as in how one makes a living. Do I earn and receive a pay day from my wagers?

If getting paid is anything like picking winnerz, I fear where this thread is headed.

Winning bettors are in the minority...1-2 %. It improves their profitabilty to kick them out. Really doesn't address the main issue.

How does it improve their profitability if they are just looking to split action evenly?

[teazeman]

no sweat bro.




katstale i'd like to p.m. you if i could as you would probably be able to put into words my thoughts in a more cohesive manner, it's something i've done for a few yrs and have found it successful. let me know.

[katstale]

Yes, getting paid = picking winners. I thought we were past that part.

Not getting paid = picking not enough winners to overcome the vig.

Nothin tuff abt that--now lets try to get along. I am beginning to feel like Sidney Poitier in To Sir With Love!!.

[chemist]

No, SB screws anyone that wins--that's their business model (lines don't matter). If you're arguing SB, go back to the main forum with the youngsters. Good luck getting paid.

There's plenty of other literature that indicates that sportsbooks are not simply market makers. You should study the published literature before assaying dogmatic opinions in a thread like this.

[katstale]

no sweat bro.




katstale i'd like to p.m. you if i could as you would probably be able to put into words my thoughts in a more cohesive manner, it's something i've done for a few yrs and have found it successful. let me know.

I don't have a problem with the PM's--but if you read my opening you should have got that I can't share proprietary info. I am trying to lead you gently and thoughtfully into some different thinking. If your reading between the lines you should rightfully get that I get paid. Alot!

[chemist]

I don't know abt all of that--I know they just increase their profit margin by stiffing players!!!

Let's avoid the text book stuff. I promise we won't need it. I guarantee you "Big Al" down at the local bar bookin bets for the week didn't read any text books. Not puttin that stuff down, it just gets in the way. Fogs the vision of a simple path I am leading you down. Hang in there with me.

Don't need no none dat stinkin book learnin, eh? I'll leave you to your own devices.

[donjuan]

Yes, getting paid = picking winners. I thought we were past that part.

Not getting paid = picking too many losers to overcome the vig.

Nothin tuff abt that--now lets try to get along. I am beginning to feel like Sidney Poitier in To Sir With Love!!.

Yeah, "paid" is nowhere near as important as optimal. You can "get paid" without being optimal but if you are optimal you "get paid" by definition.

[katstale]

Chemist--sorry to see you go, but the guys writing the books are not making money picking winners. That is just a fact.

Would you be impressed if I said I have a Ph.D and make my living sports wagering? Well, you shouldn't be. But for the lemmings out there--that is sufficient to follow along.

What I am trying to point out is just follow the logic I lay out. If that seems to make sense to you--go with that--not a resume or pedigree.

The sportsbooks out there would gladly supply you with 2 or 3 of the top gambling books on the market.

[durito]

sportsbook.com has never simply kicked out/stolen from every winner. they've always had their issues and their risks -- nevertheless there were reasons that sharper players would play at their books, and they almost always got paid --- prior to the correlated parlay theft.

[HedgeHog]

sportsbook.com has never simply kicked out/stolen from every winner. they've always had their issues and their risks -- nevertheless there were reasons that sharper players would play at their books, and they almost always got paid --- prior to the correlated parlay theft.

Yes, that's why a +Ev bettor needs to re-evaluate his risk with such a Book. It's just a number on paper if they steal it. Unless you're striving to be the biggest victim, why play there? Can't believe anyone with a 70 IQ or better would consider betting there. Currently the risk is much higher than any possible reward.

[HedgeHog]

Kat:

We're veering off topic and I'm partly to blame. Hope to pick this up again.

[katstale]

No sweat Hog!! We will get right back on topic today. Yesterday we talked abt how good would a guy do picking SU. Several people rightly said it would be abt 70%. The reason I wanted this number out there was to create a frame of reference, mathematically/statistically speaking, for what we are trying to accomplish.

The other end of that spectrum is if we put all the sides (ATS) in a hat and randomly draw out--we should win approximately 50% of the time. I hope we can agree on this in general. This creates the most addictive force to keep the gambler giving away the vig to the book. Keeps him at it for years. And the reason was put forth by Skinner years ago. The most complete and addicitve reinforcement schedule is intermittent. Not gonna go into that here--if you didn't get that in psych 101 and you don't trust me--google that.

OK, so nobody is gonna let us pick SU against a -110, but they will certainly let you bet SU and thus we have the ML bet. So the book has factored in your 70/30 win percentage and let you wager away.

Now we are not even gonna think abt that 70% end of the spectrum--we are gonna focus on that "draw out of the hat end" and if "I could only get a small edge" on that 50% and bump it to 54%......

So to this point you should be thinking about (1) where do I get my baseline (I gave you large hints for that) and (2) how do I compare that to a reduced juice shop and eke out those extra percentage points.

[HedgeHog]

I've re-read all your posts in this thread. So far I understand that we take the Opening Line (aka Baseline) as the Holy Grail and somehow act quickly before the rest of the herd catches up.

Now I believe Cris/Book comes out first with opening lines, so I'm guessing you compare those lines to a reduced shop (like a -105 BOL). Am I close?

[katstale]

I've re-read all your posts in this thread. So far I understand that we take the Opening Line (aka Baseline) as the Holy Grail and somehow act quickly before the rest of the herd catches up.

Now I believe Cris/Book comes out first with opening lines, so I'm guessing you compare those lines to a reduced shop (like a -105 BOL). Am I close?

Not really!! lolol But I will say that we act "slowly" and let everyone else act quickly. More tomorrow when we will discuss how someone would do if they were allowed to "tease" the line oh say 7 points per game.

[katstale]

1989 in Vegas was the first time I saw a friend of mine working on a parlay card which had a unique feature of "tease" the line. I think it was a bowl lineup card and you go pick like 10 teams and tease the line 7 points on every game. My first reaction was "man, who couldn't kill them on that?" I got me one and noticed the odds were terrible, but I thought--"who cares, I can't miss, so it is free money!!"

Of course you know what happened, one of my sure things bellied up (I am thinking it was Nebraska) and I realized the folly of my initial thinking. 90% is good, but not good enough.

Think abt this for today. What if a book let you tease the line and didn't charge you any vig for the privilege (except for the standard prevalent vig)? If you got 7 points and played the board, what would your win percentage be?

Some of you math guys out there might know the answer to this--if so, I would appreciate you jumping in and giving us a pretty hard number for this.

[Thremp]

HedgeHog,

LOL @ you. First off I don't see why anyone doesn't consider a Jazette skin that has a better pay record and less problems. In addition to be a better bonus program. But I'll assume they're all lumped together.

Just because you cannot manage your risk and win money there does not mean that I cannot or anyone else for that matter. I'm sorry if you think everyone who is above retarded should not be playing there, but its not the case. I have been paid there everytime and have minor troubles (My current troubles with Bookmaker outweigh any I've had with SB). But I am aware of the risk issues and take steps to prevent it.

[katstale]

Thremp, I was happy to see you here. I was hoping you were gonna answer my teaser math question??!! lol

[durito]

For what sport?

In the NBA since 1990 (including playoffs through the finals last year), I have home teams at 9915-10223-460 ATS. Adding 7pts to the spread would make them 14981-5306-311 ATS (73.8%)