Outside The Box

[katstale]

11-5 using Latest Line since 3/29/2008. Below is a link to the log of the games that I ended up playing using this method:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJfwFAPEySC-k2UQ95w0dCA

I played both sides and totals. The bets were placed on Matchbook. I tried to get better than even odds after commissions whenever I can. So sometimes the point movement fits the model, but it didn't hit my price, then there was no play. It is whole another study to see the effects of this modification. One column to note is the "in range" column in the spreadsheet. This column only applies to wins. A "yes" in the column would mean taking the same side with the original Latest Line odds would have resulted in a loss instead of a win. So in those cases, the point movement actually altered the outcome.

The experiment will continue for many more games before I alter my unit size. Munson15, how many do you plan to play before you feel comfortable to increase your unit size? katstale, how many games do you have under your belt using this method? More than 5000? Thanks for your help.

answer is: yes

[Munson15]

11-5 using Latest Line since 3/29/2008. Below is a link to the log of the games that I ended up playing using this method:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJfwFAPEySC-k2UQ95w0dCA

I played both sides and totals. The bets were placed on Matchbook. I tried to get better than even odds after commissions whenever I can. So sometimes the point movement fits the model, but it didn't hit my price, then there was no play. It is whole another study to see the effects of this modification. One column to note is the "in range" column in the spreadsheet. This column only applies to wins. A "yes" in the column would mean taking the same side with the original Latest Line odds would have resulted in a loss instead of a win. So in those cases, the point movement actually altered the outcome.

The experiment will continue for many more games before I alter my unit size. Munson15, how many do you plan to play before you feel comfortable to increase your unit size? katstale, how many games do you have under your belt using this method? More than 5000? Thanks for your help.

You can just play a % of bankroll to increase bet size, that is what I plan to do. I have achieved a winning % similar to Kat's, so I will continue to play the system, although with college over, and the NBA heading into the playoffs, there will not be too many more plays this year. Can't wait to crank this baby up next season, I already play these for football. I'll post the records I've played (America's Line) and tracked (Latest Line) tomorrow.

[Munson15]

I show 70-55 using America's Line, and 77-65 using Latest Line.

[Munson15]

Final regular season outside the box stats, including college and NBA----------------

Using America's Line-75-61, 55.1%
Using Latest Line----91-77, 54.2%

Remarkably, these figures are what Kat predicted when we started. I will certainly look for this again next year. Playoffs have not yielded any plays so far.

Baseball is on the plus side, but is very subjective in how it is applied.

[katstale]

Thanks for tracking the games Munson. If you successfully figure out how to apply this to baseball--this topic will get have 9k+ views!!!!

[Munson15]

Thanks for tracking the games Munson. If you successfully figure out how to apply this to baseball--this topic will get have 9k+ views!!!!

So far, down about 3 units in tracking baseball. Haven't given up yet, we're only talking about 130+ plays so far! Thanks for checking back in.

[Ganchrow]

I must admit I haven't really been following this thread, but it seems its conclusions may be be summarized with:

"America's Lines" is an excellent advisory service and should be followed.

If I have that right then with all due respect to the OP I'd have to say that that sounds more like an endorsement of a tout than true "outside the box" thinking.

[DukeJohn]

I must admit I haven't really been following this thread, but it seems its conclusions may be be summarized with:

"America's Lines" is an excellent advisory service and should be followed.

If I have that right then with all due respect to the OP I'd have to say that that sounds more like an endorsement of a tout than true "outside the box" thinking.

I know it's a lot to read, but I believe America's Line is only a place you get the opening line from. So, not a tout service, just the opening line and from there you decide based on line movements what your pick will be.

[durito]

I know it's a lot to read, but I believe America's Line is only a place you get the opening line from. So, not a tout service, just the opening line and from there you decide based on line movements what your pick will be.

But, it's not an opening line.

Next year you guys should use Durito's line instead.

[Ganchrow]

I know it's a lot to read, but I believe America's Line is only a place you get the opening line from. So, not a tout service, just the opening line and from there you decide based on line movements what your pick will be.

"America's Line" just represents some dude's opinion.

Now there's nothing "wrong" with basing one's bets off line movement relative to some dude's opinion, but let's not delude ourselves into believing this mode of thought implicative of some higher plane of sports betting philosophy.

[katstale]

Practicality over pomposity. Simplicity over superficial statistical pseudo-intellectual pontificating.

Lucky some of you guys read the whole thing. You will be making money for years to come--without the mental gymnastics. Like I said--spend your spare time thinking how to make it fit for baseball.

[Munson15]

"America's Line" just represents some dude's opinion.

Now there's nothing "wrong" with basing one's bets off line movement relative to some dude's opinion, but let's not delude ourselves into believing this mode of thought implicative of some higher plane of sports betting philosophy.

Not trying to draw you into a debate, but I must offer my opinions since I have been following since the beginning. The America's Line is not the tout, J.McCarthy of the Latest Line touts games, and seems to have posted a decent record.

I don't believe Kat, myself or anyone in the thread has implied that the idea is on "some higher plane." That would be "deluding" ourselves. In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case, as Kat stated from the start that he was suggesting an easier, simpler way. To fade line movement is one of the most basic betting philosophies there is.

I appreciate you chiming in, but you should do better at interpreting a thread before offering an opinion.

[Arnold]

Practicality over pomposity. Simplicity over superficial statistical pseudo-intellectual pontificating.

Lucky some of you guys read the whole thing. You will be making money for years to come--without the mental gymnastics. Like I said--spend your spare time thinking how to make it fit for baseball.

Even though I proved in this thread, that this system does not work, its religious followers are still trying to convince us that it has some "magical" powers. Besides, closing lines are more efficient than opening lines; therefore, this system makes no sense at all.

[Munson15]

Even though I proved in this thread, that this system does not work, its religious followers are still trying to convince us that it has some "magical" powers. Besides, closing lines are more efficient than opening lines; therefore, this system makes no sense at all.

Arnold, you are so closed-minded it's funny. Please read post #214 and tell me how you proved it doesn't work. Nobody said anything about 'magical' powers. Nobody is telling you to play it. I made a little money using this method. I don't care what lines are more efficient, please let the record speak for itself.

Usually, people throw stones when something fails, but a winning record over a couple of months time with well over 100 plays is ok in my book. If that makes me a religious fanatic, so be it. But, I can tell you, that this system worked in football last year, and it worked in baskets for a couple of months. What's so bad about that?

[MrX]

Even though I proved in this thread, that this system does not work, its religious followers are still trying to convince us that it has some "magical" powers. Besides, closing lines are more efficient than opening lines; therefore, this system makes no sense at all.

The argument about opening/closing line efficiency's isn't really applicable since "America's Line" isn't a line anyone can bet into. It's just someone's opinion of what the line should be.

The claim is really that America's Line is an excellent free tout which I think is within the realm of possibility.

***Sorry, I should have read a little more. I just repeated what at least a couple others had said before me.

[donjuan]

well over 100 plays is ok in my book.

Um, sorry but unless you're missing a 0 there, that is a joke. I have a 25% ROI over my last 100 plays. My actual ROI is nowhere near 25%. Some people need to get a grip when it comes to small sample sizes.

[20Four7]

I'm a winning poker player over my last 125 hands so I must be good. After all the only difference between 125 hands and 125K hands is a few zeros.

I have personally gone 25 and 3 then watched as I hit 5 and 20 over the next series of plays. 125 bets is a little more than nothing.

[katstale]

I know fellas, it's a chore to dig that gold out by yourself. True, Munson's little sample means nothing. Even 1k could only give you a slight trend--maybe, but,

IF YOU READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT, you might discover somewhere in the thread the suggestion that this has been charted for many years and far beyond the level of statistical significance of .05.

You can learn and learn OR you can learn and earn. OK, I keep telling myself I am out of this thread--I really am gonna try this time!!

[Arnold]

Arnold, you are so closed-minded it's funny. Please read post #214 and tell me how you proved it doesn't work. Nobody said anything about 'magical' powers. Nobody is telling you to play it. I made a little money using this method. I don't care what lines are more efficient, please let the record speak for itself.

Usually, people throw stones when something fails, but a winning record over a couple of months time with well over 100 plays is ok in my book. If that makes me a religious fanatic, so be it. But, I can tell you, that this system worked in football last year, and it worked in baskets for a couple of months. What's so bad about that?

Why don't you go to my post a few months ago where I posted NBA results for last season and this season? You decided to ignore that and carry on with your system. Of course, you only follow what your eyes like. But sooner or later, this system will show you, that it doesn't work. 100 plays is nothing. You can flip a coin and get a 55% over 100 tries. Your winning record is an illusion.

[Arnold]

The argument about opening/closing line efficiency's isn't really applicable since "America's Line" isn't a line anyone can bet into. It's just someone's opinion of what the line should be.

The claim is really that America's Line is an excellent free tout which I think is within the realm of possibility.

***Sorry, I should have read a little more. I just repeated what at least a couple others had said before me.

From what I understood, the original system was based on opening/closing lines. The America's Line was brought into discussion later.

[Arnold]

Um, sorry but unless you're missing a 0 there, that is a joke. I have a 25% ROI over my last 100 plays. My actual ROI is nowhere near 25%. Some people need to get a grip when it comes to small sample sizes.

I'm tired of them as well.

[Munson15]

Say whatever you want, the man showed a profit long-term, I took the premise and made money with it over the last 35-40% of the season. I will not pester you guys about this anymore, if it fails me in the future, I will have no problem admitting it. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, and I apologize for any naivete I have displayed in this thread.

[Munson15]

Why don't you go to my post a few months ago where I posted NBA results for last season and this season? You decided to ignore that and carry on with your system. Of course, you only follow what your eyes like. But sooner or later, this system will show you, that it doesn't work. 100 plays is nothing. You can flip a coin and get a 55% over 100 tries. Your winning record is an illusion.

I didn't mean to ignore your info, I just wanted to see for myself what would happen using the guidelines set forth. I didn't take Kat's figures as gospel either, but after the season, the results I wound up with were in agreement with his %. No disrespect intended to your work, I'm sure next season is no gimme, but I'm willing to find out.

[BigCap]

Even though I proved in this thread, that this system does not work, its religious followers are still trying to convince us that it has some "magical" powers. Besides, closing lines are more efficient than opening lines; therefore, this system makes no sense at all.

An example proviing otherwise:

Opener Celtics -7
Close Celtics -10.5

Celtics win by 10.

Closing line is clearly more efficient in this case. Obviously not all line moves follow this pattern. But betting against the move was correct.

The fact that opening lines are not as efficient as closing lines is not a logical conclusion to dismiss this system, as shown above.

[donjuan]

An example proviing otherwise:

Opener Celtics -7
Close Celtics -10.5

Celtics win by 10.

Closing line is clearly more efficient in this case. Obviously not all line moves follow this pattern. But betting against the move was correct.

The fact that opening lines are not as efficient as closing lines is not a logical conclusion to dismiss this system, as shown above.

I hope this post alone was the reason they moved this out of the Handicapper Think Tank.

[Bet Shooter]

Kat, As a Newbie to this Forum I have read more than posted in this Forum, but I feel that I want to discuss more of this theory of yours. I know you said you wanted to stay out of this thread, so could you PM me at your convenience?

For the rest:
I have been wrestling with the math involved with sports gambling for years. With a normal -110 book, why aren't the hold percentages of these places approaching 10% the farther out in time you go? The standard yearly hold percentage of any LV book is about 4% not 10%. I find it hard to believe that the last 6% is on all middled games the book gets stuck with. That started my orginal theory that someone (I don't mean one person here) is cashing those tickets for real hard earned cash each year. That would have to be the money wagered that moves the lines accordingly. But which of the money is the RIGHT money moves? I would be interested to see what Kats theory is on that. With this theory, baseball should also be included as a possible test case. The same theory applies. It's 6% aggregate all year!

[BigCap]

I hope this post alone was the reason they moved this out of the Handicapper Think Tank.

In fact the post was already moved.

Pretty simple concept, actually. I'm sorry you can't/don't recognize that.

[JoeVig]

I hope this post alone was the reason they moved this out of the Handicapper Think Tank.

Oh brother, the Think Tank is a "brainiacs only" club now? Get off your high horse already.

The OP could have gotten to "touting" this line service, as has been accused, a lot earlier than 200+ posts if that is what he was here for. Whether or not you agree with this method, this is certainly a discussion of handicapping and belongs back in the Tank.

[donjuan]

Oh brother, the Think Tank is a "brainiacs only" club now? Get off your high horse already.

No, it's supposed to be a place for serious discussion of sports betting. The analysis I quoted belongs in the "Logical Fallacies and Other Generally Moronic Statements" forum.

[BigCap]

No, it's supposed to be a place for serious discussion of sports betting. The analysis I quoted belongs in the "Simple Logic to Refute Faulty Conclusions" forum.

I think this is what you meant.

[donjuan]

No, it's not. See probability distribution function and then stand in oncoming traffic before you get the chance to pass your genes on.

[SBR Lou]

No, it's not. See probability distribution function and then stand in oncoming traffic before you get the chance to pass your genes on.

[BigCap]

No, it's not. See probability distribution function and then stand in oncoming traffic before you get the chance to pass your genes on.

This has nothing to do with the faulty logic on which I noted.

Regarding the traffic suggestion, I would expect that someone gave you this advice, so I can safely assume you tried it once and wanted to pass it along.

[donjuan]

This has nothing to do with the faulty logic on which I noted.

WTF? The result of a single game does not reflect what the line should have been. There is an inherent randomness in every sporting event, hence me referring you to look up what a PDF is. And quit with the "I know you are, but what am I?" responses. Even the slow kids stop using that after Kindergarten.

[BigCap]

WTF? The result of a single game does not reflect what the line should have been. There is an inherent randomness in every sporting event, hence me referring you to look up what a PDF is. And quit with the "I know you are, but what am I?" responses. Even the slow kids stop using that after Kindergarten.

Not that you can, but prove your case without flaming out.

I know you can't.