Lets talk about gambling

[wantitall4moi]

You are completely clueless if you think books don't consider EV, or that books just like the "allure of gambling" and don't use math.

Your rant definitely qualifies for Dumbest Post of the Year (which is saying something given that we have the likes of chubnut who routinely posts complete gibberish).

they consider it but it isnt some math geeks definition of it.

seriously you math guys are completely brain dead. if it were as simple as you all make it out to be you would be gazillionaires by now.

My grandfather used to call it being an educated idiot.

And Capt Quint from Jaws said it best when he told Hooper
Hooper: [trying to get the fishing line secure] It may be a marlin or a stingray... but it's definitely a game fish.
[Hooper pulls as the lines snaps and he crashes his head into the wall]
Quint: [picking up the line] Gamin' fish, eh? Marlin? Stingray? Bit through this piano wire? Don't you tell me my business again! You get back on the bridge...
Hooper: Quint, that doesn't prove a damn thing!
Quint: Well it proves one thing, Mr. Hooper. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong.

While you might not be 'wrong' you certainly dont have the brains to look at anything that doesnt coincide with what you think is right.

[wrongturn]

If he collected millions from juice of +7.5/-6.5 bets, then he is not one of the best, he is the worst, and he would stiff all if the game landed on 7.

[Inspirited]

this guy just keeps going on and on

[bztips]

they consider it but it isnt some math geeks definition of it.

So tell us, omniscient one, exactly what definition of EV do they use??


In the mean time, you just keep relyin' on ol' grandpa's wise sayings and quotes from 1970s movies to guide you -- you'll be fine, I'm sure.

[CHUBNUT]

tomcowley, you should have more respect for the elderly.

[MonkeyF0cker]

tomcowley, you should have more respect for the elderly.

senile.

[JR007]

some of the most informative posts in these forums in awile,, inate knowledge, balanced with common sense...thanks wantit

[jgilmartin]

some of the most ridiculous posts in these forums in awhile,, a lack of knowledge, balanced with absurd assumptions...get this steaming pile of a thread out of the Think Tank

[wantitall4moi]

some of the most ridiculous posts in these forums in awhile,, a lack of knowledge, balanced with absurd assumptions...get this steaming pile of a thread out of the Think Tank

Its a mirror from players talk you have to deal with it in your elitist utopia.

[JR007]

I haven't seen to many successful models from the math wizards, hitting at 54% or better, no way they(models) can account for the variance in these games

[wantitall4moi]

I haven't seen to many successful models from the math wizards, hitting at 54% or better, no way they(models) can account for the variance in these games

ahh theylll love that post you used two of their safety words...model and variance.

Throw in 'derivative', '+/- ev', 'expectation', 'poisson', 'kelly', 'value', 'implied odds', 'edge', 'distribution', 'deviation', 'exponent' and you'd have a slam dunk post of the year, even if you didnt really say anything but used them all in the correct context.

[JR007]

ahh theylll love that post you used two of their safety words...model and variance.

Throw in 'derivative', '+/- ev', 'expectation', 'poisson', 'kelly', 'value', 'implied odds', 'edge', 'distribution', 'deviation', 'exponent' and you'd have a slam dunk post of the year, even if you didnt really say anything but used them all in the correct context.

well, I guess that's utopia

[chunk]

ahh theylll love that post you used two of their safety words...model and variance.

Throw in 'derivative', '+/- ev', 'expectation', 'poisson', 'kelly', 'value', 'implied odds', 'edge', 'distribution', 'deviation', 'exponent' and you'd have a slam dunk post of the year, even if you didnt really say anything but used them all in the correct context.

Isn't that the truth. Most of these math geeks remind me of college kids taking their new found knowledge of statistics and QA out for a spin. Most have no clue yet of "real world" problems and that includes that sports world. I have nothing against them and wish them luck, but they do seem to be an arrogant bunch that would be best served taking the blinders off.

[illfuuptn]

wantitall4moi:

Are you saying a -125(no-vig for easiness) that moves to -150 is still only 56% to win? Or are you saying it typically will approach 60% but the line moves tend to go too far so it usually is short of that 60%?

[wiffle]

Screw Kelly flat betting is the way to go

good post

in theory it works, but not in sports betting because you never know your edge.

[TomG]

[Inspirited]

The war is over. The think tank has fallen. All the things your average gambler believes in, so eloquently expressed by their leader wantitall4moi, is free to be thought without ridicule once again. TBH, I am relieved. My mind is lazy and would rather not have to learn about statistical modeling.

[wantitall4moi]

wantitall4moi:

Are you saying a -125(no-vig for easiness) that moves to -150 is still only 56% to win? Or are you saying it typically will approach 60% but the line moves tend to go too far so it usually is short of that 60%?

Well it is hard to pin down an exact number because lines vary. I tend to look at parameters (theres a math word for guys) and maybe odds of -115 to 125, and then 125 to 135 so I get lines that moved around a number like that. But generally when looking at how lines move I look strictly at openers which are a little more cut and dry, but still varied.

But in games that opened at 'mostly' XXX and moved to an extreme the results are much closer to the opener than the closer in terms of a break even expectation.

So for your example a game opens 125 at say 11 of the 15 books I have numbers for. I can safely say it opened -125. One book might have a -120, another might have -130 but most places opened it at 125. Even if Pinnacle had a -118 opener I would still say it opened -125 as long as enough books had it -125 than anything else. But that is why determining these things gets convoluted from jump street, because some people would say "well Pinnacle had this, it doesnt matter what anyone else had". Which is exactly why I track what I track and why what I am explaining here matters. As much as it can anyway.

So in this example a game opens -125. A 'normal' person looks at that and says Ok I need 55.5% of those games to win to break even. Some guys might also assume that is the win probability of that team. It isn't. And again the results I have show that. At least in actual results.

But the game opens -125. And it takes a ton of action and moves to say 140 or 150. One would assume that the thought process of that game winning more than 55.5% would be a no brainer now since enough people bet it to push the win expectation to 58-60%. That is where the math guys would claim their bet at -125 would be a +ev play because their odds are better than the closing odds by a mile in terms or win expectation.

Now actual RESULTS of these games from back to 2007 (I have them back a little further but I am not 100% sure all games for all teams are in there beyond that) Shows that teams that opened at -125 and move to more than -140 I didnt break it down because late odds are harder to pinpoint than opners. So you can have 12 books all open -125 but at close they could range from odds of -127 to -143 depeneding on if they run a dime line or a 20 cent line or some other reduced type line. So there is even some 'cross contamination' at that benchmark. As in some numbers above -140 at a few books might be less than -135 someplace else. So that gives a margin for error, but even then it is still an almost 10 cent move at any book that deals a decent line.

But the results are that games that moved that much (I call it at least a dime but could be a lot more) the win percentages were 55.4% So not even enough to cover the first odds let alone the big move odds. There werent a ton of games relatively speaking but over a thousand, so a pretty decent sample size.

Now for lines that opened -125 and didnt move too much or maybe even dropped a little bit. I used -120 to -139 for a closing number. But once again there will be common games in there because my search cant differentiate. Those games had a 54.6% win result. that sample size had a lot more games in it.

If you break it down even more and really datamine and just look at games that opened -125 and closed between -120 and -129, and thus probably never got to a number you could buy back at. The win % is 53.1%. So not even close to a break even point, and a blind bet against in terms of possible profits.

So basically with the same starting point games that took a ton of action had less than a 1% better win result. With the smaller sample size and tighter to opener number you do get 2.4%, but when you dd in the fact that the sample size was less than a third as large in the first comparison, and even smaller in the second comparison, there is no way to draw any sort of conclusion from it anyway.

But that might be a sign that a -125 line is the go to line for bookmakers. It isnt too high and it isnt to small, it is a moderate number. That is why they will usually take a lot of action and why I try and use it as an example. But since it starts out with such a poor result it does sort of skew the data slightly.

But I have broken it down from every conceivable starting point and the fact is big lines moves for or against arent going to sway too much from what you would expect from a non moving result. Basically over the long term bettors are right and theyre wrong, and there is nothing to show by the results that the more they move the line the more "correct" they are than the book.

Now we can debate how pennies effect an individual results but then that really gets complicated.

On caveat before I end this, there are SOME subsets that have better than expected results, but those are based on openers and not moves or how the lines moved around. So the key to them is to look at the opener and bet accordingly as the line moves to maximize a pay off on a winning bet. Those are ones where i try not to buy back fully but enough to make sure I get the most on what I THINK my expectation SHOULD be.

Now as for all the guys call me old and or senile. I am 42 years old. So if I am that much older than you then you shouldnt be talking shit because youre not old enough to know anything yet. But I would suspect I am younger than some and at most 7-10 years older than the average guys in here spewing their nonsense. But considering I was betting on fixed horse races when I was 13 and was betting with bookies all over New England and Ney York when I was a freshman in high school I might have an edge in terms of real world experience, so I might talk like I am older than I am. But that is what happens when you LIVE it for awhile and dont just pretend to dabble in it because you think you learned something from a book that gives you some secret edge.

[eyeball]

Volume beats performance. 10000 bets for a small profit each will beat out 100 bets for a modest profit each. Even if you have to bet both sides of the same game to do it. It is about compounding your profits and rolling them forward. If you cant guarantee a profit you cant guarantee the plan.

Explain this

[wantitall4moi]

Volume beats performance. 10000 bets for a small profit each will beat out 100 bets for a modest profit each. Even if you have to bet both sides of the same game to do it. It is about compounding your profits and rolling them forward. If you cant guarantee a profit you cant guarantee the plan.

Explain this

If I make 10000 bets, 5000 per side on the same game, and averaged 60 dollars per play thats 300000 dollars. How much would you have to bet to make that much in 100 games? or even a thousand? or even 5000 games.

60 bucks on an arb/buyback/scalp is EASILY done. Even with a smaller bank roll and making mistakes. Even by chipping away at lines like -140/+145 and betting 2500 or so a side, those are going to get you back 30-40 bucks, this particular one gets you 36.44 if you do a 'perfect' one. So you start out with 15-20K and bet a few of those. if you only miss one or two and dont get crushed, after a week and say 40 plays you should have made 800-1200 bucks, maybe more if you get some nicer moves. Then after a month youve made 5K basically 'risk free' or at most risking 2% if you have to eat a number. For example you take a 2500 dollar lead at -150, but it moves the 'wrong' way, so you eject and buy back at +135. You just lost 84 bucks or basically two average "wins". And that is really a bad move against you there since you should be buying into numbers that are off the beaten path anyway. So you get some built in safe guards.

No, it isnt perfect. But If you can pick 7 or 8 good leads for every one bad one youre still netting 6 good bets. And a nickle is small potatoes, just watch a reguar days board sometime youll see games that moves 15, 20, 30 cents. Obviously the trick is to pick those games and pick the right side. But that still isnt as difficult as knowing when to buy back the other way to make sure you squeeze every penny out of it. You wont get the best number every single time, but as long as you get a number that is better than you bought 65-70% of the time you will make a good amount of money.

And that is just the 101 version, there are more in depth versions i dont talk too much about because I dont like revealing too much. but what I just described anyone who has a clue about sports and gambling can do. Most guys just choose not to because they think it is too boring. Those are the guys who just dont like money they just like action.

[eyeball]

If I make 10000 bets, 5000 per side on the same game, and averaged 60 dollars per play thats 300000 dollars. How much would you have to bet to make that much in 100 games? or even a thousand? or even 5000 games.

60 bucks on an arb/buyback/scalp is EASILY done. Even with a smaller bank roll and making mistakes. Even by chipping away at lines like -140/+145 and betting 2500 or so a side, those are going to get you back 30-40 bucks, this particular one gets you 36.44 if you do a 'perfect' one. So you start out with 15-20K and bet a few of those. if you only miss one or two and dont get crushed, after a week and say 40 plays you should have made 800-1200 bucks, maybe more if you get some nicer moves. Then after a month youve made 5K basically 'risk free' or at most risking 2% if you have to eat a number. For example you take a 2500 dollar lead at -150, but it moves the 'wrong' way, so you eject and buy back at +135. You just lost 84 bucks or basically two average "wins". And that is really a bad move against you there since you should be buying into numbers that are off the beaten path anyway. So you get some built in safe guards.

No, it isnt perfect. But If you can pick 7 or 8 good leads for every one bad one youre still netting 6 good bets. And a nickle is small potatoes, just watch a reguar days board sometime youll see games that moves 15, 20, 30 cents. Obviously the trick is to pick those games and pick the right side. But that still isnt as difficult as knowing when to buy back the other way to make sure you squeeze every penny out of it. You wont get the best number every single time, but as long as you get a number that is better than you bought 65-70% of the time you will make a good amount of money.

And that is just the 101 version, there are more in depth versions i dont talk too much about because I dont like revealing too much. but what I just described anyone who has a clue about sports and gambling can do. Most guys just choose not to because they think it is too boring. Those are the guys who just dont like money they just like action.

y

Thank you very much..makes sense..

[Glitch]

wantit, two things.

1. if you had a vagina, i would probably try to marry you.
2. dont get assassinated by "vegas".

[Inspirited]

why does it matter if wantit has a vag or not? get over your physical prejudices.

[tomcowley]

So goddamn stupid.. you see an opener of -125/+105 while pinny is on -118/+111 and somehow think those numbers would ever indicate a 55.5 expected win%.. or that just because they don't hit 55.5%, that you have a profitable blind fade. Maybe at the imaginary no juice book where you can get +125 on anything they offer -125 on.. hmm.. wonder if that's the same imaginary shop you were quoting those imaginary line moves from 2 days ago. So many numbers.. so few brain cells.

[Peregrine Stoop]

I think threads like this stay linked in the think tank so that our heads 'splode and the mods of the forum get a few minutes of riding the rails without competition

[wantitall4moi]

So goddamn stupid.. you see an opener of -125/+105 while pinny is on -118/+111 and somehow think those numbers would ever indicate a 55.5 expected win%.. or that just because they don't hit 55.5%, that you have a profitable blind fade. Maybe at the imaginary no juice book where you can get +125 on anything they offer -125 on.. hmm.. wonder if that's the same imaginary shop you were quoting those imaginary line moves from 2 days ago. So many numbers.. so few brain cells.

I can do it both ways. I said I have looked at them all, and there is no correlation (theres a math word for you). I also knew that pinnacle mention would get someone to bite. Their openers arent any better than anyone elses actually, if anything they might be worse, but the difference is so small it would be hard to say even on a hypothetical level.

But the only way to try and get a 'fair' no vig line is to split the hold books use amongst the sides. So a game lined -125/115 would then be -120/120 so even that would require a 54.5% win rate. Which doesnt happen. Even with ranges going from -120 to -129. games that close -120 to -139 favs win 54.6% so just about break even, but you need to add a lot of favs that are a lot more expensive than -120.

Now some books will mix and match where they take their vig. So a -125/115 game doesnt really have to be 120/120 as a 'no vig' offering. It could be anything. It could really be a full vig on the fav. Or it could be full vig on the dog. No way to tell how a book tabulated their vig, especially when they are working on such tiny holds in the first place.But that also adds in hypotheticals where you dont need them.

But to throw the Pinnacle made up line in there. So we say the no vig is 120/120 for most books, and Pinnacle with their -118/111 would then be a 115/115 offering probably. So they are basically a nickle better both ways on a line they post compared to 10 or 11 other books who paint a solid number. That still requires a 53.5% fav win rate which still isnt enough for the results I see. It might be closer in this case, but I have also seen books with -125 (which would end up with the same results) and Pinnacle throwing up a -128/121, and maybe even a -130/123. So are they shading the dog here looking for action? Like I said I have run those numbers as well, and they just dont correlate.

Now I obviously know odds dont mean win predictions/probability no matter how you want to slice then up, but overall baseball openers are close enough to prevent a profit with making a bet one way or the other. So even with such small holds they are close enough to make them at least viable. And they are extremely profitable when they are moved a certain amount. meaning the books are usually better at putting up a valid number as related to win probability than the bettors are who bet into them.

I commented on this in that other thread. I just didnt go into so in depth an explanation, mostly because the data used for that write up was very dated, and there wasnt enough data given to figure out what the guy was getting at in the first place.

But by seeing what you said here it is apparent you lack reading comprehension or skim something see something that doesnt compute to you and just take it out of context and comment on it. Which is just another reason why the 'smartest' guys will never do any better (if they do well at all) because they think what they are doing is enough and no one else could show them something that makes sense.

I know what I do works because my results proof it out. i am also more than willing to give an explanation of what I am debating rather than giving the gratuitous asshole comment that just pulls something out of a post and calls it stupid or rubbish or senile. rather than giving a reason why.

Right or wrong at least what I post can be look at and looked into, it really doesnt do anyone any good to see "what a stupid pile of shit", yeah that is really a post someone can look at and try and prove or disprove.

But when you all get a database with all those numbers you can maybe come to a debate with some actual ammo, which is why the biggest blow hard know it alls dont say too much. they really dont track or keep records of anything they just plug in numbers in the moment and hope they get lucky enough to prove how smart they think they are.

So if you ask me I have it all, I have the data, I have the reasoning, I have the explanations and most importantly I have the results. Most of the guys who talk the loudest and try and sound the smartest just have a bag of insults and not so clever put downs.

[tomcowley]

You've said you just scalp. Now you're talking about how closers are worse than openers, and you're defending your analysis of that "based on your results". YOU CAN'T USE THAT "KNOWLEDGE" BY SCALPING. Just like your completely fabricated line moves 2 days ago, and your completely contradictory explanations of why lines move, you're just making more shit up with every passing day.

What a shock. A geezer "pro" gambler who's also a compulsive liar. Or too senile to keep a story straight for 2 posts in a row.

[wantitall4moi]

You've said you just scalp. Now you're talking about how closers are worse than openers, and you're defending your analysis of that "based on your results". YOU CAN'T USE THAT "KNOWLEDGE" BY SCALPING. Just like your completely fabricated line moves 2 days ago, and your completely contradictory explanations of why lines move, you're just making more shit up with every passing day.

What a shock. A geezer "pro" gambler who's also a compulsive liar. Or too senile to keep a story straight for 2 posts in a row.

Yet again you are about a day behind what the discussion was. A guy asked if a game that opened -125 and closed at -150 had a better chance to win than a game that opened -125 ans stayed -125. I said no it didnt and then explained why. So by definition the closer was 'worse' than the opener because it was a bigger price for a side that wasnt winning any more games than they would at the lower price. So let me ask you if a game opened -125 and it wins 6 out of 11 times and I bet it at the -125. But someone else chases the steam and bets it at -140 every game and it wins the same 6 out of 11 times who has the best of it, and was the closing number better or worse? Thats an easy one for you.

And the results I use I obviously dont use as a criteria for why I pick a game o take a lean on, once again you dont have a clue what is going on and you call me senile. The results I use are used to show how past results measure up to how lines moved. And whether taking a lead and buying back was as valuable as taking a lead and not buying back.

So I ask you, and this question is tougher but I have answered it in this thread a couple times. If I bet a game -125 and it moves to -150 am I better off letting that bet ride or buying back the opposite side for a guaranteed profit?

So there are two direct questions you can answer with what you know, what you think you know or what has been shown to you by someone who has the ability to look it up.

I have never ever given a reason why I make a play or how I determine what makes a good play. I just show how line moves one way or another finally pan out when the games are declared final.

[tomcowley]

Yet again you are about a day behind what the discussion was.

It's never been about anything except how stupid your posts are and how much nonsense you make up out of thin air. Are you going to own up to your contradictory (and complete nonsense) explanations of line moves? Are you going to own up to completely fabricating that story about line moves 2 days ago? Of course you aren't.

The rest of the stuff isn't even capable of being discussed- you're mixing books that open at different- widely different- times and talking about "an opener". That's stupid beyond words.

[chunk]

I wouldn't say that wantit is accurate in all cases or that I agree with him in all cases. But I do say that I respect that he at least makes a case, unlike many that are so vague that the reader doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.......or is it that they don't have a clue what they're talking about. The latter may be more accurate.

[wantitall4moi]

The rest of the stuff isn't even capable of being discussed- you're mixing books that open at different- widely different- times and talking about "an opener". That's stupid beyond words.

That unfortunately is the REALITY of sports betting. Guys who use data and stats and whatever else they fail to recognize that. They use a single, maybe two sets of numbers and think they can accurately say what something is or isnt.

I on the other hand use as many options as I can, and those options are based on watching them for years at how they move. There are still hundreds of offshore books out there. So there are going to be a multitude of options even me with my 15 or so books isnt going to have every single rogue or off line that exists. But I have a cross section of some of the larger, some of the better and some of the rogue to make them 'close enough'. And surely more accurate than someone punching numbers into a dtata base of closers made up by whomever is entering the data would be.

That is why I keep telling you math is completely useless when it comes to sports gambling. because the numbers are so varied and wide spread there is absolutely no chance to find out anything that can be used mathematically.

But if you want to explain how you personally determine the probability I am all ears. Or how you determine mathematically if the Bos Red Sox at -145 have a better probability of winning than the Det Tigers at -130 when both games opened at the same book for the same exact price of -135.

This thread is entitled lets talk about GAMBLING, not lets talk about nonsense and throw stupid insults around and not explain why you are insulting it.

In GAMBLING these things exist, there are no constants, no standards, not even any rules that cant be bent or even broken. So how in the holy hell is math going to factor into that? And that is just talking about the NUMBERS. I dont even get into players or injuries or psychology or scandals or any of that stuff. I stick to the numbers only. But it ALL matters if you are GAMBLING. What I do isnt really gambling, beyond the fact a number may or may not move the right way or enough to lock in. But it still require principles of gambling to understand it.

Look I can talk theoretical all you want. The problem is it is just that theoretical. So what I try to do is take what has happened in the past and put it into perspective. I debunked and proved so many long standing 'mathematical' bullshit wrong over the years on forums it isnt even funny. I told people shit was nonsense long before they actually figured it out. Guys trying to use vig numbers to say stuff had value or didnt have value based on probability. Then they tried to change the formula and it still didnt work. Bottom line is the results change, every time a game is played at a number or a spread that changes the results. So even if you think you can proof it out after the fact you cant. So that is why math guys have (had) the best of it. because they could spew nonesense because most people didnt have accurate results or didnt track them.

So they could say "buying a +2.5 dog to +3 is worth XX amount" and no one would really question them because enough smart math people who plugged the same numbers into the same formula got the same answer. but that is the problem with math, if the formula is wrong or invalid than that makes the results wrong and invalid. So it is irrelevant how many people agree. so A guy who tracked every game could then come back and say well this many game had this and this many games had that and here are the results. And based on those results their statements were wrong. So far off that there wasnt anyway to make it look like it could work.

Math has its place, and using BASIC stuff to get a ballpark figure is the best you need or have to worry about.

Now I am sure some people have invented their own databases to come up with their own lines. Then they compare those to the openers, the moves, and the closers. Now IF, and this is a big IF, those databases come up with lines that when compared are winning more than they are losing by a margin enough to overcome short term variance and fluctuation then that would be a very valid argument. BUT I have yet to see one. And lack of evidence isnt proof of non existence but if someone had one that was that good someone would have heard about it. But guys do have them, and some do 'work' but at best on a short term basis and only in very small sub sets of games. And usually in those cases other people can work backwards and find the same thing their unique process figured out. Because that is another beauty of math, if it is valid it works both backwards and forwards. So you dont need to invent something new to find an answer you just need the answer and the common sense to work backwards to find the reason.

Either way I talk what I know, and I only talk about stuff I have/had consistent 'success' with. I have other approaches that are much more out there but they work, but not nearly as regularly and I havent figured out the reasons why they work sometimes and dont work others. So I keep them to myself. Although some of the thought process behind them slips out from time to time. I have been doing this a long time. So guys that have a clue realize that while they might not agree with or even understand what I do, they know it works enough for me to still be talking about it over a decade later. And that includes some pretty staunch math guys in forumville.

[tomcowley]

That unfortunately is the REALITY of sports betting. Guys who use data and stats and whatever else they fail to recognize that. They use a single, maybe two sets of numbers and think they can accurately say what something is or isnt.

Well, when you're talking about an opener, it's the first number up anybody with a pulse would bother betting. Which is generally cris and pinny for MLB overnights, not books that clone their more-mature numbers up to 16 hours later. If you want to talk about the morning line, call it the morning line, but calling it an opener in the same sentence with a pinny (or cris) opener is just nonsense.

There are still hundreds of offshore books out there.

Really man? Really? Either you're counting books that aren't offshore, books that aren't even books, or both (the gazillions of redundant pph skins), or you're just making shit up again. My vote is for c.

That is why I keep telling you math is completely useless when it comes to sports gambling. because the numbers are so varied and wide spread there is absolutely no chance to find out anything that can be used mathematically.

LOL, after you go trying to use math to defend your shit in the last post. If you actually believe what you're typing, god help you. Have fun.

[illfuuptn]

But the only way to try and get a 'fair' no vig line is to split the hold books use amongst the sides. So a game lined -125/115 would then be -120/120 so even that would require a 54.5% win rate.

The fact that you think that's true confirms your stupidity. Just know that the dumb people think you're awesome and will suck your cokkk itt but every smart person see's straight through your flawed logic, stupid assumptions, and beginner's mistakes. Just know that...

[mh217]

bet the opposite of the first half for the 2nd half....it gravitates to the original line...lines are usually sharp...shhh its a secret they dont want you to know!

[wantitall4moi]

The fact that you think that's true confirms your stupidity. Just know that the dumb people think you're awesome and will suck your cokkk itt but every smart person see's straight through your flawed logic, stupid assumptions, and beginner's mistakes. Just know that...

so you know how books figure their holds huh? or what a 'real' line on a game is? I dont because they change it, so I just did the next best thing I made them all the same, and took a nickle off each side. Which is as good as assume they take all the vig out of the favorite. So no it probably isnt 'right' but there is no right unless you know how every book does their book keeping.