What edge do you have in Sports Betting?

[Justin7]

You seem to be saying that the betting line is always a true indication of the relative strength and weaknesses of the teams. That is fundamentally untrue. Most of the time it is, but often it is not. The betting line represents only the public's (or someone's) OPINION as to the strength and weaknesses of the teams, and a good handicapper can identify situations where that opinion is skewed.

I'll strongly disagree with this for everything but the Super Bowl and March Madness. The public is almost irrelevant now. Sharps dwarf the public in betting except for those events.

[donjuan]

BigCap,

By beat, I mean get a price better than closing, not to make +EV bets at closing prices.

[BigCap]

BigCap,

By beat, I mean get a price better than closing, not to make +EV bets at closing prices.

Understood. My point still stands, however.

[donjuan]

Understood. My point still stands, however.

Certainly. It depends on how big your bankroll is though.

[BigCap]

Certainly. It depends on how big your bankroll is though.

You can't make money if you can't find a line you can't beat.

In that regard bankroll is not relevant.

[donjuan]

You can't make money if you can't find a line you can't beat.

In that regard bankroll is not relevant.

Of course, but hitting openers for a slightly better ROI than when they raise the limits is not optimal if you have a large bankroll.

[vanzack]

After the piles of shit I see on sportsbetting sites - it sure is refreshing to see something like this.

Great job Justin.

[BigCap]

Of course, but hitting openers for a slightly better ROI than when they raise the limits is not optimal if you have a large bankroll.

Of course betting against lines you can't beat is 0 EV. So openers > 0.

Or, what would you prefer: +0.5% for $10,000 limit, or +8.0% for $500 limit?

[coldhardfacts]

I'll strongly disagree with this for everything but the Super Bowl and March Madness. The public is almost irrelevant now. Sharps dwarf the public in betting except for those events.

Disagree with what? I'm saying WHOEVER is responsible for any particular line on any game being what it is - opening, closing or middle - sometimes makes errors. And that's what good handicappers have to be able to identify. Are you saying that line moves are always the result of betting by "sharps"? If that were the case, you'd expect the line move to be on the correct side an overwhelmingly high percentage of the time. And this is certainly not true.

[coldhardfacts]

1. We are talking about the closing line, not some random line during the week.

2. What exactly do you mean by opinion? You think advantage bettors who move lines are just saying I like team A because Tom Brady is good?

In the first place, the lines during the week are by no means "random". They are set by linesmakers with a particular goal in mind (generally, evening out their take) and adjusted throughout the week to balance things out.

In the second place, what do YOU mean by opinion? There are a number of factors to consider when handicapping any sporting event. And the weighing of those factors against the available line is what most folks (at least those who know what they're doing) use to form their opinion. What are you saying, "advantage bettors" (as if anyone with any sense isn't looking for an advantage) are always privy to confidential, inside information that no one else has?

[dwaechte]

In the first place, the lines during the week are by no means "random". They are set by linesmakers with a particular goal in mind (generally, evening out their take) and adjusted throughout the week to balance things out.

In the second place, what do YOU mean by opinion? There are a number of factors to consider when handicapping any sporting event. And the weighing of those factors against the available line is what most folks (at least those who know what they're doing) use to form their opinion. What are you saying, "advantage bettors" (as if anyone with any sense isn't looking for an advantage) are always privy to confidential, inside information that no one else has?

It's not that they have inside information, it's that the people who are setting the odds are very, very good at representing all of the available information with a line. What makes you think a regular old "good" handicapper is going to be better at objectively combining all of the relevant information into a number than the books are, when they have some of the smartest people in the world, and more resources than any one individual could hope to attain on his own?

Generally, any advantage one might have over those kind of resources would be in taking advantage of the fact that books do try to minimize risk to some extent, and in the past I'm sure that involved twisting the odds to account for "public" money. That way, smart bettors don't necessarily need to beat the fair value as judged by the books, but the collective input of everyone. Now adays, books and extreme sharps themselves are becoming better and better at taking advantage of public money, and the markets are becoming more efficient. It's not so easy these days to get a good line simply because Joe Schmoe is a Ravens fan and plops down $1000. More of that money is going towards the very best of the best, and less and less is getting left for "good" handicappers who have less time and resources than the books themselves.

And as far as your comment to Justin, yes, that's exactly what we're saying.

[coldhardfacts]

It's not that they have inside information, it's that the people who are setting the odds are very, very good at representing all of the available information with a line. What makes you think a regular old "good" handicapper is going to be better at objectively combining all of the relevant information into a number than the books are, when they have some of the smartest people in the world, and more resources than any one individual could hope to attain on his own?

Generally, any advantage one might have over those kind of resources would be in taking advantage of the fact that books do try to minimize risk to some extent, and in the past I'm sure that involved twisting the odds to account for "public" money. That way, smart bettors don't necessarily need to beat the fair value as judged by the books, but the collective input of everyone. Now adays, books and extreme sharps themselves are becoming better and better at taking advantage of public money, and the markets are becoming more efficient. It's not so easy these days to get a good line simply because Joe Schmoe is a Ravens fan and plops down $1000. More of that money is going towards the very best of the best, and less and less is getting left for "good" handicappers who have less time and resources than the books themselves.

And as far as your comment to Justin, yes, that's exactly what we're saying.

There is only one conclusion one can draw from your comments and those in the video. And that is, handicapping be damned (the linesmakers and sharps know so much more than the rest of us so why bother?), but spend all of your time trying to figure out what the line is going to be at game time and get down at a better line before it gets to that point.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

[dwaechte]

There is only one conclusion one can draw from your comments and those in the video. And that is, handicapping be damned (the linesmakers and sharps know so much more than the rest of us so why bother?), but spend all of your time trying to figure out what the line is going to be at game time and get down at a better line before it gets to that point.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

Somewhat yes. The point is that in order to be profitable long term you can't just be beating old public trends. You need to keep up on trends, discover and analyze the most important and telling stats, and stay ahead of others while doing.. in other words, become sharp. You need good math skills, to obsess over film, and take it to the point where you're seeing individual trends that others aren't. Generally, you need to take it to the point where it's work, not fun. It's not as easy as capping things in a traditional manner or using the logic that most people on this board use. You can't just say "The Jets run defense has been awful and Minnesota runs the ball really well, I'm going to bet Minnesota".

You're mixing up the causation. It's not necessarily about guessing which way the line will go, it's about being able to cap games in an advanced manner that allows you to beat other smart investors to certain lines. If you do that, then in the vast majority of cases the line will move in your favour as people catch up to what you've already found.

EDIT NOTE: I'm somewhat talking out of my ass here, but my last couple of posts are what I've come up with by following boards, reading, and listening to what guys like Justin and donjuan have to say. If anyone more knowledgeable than me sees any fallacies in what I've written, please point them out.

[coldhardfacts]

Somewhat yes. The point is that in order to be profitable long term you can't just be beating old public trends. You need to keep up on trends, discover and analyze the most important and telling stats, and stay ahead of others while doing.. in other words, become sharp. You need good math skills, to obsess over film, and take it to the point where you're seeing individual trends that others aren't. Generally, you need to take it to the point where it's work, not fun. It's not as easy as capping things in a traditional manner or using the logic that most people on this board use. You can't just say "The Jets run defense has been awful and Minnesota runs the ball really well, I'm going to bet Minnesota".

You're mixing up the causation. It's not necessarily about guessing which way the line will go, it's about being able to cap games in an advanced manner that allows you to beat other smart investors to certain lines. If you do that, then in the vast majority of cases the line will move in your favour as people catch up to what you've already found.

EDIT NOTE: I'm somewhat talking out of my ass here, but my last couple of posts are what I've come up with by following boards, reading, and listening to what guys like Justin and donjuan have to say. If anyone more knowledgeable than me sees any fallacies in what I've written, please point them out.

Well, now you're getting into handicapping strategies that can make one a "sharp". While I agree it takes alot of work, I think sometimes the obvious (e.g., good run teams against poor run defenses) is overlooked, and huge overlays result.

This seems to contradict your previous statements, in that one would conclude from reading this that handicapping, not necessarily getting the best line on every game every time (although, of course, this is something you should always strive to do), is the most important factor in succeeding. And I agree with that.

The line ebbs and flows throughout the week, and you should pounce on the side you like when you think you're getting the best of it unless you're pretty confident its going to continue to move in the favorable direction. I think it was Warren Buffet who said, when asked what was the secret of his success, "selling too early".

[dwaechte]

Well, now you're getting into handicapping strategies that can make one a "sharp". While I agree it takes alot of work, I think sometimes the obvious (e.g., good run teams against poor run defenses) is overlooked, and huge overlays result.

This seems to contradict your previous statements, in that one would conclude from reading this that handicapping, not necessarily getting the best line on every game every time (although, of course, this is something you should always strive to do), is the most important factor in succeeding. And I agree with that.

The line ebbs and flows throughout the week, and you should pounce on the side you like when you think you're getting the best of it unless you're pretty confident its going to continue to move in the favorable direction. I think it was Warren Buffet who said, when asked what was the secret of his success, "selling too early".

I think we do agree on a lot, but I think you're missing my point with that middle paragraph. The way you get the best line every time(apart from lineshopping) is through advanced handicapping. If you are an advanced advantage bettor, in most cases, the line you grab will be the best line available from that point on. Not just because of line shopping, but because you're ahead of the market and the market will eventually catch up as game time approaches.

[coldhardfacts]

I think we do agree on a lot, but I think you're missing my point with that middle paragraph. The way you get the best line every time(apart from lineshopping) is through advanced handicapping. If you are an advanced advantage bettor, in most cases, the line you grab will be the best line available from that point on. Not just because of line shopping, but because you're ahead of the market and the market will eventually catch up as game time approaches.

Agree completely.

[donjuan]

If that were the case, you'd expect the line move to be on the correct side an overwhelmingly high percentage of the time. And this is certainly not true.

Define "correct side" and "overwhelmingly high percentage", por favor.

[coldhardfacts]

Define "correct side" and "overwhelmingly high percentage", por favor.

Correct side: Side that covers

High percentage: Over 52.5 percent

Overwhelmingly high percentage: over 55 percent

[donjuan]

Correct side: Side that covers

I would say winning side rather than correct side for the side that covers. There is a difference of course.

However, you don't think line moves of 2 points or more in basketball (using basketball since most points are equal in value unlike football where a 2 point move from 1.5 to 3.5 is far different than one from 13.5 to 11.5) cover more than 55% of the time at the original price?

[dwaechte]

Correct side: Side that covers

High percentage: Over 52.5 percent

Overwhelmingly high percentage: over 55 percent

I'm going to beat dj to the punch and point out that the correct side is not always the side that covers. When all of the cumulative information points a certain way(normally only in the slightest from earlier lines), that's a better definition of correct side. Just because a RB who has never fumbled in his career decides to fumble 5 times in one game does not make his team the "wrong" side. Results of the game can only be considered "correct" if there was reasonable evidence beforehand to suggest the occurence.

That being said, if "overwhelmingly high" is 55%, the initial plays that cause the line movements probably do hit that percentage. If you have a more appropriate definition of correct side, it's certainly a lot higher.

[durito]

1pt in basketball is worth about 3.8% in your chances of covering the spread.

[coldhardfacts]

I would say winning side rather than correct side for the side that covers. There is a difference of course.

However, you don't think line moves of 2 points or more in basketball (using basketball since most points are equal in value unlike football where a 2 point move from 1.5 to 3.5 is far different than one from 13.5 to 11.5) cover more than 55% of the time at the original price?

I think your first point is a distinction without a difference. The "correct" side loses as often as the "incorrect" side wins, so it's a wash.

While your second point may be valid, it is very difficult for the average bettor (i.e., one without inside information or unusual insight into a particular game) to identify those kinds of moves before they occur. And, if you make the play after the move, then the percentage comes down under 55% for sure, and probably under the requisite 52.5%. Otherwise, we could all make a living just betting these moves after they happen.

[Data]

1pt in basketball is worth about 3.8% in your chances of covering the spread.

Right, but 1 point move does not mean the line was 1 point off.

What happens if the line is 1.5 points off? The sharps pound it and it moves 1 point. Note, the line is still 0.5 point off because the sharps no longer want it. Then, the followers come in. They bet at a lesser and/or slower books taking the lines that are 0.5-1 points off the current line. What makes their effort worth is what they are actually getting 1-1.5 points instead and this is why beating the line by a little works well for quite a few people and it may seem it works better than it should.

[durito]

data,

sure. i hadn't read the other posts, i was just throwing that out there off the top of my head.

[Data]

data,

sure. i hadn't read the other posts, i was just throwing that out there off the top of my head.

durito, I was not addressing this directly to you. I am sure you knew that. I did not want the number you provided misused.

It seemed to me that some posters do not account for the phenomenon I described. I have never seen a post explaining it, so I thought some posters may find my post somewhat useful because of that.

[donjuan]

I think your first point is a distinction without a difference. The "correct" side loses as often as the "incorrect" side wins, so it's a wash.

That's simply not true. If it wins at only 50% at -110 or -105, it's not the correct side.

While your second point may be valid, it is very difficult for the average bettor (i.e., one without inside information or unusual insight into a particular game) to identify those kinds of moves before they occur. And, if you make the play after the move, then the percentage comes down under 55% for sure, and probably under the requisite 52.5%. Otherwise, we could all make a living just betting these moves after they happen.

You can make a living just betting the moves (so long as you don't get booted). It's called steam chasing.

[donjuan]

Right, but 1 point move does not mean the line was 1 point off.

What happens if the line is 1.5 points off? The sharps pound it and it moves 1 point. Note, the line is still 0.5 point off because the sharps no longer want it. Then, the followers come in. They bet at a lesser and/or slower books taking the lines that are 0.5-1 points off the current line. What makes their effort worth is what they are actually getting 1-1.5 points instead and this is why beating the line by a little works well for quite a few people and it may seem it works better than it should.

While this is true at -110, at -105 it is not. If you can find a line a half point off at -105, the bet still has an edge while it does not at -110.

[dwaechte]

While this is true at -110, at -105 it is not. If you can find a line a half point off at -105, the bet still has an edge while it does not at -110.

I interpreted what he said the way you did at first, but I believe he's just talking about taking advantage of slow moving books, which of course does generally pay in the long run. In his example, the followers were able to grab a full 1.5 point edge rather than just the .5 edge that they'd get by assuming all books moved instantly when top books moved.

[donjuan]

Right, but he's also talking about off lines not completely moving to fair value at any book because of the juice. This was true in basketball in the days of -110, but doesn't hold true at -105.

[Kingctb27]

Nice video. As a fairly new bettor, this is quite helpful.

[Data]

Right, but he's also talking about off lines not completely moving to fair value at any book because of the juice.

No, not because of the juice but because the sharps who moved the line already got down on a better number.

[donjuan]

No, not because of the juice but because the sharps who moved the line already got down on a better number.

So if your bankroll was large enough, you wouldn't place another +EV bet because you already got a better number?

[Data]

So if your bankroll was large enough, you wouldn't place another +EV bet because you already got a better number?

Theoretically speaking I certainly should. I would need a $100,000,000 bankroll though. And since you are asking what I would do then I can tell you that if I had $100,000,000 bankroll I would not be applying it in this field. So, the answer, again, for me personally, is no, I would not place another +EV bet.

[BigCap]

So if your bankroll was large enough, you wouldn't place another +EV bet because you already got a better number?

If you got full limits on a +6% edge at 3 books, would you bet more at < 1% edge?

This is basically the same question I posted earlier, but even more in favor of not betting the small edge because you are already down on a huge +EV bet on the same event already.

[coldhardfacts]

[QUOTE=donjuan;986014]That's simply not true. If it wins at only 50% at -110 or -105, it's not the correct side.



HUH??? By definition, for every "correct" side that loses there is an "incorrect" side that wins. That's a basic law of mathematics that no one can refute.