What edge do you have in Sports Betting?

[donjuan]

CHF,

I appear to have confused you with Reno Cool. My apologies.

[BigCap]

Uh, WTF? The .5% edge has a higher EV and EG at that point. Not only that but you have a much higher bankroll, which is obviously preferable. What is your point?

That is my point, with (a) $1,000,000 bankroll the +0.5% EV bets have higher expected growth than (b) $3,500,000 bankroll betting +8% EV bets capped at $500.

So you then prefer (a) over (b), correct?

[donjuan]

No, they don't have higher expected growth. At 3,500,000 they do, not at 1,000,000.

[reno cool]

Lets not forget the one who starts with a bigger bankroll has an advantage already.

Donjuan, I think generally you make many good points. However, you tend to make simplistic or misleading remarks. Realize, that many who you argue with are experienced winning handicappers,gamblers. And that is a rarity worthy of respect.
So lay of the disdain, maybe you'll learn something.

[Heartman2]

The arrogant, sh!t talking Steve Fezzik, a self proclaimed advantage gambler, lost his @ss posting picks in 2005/2006!

Just another in the long line of advantage gamblers who talk sh!t but can't back it up!

[marcoforte]

Everyone is Right and Everyone Is Wrong.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Basic research is important and price is 2nd. Look at stock picking. Picking Apple or Enron a few years ago. Good basic research would have told you Apple. Buying it at 20 or 22 didn't make a difference when the stock sells in the 120-140 range. Neither did Enron at 20 when it nows sells for pennies if you can find a market. A dog getting between 6 to 7.5 depending on where you shop the line doesn't matter if it gets blown out by 20.

[donjuan]

Everyone is Right and Everyone Is Wrong.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Basic research is important and price is 2nd. Look at stock picking. Picking Apple or Enron a few years ago. Good basic research would have told you Apple. Buying it at 20 or 22 didn't make a difference when the stock sells in the 120-140 range. Neither did Enron at 20 when it nows sells for pennies if you can find a market. A dog getting between 6 to 7.5 depending on where you shop the line doesn't matter if it gets blown out by 20.

Way to understand sample size, not.

[smitch124]

I am evaluating a handicapper's picks. According to this thread it is more important that the handicapper in question is beating the closing number than having a good W-L record. But how often do you need to beat the closing number to be successful?

This is the handicappers record for last season in NCAAB:

132-105 +40.67 Units

Beat the closing number: 108 times
Lost to the closing number: 48 times
Was the same as the closing number: 61 tiimes

I would imagine that how much he beat and lost to the closing number by would be important. As an estimate lets sat he beat the number by an average of a point under a 10 point spread, and lost to the number by the average of 1/2 point under a 10 point spread.

Is this the type of performance against the closing number that would expect success?

Is there information that is missing?

Any comments are appreciated...

[smitch124]

Another interesting aspect of this particular handicapper's results:

He graded his plays from 0.5 units to 10 units for an average of 2.95 units per play.

He would've been up 48.68 units if he flat bet all his plays @ 2.95 units vs. grading them the way he did which netted him 40.67 units.

[Justin7]

Why such a wide fluctuation in his bet size? that suggests he's a rookie.

132-105. 40.67 profit at 2.95 units, that's +13.8 at 1 unit a play. Is he playing some moneyline favorites?

[smitch124]

His profit if he flat bet would have been +48.68 units if his average bet (2.95 units) was made at -110.

His actual result was +40.67 units because he must not have performed as well on the higher unit plays. That was the reason for the comparison, he would've been better off flat betting.

[Alfie11]

Great video, I love your 3 screen setup too. Do you have any more videos besides this one?

[Chi_archie]

yeah... jsut put a search in at youtube.. justin gambling ect...

i'm sure there is a way to do it on sbr.tv but I don't even really know what that is

[Justin7]

All my videos are at Sbr.TV here:

http://www.sbr.tv/Users.aspx?us=1453

and at Youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/SbrJustin

I wish more people would rate my videos...

[accuscoresucks]

justin7

is in process of a 3 screen video release ranked 5* and a double digit contract
j7 appears to like helping the new guy out that comes in the door,sbr found a nugget under their pillow


ps-pm sent to peter loshak of loshak inc

[icelancer]

All my videos are at Sbr.TV here:

http://www.sbr.tv/Users.aspx?us=1453

and at Youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/SbrJustin

I wish more people would rate my videos...

I've only seen one of your videos, and it was a long time ago - the one about correlated parlays. Hell of a great video, Justin!

[Justin7]

I've only seen one of your videos, and it was a long time ago - the one about correlated parlays. Hell of a great video, Justin!

Glad you like it. I need more good topics... I'm just about to do one that is "advanced" that no one will understand or care about.

[icelancer]

I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

[Arilou]

I find it impossible that all advantage bettors have bankrolls of $1 or more, simply because I can counterexample. I know of multiple people who are clearly advantage betters who, at an earlier point in time had Kelly bankrolls far less than that and in fact less than $200K but were clealry already advantage betters.

[Data]

at an earlier point in time had Kelly bankrolls far less than that and in fact less than $200K but were clealry already advantage betters.

If they deserved to be called advantage bettors then they were capable to earn money at a much higher rate pushing their Kelly bankrolls well beyond $200K. You are underestimating their earning abilities.

[smokin1]

Why such a wide fluctuation in his bet size? that suggests he's a rookie.

132-105. 40.67 profit at 2.95 units, that's +13.8 at 1 unit a play. Is he playing some moneyline favorites?

Hi Justin

First off, I am relatively new to sports betting and have enjoyed a couple of your videos already. They are a nice way to learn in the afternoon rather then being bored and placing bad bets after my initial stronger picks early in the day

A good video topic might be explaining why fluctuation in bet size is such a bad thing. As I said I am rather new, but having an idea which of your bests are more solid and increasing bet size accordingly makes sense to me. Also, there is another phenomenon thats interests me.

Let me try to explain how I have it in my head:

Say you consistently pick over 55% winners. No brainer, with constant bet size you profit. Say those same bets are increased to recover losses.

Example:

100 Bets @ $100
55 Win and are up 100 while 45 lose and down 105
Then you take that 45 losers and roll over into 45 $105 bets to recover losses. 25 win and break even, while the 20 left are down $205 total.
In summary, you end up with 55 Winners @ +$100 (+$5500), 25 broke even and 20 Losers @ 205 total (-$4100)
5500-4100 = +$1400
vs.
Straight Up (without increasing bet size) 145 total bets @ 55% = (80 x 100) - (65 x 105) = +$1175

It can be taken even further by sending the -205 losers in for another round at "loss recovery @ 55%".

Ofcourse, this whole theory has to do with maintaining an avg higher then the 52/53% needed to recover lost vig but if thats the case isnt it beneficial to increase profits?

Like I said, any thoughts are appreciated as I fully concede the fact many people here know more then I do

[donjuan]

If they deserved to be called advantage bettors then they were capable to earn money at a much higher rate pushing their Kelly bankrolls well beyond $200K. You are underestimating their earning abilities.

I'm pretty sure you aren't discounting cash flows properly. Clearly being able to earn $100k/year for 2 years and having $20k on hand in cash right now is not the same as having $220k on hand in cash right now with $0 in expected outside income for the next 2 years. And with sports betting you are going to have a massive discount rate if you are remotely competent.

[smokin1]

I just realized my math was a little off. I was doing it in my head

The 205 lossers would actually be 215. Which does close the gap a bit but the theory holds true I believe, increasing bets can be used to increase profits under certain conditions.

[donjuan]

A good video topic might be explaining why fluctuation in bet size is such a bad thing.

It's not. See: Kelly Criterion.

[smokin1]

I have seen the kelly calculator and just googled kelly criterion. Can you give me the cliff notes version of what you are referring to so I can understand my reading about Kelly a little more.

[smokin1]

It's not. See: Kelly Criterion.

Ok I see now you meant that Justin had a video already relating to the Kelly Criterion, my apologies, I seem to be a little extra slow today.

After watching and reading about Kelly's I definitely think its time to re-evaluate my calculations, especially regarding the straight up methods initial bet size being larger.

[smitch124]

Bet sizing is fine if you are able to accurately quantify your edge, otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.

[Justin7]

Bet sizing is fine if you are able to accurately quantify your edge, otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.

If you cannot quantify your edge, I wouldn't recommend EVER betting.

[smokin1]

If you cannot quantify your edge, I wouldn't recommend EVER betting.

I think thats what I just discovered. If you cant predict you are >52% winner, you shouldnt be betting. And if you do win over >52% you should be betting your maximum bet on every bet because whether you win 55% or 65% of the time, you are maximizing your profit with making a standard sized bet on all wagers.

[reno cool]

If you cannot quantify your edge, I wouldn't recommend EVER betting.

now thats just plain silly.

[roasthawg]

I think thats what I just discovered. If you cant predict you are >52% winner, you shouldnt be betting. And if you do win over >52% you should be betting your maximum bet on every bet because whether you win 55% or 65% of the time, you are maximizing your profit with making a standard sized bet on all wagers.

No, you need to look into Kelly staking...even if you know a certain bet will hit >55% of the time you need to account for losing streaks when determining your optimal bet size...after all, the main concern for an advantage bettor is never going broke!

[Data]

I'm pretty sure you aren't discounting cash flows properly.

I am pretty sure your opinion on this matter has no factual basis whatsoever. Also, based on your remark, it seems to me, that you are overemphasizing the role of the concepts such as TVM and DCF within Kelly framework which, I think, is very minor.

Clearly being able to earn $100k/year for 2 years and having $20k on hand in cash right now is not the same as having $220k on hand in cash right now with $0 in expected outside income for the next 2 years.

Not the same but the difference is based only on TVM and not that big.

And with sports betting you are going to have a massive discount rate if you are remotely competent.

We do NOT count the potential earnings from sportsbetting while calculating Kelly bankroll. However, in this context, if we did the massive discount rate would be completely offset by an enormous future value anyway.

[donjuan]

Data,

So getting $100,000 50 years from today is only trivially different than having that $100,000 today in your version of events. I think pretty much everyone can see how absurd that is. Also, how, exactly, would you propose betting a full Kelly stake in the following instance:

Current cash: $20,000
Kelly bankroll: $200,000
I find a bet with a 90% chance of winning and the odds given are even money. Since your version of a Kelly bankroll includes all future cash flows, including anything you can borrow, it would be impossible to bet a full Kelly stake. Of course the relevant answer would be to discount those future cash flows.

Finally, you say that you don't count potential earnings from sports betting while calculating the Kelly bankroll. Of course this is correct. However, your discount rate for TVM purposes is essentially your opportunity cost and the opportunity cost for sports bettors of having their money elsewhere is enormous.

[Data]

Why is that impossible to bet full Kelly? The availability of credit is assumed and yes, you discount with TVM because all you get is the same money just a bit early.

[Data]

your discount rate for TVM purposes is essentially your opportunity cost and the opportunity cost for sports bettors of having their money elsewhere is enormous.

Where is that "elsewhere"? I do not know what are you talking about. There is no "elsewhere", there is just that same old damn Kelly bankroll.