What I've Learned - Betting Strategies

[CK]

LMAO a blind monkey can make 15-20K in baseball with little to no risk, and not even betting all that much per game, but isnt a sport you bet. NFL is the biggest sucker game in town, the only 'positive' football has is the limits guys are allowed to bet. So if books who are scared to take a bet of any kind these days allow the biggest bets to be made in football what does that tell you?

If it were that easy, why wouldn't everyone bet baseball and make a killing? I hear people say constantly that it's the easiest game to beat (and football being the hardest), and it's just taken as truth, but just hasn't seemed that way to me. Fully get that I might just be betting baseball wrong, and there's a way to make it profitable, but as I've said a number of times, it all comes down to consistency for me, and baseball just doesn't strike me as a sport where the better team wins the most number of times.

Taking a step back, I see betting big on these "consistent" games and not betting the coin-flips is similar to, in blackjack, bet bigger on the hands you're at an advantage (ie. holding 11 vs dealer 6), and just don't bet the "50/50" hands. This oppoed to betting all the hands the same amount, some where you have an advantage, some where you're at a disadvantage, and some that it's 50/50.

BOL today everyone.

[FourLengthsClear]

LMAO a blind monkey can make 15-20K in baseball with little to no risk, and not even betting all that much per game, but isnt a sport you bet. NFL is the biggest sucker game in town, the only 'positive' football has is the limits guys are allowed to bet. So if books who are scared to take a bet of any kind these days allow the biggest bets to be made in football what does that tell you?

beating closing line means zero, Go ask fezzik how beating the closing number has worked this year. Guy has actually been getting the best numbers and he has still lost his ass. best numbers only matter if theyre on the winning side. Moves dont win nearly enough to make these blanket statements yet it is now becoming one of the biggest myth perpetuated on the boards these days...'beat the closer and youre a winner'.

Simplest rules.... pick a side, get the best odds, spread, vig, whatever on the side you like. Hope it wins. Thats it. But bargain hunting and getting the best number only means so much, if you still cant pick the winning side more often than not it wont matter youre still going to go broke.

Unless you are able to back up foolish blanket statements with hard data rather than anecdotes, it is probably best to stop making them.

[wantitall4moi]

If it were that easy, why wouldn't everyone bet baseball and make a killing? I hear people say constantly that it's the easiest game to beat (and football being the hardest), and it's just taken as truth, but just hasn't seemed that way to me. Fully get that I might just be betting baseball wrong, and there's a way to make it profitable, but as I've said a number of times, it all comes down to consistency for me, and baseball just doesn't strike me as a sport where the better team wins the most number of times.

Taking a step back, I see betting big on these "consistent" games and not betting the coin-flips is similar to, in blackjack, bet bigger on the hands you're at an advantage (ie. holding 11 vs dealer 6), and just don't bet the "50/50" hands. This oppoed to betting all the hands the same amount, some where you have an advantage, some where you're at a disadvantage, and some that it's 50/50.

BOL today everyone.

Because maybe 5 in 100 people have the mentality to do it that way. And of those 5 maybe 2 have the gambling acumen and ability to see the lines and how to bet them the 'right' way.

So while blind moneys can do it, most gamblers arent as disciplined or as smart as blind monkeys.

There is also no real way to determine your advantage. It is all based on comparison. Comparisons based on incomplete data and results.

NFL bets are mostly based on a spread. That spread is more than likely not close to a prediction of what the final score will be, nor should it. So trying to determine an advantage based off that spread requires some sort of independent method to figure out a prediction of the final score. Most people dont do that. Some do, but some over do it and some under do it. But even with a 'perfect' simulator the results are still going to be inconclusive or have a varying degree or parameters. So you still have to figure out what is valid and what isnt.

Regardless of how you pick a side you still should get the best price. That is NOT advantage, and it isnt even really 'value'. It is simply buying it cheaper. You dont get an advantage by buying Charmin at Wal-Mart for 12.99 compared to buying it at Target for 13.99. You simply got it cheaper, and you shouldnt buy more at Wal-Mart just because it is cheaper and seems to have more 'value'. Because K-Mart might have a sale on it next week for 10.49.

[wantitall4moi]

Unless you are able to back up foolish blanket statements with hard data rather than anecdotes, it is probably best to stop making them.

I could post about 40,000 examples and it still wouldnt make a difference. Data is only as good as the way it is interpreted. Since there are alot of factors in how it can be used then th only way to see it is to see everything. Which quite frankly, as I alluded to in the post above most people wouldnt understand anyway.

But if you want a quick and easy short term look just look at the SBR odds page and look at openers and closers, then see where the moves went and if those moves were winners or losers. Even with hindsight and cherry picking it would be impossible to find any clear cut advantage, and without hindsight or past posting you wouldnt see anything worth while.

EDIT: In looking at those you also have to se where the moves made a difference either way. A game opening -4 and closing -6 and a team won by 12 doesnt mean beating the closer mattered, both were winners. Same as a game opening -3.5 and closing -5.5 and that team losing SU. You could have 'beat' the closer and still lost. Some oves are 'right' some are 'wrong' in very few cases do they actually matter.

[mrmarket]

All,

I wanted to share what I’ve learned over the last 4 years of sports betting. A lot of this forum has degenerated to people trying to show off, gain internet respect, trash each other, etc. but wanted to share what I’ve learned over my time betting baseball, basketball, and football, in the spirit of contributing and helping each other out – going into the holidays, we should remember that this forum is one of the few places where we’re all on the same team, trying to help each other beat the books. This is a bit of a long post, but hopefully you guys find some useful insights here.

1) Stay away from coin-flip games. Bank on elite, reliable teams

a. I focus on betting games where elite teams who are consistent and reliable are playing mediocre, bad teams. I stay away from elite teams playing elite teams (basically a coin-flip), and mediocre teams playing mediocre/bad teams (also a coin-flip – you just can’t rely on bad teams. Even if a mediocre team is playing a really bad team – mediocre teams are unreliable, and even in games against awful teams that they should win, they often lose)

2) I only bet Football, and no longer bet Baseball or Basketball

a. Baseball – too many (162) games, players don’t take each game as seriously. Additionally, I’ve come to think of baseball as a game where it’s “too difficult to score” – similar to why I don’t bet soccer or hockey, when scoring is that difficult, the better team doesn’t always win (they can get down early, pressure gets on, etc.) While over a full season, the best teams will tend to have the better records, on any one individual game, games can be too inconsistent for me.

b. Basketball – also a lot of games (82), so players don’t take each game as seriously. In contrast to baseball, I’ve found basketball is a game where it’s “too easy to score”. As a result, back-door covers by underdogs happen much more frequently, and point spreads can so easily be lost when a team is winning by a lot once the game is already in hand. So easy to let the losing team hit another basket given how easy it is to score. While that can often help you as well (if you’re on the other side), consistency is king for me, and I prefer betting on games where you can most reliably depend on the right team winning by the right amount.

c. Football – just the right amount of games (16) where every game matters. Just the right amount of difficulty in scoring – it’s not so hard that you get the problems you do in baseball/hockey/soccer. It’s not too easy where you get the downsides in basketball (that’s not to say that backdoor covers don’t occur in football of course). If you stick to the elite teams and stay away from mediocre/unreliable teams, more often the better team will win by the number of points they should.

3) Bet fewer games, but bet them bigger

a. I know the general thought process in this forum is to bet a lot of games, bet them small (1%-5% of bankroll), and grind it out by trying to hit 55%+ winners. In my opinion, that gets mentally exhausting, and it also gets you into the habit of betting a lot more coin-flip games. I much prefer finding the one or two games I really like (ie. elite team playing bad team on the road, in a tight divisional race, trying to lock up 2nd seed in playoffs), and betting them big (10%-15% of bankroll).

4) Know the teams situations and motivations

a. I definitely keep track of when divisions are locked up (and teams can be less motivated), when teams are playing for playoff seeding, etc.

b. My favorite time of the year to bet (and when I consequently up my betting amount) is Weeks 13-17 in the NFL. At this point, the elite teams know exactly what they’re playing for, and are extra motivated. Athletes are people too, and just like us, are much more focused when goals are short-term, tangible, and within grasp (as opposed to earlier in the season, where players care about games, but playoffs are so far in the distant, they are prone to inconsistent play). As such I bet bigger later in the season, and much less earlier in the season where I like to get a better sense for which teams are “bankable” that season

5) Don’t bet games just because they’re “big games” or great matchups

a. I used to be the biggest culprit of this – betting “big games big”. I’d bet large on a game just because it’s a great matchup (ie. Superbowl). Lines are extra sharp, and these games are essentially coin-flips that can go either way.

b. It’s been said a number of times on this forum, but it’s worth repeating – you can win just the same on the Superbowl as a lowly NCAAF match that no one’s watching. You’re either in this to make money, or in it to entertain yourself. I don’t mind sprinkling a small bet on the Superbowl or a big game I know I’m going to watch just to make things interesting, root for a team, but like I said, these are basically coin-flips you should typically stay away from.

6) Sports are played by people, not robots or computers

a. So often I see people on this forum get overly enamored by line movements, that books “already know what’s going to happen”, or that “sharps are moving a line, let’s follow”. At the end of the day, these games are being played by real people and they can make mistakes, are prone to get into mental slumps, etc. While it’s great to analyze line movement and find patterns / tendencies that can help you get the best lines, this shouldn’t be the sole reason you bet games. This is still a real sport played by real people, and if you don’t understand the underlying teams and matchups, betting games blindly due to line movement, because the public/sharps are on one side or another, etc. is a losing strategy in my opinion.


I’ve stayed very disciplined to these rules this season in football, and have done very well. I bet one or two games each week, and bet them larger. I stick to elite teams playing mediocre teams and stay away from coin-flip games as much as possible. You won’t win every game of course, but in my opinion, these are the most “consistent” games that you can bet on and for me, consistency is king. I plan on betting big over the next few weeks in football (perhaps up through first round of playoffs depending on matchups), but am then scaling back and enjoying the playoffs as a football fan. I might make a few small bets for fun since I know I’ll be watching the games, but not buying into the trap of betting big games big.

Hopefully you guys have found some of these strategies useful and can incorporate into your own betting systems.

All the best going into the holiday season!

1) Favorite teams are often shaded by books for square action. Compare line probability to estimated probability of bet covering. Bet accordingly.
2) Football is probably the most efficient sports market with a smaller sample of games each season and therefore has less value compared to NBA/NHL/MLB
3) Bet based on edge with kelly/some derivation thereof or flat betting if you can't be bothered. Your risk of ruin is high betting 10-15% of your bankroll unless your edge merits it (doubtful).
4) No comment.
5) There is often value in large games as public money skews odds.
6) Handicapping your own lines in large market sports is largely a waste of time unless you're modeling.

Your heart is in the right place but you have the same problem most punters have. The number #1 consideration for all bets is odds. If you're not basing every decision from that at the start you are behind already.

[FourLengthsClear]

I could post about 40,000 examples and it still wouldnt make a difference. Data is only as good as the way it is interpreted. Since there are alot of factors in how it can be used then th only way to see it is to see everything. Which quite frankly, as I alluded to in the post above most people wouldnt understand anyway.

But if you want a quick and easy short term look just look at the SBR odds page and look at openers and closers, then see where the moves went and if those moves were winners or losers. Even with hindsight and cherry picking it would be impossible to find any clear cut advantage, and without hindsight or past posting you wouldnt see anything worth while.

EDIT: In looking at those you also have to se where the moves made a difference either way. A game opening -4 and closing -6 and a team won by 12 doesnt mean beating the closer mattered, both were winners. Same as a game opening -3.5 and closing -5.5 and that team losing SU. You could have 'beat' the closer and still lost. Some oves are 'right' some are 'wrong' in very few cases do they actually matter.

Right but if we are talking basketball, it will land on 4, 5 or 6 around 11% of the time (do you want to dispute that?) in which case beating the closer makes ALL the difference.

You talk about it being difficult/impossible to predict line movements but on the other hand say that solid handicapping/breaking down games is the way to go. Do you honestly not see that in efficient markets the first, with the right tools, is actually easier?

If I have a model/tool that can work out what the closer will be with a high degree of accuracy, it follows that I can see what the 'soft' openers are, no?

[Ra77er]

Please hold....wantitall is on chapter 2 of his response. 4LC you are one sharp motherfawker.

[wantitall4moi]

Right but if we are talking basketball, it will land on 4, 5 or 6 around 11% of the time (do you want to dispute that?) in which case beating the closer makes ALL the difference.

You talk about it being difficult/impossible to predict line movements but on the other hand say that solid handicapping/breaking down games is the way to go. Do you honestly not see that in efficient markets the first, with the right tools, is actually easier?

If I have a model/tool that can work out what the closer will be with a high degree of accuracy, it follows that I can see what the 'soft' openers are, no?

You missed my other post. I said without an independent way to determine a 'fair line'. A model/simulator/system then it doesnt matter. But with those then the closer is irrelevant. You will ave an independent result already and you just bet he best available number when youre ready. You could bet early, bet late, or bet when you thought the time was right. That still doesnt mean you had an advantage or were better at something.

It just means you used (in your mind) a better way to determine what a 'fair' market line for that game was.

I know guys are trying to use all these wall street and market prediction software and putting it into sports betting. But those things dont work in the area they were intended. The stock market is more fixed and manipulated than sportsbetting. But at least the prices are easier to track and give 'long' term value to.

Sports betting isnt nearly as complex or complicated as people want to make it out to be. If it were then everyone would be killing it.

Seriously. I wasnt a gambler. I used the system to its fullest. I bet both sides of the same game for a guaranteed profit. I did it well and I made a lot of money. Could I have made money betting one side of a game? Probably, but why bother you can bet more and risk less with a TRUE advantage. Making money betting sports isnt about winning, it is about not losing.

You dont think I looked at moves, mostly in baseball but also on ML plays? Of course I did, if I had seen a clear cut reason or pattern I might have changed tactics. i didnt. Moves were right and they were wrong, the best approach was to just go with the flow and take advantage of it.

Everyone wants to 'beat the book' That is a total misnomer. What people should want to do is BECOME the book. And when you can control youre own action becoming the book is very lucrative. If I have a side -115, and I have the opposite side +135 I am a bookmaker then. I am collecting vig, taking a hold, on my own bets basically. But the book is paying me. So instead of me paying the book a commission on whatever I win, they pay me no matter who wins. In this case I get 4.12%, instead of me paying them on a -110 line 4.55% if I win. Even when you win a one sided bet you lose vig. Betting both ways, especially in baseball where they move vig around willy nilly youre cutting their hold in half from the start. Baseball has small holds anyway, much less than football. Simply because it is a diime line, and places with smaller holds like Pinnacle it is almost non existant. Most of their holds are 1.44% Some even less. A few around 1.5% But that is less than most exchanges will charge in commissions fees. So if you bet a side at Pinnacle for say -142, and they take a ton of action and you can eventually get the other side for +157 youre looking at an instant 2.5% return. On an amount you really dont have to worry about since it is 'risk free'.

This isnt rocket science. Seriously anyone can do it. Like Isay the trick is betting the 'right' side of the line move. Which is obviously the most difficult part. But even if youre 'wrong' with the 'right' outs, you can minimize the damage because the takes are so small.

So look at a 'bad' game. You bet a team -147 for say 7350. The line moves against you, and you wait until it hits +139 before you eject. That is an extreme move and most guys would eject before then probably. But even so, you take a chance. That 'gamble' costs you 167 bux. So nt earth shattering, but when youre living and grinding on pennies it cus into the bottomline.

So with a 10K bankroll and having a bunch of 'bad' leads worst case a guy isnt going to go broke, and might even show a small profit if he has enough good leads. Its a grind, not a bet big or go home sort of thng. And it isnt something you can come to the forums and brag about.

[Ra77er]

Called it, please add me to xmas list.

[FourLengthsClear]

Please hold....wantitall is on chapter 2 of his response. 4LC you are one sharp motherfawker.

Actually it was the early recognition that I am not 'sharp' that allows me to make money in sportsbetting. I can't out-handicap the NFL market, the EPL market, the NBA market. In smaller, less efficient markets I was able to be a step ahead but there is limited upside with these due to small initial limits and then being collared by books.

In terms of modeling I had my share of successes but I also invested an awful lot of time in complete busts and I know for a fact that there are people out there (including a few posters who post on this forum) who are better at it than me.

I am primarily a trader nowadays and I use that abilities that I have to develop software that attempts to do that better than other traders. At the moment this works for me, in future who knows............?

[FourLengthsClear]

You missed my other post. I said without an independent way to determine a 'fair line'. A model/simulator/system then it doesnt matter. But with those then the closer is irrelevant. You will ave an independent result already and you just bet he best available number when youre ready. You could bet early, bet late, or bet when you thought the time was right. That still doesnt mean you had an advantage or were better at something.

It just means you used (in your mind) a better way to determine what a 'fair' market line for that game was.

I know guys are trying to use all these wall street and market prediction software and putting it into sports betting. But those things dont work in the area they were intended. The stock market is more fixed and manipulated than sportsbetting. But at least the prices are easier to track and give 'long' term value to.

Sports betting isnt nearly as complex or complicated as people want to make it out to be. If it were then everyone would be killing it.

Seriously. I wasnt a gambler. I used the system to its fullest. I bet both sides of the same game for a guaranteed profit. I did it well and I made a lot of money. Could I have made money betting one side of a game? Probably, but why bother you can bet more and risk less with a TRUE advantage. Making money betting sports isnt about winning, it is about not losing.

You dont think I looked at moves, mostly in baseball but also on ML plays? Of course I did, if I had seen a clear cut reason or pattern I might have changed tactics. i didnt. Moves were right and they were wrong, the best approach was to just go with the flow and take advantage of it.

Everyone wants to 'beat the book' That is a total misnomer. What people should want to do is BECOME the book. And when you can control youre own action becoming the book is very lucrative. If I have a side -115, and I have the opposite side +135 I am a bookmaker then. I am collecting vig, taking a hold, on my own bets basically. But the book is paying me. So instead of me paying the book a commission on whatever I win, they pay me no matter who wins. In this case I get 4.12%, instead of me paying them on a -110 line 4.55% if I win. Even when you win a one sided bet you lose vig. Betting both ways, especially in baseball where they move vig around willy nilly youre cutting their hold in half from the start. Baseball has small holds anyway, much less than football. Simply because it is a diime line, and places with smaller holds like Pinnacle it is almost non existant. Most of their holds are 1.44% Some even less. A few around 1.5% But that is less than most exchanges will charge in commissions fees. So if you bet a side at Pinnacle for say -142, and they take a ton of action and you can eventually get the other side for +157 youre looking at an instant 2.5% return. On an amount you really dont have to worry about since it is 'risk free'.

This isnt rocket science. Seriously anyone can do it. Like Isay the trick is betting the 'right' side of the line move. Which is obviously the most difficult part. But even if youre 'wrong' with the 'right' outs, you can minimize the damage because the takes are so small.

So look at a 'bad' game. You bet a team -147 for say 7350. The line moves against you, and you wait until it hits +139 before you eject. That is an extreme move and most guys would eject before then probably. But even so, you take a chance. That 'gamble' costs you 167 bux. So nt earth shattering, but when youre living and grinding on pennies it cus into the bottomline.

So with a 10K bankroll and having a bunch of 'bad' leads worst case a guy isnt going to go broke, and might even show a small profit if he has enough good leads. Its a grind, not a bet big or go home sort of thng. And it isnt something you can come to the forums and brag about.

Now you are directly contradicting yourself. On the assumption that your above referenced -115/+135 is not an arbitrage (with both bets placed simultaneously) than what you are doing absolutely depends on you beating the closing line to be successful.

After placing the initial bet, if the line moves your way you can win, if it moves against you you are losing, period. So the questions are

1) What tools/knowledge are you using to predict/pre-empt these line movements?
2) In the long run for those bets where the line does move in your direction how would just holding on to the initial position/bet compare to 'scalping' approach? If markets are truly efficient (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that NFL, NBA, MLB markets are) then it follows that the initial bet has a substantial +EV and that the second, scalping, bet merely reduces that value.

[NYSportsGuy210]

90% of what the OP posted here is pure garbage. Most newbie bettors will go broke within their first 5 bets listening to this nonsense.

[chunk]

Wantit and fourlengths saved it though.

[135steward]

good debate

Wantit and fourlengths saved it though.

wantit and 4LC both offer solid betting insights from differing perspectives. Thanks, guys.

[wantitall4moi]

Now you are directly contradicting yourself. On the assumption that your above referenced -115/+135 is not an arbitrage (with both bets placed simultaneously) than what you are doing absolutely depends on you beating the closing line to be successful.

After placing the initial bet, if the line moves your way you can win, if it moves against you you are losing, period. So the questions are

1) What tools/knowledge are you using to predict/pre-empt these line movements?
2) In the long run for those bets where the line does move in your direction how would just holding on to the initial position/bet compare to 'scalping' approach? If markets are truly efficient (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that NFL, NBA, MLB markets are) then it follows that the initial bet has a substantial +EV and that the second, scalping, bet merely reduces that value.

Not if the -115 side loses. It all comes down to semantics I suppose. a -115 fav that moves to -145, and losies means betting the -115 technically beat the closing number, but -115 was still a losing play. So whiuile you 'beat' the clsing number you still had a losing bet. Thats toutspeak 101 for the most part, and why blanket statements like what most of them say dont mean anything because they can be twisted in either direction to make them valid. But in most cases 'beating the closing line' is in direct reference to pointspreads and not odds. So semantics wrapped in a different sport.

I bet games based on what the public thinks, starting pitching (most over rated stat in baseball) versus bullpen and closing pitchers. An overall win strength for the team. And a few other things.

I usually waited for a line to make at least two moves somewhere before I ejected, and they have to be significant moves. No clear pattern or formula, but if I bet a team +130 and they start going to +128, at more than a few books (some will go right to +125) and then make another small move somewhere else (basically showing the bulk of expected action is going on at that time) and they dont slow or go the 'right' way I will be looking for a place to unload them. That is where multiple outs saves you, and where most Americans are at a severe disadvantage these days. Used to be with exchanges and 3 or 4 decent places you could see a 15 cent move against you and still get out for as little as a nickle. So thats usually gong to be less than a 1% risk factor, which is easily within any set of parameters one could come up with. I used to bet Pinnacle openers for the max. Before they changed their software you could do quite a bit, but even after they changed their software a limit size bet wouldnt move the line, all you had to do was wait for someone to bet it enough to move it a little bit more so you could bet it again. Or you simply had to wait for the timer (never figured out how long it was) before they upped their limits to full then it didnt matter what the line was you could bet the game again even at the same line. That was obviously a few years ago now. But I am sure it hasnt changed any, I just dont have an account there anymore. But I had one after they closed to the U.S. and am sure I could have one again if I chose.

But there really are no true scalps or arbitrages these days, at least in baseball. You can find a few in small sports on MLs or 'fake' stuff with a ML and a "PK" line (on a spread) but usually the hold on those is way too high, and the limits are way too small to make them worthwhile. If you see a simultaneous -110 ML and a game with say a +1 spread line that you can move to PK +115, sure that is a nickle but If the limit is only 500 one way then youre looking at only getting 10.60 or so back on it. So youre putting in 940 bux to make 10. Sure its free money but if one of the books is questionable or charges for pay outs youre losing money in the long run.

Most guys dont care about this stuff, they play one side of a game and look to hit more winners than losers. or at least collect more than they pay. So most of this stuff is foreign to a lot of people. But that is also why they get caught up and trapped in the usual rhetoric and nonsense that gets spouted out on the boards. Because unless you have bets that CANNOT lose you truly dont understand what +Ev is or what 'risk' is. Or even what vig is for that matter. Because most of those terms are determined against winners and how much to collect. Not in terms of success expectaion or reality.

[keel44]

The biggest thing I am finding out over the years is that things change quicker than the odds do. For example the Red Sox had a horrible start lat year, the odds were not lowered because the public thinks they will snap out of it any time soon. A smart gambler would take advantage of the +odds and ride that wave until about may. Then it switches again and you could ride the Red Sox winning ways for the next month.

What I am trying to convey is that the odds are pretty consistent, but a teams performance is NOT. If you can take advantage of "the changes" in a teams performance, you could be ahead of public perception. That means just enough advantage to profit.

[dj_destroyer]

All those tips are garbage... The only thing that matters is being sharper than the books. It's not that hard if you put in the time and dedication to research.

[ThaddeusB]

CK,

Congratulations. That was one of the most eloquent summaries of conventional (square) wisdom that I've read.

Thaddeus

[alling]

baseball and basketball have lower betting limits, football higher betting limits. clearly books want you to bet football not baseball and basketball so much.

[samserif]

Nothing wrong with betting large amounts on a few games, versus smaller amounts on many games, as long as you don't mind going bankrupt a lot.

In statistics, large numbers are your friend. The more wagers you make, the greater the likelihood that your winnings (or losses) will correspond exactly to your edge. If you make a small number of large bets and end up losing your bankroll, you won't know if your bets are negative EV or if you just had a bad weekend. If you make a large number of small bets and see your bankroll steadily diminish, you know you're doing something wrong. The same works for winnings. My first four bets on games, each with ridiculously high amounts, all won. Essentially, I had tossed heads four times in a row. No skill, just luck. It could have gone the other way just as easily. Luckily, my Inner Statistician told me this.

For those looking for a deeper explanation, check out the Central Limit Theorem. The idea is that the more often you sample a distribution (i.e., place a bet and see what happens), the closer you'll get to finding your edge. It also means that more small bets have less overall variance than a few large bets. Suppose you can pick winners with 55% accuracy. What's more likely, putting all your money on one game and losing it all, or distributing your money across ten games and losing all ten of them? More bets = less variance = less chance of losing everything on one really bad weekend.

[Duff85]

What's more likely, putting all your money on one game and losing it all, or distributing your money across ten games and losing all ten of them? More bets = less variance = less chance of losing everything on one really bad weekend.

Excellent post. You also get to see variance from a different angle. When you run 1-18 amongst a pack of 50 bets, its not as bad as say going 1-18 placing them one at a time. Of course these massive winning and losing streaks are relatively rare... but i'd guess I lose 10 bets consecutively reasonably at least once every couple of months.

[CK]

Suppose you can pick winners with 55% accuracy. What's more likely, putting all your money on one game and losing it all, or distributing your money across ten games and losing all ten of them? More bets = less variance = less chance of losing everything on one really bad weekend.

I see what you and a few other posters are coming from in terms of betting less games versus more, and how that increases your variance. In pure statistical / mathematical terms, I agree, can't dispute the math.

My counter-point though would be that this assumes you pick winners at a given accuracy rate (ie. 55%). Yes, you may be able to pick that level of winners in the long-run (if you're good), when you bet many games. But to me, there are a small sub-set of games out there that are more "consistent" in my opinion (in mathematical/statistical terms, I suppose these would be the games where the standard deviation is smaller). I think that people would do better just betting those games, but for larger amounts.

Psychologically, I find that when you bet the conventional ~1% of your bankroll on each bet, a win doesn't really feel like much of a win, so you end up needing to bet more games naturally, many of these being what I consider "coin-flip" games. I don't mean to suggest that one should bet the same number of games, but for more. But that there are a certain number of the games you play that are more consistent than others (ie. the "few but better" plays), and I'd much rather consolidate my bets and bet more on these games, rather than spreading my money around and having to bet on that many more games.

[CK]

This weekend in football doesn't look good to me, so many games are coin-flip games in my opinion.
- SD vs Detroit (I could see either team winning big)
- Philly vs Dallas (could go either way)

I also think the elite teams that I've been playing lately are playing pretty good teams this week, and laying quite a bit.

- Patriots vs Miami (I do think Pats win, but -9.5 is a lot to cover, could easily see them winning by a fg)
- Ravens playing Browns - same, -13.5 is a big number
- Saints playing Falcons -6.5, same, could be close

Scaling down betting size this week as I don't love anything. Playing a 6pt teaser on the games I like, and generally staying on the sidelines this weekend, hopefully better games to go big on next week. BOL everyone.

I'm happy I stayed on the sidelines (my small teaser lost) last weekend, as I didn't really like anything. New England won by 3, but didn't cover, Ravens won by 6, but didn't cover. New Orleans smoked the Falcons. The rest of the games, an argument could've been made pre-game for either side (ie. coinflip for me)

This weekend, there are 2 games I'm liking.

New England -10 at home vs Buffalo
New Orleans -7.5 at home vs Carolina

Patriots are playing for #1 seed in AFC and after eeking out the win last week against a good Miami team, I think they will come out and really crush a bad Buffalo team.

New Orleans looked great last week against Atlanta, got the Drew Brees record out of the way (which was a pretty crazy celebration!), and are playing for #2 seed in NFC. A wrinkle here is if San Francisco beats St. Louis, SF gets #2 seed. The games are at the same time, so if the SF game is a blow-out early, it's possible New Orleans will get the update and either rest starters / let up, but I think they play the game hard. They know how difficult it can be to let up for one game, and then turn it back on in the playoffs.

I may end up only playing the New England game, and if I do end up betting the Saints, will probably be for less.

BOL this week everyone!

[wantitall4moi]

The problem with 'variance' in gambling is your making plays into lines that arent mathematically valid. meaning if you flip a coin a thousand times youre going to see something fairy close to 50%. Same as with cards or dice, all have a mathematically verifiable probability.

Sports betting has no such validity. Lines arent predictors nor are they supposed to be. That is why they are volatile and move. Obviously the logic would dictate that if you are 'good' at gambling you will recognize which side of a line to bet more often than not. But since sports arent always predictable either you have a lot of things going against you in terms of finding your 'mean'. Your prediction of a line being wrong could be correct but the results didnt end up that way, and vice versa, a team was better than the line indicated but for some reason it didnt turn out that way. basically the old adage...'right side wrong result' excuse.

So you could be on the 'right' side of every line move you make and still lose. Sounds like a clearly wrong statement but it is true. Thats why math and logic and too much thinking is just a waste of time. It also isnt safe to assume that over more lays you will lessen these 'bad' results. because there are bad results in a lot of games. Some are flukey, some are just circumstantial. baseball and Hoops are the most circumstantial. An error or a called fourth ball instead of a strike to end an inning can kill many a game. A made 3 pointer that leads to intentional fouls down the stretch can kill a total or even a point spread really quick. You have a team +7, theyre down 6, go down and make a basket it looks like an easy cover, suddenly they start fouling and soon are down 9 or 10. That happens a lot. OT obviously kills a lot of totals as well, you have a 188 total, score is 85-88 with 3 seconds left, a team makes a desperation 3 and it goes to OT your toast. Bad beat or expected result? Depends on perspective I suppose but I dont see many people saying "game could go to OT and get me the over" too much in their analysis.

So it is hard to get these mathematical theories plugged into sports and have them be workable.

[CK]

Totally agree with you there. The idea of chasing line movements is not mine, but was something discussed on the thread by others. In my original post, I mention that using line movements as the sole reason for betting doesn't make sense to me, that line movements are just what bettors and the market think about a certain game. No one knows the future - these games aren't played by robots or computers, players still need to go out and get it done on the field.

[jerry]

The most important thing in sports, war, life is motivation. Identify the team that's motivated.

In Afghanistan illiterate farmers with AK 47s and IEDs are doing a pretty good job against a military superpower because the farmers have the motivation.

[135steward]

The problem with 'variance' in gambling is your making plays into lines that arent mathematically valid. meaning if you flip a coin a thousand times youre going to see something fairy close to 50%. Same as with cards or dice, all have a mathematically verifiable probability.

Sports betting has no such validity. Lines arent predictors nor are they supposed to be....So it is hard to get these mathematical theories plugged into sports and have them be workable.

I respectfully disagree, wantit. CK agreeing with you, alone, should send up a warning flag. But seriously, I cited several tables of data in past posts, and ran spreadsheets on several thousand data points on my own. Lines are eerily accurate predictors of outcomes. Of course a 2:3 fav can lose 10 times, just like you may roll snake-eyes twice in a row. And all those examples you cited can go either way. Like the old saying goes, it all works out in the end.

[numismatist]

Great thread.
Its nice to see some quality stuff on here from time to time.

[numismatist]

....althougth I don't agree with everything you said, I like the fact you said it eloquently and without calling out anyones mother.

[FourLengthsClear]

The problem with 'variance' in gambling is your making plays into lines that arent mathematically valid. meaning if you flip a coin a thousand times youre going to see something fairy close to 50%. Same as with cards or dice, all have a mathematically verifiable probability.

Sports betting has no such validity. Lines arent predictors nor are they supposed to be. That is why they are volatile and move. Obviously the logic would dictate that if you are 'good' at gambling you will recognize which side of a line to bet more often than not. But since sports arent always predictable either you have a lot of things going against you in terms of finding your 'mean'. Your prediction of a line being wrong could be correct but the results didnt end up that way, and vice versa, a team was better than the line indicated but for some reason it didnt turn out that way. basically the old adage...'right side wrong result' excuse.

So you could be on the 'right' side of every line move you make and still lose. Sounds like a clearly wrong statement but it is true. Thats why math and logic and too much thinking is just a waste of time. It also isnt safe to assume that over more lays you will lessen these 'bad' results. because there are bad results in a lot of games. Some are flukey, some are just circumstantial. baseball and Hoops are the most circumstantial. An error or a called fourth ball instead of a strike to end an inning can kill many a game. A made 3 pointer that leads to intentional fouls down the stretch can kill a total or even a point spread really quick. You have a team +7, theyre down 6, go down and make a basket it looks like an easy cover, suddenly they start fouling and soon are down 9 or 10. That happens a lot. OT obviously kills a lot of totals as well, you have a 188 total, score is 85-88 with 3 seconds left, a team makes a desperation 3 and it goes to OT your toast. Bad beat or expected result? Depends on perspective I suppose but I dont see many people saying "game could go to OT and get me the over" too much in their analysis.

So it is hard to get these mathematical theories plugged into sports and have them be workable.

Can you show me a major sport in the last 10 years where any of the below is true?

a) Favourites have covered the closing spread in more than 50% of all matches
b) Underdogs have covered the closing spread in more than 52% of all matches
c) Totals have gone over the closing total in more than 50% of all matches
d) Totals have gone over the closing total in more than 52% of all matches

I bet you can't, in fact I know you can't.

NFL and NBA markets have had a remarkable tendency towards 51% underdogs covering and 51% unders hitting over whatever timeframe you care to look at. This means that these markets represent highly efficient vehicles and it is for this reason that even the very best bettors will struggle to hit at over 55% on a consistent basis and by the same token why even the biggest square shaped hamburger will hit at 46 or 47%.

Lines/odds in major sports ARE predictors and they are very good predictors. They are so good that beating those lines by a single point in basketball is, conclusively, enough to turn a 50% 'picker' into someone who can WILL in the long run if betting at level stakes.

Picking the right side on the basis of information that is widely available to and used by everyone who has an interest in betting on a match as well as the oddsmakers, or by watching the teams involved previous matches is not easy. If it was more people would be able to do it. Do you think you are going to beat these markets by watching games on TV or gleaning basic stats from ESPN?

The idea "math and logic.... are a waste of time" is just laugahble, How do you think Billy Walters determines his fair line? The history of the Computer Group should give you a clue. Likewise how to LVSC or Pinnacle determine their openers? Do they utilise mathematical modeling or do they stick a finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing?

[CK]

This weekend, there are 2 games I'm liking.

New England -10 at home vs Buffalo
New Orleans -7.5 at home vs Carolina


I may end up only playing the New England game, and if I do end up betting the Saints, will probably be for less.

Nice, played both of these games pretty big today (bigger on NE than New Orleans) and won them both comfortably. The New Orleans bet was well in hand pretty early. The Patriots bet actually looked like it was going to lose for much of the game (Pats went down 21-0 in first quarter), but as the true elite teams do, Brady and the Pats settled down, got their offense rolling, and scored 49 unanswered points.

Don't like any other games today or this week, so going to stay disciplined and not bet anything else.

I might sprinkle a small bet just for fun on Giants vs Dallas SNF tonight as it should be a good, exciting game to watch. Need to remember not to get caught up betting a big game big, 'cuz it really is a coin-flip game - both teams could end up winning. I used to do this a lot in the past, especially when I had just won big - easy way to lose a profit.

Hope you all have a good betting day today!

[CK]

We talkin' 'bout Playoffs! One of my favorite times of the year as an nfl fan. Tough games this week for me, nothing I really like. The Falcons / Giants and Cincy / Houston games really feel like coin flip games to me, could see either team winning those. I like New Orleans and Pittsburgh, but they're laying big lines (-10.5 Saints, -9 Steelers), and in the playoffs, anything can happen.

As I mentioned below, I really try to stay away from betting the playoffs big - especially later on (conference championships and on), both teams tend to be elite and games can go either way.

For those who bet bigger in the playoffs, be careful, in past years, I've made a lot throughout the season (especially last few weeks), and given it all back in the playoffs + more. Going to generally stay on the sidelines unless a game comes up that I really like. Can't force it! Going to sprinkle some small bets just to make the games interesting to watch, but otherwise laying off.

Small bets today on Saints -10 and Texans -4 for entertainment purposes.

Best of luck all!

[Inkwell77]

Can you show me a major sport in the last 10 years where any of the below is true?

a) Favourites have covered the closing spread in more than 50% of all matches
b) Underdogs have covered the closing spread in more than 52% of all matches
c) Totals have gone over the closing total in more than 50% of all matches
d) Totals have gone over the closing total in more than 52% of all matches

I bet you can't, in fact I know you can't.

Are these numbers based on the opening numbers from CRIS or LVSC or based on the closing numbers? Would be interesting to see the differences in percentages and compare the closing number percentages to the opening number percentages.

[wantitall4moi]

Can you show me a major sport in the last 10 years where any of the below is true?

a) Favourites have covered the closing spread in more than 50% of all matches
b) Underdogs have covered the closing spread in more than 52% of all matches
c) Totals have gone over the closing total in more than 50% of all matches
d) Totals have gone over the closing total in more than 52% of all matches

I bet you can't, in fact I know you can't.

NFL and NBA markets have had a remarkable tendency towards 51% underdogs covering and 51% unders hitting over whatever timeframe you care to look at. This means that these markets represent highly efficient vehicles and it is for this reason that even the very best bettors will struggle to hit at over 55% on a consistent basis and by the same token why even the biggest square shaped hamburger will hit at 46 or 47%.

Lines/odds in major sports ARE predictors and they are very good predictors. They are so good that beating those lines by a single point in basketball is, conclusively, enough to turn a 50% 'picker' into someone who can WILL in the long run if betting at level stakes.

Picking the right side on the basis of information that is widely available to and used by everyone who has an interest in betting on a match as well as the oddsmakers, or by watching the teams involved previous matches is not easy. If it was more people would be able to do it. Do you think you are going to beat these markets by watching games on TV or gleaning basic stats from ESPN?

The idea "math and logic.... are a waste of time" is just laugahble, How do you think Billy Walters determines his fair line? The history of the Computer Group should give you a clue. Likewise how to LVSC or Pinnacle determine their openers? Do they utilise mathematical modeling or do they stick a finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing?

Ahh I somehow missed this one. But yes I can show at least half a dozen results that fit those in the NFL alone.

Most obvious one is 2004 where dogs were 53.5% on the blind no line shopping at all. Same season with no line shopping totals went over 51.5% of the time, so one season fulfills two of those. WITH line shopping that season Dogs were 55.8% and Overs were 53.6%.

Season before that was similar as well. But it was the favorites and the under that were the big winners. Dogs were 81-173 that year SU ATS they were 118-133-3 with no line shopping just basic closing number. Overs were 116-136-2 with no shopping. So just off a generic search you get Favs with a 53% win % (discounting pushes). Unders were 54%.

So just off memory I found 4 examples in two seasons that answer your questions/challenge.

EDIT: feel free to double check those results, but I imagine any generic dataase around will have them at similar results. At least enough to 'pass' the criteria you set.

[FourLengthsClear]

Are these numbers based on the opening numbers from CRIS or LVSC or based on the closing numbers? Would be interesting to see the differences in percentages and compare the closing number percentages to the opening number percentages.

They are based on the closing line.

In terms of doing the comparison with openers the bands are wider and do not have the same symmetry. This does not mean that you can bet all favs/dogs or overs/unders blind. There are other metrics that you can use that demonstrate quite conclusively that closers are a better representation of a 'fair line' than openers.