What I've Learned - Betting Strategies

[wantitall4moi]

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.

I have all those too and trust me there is no correlation. Since I showed what my Db has on the generic side that basically showed you dont really have a clue and are just going off assumptions then people will have to trust that I could produce that info as well if I wanted but I am not going to do all the work for everyone.

Basically I debunked your assertions with a 5 minute search. And backed it up with hard data and actual results not make believe ideas or cloudy memories or thoughts made by rambling incompetents that wouldnt be able to use a database let alone make one.

[FourLengthsClear]

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.

I did not say a single season, I said over the last ten years (as a whole). An NFL season with with less than 300 games gives a margin of error of only +/- 6 games to fall outside the criteria.

[FourLengthsClear]

I have all those too and trust me there is no correlation. Since I showed what my Db has on the generic side that basically showed you dont really have a clue and are just going off assumptions then people will have to trust that I could produce that info as well if I wanted but I am not going to do all the work for everyone.

Basically I debunked your assertions with a 5 minute search. And backed it up with hard data and actual results not make believe ideas or cloudy memories or thoughts made by rambling incompetents that wouldnt be able to use a database let alone make one.

So you would contend that closing lines are not a better indication of fair value than opening lines and you have data to back that up?

If that is really your contention, I would suggest that you have no data at all and that your "5 minute search" comes courtesy of Google. If your contention was true it would mean that sports markets demonstrate no macro-efficiency, such a claim is easily disproved but I am not going to waste my time doing that because you will just say that you have data (over period x) that shows something different.

[BettingWizard]

not betting baseball

[wantitall4moi]

I did not say a single season, I said over the last ten years (as a whole). An NFL season with with less than 300 games gives a margin of error of only +/- 6 games to fall outside the criteria.

More gamblers fallacy nonsense. Seasons change as rules get changed modified etc so therefore you have to look at each individual season such as it is to gain advantages. Obvioulsy people want more results but sometimes that isnt possible and why I have always said you cant use 'math' in sports, particularly the NFL.

I just posted two back to back years with a no brainer return rate individually, that when combined would 'equal out' So youre telling me that when you combine those two season and get roughly 50/50 split the results when looked at separately are meaningless?

So a season that is 60-40 one way goes back to 40-60 the next year is a 'market correction'?

Similar appraoch within this season OVERs were gold the first 5 weeks of the season, next 5 weeks the unders hit at a blind profit. 3rd 5 weeks was a mixed bag. So for 10 weeks you oculd have followed a simple strategy and made money without even trying. At the end of the season the results are 129-127 to the over so an almost perfectly balanced season, but when you break down the results on a week to week basis the numbers dont lie.

Bottomline is there are short term patterns that people with common sense and a little bit of brains can exploit over time. Just because results eventually even to means that the value BOTH ways is there. That however doesnt automatically assume you should look for a regression to the mean (another math term guys love) it means there might be short term spurts that can be exploited.

Now with all that being said since 2002 (10 seasons) Home teams are 1258-1401 ATS with a marginal bit of line shopping. So therefore road teams are 52.7% ATS. If you look for the 'best' case scenarios they could be as high as 1496-1163. Thats 56.3%. That was just checking one parameter. I am sure if I looked at other sports I could find similar break downs over a decade period.

There is always going to be some subset or area that has an exploit, even long term. Since a home/away dichotomy has nothing to do with a line or a spread in terms of an actual number just a result then I would say that is actually more valid than looking at who was favorite or who was dog. Or in the very least being home or away had no bearing on why they were either favored or not. Also in that time span with minimal line shopping OVERs could have been right around 52.3%.

Again most generic databases will come up with similar numbers I am sure depending on what book they graded to.

All I know is anyone that is going to post on a forum that in 2003 you could have been 137-116-1 On every single side of every single game that year betting blind micky mouse numbers. Then in 2004 be 133-118-3 on every game in the blind and claim that is meaningless doesnt have one frigging clue as to what they are talking about. End of story.

[wantitall4moi]

So you would contend that closing lines are not a better indication of fair value than opening lines and you have data to back that up?

If that is really your contention, I would suggest that you have no data at all and that your "5 minute search" comes courtesy of Google. If your contention was true it would mean that sports markets demonstrate no macro-efficiency, such a claim is easily disproved but I am not going to waste my time doing that because you will just say that you have data (over period x) that shows something different.

LOL if you can find the kind of stuff I have on Google then I want to see the links. My database basically took a computer genius kid I know about 7 years to get to where it is now, and it still isnt 'perfect'.

Anyone can find a database of results based on random closing numbers, and with those if you check 10 different databases you'll more than likely get 10 different results. I have all those and then some. I have 3 I can strip results with, including line moves and whatnot. basically everything SBR has on their history page (where you go and click on th lines for a particular book and you get the pop up) I have back years in a few sports. It is also searchable. Meaning I can break down spread to a specific vig number. If I want to know how many game have opened -3-110 or -3 -115 I cantell. One DB might tell you 200 games opened -3, Mine will say how many and what vig (or at least the average of the vig) then I just have to break down subsets for the particular vigs.

All total overkill, but I like to have it to throw up the results in these types of debates.

[FourLengthsClear]

More gamblers fallacy nonsense. Seasons change as rules get changed modified etc so therefore you have to look at each individual season such as it is to gain advantages. Obvioulsy people want more results but sometimes that isnt possible and why I have always said you cant use 'math' in sports, particularly the NFL.
.

My grandmother always said that seeing a spider was "good luck". Her saying that has about as much validity as yours.

I just posted two back to back years with a no brainer return rate individually, that when combined would 'equal out' So youre telling me that when you combine those two season and get roughly 50/50 split the results when looked at separately are meaningless?

Everything is a no brainer after the fact. 53-54% over a sample of 250-300 demonstrates what exactly?
If team wearing red uniforms were 54% ATS in 2004 and 46% in 2005 it would most likely be due to variance, no?

So a season that is 60-40 one way goes back to 40-60 the next year is a 'market correction'?
.

Completely moot unless you can show me a real life example. Can you?

Similar appraoch within this season OVERs were gold the first 5 weeks of the season, next 5 weeks the unders hit at a blind profit. 3rd 5 weeks was a mixed bag. So for 10 weeks you oculd have followed a simple strategy and made money without even trying. At the end of the season the results are 129-127 to the over so an almost perfectly balanced season, but when you break down the results on a week to week basis the numbers dont lie.

Again that is all very well after that fact. What was that simple strategy? Overs in the first 5 weeks of the season were a solid play, lots of people latched on to that after week 1 and week 2 when offensive stats were through the roof. What was the pivot point in terms of deciding that the market had over-corrected and that unders were the way to go for the next 5 weeks? Does this indicate micro-efficiency, is it books just luring the public or could it just be our old friend variance again?

Can we apply your simple strategy to the NFL play-offs and into next season or are we going to wait until we have all the results again and then say we should have been betting all unders blind?

Now with all that being said since 2002 (10 seasons) Home teams are 1258-1401 ATS with a marginal bit of line shopping. So therefore road teams are 52.7% ATS. If you look for the 'best' case scenarios they could be as high as 1496-1163. Thats 56.3%. That was just checking one parameter. I am sure if I looked at other sports I could find similar break downs over a decade period.
.

You would have to define "a marginal bit of line shopping" but if you mean getting a better number than the closing line then of course you are going to find such edges. For someone who has often said that marginal points/half-points don't matter that much you are surely undermining/contradicting yourself (again).

There is always going to be some subset or area that has an exploit, even long term. Since a home/away dichotomy has nothing to do with a line or a spread in terms of an actual number just a result then I would say that is actually more valid than looking at who was favorite or who was dog. Or in the very least being home or away had no bearing on why they were either favored or not. Also in that time span with minimal line shopping OVERs could have been right around 52.3%.

Wow. 52.3% with "minimal line shopping". So five games away from exactly 50/50 despite that line shopping.

All I know is anyone that is going to post on a forum that in 2003 you could have been 137-116-1 On every single side of every single game that year betting blind micky mouse numbers. Then in 2004 be 133-118-3 on every game in the blind and claim that is meaningless doesnt have one frigging clue as to what they are talking about. End of story.

So are we betting blind on on favs or dogs, under or overs, or homes or aways NEXT season?

[FourLengthsClear]

LOL if you can find the kind of stuff I have on Google then I want to see the links. My database basically took a computer genius kid I know about 7 years to get to where it is now, and it still isnt 'perfect'.

Anyone can find a database of results based on random closing numbers, and with those if you check 10 different databases you'll more than likely get 10 different results. I have all those and then some. I have 3 I can strip results with, including line moves and whatnot. basically everything SBR has on their history page (where you go and click on th lines for a particular book and you get the pop up) I have back years in a few sports. It is also searchable. Meaning I can break down spread to a specific vig number. If I want to know how many game have opened -3-110 or -3 -115 I cantell. One DB might tell you 200 games opened -3, Mine will say how many and what vig (or at least the average of the vig) then I just have to break down subsets for the particular vigs.

All total overkill, but I like to have it to throw up the results in these types of debates.

A computer genius? To construct a database and scrape data to populate it?
They teach that stuff to high school kids.

Since your database is so advanced, can you tell me how many NFL games since the start of 2004) had sides which opened up at -3 with odds of -110 (or with 2 ticks of -110) and then subsequently closed at -3.5 with odds of -110 or higher)?

[Duff85]

More gamblers fallacy nonsense. Seasons change as rules get changed modified etc so therefore you have to look at each individual season such as it is to gain advantages. Obvioulsy people want more results but sometimes that isnt possible and why I have always said you cant use 'math' in sports, particularly the NFL.

Doubt you win betting sports.

[Chimneyfish]

I have always said you cant use 'math' in sports

[SportsMushroom]

omg guy

[wantitall4moi]

A computer genius? To construct a database and scrape data to populate it?
They teach that stuff to high school kids.

Since your database is so advanced, can you tell me how many NFL games since the start of 2004) had sides which opened up at -3 with odds of -110 (or with 2 ticks of -110) and then subsequently closed at -3.5 with odds of -110 or higher)?

I could but I wont, I have put more than enough stuff up here for you to see and you still dont care. So there is no point., Like I said guys like you that are locked into the whole mathematical mentality just wont ever get it. Now that you have all also been sold on the whole 'market' approach you will never understand anyway. All stuff created by touts and or wannabe sharps to sucker guys into betting the side they need them to bet to create action for them on their side.

I showed you 10 years of results (including play offs) with over 2650 games where betting one subset on the blind was profitable versus -110. Without line shopping. Also showed what it would be with alittle line shopping. What vig you could have gotten would have been dependent on where you shopped. but for over 2650 games aand 10 years, a 56% win percentage is more than most people could dream of if they were supposedly good at handicapping. That result was attained by simply looking at one subset of game and nothing else. So need to do anything but look at the subset and look for the best vig and line and go from there.

But no that wasnt against closers that was against best available which in more than a few cases also beat closers. another problem you guys have. Closers are not the 'best' number available nearly half the time, meaning that there is a better line or price before betting closes.

If that isnt enough for you I dont know what to tell you. I am done with thios. You guys are entrenched in youre delusion I will let you stay there, never wake someone who is sleepwalking it is dangerous...

[rory borealis]

Last year I pick the Lions, Rams, Falcons, Tampa Bay ATS.

Now you pick your four "elite" teams and see if you can top them.


You know if you bet every game this year in the NFL by following the line move blindly you would hit ~60%
Naturally no one has these stats out there.
I'm sure it changes every year but unless you have actual facts, saying it's a losing strategy is rather ignorant.

1) So if Pittsburgh opened at -4 and then jumped up to -4' or -5, the person who bet Pittsburgh at the less favorable pointspread offerings would be hitting somewhere around 60% this year... am i correct?

2) What was the percentage in NCAA FB this year by following blindly?

3) Where would the data exist that would illuminate the reader for prior years in both NCAA FB and the NFL?

[FourLengthsClear]

a) I could but I wont, I have put more than enough stuff up here for you to see and you still dont care. So there is no point., Like I said guys like you that are locked into the whole mathematical mentality just wont ever get it. Now that you have all also been sold on the whole 'market' approach you will never understand anyway. All stuff created by touts and or wannabe sharps to sucker guys into betting the side they need them to bet to create action for them on their side.

b) I showed you 10 years of results (including play offs) with over 2650 games where betting one subset on the blind was profitable versus -110. Without line shopping. Also showed what it would be with alittle line shopping. What vig you could have gotten would have been dependent on where you shopped. but for over 2650 games aand 10 years, a 56% win percentage is more than most people could dream of if they were supposedly good at handicapping. That result was attained by simply looking at one subset of game and nothing else. So need to do anything but look at the subset and look for the best vig and line and go from there.

c) But no that wasnt against closers that was against best available which in more than a few cases also beat closers. another problem you guys have. Closers are not the 'best' number available nearly half the time, meaning that there is a better line or price before betting closes.

If that isnt enough for you I dont know what to tell you. I am done with thios. You guys are entrenched in youre delusion I will let you stay there, never wake someone who is sleepwalking it is dangerous...

a) LOL

b) Anyone can do that AFTER the event. Teams playing at home that have an "L" in their name could be 58% over that same period. Would that be valuable information going forward?

c) Are you drunk? Those of us that believe that markets are efficient KNOW that you have to beat the closing line, that is exactly what we have said in every thread in which you have waffled into. You have refuted it except (as now I suspect) when you didn't even realise that you are completely contradicting what you have said previously.

[Duff85]

wantitall4moi you're pretty sure of your methods. Even though a lot of what I do relies on getting the very best number and your method can just beat highly efficient markets taking dime lines (that would give you a massive advantage) I am willing to put up a side bet that I beat you in this thing: http://contests.sbrforum.com/2012-ye...-contest-3272/

[CK]

So I'm a big believer in not betting big games big, and generally staying on the sidelines, but I have to admit I was itching to make a fairly big bet on the Superbowl. I made pretty good profit this year, and even though I fully admit this is a coin-flip game and could go either way, and I shouldn't bet it, betting big on the biggest of games is basically one of the biggest adrenaline rushes you can get betting sports. As stupid as it may sound, I'm almost paying for that feeling - and still have a 50/50 chance of winning good money... yes, I've rationalized it to myself, haha

I had been going back and forth about whether I should stay disciplined, or bet this game big. You can guess which side won... I may end up regretting this if it goes the other way, but just feeling pretty good about this bet.

Patriots ML -140. Betting $1,400 to win $1,000.

Best of luck to everyone today!

[pimike]

So I'm a big believer in not betting big games big, and generally staying on the sidelines, but I have to admit I was itching to make a fairly big bet on the Superbowl. I made pretty good profit this year, and even though I fully admit this is a coin-flip game and could go either way, and I shouldn't bet it, betting big on the biggest of games is basically one of the biggest adrenaline rushes you can get betting sports. As stupid as it may sound, I'm almost paying for that feeling - and still have a 50/50 chance of winning good money... yes, I've rationalized it to myself, haha

I had been going back and forth about whether I should stay disciplined, or bet this game big. You can guess which side won... I may end up regretting this if it goes the other way, but just feeling pretty good about this bet.

Patriots ML -140. Betting $1,400 to win $1,000.

Best of luck to everyone today!

Lol

Seriously what's the point of this thread then?

[CK]

Lol

Seriously what's the point of this thread then?

Haha, yes, I know this goes against what I was saying about not betting big games big. What can I say, I still think that's the right strategy for the long-term, I'm making an exception for the Superbowl. I went back and forth all week about whether to do this, and I figure if you're going to make an exception and "gamble", the Superbowl gets you by far the best bang-for-your-buck, as it's the biggest game of the year.

I kept it reasonable, this is about 1/4 of my profits this NFL season, so will still be a success if it loses. Going to a superbowl party at a friend's which should really nice, so thought the risk is worth it... heh, I'm weak sometimes what can I say? Even I'm not buddha when it comes to this stuff

[pimike]

Haha, yes, I know this goes against what I was saying about not betting big games big. What can I say, I still think that's the right strategy for the long-term, I'm making an exception for the Superbowl. I went back and forth all week about whether to do this, and I figure if you're going to make an exception and "gamble", the Superbowl gets you by far the best bang-for-your-buck, as it's the biggest game of the year.

I kept it reasonable, this is about 1/4 of my profits this NFL season, so will still be a success if it loses. Going to a superbowl party at a friend's which should really nice, so thought the risk is worth it... heh, I'm weak sometimes what can I say? Even I'm not buddha when it comes to this stuff