[Believe_EMT]

We can use implied probabilities to come up with estimates and ranges that can give us a very good guide to what the edge is on any given bet.

This sounds like an easy enough thing for you to track and post on your own with a fictitious BR to support your claim.

Take any closing line you want in MLB, as long as you can get a few thousand plus results. you can even tweak it as you see fit.

EX: look at results of the previous 5,000 division dogs that closed at +125 and faced LHP. (you get to pick the scenario, really doesn't matter to me).

i'm guessing you're going to be hard pressed to discover a data set large enough to be considered statistically significant without the W/L record being within a few percentage points of the implied probability as expressed by the closing line.
unless you are not using historical data to drive your implied probabilities. if you're using market prices for that piece, they are built on models using historical data so either way...
so identify a scenario where you think you have a consistent edge and Kelly the ish out of it. then you can clearly validate your assumptions that Kelly is awesome.

[pretentiousGuy]

Forgot to put my vote in favor of Kelly.

Math validates the assumption that Kelly is awesome, and the majority of successful bettor's(syndicates as well) experiences. Arguably the most important mathematical formula in betting.
Unless your bankroll exceeds the max bets by orders of magnitudes, and your main problem is getting down, disregarding Kelly makes you a silly billy.

[danshan11]

Forgot to put my vote in favor of Kelly.

Math validates the assumption that Kelly is awesome, and the majority of successful bettor's(syndicates as well) experiences. Arguably the most important mathematical formula in betting.
Unless your bankroll exceeds the max bets by orders of magnitudes, and your main problem is getting down, disregarding Kelly makes you a silly billy.

can you describe or refer me to where this is validated? I cant seem to find anywhere from any credible online source that says "use a good guess or just any number" and kelly will work fine. most credible things I read said you need to know the probability, the probability is the key part of kelly

[danshan11]

say you bet 1000 games and win 540 of them

and you knew your edge was 4%

would you make more money with kelly random bets based on the probability of each game or would you be more profitable if you staked the exact same amount of money and divided that so it was equal on each flat bet?

example BR is 10000
kelly avg bet ends up being 120 a game
so flat bet 120 per game
which would end up with better results?

[Gaze73]

I'm sorry, but how long have you been doing this for exactly? At least a few years judging by your post history, but your bet size is in the 10s of dollars?

Why are you so confident in your betting ability?

Because I'm not a retard like 99% of bettors who lose thousands of dollars before having a winning formula. Now that I have it I can start growing the roll. Can you beat pinnacle at 15% roi at the highest limits? Didn't think so. I've been studying their lines for a year 10-12 hours a day, so I have a pretty good idea when the market is wrong, and I'm just getting started. Just a couple thousand hours more and my methods will be flawless.

[danshan11]

Because I'm not a retard like 99% of bettors who lose thousands of dollars before having a winning formula. Now that I have it I can start growing the roll. Can you beat pinnacle at 15% roi at the highest limits? Didn't think so. I've been studying their lines for a year 10-12 hours a day, so I have a pretty good idea when the market is wrong, and I'm just getting started. Just a couple thousand hours more and my methods will be flawless.

Gaze my brother you crack met fukk up!
you are literally exactly my definition of NERF, you know enough to fukk yourself
studying lines for what? see if they go up and down, wtf for?
do you model a fair line BEFORE lines come out? if you dont how the heck do you know if the market is wrong?
couple thousand more hours of doing what? it takes maybe a few weeks to build a decent model and a daily commitment to learning to adjust effectively.
flawless does that mean winning at 52% ATS.

[pretentiousGuy]

Because I'm not a retard like 99% of bettors who lose thousands of dollars before having a winning formula. Now that I have it I can start growing the roll. Can you beat pinnacle at 15% roi at the highest limits? Didn't think so. I've been studying their lines for a year 10-12 hours a day, so I have a pretty good idea when the market is wrong, and I'm just getting started. Just a couple thousand hours more and my methods will be flawless.

If by highest limits you mean the most liquid markets like soccer and nfl, no I don't. For one thing I don't bet those. Secondly, nobody has 15% roi on those markets.

Also putting in more hours into your methods won't change anything -- you could be an immortal vampire who dedicates his entire life to winning at sports betting, doesn't mean you'll win.

I'll be here next year to see your progress, or lack of it.

[pretentiousGuy]

can you describe or refer me to where this is validated? I cant seem to find anywhere from any credible online source that says "use a good guess or just any number" and kelly will work fine. most credible things I read said you need to know the probability, the probability is the key part of kelly

First, you need to have an edge, otherwise staking strat is irrelevant for winning money. The math has already been shown by a member on this very forum. Forgive me for being too lazy to do it here for you. It's in one of the 100 other previous posts on this subject.

You don't need to have perfect probability estimations to outperform flat-betting with Kelly proportional betting. The greater your edge, the greater your room for error grows. If you accept that Kelly is optimal for correct probabilities (mathematically, irrefutably true), then it shouldn't be difficult to understand that being off by a little bit isn't going to lead to practical ruin, especially when you take a fractional approach (penetrate off tsty) to control the negative "outliers" (estimated probabilities that are more off).

All of this of course hinges on the fact that you have an edge. Staking strategy doesn't make anybody a winner, superior models do.

And determining if you really have an edge is the elephant in the room. Simple, but time consuming: check your results over a large sample size. This won't 100% prove whether you have an edge or not, but it's close enough. When we gamble, we're not just gambling on the sports, but on whether we have an edge or not. Nobody knows if they have an edge without going through the fire.

"use a good guess or just any number" is a gd strawman.

That's all

[danshan11]

I just cannot find any of this irrefutable math that says kelly is better on probabilities. I have searched and searched. can you link me to some thing that proves just that on known probabilities or especially estimated probabilities. I do 100% agree without a doubt that knowing whether you have an edge is crucial. most people do not even get this step done.

imagine this if you have an edge this means you are beating the line long term or you have a better line than the actual line and if that is the case that just proves even more how inaccurate all these things are and that causes my kelly doubts.

now with that said, I think a person that is flat betting or kelly or proportional kelly betting and actually has an edge and knows how to accurately measure that edge, they are definitively not listening to me or caring what I am saying. I track my edge very closely and I do not really honestly care about wins and losses. all I am primarily concerned with is my edge.
my hesitation for me and other amateur bettors like me is that we have a few problems
A we might not actually have an edge
B we do not know how to measure our edge

these comments above are from conversations with other posters and reading their posts.
examples
GREAT value on Yankees today!
+EV on Angels at +110 and it closes at +114 "oh that dont matter it is worth way more"
I can go on and on.
rookies dont care they are just picking stuff or learning to model
nerfs this is the guy who is going to go broke believing he knows enough to win, when in reality he knows just enough to lose more than the rookie
pros they got their thing and no matter what you or i say all day they will do what they do!

[Gaze73]

If by highest limits you mean the most liquid markets like soccer and nfl, no I don't. For one thing I don't bet those. Secondly, nobody has 15% roi on those markets.

Also putting in more hours into your methods won't change anything -- you could be an immortal vampire who dedicates his entire life to winning at sports betting, doesn't mean you'll win.

I'll be here next year to see your progress, or lack of it.

If you don't bet on the major markets then your opinions are irrelevant. My goal from the get go was to beat the major markets at pinnacle because I'm in this for the long haul, not to exploit niche markets at soft books. You know the 10k hour rule? Takes 10k hours of deliberate practice to become an expert at something. But in this business you also need a live robust sample size to prove your skill in a sea of ever-changing variables. For example, I have a live tested soccer draw system that had 210 selections since august running at 51% roi. Lucky 6 month streak I guess? Do you expect it to drop below 15% because nobody has 15%? Even after a super improbable nightmare run I can't see it dropping below 10%, so even if I did nothing else I have at least a 10% edge in the draw market. But I have many more angles like that which need just a little more live testing and refinement and then I'll have the ultimate portfolio and watch the cash roll in.

[tsty]

PG dropping knowledge

[Alfa1234]

If you don't bet on the major markets then your opinions are irrelevant. My goal from the get go was to beat the major markets at pinnacle because I'm in this for the long haul, not to exploit niche markets at soft books. You know the 10k hour rule? Takes 10k hours of deliberate practice to become an expert at something. But in this business you also need a live robust sample size to prove your skill in a sea of ever-changing variables. For example, I have a live tested soccer draw system that had 210 selections since august running at 51% roi. Lucky 6 month streak I guess? Do you expect it to drop below 15% because nobody has 15%? Even after a super improbable nightmare run I can't see it dropping below 10%, so even if I did nothing else I have at least a 10% edge in the draw market. But I have many more angles like that which need just a little more live testing and refinement and then I'll have the ultimate portfolio and watch the cash roll in.

Why don't you start with the nice soft markets and move forward from there? Why try to sprint when you still need to learn how to walk?

If you have 35 selections every month in a soccer draw market at 50% ROI you are rich. No need to look any farther than that, you can get tens of thousands on in bigger markets and thousands every game in smaller markets. Please stop kidding yourself.

[AsianmanSports]

sorry wrong thread

[danshan11]

when you compile a huge number of games, you will always have trends but we need to remember each game is odds adjusted according to that particular game. Roulette is a great teacher of randomness and false patterns. play it for a couple hours and you will quickly see tons of patterns but they do not mean anything. I can play with sdql and make tons of trends that are long term winners that mean absolutely nothing even though they make sense. I did one just messing around to prove my point.

p:runs > 0 and op:L and opp:L and line < -159 and line > -246 and total < 9.5 and total > 6.5 and month > 4 and month < 10
SU: 1326-630 (1.53, 67.8%) avg line: -186.8 / 169.8 on / against: +$17,111 / -$27,054 ROI: +4.7% / -13.8% RL: 781-820 (0.08, 48.8%) avg line: 110.4 / -122.6 on / against: +$3,864 / -$13,337 ROI: +2.3% / -6.7% OU: 896-943-117 (0.39, 48.7%) avg total: 8.2 over / under: -$13,073 / -$4,460 ROI: -6.1% / -2.1%

this is a long term winner and has never had a losing season in over 10 years.
previous game did not get shutout at least they scored last game
opponent lost the last 2 opp is on a losing trend
favorite but not too favorite or not a little favorite
total is less than 9.5 and greater than 6.5 its two at least decent pitchers
after April when teams are kinda in a groove and before teams dying and just giving up

makes perfect sense right? well it is just NOISE and if you change even slightly anything its dead

[danshan11]

Why don't you start with the nice soft markets and move forward from there? Why try to sprint when you still need to learn how to walk?

If you have 35 selections every month in a soccer draw market at 50% ROI you are rich. No need to look any farther than that, you can get tens of thousands on in bigger markets and thousands every game in smaller markets. Please stop kidding yourself.

the first thing gaze needs to do if he really wants to even think about breaking even is create a fair line. step 1 is a fair line, if you dont generate a fair line, you have no idea of identifying value. his questions should not be on trends and all this other stuff, they should be on adjustments and when and how to apply them. no fair line no winning!

[danshan11]

I dont understand how people can even pick games or make selections without knowing what a pick is potentially worth.
if I look at a board of games and lines. I am going to assume they are all fair unless I have my own line to know if there are any weak spots.
I cant bet on the Yankees -175 unless I know -175 is a bad price and I need to know if -175 is a bad enough price that I will beat the margin!
this is step 1, I have not talked to (and I talk a lot if you dont know that) anyone that wins or has a real good idea about sports betting that does not somehow generate a fair line before betting.

[pretentiousGuy]

If you don't bet on the major markets then your opinions are irrelevant. My goal from the get go was to beat the major markets at pinnacle because I'm in this for the long haul, not to exploit niche markets at soft books. You know the 10k hour rule? Takes 10k hours of deliberate practice to become an expert at something. But in this business you also need a live robust sample size to prove your skill in a sea of ever-changing variables. For example, I have a live tested soccer draw system that had 210 selections since august running at 51% roi. Lucky 6 month streak I guess? Do you expect it to drop below 15% because nobody has 15%? Even after a super improbable nightmare run I can't see it dropping below 10%, so even if I did nothing else I have at least a 10% edge in the draw market. But I have many more angles like that which need just a little more live testing and refinement and then I'll have the ultimate portfolio and watch the cash roll in.

lol 10k hour rule is pseudoscience. More specifically, the belief that investing 10k hours into something will bear any significant fruit. It's confirmation bias. Of course people who ARE masters are going to naturally have put in a lot of time into their work (i.e 10,000 hours).

Don't bother flexing your betting skills until you're bet sizes, and profits, have increased by 2 figures at the least. You're the guy who thinks he has things figured out, has nothing to show for it, but still brags about nothing.

I don't target the niche markets OR soft books, but the people who do and are succeeding, are way smarter than the guy who masturbates himself thinking "I only go after the biggest markets, I'm one of the big boys! The bookies will fear me!" Niche markets have max bets that are way higher than YOUR OWN bets!

Be honest with yourself, you thought you would have hit it rich a long time ago. I'm not telling you to quit. I'm suggesting some honest introspection.

[Gaze73]

lol 10k hour rule is pseudoscience. More specifically, the belief that investing 10k hours into something will bear any significant fruit. It's confirmation bias. Of course people who ARE masters are going to naturally have put in a lot of time into their work (i.e 10,000 hours).

Don't bother flexing your betting skills until you're bet sizes, and profits, have increased by 2 figures at the least. You're the guy who thinks he has things figured out, has nothing to show for it, but still brags about nothing.

I don't target the niche markets OR soft books, but the people who do and are succeeding, are way smarter than the guy who masturbates himself thinking "I only go after the biggest markets, I'm one of the big boys! The bookies will fear me!" Niche markets have max bets that are way higher than YOUR OWN bets!

Be honest with yourself, you thought you would have hit it rich a long time ago. I'm not telling you to quit. I'm suggesting some honest introspection.

If you don't significantly improve after putting 10k hours into something you're retarded. I used to play video games a lot, and I reached the top 0.1% in 5 major games because I kept rapidly improving unlike the tards eternally stuck in bronze and silver leagues. Then I used to play poker and I was really good at it, but tilt and variance made my hand hurt so I switched to sports betting. For years my focus was horses, I was always drawn to the bigger odds. I eventually cracked the market just like I expected but similarly to poker I hated the variance and wanted to move on to something super consistent where I would win every month. So I focused on soccer and decided to crack it too, which I did. After that I cracked tennis which was ridiculously easy compared to soccer, it's my favorite sport now.

Anyway, I don't give a shit about haters because I know I could beat you all in a betting contest. Just because you have a big stack of chips at the table doesn't mean you're better than the short stack. You said you don't bet major markets, and you also don't bet niche markets, so what the hell are you betting then mr big shot?

[danshan11]

the problem Gaze is you would not even know what a true betting contest is.
you think a betting contest is getting a few wins and that is a survivorship bias contest not a betting skill contest.

you want to have a contest I have a contest for you, I will bet you 1000 points and you can pick 10 games matches and BEFORE lines come out you give me your line for those 10 games and I will give you mine for 10 games and the one that is closer after 10 games to the closing line wins, now that is a betting skill contest, you want in? I dont care if your ten choices are soccer tennis rugby fishing or MLB, the market does not matter just ten games BEFORE any lines come out!

[u21c3f6]

I dont understand how people can even pick games or make selections without knowing what a pick is potentially worth.
if I look at a board of games and lines. I am going to assume they are all fair unless I have my own line to know if there are any weak spots.
I cant bet on the Yankees -175 unless I know -175 is a bad price and I need to know if -175 is a bad enough price that I will beat the margin!
this is step 1, I have not talked to (and I talk a lot if you dont know that) anyone that wins or has a real good idea about sports betting that does not somehow generate a fair line before betting.

If that works for you, great. But you certainly are not wearing a thinking cap if you can't come up with possible scenarios as to why someone would not have to create a fair line and still be profitable.

I was going to wait before posting this next statement but I will do it now. For my MLB wagers (for which I have been and am currently profitable) I not only do not create a fair line but I also have no idea who the starting pitchers are in the games I select to wager on.

Now, before you respond, THINK of what possible reasons could there be for me not to consider starting pitchers when making my selections.

Joe.

PS. Consider "I am stupid" as a reason already taken.

[danshan11]

damn it you snatched up the answer I was going to use, JK. I think you are very talented and I think if you tried to teach a golf swing to new people with Jim furyk's swing 99.99999% will severely struggle. you might be able to do what you do your way but is that plausible for everyone?

not creating a fair line
I would assume you are beating the line maybe shopping the line
or maybe you are trend betting based on some historical data
not really sure, do you beat the line consistently at a high enough rate and a high enough limit to pay the bills?

[danshan11]

Joe if we had 1000 successful long term bettors, how many of those do you think create a fair line before betting? My guess is 995 of them!

[Okocha]

holy fukk man! i have been saying this same thing for years and everyone poops on it!

the entire thing is built on the faulty assumption that any of us can accurately forecast our edge every game.

The only faulty assumption here is you low level bettors think you have to pinpoint your edge meticously every single wager with insane levels of optimitality.you ,danshan etc live all live in a fantasy world without any idea how to grow and manage a proper betting bankroll,however let me add that you are fantasitc in winning forum arguments and managing a SBR Betpoints bankroll

BTW,no one bets full kelly in SB,most bet between 1/4 and 1/2

[TommieGunshot]

This sounds like an easy enough thing for you to track and post on your own with a fictitious BR to support your claim.
Take any closing line you want in MLB, as long as you can get a few thousand plus results. you can even tweak it as you see fit.
EX: look at results of the previous 5,000 division dogs that closed at +125 and faced LHP. (you get to pick the scenario, really doesn't matter to me).
i'm guessing you're going to be hard pressed to discover a data set large enough to be considered statistically significant without the W/L record being within a few percentage points of the implied probability as expressed by the closing line.
unless you are not using historical data to drive your implied probabilities. if you're using market prices for that piece, they are built on models using historical data so either way...
so identify a scenario where you think you have a consistent edge and Kelly the ish out of it. then you can clearly validate your assumptions that Kelly is awesome.

That's a good idea. Not sure if anyone would have any interest in it. Can bet the entire board, both side and total, so should be able to get 100 plays in just a few days. Would have to use a control to compare it with. For someone who doesn't increase the size of their bet as the edge gets bigger, how much do they bet on each game? Only thing is that it's hard to use a closing line to make a bet or set value when making a bet. Have to use the line available when the bet is made.

[danshan11]

That's a good idea. Not sure if anyone would have any interest in it. Can bet the entire board, both side and total, so should be able to get 100 plays in just a few days. Would have to use a control to compare it with. For someone who doesn't increase the size of their bet as the edge gets bigger, how much do they bet on each game? Only thing is that it's hard to use a closing line to make a bet or set value when making a bet. Have to use the line available when the bet is made.

the only way to do it fairly is to use the total bet kelly and divide that by the numbers bets and that is your flat bet amount

[danshan11]

The only faulty assumption here is you low level bettors think you have to pinpoint your edge meticously every single wager with insane levels of optimitality.you ,danshan etc live all live in a fantasy world without any idea how to grow and manage a proper betting bankroll,however let me add that you are fantasitc in winning forum arguments and managing a SBR Betpoints bankroll

BTW,no one bets full kelly in SB,most bet between 1/4 and 1/2

I keep hearing people you say you dont need to know your actual edge is that written anywhere credible?

man I am for sure a low stakes bettor and for sure am very good at forum arguments cause I dont believe what my buddy or uncle told me I actually research it myself and use my brain to decide not my uncles or my friend on the forum who is a "big winner".
you have no idea about my bankroll nor how I manage it, so that comment is a waste of finger juice!
MY SBR betpoints are very important to me, I keep very close track on them and before I give any away for good posts or do anything I always run them through kelly first!

I keep hearing how good it is and I keep asking for references that say its ok just estimate your edge, take a guess, does not need to be perfect but no reputable links just rumors from guys betting in 1954 when Kelly probably was cool because guys actually had this monster edge and reality is that edge of 1954 is gone now. there is still an edge but is it even big enough to actually change your bet more than a few cents now or are you next going to claim you are 58% ATS

[Believe_EMT]

All of this of course hinges on the fact that you have an edge. Staking strategy doesn't make anybody a winner, superior models do.
And determining if you really have an edge is the elephant in the room. Simple, but time consuming: check your results over a large sample size. This won't 100% prove whether you have an edge or not, but it's close enough. When we gamble, we're not just gambling on the sports, but on whether we have an edge or not. Nobody knows if they have an edge without going through the fire.

are you stating that the time it takes to build a statistically significant sample size takes place in a vacuum?

this would imply that there no other individuals are out there doing the same thing, refining their approach. this leads to a constantly evolving market. it is in everyone's best interest, bettors and books alike, to improve performance.

how would you go about accounting for your model's degradation based on evolution?

[Believe_EMT]

Only thing is that it's hard to use a closing line to make a bet or set value when making a bet. Have to use the line available when the bet is made.

Which of these do you feel reflects the highest level of market efficiency though?

the line available at the time the bet is made or the closer?

[tsty]

"i cant find it so it doesnt exist" lol

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqa...-2017-0122.xml

[danshan11]

"i cant find it so it doesnt exist" lol

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqa...-2017-0122.xml

exactly from the article

The perplexing aspect of these negative experiences is that the Kelly criterion is based on mathematical proof. The Kelly criterion is optimal from several points of view; for example, it maximizes the exponential rate of growth and it provides the minimal expected time to reach an assigned balance (Breiman 1961). Therefore, how can it be that gamblers often experience losses when using the Kelly approach? The simple but often overlooked explanation is that the input p used in determining the Kelly fraction is an unknown quantity. Often, gamblers are overly optimistic concerning their gambling systems and the true p is less than the specified p

[Alfa1234]

Danshan, while I personally don't use Kelly, the same argument about the closing line being a good measurement for profit applies.

Over a big enough sample size, using Kelly with any long term edge will make the variance go away and it should work absolutely fine (as long as you use a fractional 1/4th or so Kelly). It can be bad and less profitable because you may be overstaking or understaking on any idividual bet as you don't know the exact edge of that bet, but as long as you know your average long term edge that does not matter and things will even out.

I believe this is what some others have been trying to tell you in the posts above. You are both right here.

[danshan11]

Danshan, while I personally don't use Kelly, the same argument about the closing line being a good measurement for profit applies.

Over a big enough sample size, using Kelly with any long term edge will make the variance go away and it should work absolutely fine (as long as you use a fractional 1/4th or so Kelly). It can be bad and less profitable because you may be overstaking or understaking on any idividual bet as you don't know the exact edge of that bet, but as long as you know your average long term edge that does not matter and things will even out.

I believe this is what some others have been trying to tell you in the posts above. You are both right here.

if you are depending on average edge you are not using kelly at all

[danshan11]

I thought the purpose of using kelly was to determine what the appropriate bet size for each individual bet, is this not true? if you are using an avg margin over a huge chunk of past bets, what would that margin have to do with todays game in particular? and if you use an avg margin are you really using kelly on a per bet basis or just doing in a very funny way flat betting


if I am wrong here maybe I truly dont understand how kelly works even on the surface

[AsianmanSports]

Half Kelly in theory should be best with optimizing growth while managing risk. However its very hard to gauge wether you have a 1% or 5% edge , yes sometimes a Bet comes along where you realize your edge is higher then usual but for most games ( for me personally ) I assume an overall edge over all my picks. If I bet moneylines I will adjust my sizings though.

[Alfa1234]

I thought the purpose of using kelly was to determine what the appropriate bet size for each individual bet, is this not true? if you are using an avg margin over a huge chunk of past bets, what would that margin have to do with todays game in particular? and if you use an avg margin are you really using kelly on a per bet basis or just doing in a very funny way flat betting


if I am wrong here maybe I truly dont understand how kelly works even on the surface

Yes and no, if your model is accurate over a big sample size the same principle applies. Things will even out if the sample size becomes big enough so it should indeed not matter if you are over or under estimating 1 individual edge.