Why are handicaps often so useless?

[Gaze73]

I would argue it's a sign of market inefficiency. In an ideal world you would never have to take dog ML instead of dog +3 and yet I rarely ever take +3 because it rarely makes a difference. Either the dog plays like I expect him to or he loses 0:2 and if I'm flipping that coin I want plus money, not -110. I have enough data to conclude that dog ML is more value than spreads most of the time. It's the same in soccer too btw, I rarely ever take dog +1 these days because if the upset / draw is not happening the spread is useless and the big fav wins like big favs do.

[leetreaper]

[Gaze73]

What's so funny? Look at Jeff Black taking Andrey Rublev ML @7.42, that was smart and exactly what I'm talking about. Why didn't he take the +4.5 game spread? Because there is less edge on the spreads, regardless of the utterly idiotic retirement rules. If the market was efficient then the value on both ML and spreads should be almost the same or at least close enough to warrant always taking the spread instead of ML. But if the spread increases my chances by 10% while reducing the odds by 50% then I'm not taking the damn spread.

[Chaz22]

I checked the data. And Gaze is correct.

in 2019, ATP main draw events (except GS as spreads are different because of 5 sets) and excluding Cincinnati as no data is yet finalized for it.

14 matches where won by dog on odds @6 up to @12 (all pinnacle)

i checked all these matches and if you'd put 1 unit on each ML your profit from these would be: +90.37u

Then so far this year there were 71 match where dog lost being on odds from @6 to @12.

so take that from your 90.37 and your total profit would be +19.37u.


Now the spreads:

so if you'd take 4.5 spread for odds where dog was from 6-8
and
5.5 where dog was from 8 to 10
and
6.5 where dog was from 10 to 12

all odds on these spreads @2

so 14 dog winners give +14u right?

and from those 71 Lost matches dogs managed to cover spread in 30 cases.
+30u

lets see the total: 14 + 30 - 41 = you get +3u.

so, yeah, bet on MLs but no higher than @12

have to check previous years.

[Gaze73]

It doesn't even have to be huge dogs.
I have an ATP system that is 79-62 56% at average odds 2.54 so far. If I had taken set handicaps instead, the results would be 92-49 65% at odds around 1.57. The ML has 42% roi and yet the set spread makes only a tiny profit with 2.4% roi. So either I'm getting ridiculously lucky with MLs or the +1.5 set handicap in ATP is trash.

[Poisec]

Well in my best year of tennis when I was still using Pinnacle, I can tell I won a lot of handicap while the player lost. A few were winning the match but most losing.
They were big dogs though, loved the +5 or +6 handicap. But now Pinnacle adjust their odds better, in 2013 it was easy to win.

[Gaze73]

There's still plenty of money on Pinnacle, the market keeps making the same mistakes.

[leetreaper]

Gaze, how u like the new Pinny future look?

[Gaze73]

Gaze, how u like the new Pinny future look?

I would like it if it actually worked like it's supposed to. I can't believe that after 20 years they still have a subpar website despite being one of the best books in the world. There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about this "future" look that couldn't have been made 10 years ago. Also it still lacks the "upcoming matches" category, it's a serious design flaw if I have to search for a game that is starting in 5 minutes, and the search is often broken.

[leetreaper]

I hate it also, classic view is awesome followed by asian view but who needs this slow ass 'modern' view, ffs

[leetreaper]

U were bitching about 365 the other day but i prefer rhem to pinny, design wise of course, and not even close

[Jeff_Black]

I checked the data. And Gaze is correct.
in 2019, ATP main draw events (except GS as spreads are different because of 5 sets) and excluding Cincinnati as no data is yet finalized for it.
14 matches where won by dog on odds @6 up to @12 (all pinnacle)
i checked all these matches and if you'd put 1 unit on each ML your profit from these would be: +90.37u
Then so far this year there were 71 match where dog lost being on odds from @6 to @12.
so take that from your 90.37 and your total profit would be +19.37u.

spreads
all odds on these spreads @2

I wonder how this would be adjusted if we took out the big three at the slams, Maybe Thiem at RG too considering he is as close as an autobet as Rafa there now. Probably a lot better. The Federer loss in Australia is basically it and wouldn't cover the losses you'd make fading them all at every slam assuming in at least the first 3-4 rounds and maybe more the odds are in the bracket mentioned.

I know it's not included but even outside of them there are players which get really big lines/short odds, no guarantee to win either.