It really cracks me up
- Thread starter PalmTree
- Start date
Re: It really cracks me up
MLB chalk players have little or no chance.
MLB chalk players have little or no chance.
Re: It really cracks me up
.
.
Re: It really cracks me up
been playing alot more +1.5's lately against heavy juice favs that i see being bet everywhere. great example are these brewers, have had them +1.5 3 times this week, Sunday, Yesterday, and today. no game in mid auguest is must win and its a division rival with still a good lineup and a solid lefty on the hill, against ESPN's new Cy Yound darling. +1.5 all day
been playing alot more +1.5's lately against heavy juice favs that i see being bet everywhere. great example are these brewers, have had them +1.5 3 times this week, Sunday, Yesterday, and today. no game in mid auguest is must win and its a division rival with still a good lineup and a solid lefty on the hill, against ESPN's new Cy Yound darling. +1.5 all day
Re: It really cracks me up
3-2 man on 3rd. not over yet.
3-2 man on 3rd. not over yet.
Re: It really cracks me up
bases loaded.ouch,struck out on 3 pitches with the bases loaded.
bases loaded.ouch,struck out on 3 pitches with the bases loaded.
IrishTim
EOG Dedicated
Re: It really cracks me up
I couldn't disagree with this more, and it's an argument I have with people several times a year. Unless your bankroll is unlimited, EV is NOT EV. The damage to the bankroll can be catastrophic from losing a few of those "can't miss" huge chalks over the season. Even though you might feel you have an advantage in a game, other factors need to be respected when thinking about playing that kind of chalk.
I actually wrote an article about this exact topic for EOG back in April that I never posted.
I couldn't disagree with this more, and it's an argument I have with people several times a year. Unless your bankroll is unlimited, EV is NOT EV. The damage to the bankroll can be catastrophic from losing a few of those "can't miss" huge chalks over the season. Even though you might feel you have an advantage in a game, other factors need to be respected when thinking about playing that kind of chalk.
I actually wrote an article about this exact topic for EOG back in April that I never posted.
Re: It really cracks me up
Laying the -1 1/2 runs is tough mathmatically when compared vs the money line. The only way to even consider it is the favorite is the road team and even that is fucked up. Run lines are just a slow death. Check out Col vs Mil Sunday .Col drops a infield fly to let Mil tie game only to see Col score 1 in bottom of 9th THE TRUTH many times the best bet are the ones you dont make
il
Laying the -1 1/2 runs is tough mathmatically when compared vs the money line. The only way to even consider it is the favorite is the road team and even that is fucked up. Run lines are just a slow death. Check out Col vs Mil Sunday .Col drops a infield fly to let Mil tie game only to see Col score 1 in bottom of 9th THE TRUTH many times the best bet are the ones you dont make
il
Re: It really cracks me up
Same hold percentage, but few bargains on the favorite side of the wagering card. I believe there's an inherent bias when pricing favorites, a tendency to overprice rather than underprice. The market then pushes the favorite's price higher. I love betting underdogs at post time after the public unloads on a phony favorite.
Same hold percentage, but few bargains on the favorite side of the wagering card. I believe there's an inherent bias when pricing favorites, a tendency to overprice rather than underprice. The market then pushes the favorite's price higher. I love betting underdogs at post time after the public unloads on a phony favorite.
Re: It really cracks me up
A sharp Las Vegas bookmaker once told me, "We try to price the favorites as high as possible without attracting a limit bet on the dog."
A sharp Las Vegas bookmaker once told me, "We try to price the favorites as high as possible without attracting a limit bet on the dog."
IrishTim
EOG Dedicated
Re: It really cracks me up
Ahhh, finally a good argument about gambling and not gambling forums.
I do lose a few huge chalks every year. The NO OVERTIME -800 at Olympic for the NFC Championship game this past year comes to mind. But by the end of the season, I had made way more on those huge chalk bets (the this player will NOT score in the World Cup were very profitable, especially in the earlier rounds) than I lost. I would make that NO OT bet over and over again at -800 when I think the fair line is -950. Same goes for NO 2-PT CONVERSION at -300, NO SAFETY at -800, etc. Bet these as often as you can throughout the season - sure there will be a few safeties and a few OTs where you'll lose a chunk, but by the end of the year you will have made money.
This question may look familiar to some because I posed it a while back at CW. Which bet would you rather make:
I know my answer, but will let you explain yours and go from there.
When did the sharp bookmaker tell you this? I believe this kind of mentality was true maybe a decade ago or even 5 year's ago, but in today's market I think the sharp money so outweighs the square money that the public has hardly any impact on the line. I mean looking at historical NFL data going back to 1983 (which is how far my DB goes), you could just blindly bet any +7 or more underdog and hit 55%. Obviously the market is way smarter today than in the 80s and these kind of market biases are much harder to come by, and the edges are much smaller if they do still exist.
One of the dumbest pieces of advise I see people repeatedly give is "bet favorites early and dogs late because the public always will bet the favorite and continuously drive the price up until game time". The sports betting market has come a long way with the advent of line services, computers, databases, etc. Even Kenny White of the LVSC admitted that he used to set the line to attract equal action, but the market has gotten so much sharper that their goal morphed into setting the most accurate line. I don't even believe in "public teams" or "fan money" moving lines. The Yankees, Notre Dame, Cowboys, etc. will all have their lines move down as much as they move towards them going forward in my estimation.
Ahhh, finally a good argument about gambling and not gambling forums.
I do lose a few huge chalks every year. The NO OVERTIME -800 at Olympic for the NFC Championship game this past year comes to mind. But by the end of the season, I had made way more on those huge chalk bets (the this player will NOT score in the World Cup were very profitable, especially in the earlier rounds) than I lost. I would make that NO OT bet over and over again at -800 when I think the fair line is -950. Same goes for NO 2-PT CONVERSION at -300, NO SAFETY at -800, etc. Bet these as often as you can throughout the season - sure there will be a few safeties and a few OTs where you'll lose a chunk, but by the end of the year you will have made money.
This question may look familiar to some because I posed it a while back at CW. Which bet would you rather make:
- 84% play at -400
- 55% play at -110
I know my answer, but will let you explain yours and go from there.
When did the sharp bookmaker tell you this? I believe this kind of mentality was true maybe a decade ago or even 5 year's ago, but in today's market I think the sharp money so outweighs the square money that the public has hardly any impact on the line. I mean looking at historical NFL data going back to 1983 (which is how far my DB goes), you could just blindly bet any +7 or more underdog and hit 55%. Obviously the market is way smarter today than in the 80s and these kind of market biases are much harder to come by, and the edges are much smaller if they do still exist.
One of the dumbest pieces of advise I see people repeatedly give is "bet favorites early and dogs late because the public always will bet the favorite and continuously drive the price up until game time". The sports betting market has come a long way with the advent of line services, computers, databases, etc. Even Kenny White of the LVSC admitted that he used to set the line to attract equal action, but the market has gotten so much sharper that their goal morphed into setting the most accurate line. I don't even believe in "public teams" or "fan money" moving lines. The Yankees, Notre Dame, Cowboys, etc. will all have their lines move down as much as they move towards them going forward in my estimation.
IrishTim
EOG Dedicated
Re: It really cracks me up
For the vast majority of games, the RL is fairly priced to the ML and total, meaning your long-term EV is the exact same for MLs and RLs. BTW, the same is true for most cases (in the regular season at least) for the ML and spread. Meaning if you think a team is the "right side" on the spread, they are also more than likely the "right side" on the ML.
For the vast majority of games, the RL is fairly priced to the ML and total, meaning your long-term EV is the exact same for MLs and RLs. BTW, the same is true for most cases (in the regular season at least) for the ML and spread. Meaning if you think a team is the "right side" on the spread, they are also more than likely the "right side" on the ML.
Re: It really cracks me up
Adam Wainwright is the ESPN;s new Cy Young darling because he has the best ERA in the NL and is 17-8
you Philly fans are as dumb as they get
Adam Wainwright is the ESPN;s new Cy Young darling because he has the best ERA in the NL and is 17-8
you Philly fans are as dumb as they get
Re: It really cracks me up
Check out a USC football game on a Saturday night or a Lakers basketball game on a Sunday night and you'll see Los Angeles money in Las Vegas. I believe it's easier to find a rogue number on the dog than the favorite. I understand that times have changed, but I believe chalk players live on. When players go on "tilt," they often lean to the favored side. P.S. - There are many "casual" or unsophisticated players wagering four and five-figure amounts in Las Vegas. Big money is not always smart money. Through the years, Vegas bookmakers have learned to book the action without moving the numbers. But some houses still book to the money.
Check out a USC football game on a Saturday night or a Lakers basketball game on a Sunday night and you'll see Los Angeles money in Las Vegas. I believe it's easier to find a rogue number on the dog than the favorite. I understand that times have changed, but I believe chalk players live on. When players go on "tilt," they often lean to the favored side. P.S. - There are many "casual" or unsophisticated players wagering four and five-figure amounts in Las Vegas. Big money is not always smart money. Through the years, Vegas bookmakers have learned to book the action without moving the numbers. But some houses still book to the money.
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: It really cracks me up
Tim, alot of public teams are hot teams, and if you don't bet it early you won't see the number again, and if you like the back side of that game wait till late to bet it, it happens everyday in every sport... another example using the opening line on the Yankees everyday they play you will get the best number over 75% of time if you bet them early, and if you like the dog wait till late, if you don't believe me, start charting the opening line everytime the Yankees play... and if you have an account with Cris you will see he over moves the runline 7-days a week, its nowhere near equal to a 10 cent line the way Cris moves his runlines, thats why you have to have plenty outs so you can shop around for the best possible number..........
Re: It really cracks me up
I think the late games on the West Coast and Sunday and Monday Night football tend to move to the favorite as game time nears. Tourists (and regulars) trying to play catch-up are more comfortable betting favorites. Some weeks you should just take your moderate beating and call it a night. Don't chase a lost day by betting on an inflated favorite to make your balance sheet look good.
I think the late games on the West Coast and Sunday and Monday Night football tend to move to the favorite as game time nears. Tourists (and regulars) trying to play catch-up are more comfortable betting favorites. Some weeks you should just take your moderate beating and call it a night. Don't chase a lost day by betting on an inflated favorite to make your balance sheet look good.
rainbow
EOG Master
IrishTim
EOG Dedicated
Re: It really cracks me up
I may agree with you on the rogue number bit, but only because it's usually a rec book such as Bodog or BetUs that is getting hammered by squares on the favorite. But if they were a true market (i.e. didn't boot all the sharps who would be betting the dog), I don't think you'd see the rogue numbers. Another issue in this is how much does a wealthy LA fan laying 5 dimes on gameday on an NCAAF prime time game side or NBA game-day side (in Vegas) affect the market? Not at all in my opinion. Maybe that one book in Vegas, but that has little to no effect on the overall sports betting market. For the most part, the best gamblers are the ones with the biggest bankrolls - the groups who have had years of winning sports betting with good models and top-notch injury information to build up their bankrolls. I was talking to a member of one of these groups the other day and he told me his group lost (not wagered) 130k on NFLx over the weekend. If they are able to get that much done on NFL pre-season (mostly teasers), imagine what they could do on game-day NBA and NCAAF sides. One of these groups can absolutely dwarf any amount of fan money that may skew a line.
On your advice, I went back and looked at the opening and closing lines of Yankee games from some of 2003 season and then all of 2004 to 2009. The line moved in the Yankees favor in 680 of the 1,297 games I looked at or 52.43%.
I did see two interesting trends though, the money does seem to come in heavy on the Yanks as home favorites (~65% of the time, the line move indicated the money coming in on the Yanks) and as road favorites, the market faded the Yankees almost 65% of the time. Hard to draw any conclusions from the dog categories (the Yankees have opened as a road dog a whopping 2.9% of the games I looked at).
But over the large sample of 1300 games, it's pretty clear that the market moves with the Yankees just as often as it moves against them.
I disagree on this for mainly the reasons I stated above. All it takes is one syndicate betting 6 figures on the Sunday night game to counteract every clueless tourist betting $100 on the fave. In addition, "tourists" don't bet offshore which, with probably the only exception of the M, is what comprises the market. I'm sure plenty of small locals get flooded with money on the favorite, Yanks, Cowboys, etc. But in the widely-available sports betting market, these days of "bet the favorites early, dogs late" are mainly over from what I see.
As I said above, there are still some slight market biases. Under high totals in the NFL is one that may or may not continue to be profitable. Double-digit dogs in the NBA, as you and I discussed via e-mail this winter, are another. The big issue is how many 10+ dogs are there a year in the NFL? They can all be +EV but the volatility created by the small sample could have you lose your ass on them for half a decade.
I may agree with you on the rogue number bit, but only because it's usually a rec book such as Bodog or BetUs that is getting hammered by squares on the favorite. But if they were a true market (i.e. didn't boot all the sharps who would be betting the dog), I don't think you'd see the rogue numbers. Another issue in this is how much does a wealthy LA fan laying 5 dimes on gameday on an NCAAF prime time game side or NBA game-day side (in Vegas) affect the market? Not at all in my opinion. Maybe that one book in Vegas, but that has little to no effect on the overall sports betting market. For the most part, the best gamblers are the ones with the biggest bankrolls - the groups who have had years of winning sports betting with good models and top-notch injury information to build up their bankrolls. I was talking to a member of one of these groups the other day and he told me his group lost (not wagered) 130k on NFLx over the weekend. If they are able to get that much done on NFL pre-season (mostly teasers), imagine what they could do on game-day NBA and NCAAF sides. One of these groups can absolutely dwarf any amount of fan money that may skew a line.
On your advice, I went back and looked at the opening and closing lines of Yankee games from some of 2003 season and then all of 2004 to 2009. The line moved in the Yankees favor in 680 of the 1,297 games I looked at or 52.43%.
I did see two interesting trends though, the money does seem to come in heavy on the Yanks as home favorites (~65% of the time, the line move indicated the money coming in on the Yanks) and as road favorites, the market faded the Yankees almost 65% of the time. Hard to draw any conclusions from the dog categories (the Yankees have opened as a road dog a whopping 2.9% of the games I looked at).
But over the large sample of 1300 games, it's pretty clear that the market moves with the Yankees just as often as it moves against them.
I disagree on this for mainly the reasons I stated above. All it takes is one syndicate betting 6 figures on the Sunday night game to counteract every clueless tourist betting $100 on the fave. In addition, "tourists" don't bet offshore which, with probably the only exception of the M, is what comprises the market. I'm sure plenty of small locals get flooded with money on the favorite, Yanks, Cowboys, etc. But in the widely-available sports betting market, these days of "bet the favorites early, dogs late" are mainly over from what I see.
As I said above, there are still some slight market biases. Under high totals in the NFL is one that may or may not continue to be profitable. Double-digit dogs in the NBA, as you and I discussed via e-mail this winter, are another. The big issue is how many 10+ dogs are there a year in the NFL? They can all be +EV but the volatility created by the small sample could have you lose your ass on them for half a decade.
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: It really cracks me up
Tim, even with the Syndicate betting 6-figures at post the line rarely gets back to the original line... the line has already moved too far to get back or pass the opening line, you can count on one hand how many favorites the Syndicate will bet at post, the samething goes for the totals... the majority of syndicate totals are bet under and the total has moved so far that it rarely reaches back to the opening line...
Tim, even with the Syndicate betting 6-figures at post the line rarely gets back to the original line... the line has already moved too far to get back or pass the opening line, you can count on one hand how many favorites the Syndicate will bet at post, the samething goes for the totals... the majority of syndicate totals are bet under and the total has moved so far that it rarely reaches back to the opening line...
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: It really cracks me up
Tim, it defintely depends on how high the spread is to say that the ML is the right side too........
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: It really cracks me up
He means the runline and the ML are even bets, meaning its no advantage betting either one..........
tickingclock1
EOG Veteran
IrishTim
EOG Dedicated
Re: It really cracks me up
Yup, EV = expected value. In the question I posed to PalmTree, I gave two options:
84% play @ -400
55% play @ -110
Both of these have about the same expected value of 5%. However, which one is a better bet?
Sure, I don't disagree. But what does this have to do with anything? BTW, were you surprised to see that the line moves towards the Yankees in only 52% of their games?
Again, I maintain that EV is EV. If you think Notre Dame -21 is the right side well then -1000 on the ML is also the right side, seeing as 21 point favorites win about 91% of their games and the break-even on -1000 is 90.9%. If you think the fair line is 24, then you also think the fair ML is approximately -1250, making both the -21 and -1000 both +EV.
Yup, EV = expected value. In the question I posed to PalmTree, I gave two options:
84% play @ -400
55% play @ -110
Both of these have about the same expected value of 5%. However, which one is a better bet?
Sure, I don't disagree. But what does this have to do with anything? BTW, were you surprised to see that the line moves towards the Yankees in only 52% of their games?
Again, I maintain that EV is EV. If you think Notre Dame -21 is the right side well then -1000 on the ML is also the right side, seeing as 21 point favorites win about 91% of their games and the break-even on -1000 is 90.9%. If you think the fair line is 24, then you also think the fair ML is approximately -1250, making both the -21 and -1000 both +EV.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: It really cracks me up
I'm positive yours is up to date and accurate and I'd love to have a look-see.12io4j2w90
Re: It really cracks me up
IrishTim, how do you explain inflated totals in the NFL or overpriced favorites in the NBA? According to you, the big-money syndicates should wipe out any and all edges in every sport. And where are the syndicates acquiring their information? Isn't that person (or group of people) simply part of the market, susceptible to biases and miscalculations, just like the independent gambler. I'm sure information providers like Dr. Bob or Phil Steele or Edward Golden make plenty of mistakes in their evaluations.
IrishTim, how do you explain inflated totals in the NFL or overpriced favorites in the NBA? According to you, the big-money syndicates should wipe out any and all edges in every sport. And where are the syndicates acquiring their information? Isn't that person (or group of people) simply part of the market, susceptible to biases and miscalculations, just like the independent gambler. I'm sure information providers like Dr. Bob or Phil Steele or Edward Golden make plenty of mistakes in their evaluations.
IrishTim
EOG Dedicated
Re: It really cracks me up
Absolutely. No one person or group is perfect. This is why I believe, and the data supports, the fact the closing line is more efficient/accurate than the opening line. Because the OL represents the opinions/models of only a handful of people while the CL represents the opinions of thousands of extremely sharp gamblers with large bankrolls (i.e. "the market").
But you raise a good question about explaining the market biases. Perhaps the data includes times when I agree the public money was substantial enough in proportion to the sharp money that it could influence the market and drive up NBA sides and NFL totals. Is it truly a market bias or is it just a statistical fluctuation that will even out over time? Or was it a market bias that existed years ago but the syndicates and others have caught on and pounded the edge out of existence in the current market? I wish I had all the answers.
Absolutely. No one person or group is perfect. This is why I believe, and the data supports, the fact the closing line is more efficient/accurate than the opening line. Because the OL represents the opinions/models of only a handful of people while the CL represents the opinions of thousands of extremely sharp gamblers with large bankrolls (i.e. "the market").
But you raise a good question about explaining the market biases. Perhaps the data includes times when I agree the public money was substantial enough in proportion to the sharp money that it could influence the market and drive up NBA sides and NFL totals. Is it truly a market bias or is it just a statistical fluctuation that will even out over time? Or was it a market bias that existed years ago but the syndicates and others have caught on and pounded the edge out of existence in the current market? I wish I had all the answers.
IrishTim
EOG Dedicated
Re: It really cracks me up
Ever heard of Billy Walters? Rainbow and others are probably more equipped to respond to this, but my answer would be limits. On game-day, the limits are as high as they will get. So instead of betting earlier in the week against softer lines with lower limits, the larger syndicates make a business move to wait until they can bet as much as possible before getting down. You see the same thing with WNBA. If you're a large syndicate, would you rather bet against the weaker WNBA openers the day before at $250 limits and have a higher win-rate but get less equity out of your plays or would you rather wait until noon of game-day where limits are 3-5k at Pinny and then bomb away against a slightly sharper line (equating to a lower win-rate) but get a lot more money for your work?
Ever heard of Billy Walters? Rainbow and others are probably more equipped to respond to this, but my answer would be limits. On game-day, the limits are as high as they will get. So instead of betting earlier in the week against softer lines with lower limits, the larger syndicates make a business move to wait until they can bet as much as possible before getting down. You see the same thing with WNBA. If you're a large syndicate, would you rather bet against the weaker WNBA openers the day before at $250 limits and have a higher win-rate but get less equity out of your plays or would you rather wait until noon of game-day where limits are 3-5k at Pinny and then bomb away against a slightly sharper line (equating to a lower win-rate) but get a lot more money for your work?