Re: My Knowledge Of A Bookie To Be Successful.
well how the hell do i find people?
well how the hell do i find people?
I need everyone to contact their local authorities to check and see if the local idiot is missing for I think we have solved the case. I am going to reply to wantitall4moi's last post piece by piece as I think almost every statement he made needs to be rebutted. I have to start with the last part of his post first as it is the most amusing. Note that wantitall4mois post is in bold.
Think of it this way...
You enter a contest to win a car. they have 3 placards yo have to chose from. On one of those 3 placards is written the word CAR. So you pick, they flip one over, that in not a winner. Theythen give you thhe option of changing your original pick or keeping it. What option gives you the best odds of winning, keeping your original pick or changing it?
For the love of everything holy please don't tell me you are somehow going to use this riddle in relation to sports betting. I really can't beleive you are trying to relate a riddle that you probably saw on the TV show NUMB3RS to books moving numbers. To answer your question you should always change your selection, doing so will provide for an expectation that you will end up picking the CAR placard 66.6% of the time. Do you even know why changing your selection would be the correct "play"?
Now you tell me what this has to do with sports betting.<!-- / message -->
Baker I make the same challenge here as I did at the RX, and at Stanford Wong's place( which was mysteriously lost/deleted) If ANYONE thinks they can PROVE to me that betting Kelley will be more profitable than bettinga flat rate I make the same 5K challenge.
Start with an imaginary bankroll, and PROVE that Kelley is more successful than other methods. I told those there that swear by it that if they could show a profit after a full year of using it, I would give them 5K, if they went broke before the yearwas up, or didn't show a profit they could donate the 5K to a charity of my chosing.
That thread was mysteriously deleted. So it told me all I needed to know. People like to talk about a lot of theorwtical stuff but when it comes to actually proving it, most turn tale and run, especially when real money is involved.
I don't doubt that I can't prove to you that Kelly is more profitable than flat betting, but that is only because you are too hardheaded to take a rational look at the evidence provided.
You seem to always ask people to show something in order to prove that it is true and/or possible (i.e. your statements that Kelly can't work because I haven't met any gambling multi-millionaires and your statement that middling isn't profitable because no one has shown you a long-term winning middling strategy or your statement above that a thread being deleted by some person on the internet acts as indisputable proof that the theory is invalid). Sooner or later you are going to learn that people aren't going to show you anything and you need to figure things out for yourself. If someone has something that works and is profitable they are not going to show you for a measly 5k.
Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it isn't valid. JC made a mention of an widely accepted option pricing model that he used to price options when he was working as a market maker. I would presume that he was referring to Black-Scholes. I can almost guarantee you that you would find fault with this pricing model. The thing is that the guys who developed this model received the Nobel Prize in Economics. Who to beleive, the nice folks at The Nobel Foundation or wantitall4moi, who simply can't understand how it works.
Kelly is a little different as its developers weren't awarded a Nobel prize, but it is one of the most widely accepted load balancing formulas currently known. It just so happens that this formula is easily applied to bankroll management. What makes Kelly tough to use is that you must be able to accurately predict your expected winning % to take advantage of the formula. In actuality this is where most gamblers fail when utilizing Kelly, they simply cannot accurately predict the winning percentage of a particular play when placed within a subset of like plays.
As proof that Kelly will outperform straight betting I am confident that I could provide you mathematical proof but we would need to agree upon some assumptions first. We would need to agree to what the flat bet size would be (either as a product of the intial bankroll or a set dollar amount). We would need to agree on how accurately the Kelly bettor would be able to predict the winning percentage of each play and the variance of such prediction.
For example I can say that a person who flat bets 1% of initial bankroll should have an expected winning percentage of 52.9%. If they were good enough to accurately predict their winning percentage and it is >52.9% then if they used Kelly they would outperform their results obtained flat betting.
There is no error in Kelly, but as I said before most people who attempt to utilize Kelly don't realize that you must be able to accurately predict a plays expected winning % (again within a subset of like plays) before they should attempt to utilize the Kelly Criterion. The great thing about Kelly is that if a play has a negative expected value Kelly calls for a bet of $0.
I also explained how losing bettors has no relationship to losing books. Most guys do not lose all their money at the same books. I could theoretically breaka book if all I did was scalp winning sides with them. I might make one place rich by always losing with them, bt the place I was winning at would be busted soner or later. There are obviously books that ""win" more than they lose. Just because 98% of people that bet lose, doesn't mean all the books are geting their equal share of the pie.
Some obviously get more than others.
Explain to me how you could even theoretically only scalp winning sides with a particular book? If you could do this you are telling me that your expected winning percentage (theoretically??) would be 100%?
You did answer one of the questions to this thread yourself in this paragraph. It is true that all books aren't getting equal shares of the pie. In practise a books piece of the pie is equal to the volume in dollars of bets they book. It is also known as market share.
As for layingoff and polish midles, et al. If books are doing this behind the scenes or as a courtesy these are none existant. If Pin, CRIS, and OLY all have -3 for a game, not all are going to have the same hold. Pin might have -105, CRIS might have -110, and OLY might have -115. So they could EASILLY swap money around between them, especially if OLY was getting guys that wantedthe dog and the +105. Pin could easiily square the action for say a nickle. OLY would still be making a nickle and they could balance the action. If books got together and did this they would never have to move a spread unless a ton of steam hit a few books at once. The reason lines move for the mmost part is because one or two places get hit, they move, then EVERYONE moves. Some places could e totally lopsided on the dog, but be forced to move if everyone else does. They should of course hold a little longer since if they have the best line on the fave they will get their balance. but a lor of books thihnk like players here. They think steam means a winner. So they not only gamble by taking the lopsided action, they think they have a solid position with their lopsided money, and they want more so they follow the flow. So not only are they lopsided at the old number(worse), but they will probably be lopsided on the newer number as well.
Since you think it would be so easy to balance action and that books would be willing to give up action they may have attracted at a price premium to their competitors I can't beleive it is not the rage of the offshore business.
If Pinnacle is -105 on a favorite with 80000 in action on the fav and 20000 on the dog and Oly is +105 on a dog with 80000 in action on the dog and 20000 on the fav at -115 do you really think that Pinnacle would want to "swap money" with Olympic to take action with no hold whatsoever? If it is so easy why don't you explain how it could/should be done and what the holds would be.
Moving spread lines is always is a danger to books. Plain and simple, we can all agree on that. if they got together and made the balance more true they would lessen the exposure they have, not only by moving a line (opening up for middles and sides), but by balancing thier action as well. It would definately hinder the players, but would surely make it a little more stable.
Actually we don't agree. How would a book instantaneously balance action? Would you expect books to take a 1100 to win 1000 wager and instantly hedge 550 to win 500 on the other side? The result of this would be net zero. Obviuosly they only way to balance action is after all the action has been taken and by then it is too late as you will not get the same price you wrote the ticket at.
So balancing action isn't nearly as difficult as people think. I wouold say that there are 4-5 books that will actually move BECAUSE of money, all the other books are simply followers and move on air. That is also something that is pretty scarey. These places are relying on the "reputation" of the books and the players at the books thatthey are following. Hoping that these moves are "smart money" moves that makes the postions they are holding/gambling on more solid than they actually are.
The books that move without actually taking action are not doing so on the "reputation" of the books and players that they are following. These books are following what is known as Efficient Market Theory, another subject that you should go read up on.
They are replacing mathematical probabilty. the one that says there is a 50/50 chance of something ocuring, and saying that because this book or that bettor thinks it is this, they now have a better than 50/50 chance of winning. (similar to Kelley) Whne it just isn't the case. A person's opinion is only as good as their ability. Over the long term it is BARELY above 50%, nomatter how good it is.Even if it is 54%, that is stillonly a 4% better chance, and since you canot determine WHEN that 4% chance will kick in, it becomes convoluted, especially when you are trying to get a short term result from some that took a very long term "test" to figure out.
This is probably the last thing I am going to share with you. FYI probabilities don't "kick in", they are governed by the Law of Large numbers.