[Menahem777]

Hey guys i've been reading from this forum a lot lately and finally decided to make an account. I've been looking at a lot of NBA stats and i would like to know how to see if a system works with backtesting i've been looking at trends and the system seems to be profitable in the last 100 games or so but i would like to test it with a bigger sample size. I've been seeing if the system works on a game per game basis until now and i would like to know of a way to analyze the system on the games of the past 5-10 years to have a better idea of the real value of the system. I have excel if that's needed. I'll give points to whoever can help.

[brewers7]

What kind of stats are you looking for?...I have an NBA database that goes back 31 years...

[Menahem777]

I'm looking to see what is the % of games that a team covers ATS each quarter

[Menahem777]

For today it would've been 6-1 with lakers game to go

[brewers7]

I'm looking to see what is the % of games that a team covers ATS each quarter

I am sure it is quite low...I am sure that is one I can test in the offseason...Too many projects right now to get to it, and besides, I will be looking for a programmer during the offseason to take my database to the "next level" as I want to be able to query the hell out of it...

[Menahem777]

Ok let me know when you can test it

[hutennis]

Hey guys i've been reading from this forum a lot lately and finally decided to make an account. I've been looking at a lot of NBA stats and i would like to know how to see if a system works with backtesting i've been looking at trends and the system seems to be profitable in the last 100 games or so but i would like to test it with a bigger sample size. I've been seeing if the system works on a game per game basis until now and i would like to know of a way to analyze the system on the games of the past 5-10 years to have a better idea of the real value of the system. I have excel if that's needed. I'll give points to whoever can help.

Without even getting into argument of how relevant 5-10 years data is to today's game, it's pretty easy to say that you are about to waste a lot of your time and effort for nothing,
For any kind of pattern you may stumble upon in a past data to work it needs to be totally missed by anybody else in a world looking at the same thing. Only then it will not be priced in the market and thus has a chance to give you some value.
With millions of eyeballs (including some very sophisticated ones, armed to the teeth with tolls you can't even dream about) watching
NBA market every second of every day, chance of this happening is big,fat zero.

As a separate, but even more important point, patterns fished out in a past data are practically guaranteed to be worseless since in overwhelming majority of cases meanings we assign to them do not exist anywhere but in our inflamed imagination.

[Menahem777]

If that was true then how do sportsbooks set up line for games dont they use past data? average points scored, average points allowed etc.. your telling me that there's no way to have a good idea of the future based on past data?

[hutennis]

If that was true then how do sportsbooks set up line for games dont they use past data? average points scored, average points allowed etc..

Sportsbooks use myriads of data points, past and present, and apply an extremely sophisticated algorithm that take Nobel Prize kind of brain power and NASA worthy tools to develop to them in order to come up with their lines.
If you'll do the same, you are most likely to come up with the same probabilities but that, unfortunately, is not enough.
You need to be even sharper to overcome juice.

You don't seem to be getting ready even to do the same thing.
You just made a totally useless observation that over last 100 games something related to ATS results each quarter would have made you money and naively decided that if you'd find a conformation in a much larger sample that will constitute finding a moneymaking edge.

First, good luck finding confirmation.
Second, even if you will, it's still not gonna help you a tiny bit.
If any money making correlation exists, it already well known to NBA market and thus PRICED IN ALREADY making this information irrelevant (aka useless). As they often say, Tell me something I don't know.

your telling me that there's no way to have a good idea of the future based on past data?

That's exactly what I want to say.

It's just very hard to give up this erroneous idea since there is nothing else that human brain would rather do but endlessly search randomness for what looks like patterns and aplly meanings to a random noise. It's just our nature, an evolutionary development which was very useful for surviving in savannas where we spent 99.999% of our time as spices but brings nothing but trouble to a modern man.

[HuskerExpat]

[snip]For any kind of pattern you may stumble upon in a past data to work it needs to be totally missed by anybody else in a world looking at the same thing. Only then it will not be priced in the market and thus has a chance to give you some value.[snip]

I agree with nearly everything you posted except the snippet about the efficiency of the sports gambling market. It has been my experience that the sports gambling market is somewhat efficient, but often times extraordinarily inefficient. It is in its inefficiency where we all try and make money. If you believe the market is perfectly efficient, then what is your strategy for making a bet with a positive expected value return?

[hutennis]

Well, in term of numbers, what is "somewhat"? And how often is often? Do you just feel a certain way or you have a data?

We always have to keep in mind that long runs are really long and short runs are way longer than we give them credit for.
And those "large samples" that are in fact nothing more but unrecognized short runs will produce, by design, an amazing array of outliers
in which some of the most fortunate among us will end up being on profitable side, thus confusing random favorable development with skillful exploiting market "inefficiencies".

Plus, market does not need to be perfectly efficient either. There is a margin for error, so to speak. And pretty wide one too.

[HuskerExpat]

Determining the inefficiency of the market is the whole key to the way I approach sports gambling. In my experience how inefficient and how often it is inefficient varies, and not in any way that I can predict. For instance, some weeks during the college basketball season there weren't any games I liked based upon what I believe to be an incorrect line (I only follow a few different conferences, however). Other weeks there were several. Sometimes I felt the line was off a few points, other times I thought it was off by several points.

You make completely valid points about the sample size and random variables sometimes being the difference between winning and losing. On the other hand, a binomial distribution shows there is a less than 1% chance of getting my cumulative record in college basketball over the last several seasons if I had just flipped a coin to determine the outcome. Is that definitive proof that it wasn't random; no, because there are lottery winners out there and maybe I'm the lottery winner of college basketball picking. The only other explanation is that the market was inefficient and I successfully exploited that inefficiency. I choose to believe the latter.

Anyway, your acknowledgment that the market isn't perfectly efficient and that there is a margin for error is in fact what I'm talking about. So while I agree completely with what you were saying about the original poster's quest to find a pattern, you seem to agree that the market does not necessarily accurately account for all available information....

[hutennis]

I did not make myself clear, I guess.

Books have margin for error in a form of juice. Even if market was off (inefficient) by 1% over however long the time frame is and that's is nothing to sneeze on, in fact it's a lot, its a loss for a player anyway.

As far as an explanation for your success - it's easy.

As you said, there are two.

1. You under appreciate randomness.
2. Market was inefficient and and you successfully exploited that inefficiency.

Whatever you chose to believe in is irrelevant.
What is independently the right choice - that's the only thing that meters.

According to well known scientific principal the hypothesis that requires less assumptions is the correct one.
The choice is clear here and your binomial analysis is simply a result of your under appreciation of randomness.
That thing is being misunderstood and misused more often then any other tool, it seems. Even without getting involved in an argument that it is not a right tool to use in a first place.

For example.

Leonard Koppett has predicted the direction of the market for a given year 18 times out of 19.
Binomial distribution says that the chance of him being simply lucky is 0.00004.
If he had different credentials and not revealed his method, he could have been hailed as the most clever analyst since Charles H. Dow and anyone who would attribute his amazing success simply to luck would have been declared ignorant idiot.

Leonard Koppett was a sports columnist and his prediction was based on which team, National or American, would win a Superbowl.

You need more examples? There is a ton.

[HuskerExpat]

I guess we disagree as to which explanation simpler. I would think the simplest explanation is the one that does not rely upon less than a 1% likelihood that it is accurate. You offer no explanation why you believe that an explanation that has less than a 1% likelihood is the simpler explanation. I follow two conferences, and therefore have an opportunity to watch nearly every single game in both conferences. It doesn't seem that outrageous to believe that I might be slightly better at setting a line on those conference games.

The Leonard Koppett example is something entirely different. That is an argument of correlation vs. causation. He has proved a correlation between the winner of the Superbowl and the Dow, but that doesn't prove causation. Alternatively, perhaps his theory, which has been publicized has actually created a causation because traders believe it to be true and trade accordingly. It seems unlikely, but certainly possible.

I set my own line on sporting events I'm interest in following. When the market is sufficiently different than mine, I make a bet. This has resulted in a record that in unlikely to be the result of luck, though there is a less than 1% possibility that is just dumb luck.

If you do not believe there can be any advantage obtained over a sportsbook, then that begs the question as to why you would ever place a wager, or even attempt to engage in handicapping, both of which seem to be implied by your reading/posting in a Handicapping Think Tank forum on on sports gambling web site. To me, the only other explanation is that you're some sort of missionary here to proselytize to sports gamblers about the errors of our ways....

[HuskerExpat]

Alternatively, look at the records of certain popular sports teams against the spread over the long term. Very popular teams with a nationwide following tend to perform horribly against the spread over the very long term. Do you think that is dumb luck or is it possible the simpler explanation is that the public stupidly just bets on their favorite team without regard to the line? If it is the latter, then that is all the proof you need that the market is not efficient.

[hutennis]

Let me simplify it a little.

You do whatever is that you do and you get a results that fall into 1% accuracy according to CLT.

According to you, you are either "the lottery winner of college basketball picking" or a scilled handicapper consistently exploiting market inefficiencies. Your conclusion - since "lottery winner" is way too much luck then it just has to be skills.

The problem with this is that you are "anchoring" your logic to a wrong and unfair point.
Lottery winners are one in tens of millions. Here we are talking 1%. A bit different, is not it?
Neither me nor anybody I know have never seen a lottery winner in a lifetime but out of every 2000 users on sportsbetting forums 20 would be lucky 1% "winners". Another words, it is not uncommon as you think or want to believe.
Sport betting is a land of short runs and small sample sizes and thus land of extremes.

Please tell me what do you see about this situation.

Imagine you made 150 bets in a season in accordance with you model.
You bet every time on underdog b/c you consider market to be wrong.
Not just wrong, Hugely wrong. Market says you are 2 to 1 dog and your model said you are 50/50
And so in every game. At the end of the season you win money.
With a model a record and like this, what would you think about yourself as a handicapper?
I'm sure you as anyone else would rip the heart out of anyone who would dare to attribute record like that to luck and luck only.

And yet, I know for sure, first hands thats that how it is. And have a prove.

This is to illustrate the point that you don't have to cross the oceans and climb mountains to see
"lottery winner". They are dime a dozen. So, yes, luck is simpler explanation.

[hutennis]

The Leonard Koppett example is something entirely different. That is an argument of correlation vs. causation. He has proved a correlation between the winner of the Superbowl and the Dow, but that doesn't prove causation. Alternatively, perhaps his theory, which has been publicized has actually created a causation because traders believe it to be true and trade accordingly. It seems unlikely, but certainly possible.

It is correct, but yet, this is another perfect example of how easily our brain is fooled if we dont think things through.

You can comfortably sort things out now, but only b/c you have a perfect knowledge of what happened in the past.
Again, if methodology of those predictions and person making them were not known, you and everyone else would be positive that there is an investment genius out there making an amazing calls for 2 decades in a row and binomial would have an outrages number to "prove" it.

Classic case of hindsight bias.

[HuskerExpat]

It is noteworthy that you cannot account for why some teams perform horribly against the line on a consistent basis if the market is efficient. Also, how do you account for the likes of actual professional gamblers who have made millions of dollars over decades (i.e. Billy Walters, Alan Boston). Are they just the real lottery winners of gambling? They don't simply beat the closing line, which is what you seem to be advocating and is, incidentally, not exactly an endorsement of the market as efficient since an efficient market is only inefficient for such a short period of time that no one person would be able to consistently beat the closing line.

[Maverick22]

Cool Story Bro

[mrbmt123]

[hutennis]

It is noteworthy that you cannot account for why some teams perform horribly against the line on a consistent basis if the market is efficient. Also, how do you account for the likes of actual professional gamblers who have made millions of dollars over decades (i.e. Billy Walters, Alan Boston). Are they just the real lottery winners of gambling? They don't simply beat the closing line, which is what you seem to be advocating and is, incidentally, not exactly an endorsement of the market as efficient since an efficient market is only inefficient for such a short period of time that no one person would be able to consistently beat the closing line.

BW and a few more like him can manipulate markets but you, I and and remaining 99.99% of participants can't.
So let's leave an exceptional and not completely understood phenomena out of general discussion.

Now about "consistent basis".
What is "consistent" really? Are we talking large enough number to rule out random variance?

Again, sport betting world inherently is world of a small sample sizes and thus is inherently world of extremes.
Nothing stays the same in sport betting for a long enough time to insure large enough sample size.
Rules change, teams change, skill level changes any other matrix we can think of is changes in a blink of a eye
in terms of sample size.

Compare it to a poker for example.

If I have AA and you have KK preflop I am 4 to 1 favorite to win the hand. End of story.
Its true today. It was true 10 years ago. It was true 100 years ago. It will be true 100 years from now
I can collect a data from as far back as I want, analyze it and, as a result, to be absolutely positive that when I next time
will be dealt AA vs KK my expectation is to win 80% of the time. Same thing is true for any other hand match up with different probabilities

Now, I played more than million documented hands of poker so far and intimately familiar with what can happen with actual results vs probabilities. It is not uncommon to be behind (or ahead) expectations with very impressive confidence levels for thousands of hands in your All IN match ups. All in meaning no skills involved anymore, just luck.

If someone would come to a poker forum claiming to be so good that he is ahead of expectations in all ins to the tune of 99% confidence after a few thousands hands, he would have been kicked so hard his head would spin.
Given, lucky ones never do it in poker. That unluckiest who are whining in brag and beats threads showing an amazingly bad charts to prove an unreal "unfareness". But lucky ones are there. In fact its 1 for 1, obviously.

And yet, when it comes to sport betting, every one who is ahead after a few dozens (or hundreds, the same thing) all ins
is considering himself a proven winner. Silly. Silly and naive. That is even discounting the fact that some, most likely majority of them are liars. They don't even show charts. We have to take their word for it. Silly!

So again. There is no real long term in sports betting. And if there is no long term you can forget you binomial calculator no matter what it shows and how much you like what it suggests.
One of the best poker players in a world, Phil Galfond (omgclayaiken) once said " One can never see long run in nosebleeds (highest stakes in a world he plays at). There's simply not enough action"
That said a man who can play a 10000 hands a week.
For a sport bettor 10000 bets is a lifetime.

Think about it.

[HuskerExpat]

Your answer is always that the sample size is not great enough and that blind luck is the only answer. Obviously no statistics could ever satisfy you otherwise.

Nonetheless, the mere fact that you admit that the market can be manipulated, even if by only a very select group of people, and that it is possible to consistently beat the closing line proves that you don't really believe the market is efficient. Efficient markets aren't manipulated. You can't beat an efficient market. And that was the point of my original post, that sports gambling markets aren't efficient. You may not agree with me about why they are not efficient, but you've acknowledged, at least twice now, that they are not.

Bet of luck to you, since it appears based upon your arguments here that you are relying only upon luck to determine your success or failure at sports gambling. Hard to see why you do it. You might as well just bet on coin flips.

[hutennis]

Your answer is always that the sample size is not great enough and that blind luck is the only answer. Obviously no statistics could ever satisfy you otherwise.

My answer is the same b/c I don't need any other arguments so far.
And it is not that no statistics can ever satisfy me, but that "statistics" that are usually brought force coupled with complete lack of any supporting data for independent analysis simply makes the whole thing kinda laughable.

Nonetheless, the mere fact that you admit that the market can be manipulated, even if by only a very select group of people, and that it is possible to consistently beat the closing line proves that you don't really believe the market is efficient. Efficient markets aren't manipulated. You can't beat an efficient market. And that was the point of my original post, that sports gambling markets aren't efficient. You may not agree with me about why they are not efficient, but you've acknowledged, at least twice now, that they are not.

Yeh. This whole efficient/not efficient thing can be an interesting theoretical discussion that can last forever.
But the practical point still is simple enough.

Lets say it is 50/50. If its efficient we are dead meat. If it is inefficient, then to what extend and, most importantly, what chance do average person has to correctly recognize those inefficiencies, not to confuse them with a random noise and take advantage of them in a timely manner. Combined probabilities to win this ugly parlay seem to be so tiny and payoff so uncertain, that no rational person should ever get involved. Yet they do. Massively.

Why? Because we are people. We are extremely overconfident in our abilities There is a well known study where something like 85% of participants claimed they are better than average drivers. We are easily confused by uncertainty and who knows what else. List of our decision-making, belief and behavioral fallacies and biases is a mile long and it takes a monumental effort to simply recognize our shortcomings, let alone deal with them and win against them.

Bet of luck to you, since it appears based upon your arguments here that you are relying only upon luck to determine your success or failure at sports gambling. Hard to see why you do it. You might as well just bet on coin flips.

Thanks for good luck but I don't do it. Not in this form anyway. There are some more rational approaches for me.
At least, I think so.

[HuskerExpat]

Finally, the ugly truth you were avoiding. You believe that those who have consistently won at sports gambling are merely consistently lucky. A corollary to that is that sports gamblers are confused when they believe they might gain an edge by skill rather than luck. Thanks, but no thanks.

[hutennis]

Finally, the ugly truth you were avoiding. You believe that those who have consistently won at sports gambling are merely consistently lucky. A corollary to that is that sports gamblers are confused when they believe they might gain an edge by skill rather than luck. Thanks, but no thanks.

Look. I'm avoiding nothing. I am making arguments and so far I have not seen any kind of rebuttal.
Just empty claims. Empty claims are useless b/c assertion without prove can be dismissed without prove.

Not that I believe that those who have consistently won at sports gambling are merely consistently lucky.
In a absence of evidences to the contrary it is the only rational assumption.
The fact that you or anyone after 1000 bets occupies one percent spot on the very right part of a bell curve does not mean anything because SOMEBODY HAS TO. And given the huge number of applicants trying to get there I can assure you its a very crowded place.
It must be.
Among those who bet reduced juice lines (and you really need to be a degenerate to do anything else) a boat load of people will be making money simply by chance after a 1000 bets. But each and everyone of them will be positive that he "gained an edge by skill rather than luck".
After all, he is profitably betting on his favorite sport for 4 seasons skillfully selecting great opportunities. What other prove does anyone need that he is great gambling mind? If they are not a confused bunch I don't know who is?

Common man.

[HuskerExpat]

In your zeal to prove sports gamblers idiots, you miss the entire point of my original post. Your claims that success is based entirely upon luck relies upon your assumption that the sports gambling market is efficient. Then you've acknowledged twice in this very thread that it is not (i.e., you admit that the market can be manipulated and you can "beat the closing line" consistently). So throw out your assumption that the market is efficient, because even you don't believe it. And if the market isn't efficient, then skill can be relied upon to make money and not simply luck.

Common man, try and be consistent in your prostelytizing. Like religious zealots, you also refuse to apply the same rules to yourself that you do others.

[hutennis]

Looks more and more like a wasted effort, but one more time...

It is totally irrelevant whether market is efficient or not in general.
The only thing that should concern you in that respect, if making money is you goal, is whether market if efficient or not for you personally.

ONLY if you, personally, can outsmart the collective wisdom of the rest of participants in your market ( that would include oddsmaker's Midas, MIT sharps, Billy Walters, RAS and the rest of the betting world) then yes, market is inefficient for you personally and you can take advantage of it. Prove it and you can take a full credit for your success.

Now back to our 2 choices of which one with less assumptions required will be a correct one.

1. You are smarter then the rest of the betting world and that's how you get to see 1% on your binomial calculator.
2. You see 1% on your binomial calculator because you got lucky for the tune of 1% which is a very easy thing to do in a hopelessly small sample size you have.

Witch one do you think is less complicated?

Thank you.

PS

Read this one more time. Seems like you missed it.

If it is inefficient, then to what extend and, most importantly, what chance do average person has to correctly recognize those inefficiencies, not to confuse them with a random noise and take advantage of them in a timely manner. Combined probabilities to win this ugly parlay seem to be so tiny and payoff so uncertain, that no rational person should ever get involved. Yet they do. Massively.

Why? Because we are people. We are extremely overconfident in our abilities There is a well known study where something like 85% of participants claimed they are better than average drivers. We are easily confused by uncertainty and who knows what else. List of our decision-making, belief and behavioral fallacies and biases is a mile long and it takes a monumental effort to simply recognize our shortcomings, let alone deal with them and win against them.

[HuskerExpat]

I agree with nearly everything you posted except the snippet about the efficiency of the sports gambling market. It has been my experience that the sports gambling market is somewhat efficient, but often times extraordinarily inefficient. It is in its inefficiency where we all try and make money. If you believe the market is perfectly efficient, then what is your strategy for making a bet with a positive expected value return?

I may in fact just be lucky, but the entire point of my original post (see above), however, was merely that the market was not efficient. That is all I have sought to prove. You keep arguing something different.

[hutennis]

What about this line

It is in its inefficiency where we all try and make money.

That's what I keep arguing.

[HuskerExpat]

Plus, market does not need to be perfectly efficient either. There is a margin for error, so to speak. And pretty wide one too.

You argue that the market is efficient, and thus we are foolish to try and beat it. But then:

Imagine you made 150 bets in a season in accordance with you model.
You bet every time on underdog b/c you consider market to be wrong.
Not just wrong, Hugely wrong. Market says you are 2 to 1 dog and your model said you are 50/50
And so in every game. At the end of the season you win money.
With a model a record and like this, what would you think about yourself as a handicapper?

BW and a few more like him can manipulate markets but you, I and and remaining 99.99% of participants can't.
So let's leave an exceptional and not completely understood phenomena out of general discussion.

You next admit that the market is not efficient in at least two ways. Then you go on to argue that the only explanation for success is luck, even while previously acknowledging the market is not efficient. Yes, I said that it is in the inefficiency where we try and make money. That is true, that is what I and other handicappers try to do. Whether you believe that my success or anyone else's is the result of skill or luck is quite irrelevant to the original point of my post, which you have been trying to get away from for some time. The fact is, that whether I or any other successful sports gambler is lucky or skillful is really quite irrelevant given that I have accomplished my goal of winning more money than losing. That is all I care about. Quite frankly, it is all any gambler who isn't a pompous ass should care about.

Quite obviously, as someone who admits that you are not a sports gambler, then clearly you are here either as a troll or a proselytizer trying to save me from myself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter, and acknowledge your good intentions, but no thanks, I don't need it. By luck or skill, I have achieved a small amount of success, and that is all I care about.

You aren't a sports gambler. Perhaps you should consider that while you understand a bit about mathematics and statistics, you don't understand sports handicapping or the sports gambling market. If you regularly entered the sports gambling market, you would understand how inefficient it is. And the fact is that I don't have to beat the BW's and MIT grads of the world to be a successful skillful gambler. Notwithstanding that they place huge wagers, they are but a very small percentage of the sports gambling market.

[hutennis]

Well, it's time to agree to disagree, I guess.
I wish you the best of luck . You gonna need a lot of it.

One last thing though. Whether I'm troll, proselytizer or for anything else, this is so outrageously wrong I just have to point it out.

And the fact is that I don't have to beat the BW's and MIT grads of the world to be a successful skillful gambler.

Believe it or not, that's exactly what you have to do. Either you lines have to be sharper or, if yours are equally sharp, you'd have beat them on execution and timing.

In poker, yes I agree, you don't need to be better than Phil Iveys or Durrrs of the world to make money.
All you have to make sure that most of the people at your table are not as good as you are. That alone will be enough to see money rolling your way.

In sports betting the best of the world are constantly at your table so to speak. Every second of every day they make their presents known by constantly sharpening the lines.

Considering yourself isolated from their relentless pressure simply because you don't see them is beyond naive.

Peace out.

[Justin7]

And the fact is that I don't have to beat the BW's and MIT grads of the world to be a successful skillful gambler.

Believe it or not, that's exactly what you have to do. Either you lines have to be sharper or, if yours are equally sharp, you'd have beat them on execution and timing.

hutennis,

You're a troll. No one could possibly say this and believe it.

The market does not instantly become efficient when the lines are put out. The lines become more efficient as the market size increases. Do you think BW gives a shit what the opener is? Or what it is at 8am on game day? or 10am on gameday? Bw, and the most successful syndicates have infinite capital relative the the sports markets. They don't just wait for Pinnacle to hit max limits... they wait for all the off-screens to copy, and all the locals to copy. Only then can the bigger players get the bets down that they want.

If you are betting a major market with 30 minutes to post, then your statement is right. You have to be smarter than BW, the MIT grads, the pokers, the Taiwanese syndicate, all of them. It is just a matter of time before you lose.

But... if you bet earlier. If you bet into overnights, these bigger players are irrelevant. If you know when line manipulations occur, you can benefit from these other guys.

As you climb the food chain, you want to bet bigger. When you are a small fish, it is very easy to win at this. When you are a medium fish, it gets a little tougher. And when you are a whale? It's still easy to win, but the strategies change.

If you think you have to outsmart the best to win, you simply haven't made a serious attempt.

[hutennis]

Every time I hear from someone that I don't have to outsmart the best to win in a field where competition for value is as cutthroat as it is in sportsbetting, I see the picture of wolf inviting sheep to a romantic dinner.

So big guys did not care that Djokovic opened at -1100 and it was some random moron who moved the line to its low of -980 within an hour or so.
Best of the best were waiting for 20 hours till every shmak in a world had his fill in a low -1000 to start work their magic and finally get the bets down to scoop bargain at -1500.

Makes sense.

[Justin7]

Every time I hear from someone that I don't have to outsmart the best to win in a field where competition for value is as cutthroat as it is in sportsbetting, I see the picture of wolf inviting sheep to a romantic dinner.

So big guys did not care that Djokovic opened at -1100 and it was some random moron who moved the line to its low of -980 within an hour or so.
Best of the best were waiting for 20 hours till every shmak in a world had his fill in a low -1000 to start work their magic and finally get the bets down to scoop bargain at -1500.

Makes sense.

If you want to bet 10k on a match, you don't care about an opener with 500 limits. Your "opener" was at -1500, and you pass.

[hutennis]

Just curios.

When you type this bullshit arguments, do you keep a straight face, or you do blush just a little.

The limits on tomorrow's (20 hours from now) 1st round matches at Family Circle Cup are $3000 on pinny and you telling me that it was just 500 on a men's semifinal of the SonyEricson?

What's next? Whales who live in US can't bet on pinny?
I'm sure, some in your regular audience are stupid enough to swallow even that.