[uva3021]

One would think books would have movement or take-down automated when big bets are made, thus saving one the boredom of having to sit there and watch a screen

[subs]

How can u b fine w that? how about all books set lines that they shape only from betting patterns and not from implied probability, then only take bets on -ev plays?

this is the game, they want to cheat as much as possible, but we sort of try to keep them semi-honest. it is not like they'll think "oh yea we're making enough money, lets drop the vig or give these guys a break"

no way, they'll just rip people off even more, no?

[CrazyCarl]

When you guys say "beat the no vig line", that means beating the line by 6 or more cents if you're talking about a nickel line, etc., right?

[Duff85]

When you guys say "beat the no vig line", that means beating the line by 6 or more cents if you're talking about a nickel line, etc., right?

Those who understand the concept would say yes. But some on here believe that beating the closing line means taking -4.5 (-130) when the consensus is -5 (-110).

[statnerds]

Books do not need to 'rip people off'. as long as Vig, Variance and Gambler's Ruin remain real.

Doesn't faith in BTCL rely on EMT?

[CrazyCarl]

Those who understand the concept would say yes. But some on here believe that beating the closing line means taking -4.5 (-130) when the consensus is -5 (-110).

What would the correct price for half points be?

[subs]

When you guys say "beat the no vig line", that means beating the line by 6 or more cents if you're talking about a nickel line, etc., right?

An introduction to betting lines and percentages

What would the correct price for half points be?

try this

[CrazyCarl]

An introduction to betting lines and percentages




try this

Hey, thanks.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Doesn't faith in BTCL rely on EMT?

Asssuming that you mean EMH...

To some extent, but there are different versions of the EMH. There is weak form, semi-strong form, and strong form. Sports markets tend to be weaker than weak form efficient, and typically the EMH is applied only to closers of the respective markets.

In my opinion, the AMH is more applicable to sports markets. However, closers are overall unbiased. So, the principles of EMH can be applied to them.

[Pokerjoe]

So tired of these discussions. BTCL and you will win, period. No more discussion.

Buy low, sell high and you beat the stock market. No more discussion ... but useless advice. It's absolutely true that if you BTCL long run, you'll profit. True, and useless, and that's why the discussion is tiring.

The things a player does to beat the current line (which is the only one he gets to bet against) will manifest themselves as beating the closing line, but BTCL will not cause profits, it will only reflect that you did things to beat the line at the time of your bet (which is why that's all you should ever think about).

This has nothing to do with the fact that the CL is more efficient than the early line, and I don't know why people bring that up. The close is more efficient than the current, yes, but you don't know the close when you bet the current. If you're going to imagine that you have future information, why not just imagine that you have the final score?

If your bets tend to correlate with market movements, great, you're more or less on the same page as those handicappers good enough to move the market. That's nice, sure. Reassuring, if you need reassurance other than profits.

From the book's POV, people who BTCL self-identify as non-square. That isn't the same as being sharp, but it's close enough.

If a book hangs 200 offers, all but one of which is market norm, and a customer bets only one of those 200 offers, and it's that single off-market offer ... boot him. You need know nothing more about the player, and it doesn't matter if the bet wins, because with that one bet the player has self-identified as non-square, in that at the least he line-shops (and some books will generally not book any non-square action).

If a player bets only one game, at a market-average offer that later moves significantly, boot him, too. He had some info (even if only about which way the action would fall, or as a reflection that he bets for a syndicate strong enough to move the market).

From the book's POV, BTCL is very useful. From the player's POV, it's trite, and caring about it is a massive semantics fail.

[chunk]

Totally agree with paragraphs 2 and 3.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Books shouldn't be booting for BTCL. They offer the number. They should be willing to take action on it.

It's actually quite disconcerting that even some players find booting winning players acceptable. The problem is that books who do this are either A) greedy, B) incompetent, or C) lazy. If you can't handle winning players then your limits are too high. Take a bet, move the fukking line like a book is supposed to, and balance your books. If you can't make it off of juice, you shouldn't be in business anyway.

When someone calls themselves a recreational book, it's a PC term to prey on the weak and it shouldn't be tolerated.

[Gabby Hayes]

I can tell you, 3-5 years ago, if you consistently beat the line by, which was possible to anticipate due to public moves, etc.:

40+ cents on MLB, NHL
2.5+ pts on NFL, NBA

Lots of profit. Is the current climate like this? I'm guessing the market has gotten sharper.

[mathdotcom]

Buy low, sell high and you beat the stock market. No more discussion ... but useless advice. It's absolutely true that if you BTCL long run, you'll profit. True, and useless, and that's why the discussion is tiring.

What makes it tiring is you can't even get people to agree on this point. BTCL is exactly the same as buying low and selling high -- yet everyone agrees if you can do the latter you're obviously going to be a winner, but in sports you somehow won't.

[hutennis]

What makes it tiring is you can't even get people to agree on this point. BTCL is exactly the same as buying low and selling high -- yet everyone agrees if you can do the latter you're obviously going to be a winner, but in sports you somehow won't.

Look, Math.

You are a smart guy obviously and I don't want to insult your intelligence in any way, but you are operating under an obvious misconception here.
The problem is that you can't buy low and sell high. It is impossible.
It is extremely counter intuitive and most people simply can't imagine and/or accept that such a "simple and natural approach" would be a dead end and losing proposition, but it is true.
There is no disagreement on this neither in academic circles nor among serious practitioners.
The only people who are still pushing "buy low - sell high" illusion on not so bright among us are con artists selling day traders courses.
It's laughable.
There is a mantra among good traders: "Market takes from those who wants to buy low and sell high and gives it to those who cut loses and let the profit run". And that is very true.

If you can buy low and sell high "you obviously going to be a winner". The problem is - this is a mirage. In markets and in sports.

[tomcowley]

The things a player does to beat the current line (which is the only one he gets to bet against) will manifest themselves as beating the closing line, but BTCL will not cause profits, it will only reflect that you did things to beat the line at the time of your bet (which is why that's all you should ever think about).

Okay..

This has nothing to do with the fact that the CL is more efficient than the early line, and I don't know why people bring that up. The close is more efficient than the current, yes, but you don't know the close when you bet the current. If you're going to imagine that you have future information, why not just imagine that you have the final score?

It has *everything* to do with that fact. If you bet openers, and then every line moved 20 points randomly from open, then you'd beat close half the time and it would be completely unrelated to the EV of your bets-a coinflipping monkey would also beat close half the time. (and of course your strategy in this market would change, but that's not relevant here)

If a player bets only one game, at a market-average offer that later moves significantly, boot him, too. He had some info (even if only about which way the action would fall, or as a reflection that he bets for a syndicate strong enough to move the market).

This is just idiotic. Dummies betting their favorite teams or TV games are going to run into favorable scenarios by chance all the time. I mean if a syndicate unloads on the first college football TV game, you're seriously going to toss everybody who deposited for the season and had that side in game 1? GTFO.

If a local has new clients who bet the home team at a point worse than market, and then somebody unloads and moves it 2 points so their bet turns out to be good vs close, he's supposed to tell them all to get lost? GTFO.

[mathdotcom]

hutennis

Please educate me on how a successful trader makes a profit without buying low and selling high.

I look forward to your reply. Popcorn ready.

[hutennis]

hutennis

Please educate me on how a successful trader makes a profit without buying low and selling high.

I look forward to your reply. Popcorn ready.

I already did.

He must cut losses and let profits run.
Easier said than done. That's for sure.
But that's the only way.

Edit.

I guess I see what you mean.
The fact of buying low and selling high must be there and it will be.
But it comes not as original intention but as a random result of repeated cutting and running.

[mathdotcom]

[hutennis]

????

[u21c3f6]

Hutennis is actually making some very good points but is having a hard time describing exactly what he means. I am not sure I can do any better because the reader must also have some experience or knowledge of what the writer is writing about from the writer's perspective.

When (most) people think of buy low, sell high as relates to the stock market, they think of buying a stock that is well off of its highs with the expectation that it will once again rise to where it once was. While you may catch a winner now and again with this approach, you will also wind up with a bunch of junk that continues to go into the toilet. There are usually very good reasons why a stock has fallen from its highs and the end result will usually be that you lose money overall. A better way of handling things and what I think hutennis is alluding to is that you buy high and sell higher as there are also usually very good reasons why the stock is making new highs. The "trick" is to get off the train before it reaches the cliff which is not too hard to do if one does not get greedy.

Joe.

[MonkeyF0cker]

While implementation of BTCL may be a concern for some, it's an ancillary argument.

It's like telling a runner how to win a race. "Well, you have to cross the finish line first."

hutennis' argument is, "Yeah. But you can't win every race. There are a lot of fast people."

The fact of the matter is that even an average runner is capable of finding opponents that he could beat, and with self-determination, rigorous training, and selective participation, that average runner could win a majority of his/her races.

[Gabby Hayes]

I think in terms of value now much more than the closing price. If you end up getting the best price on the duration of the line, great! But I have always believed the key is to spot the softest spots, whether you are too early or too late. For example, I think the tennis market right now can offer soft lines at times. This is good because it's a major international sport and the liquidity is there. There is also a lot of variance. So if I can grab a tennis side that I see value in and still lose 20 cents off of what the peak offer was at, I still may feel good about it.

[Thremp]

It is pretty interesting how people use stock analogies but fail to acknowledge the difference between market size as a factor in efficiency. I'm sure anyone could learn to invest in nanocap companies (well anyone of reasonable intelligence) and generate alpha, whereas the ability to do this with 100b+ market caps is an insanely valuable skill and could easily turn someone into a multi-billionaire.

[chunk]

Lesson # 1.... Learn to make the distinction between pertinent info and close to total B.S. or at best misinformation. It is a fact that there be no roadmaps to be had. Some of the so called sharps, are the worst offenders.

[hutennis]

The fact of the matter is that even an average runner is capable of finding opponents that he could beat, and with self-determination, rigorous training, and selective participation, that average runner could win a majority of his/her races.

I think this would be a perfectly valid argument for poker, for example, where you can be the 10th worse player in a world but if bottom 9 are at your table you are guaranteed to be a winner.
I'm also sure that any regular at this forum knows more than enough about sportsbetting to tear a part his friends or co-workers with lines set privately. But we are not in a race vs an average Joe here, are not we?

We can argue about absolute efficiency of the market till we are blue in the face, but from practical stand point it is hardly an issue.
The only thing any rational person should worry about is relative strength. There are 7 billion people on this planet. Sure, there must be someone somewhere who is bright enough to have an edge in one form or another. Am I one of them? Even if market is inefficient,
is it inefficient enough for me, you, him personally to be beatable by me, you, him? What are the odds of that vs payoff? That's the questions.

There is no doubt in my mind that for 99% of those involved "Yes" would be not only default but the only answer. What else can it be?
If someone can do it, what stops me? Well, I can't run 100m for 10sec, serve 140m/h serve or pitch 95 m/h fast ball, but hey, when it comes to estimating probabilities of uncertain outcomes there is nobody I can't compete against.
Good luck, I guess.

[Duff85]

I think this would be a perfectly valid argument for poker, for example, where you can be the 10th worse player in a world but if bottom 9 are at your table you are guaranteed to be a winner.
I'm also sure that any regular at this forum knows more than enough about sportsbetting to tear a part his friends or co-workers with lines set privately. But we are not in a race vs an average Joe here, are not we?

We can argue about absolute efficiency of the market till we are blue in the face, but from practical stand point it is hardly an issue.
The only thing any rational person should worry about is relative strength. There are 7 billion people on this planet. Sure, there must be someone somewhere who is bright enough to have an edge in one form or another. Am I one of them? Even if market is inefficient,
is it inefficient enough for me, you, him personally to be beatable by me, you, him? What are the odds of that vs payoff? That's the questions.

There is no doubt in my mind that for 99% of those involved "Yes" would be not only default but the only answer. What else can it be?
If someone can do it, what stops me? Well, I can't run 100m for 10c, serve 140m/h serve or pitch 95 m/h fast ball, but hey, when it comes to estimating probabilities of uncertain outcomes there is nobody I can't compete against.
Good luck, I guess.

Hutennis, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[mathdotcom]

to my knowledge he is the first to have been temporarily banned for stupidity

[durito]

to my knowledge he is the first to have been temporarily banned for stupidity

Which given the idiots like want4, chubnut, bigdaddy, dh, etc that post here was a pretty stupid decision, but we can't ban the moderator.

[hutennis]

Hutennis, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Well, maybe. But.. where I came from simply pouring the dirt over the person making an argument rather than dealing with an argument itself considered to be a sure sign of not being terribly bright.

That's why we have a quote function here. Take those "most insanely idiotic things you have ever heard" and destroy one by one with your superior intellect and logic. That's how it's done.

Start from the beginning and go. Let me help you.
Insanely idiotic thing #1

I think this would be a perfectly valid argument for poker, for example, where you can be the 10th worse player in a world but if bottom 9 are at your table you are guaranteed to be a winner.

Go at it!. Rip it to shreds! Have no mercy!
And when you done with it just keep on going.
Line by idiotic line. I will award you points every time you win.

Because if you won't, you are poor, ignorant, delusional imbecile and may God have mercy on your soul.

[VLR100]

I think this would be a perfectly valid argument for poker, for example, where you can be the 10th worse player in a world but if bottom 9 are at your table you are guaranteed to be a winner.

What has this got to do with beating the closing line? Try find a betting market with 9 other guys betting it, have fun making money. You're not even guaranteed to be the winner in such a world depending on your luck (variance).

I'm also sure that any regular at this forum knows more than enough about sportsbetting to tear a part his friends or co-workers with lines set privately. But we are not in a race vs an average Joe here, are not we?

Again, what relevance does this have? In the larger, more liquid markets you're up against the sharpest players in the world.

We can argue about absolute efficiency of the market till we are blue in the face, but from practical stand point it is hardly an issue.
The only thing any rational person should worry about is relative strength. There are 7 billion people on this planet. Sure, there must be someone somewhere who is bright enough to have an edge in one form or another. Am I one of them? Even if market is inefficient,
is it inefficient enough for me, you, him personally to be beatable by me, you, him? What are the odds of that vs payoff? That's the questions.

It is indeed an issue. Why are limits higher on more efficient markets? Because they're harder to get an edge on, bookies can take more action. Your relative strength in an efficient market like NFL sides is very low. Of course it is possible to get an edge, but it is very difficult, and being able to beat a large efficient market like NFL sides consistently is a gold mine. Vis-a-vis you're supposition of being bright enough to have the edge over one person, that's also irrelevant, unless he's betting millions on each game, shifting the the line so far that everyone else in the world is able to take the other side. You're trying to hit 52.5%+ where the market implies a probability of 50%, not try and beat a 40% player.

There is no doubt in my mind that for 99% of those involved "Yes" would be not only default but the only answer. What else can it be?
If someone can do it, what stops me? Well, I can't run 100m for 10sec, serve 140m/h serve or pitch 95 m/h fast ball, but hey, when it comes to estimating probabilities of uncertain outcomes there is nobody I can't compete against.
Good luck, I guess.

Sure, lots of people might like to think they're able to beat NFL sides, but who cares. Why else do you think bookies and sharps can make money? So many fish in the pond. There's nothing stopping you from trying, but succeeding is difficult. If it was easy we'd be millionaires. So, good luck to you competing against the sharpest linesmakers and handicappers in the world.

Are you trolling or are you really as dense as you seem?

[hutennis]

What has this got to do with beating the closing line? Try find a betting market with 9 other guys betting it, have fun making money. You're not even guaranteed to be the winner in such a world depending on your luck (variance).

Again, what relevance does this have? In the larger, more liquid markets you're up against the sharpest players in the world.

Read posts carefully.

Originally Posted by hutennis
I think this would be a perfectly valid argument for poker, for example, where you can be the 10th worse player in a world but if bottom 9 are at your table you are guaranteed to be a winner. I'm also sure that any regular at this forum knows more than enough about sportsbetting to tear a part his friends or co-workers with lines set privately. But we are not in a race vs an average Joe here, are not we?

This ^ is a direct respond to this

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker
The fact of the matter is that even an average runner is capable of finding opponents that he could beat, and with self-determination, rigorous training, and selective participation, that average runner could win a majority of his/her races.

It is indeed an issue. Why are limits higher on more efficient markets? Because they're harder to get an edge on, bookies can take more action. Your relative strength in an efficient market like NFL sides is very low. Of course it is possible to get an edge, but it is very difficult, and being able to beat a large efficient market like NFL sides consistently is a gold mine. Vis-a-vis you're supposition of being bright enough to have the edge over one person, that's also irrelevant, unless he's betting millions on each game, shifting the the line so far that everyone else in the world is able to take the other side. You're trying to hit 52.5%+ where the market implies a probability of 50%, not try and beat a 40% player.

All this has very little if anything to do with my post.
All I'm saying, is that as a rational person you should measure your personal strength as a handicapper vs market you deal with.
You have to handicap yourself first before you handicap anything else.
Whether it is efficient or not and/or beatable by somebody else should make no difference for you personally in you making a decisions to get involved or not.
My assertions is that chances for success are so small and payoff is so uncertain that no rational person should ever get involved with anything more than for entertainment utility.

Sure, lots of people might like to think they're able to beat NFL sides, but who cares. Why else do you think bookies and sharps can make money? So many fish in the pond. There's nothing stopping you from trying, but succeeding is difficult. If it was easy we'd be millionaires. So, good luck to you competing against the sharpest linesmakers and handicappers in the world.

Now you are simply making my case. TY