[20Four7]

I just wonder about other people's opinions. (I hope it belongs in this forum). While arbing always guarantees a profit (if done correctly), what about just hitting up the bad line? While I realize the variance factor is going to kick in plus some beats, which is better in the long run?

Some discussion please, and no discussion of arbers aren't real bettors.

Thanks

[cobra_king]

Depends on how bad the line is. If it's an obvious error, as you know they will cancel the bet anyway, or worse, take a shot at you. If it's slightly off market, enough to create an arb, i believe over the long run you will win by taking that line since you are always getting better value than what the true market price is.

[Stumpage]

I always go for the arb, only because I'm probably the worst handicapper on the planet and can never seem to get on any type of successful run. That said though, I know Cobra does a lot of tracking of these type of situations, so I'd be inclined to follow his advice.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by 20Four7

I just wonder about other people's opinions. (I hope it belongs in this forum). While arbing always guarantees a profit (if done correctly), what about just hitting up the bad line? While I realize the variance factor is going to kick in plus some beats, which is better in the long run?

Some discussion please, and no discussion of arbers aren't real bettors.

Thanks

For a discussion of optimal hedging strategy (including a couple of hedging spreadsheets) see this thread.

[The HG]

Stumpage, when doing that sort of thing, you don't have to handicap the game, just handicap which site is probably the one with the "right" line.

I don't arb at all, but it seems to me at first glance that hitting the bad line only would be better, because it takes less money, and because betting the "right" line is a -EV thing to do. But this of course assumes that you are reasonably sure which line is the "right" one and which is the "wrong" one.

But I could be wrong about this.

[Thremp]

It depends on your bankroll size, the limits, etc etc etc

Its a pretty complicated question. Basically for small bankrolls arbing is likely better, but for larger bankrolls hitting the weak line with no hedge is better.

[slacker00]

BOTH!

Arbing lets you put down max bets and zero risk. But, if you're also a handicapper, allow a one unit overlay with the bad line. I thought this was pretty standard.

[TLD]

I typically just scalp/middle it, because I'm not all that confident I know which side is the weaker of the two.

But if it’s, say, something I’ve handicapped or I have some reason to believe one line is weaker than the other, then I make whatever size bet would be appropriate on that side independent of the scalp/middle, then I do a scalp/middle on top of that.

For example, if there is a scalp of +100 on one side and +110 on the other, and I determine that the +100 is the positive EV play, and given the size of my bankroll and the degree of positivity we’re talking about, the correct bet size is $50, I bet that $50 on the +100, and make a scalp of the rest. So if the limits for this bet type are $1,000, I’d bet an additional $950 to win $950 on that side, and, say, $905 to win $995.50 on the +110 side.

In this particular instance it would boil down to risking $4.50 to win $95 on the side I thought was positive EV.

If you bet just the $50 on the “good” side, you’re passing up the free money of the additional scalp. If you bet $1,000 on the “good” side and nothing on the other, you’re making a wildly reckless (albeit positive EV) wager relative to your bankroll.

[curious]

Originally Posted by 20Four7

I just wonder about other people's opinions. (I hope it belongs in this forum). While arbing always guarantees a profit (if done correctly), what about just hitting up the bad line? While I realize the variance factor is going to kick in plus some beats, which is better in the long run?

Some discussion please, and no discussion of arbers aren't real bettors.

Thanks

Sham's Wolf turned me on to this. We use Pinnacle to get an arb with a recreational book, then take the team from the recreational book. Doesn't work 100% of the time but works more often than not.

I was doing the same thing in baseball. I would use an arb program to find arbs and then just bet the weak line. Worked really well.

[The HG]

Originally Posted by slacker00

BOTH!

Arbing lets you put down max bets and zero risk. But, if you're also a handicapper, allow a one unit overlay with the bad line. I thought this was pretty standard.

Right, but isn't that just "line shopping"? I thought arbing was with zero consideration to capping.

[Data]

I think that arbing makes sense only for credit players and for players with very low income. A post-up player with large bankroll will hardly ever find an arb between two A books. Once you account for all the risks that the post-up players face playing offshore you will see that those are not so "surebets".

[cobra_king]

Originally Posted by Data

I think that arbing makes sense only for credit players and for players with very low income. A post-up player with large bankroll will hardly ever find an arb between two A books. Once you account for all the risks that the post-up players face playing offshore you will see that those are not so "surebets".

I disagree with this because you can find arbs all the time between A books if you know where to look and when to look. When i don't have an opinion on a game, i'll arb those games to supplement my bankroll and i only use A books.

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by The HG

Right, but isn't that just "line shopping"? I thought arbing was with zero consideration to capping.

TLD goes on to explain it in his post right after mine.

Basically I'm saying do both. Arb it at the maximum betting limit. But, if you want to handicap it also, leave a one unit overlay on the side you think is soft. Depending on the arb, I'll leave the soft side as the "profit" side, and the sharp side will just break even on the arb. If I can't figure out which side is soft, I just hedge the arb evenly on both sides.

[20Four7]

Wow some great discussion guys. I know I "usually" make the assumption that Pinny's lines are the sharpest and go from there. The one thing with pinny you have to watch for is when they post a line like 9 at -140 on one side and +130 on the other, when every other book is at 7.5 or so at -110 both sides.

[Stumpage]

Originally Posted by curious

Sham's Wolf turned me on to this. We use Pinnacle to get an arb with a recreational book, then take the team from the recreational book. Doesn't work 100% of the time but works more often than not.

I was doing the same thing in baseball. I would use an arb program to find arbs and then just bet the weak line. Worked really well.

Very interesting points, Curious. I recall having this very same discussion with a couple of friends, specifically whether what you describe above would be financially rewarding over the long term.

I've often thought about doing it, but am making enough through pure arbing that I never actually attempted it myself. But I have always wondered how it would turn out.....

[donjuan]

The one thing with pinny you have to watch for is when they post a line like 9 at -140 on one side and +130 on the other, when every other book is at 7.5 or so at -110 both sides.

They do this to avoid Wong Teasers. You can easily convert this using Ganch's half-point calculator, but then it's probably better to just use that line as part of a Wong Teaser.

Very interesting points, Curious. I recall having this very same discussion with a couple of friends, specifically whether what you describe above would be financially rewarding over the long term.

I can confirm that Curious is correct here.

[cobra_king]

I did an interesting study about a year and a half ago using the idea of just betting the "recreational" side book. I used a collection of data from my own part time arbs, and used data from a full time arber to see if just betting the soft side would be profitable over time. I conducted this study because it seemed like the pinnacle side would lose far more often than the recreational books. I had access to almost 2500 arbed bets so the data sample seemed somewhat sufficient. The results were that the "recreational book" or soft line would win just under 61% of the time. Solid numbers but the caveat was that almost all of those "soft" numbers were on the favored side since the arb is created when pinnacle moved the dog line high enough to create the arb. And since not all the arbs are based on -110 lines at the rec book this created a situation where a higher number, closer to 56-57% was needed to secure a profit. So even tho it was profitable, as someone who tends to lean heavily to underdogs, i just couldn't change what had been successful to me over the years and start laying chalk on a consistent basis, and therefore never ventured into doing this.
An interesting note however is that since pinnacle left the U.S market, just taking into account my own part time arbs, (so therefore a smaller sample) the pinnacle side has won well over 50% of the time. When i see this information i'm glad i didn't travel down this road.

[Data]

A post-up player with large bankroll will hardly ever find an arb between two A books.

Originally Posted by cobra_king

I disagree with this because you can find arbs all the time between A books if you know where to look and when to look. When i don't have an opinion on a game, i'll arb those games to supplement my bankroll and i only use A books.

I am glad this is working for you. Keep in mind that we may have different opinions on what is a "large bankroll". I myself somewhat agree with you on your disagreement and as a result I will clarify my thoughts:

A post-up player with a large bankroll will hardly ever find an arb between two A books that provides the ROI high enough to make his time worth it. Please note that the arber's perception of what his time worth is irrelevant as in most cases the arber sels himself short as he overpays for the "insurance" on each and very one of his plays.

[cobra_king]

Now it is my turn to agree with you in that by arbing you are definately overpaying for insurance on a play, but i believe that only applys if you actually like the play where the arb exists. 90% of arbs i do find are in baskets, and that is because i don't bet hoops so i never have an opinion on the game or what "true odds" should be. So therefore i don't mind overpaying for insurance because of that. As for bankroll, i also agree that we may have differing opinions of what large bankrolls are, but to me a large bankroll would be where i can max bet any of the markets where that arb exists.

[20Four7]

Originally Posted by donjuan

They do this to avoid Wong Teasers.

I know why they do it, I just pointed out that is occurs and to look at the odds before saying whoa I have a huge play.

[donjuan]

Cobra,

The percentage of the time that the soft side wins against Pinnacle overall is irrelevant. What is relevant is the percentage of the time that they win at each moneyline, e.g. 54% at -110.

[vanman]

Take the arb every time.If there`s a bad line take it,if it gets palped then nothing lost,if it doesn`t then place the other side.

[cobra_king]

Originally Posted by donjuan

Cobra,

The percentage of the time that the soft side wins against Pinnacle overall is irrelevant. What is relevant is the percentage of the time that they win at each moneyline, e.g. 54% at -110.

Don

I agree with you, however i didn't have a sufficient sample size at all the various odds to determine accuracy. Granted most of the time the arbs were against -110 lines so i felt confident in those numbers, and those numbers did show a win % greater than 54. As a point of interest however, i did want to sample all arbs at all numbers to see what the actual win percentage was compared to just the -110 numbers.

[Stumpage]

Fantastic stuff guys.....

[Bullajami]

Originally Posted by Stumpage

Fantastic stuff guys.....

I concur

[Munson15]

Thanks for a fascinating discussion. I used to make good money scalping Pinnacle lines, but without them and with limited means to move money quickly enough, have lost a solid income from that work. I do feel that the Pinnacle side was the sharper line, and I did win most bets on the opposite end.

[snakedjp]

I have been arbing for a few months now, and funny enough, I asked myself this question last week.

I realized that most arbs usually involve either Matchbook or Pinnacle, with another book.

My prime "soft" books seem to be Bwin and Unibet, both UK books.

Analyzing my data with one side being Matchbook or Pinnacle, here's what I found :

Since october, Bwin-involved arbs would have netted me about $10k in profits if I had only bet on the Bwin side, whereas I came up with about $1.5k in reality doing pure arbing.

Since december, Unibet-involved arbs gave me about $1k pure arbing, and would have netted me about $4k if I'd only bet on the Unibet side.

Other books (The Greek, Betfair, Tradesports) don't give as good results : betting solely on them would have, at one point, given me a negative balance.

I guess it all comes down to how soft the lines are, and Bwin and Unibet seem to be very good at providing softer lines.

But since these books will severely limit you once you start winning, it makes for a very temporary solution.

[chemist]

Originally Posted by The HG

Stumpage, when doing that sort of thing, you don't have to handicap the game, just handicap which site is probably the one with the "right" line.

I don't arb at all, but it seems to me at first glance that hitting the bad line only would be better, because it takes less money, and because betting the "right" line is a -EV thing to do. But this of course assumes that you are reasonably sure which line is the "right" one and which is the "wrong" one.

But I could be wrong about this.

It's possible if unlikely for both lines to be wrong.

[Munson15]

Originally Posted by snakedjp

I have been arbing for a few months now, and funny enough, I asked myself this question last week.

I realized that most arbs usually involve either Matchbook or Pinnacle, with another book.

My prime "soft" books seem to be Bwin and Unibet, both UK books.

Analyzing my data with one side being Matchbook or Pinnacle, here's what I found :

Since october, Bwin-involved arbs would have netted me about $10k in profits if I had only bet on the Bwin side, whereas I came up with about $1.5k in reality doing pure arbing.

Since december, Unibet-involved arbs gave me about $1k pure arbing, and would have netted me about $4k if I'd only bet on the Unibet side.

Other books (The Greek, Betfair, Tradesports) don't give as good results : betting solely on them would have, at one point, given me a negative balance.

I guess it all comes down to how soft the lines are, and Bwin and Unibet seem to be very good at providing softer lines.

But since these books will severely limit you once you start winning, it makes for a very temporary solution.

I had a similar experience with Sports Interaction.