SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks Recommended Books
1. Pinnacle Sports SBR Rating A+ Pinnacle Sports Review
2. The Greek Sports Book SBR Rating A+ The Greek Review
3. BookMaker SBR Rating A+ BookMaker Review
4. BetJamaica SBR Rating A+ BetJamaica Review
5. LegendZ Sports SBR Rating A+ LegendZ Review
SBR Posters' Poll - March 2009 View Complete Results
1. BetJamaica 251 total points BetJamaica Review
2. The Greek Sports Book 217 total points The Greek Review
3. 5Dimes 181 total points 5Dimes Review
4. Matchbook 159 total points Matchbook Review
5. Pinnacle Sports 148 total points Pinnacle Sports Review
View Poll Results: What are the advantage player's chances of winning or tying the contest?
≥ 99.9% 2 8.70%
≥ 99%, < 99.9% 1 4.35%
≥ 95%, < 99% 0 0%
≥ 90%, < 95% 0 0%
≥ 75%, < 90% 1 4.35%
≥ 50%, < 75% 3 13.04%
≥ 25%, < 50% 1 4.35%
≥ 10%, < 25% 4 17.39%
≥ 5%, < 10% 3 13.04%
≥ 1%, < 5% 5 21.74%
≥ 0.1%, < 1% 1 4.35%
< 0.1% 2 8.70%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll
Reply View New Posts
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-27-08, 09:00 AM   #1
Ganchrow
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
Joined: 08-28-05
Posts: 5,307
 
Default Advantage vs. Recreational Players

Here's an interesting question.

Let's say several players are competing in a money line contest over 100 games. The rules state that players may either bet to win 1 unit on favorites or risk 1 unit on underdogs (so a player could risk 1.1 units to win 1 unit on a bet at -110, or risk 1.0 unit to win 10 units on a bet at +1,000).

Let's say that Player A is a professional handicapper and is able to pick spreads at -110 with 60% accuracy. This is all he bets in the contest.

All the other contest particpants are recreational and only bet games at odds of +1,000/-1,500, taking the underdog every time. These players absolutely have no skill and simply pay the vig on each bet (assume there's no pricing bias in the the lines).

What are Player A's chances of winning or tying against 50 such recreational opponents? (Assume that there's no overlap between the games picked by the recreational bettors).
__________________

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 01:17 PM   #2
slacker00
 
slacker00's Avatar
Joined: 10-06-05
Posts: 3,597
 
Default

Seems fairly simple, but I expect some kind of mathematical novelty that makes the obvious not so obvious. It's Ganchrow after all.

One question, though. How many diverse "big dog" opportunities are available within this 100 play finite window? 100? 1k? 10K? 100K? infinity?

Another question to consider is the degree of correlation between the "goofball 50" plays. It's already noted that they are taking big dogs. How much diversity of picks do the "goofball 50" implicitly exercise within that opportunity set?

In my answer, I kinda assumed infinity and low correlation until my brain snapped back to reality. We are dealing with finite numbers and probably a fair degree of correlation.
__________________
Give a hoot — don't pollute!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 01:28 PM   #3
Data
 
Data's Avatar
Joined: 11-27-07
Posts: 1,444
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
a money line contest
Quote:
spreads at -110 with 60% accuracy. This is all he bets in the contest.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 02:16 PM   #4
slacker00
 
slacker00's Avatar
Joined: 10-06-05
Posts: 3,597
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Data View Post
Yeah, I missed that.

I think Ganchrow's intention was setting up a scenario where one player in the contest takes low variance versus a pack of 50 wackos that take high variance picks.
__________________
Give a hoot — don't pollute!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 02:42 PM   #5
RickySteve
 
RickySteve's Avatar
Joined: 01-31-06
Posts: 2,047
 
Default

I get 0.0520%.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 03:52 PM   #6
Justin7
 
Justin7's Avatar
Joined: 07-31-06
Posts: 3,894
 
Default

This is just about the worst possible contest for the pro... The variance kills his chance of winning.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 05:34 PM   #7
Ganchrow
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
Joined: 08-28-05
Posts: 5,307
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickySteve View Post
I get 0.0520%.
Sorry. People who solve problems like this in their sleep are ineligible.
__________________

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 05:35 PM   #8
Ganchrow
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
Joined: 08-28-05
Posts: 5,307
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Data View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
a money line contest
Quote:
spreads at -110 with 60% accuracy. This is all he bets in the contest.
So by the exact wording I guess he'd be stuck betting PK -110.

But I think you know what I meant.
__________________

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 05:38 PM   #9
Ganchrow
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
Joined: 08-28-05
Posts: 5,307
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker00 View Post
One question, though. How many diverse "big dog" opportunities are available within this 100 play finite window? 100? 1k? 10K? 100K? infinity?

Another question to consider is the degree of correlation between the "goofball 50" plays. It's already noted that they are taking big dogs. How much diversity of picks do the "goofball 50" implicitly exercise within that opportunity set?

In my answer, I kinda assumed infinity and low correlation until my brain snapped back to reality. We are dealing with finite numbers and probably a fair degree of correlation.
Clearly valid points in the real world.

But when I wrote, "Assume that there's no overlap between the games picked by the recreational bettors," I had intended to imply an infinite number of candidate picks with zero correlation.
__________________

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 06:48 PM   #10
Willie Bee
SBR File Clerk
 
Willie Bee's Avatar
Joined: 02-14-06
Posts: 11,596
 
Default

You still haven't given enough info to a dumbass like me. What season is it, is this all just Ganchrow Theory? I expect to see this worked out on a cocktail napkin slightly stained with vodka in a couple of weeks.
__________________
But you have to remember that a worm, with very few exceptions, is not a human being.
- - - Dr. Frederick Frankenstein.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-27-08, 06:52 PM   #11
Ganchrow
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
Joined: 08-28-05
Posts: 5,307
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Bee View Post
I expect to see this worked out on a cocktail napkin slightly stained with vodka in a couple of weeks.
If it stains ... it ain't vodka.
__________________

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-28-08, 08:06 AM   #12
Ganchrow
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
Joined: 08-28-05
Posts: 5,307
 
Default

RickySteve is of course correct. The probability of the advantage player winning is in fact under 0.1%.

Here are a few conclusions which one might readily draw from this.
  • When considering the picks of even a moderate number of handicappers, drawing meaningful conclusions as to the best pickers within the group can be tricky over small 100 pick sample sizes.
  • Due to the relatively higher risk inherent in betting at long odds, a successful record comprised largely of bets on moneyline underdogs is generally less statistically meaningful than a a similarly successful record comprised largely of bets on moneyline favorites.
  • When competing in a money line contest against a large number of players, generally speaking the best strategy will typically involve picking a large number of (unqiue) money line underdogs. Consider that if the advantage player had simply made his picks at random (at +1,000) his probability of winning (and again we're assuming no overlap between picks) would have increased almost 38-fold (from 0.0520% to 1 out of 51).

Anyway, for all those interested, the attached spreadsheet demonstrates the solution.

You'll notice it only takes 9 recreational players for the (60%!) advantage player to have negative equity. (Thanks to RickySteve for pointing that out.)
Attached Files
File Type: xls Advantage vs. Recreational Players Demo.xls (91.5 KB, 21 views)
__________________

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-28-08, 10:53 AM   #13
square1
 
square1's Avatar
Joined: 01-11-08
Posts: 37
 
Default

If I'm following all this right, changing the contest rules to fixed-profit staking (all bets are to win one unit) while leaving all players' strategies unchanged increases the Advantage bettor's chances to 79.14%. And even if the Recreational players are sensible enough to bet the favorite under the new rules, the Advantage Player still wins with 3.42% probability. So I guess contest structure matters a lot.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-28-08, 07:39 PM   #14
Ganchrow
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
Joined: 08-28-05
Posts: 5,307
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by square1 View Post
If I'm following all this right, changing the contest rules to fixed-profit staking (all bets are to win one unit) while leaving all players' strategies unchanged increases the Advantage bettor's chances to 79.14%.

And even if the Recreational players are sensible enough to bet the favorite under the new rules, the Advantage Player still wins with 3.42% probability. So I guess contest structure matters a lot.
Point well taken.

Btw, I get the same as you for rec players betting at -1,500, but for whatever it's worth, I'm getting a value of 80.50% for fixed-profits staking at +1,000 (could be my mistake).
__________________

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 04-28-08, 08:14 PM   #15
square1
 
square1's Avatar
Joined: 01-11-08
Posts: 37
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
Btw, I get the same as you for rec players betting at -1,500, but for whatever it's worth, I'm getting a value of 80.50% for fixed-profits staking at +1,000
And now that I run it again, I get 80.50% as well. I just divided column F by 10, which is dirty, but should be accurate. Not sure how I managed to screw it up the first time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
(could be my mistake).
Considering I'm the one tinkering with your sheet, not bloody likely.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 PM.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33