Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 181 to 200 of 200

Thread: Nothing is impossible

  1. #181
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Frankly, anybody relying on this as a money-making strategy was in essence vampiring off people who had already made the big money bets and moved the lines. So in a sense they were parasites. I never saw it as a key component of anything.

    This seems to me to be of the same order as "money from free play is not AP money".
    No, not at all. My point in saying that is that people exploiting it are completely dependent on other people moving the lines to create the opportunities. They are also somewhat dependent on hoping that the people moving the lines are correct more often than they are incorrect. It's a two-pronged dependence, so as a parlay card bettor, you're never really in control of what the opportunities might be. You're completely dependent on the expertise of others, who you do not know at all.

    Not sure how you arrived at the free play parallel.

  2. #182
    Dependence on market efficiency is true of many kinds of sports bets, and come to think of it +EV bets in all markets that don't have terminal events (e.g. equities). You seem to be suggesting that that's a bad thing?

  3. #183
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Dependence on market efficiency is true of many kinds of sports bets, and come to think of all market that don't have terminal events (e.g. equities). You seem to be suggesting that that's a bad thing?
    I'm going to be blunt here. If you think sports betting is somehow comparable to, say, the US economy, God love you. Here's a couple of reality checks:

    1) I think Fezzik started the popularization of the wholesale application of stock market jargon and concepts to sports betting. He did the unthinkable -- winning the SuperBook Contest back-to-back. The story, however, does not end well. If you're unaware that it didn't end well, that's okay. Not many folks know how and why it ended. I honestly do not know of anyone who whole hog imported stock market concepts to sports betting who didn't flame out.

    2) If you really think sports betting provides a long term livelihood for a number of people above 500 or so, you are mistaken. One of the easiest ways to red flag people who don't know what they're talking about is the application of stock market jargon to sports betting. And yes, sports books will certainly encourage that jargon and use it themselves. It creates an illusion of a parallel that simply is not the case.

    3) In sports betting, you don't know if Billy Walters' roundtables moved a line or some Chinese billionaire died and his grandson lugged the inheritance to Las Vegas for a two-month vacation during football season. The scale is so small, and so fluid, compared to an actual economy, that I don't even know why people try to impose parallels. I guess everyone needs to feel they have some understanding and control, and capitalist jargon provides a psychological security blanket.

    4) "Dependence on market efficiency is true of many kinds of sports bets." I have no idea what this even means. The superficial implication is that sports line moves are somehow "correct" more often than they are "incorrect." They are in some sports, and in some sports they are not.

    5) This is not a field where "the wisdom of the crowds" actually exists.

    I know probably 95% of sports forums are loaded with people applying the lingo, but views and posts and a consensus of ideas, while great in a social media environment, aren't of much use betting sports. I use the word "arbitrage" myself to describe what sports gamblers used to call auto-profits, and I should probably stop using that. It creates the impression that there is some useful application of stock market jargon to sports betting, and I think the use of that jargon does way more harm than good.

    And finally, nothing drives me up a tree more than using the terms "sharps" and "squares." As I've said elsewhere, anybody who actually uses that lingo is a dodecahedron. When just a few hundred people are able to win long-term, nobody should be so arrogant as to label themselves as a "sharp." The bottom line is that 98% of the people who think they are "sharps" lose long term, so it begs the question, "What is the utility of labeling yourself a 'sharp' when you're still a net loser?"

  4. #184
    You doubt that closing lines for any major betting market are more accurate on average than opening lines?

  5. #185
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    You doubt that closing lines for any major betting market are more accurate on average than opening lines?

    Duh.

    I cannot believe anyone would believe this as a blanket statement. First of all, whether it is or isn't is sport-dependent, which has multiple components I won't get into here. Second, whether it is or isn't is source-of-money-wagered-dependent, which can change in the blink of an eye or sport-to-sport and is also completely dependent on what's highlighted media-wise. If I ran ESPN for a day, I could influence lines without betting a cent myself, for example.

    Why would anyone believe that, I guess is my question. Confidence in "the wisdom of crowds?" It's a presumption based on arrogance.

    Or maybe overuse of stock market jargon (of which I am admittedly occasionally guilty) is the problem?

    So no, as a blanket statement, and especially in certain sports more than others, it's a terrible presumption.

    This is one of the classic issues I have with people thinking they know what they're doing when it comes to sports betting. Guys like Shackleford or Stanford Wong are poster boys for "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

  6. #186
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    This vulture vs AP vs pro gambler is funny. So an old close friend of mine who is also a professional gambler. He started to get into slot stuff previous summer. We first started using the word vulture because it is negative. It is kinda funny in that way. Calling other people vultures and referring to yourself as that. Vulturing the verb. We only knew of ultimate-X, or at least thats all I knew at the time. That stage sorta passed. I think now AP seems to be used the most as it is an all inclusive thing, but seems to be slot heavy. If you aren't doing the slot stuff then usually there is a better word for it. Professional gambler can be different things though. A bookie can be a professional gambler. Advantage Player says it the best though, but AP is so short. If people don't know what it is, they will likely not ask and well thats usually just fine.
    The first time I seen the word "vulture" used in AP was in a Dan Paymar article back in the nineties. The article was about Flush Attack and he referred to those that waited on the light (advantage) as vultures.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  7. #187
    Who's kidding whom??? Since the house never loses, every time one leaves a winner, he has essentially "vultured" money from losers.

  8. #188
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    You doubt that closing lines for any major betting market are more accurate on average than opening lines?

    Duh.

    I cannot believe anyone would believe this as a blanket statement. First of all, whether it is or isn't is sport-dependent, which has multiple components I won't get into here. Second, whether it is or isn't is source-of-money-wagered-dependent, which can change in the blink of an eye or sport-to-sport and is also completely dependent on what's highlighted media-wise. If I ran ESPN for a day, I could influence lines without betting a cent myself, for example.

    Why would anyone believe that, I guess is my question.
    Probably some mixture of common sense and the fact that it can be empirically proven with a database of closing and opening lines.

    I'm referring of course to my actual statement, not your arbitrary and uncharitable interpretation thereof.

  9. #189
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Who's kidding whom??? Since the house never loses, every time one leaves a winner, he has essentially "vultured" money from losers.
    Other People's Money is a big concept in some AP play. However, the losers money becomes the houses money then becomes the vulture's money. When an AP walks with the win he puts a dent in the houses bottom line.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  10. #190
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    Other People's Money is a big concept in some AP play. However, the losers money becomes the houses money then becomes the vulture's money. When an AP walks with the win he puts a dent in the houses bottom line.
    It is an interesting argument and really comes down to the semantics of who owns what money at various times.

    An AP makes the average RTP lower for others by picking off the +EV spots. However, it can be reasonably assumed losers will ultimately lose the money back anyway. The AP won money comes out of the pockets of the casino in the long-run but also out of the pockets of other players in the short-run. It is all perspective but the word vulture still cracks me up just because of the analogy. I don't think it is good to refer to the business in such a way as it is definitely negative.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  11. #191
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    You doubt that closing lines for any major betting market are more accurate on average than opening lines?

    Duh.

    I cannot believe anyone would believe this as a blanket statement. First of all, whether it is or isn't is sport-dependent, which has multiple components I won't get into here. Second, whether it is or isn't is source-of-money-wagered-dependent, which can change in the blink of an eye or sport-to-sport and is also completely dependent on what's highlighted media-wise. If I ran ESPN for a day, I could influence lines without betting a cent myself, for example.

    Why would anyone believe that, I guess is my question.
    Probably some mixture of common sense and the fact that it can be empirically proven with a database of closing and opening lines.

    I'm referring of course to my actual statement, not your arbitrary and uncharitable interpretation thereof.

    Mixtures of common sense do about as much good as thoughts and prayers.

    I'm going to free wheel this, so please bear with me. This is stream-of-consciousness debating, so if I whiff on some stuff, let me know.

    Regarding empirically proven, here's an interesting thought. If the wisdom of the crowds in total moves the lines certain ways, and those ways are correct more often than not, what you are requiring to explain the existence of sports books is that the moving of those lines not involve more success than the house edge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are in essence saying is that the people moving the lines have a theoretical edge against a 50/50 proposition since they are right more often than they are not. So for your theory to actually work for any length of time, you are requiring the line moves to be correct, but not overly correct so as to overcome the house edge. If they are overly correct, they drain the sports books and the books go out of business. That is asking for the just-right-bed for Goldilocks.

    I have a rule of thumb in gambling. If you prefer to believe something, it's probably in your best interests to not believe it. Why would anyone believe the wisdom of crowds is more accurate in predicting events than a roundtable of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Another way to look at this, rather than me saying "the wisdom of crowds," is to just call it what it is -- money. Money is paper. Money has no IQ. The money that moves lines does not come with sourcing. Why should money, in and of itself, be more accurate in predicting events than roundtables of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Now I'm talking about in general. Yeah, if there are major injuries, line moves will be correct more often than incorrect. And in bowl games, the slow leakage of who is or isn't playing is likely to generate line moves that are correct more often than incorrect. But that really is not the core question in those instances. The core question is at what point is the advantage gone from the wager? And I would argue that the first handful of large bettors who get down do have an advantage, but the majority of people who miss betting the virginal lines do not. So in most cases, the "market" keeps generating line movement well after it makes sense to do so. It can be argued that, based on opening lines, yes the "market" was correct. But based on the bulk of the money wagered, which came after the value was gone, the "market" was wrong to keep hammering the game. So in total, without a chronological breakdown and a breakdown of how much was wagered when, the "market" may be wrong more often than right. The people whacking the game initially based on injury or sitting-out info are usually few in number and large bettors. To describe them as a "market" seems unnecessary to me. The masses who piggyback the info in a tardy fashion seem to fit more the definition of a "market."
    Last edited by redietz; 12-14-2019 at 03:02 AM.

  12. #192
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Mixtures of common sense do about as much good as thoughts and prayers.

    I'm going to free wheel this, so please bear with me. This is stream-of-consciousness debating, so if I whiff on some stuff, let me know.

    Regarding empirically proven, here's an interesting thought. If the wisdom of the crowds in total moves the lines certain ways, and those ways are correct more often than not, what you are requiring to explain the existence of sports books is that the moving of those lines not involve more success than the house edge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are in essence saying is that the people moving the lines have a theoretical edge against a 50/50 proposition since they are right more often than they are not. So for your theory to actually work for any length of time, you are requiring the line moves to be correct, but not overly correct so as to overcome the house edge. If they are overly correct, they drain the sports books and the books go out of business. That is asking for the just-right-bed for Goldilocks.

    I have a rule of thumb in gambling. If you prefer to believe something, it's probably in your best interests to not believe it. Why would anyone believe the wisdom of crowds is more accurate in predicting events than a roundtable of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Another way to look at this, rather than me saying "the wisdom of crowds," is to just call it what it is -- money. Money is paper. Money has no IQ. The money that moves lines does not come with sourcing. Why should money, in and of itself, be more accurate in predicting events than roundtables of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Now I'm talking about in general. Yeah, if there are major injuries, line moves will be correct more often than incorrect. And in bowl games, the slow leakage of who is or isn't playing is likely to generate line moves that are correct more often than incorrect. But that really is not the core question in those instances. The core question is at what point is the advantage gone from the wager? And I would argue that the first handful of large bettors who get down do have an advantage, but the majority of people who miss betting the virginal lines do not. So in most cases, the "market" keeps generating line movement well after it makes sense to do so. It can be argued that, based on opening lines, yes the "market" was correct. But based on the bulk of the money wagered, which came after the value was gone, the "market" was wrong to keep hammering the game. So in total, without a chronological breakdown and a breakdown of how much was wagered when, the "market" may be wrong more often than right. The people whacking the game initially based on injury or sitting-out info are usually few in number and large bettors. To describe them as a "market" seems unnecessary to me. The masses who piggyback the info in a tardy fashion seem to fit more the definition of a "market."
    Not all lines move from open to close. If you're a professional sports bettor, you're not going to be betting on every game in every sport. You can pick and choose. The book is going to lose on some but win on many. I'm not looking to win on many, I'm just looking to win on a few (the ones I bet).


    Your money analogy is retarded. Sorry, but it is. It'd be like saying "Algorithms on a computer are really just bits of electricity flowing through a computer. Computers were invented like 50 years ago, that's some old ass technology. Electricity doesn't have an IQ. Why should I trust electricity and 50 y/o technology!?"


    I highly doubt the general public is looking at line movements from sharps, recognizing there's a big move, then hammering it down further than what it "should" be.
    #FreeTyde

  13. #193
    I guess redietz thinks I was alleging that all line movements are rational, i.e. the strong EMH from finance theory.

    I was in fact referring to handicappers "doing all the hard work" of making stale parlay cards +EV.
    Last edited by smurgerburger; 12-14-2019 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Obeyed Melania's dictum

  14. #194
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Mixtures of common sense do about as much good as thoughts and prayers.

    I'm going to free wheel this, so please bear with me. This is stream-of-consciousness debating, so if I whiff on some stuff, let me know.

    Regarding empirically proven, here's an interesting thought. If the wisdom of the crowds in total moves the lines certain ways, and those ways are correct more often than not, what you are requiring to explain the existence of sports books is that the moving of those lines not involve more success than the house edge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are in essence saying is that the people moving the lines have a theoretical edge against a 50/50 proposition since they are right more often than they are not. So for your theory to actually work for any length of time, you are requiring the line moves to be correct, but not overly correct so as to overcome the house edge. If they are overly correct, they drain the sports books and the books go out of business. That is asking for the just-right-bed for Goldilocks.

    I have a rule of thumb in gambling. If you prefer to believe something, it's probably in your best interests to not believe it. Why would anyone believe the wisdom of crowds is more accurate in predicting events than a roundtable of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Another way to look at this, rather than me saying "the wisdom of crowds," is to just call it what it is -- money. Money is paper. Money has no IQ. The money that moves lines does not come with sourcing. Why should money, in and of itself, be more accurate in predicting events than roundtables of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Now I'm talking about in general. Yeah, if there are major injuries, line moves will be correct more often than incorrect. And in bowl games, the slow leakage of who is or isn't playing is likely to generate line moves that are correct more often than incorrect. But that really is not the core question in those instances. The core question is at what point is the advantage gone from the wager? And I would argue that the first handful of large bettors who get down do have an advantage, but the majority of people who miss betting the virginal lines do not. So in most cases, the "market" keeps generating line movement well after it makes sense to do so. It can be argued that, based on opening lines, yes the "market" was correct. But based on the bulk of the money wagered, which came after the value was gone, the "market" was wrong to keep hammering the game. So in total, without a chronological breakdown and a breakdown of how much was wagered when, the "market" may be wrong more often than right. The people whacking the game initially based on injury or sitting-out info are usually few in number and large bettors. To describe them as a "market" seems unnecessary to me. The masses who piggyback the info in a tardy fashion seem to fit more the definition of a "market."
    Not all lines move from open to close. If you're a professional sports bettor, you're not going to be betting on every game in every sport. You can pick and choose. The book is going to lose on some but win on many. I'm not looking to win on many, I'm just looking to win on a few (the ones I bet).


    Your money analogy is retarded. Sorry, but it is. It'd be like saying "Algorithms on a computer are really just bits of electricity flowing through a computer. Computers were invented like 50 years ago, that's some old ass technology. Electricity doesn't have an IQ. Why should I trust electricity and 50 y/o technology!?"


    I highly doubt the general public is looking at line movements from sharps, recognizing there's a big move, then hammering it down further than what it "should" be.
    how many is a few? How many games on an average do you bet a year? (I'm obviously excluding contest)

  15. #195
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    how many is a few? How many games on an average do you bet a year? (I'm obviously excluding contest)
    Looking over my spreadsheet I'd say I probably do about 6-8 bets per day.
    #FreeTyde

  16. #196
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Mixtures of common sense do about as much good as thoughts and prayers.

    I'm going to free wheel this, so please bear with me. This is stream-of-consciousness debating, so if I whiff on some stuff, let me know.

    Regarding empirically proven, here's an interesting thought. If the wisdom of the crowds in total moves the lines certain ways, and those ways are correct more often than not, what you are requiring to explain the existence of sports books is that the moving of those lines not involve more success than the house edge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are in essence saying is that the people moving the lines have a theoretical edge against a 50/50 proposition since they are right more often than they are not. So for your theory to actually work for any length of time, you are requiring the line moves to be correct, but not overly correct so as to overcome the house edge. If they are overly correct, they drain the sports books and the books go out of business. That is asking for the just-right-bed for Goldilocks.

    I have a rule of thumb in gambling. If you prefer to believe something, it's probably in your best interests to not believe it. Why would anyone believe the wisdom of crowds is more accurate in predicting events than a roundtable of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Another way to look at this, rather than me saying "the wisdom of crowds," is to just call it what it is -- money. Money is paper. Money has no IQ. The money that moves lines does not come with sourcing. Why should money, in and of itself, be more accurate in predicting events than roundtables of experts or algorithms based on historical data?

    Now I'm talking about in general. Yeah, if there are major injuries, line moves will be correct more often than incorrect. And in bowl games, the slow leakage of who is or isn't playing is likely to generate line moves that are correct more often than incorrect. But that really is not the core question in those instances. The core question is at what point is the advantage gone from the wager? And I would argue that the first handful of large bettors who get down do have an advantage, but the majority of people who miss betting the virginal lines do not. So in most cases, the "market" keeps generating line movement well after it makes sense to do so. It can be argued that, based on opening lines, yes the "market" was correct. But based on the bulk of the money wagered, which came after the value was gone, the "market" was wrong to keep hammering the game. So in total, without a chronological breakdown and a breakdown of how much was wagered when, the "market" may be wrong more often than right. The people whacking the game initially based on injury or sitting-out info are usually few in number and large bettors. To describe them as a "market" seems unnecessary to me. The masses who piggyback the info in a tardy fashion seem to fit more the definition of a "market."
    Not all lines move from open to close. If you're a professional sports bettor, you're not going to be betting on every game in every sport. You can pick and choose. The book is going to lose on some but win on many. I'm not looking to win on many, I'm just looking to win on a few (the ones I bet).


    Your money analogy is retarded. Sorry, but it is. It'd be like saying "Algorithms on a computer are really just bits of electricity flowing through a computer. Computers were invented like 50 years ago, that's some old ass technology. Electricity doesn't have an IQ. Why should I trust electricity and 50 y/o technology!?"


    I highly doubt the general public is looking at line movements from sharps, recognizing there's a big move, then hammering it down further than what it "should" be.

    I don't even know where to start with this. First of all, why use the word "sharps" when almost all of the "sharps" lose? Second, how does one delineate between the "good" big line moves and the "ordinary" big line moves and the "bad" big line moves? It's all just money. One guy coming in from left field, given the limited amounts wagered, can create whatever line move he wants. If Bloomberg decided to mess with everybody's head for a week, or a month, or a year, he would be perfectly capable of doing so and not sweat it at all. This entire myth that there is a general sports betting public that can't read or think or figure things out or is too lazy to work a bit may be true for something like the Super Bowl, but that's really about it. The idea that there are others, who by deign of paying attention and working a bit, somehow win, that's a myth, too.

    And the idea that one can delineate good line moves from bad ones across different sports? Wow.

    All of this reeks of arrogance and narcissism and wanting to categorize oneself as belonging to the club that knows.

    Good luck with it.

  17. #197
    If almost all sharps lose then by definition they aren't sharps.


    I wrote out a simple explanation of how to delineate the difference between good and bad line movements, but I suspect you'll retort with something like, "BUT IT COULD BE BLOOMBERG!! HE COULD BE BETTING!!!!11! Numbers don't exist in nature, they're man made. So is money; money is a social construct! Have you ever seen animals using money???" So I'll give you a very very simple explanation -- Different books take action differently. I'm not looking to be correct on every bet I put in. A bet I perceive to have a 55% chance to win might really be 50%. Or 45%. Or 75%. In the end, it all evens out.
    #FreeTyde

  18. #198
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    how many is a few? How many games on an average do you bet a year? (I'm obviously excluding contest)
    Looking over my spreadsheet I'd say I probably do about 6-8 bets per day.
    I was asking Red, but I guess I quoted you.

  19. #199
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    how many is a few? How many games on an average do you bet a year? (I'm obviously excluding contest)
    Looking over my spreadsheet I'd say I probably do about 6-8 bets per day.
    I was asking Red, but I guess I quoted you.
    As far as straight plays or teasers go, usually between 90 and 130 college football, between 30 and 60 NFL (smaller amounts). Maybe half a dozen other small straight plays throughout the year. In a normal year, at least 80% and sometimes closer to 90% of bet volume is college football.

    In 2019, we also did eight or nine AAF plays before the league folded (lost the first; won the rest).

    Occasionally, there will be a special project, which can involve sharpshooting or bulk betting at small amounts per play. We executed a special play the beginning of college hoops. We went 11-2. We were all thrilled with that, but when the smoke cleared and we ran the numbers, it turned out we would have been better off doing a bulk play. Those kinds of plays are very, very rare, maybe once every five or six years. By bulk play, I mean a commitment to 20 or more plays, possibly into a hundred or more based on some principle or theory.

    Merry Christmas, everyone!

  20. #200
    OK, I'll bite. Is there another meaning for dodecahedron besides a geometrical figure?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •