Professional Sportsbetting

[mickeycrimm]

Chinamaniac lost 144K in prop bets.

[mickeycrimm]

From what I've read, the noted sports bettors in this thread call just handicapping numbers, not teams, top-down betting. That's all some of them do, just top-down betting.

I did a "what if" on Bovada college basketball lines this past week. I didn't cherry pick games just went down the list. First I recorded the results against the spread. Favorites against the dogs went:

70-70-6
50%

Then I did a "what if I got 2 extra points on all the dogs?" It changed the result to:

88-56-2
61%

Getting 1 extra point would land somewhere between 50% and 61%.

BTW, college basketball has about 6,000 games per year. Compare that to the NFL.

So I recorded results of college basketball games where the dog is getting 1 extra point from the true line. The results

So in these games Dogs against the Favorites went 88-91-10. 49.2%

The dog getting 1 extra point changed the results to 104-80-5, 56.5%.

So all those top/down guys are doing is looking for lines that are just a little off from consensus lines.

[Don Perignom]

So all those top/down guys are doing is looking for lines that are just a little off from consensus lines.

I've mostly been using Unabated as my reference. The calculator is paywalled, so I have to infer from the posted game numbers. Here's a selection from today's games. For simplicity, I chose the ones with -110 odds on both sides:



Synthetic hold is the calculated edge betting both sides. Negative indicates a player edge. They take into account the total. I colored low totals green because you need less of a point difference to have an edge. High totals are colored red.

In general, a 1-point difference is slightly player-negative. But notice the Stephen F Austin/Abilene Christian game inexplicably shows a player edge. I don't know why.

The other thing I wonder about is linearity. Does a -1/+2 situation count the same as a -21/+22? The calculations seem to treat them equally.

[Don Perignom]

Chinamaniac lost 144K in prop bets.

I listened to nearly all the podcasts I could find with Super Bowl betting recaps. I didn't learn much.

Something about the Super Bowl pushes people off-topic. They have to talk about the halftime show, Taylor Swift, the coin toss.

China seemed reasonably happy with the opportunities available. He got crushed same as Wizard because he was tilted to the unders and therefore needed a regulation finish.

I need to look at how the concepts can be applied to regular-season games because my timid bets can probably fit within the normally allowed limits. And my state of Nevada is expanding its prop opportunities as the operators improve their apps.

[redietz]

I wrote up a response, then thought, "Why bother?" Then I read Dom's posts and realized that people often don't see the forest for the trees. So I'll post this. You guys are trying to treat sports betting as if it were coin flips in terms of precision. You're also presuming line moves move in a direction that wins. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. More importantly, do they overall for various sports? And how consistent is that answer from year to year? Anyway, sports betting is not coin flipping. The language should be completely different so that you don't make that fundamental error. Ergo, here's my original response:

Quick notes to mickey:

1) When you write "I recorded results," it is useful to the reader if you place a time frame reference in there (e.g. "for a week;" "for two weeks," and so on). It puts a credibility frame around any conclusions drawn such as "So all those...." Those conclusions are of limited value, and a time frame helps establish those limitations.

2) Hoops teasers are five points. That tells you that a single point in hoops, especially college hoops, has much more value than a single point in football.

3) The cost of buying half point increments in hoops, sometimes up to five points or more, reflects that added value at many established sports books.

4) About eight/nine years ago, a team of Chinese programmers attacked college hoop sides and totals in LV. They were very successful for almost two seasons, so successful that most books delayed posting numbers in the morning for an hour or so and let the non-delaying books take the salvo from the programmers. I was fortunate enough to get the leaked plays late one season, but trying to actually get money down on them was almost impossible. I tried to do it in person. When they hit the books, the lines moved quickly and decisively, which figured given that many of the wagers were low profile totals. You basically had less than two minutes to get the money down, and sometimes 30-40 seconds after the plays were leaked/announced. All of those lines moved at least a point, so that tells you how being late to the party is devastating. Some moved 2 to 3 points.

5) The utility of referring to "consensus lines" is limited, as (4) above implies. If the majority of books, for example, delayed opening betting on games for an hour or so in the example above, then if you surveyed their (unbettable) "overnight lines" as listed, you would come to the conclusion that these were "consensus lines," even though they were not taking money at that moment. More books had unbettable overnight lines for a period each day than had bettable lines being affected by the programmers. But a read of "consensus" did not necessarily state that.

Trying to assign precise values to line moves for a particular sport a particular year is more or less a waste of time. You have no idea who or what is moving those lines. it could be the son of a sheik in town for a month. It could be MDawg on a coke binge. it could be Mrs. Gates demonstrating her love of cats after the divorce. You literally have no idea what forces, ideas, or individuals are in play. To treat line moves as if HAL2000 is making them is a fundamental error in judgement and perception.

[Don Perignom]

I wrote up a response, then thought, "Why bother?"

Maybe your posts will be useful to others, but I'm not getting much value.

Some things I don't understand, due to my own deficiencies in possibly large part.

The things I do understand are often strawman-type arguments, imo.

[coach belly]

Some things I don't understand, due to my own deficiencies in possibly large part.

He's Martian...you need to turn on the English subtitles.

[accountinquestion]

I wrote up a response, then thought, "Why bother?" Then I read Dom's posts and realized that people often don't see the forest for the trees. So I'll post this. You guys are trying to treat sports betting as if it were coin flips in terms of precision. You're also presuming line moves move in a direction that wins. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. More importantly, do they overall for various sports? And how consistent is that answer from year to year? Anyway, sports betting is not coin flipping. The language should be completely different so that you don't make that fundamental error. Ergo, here's my original response:

Quick notes to mickey:

1) When you write "I recorded results," it is useful to the reader if you place a time frame reference in there (e.g. "for a week;" "for two weeks," and so on). It puts a credibility frame around any conclusions drawn such as "So all those...." Those conclusions are of limited value, and a time frame helps establish those limitations.

2) Hoops teasers are five points. That tells you that a single point in hoops, especially college hoops, has much more value than a single point in football.

3) The cost of buying half point increments in hoops, sometimes up to five points or more, reflects that added value at many established sports books.

4) About eight/nine years ago, a team of Chinese programmers attacked college hoop sides and totals in LV. They were very successful for almost two seasons, so successful that most books delayed posting numbers in the morning for an hour or so and let the non-delaying books take the salvo from the programmers. I was fortunate enough to get the leaked plays late one season, but trying to actually get money down on them was almost impossible. I tried to do it in person. When they hit the books, the lines moved quickly and decisively, which figured given that many of the wagers were low profile totals. You basically had less than two minutes to get the money down, and sometimes 30-40 seconds after the plays were leaked/announced. All of those lines moved at least a point, so that tells you how being late to the party is devastating. Some moved 2 to 3 points.

5) The utility of referring to "consensus lines" is limited, as (4) above implies. If the majority of books, for example, delayed opening betting on games for an hour or so in the example above, then if you surveyed their (unbettable) "overnight lines" as listed, you would come to the conclusion that these were "consensus lines," even though they were not taking money at that moment. More books had unbettable overnight lines for a period each day than had bettable lines being affected by the programmers. But a read of "consensus" did not necessarily state that.

Trying to assign precise values to line moves for a particular sport a particular year is more or less a waste of time. You have no idea who or what is moving those lines. it could be the son of a sheik in town for a month. It could be MDawg on a coke binge. it could be Mrs. Gates demonstrating her love of cats after the divorce. You literally have no idea what forces, ideas, or individuals are in play. To treat line moves as if HAL2000 is making them is a fundamental error in judgement and perception.

The best part is that.. well I wasn't going to flame you because you're being a useful normal guy here but you also just CAN'T HELP yourself framing this in some arrogant manner. Do you do that for your own benefit? Always trying to prove to yourself that you're so much smarter.

Look Redietz, we ALL know how much smarter you are than us.

You're a special one, Redietz.

[mickeycrimm]

redietz, sorry bud, you are the one that can't see the forest for the tree's. Sure you can go in and cherry pick a game and say that line if off. But as a whole the lines are sharp. If they weren't sharp you wouldn't get this kind of result:

70-70-6 in the first sample space

88-91-10 in the 2nd sample space.

The results above are 50/50. Flipping a coin is 50/50.

I can record results forever. It's going to be the same thing.

By betting hundreds of games it's flipping coins. Getting an extra point or two is flipping coins with juice.

Everyone is doing the top/down betting. Everyone. Every expert that has been featured in this thread does it....except you. They are covering their asses by betting every line that's off. Not just a game or two.

It's easy to tell if the line you see online is current or not. You just go thru the motions of making a bet. If the line is off they will change it while you are trying to punch it in. If they don't change it then it's their current line.

Spanky, Capt. Jack and Krakomberger and the rest say they go by the Pinnacle sports lines because they are the sharpest with the highest volume. Then look for lines that are off in the other books.

But your opinion trumps those other guys opinions, right? Unfortunately, they outnumber you.

[accountinquestion]

Spanky, Capt. Jack and Krakomberger and the rest say they go by the Pinnacle sports lines because they are the sharpest with the highest volume. Then look for lines that are off in the other books.

I mentioned this early on when we talked about sports betting. Glad to see it is still correct and widely used by some of the best. I learned this 15+ years ago.

It is pretty much a given Pinnacle has to have sharp lines to operate like they do. I explained the reasoning elsewhere. Unabated has their own line which they claim to be an average/mixture which they don't define. TBH I don't really understand why it would be an improvement over pinnacle but Unabated has to sell something.

[Don Perignom]

It is pretty much a given Pinnacle has to have sharp lines to operate like they do. I explained the reasoning elsewhere. Unabated has their own line which they claim to be an average/mixture which they don't define. TBH I don't really understand why it would be an improvement over pinnacle but Unabated has to sell something.

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing, but according to Unabated, Pinnacle is no longer solo dominant, and may be drifting away from the market making function.

It's easy enough to glance at other columns on the screener to see numbers elsewhere such as at BetCRIS and Circa, and the Unabated Line. Pinnacle's absence from the US market is now approaching two decades, so it's possible other operators have a better pulse on US sports especially.

[accountinquestion]

It is pretty much a given Pinnacle has to have sharp lines to operate like they do. I explained the reasoning elsewhere. Unabated has their own line which they claim to be an average/mixture which they don't define. TBH I don't really understand why it would be an improvement over pinnacle but Unabated has to sell something.

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing, but according to Unabated, Pinnacle is no longer solo dominant, and may be drifting away from the market making function.

It's easy enough to glance at other columns on the screener to see numbers elsewhere such as at BetCRIS and Circa, and the Unabated Line. Pinnacle's absence from the US market is now approaching two decades, so it's possible other operators have a better pulse on US sports especially.

Hmmm? I'm not arguing anything. I've been ridiculed by Redietz multiple times for my understanding of sports betting. I was just pointing out that I talked about the Pinnacle thing some time ago. Most likely before this thread.

Your point about lack of presence in US market seems fair. I always looked at it by the way they make the lines to begin with. If a book kicks off sharps at all, or limits them, then I would presume that their line is not actually sharper. It also seems fair to say that some sports types might actually be stronger elsewhere than Pinnacle. These things are near impossible to determine and may fluctuate with the the analysts behind the scenes. (Much like mutual funds)

Remember - Unabated has a product to sell. If they just agreed Pinnacle's line was the best then their curated lines (whatever they call it) would actually have negative value.



Funny thing, I am considering getting into booking. I might sign up with some local guys to poke around. Met a big time bookie. If done right there can be a really nice revenue stream there. I want the sharpest lines but for other reasons. Although the number of sharp bettors is so small, it would be good to never have to worry about limiting/booting anyone. It would also be easy enough to change services.

I don't want any casino. Don't want props. I want an affiliate setup. Would also like to be able to give bonuses for first sign-ups. I have someone who already works for me who could pickup money and such.

Another thing I find interesting is that Pinnacle flags sharp bettors for being sharp and then uses them to adjust the lines early on. One way they do this is not by win record but whether they are ever taking lines with bad prices vs other books. If they're always picking the best price on a position then it is a way to tell if they're sharp. Just going by win/loss record is very dependent on luck.

My thinking behind the casino is it is too easy to be "I was cheated - I am stiffing these guys". It gives people a psychological reason to stiff you. Can't really cheat at sports betting. I also know that some of the casinos are rigged. A friend of mine years ago told me the one he used let you set a cap on the casino winnings before the fix is on.

Speaking of which - if anyone has any thoughts on pay per head services please share.

[redietz]

It is pretty much a given Pinnacle has to have sharp lines to operate like they do. I explained the reasoning elsewhere. Unabated has their own line which they claim to be an average/mixture which they don't define. TBH I don't really understand why it would be an improvement over pinnacle but Unabated has to sell something.

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing, but according to Unabated, Pinnacle is no longer solo dominant, and may be drifting away from the market making function.

It's easy enough to glance at other columns on the screener to see numbers elsewhere such as at BetCRIS and Circa, and the Unabated Line. Pinnacle's absence from the US market is now approaching two decades, so it's possible other operators have a better pulse on US sports especially.

Hmmm? I'm not arguing anything. I've been ridiculed by Redietz multiple times for my understanding of sports betting. I was just pointing out that I talked about the Pinnacle thing some time ago. Most likely before this thread.

Your point about lack of presence in US market seems fair. I always looked at it by the way they make the lines to begin with. If a book kicks off sharps at all, or limits them, then I would presume that their line is not actually sharper. It also seems fair to say that some sports types might actually be stronger elsewhere than Pinnacle. These things are near impossible to determine and may fluctuate with the the analysts behind the scenes. (Much like mutual funds)

Remember - Unabated has a product to sell. If they just agreed Pinnacle's line was the best then their curated lines (whatever they call it) would actually have negative value.



Funny thing, I am considering getting into booking. I might sign up with some local guys to poke around. Met a big time bookie. If done right there can be a really nice revenue stream there. I want the sharpest lines but for other reasons. Although the number of sharp bettors is so small, it would be good to never have to worry about limiting/booting anyone. It would also be easy enough to change services.

I don't want any casino. Don't want props. I want an affiliate setup. Would also like to be able to give bonuses for first sign-ups. I have someone who already works for me who could pickup money and such.

Another thing I find interesting is that Pinnacle flags sharp bettors for being sharp and then uses them to adjust the lines early on. One way they do this is not by win record but whether they are ever taking lines with bad prices vs other books. If they're always picking the best price on a position then it is a way to tell if they're sharp. Just going by win/loss record is very dependent on luck.

My thinking behind the casino is it is too easy to be "I was cheated - I am stiffing these guys". It gives people a psychological reason to stiff you. Can't really cheat at sports betting. I also know that some of the casinos are rigged. A friend of mine years ago told me the one he used let you set a cap on the casino winnings before the fix is on.

Speaking of which - if anyone has any thoughts on pay per head services please share.

Puh-lease forgive me for pointing this out. Offshores have evaluated players based on their getting the best lines for decades. That's how players are generally evaluated. What seems to not be grasped by many is that getting the best lines isn't so much having a hyperdrive on your laptop so you can beat everyone to a shifted line by milliseconds. The way to get the best lines is to anticipate where the money is likely going. That requires a knowledge of how people/money reacts to different types of information and different kinds of results, and the PR profiles/dissemination/discussion of those results (which are NOT the results themselves).

Using the word "sharp" is so lame. When I see a virgin college football line, if I have an opinion on where it will move, I'm correct more than 70% of the time, depending on the year. That's not being "sharp." That's knowing how the US public weighs and values different kinds of information disseminated different ways.

[accountinquestion]

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing, but according to Unabated, Pinnacle is no longer solo dominant, and may be drifting away from the market making function.

It's easy enough to glance at other columns on the screener to see numbers elsewhere such as at BetCRIS and Circa, and the Unabated Line. Pinnacle's absence from the US market is now approaching two decades, so it's possible other operators have a better pulse on US sports especially.

Hmmm? I'm not arguing anything. I've been ridiculed by Redietz multiple times for my understanding of sports betting. I was just pointing out that I talked about the Pinnacle thing some time ago. Most likely before this thread.

Your point about lack of presence in US market seems fair. I always looked at it by the way they make the lines to begin with. If a book kicks off sharps at all, or limits them, then I would presume that their line is not actually sharper. It also seems fair to say that some sports types might actually be stronger elsewhere than Pinnacle. These things are near impossible to determine and may fluctuate with the the analysts behind the scenes. (Much like mutual funds)

Remember - Unabated has a product to sell. If they just agreed Pinnacle's line was the best then their curated lines (whatever they call it) would actually have negative value.



Funny thing, I am considering getting into booking. I might sign up with some local guys to poke around. Met a big time bookie. If done right there can be a really nice revenue stream there. I want the sharpest lines but for other reasons. Although the number of sharp bettors is so small, it would be good to never have to worry about limiting/booting anyone. It would also be easy enough to change services.

I don't want any casino. Don't want props. I want an affiliate setup. Would also like to be able to give bonuses for first sign-ups. I have someone who already works for me who could pickup money and such.

Another thing I find interesting is that Pinnacle flags sharp bettors for being sharp and then uses them to adjust the lines early on. One way they do this is not by win record but whether they are ever taking lines with bad prices vs other books. If they're always picking the best price on a position then it is a way to tell if they're sharp. Just going by win/loss record is very dependent on luck.

My thinking behind the casino is it is too easy to be "I was cheated - I am stiffing these guys". It gives people a psychological reason to stiff you. Can't really cheat at sports betting. I also know that some of the casinos are rigged. A friend of mine years ago told me the one he used let you set a cap on the casino winnings before the fix is on.

Speaking of which - if anyone has any thoughts on pay per head services please share.

Puh-lease forgive me for pointing this out. Offshores have evaluated players based on their getting the best lines for decades. That's how players are generally evaluated. What seems to not be grasped by many is that getting the best lines isn't so much having a hyperdrive on your laptop so you can beat everyone to a shifted line by milliseconds. The way to get the best lines is to anticipate where the money is likely going. That requires a knowledge of how people/money reacts to different types of information and different kinds of results, and the PR profiles/dissemination/discussion of those results (which are NOT the results themselves).

Using the word "sharp" is so lame. When I see a virgin college football line, if I have an opinion on where it will move, I'm correct more than 70% of the time, depending on the year. That's not being "sharp." That's knowing how the US public weighs and values different kinds of information disseminated different ways.

I left out part of my explanation. They use sharp action to adjust their lines. That was my point there. And the other point is that it is a far better indicator without the variance of win/loss which takes far more data.

Also, sharp is a word used by sharp gamblers all over.

Also, getting the best lines is about shopping at that moment. Anticipating line movements is something different and not what I was referencing.

[mickeycrimm]

Using the word "sharp" is so lame.

[mickeycrimm]

As Stanford Wong was writing Sharp Sports Betting he submitted each chapter to BJ21 for the members to proof read, make corrections and additions.

[redietz]

Mickey, I'm not going to say much here except to pull rank.

Here's my advice to you: If "Stanford Friggin' Wong" is on one side of a sophisticated sports betting issue, you might want to run the other way. Why do you think "Stanford Wong" even knows what he's doing in any expert sense? Because he surveyed blackjack players!?! Yeah, that makes sense.

Pulling "Stanford Wong" in as an argument for something relatively sophisticated in sports betting has minimal value. And I'm being nice. I'd be really curious -- if you asked "Anthony Curtis," who published "Wong's" sports books, who he actually believed was more expert -- "Wong" or me -- how the answer would be parsed.

The problem is you have no context. You're like Ricardo Tubbs visiting Miami for the first time. You think you know what you're looking at, but you don't.

I understand that folks like to use "sharp" these days. It's a crap term meant to separate the knowing from the naive. It's ridiculous. How does someone know they're a sharp? Because everyone says so? Because they know so? It's just bullshit slang to prop up people in their own minds. To paraphrase an old poker truism, "If you look around the table and you're the only 'sharp,' you're not."

"Wong's" writing is useful for basic civilians. And anybody needing to know how much priority mail costs (that's an inside joke).

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey, I'm not going to say much here except to pull rank.

Here's my advice to you: If "Stanford Friggin' Wong" is on one side of a sophisticated sports betting issue, you might want to run the other way. Why do you think "Stanford Wong" even knows what he's doing in any expert sense? Because he surveyed blackjack players!?! Yeah, that makes sense.

Pulling "Stanford Wong" in as an argument for something relatively sophisticated in sports betting has minimal value. And I'm being nice. I'd be really curious -- if you asked "Anthony Curtis," who published "Wong's" sports books, who he actually believed was more expert -- "Wong" or me -- how the answer would be parsed.

The problem is you have no context. You're like Ricardo Tubbs visiting Miami for the first time. You think you know what you're looking at, but you don't.

I understand that folks like to use "sharp" these days. It's a crap term meant to separate the knowing from the naive. It's ridiculous. How does someone know they're a sharp? Because everyone says so? Because they know so? It's just bullshit slang to prop up people in their own minds. To paraphrase an old poker truism, "If you look around the table and you're the only 'sharp,' you're not."

"Wong's" writing is useful for basic civilians. And anybody needing to know how much priority mail costs (that's an inside joke).

Ditz, you are lost in the wilderness. You don't have any rank to pull. Your advice is full of shit. BJ21 attracted everyone. The best gamblers in the world were on BJ21. Numerous multi-millionaires from gambling. BJ was just a part of what that site was about. But you didn't know that did you? You are always assuming. Bad trait.

If you want us to know anything about what Anthony Curtis thinks then put up a quote. Fuck all that "contact someone" bag of shit you are always pulling. Put up a quote by Curtis or STFU.

So now we have you on record, in so many words, saying Stanford Wong is full of shit. We can add that to your "Billy Walters is full of shit" list.

Quit fucking around and get yourself on record via PFA radio, slamming all these other sports bettors as idiots. We will guarantee you a ton of free publicity. Think of the big feather in your cap for exposing Billy Walters, Stanford Wong, Spanky, Krak, Capt. Jack and others as sports betting frauds. And you can tell the world what a wonderful handicapper your are.

We can't wait. Get to it.

[Treeshade]

Mickey, I'm not going to say much here except to pull rank.

Here's my advice to you: If "Stanford Friggin' Wong" is on one side of a sophisticated sports betting issue, you might want to run the other way. Why do you think "Stanford Wong" even knows what he's doing in any expert sense? Because he surveyed blackjack players!?! Yeah, that makes sense.

Pulling "Stanford Wong" in as an argument for something relatively sophisticated in sports betting has minimal value. And I'm being nice. I'd be really curious -- if you asked "Anthony Curtis," who published "Wong's" sports books, who he actually believed was more expert -- "Wong" or me -- how the answer would be parsed.

The problem is you have no context. You're like Ricardo Tubbs visiting Miami for the first time. You think you know what you're looking at, but you don't.

I understand that folks like to use "sharp" these days. It's a crap term meant to separate the knowing from the naive. It's ridiculous. How does someone know they're a sharp? Because everyone says so? Because they know so? It's just bullshit slang to prop up people in their own minds. To paraphrase an old poker truism, "If you look around the table and you're the only 'sharp,' you're not."

"Wong's" writing is useful for basic civilians. And anybody needing to know how much priority mail costs (that's an inside joke).

We all need to keep in mind reds education is form PSU. He most certainly was “Sandusky” indoctrinated in his time there. This is the institution who has modern day professors recently charged with bestiality, and filming themselves naked climbing a tree with a branch stuck up their ass. Google it this is what comes out of PSU.

All that shower time Red spent with Jerry twisted up his mind.

[mickeycrimm]

Why do bookies use the term "sharp?"