Professional Sportsbetting

[kewlJ]

KewlJ, you do realize you are doing many of the same things you have gone apeshit over MDawg doing regarding blackjack?

1) You set bad strategical examples. You are up 22 net games and continue betting angles to work off a bonus even though you know nothing about what you're doing, and thereby blow the 22 net games.

2) You use lingo and language with no sense of conventions, propriety, or correctness. Then you double down and argue that it's okay. Go find an example in a legitimate sports column of the last 50 years where 8-4 is "two games over .500." It's ridiculous. How many hundreds of thousands of sports columns have been written in 50 years? You don't even bother to verify that you're wrong and then report it.

3) You try to use calculations for random events and apply them to non-random events and think nothing of it.

4) You blather on, defending yourself even when you're obviously wrong, thereby confusing inexperienced gamblers.

5) You set a bad sports betting example for inexperienced gamblers, which you criticize MDawg for doing vis-a-vis blackjack.

6) You cherry pick phrases and then present straw man arguments using those phrases.


An example of (6) is that you say I spend six months a year in Las Vegas. I have never once, in 10K posts over half a dozen forums, said that. And I haven't spent more than two weeks at a go in Las Vegas for several years, which I have reported here. But you ignore the facts, and you are worse than MDawg because at least MDawg posts direct quotes rather than summarizing what isn't true and hoping people believe it.

Have a good one.

KJ: My record is 56-31
Ditz: you chould have changed your betting strategy when you got 25 games above .500
Mickey: 56 and 31 is not 25 games above .500.
Ditz: No sports column has ever said 8-4 is two games above .500
Mickey: But 56 and 31 is not 25 games above .500
Ditz: KJ shoulda changed strategy when he got 25 games above .500
Mickey: KJ was never 25 games above .500
Ditz: Don't confuse me with the facts

Good catch mickeycrimm. Like myself, even redietz used the wrong terminology several times. Thats all it is...terminology. If I had only said 25 games above .500, someone could call me out for the wrong terminology if they thought it important, but I stated my record after 2 weeks 3 different ways including by the numbers 56-31, so there was no confusion about anything. Just some dude arguing about terminology as if that really matters.

[accountinquestion]

Get your facts straight, KewlJ. LOL. No chance of that, eh? Little double entendre there.

Nothing like hearing reports from the advantage play kid, who argues that being 8-4 makes one "two games over .500."

Your sports betting stories are as nerve-and-logic-jangling as anything MDawg has written about blackjack. You don't see the irony to your being "the MDawg of sports betting?"

Anyone betting in Las Vegas from 1985-2010 was immersed in a sea of Billy Walters influence and associates. Many, many things happened to relatively famous people because of the Billy Walters gestalt. There was no way to go through a week without rubbing shoulders with Computer Group associates or Walters' runners. I didn't suddenly learn about Walters because I was recruited and worked for him for six months. Far from it. What the book does is it enables people who were there to connect dots on a host of significant events.

"Advantage play kid', hun? Is that your attempt to belittle me. Wow I am crushed. I am in my 40's and in another 2 months will end 20 years of supporting myself from advantage play and card counting. All that comment did was highlight your contempt for some winning doing something at an advantage that you thinks minimizes your accomplishments.

Your continuing rant about games over .500 is just terminology. Nothing more. I continue to believe that if 6-6 is .500 (and it is), that one game better than .500 would be 7-5. That means you won game above the .500 mark. But again in the end, it means nothing. It is just terminology.

At the end of week 2, when I was 56-31, I expressed those results 3 way. I said +25, I said 25 games over .500 and I posted the exact numbers 56-31, so there could be no confusion. Turns out my saying 25 games over .500 was incorrect for reasons I have stated. But either way, it means nothing it is just terminology. I made it cystal clear what I was talking about by posting the exact numbers.

Not that it matters, but a poor weekend this weekend (particularly college) and I am 136-138 (with 7 pushes). First time this season I have dipped below .500 but still close enough that this whole AP play will have a good return and that is all I was ever after. I am not looking to displace you as the best sports bettor on the forum or whatever you think you are, so just calm down fella.

As for whatever you are doing trying to document the history of sports gambling from 1985-2010, good luck whatever that is about. I was a toddler in 1985, so only have a passing interest. But if it is important to you, go for it.

Get his ass! Get 'em ! get 'em !

Seriously kewl - the denigrating the use of EV in +EV sports-betting is likely far more damaging to people learning than anything Singer or Mdawg have ever claimed. If you want to actually do what you claim then you'd go after Redietz for that. Without mercy.

In addition Redietz clowns on APs. Those are your people. Your family.

If you'd fight the good fight you'd finally find some support around here.

That is all.

[kewlJ]

Get your facts straight, KewlJ. LOL. No chance of that, eh? Little double entendre there.

Nothing like hearing reports from the advantage play kid, who argues that being 8-4 makes one "two games over .500."

Your sports betting stories are as nerve-and-logic-jangling as anything MDawg has written about blackjack. You don't see the irony to your being "the MDawg of sports betting?"

Anyone betting in Las Vegas from 1985-2010 was immersed in a sea of Billy Walters influence and associates. Many, many things happened to relatively famous people because of the Billy Walters gestalt. There was no way to go through a week without rubbing shoulders with Computer Group associates or Walters' runners. I didn't suddenly learn about Walters because I was recruited and worked for him for six months. Far from it. What the book does is it enables people who were there to connect dots on a host of significant events.

"Advantage play kid', hun? Is that your attempt to belittle me. Wow I am crushed. I am in my 40's and in another 2 months will end 20 years of supporting myself from advantage play and card counting. All that comment did was highlight your contempt for some winning doing something at an advantage that you thinks minimizes your accomplishments.

Your continuing rant about games over .500 is just terminology. Nothing more. I continue to believe that if 6-6 is .500 (and it is), that one game better than .500 would be 7-5. That means you won game above the .500 mark. But again in the end, it means nothing. It is just terminology.

At the end of week 2, when I was 56-31, I expressed those results 3 way. I said +25, I said 25 games over .500 and I posted the exact numbers 56-31, so there could be no confusion. Turns out my saying 25 games over .500 was incorrect for reasons I have stated. But either way, it means nothing it is just terminology. I made it cystal clear what I was talking about by posting the exact numbers.

Not that it matters, but a poor weekend this weekend (particularly college) and I am 136-138 (with 7 pushes). First time this season I have dipped below .500 but still close enough that this whole AP play will have a good return and that is all I was ever after. I am not looking to displace you as the best sports bettor on the forum or whatever you think you are, so just calm down fella.

As for whatever you are doing trying to document the history of sports gambling from 1985-2010, good luck whatever that is about. I was a toddler in 1985, so only have a passing interest. But if it is important to you, go for it.

Get his ass! Get 'em ! get 'em !

Seriously kewl - the denigrating the use of EV in +EV sports-betting is likely far more damaging to people learning than anything Singer or Mdawg have ever claimed. If you want to actually do what you claim then you'd go after Redietz for that. Without mercy.

In addition Redietz clowns on APs. Those are your people. Your family.

If you'd fight the good fight you'd finally find some support around here.

That is all.

My God, I have been defending the AP's!! What are you reading or not reading?

As for the EV, I agree with you. I have said, I don't understand all the things some people say are +EV in sports betting. But I am not a sports betting expert or professional. To me, EV involved math calculations or a formula you can point to. Video poker and over 100% paybacks. Card counting and true count frequencies and amounts bet at each advantage. It is math. there is no guessing or opinion. I have never seen that in regular sports betting.

BUT, that said, this bonus whoring that I am doing, you can point to the +EV or what makes it playing at an advantage. It is the bonus money, as long as you don't run terrible eating it all away, which is what the casinos want with the rollovers. If you can be disciplined, only making the bets to satisfy the rollover and don't run horribly bad, or make stupid bets, you should make money.

[accountinquestion]

Thank you for another teachable moment.

[kewlJ]

What is your problem man?

Who do you think I am trying to teach something to?

If anything I am learning. One of the few gamvl7ng discussion on this forum is sports betting and I have learned and am doing something to make money from it.

[jbjb]

What the book does is it enables people who were there to connect dots on a host of significant events.

How much is devoted to him feloniously engaging in insider trading, being convicted, and then pardoned by the orange oaf?

My question for the experts: How much did that pardon cost him?

He did most of his sentence then was let go because of covid. The pardon came after the release. In his book he spent more time on his troubles with the law than sportsbetting. He blamed Mickleson for going to jail.

Criminals always blame someone else.

[mickeycrimm]

KewlJ, you do realize you are doing many of the same things you have gone apeshit over MDawg doing regarding blackjack?

1) You set bad strategical examples. You are up 22 net games and continue betting angles to work off a bonus even though you know nothing about what you're doing, and thereby blow the 22 net games.

2) You use lingo and language with no sense of conventions, propriety, or correctness. Then you double down and argue that it's okay. Go find an example in a legitimate sports column of the last 50 years where 8-4 is "two games over .500." It's ridiculous. How many hundreds of thousands of sports columns have been written in 50 years? You don't even bother to verify that you're wrong and then report it.

3) You try to use calculations for random events and apply them to non-random events and think nothing of it.

4) You blather on, defending yourself even when you're obviously wrong, thereby confusing inexperienced gamblers.

5) You set a bad sports betting example for inexperienced gamblers, which you criticize MDawg for doing vis-a-vis blackjack.

6) You cherry pick phrases and then present straw man arguments using those phrases.


An example of (6) is that you say I spend six months a year in Las Vegas. I have never once, in 10K posts over half a dozen forums, said that. And I haven't spent more than two weeks at a go in Las Vegas for several years, which I have reported here. But you ignore the facts, and you are worse than MDawg because at least MDawg posts direct quotes rather than summarizing what isn't true and hoping people believe it.

Have a good one.

1) When KJ was 25 games up the expectation to cover each event after that was still around 50%. He could have very well went 30 or 40 games ahead. What would you be saying if that would have happened? You are criticizing "after the fact." Which is easy to do.

3). On another forum you cited the covers for the first two weeks in college football to challenge KJ's claim of being so far ahead. The figure you gave was favorites covered 81 times and dogs covered 77 times. Do you realize how close to .500 that is? And KJ just gave us his latest figures, 136-138 thru six weeks. Do you realize how close to .500% that is? That's 274 picks in six weeks and he's sitting right on top of .500.

If you look at long term statistics it's the same. Right around .500. Sure you can go in and cherry pick games and say it's not 50/50 to cover. But you just don't get how sharp the lines are overall when betting volume. When Fezzik said "Accept that the lines are sharp" he wasn't talking about individual games, he was talking about volume. And Fezzik uses volume to calculate EV.

Switching to middles isn't feasible when time is a concern.

[accountinquestion]

KewlJ, you do realize you are doing many of the same things you have gone apeshit over MDawg doing regarding blackjack?

1) You set bad strategical examples. You are up 22 net games and continue betting angles to work off a bonus even though you know nothing about what you're doing, and thereby blow the 22 net games.

2) You use lingo and language with no sense of conventions, propriety, or correctness. Then you double down and argue that it's okay. Go find an example in a legitimate sports column of the last 50 years where 8-4 is "two games over .500." It's ridiculous. How many hundreds of thousands of sports columns have been written in 50 years? You don't even bother to verify that you're wrong and then report it.

3) You try to use calculations for random events and apply them to non-random events and think nothing of it.

4) You blather on, defending yourself even when you're obviously wrong, thereby confusing inexperienced gamblers.

5) You set a bad sports betting example for inexperienced gamblers, which you criticize MDawg for doing vis-a-vis blackjack.

6) You cherry pick phrases and then present straw man arguments using those phrases.


An example of (6) is that you say I spend six months a year in Las Vegas. I have never once, in 10K posts over half a dozen forums, said that. And I haven't spent more than two weeks at a go in Las Vegas for several years, which I have reported here. But you ignore the facts, and you are worse than MDawg because at least MDawg posts direct quotes rather than summarizing what isn't true and hoping people believe it.

Have a good one.

1) When KJ was 25 games up the expectation to cover each event after that was still around 50%. He could have very well went 30 or 40 games ahead. What would you be saying if that would have happened? You are criticizing "after the fact." Which is easy to do.

3). On another forum you cited the covers for the first two weeks in college football to challenge KJ's claim of being so far ahead. The figure you gave was favorites covered 81 times and dogs covered 77 times. Do you realize how close to .500 that is? And KJ just gave us his latest figures, 136-138 thru six weeks. Do you realize how close to .500% that is? That's 274 picks in six weeks and he's sitting right on top of .500.

If you look at long term statistics it's the same. Right around .500. Sure you can go in and cherry pick games and say it's not 50/50 to cover. But you just don't get how sharp the lines are overall when betting volume. When Fezzik said "Accept that the lines are sharp" he wasn't talking about individual games, he was talking about volume. And Fezzik uses volume to calculate EV.

Switching to middles isn't feasible when time is a concern.

Just realize Redietz knows very little about this stuff. The reason he doesn't know about EV is because EV isn't needed at all in side pick'em contests. You only need an EV type calculation to decide if a bet is worth it. These are 2 different things. If you are the real deal you should be handicapping to the point of an actual spread. (How else do you know which side to pick?) If you are handicapping to a spread then the EV calculation is just a layer on top of it. The EV aspect is needed to go from contests to betting.

The fact that Redietz fails to understand this is actually very very telling.

It would be interesting to see actual experts talk about middles and when they actually become feasible. The issues and such. My understanding it you need $$ spread out all over and constantly watching lines. Either that you have understand how they're going to shift as game time approaches. I'm not even sure middles make that much sense then.

[kewlJ]

With "middling" I thought there was an element to bettor's thinking they knew which way the public would bet, which would move the line. And knowing or thinking the public bets on certain favorites like KC, they bet early and wait for that movement. If they are right more often than not, it creates some middling opportunities.

But no matter what, like mickey says, it is a time-consuming strategy, constantly watching the lines for movement. And if there is significant movement creating a middling opportunity, you better be sure it isn't due to player injury or ineligibility. You may end up with the line you want, but missing a key player.

[accountinquestion]

With "middling" I thought there was an element to bettor's thinking they knew which way the public would bet, which would move the line. And knowing or thinking the public bets on certain favorites like KC, they bet early and wait for that movement. If they are right more often than not, it creates some middling opportunities.

But no matter what, like mickey says, it is a time-consuming strategy, constantly watching the lines for movement. And if there is significant movement creating a middling opportunity, you better be sure it isn't due to player injury or ineligibility. You may end up with the line you want, but missing a key player.

Afaik You either predict line movements or have money across multiple books monitoring lines.

[kewlJ]

Afaik You either predict line movements or have money across multiple books monitoring lines.

If you have money sitting across multiple books waiting for line movement, if those movements never come, don't you end up with money on lines you didn't line in the first place?

If I wasn't doing the bonus whoring and was really trying to win money on straight wagers, I think I would focus on the past result trends (with several years of success). The NFL away teams. The +3.5 and +7.5. Half Smokes first 2 weeks underdog trend (which went 20-12 this year). That type of thing.

[accountinquestion]

Afaik You either predict line movements or have money across multiple books monitoring lines.

If you have money sitting across multiple books waiting for line movement, if those movements never come, don't you end up with money on lines you didn't line in the first place?

If I wasn't doing the bonus whoring and was really trying to win money on straight wagers, I think I would focus on the past result trends (with several years of success). The NFL away teams. The +3.5 and +7.5. Half Smokes first 2 weeks underdog trend (which went 20-12 this year). That type of thing.

You place the bets simultaneously across books. I'll not saying this is even a thing people do but my understanding from when I dabbled in sports betting many years ago. I don't really think it particularly doable without automated components.

[kewlJ]

You place the bets simultaneously across books.

yeah, and then what? You wait for the line to move to what you thought it might be. And what if the line doesn't move, or worse moves the wrong way. You are stuck with a line you didn't like and wouldn't have bet.

I don't know, as I am not a professional sports bettor. Do professional really do this? When I first heard of middling it seemed almost like a parlay to me. Your chance of hitting both sides is slim, but higher reward. I just would think it more profitable to find two games that you really like, however you make that determination that trying to hit this middling crap.

And yes, I am sure redietz will post some essay here or elsewhere about how the blackjack AP knows nothing about sports betting.

[accountinquestion]

You place the bets simultaneously across books.

yeah, and then what? You wait for the line to move to what you thought it might be. And what if the line doesn't move, or worse moves the wrong way. You are stuck with a line you didn't like and wouldn't have bet.

I don't know, as I am not a professional sports bettor. Do professional really do this? When I first heard of middling it seemed almost like a parlay to me. Your chance of hitting both sides is slim, but higher reward. I just would think it more profitable to find two games that you really like, however you make that determination that trying to hit this middling crap.

And yes, I am sure redietz will post some essay here or elsewhere about how the blackjack AP knows nothing about sports betting.

I don't know. I don't sports bet really but I am saying the lines have to not be in agreement enough to make it +ev. I am not sure the ev of picking the positive side vs the middle. You bet simultaneously across different books. I have no clue about in practice but I seem to recall the middles being a bit of a lost cause.

[mickeycrimm]

You place the bets simultaneously across books.

yeah, and then what? You wait for the line to move to what you thought it might be. And what if the line doesn't move, or worse moves the wrong way. You are stuck with a line you didn't like and wouldn't have bet.

I don't know, as I am not a professional sports bettor. Do professional really do this? When I first heard of middling it seemed almost like a parlay to me. Your chance of hitting both sides is slim, but higher reward. I just would think it more profitable to find two games that you really like, however you make that determination that trying to hit this middling crap.

And yes, I am sure redietz will post some essay here or elsewhere about how the blackjack AP knows nothing about sports betting.

The book, The Smart Money, explained what's going on. The smart money is sitting there waiting for the books to post the lines on Sunday, or Monday, whichever day it comes out. The smart money has it's idea of where the lines should be. So when they see a line they think is out of whack they bet it right then. They don't wait until the end of the week. The books protect themselves from the wiseguys by having a cap on the amount one can bet early.

For example, a wiseguy see's a line at -2.5 that he thinks should be -3 or -4. So he bets the -2.5. Then more money comes in on the favorite and books move the line to -3 then -4. Now, sometime later in the week, the wiseguy has the opportunity to bet the +4 in hopes of middling the game. Sharp sportsbettors surely can predict these line moves because they know the early line is off.

The line gets hammered into place during the week then the books raise the betting limits.

That's how they used to do it.

[mickeycrimm]

Here's an example I took off of covers.com. Packers/Vikings game open at Packers -1. It's just Tuesday and the line has moved to Packers +1.5. In the link you can go over the lines for this coming Sunday's NFL games on covers.com and see where the opening lines were and what they currently are.

https://www.covers.com/sports/nfl/matchups

[Half Smoke]

Here's an example I took off of covers.com. Packers/Vikings game open at Packers -1. It's just Tuesday and the line has moved to Packers +1.5. In the link you can go over the lines for this coming Sunday's NFL games on covers.com and see where the opening lines were and what they currently are.

https://www.covers.com/sports/nfl/matchups

the sharps bet early and the squares bet late - a great many squares bet the day of the game

the problem with betting with the sharps after the line has moved is that you didn't get the same line as them

it's possible that a plunger could get a better deal with the money line after the sharps have moved the line - that the movement of the money line and spread are not 100% efficient

if so - it would probably be a small thing - and it would take a lot of diligence to track it - but it might be fun and it might be worth it

also, it's probably been mentioned before - but having accounts with several different books and line shopping can be a very positive thing - 2 thumbs up

covers shows 2 books offering -2.5 and 2 books offering -3 on the Bucs game last week on the day of the game - see link - over time stuff like that can make a significant difference




https://www.covers.com/sport/footbal...l-at-tb/284743


.

[mickeycrimm]

This is what middling math looks like to me. According to this chart, when a team is favored by 3 points the favorite will win by exactly 3 points 8% of the time..

So you see the consensus line is -3. But there are a couple of outliers. One book has the game at -2.5 and another books has the game at 3.5.

When you shoot for a middle you bet 11/10 on both sides. You put up 22 units but one side will pay 21 units so you are essentially betting just 1 unit.

8% means the game will middle 1 in 12.5 attempts.
When you cash both tickets it's a 20 unit win.

That's an EV of 160%. That's a huge edge.

But what if the calculation is off. Say it should be 6% instead of 8%.
The EV would be 120%.

So it looks like the middles carry big edges. You just don't get to cash a ticket every time.

[cyberbabble]

Mickey,

You have the right idea here but your EV calculation is wrong. You didn't subtract out the losing bets. Also remember you are paying the juice.

You are making two bets at 110 to win 100.

8% of the time you hit the middle and win 200. 92% of the time you win one bet and lose one bet, win 100 and lose 110 for a net
loss of 10. To calculate EV you need to include all outcomes and the probability for each one.

EV = (.08*200) + (.92* -10) = 16 - 9.2 = 6.8. You are betting 220 so the ROI is 6.8 / 220 = 3.4%.

You are using a "push chart". Not to be confused with "push/fold chart" which is a poker thing. The push chart gives the percent of games that end in a point spread push. Here we have that 3 point NFL favorites will push in 8% of their games. Can you post a link to the chart you used? The website that I used for a push chart has shut down.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey,

You have the right idea here but your EV calculation is wrong. You didn't subtract out the losing bets. Also remember you are paying the juice.

You are making two bets at 110 to win 100.

8% of the time you hit the middle and win 200. 92% of the time you win one bet and lose one bet, win 100 and lose 110 for a net
loss of 10. To calculate EV you need to include all outcomes and the probability for each one.

EV = (.08*200) + (.92* -10) = 16 - 9.2 = 6.8. You are betting 220 so the ROI is 6.8 / 220 = 3.4%.

You are using a "push chart". Not to be confused with "push/fold chart" which is a poker thing. The push chart gives the percent of games that end in a point spread push. Here we have that 3 point NFL favorites will push in 8% of their games. Can you post a link to the chart you used? The website that I used for a push chart has shut down.

You are looking at total wager. I'm not. I'm just looking at the risk vs. reward.

When you bet 11 units to 10 units on each side you are risking only 1 unit. As which ever side you hit will pay 21 units.

Hitting 8% of the time means cashing 1 per 12.5 attempts. The win will pay 20 units.

So the cost is 12.5 units and the payoff is 20 units.