Originally Posted by
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.
Reply With Quote