Professional Sportsbetting

[Gottlob]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

As predicted by even the anagrams-with-gematria ...

https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post196026

Forgot to note the Redietz connection. That guy, from Venus, who plays the guitar. For some reason, I always think of Redietz. Too smug? Don't know why.

[Don Perignom]

I resisted getting into the off-shore sports betting racket for these very concerns. My top worry was a sports book deciding to not honor the bonuses after the fact, which has happened. And my second worry was this exact situation, a sports book changing the rules or not honoring their own rules and having nowhere to dispute it.

You remind me of a former poster here .

Anyway, yes, those are drawbacks of off-shore betting. Also, they may cancel bets as "mistakes" if you catch them napping on a line. I'm probably more vulnerable to that.

This is my slow season as I'm not adept at beating MLB. Year-to-date, I've been leaning disproportionately into the Nevada-legal books, but I plan to make another run at the off-shores around August as NFL activates.

[Half Smoke]

.

lost pick above - 5-2 since I started making picks here - lost 2 in a row - ***** happens

today

Naz Reid - Under 1.5 three pointers made________+110___________Minnesota vs. OKC


he's not much of a scorer - his points are way off his regular season average - on threes he's 0 for 7, 0 for 2 and 1 for 3 in his last 3 games -

and OKC is tops on defense limiting opponents field goal % to 43.1 in the regular season -

last night the Knicks lost even though they were up by 14 with 2:51 left in the game - a legendary collapse

some fans were heading to the exits when they were up by that much - some had already left

.

[redietz]

If you follow golf, please check out my "Golf Futures" thread in Sports and Sports Betting.

[Half Smoke]

.

somebody dug up a stat re the Knicks loss last night - until this game - Dating back to 1997, NBA teams were 994-0 when leading a playoff game by at least 14 with 2:45 left.

[AxelWolf]

.

lost pick above - 5-2 since I started making picks here - lost 2 in a row - ***** happens

today

Naz Reid - Under 1.5 three pointers made________+110___________Minnesota vs. OKC



.

BOL and some other places have this at +117, you just can't get much down.

Does anyone know anywhere you can get down 1k on these types of bets, or is that never going to be possible?

[Don Perignom]

Does anyone know anywhere you can get down 1k on these types of bets, or is that never going to be possible?

My limit on that one at BetOnline is $106.xx.

Afaik, some of the domestic books take larger bets, but they may not be happy about it. I try to tread carefully on prop bets.

[mickeycrimm]

Krack says no one can beat NBA sides. Totals and props are beatable but sides are not. He says he doesnt know anyone that beats NBA sides.



He also reveals he started sportsbetting with $1000 in the 90’s and built up from there.

[Half Smoke]

.
won above pick

today - Pacers vs. Knicks Over 224.5 total points -110

covers.com shows bet365 currently offering that line

Pacers are capable of scoring a lot of points

Pacers have been over that total playing against the Knicks in 3 out of the last 4 games

Pacers have gone 42-21 over that total in their last 63 games

.

[Don Perignom]

He also reveals he started sportsbetting with $1000 in the 90’s and built up from there.

This video is a good example of why I can't endure general-audience content. From the chapter headings, I can see more than half the discussion involved problem gambling and the "youth crisis."

I could not care less. I only want to know how to beat sports.

As for his start in betting, it was only briefly mentioned, but it sounded like he did the usual online routine. He used bonuses, alongside middling and scalping (which the host described as "mechanical" betting). I think I've mentioned that I was active in that era, but I felt the opportunities were stronger in poker and casino bonuses.

Krack says no one can beat NBA sides.

He said he doesn't do the "mechanical" stuff any more, so he may not know what's possible. He implies that there's too much competition using that angle.

Looking back at my last 18 months or so, I'm heavier on college than NBA basketball. NBA offers a wider range of bets including props, but college is easier for finding sides, totals and moneylines imo.

[redietz]

He also reveals he started sportsbetting with $1000 in the 90’s and built up from there.

This video is a good example of why I can't endure general-audience content. From the chapter headings, I can see more than half the discussion involved problem gambling and the "youth crisis."

I could not care less. I only want to know how to beat sports.

As for his start in betting, it was only briefly mentioned, but it sounded like he did the usual online routine. He used bonuses, alongside middling and scalping (which the host described as "mechanical" betting). I think I've mentioned that I was active in that era, but I felt the opportunities were stronger in poker and casino bonuses.

Krack says no one can beat NBA sides.

He said he doesn't do the "mechanical" stuff any more, so he may not know what's possible. He implies that there's too much competition using that angle.

Looking back at my last 18 months or so, I'm heavier on college than NBA basketball. NBA offers a wider range of bets including props, but college is easier for finding sides, totals and moneylines imo.

I think the pandemic line moves and people accessing early "load management" decisions created the perspective that NBA sides were beatable. In the long run, most handicappers have said "no," but this stretch of vulnerabilities created a window where people with appropriate sources could attack the NBA. Certainly, pandemic who's-gonna-sit decisions led to tremendous opportunities.

NBA rules have changed so dramatically that it's a lesson in how APPLYING RULES as much as DEFINING THEM can alter the essence of how a game is played and completely change it.

There were NBA totals angles pre-2000 that worked beautifully for limited numbers of plays. One NBA totals angle that was applicable from about Game #65 on, I think it was, won nine out of 11 years and took marginal losses the two down years while doing fabulously well the other years. But it was very rules-dependent, so it went extinct.

[Don Perignom]

I think the pandemic line moves and people accessing early "load management" decisions created the perspective that NBA sides were beatable.

Can I chime in from a "mechanical" perspective? (I hope my terminology is correct.)

Middles can often be less obvious than scalps.

Here's a scalp:

Lakers moneyline -105
Mavs moneyline +110

Smart bettors will jump on this because the advantage is plainly apparent.

But now here's a middle:

Lakers -1 -110
Mavs +3 -110

This is a bigger advantage, but requires more thought (and data) to perceive.

Similarly, on a total:

Lakers/Mavs OVER 225 -110
UNDER 229 -110

Again, not completely obvious.

My examples are a little extreme, but this is why opportunities can arise on sides rather than moneylines -- because of the camouflage factor.

[accountinquestion]

I think the pandemic line moves and people accessing early "load management" decisions created the perspective that NBA sides were beatable.

Can I chime in from a "mechanical" perspective? (I hope my terminology is correct.)

Middles can often be less obvious than scalps.

Here's a scalp:

Lakers moneyline -105
Mavs moneyline +110

Smart bettors will jump on this because the advantage is plainly apparent.

But now here's a middle:

Lakers -1 -110
Mavs +3 -110

This is a bigger advantage, but requires more thought (and data) to perceive.

Similarly, on a total:

Lakers/Mavs OVER 225 -110
UNDER 229 -110

Again, not completely obvious.

My examples are a little extreme, but this is why opportunities can arise on sides rather than moneylines -- because of the camouflage factor.

Do you have the ability to do an EV calculation between the 2 bets? (I did at one point in my life but it'd take hours for me to figure it out and find the data to do it with)

[Don Perignom]

Do you have the ability to do an EV calculation between the 2 bets?

You mean stuff like how much is a point worth?

I haven't attempted my own calculations. I just look at various sites for guidance. Some of the odds screen sites will estimate EV for particular situations. And I'll look at the sportsbooks themselves to see how the payoffs change if I go up or down a point.

[accountinquestion]

Do you have the ability to do an EV calculation between the 2 bets?

You mean stuff like how much is a point worth?

I haven't attempted my own calculations. I just look at various sites for guidance. Some of the odds screen sites will estimate EV for particular situations. And I'll look at the sportsbooks themselves to see how the payoffs change if I go up or down a point.

Yea, that sort of thing. You have to have all those stats and something that isn't super stale from a book published 20 years ago.

I was just curious how the 2 approaches you gave compared in terms of EV/variance. It is unlikely I'll ever sports bet seriously so I don't go too deep down that hole but seemed like an interesting exercise. Might convince some people that EV calcs have value and are a reasonable approach.

[Don Perignom]

I was just curious how the 2 approaches you gave compared in terms of EV/variance. It is unlikely I'll ever sports bet seriously so I don't go too deep down that hole but seemed like an interesting exercise. Might convince some people that EV calcs have value and are a reasonable approach.

I may not be clear on the question, but mechanical betting is inherently toward the low end of variance. A scalp carries a guaranteed profit, although sometimes I'll tilt to one direction if I detect that one sportsbook is more "wrong" than the other.

Middles are more volatile because most bet pairings will be (small) losers, assuming typically -110 odds on both components. And the wins (when a middle hits) can be chunky.

Mechanical betting volume is limited by what you can find, and what you think will be tolerated.

[accountinquestion]

I was just curious how the 2 approaches you gave compared in terms of EV/variance. It is unlikely I'll ever sports bet seriously so I don't go too deep down that hole but seemed like an interesting exercise. Might convince some people that EV calcs have value and are a reasonable approach.

I may not be clear on the question, but mechanical betting is inherently toward the low end of variance. A scalp carries a guaranteed profit, although sometimes I'll tilt to one direction if I detect that one sportsbook is more "wrong" than the other.

Middles are more volatile because most bet pairings will be (small) losers, assuming typically -110 odds on both components. And the wins (when a middle hits) can be chunky.

Mechanical betting volume is limited by what you can find, and what you think will be tolerated.

I don't really have a strong understanding of my question either but thought maybe you were doing a deeper analysis or had the tools to readily do it.

[Don Perignom]

I don't really have a strong understanding of my question either but thought maybe you were doing a deeper analysis or had the tools to readily do it.

I suppose the primary tools are the odds screens such as Unabated. They do a lot of the work for you. There are nuances, but the basic concepts are somewhat simple imo -- which fits me because I can be somewhat simple .

[accountinquestion]

I don't really have a strong understanding of my question either but thought maybe you were doing a deeper analysis or had the tools to readily do it.

I suppose the primary tools are the odds screens such as Unabated. They do a lot of the work for you. There are nuances, but the basic concepts are somewhat simple imo -- which fits me because I can be somewhat simple .

Unabated is pretty cool. I subscribed briefly at one point. I believe you can get a free subscription for a month or so. Definitely worth checking out to see the sorts of things statistical analysis can do for you.

[Don Perignom]

Unabated is pretty cool. I subscribed briefly at one point.

Yes, I like it. But I don't subscribe to any of them. So that means I have various limitations and delays.

I might get myself into trouble if I had perfect, real-time information because the sportsbooks don't like when you insta-attack their line moves. The stuff I bet has usually been sitting a few minutes at least, which I hope gives me some "cover" to look somewhat recreational.