Professional Sportsbetting

[redietz]

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

Dumb and dumber....and it's just one loner.

Kew, I have no interest in "long term" sports betting, and other than the bonus-betting I've done in the past I may place 3 or 4 bets a year--all on NFL games, and only when there's a clear advantage. It's the people who find themselves betting multiple sports almost weekly, year-round, who do "degenerate betting". In fact, because of one large parlay win I had in Tahoe maybe 10 years ago now--a bet that was also +EV by a LOT (a rarity in parlay betting) I'll never be a sports betting loser.

Once again, you took a thousand words to say something that could have been articulated in a hundred words, thoroughly exciting the old man with no family. Usually, that means you're struggling to criticize. First I was "handicapping"--then it was degenerate betting. Snap out of it.

The problems with making general know-it-all betting statements are as follow. Now please note that KewlJ attempts to import the probability theory and jargon of random events and then assign them to non-random events while simultaneously stating that he can win precisely because NFL games are non-random events and have trends.

LOL. You cannot make this idiocy up.

But, anyway, here is a thumbnail list of the basic logical problems with what the kewlJ is touting vis-a-vis the NFL (see what I did there?):

1) He makes statements regarding "the public" betting this or that. There is no "the public," technically speaking. There is only money. So assigning yourself to one gnostic category ("the sharps," "APs," the in-the-know crowd) while assigning others to "the public" is not only over-stepping your expertise, it's self-aggrandizing and inaccurate.

2) Of course, if lines move, and you are betting at the bitter end and those are the numbers you use to assign wins and losses, then what you are doing is arguing that the original lines were more accurate than the closing lines. So you are allowing "the public," -- AKA the money -- to do the wrong thing, then exploiting the idea that they are doing the wrong thing. Yet this inherently suggests that injury reports and weather do not play a part in the line moves actually being correct, which is a fair position to take (especially if you think orchestrating is happening, at least on occasion). However, "the public" seems to be betting on injury reports and weather, so you must determine if "the public" is (A) stupid for betting based on injuries and weather, (B) you, the sharp, are smart for ignoring injuries and weather, or (C) games are rigged so line moves lose despite injuries and weather.

3) Obviously, the demography of sports betting changes every year based on availability, advertising, social mores, which country you are in, and so on. So the idea that there is some crystalline chunk of the population called "the public" is just wrong. The demography has changed dramatically over the last 10 years.

4) Nobody has any way of knowing who or what has moved the numbers. All you know for a fact is that money moved the lines. You can speculate, but there is no way of assigning truth value to your speculation. For example, in college football, Mr. Walters was notorious for going after mid-week Sun Belt or MAC games that he was trying to middle. He would launch on one side as soon as the lines appeared, everybody would jump on the bandwagon, he would wait and let the lines move three points or more, then whack the other side, all in pursuit of middles. Usually, my money went along for the ride.

5) Thinking what happened for 10 years is going to hold up in-the-now requires you have some sensitivity to what you are talking about. Let's assume that there are power ratings at the heart of the NFL lines, and those power rating have yielded a -7 for Team A versus Team B for 10 years. And Weeks One and Two, the underdogs have won 65% of the time ATS for those 10 years. So now what? If in 2025 you have the same power ratings for Teams A and B as you had in the past, as an oddsmaker you now assign a -5 1/2 or -6 to Team A versus Team B. The bettor who sticks with the blind idea of taking the dogs is now in the same position as the guy playing blackjack who is trying to count cards while blackjack itself pays even money, only he does not actually know blackjack itself is paying even money. He is cutting his own throat because he naively assumes lines are static.

6) The entire idea of static-ness is an issue with the kewlJ approach. If underdogs using closing lines yielded a one percent advantage for 10 years, the key question is how did faves do with opening lines? If you haven't checked this, why not?

7) Given the ubiquity of injury reports and weather and all that, if line moves in the NFL are consistently wrong, what is the logical conclusion? That "the public" -- AKA the money -- is consistently wrong? Or that injury reports and weather are irrelevant? Or that line moves yield value going the other way? Or that some of the games are manipulated so line moves become wrong?

Please send all gratuities to 1412 Forest Dale Lane, Johnson City, TN. Thanks in advance.