Serious gambling question - Pros only please (stay out Bread)

[Matty]

Lines do get sharper as the season progresses and as more current information becomes available.

Early on, it's hard to know the quality of the teams, based on the changes they've made.

No offense pal, but it seems to me that everyone who holds that belief is unable to back their claim with any kind of proof. It may be common sense, but I don't think that common sense beats -110.

 

[Cougar Bait]

Okay Shari, I will take your quote down if you take mine down...

 

[MrX]

I've never bothered to look, but I'd be shocked if late-season lines weren't better predictors of game outcomes than early-season lines across all sports. Like FW said, there's just more information for the market to work with. So, if that's your definition of sharper lines, then I'm pretty sure they're sharper later in the season, but as a bettor, you're faced with the same lack of information as the bookmakers.

If a modeler is over-dependent on current season stats, or if he can't predict the contribution of new players to a team, his model is going to suffer in early season. If his model is strong in those areas, he should thrive early season. In professional sports, a well done purely math-model should perform very well early season. I'm not so sure about college. It's not my area at all, but I'd think that amount of player turnover and athletes with no career stats would make it awfully hard for an early season math-model.

This is kinda an "I know a guy who knows a guy" thing, so take it with a grain of salt. But, I know a guy who knows a guy who consistently just destroys early season NCAA hoops and fb, like, at a ridiculous clip, for many years without a model. He's not clueless when it comes to the math, but it's not a mathy approach.

 

[MrX]

No offense pal, but it seems to me that everyone who holds that belief is unable to back their claim with any kind of proof. It may be common sense, but I don't think that common sense beats -110.

It's easy enough to prove. I'd say I'll take a look, but I don't want to break any more promises on here.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that lines don't get sharper as the season progresses, or that it's just not pronounced enough to equal easy money.

 

[Oksana]

Okay Shari, I will take your quote down if you take mine down...

Nuh uh.

This is my first, and will be my only sig for a long, long time.

I LOVE YOU COUGS!!!

 

[Matty]

The latter MrX. Mind you, I'm only looking at my own data and my approach was definitely not consistent throughout the 3 years I did it.

 

[Oksana]

Oh, and to be honest, I had forgotten that you had the twisted version of mine up when I took this one. I just thought it was very apt and absolutely hilarious on Wally's part considering the whole Girish thing.

 

[Mudcat]

Lines do get sharper as the season progresses and as more current information becomes available.

Early on, it's hard to know the quality of the teams, based on the changes they've made.

All you've done is state a theory as fact. I'd be interested to see some back-up for it.

Stuff that most bettors describe as unknowns are not really unknowns to linesmakers. Unknowns are business-as-usual. Good linesmakers have vast stores of data on what to expect from games with different types of "unknowns." I see them continuing to take bets on these games with unknowns so I have to think they are doing alright.



It really does depend on how you define sharp. If you define it as posting lines that most accurately reflect the expected outcome of games, my data shows that early season lines are the sharpest, even with all those perceived unknowns. If you define it in terms of making money, I don't know. As I said before, I would be curious to see some data.

 

[MrX]

It really does depend on how you define sharp. If you define it as posting lines that most accurately reflect the expected outcome of games, my data shows that early season lines are the sharpest, even with all those perceived unknowns.

Well, if that's true, then I'm surprised. It really seems very counter-intuitive to me. For which sports have you found this to be the case?

 

[Cougar Bait]

Damn it Shari

Show me some skin

 

[Hawk]

Shari is very pretty and talks sports. I'm in heaven now!

Yeah but it's tennis....on par with golf, curling and cricket.

 

[Matty]

Hawk you snobby fok. Stay here.

 

[rito]

Over a month into the season, there are only 6 NCAAB games today, and bookmaker ("where the line originates") is afraid to post totals on 4 of them.

 

[Matty]

Over a month into the season, there are only 6 NCAAB games today, and bookmaker ("where the line originates") is afraid to post totals on 4 of them.

See, this kinda backs up my point. The average bookie doesn't seem to give a shit about any particular game, but if the card is light, it increases volatility. And no one likes volatility.

That said, charging -110 affords a lot of leeway. When a retard like Blackie can stay in business, it means that you don't have to be anywhere near sharp to work the other side of the counter.

 

[rito]

It's all about your players. Blackie isn't that dumb. He takes 6 fiigure bets from known losers into sharp NFL lines at -110, but when he has an open online shop where he don't know who is betting he puts up limits like $150.

 

[FairWarning]

All you've done is state a theory as fact. I'd be interested to see some back-up for it.

Stuff that most bettors describe as unknowns are not really unknowns to linesmakers. Unknowns are business-as-usual. Good linesmakers have vast stores of data on what to expect from games with different types of "unknowns." I see them continuing to take bets on these games with unknowns so I have to think they are doing alright.

.

I believe you are giving the books too much credit early on. There are always surprise teams (both good/bad). It really comes down to can you adjust faster than the books.

 

[Matty]

I believe you are giving the books too much credit early on. There are always surprise teams (both good/bad). It really comes down to can you adjust faster than the books.

There are surprise teams in the middle of the season and at the end too.

This thread is reinforcing my belief that 99.9999% of all bettors are full of superstitious/selective-memory baloney when they talk about betting.

:fokkengadfly:

 

[reno cool]

]It's easy enough to prove[/B]. I'd say I'll take a look, but I don't want to break any more promises on here.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that lines don't get sharper as the season progresses, or that it's just not pronounced enough to equal easy money.

I'm curious to see how this can be proven.
The idea of a line that "accurately" predicts some true probability seems impossible to me.
I suppose you can take some strategy or model you deem superior and see how it performs against book lines at various time of season. But this would be a subjective view.
You would have to have access to some perfect model that can never be improved upon in any way to give a definite and objective answer.

That's not to say, of course, that people can't have superior knowledge, or inside information the books don't have access to. And it seems that would be more common early.