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

[roguejuror]

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 would guess there are very very very few true linemakers in the world. And I doubt they have tons of "special" data readily available for every match. There's this mystery around the bookmakers that they are all-knowing superiorly gifted gamblers. That is just not the case. The myth of inside information is greatly exaggerated too. Experience is the key to a great linemaker, the years of watching money come in and knowing how the customers will react is how you go about setting the publishable line.

Maybe in the past it was different but now its all about watching the computer spit a number and the linemaker adjusting it from there. Sometimes they rely more on the computer and sometimes less and on occasions none. But its all in control of a select few within the organizations we all are familiar with, in the US.

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.

Yes of course. The notion of wanting even action is baloney, needing 47.62% I want to gamble. Yeah you will fuk up some along the way but quantity makes up for them. Look at Asia for Dec 18 http://spbo.com/live.htm, 390 matches slated, with 300+ marked to go live. There are no bookies in Asia .

 

[FairWarning]

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:

Which is why I play more props than sides in the NFL this time of year. Lines are softer.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

I measure the "squareness" of a line by the perceived edge that I obtain. I get far greater value in wagers early in the season. I agree with RJ. Bookmakers aren't the omniscient entities that some people make them out to be. In fact, they are far from it. If you read some of the articles of LVSC linesmen, they are sometimes 2 or 3 points off between each other, meet in the middle, throw a number up, and hope it sticks.

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.

How are you measuring this? What sports? And what is your qualification for "early season?"

 

[FairWarning]

I measure the "squareness" of a line by the perceived edge that I obtain. I get far greater value in wagers early in the season. I agree with RJ. Bookmakers aren't the omniscient entities that some people make them out to be. In fact, they are far from it. If you read some of the articles of LVSC linesmen, they are sometimes 2 or 3 points off between each other, meet in the middle, throw a number up, and hope it sticks.



How are you measuring this? What sports? And what is your qualification for "early season?"

Don't piss off the math sharps. They will have you believe the lines are sharp from the start and only they can beat them. I stand by the best way to beat the books bad is to follow a team/area/conference. By doing this, you will expose bad numbers.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

Don't piss off the math sharps. They will have you believe the lines are sharp from the start and only they can beat them. I stand by the best way to beat the books bad is to follow a team/area/conference. By doing this, you will expose bad numbers.

All of my handicapping is quantitative in nature. I'm a math guy arguing nearly the opposite.

 

[illmatick]

Mudcat's a pretender. wtf ???