Oh my God. I am going to go 4-9 AT BEST right now. What a terrible week. Come Sunday, I am very, very, very possibly going to be -30x or worse for the week.

Just a contrarian bloodbath.

Are you sure you got this contrarian thing from Keynes and you weren't just stoned and watching Seinfeld but realized that probably isn't a good way to start off a thread?

Either way the thread has been a good read even though I don't bet on sports. Or bet in general for that matter. runthemover: poker forum frequenter

so far, I'm up .02. If boston scores one and holds, I'm in good shape, but that would be real hard. the night will detirmine the day.

Yes.



Haha, yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen. You'll be lucky to get out of that one with your shorts. 7.5 was a pretty ****ed up number for the books to throw out there. When the Pirates tie that stupid game up, I'll end up 3-1 on my totals for the day, which is not at all how I expected to finish up there. I still have an outside shot at ending the day in decent shape (read: somewhere near even).

EDIT: FUCKING PADRES RUIN EVERYTHING

well, I can only push the boston game ( well, take a small V if boston wins..) If the angels win, I hope the score stays the same. Things are looking dark in mudville.

-2.98 bets for the day. Boston killed me.

The St. Louis Cardinals are going to be so overvalued that it's not even funny.

EDIT- Actually it's kinda funny

Why do you think that is? do you think they are like the Packers of base ball, a relatively small market team that really, really loves their sport, and fans of other teams all sort of like?

Well, actually just because they have like 23 1-run wins, and they are -- at best -- a little better than a .500 team.

My dream is to see a huge sportscenter/baseball tonight focus-piece on them to drive the value up even more.

Ravech: "Can the Cardinals contend? Steve Phillips?"

Steve Phillips: "I'm retarded, and my hair is freakishly silver, but yes." (Correct answer: no)

Remember that PM I sent you, in which I said it was going to be sweet when the Cardinals swept the Padres? Luckily, I am going to get those 4 units back and then some by turbo-fading Lohse and co. I've still managed to have a pretty good Thurs-Sun on the bases, almost enough to make up for the British Open debacle. Thanks, Henrik, for Top 5-ing and saving me from complete disaster.




Wang

Okay, so I make a little book on the side, mostly with 3 or 4 guys that play cards where I work. Most of them are pretty small time, quarter players. I take their action, and either use it to get a better price on the games I want, book it off at a better price on one of my accounts and lock it a guaranteed 2-3% profit, or sell it off to a local who wants his books balanced, and in exchange lets me know what kind of action he's getting on sides (an agreement that works well for both of us).

Anyway, the last few days, I've had a pretty action-packed card. I've had between 8x and 13x on the line, which -- for me -- is a pretty big day of bases. Not once -- not a single time! -- has a player taken a side or total that I've been on. I probably booked 20 bets in the last 3 days for my degenerates, and not one of those bets was a play I decided to touch DURING MY HEAVIEST 3-DAY PERIOD OF THE YEAR. From a bookie's perspective, I can totally see why/how contrarianism is so profitable. These guys are so predictable. They're going to take the White Sox vs. KC, no matter what. They're going to take the Yankees vs. Oakland, etc., etc. I knew what games these guys wanted before they said a word. If I were just letting these bets ride, I'd give them nickel splits but move the line 15 cents to the public-side's detriment, and clean up. F

Wang

I know you've said that you bet mostly for the action, but do you think it would be realistic to say that if you brought down the quantity and only put heavy action on the more optimal plays it would be profitable?

I'm finally excited for football to start now; I'm going to try a season based strictly on contrarian rules.

Profitable or MORE profitable? I like having action, and I probably force a play here and there (coughBritishOpenDisastercough), but none of my plays have negative expectancy. Well, they might, but not as far as I can tell. I don't trust myself on bases enough just yet, so I am using a flat (not truly flat, but flat enough) system for baseball. I bet all dogs for 1x, and all favorites to win 1x. Yeah, I definitely have plays I like more than others, but I do utilize quite a bit of discipline for the most part. I plan on splashing around a lot more in the second half of the season, maybe, but this weekend's card was just awesome from a contrarian's perspective. There were justifiable plays on almost every game imaginable.

The problem is, it becomes kinda tough to quantify the size of your edge, and the subsequent change in variance that would result from making fewer but larger plays with a similar bankroll. I plug my leaks regularly (I was probably too stubborn with the Cubs at the beginning of the year), but they slip through. I'd rather, given the rather raw nature of my approach to baseball, have a lot of small plays than a few big ones. So far it has worked. I've made more than 400 baseball bets this year, and my average return has been:

~.08 units per wager. (Again, this is a reason that line-shopping and vigilance w/r/t getting a good price is VERY important, guys.)

If I were making a quarter the plays for triple the money, I'd have to have to improve my edge by at least 3 cents on every wager to have a comparatively positive result. I don't know if that's possible. My edge has been pretty significant so far this year, and I'm pretty unwilling to mess with success. Next year I'll probably start adding 2x and, maybe, 3x plays to bases, but I like this system so far.


Wang

I probably meant more profitable, but I didn't know your results this year. It looks like to me this method would probably be extremely profitable for football, especially college football. Am I right to assume so?

What method? Contrarianism? Or flat betting? No way in hell I flat bet college football, but I'll be taking a poke with some really bad teams this year...


Wang

Contrarianism.

Yeah, this will be my first year with a functional, coherent framework from which to attack College and NFL football. I already plan on making an NCAA football and NFL football gambling thread where we can share leans and track records. Should be pretty fun, especially since I plan on directing snide remarks at anybody who doesn't the game just like I do (because I am a good person).

Wang

Do you use any software to generate unique data?
If not, would you be interested in maybe tossing around some ideas to see if developing some is worth it?

I have brown people in far away places who write good code for very, very, very cheap. It might be fun to develop some software that quantifies some of this stuff and tracks the results.

(I tried sending that MOS PDF- attached it and clicked send, went to sleep and 8 hours later it was still sending, so I don't know if ti came through).

Yeah, I got a copy. I read the intro and about half of chapter one at work yesterday, and it's good stuff. I think I'm going to like it.


As far as developing software is concerned, I probably know so very little as to be less-than-useless. I considered paying somebody (NapaDon, maybe?) to go back through wagerline data from years past and tracking some trends for me, with respect to:

Price vs. Consensus vs. Value. (Something that would help me answer the question: "Is there inherent value in a baseball favorite between -101 and -115 that is getting less than 45% of the action at wagerline? How often did that team win? What is the overlay?") That stuff could be gathered up in an excel spreadsheet, though. If you have any ideas, I'm more than willing to help get them on paper and do whatever work I can to get the project off the ground.

Let me know.

Wang

Just heard one of these "Baseball insiders" on the radio ( I guess it's Buck Sholwater) talk about the cardinals, and how much he loves them. He said "even though some people might say they are winning with smoke in mirrors, they have something that other teams don't.. they are a team, there's no 'I', only we.. real team baseball, and that will come through in the clutch in the last two months"


What a bunch of bullsht. Is there a team sport that is less Dependant on "team" play than baseball? Baseball is a whole bunch in individual feats and one on one competition. Who the hell cares if players hate each other if one is has a 2.09 era, and the other has a 170 ops+? who cares if a team loves each other if they give up 11 runs game and score 5?

Yeah but Aaron Miles so clutch

What was the bet?

Also, being a Braves fan, I often have to divorce my desire for them to win and my desire to bet on them. I know in the past you've noted that they have a large fan-base that overvalues them. That said, the past few years, they have "run bad" in 1-run games. So how do we reconcile these concepts? Just generally avoid betting for or against them?

No, I drilled the **** out of them tonight. Probably one of the ten strongest plays I've seen all year. The Braves have been undervalued on the road most of the year ("OMG BRAVES CAN'T WIN ON THE ROAD..."), and overvalued at home ("BUT ARE LIGHTS OUT AT HOME!"). Tonight the books installed the Braves as slight favorites to pick-em (I got the line at ATL +107) on the road against a very young pitcher who has been awesome in minimal action. (Coming into tonight, Volstad had pitched 11 innings of .84 ERA ball, and was very good in his first start.) Of course, the public was on the Marlins at a 70% clip, which is HUGE for a virtual pick'em. Nevermind the small sample size, the public was backing Volstad like Pedro in his prime, or something.

The Braves have been unlucky all year, and the public has misinterpreted this. Atlanta has been getting action like the A's, Indians, or Reds over the last 30 days. All this added up to a pretty bet on the Braves. I've been on the Bravos a few time this year, most notably when they were on the road in LAA during interleague play. Now THAT was the perfect storm.


Wang


EDIT- For the all-star game bet, we drafted players, and got a point for every inning they played. My opponent got lucky with the extras. I was ahead after regulation.

EDIT 2- Sports Bettors are fickle, in most cases. Teams that are popular in general tend to get lots of love when they're performing well, but still get neglected when they're down on their luck.

Funnily enough, I was in Vegas during that series and walked over to the sportsbook at Bellagio while I was on break from a tournament. I saw that the Braves were huge underdogs versus the Angels (I think the Braves were pitching Morton in his first start), so I figured it had to be a reverse lock, and put $50 on them. They won that night. =)

Yeah, I was on them in every one of those games.

Im leaving for Vegas first thing Friday morning, give me some damn locks Wang. Tigers > Sox in all 3???

Haha, you're hilarious. Are you really leaving for Vegas Friday Morning? If so, I'll definitely ship you a few weekend golf locks. Too bad you're not going to be there on Thursday Morning; Anthony Kim is a LOCK to outplay Furyk this weekend. Somehow I have like 5x on it. I'm retarded.

I bet against the Tigs every single game in the Royals series, and that worked out okay (for them, not me). If the Tigers see Gavin Floyd or Beurhle, just drill them. They both suck so bad, but gamblers love them.

Have fun in Vegas, Big Bear.


Regards,


Derek

Yeah, Amy and I are leaving at 6am fri. morn for about a week. Gordy and his wife are there right now for a bridge tournament. Gonna bet some baseball games heavy for sure, forgot about the Canadian open this weekend. Hopefully can still squeeze in some prop bets on the weekend. We'll have to plan a casino trip downtown for the following weekend. If u stir up any locks, send em my way!!
later D

You know it, man. I'll give you a call later this week. Give Amy and Gordy my best. And, uh, hope you don't run into your probation officer out there anywhere. What're the odds? I mean, that it happens again....?

As a Sox fan, I agree with this.

Wow, people are signing up to the forum just to get picks. This is just the start my friend. We're not far from Vegas being forced to shut down all the sportsbooks.

So what happens when you get a good and traditionally overvalued and popular team like the Cubs vs a hot and newly popular team with a great, newly traded for ace pitcher ( Brewers and CC). Do you figure the public sentiment will even out, or do you bet against CC and actually bet on the cubs?

You still opening a casino?

You pass this game. Gun to my head, I take the Cubbies, but only because the Brewers came by their hype much more recently, and much less deservedly.

Don't listen to me, though. Until today, I'd lost 11 of my last 13 baseball bets. Eek.

So pretty much bet against the jets early and often at the start of this season?

Maybe i guess it depends on the line, there reciver Clowney from v-tech that they picked up middle of the season last year had an outstanding game 1 in the preseason (4 rec, 163 yrds, 2 td's). Most likely will be a 3rd reciever but if the O-line holds up and Coles does what he is capable to do as there number 1 reciver this team could def put up points. Im curious to see what the O/U numbers would be for there games since we all know Farve will be throwing it all over the place, and i like there Rb Thomas Jones, hes solid when he is needed. If they are at home catching a big number i can see some value in them.

Miami in week one vs. the Jets is going to be a sextuple for me

what do you think the line's gonna be? Between a touchdown and 10 I'd think.

If it's that high, I probably won't play it. I think it's going to be Jets by a FG, maybe has high as 4.5. They'll probably just let the Jets get pounded, then give up the hook late.

I just checked, and the Jets opened at 3 pt. favorites at The Greek. There was no movement after the Favre trade, which is awesome for my purposes.

There might be some after he plays the preseason, if he does well tons of money will pour in on the jets. He starts next preseason game against the redskins so we will see how it goes.

Wouldn't you rather miami get as many points as possible, or is it good, because you know vegas is trying to get people to bet on the jets...


Also, when, if ever, do you bet on the money line as opposed to betting on the spread? is there ever more value in the money line? what is the typical money line for a 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10 point spread?

Don't you think a lot of money is pouring in on the Jets already?? And the line still hasn't moved. Hmmm...





It is good, because it means the books are taking a hard line with JoeBlowPublic. Money is pouring in on the Jets, and the books probably like Miami catching a field-goal at home. Miami was already a super-unpopular home dog, meaning there is probably value in taking Miami, especially since they really weren't as bad as their record suggested last year. There is a strong tendency for teams that have terrible records one year to exceed expectations the next. The same concept applies in reverse.

This is all subject to lots of change, especially since we're a looong ways away from the start of the regular season. As for your second question:


Assuming no juice, I would expect to see the following approximate money lines for the above favorites.

1pt: -105

2.5pts: -120
3pts: -150
3.5pts: -180


6.5: -250
7.0: -290
7.5: -330

10.0: -475


These could be way off, and of course ever situation is different, but I'd imagine these would be serviceable for your purposes. Notice how costly it is to buy/sell half-points around the big numbers, for obvious reasons.

So a couple questions.. what detirmes if you take the money line vs the points? are there ever circumstances where there's a large difference between the money line and the point spread?

If I'm playing a game for a double (or triple or something), I might play the moneyline, too, to save myself some money or some stress.

For example, I really liked Lithuania +2 vs. Argentina in Olympic basketball. It was a double, one unit Lithuania +2 -104 (wagering 1.04 units to win 1.00 units), one unit Lithuania to win +125 (wagering .80 units to win 1.00 units). If Argentina wins by 9 or something, I saved myself a little money. Of course, I would have blown a gasket if Argentina had won by a point or two.

Luckily Lithuania won, so it didn't matter. I ended up winning 2x, and would have no matter what method I'd used to get both units down. I'm almost always betting TO WIN x # of units (instead of risking x # of units). Honestly, it probably works out the same no matter which way I get it down in the long-run.

If I'm backing a favorite and I don't want to deal with the stress of sweating a cover in a close game, I might just lay the chalk and play the money line. A lot of it is just my personal preference, based on my mood and current risk preference.

I dont know how much the money is pouring we are still a few weeks away...i think more money might come in after this preseason game. Regardless of how good of qb farve it there is no way he will pick up the entire offense and the timing down in 3 weeks. I dont know if ill play this game, but most likely that week my degenerate gamblingitis will take over and ill prob just bet it...lol

So I got into an argument with a fellow sports bettor today. He's a smart guy, and I ran my basic contrarian methodology by him:

Wang says: "The books know the true odds of an outcome, and are profit maximizers who will take risks if it means increased profitability. They will knowingly put themselves in jeopardy if they know it will increase their equity."

He says: "I disagree. I think the books are totally risk-averse, and are simply going for split action. In almost all cases, they'll put out numbers that guarantee them as close to even action as they can get. Sometimes this is impossible, since sharps would capitalize too quickly in many cases, but most of the time, the book is just trying to balance action out."

I responded, and said even if he is right -- if books are chiefly concerned with getting split action -- my methodology is still just as profitable.

What was my argument? Can anybody fill in my response? Who do I not care whether the books are trying to get split action?

Even if the bookies are completely risk averse, they still hold what we will call (for argument's sake) "perfect knowledge" of the true odds, as well as a very accurate perception of the public opinion. So even if they are looking to split the action exactly evenly, they will move the line from the true odds to gain action on the opposite side of the public. In doing so, the create a more favorable line opposite the public, making it profitable to bet against what was the original majority.

Any of this make sense?

Exactly right.

Read the whole thread, I know nothing about sportsbetting. Very interesting. A couple questions (answer and ignore whatever you want, obv), how long have you been sportsbetting? What is the smallest a "unit" can be? What is your unit size? Is this a profession for you? What is "laying chalk"?

Very cool thread and I've enjoyed the read.

You're not subtle at all are you?