[Stifler]

danshan11is absolutely right. If you wanna win longrun you have to beat the closing line, as this is the sharpest line out there (again in the longrun). There are ofc single games where even the closer/market is pretty off. If your looking at any handicapper gurus and wannabees out there providing some impressive roi stats or winning units that doesnt mean a shit. If you really wanna know if those guys are winners check their performance on the closing line. If they beat the closer they are winners (beating the closing line more than the bookie margin ofc), even if their record is showing -units or negative roi. On the other hand if someone is showing good numbers and is not beating the closing line - he is a loser. This is straight fact!

The thing the graph of Gaze is not including is variance. And let me tell you, variance can be a bitch. You can be down on 500 plays but still be a winner in the longrun by beating the closing line. You could also be up after 500 plays, but a loser in the long haul.

Itīs simple as that, if anyone is not understanding this, he should quit sports betting immediately, cause you basically dont know shit about what you are doing.

[danshan11]

remember the tout's job is to make this seem as easy as can be and of course its easy to believe that because that is 90% of what we see, the real winners are hiding in a closet hoping no one knows about them or their betting model but in reality winning long term is a grind that requires hours and hours of work everyday and that is for a very respectable 1% or 2% edge. Anyone winning at 10-20% is just having a good roll of it (variance) nothing more and long term it wont hold up.

[Bsims]

Guys, time to give this crap a rest. No one is learning anything.

[danshan11]

I am wanting to learn as much as I can, please ask me questions or question anything I say please

[danshan11]

Please @Bsims dude if there is any topic we can discuss please post it up, I love to chat about sports betting, I am very passionate about it

[tsty]

bsims just upset that systems are fake and dont work

[danshan11]

bsims just upset that systems are fake and dont work

he probably really like me, I am like the betting myth buster, my friends hate me they say what do you think on the Broncos game and I am like I got -5, they are like will they cover, I dont know if they will cover but I got -5 and they are like how can you bet all day every day and not know if they will win. they dont understand no one knows who will win all I know is line value and the implied probability, LOL

[Gaze73]

So if there is a guy with 20000 bets, winning 11000 at even odds closing lines, you guys will still call him a lucker with no edge, because there's no way to win 55% at even odds long term, is that right? The coin just happened to flip 1000 times more in his favor, the odds of which are more than astronomical. Hitting 52% with 10400 wins would be 1 in 1.58 billion based on luck alone. If you can't hit 52% you're square.

[danshan11]

20000 bets is a ton and I think if someone can hit 55% over 20000 bets I would assume 2 things, he is beating the line consistently and also that he is more than likely skilled at betting BUT there is a still a possibility that is deviation. I do not think that there is enough margin to win consistently at 60%-70% so NO I dont think someone can long term win at a high%. The % you win at does not in any way determine if you are a square, nerf or sharp.
Also consider 20000 bets is a lot of games and in most instances is probably not truly a sample size, many factors change by the time you bet on 20000 "like" bets, so its possible those bets are not like or you are combining a few different samples into one.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

20000 bets is a ton and I think if someone can hit 55% over 20000 bets I would assume 2 things, he is beating the line consistently and also that he is more than likely skilled at betting BUT there is a still a possibility that is deviation.

So unlikely it's basically impossible. 99.9% confidence interval 53.8% to 56.2%, 99.99999% of 53.1% to 56.9%.

[danshan11]

So unlikely it's basically impossible. 99.9% confidence interval 53.8% to 56.2%, 99.99999% of 53.1% to 56.9%.

I dont understand can you clarify?

[semibluff]

So if there is a guy with 20000 bets, winning 11000 at even odds closing lines, you guys will still call him a lucker with no edge, because there's no way to win 55% at even odds long term, is that right? The coin just happened to flip 1000 times more in his favor, the odds of which are more than astronomical. Hitting 52% with 10400 wins would be 1 in 1.58 billion based on luck alone. If you can't hit 52% you're square.

Let me try to explain this impartially and in a non-confrontational way. If you bet 10000 coin flips you are going to win almost exactly 50%. If you are winning more than 50% you are lucky. If you are winning less than 50% you are unlucky. For you to win 55% of coin flips long-term would be off-the-charts lucky. Fortunately this is not what you are trying to do. It is possible to get a ROI of 10% but for you to achieve this you need to find books offering odds that average out at +120 on your coin flips. Thus you lose 5000 out of 10000 but the 5000 that win give you a return of 11000. Since books normal offer -110 or -105 about a coin flip you are looking for books to be misjudging the true situation by a considerable margin. This does happen but you will be betting on a very low volume of events and those events will likely have low betting limits. Good luck with your bets.

[snapperman2]

You know why I lost my bankroll? Because while I was creating my systems and collecting statistically significant data for the past few years (on horses mostly), I wasted my money on "professional" services and each and every one of them turned out to be a money burner. They lure you in with the next big thing that has the best record you've ever seen but after you sign up you're lucky if it breaks even. And when you're like "I'm going to be disciplined and follow every pick with the same stake even through a losing run" the losing run just never ends. There's nothing better than winning with your own picks because you know the exact reason why you picked them and how they should perform. I spent at least 1000 hours in the past 3 months researching soccer, you think I haven't noticed how stupid the market is by now?

Gaze, it's really unlikely that you have found the holy grail of sports betting when no one else has. Most likely you have fooled yourself with data mining and short-term variance. I've made the same mistakes myself, so I empathize with you. Do yourself a big favour and just place paper bets (meaning don't bet any real money) on your systems until you are sure that they work, and see whether your picks beat the closing line.

[danshan11]

great explanation but the problem is not that he does not understand that, the problem is he thinks that +100 sports bets are actually not +100 that is a "stupid" number put out by idiots and bet by even dumber people. He thinks if its +150 they really dont have a 40% chance of winning minus margin, he thinks they are wrong bookmakers and he has a 75% chance to win that game because of his spreadsheet or because one obscure game at +150 won twice in a row.

[snapperman2]

So unlikely it's basically impossible. 99.9% confidence interval 53.8% to 56.2%, 99.99999% of 53.1% to 56.9%.

I think this means that if a person wins 55% of 20000 bets, there is a 99.9% chance that their true winning % is between 53.8% and 56.2%, and a 99.99999% chance that it is between 53.1% and 56.9%.

[danshan11]

I think this means that if a person wins 55% of 20000 bets, there is a 99.9% chance that their true winning % is between 53.8% and 56.2%, and a 99.99999% chance that it is between 53.1% and 56.9%.

great but I dont understand that at all or its relevance but anyway, poor gaze I wish he would just listen to my example for ten games and it would save him a life of torture

[danshan11]

even the guy who I think is the smartest man in the business agrees with me and I attached his article discussing it

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It&#39;s reasonable enough. As he says, sample size is too small but the point he&#39;s making is valid. In this article for <a href="https://twitter.com/PinnacleSports?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Pin nacleSports</a> I hit on a similar percentage figure for needing to beat the closing line to show anything that might pass as skill: <a href="https://t.co/HfMAuABbb5">https://t.co/HfMAuABbb5</a></p>&mdash; Joseph Buchdahl (@12Xpert) <a href="https://twitter.com/12Xpert/status/1027582810289262592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" >August 9, 2018</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[danshan11]

sorry it did not stick I guess

here is the link

[danshan11]

https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-...U2RWVK4HCW76XU

[danshan11]

LOL, I have taken over the THink Tank, I am on every single thread, LMAO

[tsty]

Just ask yourself a simple question

If you can get 10% edge on closing lines in efficient markets then what about all the people pushing the line towards that direction? They are all losers?

Every syndicate in the world would go broke in a few weeks if that was the case

What happens when they go broke then? Who is moving the line then? is the line being pushed in the wrong direction all the time?

[Gaze73]

Just because a line moves doesn't mean it's sharp money pushing it, just thousands of sheep making sucker bets.
Anyway I have to optimize my capping because yesterday I bet on the 3 biggest dog winners in Europa league: Dudelange +1458, won 1:2, Minsk +521, won 4:0 and Trencin +285 won 4:0. But because I played it safe with handicaps (+1.5, +0.5, +0.5) I barely broke even because the other dogs couldn't even cover.

This happens all the time and I have to look closer at which dogs win straight up. 2 days ago in the Korean cup I got a +800 and +500 winner out of 6 games but again wasted a lot of value on the spreads, and in the only game that ended in a draw I had +1.5. It's partly a fault of Pinnacle, they don't even offer AH +0 or +0.5 on the bigger dogs because they fear sharps like me would crush them.

That's also why they put most of the juice on the dog ML. They don't care if a fav is -200 or -215, the losers who back it will lose all money anyway. But they care if the dog payout is +400 or +450 because they know the sharps would be all over that price.

Anyway what happened to the "lowest margins in the world" of Pinnacle? If they have to put 4.5% juice on an UEFA game's standard spread and 10% on the dog ML then they aren't that sharp after all. That's why the "favorite-lonsghot" bias is utter horseshit, it's not that dogs win less than the price suggests, it's just that bookies put massive juice on the dogs. A 100/1 dog becomes 40/1 just because of juice.

[Bsims]

I am wanting to learn as much as I can, please ask me questions or question anything I say please

Can you provide a link to historic Pinnacle lines that can be downloaded?

[danshan11]

Can you provide a link to historic Pinnacle lines that can be downloaded?

I dont have that I scrape via excel oddsportal lines and I scrape SDB with google sheets

[Bsims]

I dont have that I scrape via excel oddsportal lines and I scrape SDB with google sheets

I looked at oddsportal for a couple of Thursday's games. I compared the last odds from there with the ones on SBR's odds pages. I looked at Pinnacle and 5Dimes. The books had different closing values as expected. But the two sites had different values for the same game and book. Their line histories also varied quite a bit.

My conclusion is that the sites sample the books at different rates and times and neither has the actual closing values. But I suppose they are close enough.

[danshan11]

they are not perfect for sure, I notice obvious discrepencies often but not enough to be concerned with