Degenerate Gambling

[mrdannyg 274]

LAA +325 for tonight.

 

Ill do a better write up on the bets and record keeping tomorrow!

[mrdannyg 274]

In Serge's preferred (silly) format just for today.

 

Lad +215

Col +275

Nyy +175

Mil +310

Sf +240

[serge 904]

Thanks Danny..

 

I believe Dannys picks went 0-4..This is where you have to stay the course..The next day he will make a killing, and you get pissed off and dont bet it..Bet them all

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Thanks Danny..

 

I believe Dannys picks went 0-4..This is where you have to stay the course..The next day he will make a killing, and you get pissed off and dont bet it..Bet them all

 

He actually went 0-5, and yup, this is exactly where I always screw up. Actually, he'll go o'fer today and tomorrow, Ill give up, and he'kll go nuts on Thursday.

 

Danny, are you just betting straight up, or are you still parlaying them too? For some reason I recall you used to parlay them too?

[serge 904]

He actually went 0-5, and yup, this is exactly where I always screw up. Actually, he'll go o'fer today and tomorrow, Ill give up, and he'kll go nuts on Thursday.

 

Danny, are you just betting straight up, or are you still parlaying them too? For some reason I recall you used to parlay them too?

 

his volume of bets he used to do, I would assume no one would match..He would parlay all these tennis results with all these baseball games..

 

Also when he bets a game, he will bet it -2.5,-3.5,-4.5...THen parlay all of them..On a good night, he can make superb cashout..But if you pick and choose his picks, you will get frustrated and curse him all night...

 

I am a believer though..

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

I'm not crazy about betting that way. I still dont think I understand how a 5% variance between bet365+other site will really pay off, and why we have decided the other site is wrong. Especially on something so volatile as a alternative run line. (sorry to question Danny, just saying I dont understand)

 

I much prefer picking the spots with baseball, since I feel like I know my AL pitching, and can find some good lines.

Last night Seattle over Laa was a good win for me.

But at the end of the day, I find it hard to believe I will ever really "win" long term with sports gambling. More for enjoyment than anything else.

[serge 904]

I'm not crazy about betting that way. I still dont think I understand how a 5% variance between bet365+other site will really pay off, and why we have decided the other site is wrong. Especially on something so volatile as a alternative run line. (sorry to question Danny, just saying I dont understand)

 

I much prefer picking the spots with baseball, since I feel like I know my AL pitching, and can find some good lines.

Last night Seattle over Laa was a good win for me.

But at the end of the day, I find it hard to believe I will ever really "win" long term with sports gambling. More for enjoyment than anything else.

 

I am with you on this one..I prefer Brian's picks as he analyzes the games and looks for LIVE DOGS...I dont have stats but i would guess -2.5 run lines come in at a very small win rate...If we bet favourites JUST TO WIN, every single game, we technically would be down the juice and lose money..Let along the 2.5 run line..

 

I like Danny to adress your question as to why he feels there is an edge ....Danny is very smart when it comes to this, and I trust his studies..I am just trying to learn as well...

 

Sports betting is tough but Brian's numbers are good...He is an overall winner..

[mrdannyg 274]

Going to try to track this through here for the year. All bets will be similar, as people who followed the FCHL bets last year know.

 

First one of the year:

LAD -2.5 +290. Should be more like +275 or less for break-even so there's a decent bit of equity there - I estimate 8%.

 

0-1, -0.345

 

March 31st picks

WAS 2.90

ATL 3.50

STL 3.40

OAK 3.75

 

Ill have more details on how this works tomorrow when I'm back at a computer.

 

LAA +325 for tonight.

 

Ill do a better write up on the bets and record keeping tomorrow!

 

Today: 0-5, -2.014

YTD: 0-6, -2.359

 

He actually went 0-5, and yup, this is exactly where I always screw up. Actually, he'll go o'fer today and tomorrow, Ill give up, and he'kll go nuts on Thursday.

 

Danny, are you just betting straight up, or are you still parlaying them too? For some reason I recall you used to parlay them too?

 

To be clear, I'm not currently betting anything. For personal reasons, I've been taking a break from 'real' betting since December, but I'm still interested in it for academic reasons, hence the posts. Last year, I'd bet them for equal 'to win' units - same as here. So if a game is +200, I'd bet 0.5 units to win 1. If it is +325, I'm betting 0.3077 units to win 1 unit. I'd also bet some parlay wheels, tennis/baseball parlays, etc, but that was all just to increase my overall betting, since bet365 reduced my limits very severely and I wanted to get more down than the stand-alone betting limits would allow. There was no other benefits to the parlays - they only increased variance, which is not something I wanted.

 

As Serge said, I'd typically also bet 'strong' games at -3.5, -4.5 and -5.5. I think those bets are actually better than the -2.5 bets, but since Pinnacle doesn't spread them pre-game, I don't have the hard evidence for it. Those required a fair amount more time and caused a ton more variance. Since I'm trying to keep this exercise quick and simple this year, I'm ignoring those altogether.

 

For the purpose of this exercise, I will only be using straight alternate run line bets. For the vast majority of cases, and unless stated otherwise, this means the favourite -2.5. Occasionally, it might mean the underdog -1.5, if those start being spread again on a regular basis. No parlays, no tennis, no multiple units on games, ever. At most, I will be posting bets twice per day, depending on bet365's timing. It's possible I only end up posting once per day, likely earlyish in the morning. Again, there's real benefit to following the odds through the day, as they may improve, and in the past, I might end up with a ton of plays on one team. This is to be a simple exercise though, so I'm cutting out all the noise.

 

his volume of bets he used to do, I would assume no one would match..He would parlay all these tennis results with all these baseball games..

 

Also when he bets a game, he will bet it -2.5,-3.5,-4.5...THen parlay all of them..On a good night, he can make superb cashout..But if you pick and choose his picks, you will get frustrated and curse him all night...

 

I am a believer though..

I'm not crazy about betting that way. I still dont think I understand how a 5% variance between bet365+other site will really pay off, and why we have decided the other site is wrong. Especially on something so volatile as a alternative run line. (sorry to question Danny, just saying I dont understand)

 

I much prefer picking the spots with baseball, since I feel like I know my AL pitching, and can find some good lines.

Last night Seattle over Laa was a good win for me.

But at the end of the day, I find it hard to believe I will ever really "win" long term with sports gambling. More for enjoyment than anything else.

 

This exercise is trying to prove something, I'm not arguing it's already true. In fact, there's a fair logical basis, and an evidence-based one too (more on that), that my initial premise is not nearly as strong as I hoped. We know that bet365 regularly gives higher odds on alternate run lines than other sites. Pinnacle is the best way to 'check' this as they are widely considered to have the most precise odds in the industry. Initially, I reviewed other sites regularly as well, but I found the instances where anyone offered a better line than Pinny to be extremely rare. This may well have causation issues, as other sites may purposely keep their odds below Pinny and/or other people might bet those lines quickly, thereby bringing them down. Hypothetically, with their high betting limits, Pinnacle lines should represent the collective intelligence of a lot of smart people, and be the best estimate of 'true' lines.

 

Therefore, if 365's lines are higher, than there should be benefit there. Pinnacle's lines include some juice, so when I'm deciding on a bet, I make sure 365's lines are enough higher than Pinny's to overcome the juice. Juice varies by sport and type of line, but in general you need the line to be about 10 cents better in tennis for lines in the -150 to +150 range, and closer to 20 cents for ARL lines in the +175 to +325 range. So hypothetically, if Pinny says the correct line is +200 for Atlanta -2.5 and bet365 is offering that at +240, we're basically betting that the combined intelligence of a lot of people are more accurate than the linemakers at 365.

 

I didn't do it scientifically enough last year, but based on a reasonable volume of bets, my guess is that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. After accounting for juice, I only bet situations with at least 2% equity (3% later in the year). In many cases, it was 10%+. Overall, my expected win rate, if Pinnacle's lines and my method were perfect, would've been around 4%. In reality, I estimate it was closer to 1%. Which means that Pinnacle's lines were likely understated, but that bet365's still allowed room for long-term wins. This seems to make sense - when we see a team paying above +200 on the moneyline, most of us expect that the line is probably a little low, since so few people are going to bet the moneyline favourite at -200 or more.

 

To do this properly scientifically, I'd need to record a variety of factors to determine patterns and estimated equity. I don't have time for that. So while I'm keeping it simple, it's very possible that my results 'hide' something. So maybe I find that using a minimum 3% calculated equity yields a 1% win rate...but that doesn't mean it will be true for all matches. Maybe certain times, certain teams (popular teams, for example), or types of games (where the teams are equal, or there is a big favourite) are significantly more positive or negative than the group. It seems likely that there are some of this type of pattern, and that you could reduce volume while improving your win rate with more accurate measurement. Again, I don't have time for that, and it seems unlikely that someone with no particular industry or mathematical expertise could find any significant pattern.

 

Anyway, I'm doing this because betting, gambling and markets interests me. If I ever decide to bet again down the road, I'd also like to have a test group, and building a sample size is key to that. I might do this and win or lose this year, and it won't mean everything. But it can give me an idea, and if I ever decide to do anything with it, maybe having a few years of information can be useful.

 

Like Arp, I'm pessimistic how anyone can really 'beat' betting in the long-term. But my bet365 strategy isn't so much a betting strategy as a corporate one. I'm betting tennis and baseball, but it could be Jai Alai or Darts or Corn Futures for all I care. It's just arbitrage. And as in most arbitrage situations, it requires an unprovable assumption about a certain base price. So an exercise like this is my attempt to "prove" (get the best estimate) of the real market price. There are probably people out there, like Brian, who avoid the million pitfalls and are actually successful long-term betters. But there are so many problems with those assumptions (even if you trust them to be honest, etc, there's the issue of whether their strategy will work in the future as well as it did in the past, and why they'd choose to share it with you, considering betting should hypothetically be scaleable) that, to me, taking betting advice for anything other than entertainment purposes, isn't worthwhile. But if you're looking to bet $1/$10/$100 a game for fun, and want to lose less than me or you would picking with out brains/hearts, someone like Brian is a smart way to do it. For academic reasons, what I'd like to find is something that is more scaleable, more copyable (for others), and since it is something I could teach someone else in 45 seconds, you avoid most of the issues with "selling picks" since there's really no benefit to me if you learn, other than feeling good about helping someone.

 

That was a long post. Try to act surprised.

[serge 904]

I like this post a lot..Thanks Danny..I am very interested in markets in general and statistics...I am going to bet all your picks, for a very small amount..Ill be using $1 units..I am not a heavy bettor at all...Typically a $20 bet for me is considered a large one...Its fun to read about what goes behind your picks and how it all works for you.

[serge 904]

I understand you have your reasons not to bet for real money, but you are putting in all the work, why not just bet .20 units? I understand your units must be quite significant if they put a limit on your bets.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Thanks for the writeup Dan, like Serge, I too have a keen interest in this beyond just the sports angle.

 

I decided to lower my bet amounts to like $3-$5 per game, in an attempt to have it equal the same win for all. ($10)

I took all of yours, plus I added one of mine, TB +220. I also took TB -4.5 on a whim, because I really like Cobb this year as an SP and Im not as sure about Hutchinson. I dont like TB to score that much, but lets see if TO goes another day of no offense.

[mrdannyg 274]

I like this post a lot..Thanks Danny..I am very interested in markets in general and statistics...I am going to bet all your picks, for a very small amount..Ill be using $1 units..I am not a heavy bettor at all...Typically a $20 bet for me is considered a large one...Its fun to read about what goes behind your picks and how it all works for you.

I understand you have your reasons not to bet for real money, but you are putting in all the work, why not just bet .20 units? I understand your units must be quite significant if they put a limit on your bets.

 

Glad you like it. As I said, it's academic only for me, and at this point should be used for entertainment purposes. I have a lot more confidence in my tennis picks, but those are so much more difficult to follow/track in any useful way.

 

They put a limit on my bets when I was doing a true arbitrate strategy, way back in 2012. That is, when I saw a bet at -115 on Pinny and +125 on 365, I'd hit it for the max. For many reasons, that didn't last long, and I don't recommend it at all (though it worked out fine for me, luckily). Once I started betting 'one-way' (i.e. picking the side I liked best and only betting that), they dropped my limits again, but I was already on their radar. If I'd only been betting $20 or even $100 at that time, I don't know if they ever would've noticed/cared. You'd laugh if you knew how much my actual limits are now - I was only able to get good money on things by hitting moving lines last year, and even then, individual bets were quite small.

 

I found it hard last year to 'stay away' once I got involved. And while I was winning the whole time, I didn't like the distraction. When I'm playing with my son, or trying to be nice to my pregnant wife (and in a few months, looking after a crying infant!), I don't want to have to wonder whether any small piece of me wants to check the odds one more time, or see if a new tennis match is up, etc. It's easier to just not have any money on there at all. Same reason I'm only posting baseball odds once or maybe twice a day (on the morning bus, and maybe at lunch).

[mrdannyg 274]

Thanks for the writeup Dan, like Serge, I too have a keen interest in this beyond just the sports angle.

 

I decided to lower my bet amounts to like $3-$5 per game, in an attempt to have it equal the same win for all. ($10)

I took all of yours, plus I added one of mine, TB +220. I also took TB -4.5 on a whim, because I really like Cobb this year as an SP and Im not as sure about Hutchinson. I dont like TB to score that much, but lets see if TO goes another day of no offense.

 

If I was betting for real, I'd probably just always bet $3 or $5 or whatever on everything. Too annoying to bet $3.07 or whatever. For academic reasons, it provides a better test of accuracy and long-term results, but it's not particularly realistic. When I was doing it last year, I'd just 'bet max" so it'd calculate it for me (and to be clear, when you hit bet max and get hundreds of dollars, that's now how much I was betting obviously!!)

 

For what it's worth, anecdotally only, I found that -4.5 was usually the worst of those options. -3.5 or -5.5 (the best) were typically better, though it's a small difference obviously.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

 

 

For what it's worth, anecdotally only, I found that -4.5 was usually the worst of those options. -3.5 or -5.5 (the best) were typically better, though it's a small difference obviously.

 

You mean worst option because of the odds, right?

I found it interesting that there was a pretty big jump from -3.5 to -4.5....so I bit on the bait. I cant see Tampa scoring another 6/6+ runs....Im gonna say this is like a 5-2 game, maybe even 4-1/4-0 if the bullpen doesnt mess it up.

[serge 904]

You mean worst option because of the odds, right?

I found it interesting that there was a pretty big jump from -3.5 to -4.5....so I bit on the bait. I cant see Tampa scoring another 6/6+ runs....Im gonna say this is like a 5-2 game, maybe even 4-1/4-0 if the bullpen doesnt mess it up.

 

word of advice if you bet these games try not watching them, you will go nuts...Team is up by 2 runs you bet to win at -3.5 and -4.5...Its the bottom of the eight and they load teh bases..then they score ZERO..it happens so much to put you on tilt

[mrdannyg 274]

You mean worst option because of the odds, right?

I found it interesting that there was a pretty big jump from -3.5 to -4.5....so I bit on the bait. I cant see Tampa scoring another 6/6+ runs....Im gonna say this is like a 5-2 game, maybe even 4-1/4-0 if the bullpen doesnt mess it up.

 

Yeah, that's all I mean - odds relative to likelihood. It's funny though - you might see two games with an over/under of 9, and the -2.5 line is the same at +300. But the -3.5 line might be anywhere from +475 to +525. I found the -3.5 lines especially used to drift down later in the day. From the little historical information I could gather (not nearly enough to make a real decision), the jump from -4.5 to -5.5 was easily worth it.

[serge 904]

In Serge's preferred (silly) format just for today.

 

Lad +215

Col +275

Nyy +175

Mil +310

Sf +240

 

I made 20 $1 bets all bets at -2.5,-3.5,-4.5, -5.5

[serge 904]

if just one of the games wins by -5.5 we are up nice...

[mrdannyg 274]

if just one of the games wins by -5.5 we are up nice...

 

Heh, yep. Seemed like 13 days in a row I'd lose, then get it all back and then some once every two weeks.

[mrdannyg 274]

if just one of the games wins by -5.5 we are up nice...

 

Heh, yep. Seemed like 13 days in a row I'd lose, then get it all back and then some once every two weeks.

[mrdannyg 274]

Adds:

 

Tb +220

Oak +290

LAA +220

[mrdannyg 274]

YTD: 0-6, -2.359

 

In Serge's preferred (silly) format just for today.

 

Lad +215 L

Col +275 L

Nyy +175 L

Mil +310 L

Sf +240 L

 

Adds:

 

Tb +220 L

Oak +290 PPD

LAA +220 L

 

Today: 0-7, -3.049

YTD: 0-13, -5.408

 

Obviously not the start I wanted, but not absurd either. Anecdotally, 'feels' like I actually ended up at a small loss on -2.5 plays only last year, with the overall winning total gained by winning the -3.5/4.5/5.5 plays and/or doubling up on better plays. Regardless, I'm going to keep at it like this for a while, even if it is going badly, because that will give me a lot of information.

 

Today's picks are a little late, and I think because of that, are a little tight equity-wise. If I was sticking to only 5% plays, I think I'd only have LAA and LAD, so I'm not really recommending any of the other ones.

 

DET +195

CWS +250

MIA +335

STL +240

TB +220

WAS +220

TEX +195

LAA +260

LAD +290

[mrdannyg 274]

double post

[mrdannyg 274]

Yesterday's results: 2-7, -0.98

YTD: 2-20, -6.388

 

April 3:

Col +260

Was +215

Bal +290

Nyy +200

Oak +285

[gruven 530]

Some friends looking at an offshoot of Martingale theory on baseball, based on series sweeps. The idea is that the best teams in baseball get swept less than 5 times per season. The theory is bet game one of the series: if the team loses, then martingale (essentially double the bet) for game two. The plan is to quit each series when you get a win, putting you up one unit for the series. I've been working on the rough math, and as close as I can figure it without taking off my shoes and socks, there's a very slight edge in doing it, as long as variance doesn't rear it's ugly head and a very good team loses 7 series in a year.

Thoughts?