Sports Gambling 201

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

LOL @ me indeed.They were all but impossible to get up to a month or so ago, and all the ones floating around out there were PWP. Either things have changed and a non PWP copy has finally gotten out and replicated, or you just got stupid lucky and found one that wasn't as a result of chance.When I mentioned I had one on another forum (investing) I think I got 50 IMs in the space of an hour begging for a copy- about 1/2 from people who were otherwise tech savvy and knew how torrents worked. I know my own searches for it from 2007 onward all led to PWP copies.Anyway, lets not derail an otherwise big-time post.

Well again, I got mine from Demoniod, which is a private p2p torrent community, and not a public one, so it's possible they just have a non-pw protected copy because the whole community is pw protected, in a sense. At any rate, it seems like a fascinating book from just skimming over it.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Basicaly, though all the top 4 clubs (Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal) are pretty much the top 4 clubs because they have the biggest spending power. In American odds, are the team that is -110 the favourite? And also, how do you work out the overall vigourish taken by the bookmaker on a certain 2-team bet? I'm quite interested in sports betting, but as an English man who doesn't entirely understand odds yet it's a tad confusing

Yes. In Vegas, for example, a basketball line might open:Boston Celtics -5.5 -110Detroit Pistons +5.5 -110That means the Celtics have to win by 6 to cash, and the Pistons have to lose by less than 6 to cash. The numbers to the right (-110 for each) is the vig you're paying. You're laying 110 to win 100, which is the vigorish. If you bet the 110, and win exactly 50% of the time, your equity is .5(100)-.5(110) = -5 on a bet that wins you $100, or a little more than 5% (which is standard bookie vigorish). If the books get balanced action, they'll make 5% of the total money wagered.In soccer, since you're usually playing the moneyline (like I do with baseball) it would look like:Turkey +180Germany -220(Ties are a push)If you take Turkey, you bet 100 to win 180. To take the Germans, you'd be laying 220 to win 100. The vigorish here comes from the fact that the Germans win the game almost exactly 2/3 of the time, meaning BOTH bets have negative equity. Take the favorite for example. You bet 220 to win 100. Your equity is 2/3 (100) - 1/3 (220) = -$6.67The goal for a player is to find numbers that are as close together as possible. When I place my baseball bets, the lines usually look like, WORST case scenario:New York -201Boston +199And then I pay a 1% commission on all wins. Assuming New York wins exactly 2/3 of the time, my equity on New York is: 2/3 (100) - 1/3 (201) = -1/3. That's minus THIRTY-THREE CENTS if I take the Yankees, assuming my haphazard math is correct. Subtract my commission (1% of 100 2/3 times) of $.67, and my true equity if the price is perfect is negative $1 on a wager that wins me $100, or about 1%.This has somehow turned into a lecture on the importance of reduced vig, which is not the question. The vigorish is easy to figure, as I've shown above. What am I talking about now? Any more questions?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Is matchbook the only place you wager?

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Is matchbook the only place you wager?

No. I try to stay posted up on as many sites as I possibly can, since you never know what opportunities are going to show up, or when Matchbook's server is going to crash. Matchbook gets 95% of my action, but their futures markets aren't liquid enough to serve my purposes, and their golf markets are almost non-existant. I keep money on Olympic and, Bodog (some of their more obscure props have value, and their alternate golf matchups can tickle my fancy, but that's about it), and I'm trying to get posted up on Carib and 5DimesAll the Euros here can just use Pinny.WangEDIT- I also forgot to mention that I like to line-shop, just to be safe. You never know which shop is going to randomly have a line that's ten-cents better than what's being offered on MB.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I lost a bet on the All-Star game last night, and as payment I will be unable to use the internet in my own home until Monday, starting tomorrow at 9AM. This is going to be torture considering how much of my bankroll is currently floating around at the British Open... Anyway, all I'm trying to say is, if anyone asks a question and I do not answer, it is only because the library is closed, or my friends are torturing me by not allowing me to use their wireless signal.

[lvpro 0]

I love this thread.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I love this thread.

Thank you. I enjoy explaining my thoughts on the subject. It's fascinating to me.I'd like to mention one other thing. Value from sports betting comes primarily from the gap between perception and reality. I'll use baseball as an example. Say we have Team A playing Team B. Pitcher A is toeing the slab for Team A, and Pitcher B is starting for Team B. For simplicity's sake, let's assume they're playing at a neutral field (something that never happens in baseball). Team A is 6 games under .500, and Team B is is 6 games over. Pitcher A is 4-7 with an ERA of 4.6, and Pitcher B is 8-3 with an ERA of 3.15. Team B opens at -110. For the sake of simplicity, there will be no juice in this scenario, so Team A is +110. Well, the public sees this, better team with the better pitcher, only a -120 favorite? And, boy, do they go off. Team B gets 65% of the action. It certainly appears the price is a little short, but let's dig deeper. Team B has actually been outscored by their opponents this year; they've given up more runs than they've scored, but their record in 1-run games is 13-3. Team A has outscored their opponents by 49 runs this year, but their record in 1-run games is an abysmal 2-9. Let's look at the pitchers.Pitcher B's ERA is 3.15, but he's walking a lot of batters, and stranding 83% of the runners he allows to get on. His opponents' Batting Average on Balls in Play (the average not counting strikeouts and homeruns) is a staggeringly low .210. Pitcher A's ERA is 4.6, but his peripheral statistics look great. He's striking out almost 9 hitters/9 innings, and he has walked very few batters. Unfortunately, almost 40% of the runners he allows to reach base manage to score against him, and his opponents' BABIP is .342. As far as the pitchers are concerned, the things the pitcher can control -- strike outs, walks, etc. -- seem to favor Pitcher A. Batting Average Against for non HR and strikeouts is almost TOTALLY uncontrollable by a pitcher; anything way over about .290 is unlucky, and anything way under is lucky. It just means a few balls have dropped in, or snuck through a hole. By all accounts, Pitcher A is more likely to be successful in the future than Pitcher B, and he's just had some bad breaks. His ERA will regress to a lower mean, while Pitcher B's will balloon. Most of the players making a wager in this spot will see what they thing is "Better Team, Better Pitcher, Cheap Price" and hammer Team B. You, me, and the books, however, know differently. There's a huge gap between perception -- that Team B is more likely to win than Team A -- and reality -- that Team A has been unlucky so far this year, but is still the better team. The book uses these gaps to punish square players.Value comes from betting against a severely overvalued squad -- a team on a hot streak, or a team that has been played up in the media lately -- or backing a severely undervalued squad. Sometimes you'll be betting on THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE, because the public overreacts, and perceives that they are worse ("NO WAY THEY CAN WIN") than they really are ("THIS SUCKS. THE MARINERS ARE SO BAD, BUT EDDIE BONINE SHOULD NOT BE LAYING -180 TO ANYONE. GOD I HATE THIS TEAM."). So just because a team is BAD doesn't mean they can't be the best value on the board. And just because a team is GOOD doesn't mean you there is value in backing them. Always remember that you want to be backing teams that appear to be much worse than they really are, and fading teams playing over their heads. Sometimes, this is tough to do. In that case, I simply trust that the books would never put out a bad number that allows a bettor to have an overlay by taking a super-public side.

[Jadaki 0]

Thank you. I enjoy explaining my thoughts on the subject. It's fascinating to me.

Enjoyable read so far.I hope you get into some examples of lines you pick during the football season.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

Pre-spam for his soon to be constructed handicapping website, IMO.

[AmScray 355]

If he is indeed constructing such a website, contact me. I have brown people in far away places who do good website work for cheap. (forgot to email that MOS PDF. I'll definitely do it later this evening)

[Dirtydutch 8]

Awesome thread, Wang-Wang.

Oh where oh where will I ever find a book like this? I was going to PM Scram, but he's made that abundantly clear it's not an option. Fck, what's a nigga gonna do? oh wait..http://www.torrentz.com/bf5bb7bbe165596ff8...419df1e5a057771God damn, you're a drama queen.

I had located and completed the download (mine was a .doc on an open[/i] tracker) before I even scrolled down to this. The drama isn't what I find annoying here; it's the fact that he had no problem stealing the thing, but wouldn't give the three or so other people on here who would even care an email that he believed would save them days of searching or thousands of dollars. Is it the hassle or the morality? Because the morality seems like a hypocrisy, even if you believe in it, and as far as hassle, it would arguably be easier to Sharebee the ****ing thing for everyone. I'm enraged.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Awesome thread, Wang-Wang. I had located and completed the download (mine was a .doc on an open[/i] tracker) before I even scrolled down to this. The drama isn't what I find annoying here; it's the fact that he had no problem stealing the thing, but wouldn't give the three or so other people on here who would even care an email that he believed would save them days of searching or thousands of dollars. Is it the hassle or the morality? Because the morality seems like a hypocrisy, even if you believe in it, and as far as hassle, it would arguably be easier to Sharebee the ****ing thing for everyone. I'm enraged.

I think he considered it a "hassle" issue, since he got like 50 emails from another forum about it. BUt I also imagine that it wasn't so much a "moral" issue, as in stealing is wrong, as it was " Wang is giving me something of worth, and the rest of you are giving me fck all, so fck off" issue. And also he probably takes a little sadistic, childish joy in having something no one else has, or can have. Like when you were a kid and had a super expensive/rare pokemon or transformer or what ever, and were a cunt to your friends about playing with it.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Here's a parable from my youth that I feel will melt Scram's icy heart: when I was 17, I started hanging out with a friend of my friends, of whom I'd always heard stories, but had never met. He always sounded awesome, but quickly I realized he was kind of a dick. He always embarked on all kinds of stupid "handy" hippie projects, like building his own beanbag sofa or making bracelets for girls who didn't want to have sex with him. He would flip out if someone teased him about it, and would overreact and try to hurt them or make it way too personal, and pretty much was a turd about everything and had no sense of humor. One day, he came into my livingroom, where a few of us were playing Halo or something gay like that, raving about how he needed chainsaw to extract a prized piece of burrald wood from some place, so he can carve his own backgammon set. But he wouldn't tell us where. I refused to lend him my father's chainsaw, partially because I thought it was weird that he wouldn't tell us, but mostly because I didn't like him. He left, absolutely steaming.Later that day, our other friend, Paul, came to us, asking what exactly we had done, because he was talking about kicking my ass and telling my parents I did drugs and shit. We told him he was acting weird and wouldn't tell us where he was taking the saw, so I wouldn't give it to him. It turned out that he was convinced that because I didn't like him I was going to steal his wood if he told me where it was. We all laughed for a while. As it turned out, he had told Paul where it was, we assembled, extracted, and then poorly caved the wood into several terrible, mismatched, unrecognizable chess and backgammon sets, and threw the rest away. There's also a story about the actual extraction, but I'll save it for another time.The point is...the point is that I'm spiteful and I steal things. I'll be havin' them duckets.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Upload time: 7 seconds.http://sharebee.com/4bcd90e2(My outrage should not be interpreted as any type of problem with Scram. Scram remains my reigning favorite poster, probably.)

[Shimmering Wang 1]

No drama in gambling thread please. Actually, you know what? I don't even care. I actually like drama. I'm not picking sides, since I like all of you equally (untrue), but I will continue to passively encourage you. Anyway, Scram still has my gratitude. As far as the "handicapping website" idea, I will never, ever, ever fucking do that. I am not a tout, and I will never sell my picks. I have no respect for anybody that relies on short-term variance and has an incentive to pick super-public favorites over and over again so he has a better chance of going on a 12-2 that he can trump up. My bases record is under .500 for the year, and I'm up 25+ units, and that's just fine with me. I manage money for some of my friends, totally free of charge. Some of them are up over 40 units, and I haven't charged them a cent. Any of my friends can throw in with me on the conditions that they pay any fees involved with moving money in and out, they don't bitch and moan when I lose, they remain patient if I don't get all our action posted when I change directions on the fly, and they follow my strict bankroll rules. I've done well for them, and every single one of them has returned the favor in kind, even though it wasn't necessary. Anyway, I hate touts, and some of the "ideas" I am trying out for the British Open this year (with my own personal account, of course) are going terribly. If things end as they stand today, I'll be stuck at least 15 units. I'm scared to check. If I get out of this down 10x, it'll be a huge relief.Wang

[Dirtydutch 8]

No drama in gambling thread please.

Drama? None here, boss. Just bustin' chops (god, I love that expression).

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

What are the important stats when considering a wager on a baseball team? Meaning, what are the true stats that truly matter, and what are the false ones that the public loves that inflates lines and creates value?

[Shimmering Wang 1]

What are the important stats when considering a wager on a baseball team? Meaning, what are the true stats that truly matter, and what are the false ones that the public loves that inflates lines and creates value?

A list of relevant statistics, both those of perceived importance, and their counterparts of real importance.Wins/Losses vs. Baseball Prospectus Adjusted StandingsWins and losses are generally a good barometer of how good a team is, but in limited (sometimes as limited as a full season) sample sizes, the standings can play tricks, and lead the public to perceive a team to be significantly better than they are. The solution? BP Adjusted Standings. Very basically, they take the key numbers -- on base percentages, slugging, home runs, etc. -- and then normalize it to minimize the importance of luck, and then again adjust to reflect the quality of pitching/hitting a team has faced. (On the above page, the numbers on the far right -- W3 L3, or third order wins and losses -- are the most important, and context adjusted.) The Twins, for example, are 10 games above .500, but based on their performance so far this year, they're really a sub .500 quality baseball team. In this specific instance, it comes from their unsustainably high batting-average with runners in scoring position. Find a team whose record does not accurately reflect the quality of their on-field performance, and you've found a team the public will valuate poorly. A good example of this? The Angels. They're six games better than the A's in the standings, but the A's -- if not for bad luck and poor timing -- would be six games better than the Angels. I fade the Angels a lot, and back the A's. ERA vs. FIP (found easy in the stats database at fangraphs) [or DIPS or QERA, etc.]ERA is not as good a predictor of future performance as: K/9, BB/9, HR/9, GB/FG ratio. ERA's can be inflated by bad luck (if, say, the league is hitting .380 on groundballs against a certain pitcher), bad bullpens, bad ballparks, and bad timing. (If you want some background, here's a link to the wiki article on FIP/DIPS. Voros McCracken and Tom Tango are legends in the sabermetric community.) If a particular pitcher has a fantastic and sparkling ERA, but his FIP is unspectacular, you can bet he's due to regress to the mean, and will subsequently be overvalued by the wagering community. So: fade this shit out of his fat ass, especially if he plays for an egregiously overvalued squad that the public is in love with.On the other hand, you'll see some pitchers whose ERAs are atrocious, but are actually pitching pretty well, and can give you some real value going forwards. Understanding the very, very, very variable nature of wins/losses and runs is important. We don't care who WON, we care WHO SHOULD HAVE WON, all things being equal. Lucky for us, all things are never equal, so bad teams become public darlings, and good teams get lost in the shuffle. This is exploitable. The books are willing to trap the public for us, we just have to jump on the "OMG RU SERIOUS?!EIO" numbers when we see them.Wang

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I'd like to make a quick point. (<---- totally unnecessary introductory sentence)It is a fine line between searching for value using basic statistical metrics and using that data to evaluate the strength of side, and straight-up handicapping a game. We're not trying to discern on face which side is most likely to win, or what the REAL price should be; we're simply trying to determine whether the public's misperceptions are likely to drive a price up or down. Keep in mind, the book knows all this -- Adjusted Standings, Luck, FIP vs. ERA, etc. -- already. I operate under the assumption that the books could choose to never give the player any value, but instead, as profit optimizers, decide giving a good price on one side is more than offset by the equity they gain from giving an even worse price on the other. They will exploit public perception -- of pitchers, of overall team strength -- to make a greater profit than they could by setting a near-perfect price every time. I liken it to the notion of perfect, optimal poker play vs. exploitative play. Against another perfectly rational actor, I would play a flush draw one way, but against a less skillful player, I would play it a different way, that is itself exploitable. The public is exploitable, which means the books can maximize return by setting a line that differs significantly from the true line. If you see that all your data line up -- for example a lucky pitcher for an overperforming, large-market team on a legendary, media-referenced hot-streak, vs. an abysmally unlucky pitcher and his can't-catch-a-break, typically unpopular squad -- but the public is still all over the second team (unlikely), you should stay away. Because, now, you're effectively saying "I think the book is giving value to the public, here," and that runs contrary to the very nature of the book, and violates one of the principle tenants of Contrarianism. Sure, it's possible they made a mistake, but isn't it simply more likely they know something you don't? Sometimes you'll notice one side is getting lopsided action, but the pitcher for the other side has an ERA of 3.1, and a FIP of 4.6. Maybe the second team is also outperforming their pythagorean won/loss record (the number of games a team should win/lose based on runs scored and runs against) by 8 games, too. There still might be value on the second squad, because the public thinks they suck really bad anyway, and that team -- even though they've been lucky to be as good as they've been -- is still severely undervalued by the public. Wang

[leftygolfer 7]

Wang - always been a big fan. Excellent stuff here boys. Looking forward to your football analysis.One (contrarian?) thought on baseball. My brother and I were talking at lunch about 3 game series. We thought there would be some value in betting on the team in game 3 of a 3 game series that lost the first 2 games. The thinking being that most series go 2-1 or 1-2 as matchups, days off, travel catch up and in essence teams move back toward the mean.We of course got lazy and didn't follow through.

well, it turns out you need that pang of humiliation, because all I have is an non-passworded pdf file copy of the book. I did do my download from Demoniod, not the link I linked above, so it's possible the one I linked requires a password..To prove that I have the unpassworded, here's the table of contents...

That would be lefty@leftygolfer.com. Pleazkthnx.Oh and for you bookies, the Michael Konik book on NCAA basketball betting was a good read. I may have to go back through it.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

We of course got lazy and didn't follow through.That would be lefty@leftygolfer.com. Pleazkthnx.

IF you're asking for the MoS book, I believe Dutch provided a link for you to download it from..

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Wang - always been a big fan. Excellent stuff here boys. Looking forward to your football analysis.One (contrarian?) thought on baseball. My brother and I were talking at lunch about 3 game series. We thought there would be some value in betting on the team in game 3 of a 3 game series that lost the first 2 games. The thinking being that most series go 2-1 or 1-2 as matchups, days off, travel catch up and in essence teams move back toward the mean.We of course got lazy and didn't follow through.That would be lefty@leftygolfer.com. Pleazkthnx.Oh and for you bookies, the Michael Konik book on NCAA basketball betting was a good read. I may have to go back through it.

The idea that "most series end up being 2-1, so I should bet on a team that's lost the first two games of the series" is definitely flawed. There's no reason to believe that games 1 and 2 will somehow influence the outcome of game 3. That being said, if the Cubs embarrass the Pirates in games 1 and 2, the Pirates will probably have even more value in game 3 than usual. Or if the first two games of a series gave gone over the total by 6 and 7 runs respectively, there's going to be a lot of value in the under, especially if the books throw a super-low number out there, like 8.0. That's a dream spot for me. "I am 90% sure that the Cubs will score 8 runs by themselves. (shrug) I'll take under 8.0 for 2 units please."Does anyone want to take a shot at predicting what baseball sides I've got tonight, and why? I've got a super-full card, with 9 sides and 4 totals, so it should be pretty easy. Do some analysis, boys, and tell me what games have value, and why.Go.Wang

[bigkg 0]

The idea that "most series end up being 2-1, so I should bet on a team that's lost the first two games of the series" is definitely flawed. There's no reason to believe that games 1 and 2 will somehow influence the outcome of game 3. That being said, if the Cubs embarrass the Pirates in games 1 and 2, the Pirates will probably have even more value in game 3 than usual. Or if the first two games of a series gave gone over the total by 6 and 7 runs respectively, there's going to be a lot of value in the under, especially if the books throw a super-low number out there, like 8.0. That's a dream spot for me. "I am 90% sure that the Cubs will score 8 runs by themselves. (shrug) I'll take under 8.0 for 2 units please."Does anyone want to take a shot at predicting what baseball sides I've got tonight, and why? I've got a super-full card, with 9 sides and 4 totals, so it should be pretty easy. Do some analysis, boys, and tell me what games have value, and why.Go.Wang

I won't guess all of them but I'm positive you're taking KC over the White Sox.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I won't guess all of them but I'm positive you're taking KC over the White Sox.

Yup. KC has ****ed me in the ass all year long, so I particularly hate this play.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Boston +132 over the angels, and under the 7.5Boston has been the second most money bet on them, but the angels have had the most, and Lackey is highly reguarded. 7.5 seems like a really low number, so contrary thought would say under. Also, if they game is thought to be low scoring, I would think low scoring games favor the underdog. Cinnci +100 over the mets. The mets are getting pounded this year in wagering, they are hot, and they are going against a pitcher with an almost 6 era. And yet the game is almost even odds, so it seems like they are just screaming to take the mets. The mets are also on a 10 game winning streak. So take the redsBalt -126 over Detroit. I looked at the numbers, and there's more wagering going on the Detroit dog. From my limited experience, usually people bet hard on the favorite, not the dog. So that seems fishy to me, so I'll take the O's. Oakland +160 over the yankees. This seemed like a confusing line at first, as oakland doesn't seem like they should be that big of dog. Granted, mussina has a better record, but they have the same whip. But then, I figure I'll just chauk this up to "Yankee tax" Kansas City +140 over the White sox. Lots of money going down on the white sox in the last month, and KC is always ill regarded. Washington +199 over ATL and over 8. ATL tax. Betting is 2-1 on the under but the line has only moved .5 runs, so I take the over. Houston +102 over the cubs This seems like a standard fade the cubs play. Seems like -110 is an attractive price for cubs fans. Pitchers seem very similar. Toronto +148 over Tampa. This was a hard one to figure. Tampa is on a 7 game losing streak I can't understand why they are such big favorites. So vegas must know something I don't.... but then, I checked on wager line, and the betting is about 2-1 on tamp, so... when in doubt, go against the trend. San Fran +116 over Mil. Mil's been hot, they have recently been getting pounded by the betters, and they just signed CC. Who is starting for them tonight. It seems like Mil should be a much bigger favorite. Add on that MIl's getting pounded by a 2-1 clip.. and all that leads us to San Fran.I don't know the other two over/under totals, I dont' know much about them, or the thinking behind them. If you could go into more detail, that would be great..Results..BostonunderCinnci +1Balt +1oak -1Washington -1over +1Toronto -1Houston +1.02San FranKC -1