The best evidence even the computer group could not find lines off 4 points, except once in a blue moon:
Look at who Walters and others are banging these days. They move the line 1.5 points AND THAT IS IT. They are looking for 55-57% plays and firing hard before the line moves. Then the followers come in.
Back in their heyday, they spotted 55-60% plays. But anyway thinking Walters and Co. routinely spotted 70% plays is delusional.
Look at who Walters and others are banging these days. They move the line 1.5 points AND THAT IS IT. They are looking for 55-57% plays and firing hard before the line moves. Then the followers come in.
Back in their heyday, they spotted 55-60% plays. But anyway thinking Walters and Co. routinely spotted 70% plays is delusional.
What I always say is that one has got to respect the market, which means that I mix my chances with the market to get more realistic probabilities. I can find a few bets a year where I then have this 65% chance hitting a winner on an Even Money type of bet. Usually getting on those big is not too easy though.
Senor Fezzik- "they move the line 1 1/2 points and that is it". Why the consistency? Are they hitting it with much less volume? Books refusing to move more than 1.5 no matter what?Cold side never develops value? No sense in hitting it harder because they cannot middle it with books that move on air because they will not get paid?
Thx in advance for your answer!
Thx in advance for your answer!
if you are hitting above 55% you arent betting enough games.
but, if you are stuck at or above 60% in a sport, you've got to figure a bad streak is coming so it makes no sense to increase volume at that point.
BW would bet on dozens of basketball games on a single Saturday. any advantage his group would see was taken, it's the same in any market. it's just that a lot of people dont really see this as a market, they have some sort of strange respect for the oddsmakers, they see it as gambling, which in fact it is unless you can consistently apply an acquired advantage over time.
but, if you are stuck at or above 60% in a sport, you've got to figure a bad streak is coming so it makes no sense to increase volume at that point.
BW would bet on dozens of basketball games on a single Saturday. any advantage his group would see was taken, it's the same in any market. it's just that a lot of people dont really see this as a market, they have some sort of strange respect for the oddsmakers, they see it as gambling, which in fact it is unless you can consistently apply an acquired advantage over time.
Even the books that recognize Walters is banging a game on them absolutely would never move more than 1.5 points based on it.
They figure (at best) Walters and Co. are going to cash the bets they are currently making around 55% of the time. Move 1 point, and that awesome Air Force +7 55% bet is now a putrid Air Force +6 51% bet.
Move 2 points, and you look like an idiot when Walters and Co. unload THE OTHER WAY on BYU -5 recognizing IT TOO now has value since the true line should have been around 5.9 or so.
They figure (at best) Walters and Co. are going to cash the bets they are currently making around 55% of the time. Move 1 point, and that awesome Air Force +7 55% bet is now a putrid Air Force +6 51% bet.
Move 2 points, and you look like an idiot when Walters and Co. unload THE OTHER WAY on BYU -5 recognizing IT TOO now has value since the true line should have been around 5.9 or so.
In other words, for every 80% game, there are going to be "at least" (very conservative) 20 57.5% games.
80 Wins - 20 loses at 10K per unit equals +$600K if just waiting for those 80% games. In the same time, 1150 wins - 850 loses at 10K per unit equals +$2.15 million.
Hmmmmmmmmm........seems that quantity is better than quality.
80 Wins - 20 loses at 10K per unit equals +$600K if just waiting for those 80% games. In the same time, 1150 wins - 850 loses at 10K per unit equals +$2.15 million.
Hmmmmmmmmm........seems that quantity is better than quality.
They never hit for 80%, not even in NCAA Football, not even with all their middles tossed in circa '83-'85.
Fezzik's right on season numbers, as except for select Saturdays, they never appeared to hit at 70+ % for extended periods.
But, they could've hit for a much better average than they were charted at(of this I'm very convinced of), or admit to, as they tossed stiffs out to jerk off the followers into number-building for post-time buybacks, and apparently still do..in the end it looks like a .500 batting average(except for the positive size variance)..hey, there is no foie gras without at first fattening the duck!
Nobody is ever gonna get the straight scoop, as the clerks & runners were/are kept in the dark to keep the teams under wraps, to keep the followers at bay, and unless things have changed, much of their moves were once farmed out to fill up incognito.
You've gotta keep the Golden Goose fat, or at least not have the Goose(BMs), World(Followers), or Sam(Feds hanging out on the phone poles) know exactly how big, how many, nor which eggs you take when making raids on the Goose' nest(sports betting industry)..thus the pain-in-arse cloak-&-dagger act.
Besides, which Machine era are we speaking of?..this chameleon changed with the changing times, and had seemingly varying amounts of input by different people thru the years, and different involvement levels to certain sports & years.
Anyone thinking the Computer was/is strictly program parameter driven for all their plays is nuts, as they have access to the best local offices info & sharpie locals selections to help shape some of their plays.
So in the end, both Sodium & Fezzik,etc..have merit to their slants, as trust me, the Machine could've went for a much gaudier batting average if style points were what they were after(obviously not), and yet to successfully win volume, plus keep the followers dizzy, while using their dough to fatten the BMs and lines, they moved the board(often in reverse), thus Fezzik & Shrink,etc..are right about percentages, as farmed out/QT moves, sheer volume, & varying play size made up for what may appear as mere mortal wagering in the end..only a few people in the world know the exact numbers..and I ain't one of 'em.
Mean Machine..Mean Machine..Mean Machine!
Fezzik's right on season numbers, as except for select Saturdays, they never appeared to hit at 70+ % for extended periods.
But, they could've hit for a much better average than they were charted at(of this I'm very convinced of), or admit to, as they tossed stiffs out to jerk off the followers into number-building for post-time buybacks, and apparently still do..in the end it looks like a .500 batting average(except for the positive size variance)..hey, there is no foie gras without at first fattening the duck!
Nobody is ever gonna get the straight scoop, as the clerks & runners were/are kept in the dark to keep the teams under wraps, to keep the followers at bay, and unless things have changed, much of their moves were once farmed out to fill up incognito.
You've gotta keep the Golden Goose fat, or at least not have the Goose(BMs), World(Followers), or Sam(Feds hanging out on the phone poles) know exactly how big, how many, nor which eggs you take when making raids on the Goose' nest(sports betting industry)..thus the pain-in-arse cloak-&-dagger act.
Besides, which Machine era are we speaking of?..this chameleon changed with the changing times, and had seemingly varying amounts of input by different people thru the years, and different involvement levels to certain sports & years.
Anyone thinking the Computer was/is strictly program parameter driven for all their plays is nuts, as they have access to the best local offices info & sharpie locals selections to help shape some of their plays.
So in the end, both Sodium & Fezzik,etc..have merit to their slants, as trust me, the Machine could've went for a much gaudier batting average if style points were what they were after(obviously not), and yet to successfully win volume, plus keep the followers dizzy, while using their dough to fatten the BMs and lines, they moved the board(often in reverse), thus Fezzik & Shrink,etc..are right about percentages, as farmed out/QT moves, sheer volume, & varying play size made up for what may appear as mere mortal wagering in the end..only a few people in the world know the exact numbers..and I ain't one of 'em.
Mean Machine..Mean Machine..Mean Machine!
I think Horsheshoe's post is spot-on.
OF COURSE, there were a few plays that were over 64% for the computer group. They were rare, and now they are almost extinct in this day and age.
People just don't understand that going from 53% to 54% is much, much easier than going from a 54% to 55% winning rate. Each progressive higher 1% winning rate becomes maddeningly more difficult to achieve. A 57% longterm picker is so much more advanced than a 54% player that is is unreal. It would be like comparing Bobby Fisher's chess talent to mine.
If you look at ALL competitive sports/games, it is the VERY rare situation that the very best player is light years better than everyone else. If the best hitter in baseball wins the batting title by just a little, and the best weightlifter is just a little bit better, and the best chess player is just a little bit better, and the best poker player is just a little bit better, than how can we possibly believe the best bettor is suddenly at least a standard deviation better than the best truly documented handicapper? It makes no sense.
Show me a guy playing any volume at all who doesn't maximize profits in his play, but just limits his selections to plays he feels are above 57%. Guess what? He won't hit 57% in the major sports. Sure, he will get it in one sport or one year, but that 44% nasty bizarre season will kill his longterm average.
OF COURSE, there were a few plays that were over 64% for the computer group. They were rare, and now they are almost extinct in this day and age.
People just don't understand that going from 53% to 54% is much, much easier than going from a 54% to 55% winning rate. Each progressive higher 1% winning rate becomes maddeningly more difficult to achieve. A 57% longterm picker is so much more advanced than a 54% player that is is unreal. It would be like comparing Bobby Fisher's chess talent to mine.
If you look at ALL competitive sports/games, it is the VERY rare situation that the very best player is light years better than everyone else. If the best hitter in baseball wins the batting title by just a little, and the best weightlifter is just a little bit better, and the best chess player is just a little bit better, and the best poker player is just a little bit better, than how can we possibly believe the best bettor is suddenly at least a standard deviation better than the best truly documented handicapper? It makes no sense.
Show me a guy playing any volume at all who doesn't maximize profits in his play, but just limits his selections to plays he feels are above 57%. Guess what? He won't hit 57% in the major sports. Sure, he will get it in one sport or one year, but that 44% nasty bizarre season will kill his longterm average.
Like many in this discussion, I have always assumed that there was no such thing as an "80% game", just as there is no such thing as a lock.
Let's also assume we are not talking about the extremely rare "inside information" situation, where, as you are driving to the stadium to watch the game, you witness a bad accident involving the starting dominating center and the high scoring starting guard for the home team with no bench, and you call your bookie right before you call 911.
So I am considerably surprised that people in this duscussion are claiming that there is any more than a very very rare smattering of "80% winning opportunities" like my absurd example above. And even such inside info would have to be extremely strong to get above an 80% level. Hey, maybe even my example would not achieve 80%. Would the visiting team really pile up points if this situation were real?
How far does a line have to be "off" before it achieves the dizzying hieghts of 80% ATS wins?
Using Football as an example, it has to be considerably more than 6 points, otherwise a 2 team teaser would be a winning proposition for the bettor. (80% winners puts you way over the break even point at 11-10.)
I'm curious, then, exactly how many points "off" a line would really have to be to achieve an 80% ATS record?
I just don't believe that there are any super sophisticated strategies that would yeild a predicted "true odds" line that would differ from the actual line by more than 8 or 9 or 10 points or whatever this 80% level might be.
The simple statistical fact is that the "standard deviation" for betting point spreads is much less (or narrower) than the deviation of actual winning margins. There will always be some games that fall into the two tails of the bell curve, making 80% very hard to achieve.
Let's also assume we are not talking about the extremely rare "inside information" situation, where, as you are driving to the stadium to watch the game, you witness a bad accident involving the starting dominating center and the high scoring starting guard for the home team with no bench, and you call your bookie right before you call 911.
So I am considerably surprised that people in this duscussion are claiming that there is any more than a very very rare smattering of "80% winning opportunities" like my absurd example above. And even such inside info would have to be extremely strong to get above an 80% level. Hey, maybe even my example would not achieve 80%. Would the visiting team really pile up points if this situation were real?
How far does a line have to be "off" before it achieves the dizzying hieghts of 80% ATS wins?
Using Football as an example, it has to be considerably more than 6 points, otherwise a 2 team teaser would be a winning proposition for the bettor. (80% winners puts you way over the break even point at 11-10.)
I'm curious, then, exactly how many points "off" a line would really have to be to achieve an 80% ATS record?
I just don't believe that there are any super sophisticated strategies that would yeild a predicted "true odds" line that would differ from the actual line by more than 8 or 9 or 10 points or whatever this 80% level might be.
The simple statistical fact is that the "standard deviation" for betting point spreads is much less (or narrower) than the deviation of actual winning margins. There will always be some games that fall into the two tails of the bell curve, making 80% very hard to achieve.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So I am considerably surprised that people in this duscussion are claiming that there is any more than a very very rare smattering of "80% winning opportunities <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really hey rocket scientist, please find one instance where anyone claimed otherwise. Go find a QBA 101 class to impress with your brilliant deduction.
Know you know what the real suprising thing is?
The repeated focus on a single solitary number rather than the entire point of the original post. Shaockinh heh? All the geniuses pushinga nd shoving to post how smart they are? GIMMEE A PHUCKING BREAK.
Now that is out of the way,
Why do the rest of you feel that,
Today is anyway shape or form analogous to the time frame to which the 80% and Fez's reference is too? Why do you persist in comparing apples to oranges? Does it make you feel smart to conclude that in today's day and age no one can win 80%? I do not get the rush to post the overtly obvious?
Really about ten posted that in this thread? SO PHUCKING WHAT? We are talking about 20yrs ago, we are talking about an age when lines owuld differ by as much as 3.5pts from coast to coast. We are talking about a time that obviously most of you have not clue one of WTF was going on.
Really hey rocket scientist, please find one instance where anyone claimed otherwise. Go find a QBA 101 class to impress with your brilliant deduction.
Know you know what the real suprising thing is?
The repeated focus on a single solitary number rather than the entire point of the original post. Shaockinh heh? All the geniuses pushinga nd shoving to post how smart they are? GIMMEE A PHUCKING BREAK.
Now that is out of the way,
Why do the rest of you feel that,
Today is anyway shape or form analogous to the time frame to which the 80% and Fez's reference is too? Why do you persist in comparing apples to oranges? Does it make you feel smart to conclude that in today's day and age no one can win 80%? I do not get the rush to post the overtly obvious?
Really about ten posted that in this thread? SO PHUCKING WHAT? We are talking about 20yrs ago, we are talking about an age when lines owuld differ by as much as 3.5pts from coast to coast. We are talking about a time that obviously most of you have not clue one of WTF was going on.
SP, I knew where you were coming from, and what you intended, as your post was not intended as an fixation on any specific number, but rather a belief of superiority, as I once made the same arguements that you make here..based on the theory of an "ideaological" approach of just "real or true" medium to large plays(with none being intentional stiffs..of which there were many)..but the need for volume due to limits, with followers and BMs also in the mix, make for a mine field until post-time, thus the need to get money flowing early and often in creating a flow..across the board.
But where I disagree somewhat with you and many others here on the premise that it was as computer program & parameter driven as most believe the Machine to have been, as there was more human element information & angle handicapping involved to their success than most attribute.
We're talking, if not making a total in-house decision, then one or two degrees of seperation maximum from all the pertinent or local marks wanted to select games. As besides their own in-house armada of intelligencia, they have access to a "who's who" for marks and info.
Some NYC & Seaboard offices back in the day, had some LCN & other forms of connected plays, that were let's just say much stronger probabilities than the flip of a coin.
This info added on top of the larger parameter edges of that time, combined with access to all local markets, in a day and age where relay intervals of 3 minutes to as little as thirty seconds to as little as nine seconds, were before the DB Screen's arrival, and when many offices were exposed to a connected outfit & it's legion of followers.
[This message was edited by Horseshoe on February 29, 2004 at 02:56 AM.]
But where I disagree somewhat with you and many others here on the premise that it was as computer program & parameter driven as most believe the Machine to have been, as there was more human element information & angle handicapping involved to their success than most attribute.
We're talking, if not making a total in-house decision, then one or two degrees of seperation maximum from all the pertinent or local marks wanted to select games. As besides their own in-house armada of intelligencia, they have access to a "who's who" for marks and info.
Some NYC & Seaboard offices back in the day, had some LCN & other forms of connected plays, that were let's just say much stronger probabilities than the flip of a coin.
This info added on top of the larger parameter edges of that time, combined with access to all local markets, in a day and age where relay intervals of 3 minutes to as little as thirty seconds to as little as nine seconds, were before the DB Screen's arrival, and when many offices were exposed to a connected outfit & it's legion of followers.
[This message was edited by Horseshoe on February 29, 2004 at 02:56 AM.]
