Pancho Sanza said:
Well I know he's been doing this for awhile and he has a lot of information at his fingertips. I've seen him sometimes make very good points and analyze things correctly. But then other times he just clings to notions that are so obviously and blatantly erroneous that it boggles the mind. Oh well.
Nothing wrong with scalping baseball either, money is money.
Judge Wapner said:
Yes, but they also have a great deal of basis in reality, otherwise it would be outrageously easy to beat the numbers. It is merely at the fringes where the lines are "tainted" by public perception creating some value. Of course this is enough to win and a lot of lines are beatable, but wantitall's claim that the lines have no bearing (I'd call it "relationship") on the actual outcome is patently and provably false.
Ted,
Thanks for the kind words. It did take me some time to express this concept clearly and perhaps I could have done better...
More importantly, getting back to the statistical advantage I was pointing out, there are often times in the NFL when lines may be at 3 for awhile but close at either 2 1/2 or 3 1/2. I did not include those in my data, but I could have and the edge would have been even higher than 4%...
Peace,
THE SHRINK
Thanks for the kind words. It did take me some time to express this concept clearly and perhaps I could have done better...
More importantly, getting back to the statistical advantage I was pointing out, there are often times in the NFL when lines may be at 3 for awhile but close at either 2 1/2 or 3 1/2. I did not include those in my data, but I could have and the edge would have been even higher than 4%...
Peace,
THE SHRINK
Shrink-
I am not trying to steer anyone anywhere. I am just stating that this whole 3 business is completely over blown. Plain and simple. You chose to quote DARINGLY's numbers, because they back you up. You failed to mention MY numbers that show the discrepencies when dealing with this. You just said it yourself in your last post, there are some games that are 2.5 and 3.5 at certain times. So those games in and of themselves throw the whole "games lined at 3 landing on 3" theory and stats results out the window. There are a multitude of results and numbers we can use, so there is NO WAY to determine what constitutes a -3 line to begin with. Is it one that close -3? One that opens -3? Or one that was 3 at some point? So the range can run from 8% to 12% at least, as I said above. So trying to figure out when and where you have an advantage is hard to determine. I also go back to my old point of, to make this work you have to bet EVERY game, not just one here or there, but every single game. If you don't then it is most definately luck.
As for the totals and lines and their correlations. Until someone has more numbers than me, and I have numbers in all sports NFL, NBA, NCAA hoops and football, and MLB all the way back to the late 80's, and can use those numbers to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that games lined at low totals have closer results FOR BETTING PURPOSES, then I will stick to what I have.
Even with daringly's numbers which would SUPPORT it, in terms of REAL wagering information, it is hardly worth worrying about. He has 10 years of data, and even with the "good" results he has, he has 3 more games than I do. Is 3 games in 10 years that big an advantage? I do not think so.
We all want to sound smart and make a poitn, but when the real world results are so limited and so obscure to BARELY have an impact on anything, then it is a ridiculous argument, and that is why I didn't want to get caught up in it.
I hope it does land on the 3 for guys that buy around and get the right numbers. Like I say, I will take my chances at the nice PLUS odds of +119 on NE -3.
If you really wanted to look at something funky how about taking NE -3 for +119, and then taking Pitt on the ML at the best number one can find ( I have seen +132) ? That way as long as NE doesn't win by 1 or 2, or 3 then you will be guaranteed something. And if they win by 3 then you basicilly lose a regular sized play. If NE wins by 1 or 2 then you get polish middled, but the games that are lined at -3 and land with the fave winning by 1 or 2 are less than 4%. THAT is actually the more 'valuable' play stats wise than even middling. Simply because you have such a high number with the -3, and a nice ML price on a home dog...
I may or may not do that myself, I liked NE anyways myself and gobbled up that -3 +119, but if I can see +135 or better on Pitt I will buy some on that ML.
I am not trying to steer anyone anywhere. I am just stating that this whole 3 business is completely over blown. Plain and simple. You chose to quote DARINGLY's numbers, because they back you up. You failed to mention MY numbers that show the discrepencies when dealing with this. You just said it yourself in your last post, there are some games that are 2.5 and 3.5 at certain times. So those games in and of themselves throw the whole "games lined at 3 landing on 3" theory and stats results out the window. There are a multitude of results and numbers we can use, so there is NO WAY to determine what constitutes a -3 line to begin with. Is it one that close -3? One that opens -3? Or one that was 3 at some point? So the range can run from 8% to 12% at least, as I said above. So trying to figure out when and where you have an advantage is hard to determine. I also go back to my old point of, to make this work you have to bet EVERY game, not just one here or there, but every single game. If you don't then it is most definately luck.
As for the totals and lines and their correlations. Until someone has more numbers than me, and I have numbers in all sports NFL, NBA, NCAA hoops and football, and MLB all the way back to the late 80's, and can use those numbers to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that games lined at low totals have closer results FOR BETTING PURPOSES, then I will stick to what I have.
Even with daringly's numbers which would SUPPORT it, in terms of REAL wagering information, it is hardly worth worrying about. He has 10 years of data, and even with the "good" results he has, he has 3 more games than I do. Is 3 games in 10 years that big an advantage? I do not think so.
We all want to sound smart and make a poitn, but when the real world results are so limited and so obscure to BARELY have an impact on anything, then it is a ridiculous argument, and that is why I didn't want to get caught up in it.
I hope it does land on the 3 for guys that buy around and get the right numbers. Like I say, I will take my chances at the nice PLUS odds of +119 on NE -3.
If you really wanted to look at something funky how about taking NE -3 for +119, and then taking Pitt on the ML at the best number one can find ( I have seen +132) ? That way as long as NE doesn't win by 1 or 2, or 3 then you will be guaranteed something. And if they win by 3 then you basicilly lose a regular sized play. If NE wins by 1 or 2 then you get polish middled, but the games that are lined at -3 and land with the fave winning by 1 or 2 are less than 4%. THAT is actually the more 'valuable' play stats wise than even middling. Simply because you have such a high number with the -3, and a nice ML price on a home dog...
I may or may not do that myself, I liked NE anyways myself and gobbled up that -3 +119, but if I can see +135 or better on Pitt I will buy some on that ML.
wantitall4moi,
The purpose of my post/column was to generate some good discussion about the significance of the number 3, especially since one of the games this coming weekend may close there...
I respect your opinion a lot as well as many others who take the time like you have to share important concepts...
You guys always seem to attract my interest and sharpen me up...
It is greatly appreciated....
THE SHRINK
The purpose of my post/column was to generate some good discussion about the significance of the number 3, especially since one of the games this coming weekend may close there...
I respect your opinion a lot as well as many others who take the time like you have to share important concepts...
You guys always seem to attract my interest and sharpen me up...
It is greatly appreciated....
THE SHRINK
Shrink, yes I know. I believe the first time I ever posted on here was when you were asking about the advantage of a line that was -2.5, Ironically I beleive it was NE against Pitt in the first game of the season the year after NE won the SB. The first game in Gillette stadium if I remember correctly, and NE was a 2.5 pt HOME DOG .
So it seems like these two teams always bring up this sort of discussion for some reason. If I remember correctly that game was a blow out however. NE Won by a couple touchdowns if I remember. But it didn't make or break any arguments of value, it was just another one of those games where the line seemedodd, and seeminlgy had value since there were simultaneous 3's and 2.5 out there.
But I made the same arguments then I do now, so at least I am consistant, but I have yet to have the past two years show me anything different than what I said then...
So it seems like these two teams always bring up this sort of discussion for some reason. If I remember correctly that game was a blow out however. NE Won by a couple touchdowns if I remember. But it didn't make or break any arguments of value, it was just another one of those games where the line seemedodd, and seeminlgy had value since there were simultaneous 3's and 2.5 out there.
But I made the same arguments then I do now, so at least I am consistant, but I have yet to have the past two years show me anything different than what I said then...
All this math, I think I'm gonna blow a fuse..
I think it would be easier to become a surgeon, lawyer, or dentist, for six-figure livings, than to be a "designated 3" finder?
And if wanting to just bet sports winners, how about becoming a Fed then getting stationed on the Sierra Sports wiretap gig, or maybe become Spiros banker, or BB's golf caddy, Chip's chip caddy, or maybe become Artie B's barber, leisure suit salesman, or bagman?
Any of the above, has to be a much better way of finding winners, than throwing darts at when an NFL game is gonna land 3?
Just teasing fellas, great thread, and fun banter by all, whom I respect.
P.S. Pancho, if he can't see that the further up the line one gets, there are more combinations in play..fughetaboutit!
I think it would be easier to become a surgeon, lawyer, or dentist, for six-figure livings, than to be a "designated 3" finder?
And if wanting to just bet sports winners, how about becoming a Fed then getting stationed on the Sierra Sports wiretap gig, or maybe become Spiros banker, or BB's golf caddy, Chip's chip caddy, or maybe become Artie B's barber, leisure suit salesman, or bagman?
Any of the above, has to be a much better way of finding winners, than throwing darts at when an NFL game is gonna land 3?
Just teasing fellas, great thread, and fun banter by all, whom I respect.
P.S. Pancho, if he can't see that the further up the line one gets, there are more combinations in play..fughetaboutit!
LVRJ's wrap-up of last weekend, also touches on this weekend, and briefly mentions 3..http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Jan-17-Mon-2005/sports/25679573.html
P.S. Wives, ex-wives, and their offspring may bury BMs, but their customers just make them feel all warm inside.
P.S. Wives, ex-wives, and their offspring may bury BMs, but their customers just make them feel all warm inside.
wantitall4moi said:
Of course you need luck every single time you place a wager unless you somehow know the result (fixed game) or are scalping. What you simple do here is have a wager which probality is around 10% and your actual price could be say 30 or +3000 depending on the prices you got on both sides.
For example if you got Ne -2.5 +100 and Pit +3.5 -120 you have a wager of which probality is around 10% and the actual price about 22 or +2200. This happens if you want to lose the same amount if the NE doesn´t win by 3 points. There is nothing magical about middling, it´s just a normal wager. Low probality and possibly a very good price instead of 55% and -110.
BUT and this a big but there is one great advantage here. You KNOW the probality close enough here and it´t 8-12%. This is a FACT and I´m not going to argue about it with anybody. So you KNOW you have a placed a smart wager which makes you rich in the long run with proper money management. The reality is, a great majority of people lose in the long run when trying to find those 55% winners..
Brown sugar said:
So, we now have people that say the probablility is anywhere from as low as 8% as yourself and a few others that have said it is as high as 14%.
My opinion is that it is most CERTAINLY higher than 8%, and very questionable to me to be as high as 14% in the long long long run.
For this PARTICULAR game in question, think if we polled a million sharpies and asked them to give a 2% range on what percentage of time this game will fall on the number 3 we would get results similar to the following.
8-9%........1%
9-10%......10%
10-11%.....25%
11-12%.....30%
12-13%.....20%
13-14%.....14%
Personally, would choose the 11-12% range...........but am open-minded enough to be persuaded into something different if convinced.
PS- Not going below the 10-11 range or higher than the 12-13 range though.
:toast:
Here's something that no one on here can argue with...
Yesterday, I was able to find NEW ENGLAND minus 2.5 lay $1.05 and today, the SAME sports book has PITTSBURGH at PLUS 3 lay $1.05....
If there is anyone on this forum who doesn't SEE how great an advantage this is, than perhaps sports betting isn't for you, lol...
The % that I have over the house in this situation is at least 10%, and probably higher....
Anyways, I will also wager on this game and since I was asked who I liked this weekend, here goes...
1-NEW ENGLAND minus 2 1/2 lay whatever over Pittsburgh....
If you think the Patriots DEFENSE was able to confuse Peyton Manning, wait until you see what they serve up to Rothlisberger?...
2-ATLANTA plus 4 1/2 vs. Philadelphia...
The KEY for this game is Michael VIC, who has the ability to WIN the game by himself. However, the FALCONS also have a solid DEFENSE behind him, which makes them a likely candidate to not only cover, but get to the Super Bowl...
Best of Luck,
THE SHRINK
Yesterday, I was able to find NEW ENGLAND minus 2.5 lay $1.05 and today, the SAME sports book has PITTSBURGH at PLUS 3 lay $1.05....
If there is anyone on this forum who doesn't SEE how great an advantage this is, than perhaps sports betting isn't for you, lol...
The % that I have over the house in this situation is at least 10%, and probably higher....
Anyways, I will also wager on this game and since I was asked who I liked this weekend, here goes...
1-NEW ENGLAND minus 2 1/2 lay whatever over Pittsburgh....
If you think the Patriots DEFENSE was able to confuse Peyton Manning, wait until you see what they serve up to Rothlisberger?...
2-ATLANTA plus 4 1/2 vs. Philadelphia...
The KEY for this game is Michael VIC, who has the ability to WIN the game by himself. However, the FALCONS also have a solid DEFENSE behind him, which makes them a likely candidate to not only cover, but get to the Super Bowl...
Best of Luck,
THE SHRINK
A random thought about numbers...
My database was made from closing lines listed at Goldsheet.com. I've compared numbers with a lot of cappers on a variety of subjects (mainly the "3", "7" and "10"). In every instance, while our numbers are slightly different, we reach the same conclusion.
Nothing is wagering is concrete. 14% is my "best guess" for the push percentages of "3" under 37.5 Could it be 12? Yes. 10? Yes, but less likely. It could even be 8 going forward... but when investing capital on these concepts, you have to estimate your best number, and go with it, right or wrong. I haven't seen any reliable data suggesting 14 is a bad number.
I think most sharps agree, that 3 and 7 are worth more with low totals. And if you datamine, you'll find that when you have a home "10" with a low total, the correct play is the correlated home Favorite/Under (which is quite shocking if you study NCAAF numbers, where the big favorite and under is anticorrelated).
My database was made from closing lines listed at Goldsheet.com. I've compared numbers with a lot of cappers on a variety of subjects (mainly the "3", "7" and "10"). In every instance, while our numbers are slightly different, we reach the same conclusion.
Nothing is wagering is concrete. 14% is my "best guess" for the push percentages of "3" under 37.5 Could it be 12? Yes. 10? Yes, but less likely. It could even be 8 going forward... but when investing capital on these concepts, you have to estimate your best number, and go with it, right or wrong. I haven't seen any reliable data suggesting 14 is a bad number.
I think most sharps agree, that 3 and 7 are worth more with low totals. And if you datamine, you'll find that when you have a home "10" with a low total, the correct play is the correlated home Favorite/Under (which is quite shocking if you study NCAAF numbers, where the big favorite and under is anticorrelated).
