"His average edge last year vs no vig pinny close was -0.374% which isn't any different than this year." - durito
I think its incorrect to use the 2013 winning season as a baseline to establish sharpness. As you know, win/loss records can be extremely misleading which is why we examine CLV in the first place. So basically BG's winning over a prior sample with negative CLV demonstrates that we need not worry now that he has no EV. The obvious counterargument is: he got lucky in the win/loss category and performed better than his true edge.
I saw some old NFL posts of his where he religiously charted the CLV over the week, explicitly using it as a barometer of whether his picks were good. Now we have no CLV and somehow CLV is no longer important. BG has said we must know when to throw away the textbook (not sure if BG knew he had not actually thrown away the textbook but rather never had it as shown by his last year's CLV). Then a vague reference to the board being a ground for manipulating. And I've asked BG to clarify this twice now what he has meant by that and am eagerly anticipating some kind of response.
1. They don't know the answers
2. They don't want to give anything away
1. is sort of my point. When you have a complicated topic, most people don't know the answers. That's why you share knowledge and ask questions.
2. is probably true to varying degrees with everyone. I think the people posting here aren't afraid to give some information away, it's likely the people not posting at all that aren't parting with anything.
If it doesn't show at least most of the true action, then why do we care about CLV at all?
The manipulation takes place early to mid/late afternoon until they get the price they want. Then they wager their way back slowly on the other side until they get noticed and they stop. CLV is only good if you know the responsible parties
"His average edge last year vs no vig pinny close was -0.374% which isn't any different than this year." - durito
I think its incorrect to use the 2013 winning season as a baseline to establish sharpness. As you know, win/loss records can be extremely misleading which is why we examine CLV in the first place. So basically BG's winning over a prior sample with negative CLV demonstrates that we need not worry now that he has no EV. The obvious counterargument is: he got lucky in the win/loss category and performed better than his true edge.
I don't buy this. The entire market is a "responsible party."
Yes, the entire market is a responsible party to a certain extent, but when manipulation takes hold in any market place that's when the numbers
become sort of playground like Buffett stated earlier. Where ever there is money to be made theres thieves around.
Yes, the entire market is a responsible party to a certain extent, but when manipulation takes hold in any market place that's when the numbers
become sort of playground like Buffett stated earlier. Where ever there is money to be made theres thieves around.
There's definitely manipulation, but I believe the closing line is very sharp.
There's definitely manipulation, but I believe the closing line is very sharp.
It probably is very sharp. I don't follow baseball much and don't have time to analyze it, that's why I subscribed to Buffett. My only pet peeve is JOSH BECKETT
II'm trying to reach a reasoned conclusion about whether or not BG is a winning capper. There are decent arguments on both sides.
So in BG's favor:
1)He has won in MLB before although I have not looked at many years. We know he won last year and the prior year before that. And I think he won in 2006 or 2007. But what about 2008 thru 2013.
2) The same posts that show an awareness of CLV and diligently recording his CLV shows he "gets it."
3) Last year when he faded the market he did so at the market's peak and got CLV even off the fades.
4) He got line movement even if not movement over the no-vig Pinny median.
5) He seems well-respected by those who are seemingly sharp.
Why might he not be a winner?
1) Total records in all sports? Well I wonder how he did in other sports over the years. There's many cases of someone tackling 5 sports over a period of time and suddenly beating one and so then they are an "expert" in that final sport. Do you know how he did in other sports? Or even in MLB prior to last 2 years?
2) He's choosing nearly all faves. There's always something fishy IMO when someone is 95+% faves. It's often relying on a "trick" rather than an accurate, well-tested model.
3) He's fading moves and not getting good lines, it appears
4) Now despite the posts on the pro-side where he's CLV disciple now he's saying he threw the textbook away.
5) He speaks in mystery. If you read his posts from long ago they sounded normal, now everything is in this stock-markety lingo that's difficult to wade thru and sounds pretentious and schticky to me.
There is an element of sharpness here but being sharp/speaking sharp/being regarded as sharp and actually winning are two different things. Lots of arguments on both sides. Perhaps the strongest though is he just doesnt beat that no-vig Pinny, but he does get close to it.
II'm trying to reach a reasoned conclusion about whether or not BG is a winning capper. There are decent arguments on both sides.
So in BG's favor:
1)He has won in MLB before although I have not looked at many years. We know he won last year and the prior year before that. And I think he won in 2006 or 2007. But what about 2008 thru 2013.
2) The same posts that show an awareness of CLV and diligently recording his CLV shows he "gets it."
3) Last year when he faded the market he did so at the market's peak and got CLV even off the fades.
4) He got line movement even if not movement over the no-vig Pinny median.
5) He seems well-respected by those who are seemingly sharp.
Why might he not be a winner?
1) Total records in all sports? Well I wonder how he did in other sports over the years. There's many cases of someone tackling 5 sports over a period of time and suddenly beating one and so then they are an "expert" in that final sport. Do you know how he did in other sports? Or even in MLB prior to last 2 years?
2) He's choosing nearly all faves. There's always something fishy IMO when someone is 95+% faves. It's often relying on a "trick" rather than an accurate, well-tested model.
3) He's fading moves and not getting good lines, it appears
4) Now despite the posts on the pro-side where he's CLV disciple now he's saying he threw the textbook away.
5) He speaks in mystery. If you read his posts from long ago they sounded normal, now everything is in this stock-markety lingo that's difficult to wade thru and sounds pretentious and schticky to me.
There is an element of sharpness here but being sharp/speaking sharp/being regarded as sharp and actually winning are two different things. Lots of arguments on both sides. Perhaps the strongest though is he just doesnt beat that no-vig Pinny, but he does get close to it.
Even though u came to no conclusion, very good post.
only if contra was here. he'd defend BG to the death ... considering he seemed to have some influence it appeared for getting BG to BT. Anyhow, thought I would break the monotony up for a sec.
was really just trying to break up the convo... I know contra didn't have that influence but I do think he would defend the likes of BG like I mentioned.
was really just trying to break up the convo... I know contra didn't have that influence but I do think he would defend the likes of BG like I mentioned.
There is plenty of discussion of this throughout that thread and in Dr. H's thread from last year. Given the huge change in the US sports markets between 2012 and 2013 season you'd probably pretty safe to assume that the market is less efficient.
There is plenty of discussion of this throughout that thread and in Dr. H's thread from last year. Given the huge change in the US sports markets between 2012 and 2013 season you'd probably pretty safe to assume that the market is less efficient.
I disagree that the removal of a few big players from the market trumps the tougher market conditions (better openers and a better understanding of advanced stats). Plus the big players that were removed were movers, the handicappers are still there.
Then a vague reference to the board being a ground for manipulating. And I've asked BG to clarify this twice now what he has meant by that and am eagerly anticipating some kind of response.
As stated yesterday, that has not been the case. I believe my comments about the screen have been interpreted as if I view it as some kind of joke. Its not. Just not something I would take marching orders from. There's better confirmation out there, that of which can make whats currently been seen look quite different.
You think the screen is not efficient, can you discuss that further?
I think more importantly, the screen has been unappealing for an equity standpoint. Better openers, less volatility, and low hanging fruit picked off overnight.
5) He speaks in mystery. If you read his posts from long ago they sounded normal, now everything is in this stock-markety lingo that's difficult to wade thru and sounds pretentious and schticky to me.
I was gonna comment on this earlier. He sounds ridiculous and purposefully trying to talk over your head. The guys with "proprietary algorithms" and the like are just trying to create a perception about them where if you have no idea what the secret sauce is it must be good.
I don't follow BG. But just reading his posts would be enough to keep me away.
II'm trying to reach a reasoned conclusion about whether or not BG is a winning capper. There are decent arguments on both sides.
So in BG's favor:
1)He has won in MLB before although I have not looked at many years. We know he won last year and the prior year before that. And I think he won in 2006 or 2007. But what about 2008 thru 2013.
2) The same posts that show an awareness of CLV and diligently recording his CLV shows he "gets it."
3) Last year when he faded the market he did so at the market's peak and got CLV even off the fades.
4) He got line movement even if not movement over the no-vig Pinny median.
5) He seems well-respected by those who are seemingly sharp.
Why might he not be a winner?
1) Total records in all sports? Well I wonder how he did in other sports over the years. There's many cases of someone tackling 5 sports over a period of time and suddenly beating one and so then they are an "expert" in that final sport. Do you know how he did in other sports? Or even in MLB prior to last 2 years?
2) He's choosing nearly all faves. There's always something fishy IMO when someone is 95+% faves. It's often relying on a "trick" rather than an accurate, well-tested model.
3) He's fading moves and not getting good lines, it appears
4) Now despite the posts on the pro-side where he's CLV disciple now he's saying he threw the textbook away.
5) He speaks in mystery. If you read his posts from long ago they sounded normal, now everything is in this stock-markety lingo that's difficult to wade thru and sounds pretentious and schticky to me.
There is an element of sharpness here but being sharp/speaking sharp/being regarded as sharp and actually winning are two different things. Lots of arguments on both sides. Perhaps the strongest though is he just doesnt beat that no-vig Pinny, but he does get close to it.
The playing all favorites/ all dogs/ all road/ all X isn't necessarily a cause for alarm. Over 90% of my totals plays this year have been unders, and ive probably played close to 200 so far. I've gotten soundly crushed though. So maybe my opinion not worth much.
I was gonna comment on this earlier. He sounds ridiculous and purposefully trying to talk over your head. The guys with "proprietary algorithms" and the like are just trying to create a perception about them where if you have no idea what the secret sauce is it must be good.
I don't follow BG. But just reading his posts would be enough to keep me away.
He is far and away the nicest advantage player to post on any of these forums. For years he's answered endless questions (many from idiots I wouldnt piss on if they were on fire) without ever a single disparaging remark.
Comments
I hate abbreviations to. Roughing the punter
I think its incorrect to use the 2013 winning season as a baseline to establish sharpness. As you know, win/loss records can be extremely misleading which is why we examine CLV in the first place. So basically BG's winning over a prior sample with negative CLV demonstrates that we need not worry now that he has no EV. The obvious counterargument is: he got lucky in the win/loss category and performed better than his true edge.
I saw some old NFL posts of his where he religiously charted the CLV over the week, explicitly using it as a barometer of whether his picks were good. Now we have no CLV and somehow CLV is no longer important. BG has said we must know when to throw away the textbook (not sure if BG knew he had not actually thrown away the textbook but rather never had it as shown by his last year's CLV). Then a vague reference to the board being a ground for manipulating. And I've asked BG to clarify this twice now what he has meant by that and am eagerly anticipating some kind of response.
What else could it be? Do you actually think it shows the true action :laughing:
Sorry. What underwraps said.
1. is sort of my point. When you have a complicated topic, most people don't know the answers. That's why you share knowledge and ask questions.
2. is probably true to varying degrees with everyone. I think the people posting here aren't afraid to give some information away, it's likely the people not posting at all that aren't parting with anything.
If it doesn't show at least most of the true action, then why do we care about CLV at all?
I have no idea about other sports but with baseball imo the screen shows 99 percent of the "true action"
The manipulation takes place early to mid/late afternoon until they get the price they want. Then they wager their way back slowly on the other side until they get noticed and they stop. CLV is only good if you know the responsible parties
I'm with ya.
So why would you possibly have subscribed?
I don't buy this. The entire market is a "responsible party."
Yes, the entire market is a responsible party to a certain extent, but when manipulation takes hold in any market place that's when the numbers
become sort of playground like Buffett stated earlier. Where ever there is money to be made theres thieves around.
There's definitely manipulation, but I believe the closing line is very sharp.
I agree. Every book is dealing 10c lines.
II'm trying to reach a reasoned conclusion about whether or not BG is a winning capper. There are decent arguments on both sides.
So in BG's favor:
1)He has won in MLB before although I have not looked at many years. We know he won last year and the prior year before that. And I think he won in 2006 or 2007. But what about 2008 thru 2013.
2) The same posts that show an awareness of CLV and diligently recording his CLV shows he "gets it."
3) Last year when he faded the market he did so at the market's peak and got CLV even off the fades.
4) He got line movement even if not movement over the no-vig Pinny median.
5) He seems well-respected by those who are seemingly sharp.
Why might he not be a winner?
1) Total records in all sports? Well I wonder how he did in other sports over the years. There's many cases of someone tackling 5 sports over a period of time and suddenly beating one and so then they are an "expert" in that final sport. Do you know how he did in other sports? Or even in MLB prior to last 2 years?
2) He's choosing nearly all faves. There's always something fishy IMO when someone is 95+% faves. It's often relying on a "trick" rather than an accurate, well-tested model.
3) He's fading moves and not getting good lines, it appears
4) Now despite the posts on the pro-side where he's CLV disciple now he's saying he threw the textbook away.
5) He speaks in mystery. If you read his posts from long ago they sounded normal, now everything is in this stock-markety lingo that's difficult to wade thru and sounds pretentious and schticky to me.
There is an element of sharpness here but being sharp/speaking sharp/being regarded as sharp and actually winning are two different things. Lots of arguments on both sides. Perhaps the strongest though is he just doesnt beat that no-vig Pinny, but he does get close to it.
Even though u came to no conclusion, very good post.
Why break it up? Great conversation.
He mentions early last year that he isn't as concerned with market confirmation as in past years :
http://www.bettingtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/173248-Buffettgambler-Discussion-Thread?p=799722&viewfull=1#post799722
There is plenty of discussion of this throughout that thread and in Dr. H's thread from last year. Given the huge change in the US sports markets between 2012 and 2013 season you'd probably pretty safe to assume that the market is less efficient.
I disagree that the removal of a few big players from the market trumps the tougher market conditions (better openers and a better understanding of advanced stats). Plus the big players that were removed were movers, the handicappers are still there.
As stated yesterday, that has not been the case. I believe my comments about the screen have been interpreted as if I view it as some kind of joke. Its not. Just not something I would take marching orders from. There's better confirmation out there, that of which can make whats currently been seen look quite different.
Any chance that you could provide an example of this?
I was gonna comment on this earlier. He sounds ridiculous and purposefully trying to talk over your head. The guys with "proprietary algorithms" and the like are just trying to create a perception about them where if you have no idea what the secret sauce is it must be good.
I don't follow BG. But just reading his posts would be enough to keep me away.
The playing all favorites/ all dogs/ all road/ all X isn't necessarily a cause for alarm. Over 90% of my totals plays this year have been unders, and ive probably played close to 200 so far. I've gotten soundly crushed though. So maybe my opinion not worth much.
He is far and away the nicest advantage player to post on any of these forums. For years he's answered endless questions (many from idiots I wouldnt piss on if they were on fire) without ever a single disparaging remark.