That seems to be a somewhat contrived example because why would every market participant know that except for Pinnacle? Pinnacle is not going to often be the "rogue" line because they are an attractive place. But I do see your point, yes in this example you would seemingly beat the midpoint and have a poor wager.
But the more important point, at least for this discussion, is that BG is not beating no-vig closers. He is getting a little line movement, but not a lot. Somehow to argue he is +EV we must say that the market in baseball is not efficient and he has edge anyway. What am I missing?
And also is there an/(another) flaw in my argument?
Those betting into the screen or tied to it should be looking at line moves focusing more from a leakage standpoint than providing insight on future returns. There is a time and place for market theories applied to sports markets and a times where the textbook should be put down.
The example is contrived for simplicity sake. Take a -400/+300 line closer, the no-vig line is -320. Would you bet +350? What if the fair line is -390?
He has mentioned not being concerned with line confirmation this year. He said the same thing last year and won.
Those betting into the screen or tied to it should be looking at line moves focusing more from a leakage standpoint than providing insight on future returns. There is a time and place for market theories applied to sports markets and a times where the textbook should be put down.
Earlier, you said the screen has been unappealing and the market has been tough. Now you seem to be implying that it's a playground for offscreen, and it shouldn't be used to measure CLV since it's not very efficient, which would seemingly provide opportunities on the screen for us. Am I missing something? Could you comment on that dichotomy?
So baseball is not an efficient market? That's hard for me to believe. In a sport like CBB where the screen is of little value and it pays to manipulate even in those cases the true opinion will eventually come out with multiple board hits. But 10k/5k Pinn/10k Cris/5k Bol is 40k right there. Are you saying these big syndicates are uninterested in that 40k? Sure I can see them manipulating but to not come back before close does not sound very plausible. And if thats what your implying, how do you know?
Earlier, you said the screen has been unappealing and the market has been tough. Now you seem to be implying that it's a playground for offscreen, and it shouldn't be used to measure CLV since it's not very efficient, which would seemingly provide opportunities on the screen for us. Am I missing something? Could you comment on that dichotomy?
Never meant to imply its been a playground, though it would be welcoming. The screen merely represents a component of the market, that of which that isn't representative of the sharpest. More to it behind the scenes.
The screen had been unappealing in the sense to where trading has been light and operating under set formulae. Not good when combined with better openers.
Never meant to imply its been a playground, though it would be welcoming. The screen merely represents a component of the market, that of which that isn't representative of the sharpest. More to it behind the scenes.
The screen had been unappealing in the sense to where trading has been light and operating under set formulae. Not good when combined with better openers.
If the screen doesn't represent the sharpest info, shouldn't that provide more/better opportunities to trade on the screen?
I really don't understand the whole "I don't care about market confirmation" and the market isn't efficient arguments. I think the mlb market is very efficient esp on sides. On totals sometimes the big steam can take things a bit far but i will guarentee if bg's CLV stays under 1 percent he will be refunding everyone.
I really don't understand the whole "I don't care about market confirmation" and the market isn't efficient arguments. I think the mlb market is very efficient esp on sides. On totals sometimes the big steam can take things a bit far but i will guarentee if bg's CLV stays under 1 percent he will be refunding everyone.
"There is a time and place for market theories applied to sports markets and a times where the textbook should be put down." - BG
BG, I don't know why this view has to be shrouded in mystery. You think the screen is not efficient, can you discuss that further? It still makes no sense to me. It's one thing to say well the market has not agreed with your plays and quite another to say the market does in fact agree with you BUT there is some strategic option the market is taking where they are not hitting the screen. Apparently that's your view. Can you comment any more?
For that to be true the market would have to be perfectly efficient which is impossible given vig.
Assume a game is a 50/50 proposition and every market participant knows this except pinnacle. Pinny opens at +106/-116 .. Someone bets the +106 instantly and they move to +100/-110 . There are no more bets as there is no +ev on either side. In Justin's theory, betting -103 (on the -110 side) is +ev you are 2c better than the midpoint, but laying -103 on a coinflip is not +ev.
The perfectly fair line on this game is -105/-105 but it will never be bet there.
Wouldn't this type of stuff be expected to even out over time though. For example, let's say the true line is +100 and you've bet +102. Somtimes the median close will be inaccurate at +105 and sometimes it will be inaccurate at -105. I would guess this type of stuff evens out eventually, I have no idea how long eventually is though.
Also I'm not sure it's impossible for the market to be perfectly efficient given vig at least if we're talking about the market shaping Pinnacle lines. I believe Pinnacle lines can move as little as 1 cent at a time.
Also I'm not sure it's impossible for the market to be perfectly efficient given vig at least if we're talking about the market shaping Pinnacle lines. I believe Pinnacle lines can move as little as 1 cent at a time.
Doesn't matter how little they can move, unless they deal lines with no vig.
Doesn't matter how little they can move, unless they deal lines with no vig.
Yeah I thought more about this afterwords and using your contrived example, I agree it would be impossible because someone would just come in and max bet it and move it the full amount.
That said, there are quite a few things about the contrived example that aren't reality. First, not everyone knows the perfectly efficient price for the game. Second, there's only a perfectly efficient price for that moment in time so the market is constantly being shaped over the day. Third, not everyone is sharp and they'll still be betting when there's no value in the line and driving it in different directions. Fourth, the majority of people aren't making max bets and moving lines the maximum amount.
I look at it as being analogous to Malcolm Gladwell's jellybeans in a jar example in his book The Wisdom of Crowds. Ask a few people how many jellybeans are in a jar and it's very unlikely they'll get it right. Ask 10 people and take the average, you're a lot closer. Ask 100 people and take the average, you're now remarkably close to the actual amount of jellybeans.
I'm not contending MLB closers are perfectly efficient by the way. But I think to just say they're inefficient and therefore dismiss how a handicapper is doing against the close isn't right either. At a bare minimum, it's a bad sign if someone isn't beating the median close.
Unless you have specific data that suggests otherwise.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Whether we have this data as it pertains to BG is a very complicated discussion IMO. For the record and I think I stated this earlier in the thread as well that I believe BG is a long-term winner. It's not time to hit the panic button, not even close really. But I still think looking at his closing line value has benefit, it's another barometer to measure his performance. And even if you don't buy into that, it can be used as a frame of reference to compare periods of time - a yardstick of sorts.
I'm a poker player that's played over five million hands in the last nine years so I deal with nearly unimaginable extremes in variance on a yearly basis. There can be a benefit to negative variance in that it causes you to reassess what you're doing and work harder on improving your game (many poker players experience this). So if I was BG, I'd be working to turn it into a positive. I think where the danger is, is to just dismiss every losing streak to variance and do nothing particularly when we're in a changing environment as we are with sports and poker.
As an aside, I think people in this thread (and generally on this forum) are afraid to discuss more complex topics, venture into the unknown, and take chances with what they say. It's pick out a sentence or a part of a sentence and reply with a terse response. Most of the tougher questions I ask go unanswered. I encourage people to share their thoughts, right or wrong, because there's a ton of knowledge on here (you included Baserunner). I've been wrong hundreds of times including in this thread a few posts back. But who cares, I'm learning things because of it.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Whether we have this data as it pertains to BG is a very complicated discussion IMO. For the record and I think I stated this earlier in the thread as well that I believe BG is a long-term winner. It's not time to hit the panic button, not even close really. But I still think looking at his closing line value has benefit, it's another barometer to measure his performance. And even if you don't buy into that, it can be used as a frame of reference to compare periods of time - a yardstick of sorts.
I'm a poker player that's played over five million hands in the last nine years so I deal with nearly unimaginable extremes in variance on a yearly basis. There can be a benefit to negative variance in that it causes you to reassess what you're doing and work harder on improving your game (many poker players experience this). So if I was BG, I'd be working to turn it into a positive. I think where the danger is, is to just dismiss every losing streak to variance and do nothing particularly when we're in a changing environment as we are with sports and poker.
As an aside, I think people in this thread (and generally on this forum) are afraid to discuss more complex topics, venture into the unknown, and take chances with what they say. It's pick out a sentence or a part of a sentence and reply with a terse response. Most of the tougher questions I ask go unanswered. I encourage people to share their thoughts, right or wrong, because there's a ton of knowledge on here (you included Baserunner). I've been wrong hundreds of times including in this thread a few posts back. But who cares, I'm learning things because of it.
The lengthier version of what I was trying to say: market confirmation should be used as a guideline and supporting evidence of future success and monitoring of results. But not as a benchmarker for roi. There are much better ways of estimating roi. Clv is a great handrail for verifying that your results will track the estimated roi going forward though.
I don't. The peeps place thread is a mess of cat posts and other crap, so don't really feel like going through it looking for the plays. It was certainly positive that year though and he mentions it being such at the end.
I don't. The peeps place thread is a mess of cat posts and other crap, so don't really feel like going through it looking for the plays. It was certainly positive that year though and he mentions it being such at the end.
I can't believe that you don't have the desire to wade through Cwissy's nonsense for pages and pages. Where's your dedication?
As an aside, I think people in this thread (and generally on this forum) are afraid to discuss more complex topics, venture into the unknown, and take chances with what they say. It's pick out a sentence or a part of a sentence and reply with a terse response. Most of the tougher questions I ask go unanswered. I encourage people to share their thoughts, right or wrong, because there's a ton of knowledge on here (you included Baserunner). I've been wrong hundreds of times including in this thread a few posts back. But who cares, I'm learning things because of it.
I don't think people are afraid to discuss things
1. They don't know the answers
2. They don't want to give anything away
Comments
But the more important point, at least for this discussion, is that BG is not beating no-vig closers. He is getting a little line movement, but not a lot. Somehow to argue he is +EV we must say that the market in baseball is not efficient and he has edge anyway. What am I missing?
You can vastly outperform an expected return based solely on efficiency assumptions. MLB market is far from efficient.
Those betting into the screen or tied to it should be looking at line moves focusing more from a leakage standpoint than providing insight on future returns. There is a time and place for market theories applied to sports markets and a times where the textbook should be put down.
He has mentioned not being concerned with line confirmation this year. He said the same thing last year and won.
Earlier, you said the screen has been unappealing and the market has been tough. Now you seem to be implying that it's a playground for offscreen, and it shouldn't be used to measure CLV since it's not very efficient, which would seemingly provide opportunities on the screen for us. Am I missing something? Could you comment on that dichotomy?
So baseball is not an efficient market? That's hard for me to believe. In a sport like CBB where the screen is of little value and it pays to manipulate even in those cases the true opinion will eventually come out with multiple board hits. But 10k/5k Pinn/10k Cris/5k Bol is 40k right there. Are you saying these big syndicates are uninterested in that 40k? Sure I can see them manipulating but to not come back before close does not sound very plausible. And if thats what your implying, how do you know?
The screen had been unappealing in the sense to where trading has been light and operating under set formulae. Not good when combined with better openers.
If the screen doesn't represent the sharpest info, shouldn't that provide more/better opportunities to trade on the screen?
In a vacuum, yes. In theory, yes. In actuality, no. At least in the short run.
Fwiw I agree with this.
BG, I don't know why this view has to be shrouded in mystery. You think the screen is not efficient, can you discuss that further? It still makes no sense to me. It's one thing to say well the market has not agreed with your plays and quite another to say the market does in fact agree with you BUT there is some strategic option the market is taking where they are not hitting the screen. Apparently that's your view. Can you comment any more?
Wouldn't this type of stuff be expected to even out over time though. For example, let's say the true line is +100 and you've bet +102. Somtimes the median close will be inaccurate at +105 and sometimes it will be inaccurate at -105. I would guess this type of stuff evens out eventually, I have no idea how long eventually is though.
Doesn't matter how little they can move, unless they deal lines with no vig.
Yeah I thought more about this afterwords and using your contrived example, I agree it would be impossible because someone would just come in and max bet it and move it the full amount.
That said, there are quite a few things about the contrived example that aren't reality. First, not everyone knows the perfectly efficient price for the game. Second, there's only a perfectly efficient price for that moment in time so the market is constantly being shaped over the day. Third, not everyone is sharp and they'll still be betting when there's no value in the line and driving it in different directions. Fourth, the majority of people aren't making max bets and moving lines the maximum amount.
I look at it as being analogous to Malcolm Gladwell's jellybeans in a jar example in his book The Wisdom of Crowds. Ask a few people how many jellybeans are in a jar and it's very unlikely they'll get it right. Ask 10 people and take the average, you're a lot closer. Ask 100 people and take the average, you're now remarkably close to the actual amount of jellybeans.
I'm not contending MLB closers are perfectly efficient by the way. But I think to just say they're inefficient and therefore dismiss how a handicapper is doing against the close isn't right either. At a bare minimum, it's a bad sign if someone isn't beating the median close.
Unless you have specific data that suggests otherwise.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Whether we have this data as it pertains to BG is a very complicated discussion IMO. For the record and I think I stated this earlier in the thread as well that I believe BG is a long-term winner. It's not time to hit the panic button, not even close really. But I still think looking at his closing line value has benefit, it's another barometer to measure his performance. And even if you don't buy into that, it can be used as a frame of reference to compare periods of time - a yardstick of sorts.
I'm a poker player that's played over five million hands in the last nine years so I deal with nearly unimaginable extremes in variance on a yearly basis. There can be a benefit to negative variance in that it causes you to reassess what you're doing and work harder on improving your game (many poker players experience this). So if I was BG, I'd be working to turn it into a positive. I think where the danger is, is to just dismiss every losing streak to variance and do nothing particularly when we're in a changing environment as we are with sports and poker.
As an aside, I think people in this thread (and generally on this forum) are afraid to discuss more complex topics, venture into the unknown, and take chances with what they say. It's pick out a sentence or a part of a sentence and reply with a terse response. Most of the tougher questions I ask go unanswered. I encourage people to share their thoughts, right or wrong, because there's a ton of knowledge on here (you included Baserunner). I've been wrong hundreds of times including in this thread a few posts back. But who cares, I'm learning things because of it.
Do you have that from season before 2013 as well?
Does this really tell us anything? It may or it may not depending on the type of sample we need.
The lengthier version of what I was trying to say: market confirmation should be used as a guideline and supporting evidence of future success and monitoring of results. But not as a benchmarker for roi. There are much better ways of estimating roi. Clv is a great handrail for verifying that your results will track the estimated roi going forward though.
I don't. The peeps place thread is a mess of cat posts and other crap, so don't really feel like going through it looking for the plays. It was certainly positive that year though and he mentions it being such at the end.
I can't believe that you don't have the desire to wade through Cwissy's nonsense for pages and pages. Where's your dedication?
I don't think people are afraid to discuss things
1. They don't know the answers
2. They don't want to give anything away
Yep, Comanche is the real deal. Heavy player and sharp.
Pardon my ignorance but what is RTP ?