Your taking dodgers to sweep the nats, with scherzer going in game 2 , you must have a very, very valid reason for doing so, i think scherzer is 4-1 after a nats loss, you take that and the odds of nats being swept with anyone pitching and am thinking thats hard to do.
both teams not hitting but scherzer is hard to beat at home.
Jets, what's shocking to me is how someone doing this "professionally" uses a 5 game sample size thats not predictive of future results, not even taking into consideration the line attached to those games, and cares about narratives like "he wont get swept because we will really really care very hard and try to win G2 if they lose G1" as a way to make or not make a wager.
The only reason he needs to bet LAD G2 is the following. I make the game LAD +168, i see the line as LAD +183, therefore i bet my edge.
it seems fairly obvious to me the only thing that matters to CSH is CLV which everyone knows I agree with that and Jets is coming from an experienced bettor angle. I think its reasonable to bet the Dodgers 50 times straight if the line value is there and I think it is also very reasonable for someone with betting experience to say its damn near impossible for the Nats to get swept at this point.
it would do him well to rid himself of narratives like that when deciding to make a wager. its about the price attached to the bet and the difference btwn that # and the number he makes the game, thats it.
would he bet the game if it was LAD +300? how about +400? +500? would the nats try a little less hard then?
when is it a price high enough for him to think... well... maybe... he will have a bad day.... lets try to bet it at +600 today and see if I can get lucky?
I have wondered why these guys write all these narratives anyway, if I got -140 and its -115 I bet, the clouds are heavy, Johnson hits good against a guy in the shade, he has 4 straight games of playing on Tuesdays where they are a run or more ahead. ALl that is just noise to me
so why did u just defend the total opposite side just now? LOL saying things like "its damn near impossible for them to get swept"
anyway sorry for clogging this thread with my nonsense, BOL to OP!
No what I said was I agree with both parties
person A (CSH) said what previously happened does not mean shit, its all about CLV
person B (Jets) said I dont think they will get swept with scherzer and whatever else he said
and What I said was I think that thinking CLV is all that matters is the same way I do it and I also can agree with an experienced bettor like Jets that even though you think value is on the Dodgers it is very hard to beat the Nats in a sweep. I think both arguments are valid. I firmly and only believe in the line, dont get it twisted !
on a side note, after reading about the likelihood of a bettor having a great win loss record and no skill it is exactly likely that a non skilled bettor could have great CLV and be not skilled
on a side note, after reading about the likelihood of a bettor having a great win loss record and no skill it is exactly likely that a non skilled bettor could have great CLV and be not skilled
please explain it funny guy, CLV can be a push a win or a loss, its that simple just like wins pushes and losses, explain the difference. I believe that someone skilled usually shows line value but its not necessary lots of skilled bettors dont track or care about CLV, they see the value in the line they set compared to the bet. you can argue well CLV can move farther so that seperates it from WLP but it dont because the movement in CLV has drastically changed and the margin for winning is so much smaller. line movements overall are fairly consistent a game moves 10 cents either way which gets it back to being a WLP scenario, if it moved more like 40-50 cents or somethign it would a lot better to use that to determine skill but the small average movement now makes it a toss up just like WLP
I first did not know CLV then I believed CLV was the only way and now after further research of what I consider some very skilled people, I think many skilled bettors dont have +CLV and they win long term. Even the smartest people in the business will tell you CLV is the best indicator of skill but if a bettor has a large sample size and wins, he is just as likely to be skilled. so for you firm CLV believers yes its true but not the only way!
No one is disputing you on this. There are plenty of originators and groups that bet as close to start as possible to maximize liquidity while sacrificing edges. You just keep shifting the goal posts and don't make much sense
so vegas .your right, bet same side of dh before game one is even played and lineups are out, sharp
Unless you are properly equipped to automate both your line creation and betting waiting for lineups is actually not sharp at all. Most others are going to beat you to the screen a few seconds after lineups come out. Anyway, this is probably the last response to this nonsense. Here to share +EV plays, not educate people on how the market works.
so vegas .your right, bet same side of dh before game one is even played and lineups are out, sharp
I... I don't even know how to reply to that ... I'm just gonna make this my last reply on this thread because I feel terrible about what happened to it.
you funny guys always just make
A rude statement
B I am tired of this
Fact by me the firm believer in CLV is that CLV is only important if the market is effecient and B is not any better than a large sample size. here is a calculator that might help someone wondering even though I am losing faith in this as well https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/110Hf3h-An7JOLV5L3o1pQuNXQAK-5_GT2o6HE6x0kco/edit?usp=sharing
to use it just make a copy and you can add your result info and see if you are lucky or good!
No one is disputing you on this. There are plenty of originators and groups that bet as close to start as possible to maximize liquidity while sacrificing edges. You just keep shifting the goal posts and don't make much sense
you literally just replied "NO" when I said this earlier or was it not in the queens perfect english for you to understand?
Comments
TOR/NYM Under 8 -104
WSH -166
5/17
TB/LAA Under 8 -111
DET/SEA Under8.5 -116
SD +152
CHC -107
SF -124
TB +139
LAD/WSH Over 7 -115
SD/PIT Over 7.5 -109
DET/SEA Under 8 -105
MIA +205
OAK +120
KC +161
5/18
CHC -166
ARI/NYM Under 7 -110
NYY/KC Under 8.5 -113
DET/SEA Under 7.5 -112
MIN/MIL Over 8.5 +104
COL -107
SEA -235
5/19
LAD G2 +183
CHC G2 -155
LAD G1 +126
both teams not hitting but scherzer is hard to beat at home.
Hope you cash and good luck going forward.
The only reason he needs to bet LAD G2 is the following. I make the game LAD +168, i see the line as LAD +183, therefore i bet my edge.
The end.
it would do him well to rid himself of narratives like that when deciding to make a wager. its about the price attached to the bet and the difference btwn that # and the number he makes the game, thats it.
would he bet the game if it was LAD +300? how about +400? +500? would the nats try a little less hard then?
when is it a price high enough for him to think... well... maybe... he will have a bad day.... lets try to bet it at +600 today and see if I can get lucky?
anyway sorry for clogging this thread with my nonsense, BOL to OP!
person A (CSH) said what previously happened does not mean shit, its all about CLV
person B (Jets) said I dont think they will get swept with scherzer and whatever else he said
and What I said was I think that thinking CLV is all that matters is the same way I do it and I also can agree with an experienced bettor like Jets that even though you think value is on the Dodgers it is very hard to beat the Nats in a sweep. I think both arguments are valid. I firmly and only believe in the line, dont get it twisted !
No (character limit)
Unless you are properly equipped to automate both your line creation and betting waiting for lineups is actually not sharp at all. Most others are going to beat you to the screen a few seconds after lineups come out. Anyway, this is probably the last response to this nonsense. Here to share +EV plays, not educate people on how the market works.
I... I don't even know how to reply to that ... I'm just gonna make this my last reply on this thread because I feel terrible about what happened to it.
(You're*)
A rude statement
B I am tired of this
Fact by me the firm believer in CLV is that CLV is only important if the market is effecient and B is not any better than a large sample size. here is a calculator that might help someone wondering even though I am losing faith in this as well
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/110Hf3h-An7JOLV5L3o1pQuNXQAK-5_GT2o6HE6x0kco/edit?usp=sharing
to use it just make a copy and you can add your result info and see if you are lucky or good!
you literally just replied "NO" when I said this earlier or was it not in the queens perfect english for you to understand?