Betting Talk

2018 MLB

13

Comments

  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    5/16
    TOR/NYM Under 8 -104
    WSH -166
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    55-52 (51.4%) -2.42u +2.10% CLV

    5/17
    TB/LAA Under 8 -111
    DET/SEA Under8.5 -116
    SD +152
    CHC -107
    SF -124
    TB +139
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    5/18
    LAD/WSH Over 7 -115
    SD/PIT Over 7.5 -109
    DET/SEA Under 8 -105
    MIA +205
    OAK +120
    KC +161
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    57-54 (51.4%) -2.32u +2.14% CLV

    5/18
    CHC -166
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    5/19
    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
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    60-56 (51.7%) -1.46u +2.09% CLV

    5/19
    LAD G2 +183
    CHC G2 -155
    LAD G1 +126
  • jets96jets96 Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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.

    Hope you cash and good luck going forward.
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    Failing to see how one game's result will effect the other short of lineup implications in a double header. GL to you as well
  • vegasendbossvegasendboss Member
    edited May 2018
    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.

    The end.
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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.
  • vegasendbossvegasendboss Member
    edited May 2018
    wut?! jesus christ.

    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?
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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
  • vegasendbossvegasendboss Member
    edited May 2018
    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!
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    I was sayign what Jets said, I dont know or care if they get swept, I was saying what Jets said and that was his point and CSH point was its only CLV
  • vegasendbossvegasendboss Member
    edited May 2018
    no, you said it was reasonable to think that way. its not.
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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 !
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    danshan wrote: »
    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

    No (character limit)
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    Danshan please familiarize yourself with causation vs. correlation and report back
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    I know the difference, if you have an argument for one way or the other present it, dont hint you are smart, show it
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    You don't get both the cheat sheet and the answers to the test
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    more rhymes
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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!
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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
  • jets96jets96 Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    so vegas .your right, bet same side of dh before game one is even played and lineups are out, sharp
  • cshcsh Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    jets96 wrote: »
    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.
  • vegasendbossvegasendboss Member
    edited May 2018
    jets96 wrote: »
    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're*)
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    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!
  • danshandanshan Senior Member
    edited May 2018
    csh wrote: »
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.