How do you recognize a classic middle situation?

[brewster]

Kojak,
In order to recognize a good middle situation, you would to have to be able to cap an opening # or consensus line that you think is off by a couple or more points. You would then buy into that #, and hope the line moves your way and you would then buy into the other line. If you're lucky, it lands in the middle!
This is very hard to do because not only do you have to spend alot of time capping, you also have to spend a good deal of time line shopping and looking for variance. There just isnt enough time in the day.

As far as the arguement about middling being idiotic, well those that can do basic math know the answer to this!

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Fezzik thank you for not betraying your roots the SOA or CAS would be mad.

It is easy to put limits and risk of ruin a side.

first off, I gamble on everything, from cards to horses, ROR would be virtually a moot point in sports involving a binomial distribution. Think the swings created in sports are enough to worry about ROR? Try playing NL poker or betting the ponies for a while, only a really irresponsible sports bettor should ever have any fears of ROR.

How can I put limts aside? Even easier the large majority of the audience has zero such fears, they are two dollar middlers.

Therefor neither topic is applicable to an enormous vast majority of those concerned, and certainly not either the guy who posted the question or Jazzy.

Ultimately, I would even venture a guess that those who it does concern, are vastly over concerned and use the argumant as a crutch for their own inability to discern the better bet from the lesser one.

There is no argument about middling being idiotic, it is by nature, any idiot can do it and earn a return commensurate with being an idiot.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sodium Pentethol V:
Fezzik thank you for not betraying your roots the SOA or CAS would be mad.

It is easy to put limits and risk of ruin a side.

first off, I gamble on everything, from cards to horses, ROR would be virtually a moot point in sports involving a binomial distribution. Think the swings created in sports are enough to worry about ROR? Try playing NL poker or betting the ponies for a while, only a really irresponsible sports bettor should ever have any fears of ROR.

How can I put limts aside? Even easier the large majority of the audience has zero such fears, they are two dollar middlers.

Therefor neither topic is applicable to an enormous vast majority of those concerned, and certainly not either the guy who posted the question or Jazzy.

Ultimately, I would even venture a guess that those who it does concern, are vastly over concerned and use the argumant as a crutch for their own inability to discern the better bet from the lesser one.

There is no argument about middling being idiotic, it is by nature, any idiot can do it and earn a return commensurate with being an idiot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Do you accept that overall 95-98% of sportbettors lose?
2. I take it that you accept that "idiotic middlers" earn a profit, right?

If you agree with both, then does it not stand to reason that those 95-98% of losers, some of which I assume are not idiots, would be better off as "idiot middlers"? It also means that the "idiot middlers" are among the top 5% successful sportsbettors. Those in the top 5% of their craft are usually not degraded as idiots. What would that make the 95% below them? Imbeciles and morons?

 

[SportSavant]

forget about the specfic case of middling...it is ridiculous for anyone else to claim that ANYTHING is idiotic if people are succesful at it (Unless it is illegal).

After all we may think other cultures have strange habits & they may think we have strange habits...neither is idiotic...just different.

besides with:

1) discipline
2) fairly large bankroll
3) multiple SAFE outs.

you can make some decent coin middling/scalping...now mind you it takes alot of time so you could probably make decent coin working a real job aswell...however to supplement your income when you have time...especially if you do not have the time to research games & stats...it can be a very profitable/enjoyable habit.

Sodium you lose this argument hands down...their is nothing wrong with losing an argument once in a while...stand up & admit it...& lets move on to the next topic...

 

[Jazz]

"Even easier the large majority of the audience has zero such fears, they are two dollar middlers"

Lol - well, I'd wager that the vast majority of this audience doesn't even middle, and as for the rest, I'll just assume you're being presumptous. However, there is a 'natural' max limit as to what you can middle online, whereas straights don't have that problem.

"Ultimately, I would even venture a guess that those who it does concern, are vastly over concerned and use the argumant as a crutch for their own inability to discern the better bet from the lesser one."

Again, there are 2 different discussions here revolving around intent. The first concerns a bettor who places the original bet based on capping, the second concerns a bettor who places the original bet to set up a middle (or a bettor who simply hits simultaneous middles). You've blithely ignored D2Bet's points concerning the return on middling vs. straight capping.

"There is no argument about middling being idiotic, it is by nature, any idiot can do it and earn a return commensurate with being an idiot."

Since 98% of the gamblers out there do not win, that leaves the 2% which presumably includes you who do - that's great. However, your arrogance is ridiculous. You make a blanket assumption that those who don't CARE to gamble are idiotic for deciding to make a nice profit by using their brains and choosing to make a nice return on money they wouldn't otherwise gamble. Or that those who do gamble should never use their brains and find a situation advantageous to middle, using statistics and analysis. Actually, I'd submit that D2bet's analysis showing the greater return on middling would imply anyone choosing straight betting to be an idiot - but I won't. The reason is that using words that inflame rather than inform is the number one reason otherwise intelligent conversations turn into 'whose dick is bigger' topics - like you've turned this one into.

So don't bet an NFL +3.5+100/-2.5-105 middle - I honestly don't care if you do or not.

 

[samardee]

Here's a little math. Let's say you can pick 55% winners at -110. And let's say I hit a mere 6% of middles also -110 both ways -- again, simplified and it undervalues better middles. Now let's so you risk 110/100 over 100 plays:
Straight:
win 55*100 = +5500
lose 45*110 = 4950
Win 550, nice.

Middling: Agin, let's presume here that I'm RISKING (putting at risk) 110 per play
lose 94*110=10,340
win 6*2,200=13,200 (gain is 20X loss)
Win 2,860, better!


d2bets needs to learn how to do math.. how did u win $2200 on the bet when u laid 110 on each side.. u should only win $200 and that would 6*200=1200..jack ASS!!! your middling theory is off.. play straight or dont play at all...middlers are p-u-s-s-i-e-s!!!!

 

[Jazz]

SD, (comment about D2's math being off was incorrect - see below) here's a question for you: do you have an allergy to cash? I'm pretty much convinced anyone thinking middlers are 'p-u-s-s-i-e-s' are also convinced that people making money in the stock market either day-trading (probably 1%) or arbitrageuing ( a lot of the big boys do) are also the same.

Using your imagination and extending it beyond grade-school taunts, imagine winning only one bet over a week and still making money, while your gambling fool of a friend hit 50% and is bitching about his losses - can't imagine that, correct? Can't imagine also that the odds offered on points are often less than 110 these days, and so the winning percentage changes from 20X to 25X to 35X or even greater, sometimes free? It's good you get the math, so I'm assuming you'd take that NFL middle every time, correct, especially if it was free? Wouldn't it be idiotic not to when you're not risking any money?

And of course this leads inevitably to another old and tired topic - how many of you straight-up gamblers consistently show a profit, year after year? How many have tapped their friends for loans, suffered through a nightmare losing streak, called 900 lines for picks or paid for scamdicapper services? How many are always hoping the 'big score' is around the corner, playing parlay after parlay? How 'entertaining' is it, really, to look around after 2,5,10,20 years and realize that you're a net loser money-wise and time-wise spent gambling? Some big losers, some small, most in-between. How many realize that they'd like to stop but can't?

And here you are proudly proclaiming that people who don't feel like sacrificing their personal and financial lives chasing after a 53-55% winning percentage and who are making a nice profit while still enjoying sports and sleeping soundly are 'idiotic' and 'p-u-s-s-i-e-s'.

I'll tell you this - I seriously doubt a true professional, one who makes his living at it, would come in here wasting his time to make childish insults.

[This message was edited by Jazz on February 16, 2004 at 01:53 PM.]

 

[Jazz]

I withdraw my comments about D2's math being wrong - he was comparing RISKED amounts, not the amount actually wagered per each side. I assume he'll post a follow-up here explaining it.

 

[Jazz]

Actually, to risk $110 loss on a middle attempt requires placing $1,210 on each side of a middle at -110 to win $1,100. A middle win results in a $2,200 profit here and a $110 loss if the middle loses. D2's math is correct. You have to compare risk amounts to arrive at a true comparison between the two.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SD:
Here's a little math. Let's say you can pick 55% winners at -110. And let's say I hit a mere 6% of middles also -110 both ways -- again, simplified and it undervalues better middles. Now let's so you risk 110/100 over 100 plays:
Straight:
win 55*100 = +5500
lose 45*110 = 4950
Win 550, nice.

Middling: Agin, let's presume here that I'm RISKING (putting at risk) 110 per play
lose 94*110=10,340
win 6*2,200=13,200 (gain is 20X loss)
Win 2,860, better!


d2bets needs to learn how to do math.. how did u win $2200 on the bet when u laid 110 on each side.. u should only win $200 and that would 6*200=1200..jack ASS!!! your middling theory is off.. play straight or dont play at all...middlers are p-u-s-s-i-e-s!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me explain. Notice I bolded RISKING...and clarified it even further with (putting at risk) -- I'll further clarify with an example:
For the middle I am assuming:
$1,210 to win $1100 on one side of the middle; and
$1,210 to win $1100 on the other side.
The most I can lose is $110 -- thus, I am putting at risk $110, just as I am with a single $110 straight wager.

In both cases, the most that can be lost is $110, just happens to be tht with the middle the $110 at risk is a function of the pair of $1,210 wagers. But in both cases I'm risking $110, which we're calling 1 unit.

In that original post I also said: "The middler made over 5X as much per $ risked by simply hitting 6% vs. a 55% straight bettor." Nowhere did I talk about how much was laid per side. If I play the Lakers -6 laying $1,210 vs. the Mavs +8 laying $1,210 then I am RISKINGa loss of $110 since by definition of a middle at least one of the wagers must win.

Make sense?

Maybe you should contemplate for a moment that you might be misreading before you go off calling someone a jackass.

[This message was edited by D2bets on February 16, 2004 at 02:09 PM.]

 

[Jazz]

This would indicate that the profits returned from a 6% middling win rate vs. a 55% straight betting win rate is 5.2 times greater for the same risk amount. Note that if the win rate was 5%, the profits are identical ($11,000 - $10,450 = $550). Therefore, in that case, if any 'idiot' can equal the result of a 55% capper who spends an enormous amount of his time buried in sports, what does that imply about the capper who insults middlers?

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz:
This would indicate that the profits returned from a 6% middling win rate vs. a 55% straight betting win rate is _5.2 times greater for the same risk amount_. Note that if the win rate was 5%, _the profits are identical_ ($11,000 - $10,450 = $550). Therefore, in that case, if any 'idiot' can equal the result of a 55% capper who spends an enormous amount of his time buried in sports, what does that imply about the capper who insults middlers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To put this in a real world example, let's say you're playing 2 pt NBA middles and it's functional equivalent -- paying 5 juice points per side (i.e. -5.5-105/+6.5-105). Given that we can easily determine that the typical NBA numbers are easily at least at a 3% hit rate, we can know that we can hit that "6% success." Again, this is 5.2X better per $ risked vs. the 55% capper. To reach the equivalent at -110, you would need to be a 66% capper:
66*+100=+6600
34*-110=-3740
+2,860 like the 6% middler
Call me when you find a 66% capper.

Therefore, you would have to be an idiot to play straight when you can find an NBA middle/side that I described above. Eithr that or a 66% capper. lol

 

[Jazz]

SPV: I'd like to know if you have a response to this.

 

[OMNIVOROUS FROG]

If I may interject my 2 cents. I recognize a great middle situation by looking what is offered at the same time, not speculation. For example, the NBA All Star Game. I speculated the line would rise. Bought in at 251, got off at 255, that was not a middle situation, but it turned out my speculation was correct. However when looking through the books in my library, I saw first quarter totals at 62 1/2, and 64 1/2. Now, I oly have a quarter, instead of an entire game, and I have 2 points, at the same time. Bingo, I recognized a classic middle situation. You know why? It landed 64! Hey, why not do it all, scalp, middle, speculate, gamble, bonus and reup. This from eats everything. BestWishes...OMNIVOROUS FROG

 

[SportSavant]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You know why? It landed 64! Hey, why not do it all, scalp, middle, speculate, gamble, bonus and reup. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I Like your style

 

[Jazz]

Frog, that's exactly correct - a 2 pt total difference on a qtr is golden - as a matter of fact, both the first and fourth quarters landed on the total mostly posted (64) - I also had a similar 251/255.5 speculative middle, based on the fact that All-Star games usually rise from the total - didn't hit due to that outrageous 3rd quarter, but que sera, sera.

 

[OMNIVOROUS FROG]

Yes Jazz that 3rd Q was wild. I took back on a dip off of 255, got the last one and then it ran through to 255 1/2. Oops. My best prop was under 27 1/2 ft's. Right now I am sitting on C St. + 5 1/2. Their center made a miraculous recovery just in time for game, and BYU is weak on road. Maybe hedge at half if possible. But like I tried to say with my all thumbs typing, this FROG eats everything. Best Wishes...OF

 

[brewster]

Delaware -1/2 @ -110
NC Wilm. +2 @ -105

Final:
Delaware 62
NC Wilm. 61

Total risk $80 to win $1982

This idiot loves to count $100 bills!

 

[Jazz]

yeah, those phuckers hit 50% of their FTs - lol - what a well-played game (sarcastic laugh) - GL on Cst

 

[Jazz]

So, brewster, you got about a 25-1 return - you fool!!!