Yes, that's what he is saying. Not sure if he has a straight face when he does so, but that's what he's saying. He's trying to argue that the '7' and the '14' are man-made so we don't know if the "true" total will end up being much more than 7 or much less than 14. It's a red herring argument of course because if you look at all the games lined 7 and 14 respectively you'll see that the average total runs ends up being rather closer to the average posted totals. If there was no such relationship, then all you'd have to do is bet every )7 and every U14 and you'd be rich in no time.Patrick McIrish said:
i agree with identity here and wonder if others think the same.IDENTITY said:
before the div playoffs i think oly posted their mythical conf champs, opened with the game at pk and were bet to pit -1.5
that line already assumes that both teams have won so you are taking into account that ne have beaten indi whether by 20-3 or a last second interception.
i didn't see enough this past weekend to change that to ne -3 so i fully expect the line to drop to least 2.5 or 2 come sunday.
so i thought a smart line for a book would be to be lay ne all week at -2.5 whether at -120 or -125 or even -130.
Because for every person who can bury the bookmaker (and there are some), there are probably 10 to 20 who will get buried themselves. (Most) Books make enough to pay the sharps and still pay themselves.jjgold said:
Oh, and as for that first statement -- tell that to Aces Gold, Blue Marlin, PanAm....and any number of others.
I had an idea this wouold start to turn into something major...
Sancho, I put up numbers from a database, as did daringly. We were right along the same lines with most of them, until we came to one parameter, it just happens to be the one we are discussing here. But he gets 14% versus around 10%, I get 11% versus 9.7%. In his case one could make an argument albeit a small one that having the total less than 37.5 is going to have a slightly higher probability of a number pushing on 3. But when you start talking percentages and alike the REAL numbers get lost in the shuffle. It is akin to a guy who is 6 and 4 over 10 games. He IS 60% but how much has he profitted? But a guy that is 560-440 over 1000 is 'only' 56% but probably has a lot more profits. Percentages are meaningless unless they have real numbers to back them up.
As for the baseball total thing. who is to say a game with a 7 as a total might not end up 10-6? Or a game with a 14 total might end up 3-4? The lines are not predictions. So they have no bearing on the actual outcome.
It seems logical to think that games with lower posted totals would have a higher frequency but they do not. Simply because you are still going to have that 50% or so that sail way over the 'small' total'. So it is also logical to think that many of those games will not result in a one run differential. Just like it isn't hard to think of a game that is lined at 6.5 having scores like 5-1 or 4-2, and still going UNDER, and still having a RL winner.
I run these numbers every year, I ran then many many times to make sure. Simpley because it would seem logical. But when you look at the overal results there is no correlation. If there were people would just bet the "mathematical" side and win over and over again.
My argument lies in reality. If math were the answer to gambling, every geek in the world would be a billionaire, and why I always say math has very little place in sports gambling. If it did those same math geeks would NEVER lose. Math is finite and strict and can ALWAYS be proofed. That is impossible in sports wagering, for the simple fact that every new results changes the equation.
Sancho, I put up numbers from a database, as did daringly. We were right along the same lines with most of them, until we came to one parameter, it just happens to be the one we are discussing here. But he gets 14% versus around 10%, I get 11% versus 9.7%. In his case one could make an argument albeit a small one that having the total less than 37.5 is going to have a slightly higher probability of a number pushing on 3. But when you start talking percentages and alike the REAL numbers get lost in the shuffle. It is akin to a guy who is 6 and 4 over 10 games. He IS 60% but how much has he profitted? But a guy that is 560-440 over 1000 is 'only' 56% but probably has a lot more profits. Percentages are meaningless unless they have real numbers to back them up.
As for the baseball total thing. who is to say a game with a 7 as a total might not end up 10-6? Or a game with a 14 total might end up 3-4? The lines are not predictions. So they have no bearing on the actual outcome.
It seems logical to think that games with lower posted totals would have a higher frequency but they do not. Simply because you are still going to have that 50% or so that sail way over the 'small' total'. So it is also logical to think that many of those games will not result in a one run differential. Just like it isn't hard to think of a game that is lined at 6.5 having scores like 5-1 or 4-2, and still going UNDER, and still having a RL winner.
I run these numbers every year, I ran then many many times to make sure. Simpley because it would seem logical. But when you look at the overal results there is no correlation. If there were people would just bet the "mathematical" side and win over and over again.
My argument lies in reality. If math were the answer to gambling, every geek in the world would be a billionaire, and why I always say math has very little place in sports gambling. If it did those same math geeks would NEVER lose. Math is finite and strict and can ALWAYS be proofed. That is impossible in sports wagering, for the simple fact that every new results changes the equation.
Shrink:
First off good read as there are many new members and guests of the RX everyday and always valuable to provide shared thoughts. In keeping with the same theme but with a slight twist, it may be of value to look at the Margin of Victory propositions as often times the odds posted are greater then 7 to 1 for the game actually landing on 3. Just a thought.
First off good read as there are many new members and guests of the RX everyday and always valuable to provide shared thoughts. In keeping with the same theme but with a slight twist, it may be of value to look at the Margin of Victory propositions as often times the odds posted are greater then 7 to 1 for the game actually landing on 3. Just a thought.
wantitall4moi said:
What???? NO bearing on the actual outcome? Are you fukking kidding? Do you think the totals are simply guesses pulled from thin air? Again, if the posted total has no relationship to the actual total then wouldn't you just bet every O7 and every U14?
Go take a look at your database results again and tell me what the average runs scored is for games lined '7' vs. games lined '14'. I'd be very interested to know. Then try to tell me that there is no relationship b/w posted and actual totals.
I mean, that's like saying "who is to say that a +10 NFL dog might win not outright. The lines are not predictions. So they have no bearing on the actual outcome"....LUDICROUS.
Come on want, you are too smart for this.
