Simply betting against a line because it is off a half run is no guarantee that you will win long term. That is basically saying that enough line moves are right/correct, to justify betting every single one of them. If you do that I would think you might actually lose. Granted 18 games is a short sample, but he is still 3-15. Had tyou been scalping or hedging or siding you might be at least even if not ahead. All depends on if that local charges odds with the off numbers. Someone alluded to that earlier. But if he has 9 -110 on both sides, and you can get 8.5 OVER for -110, or 9.5 UNDER for -110, then I would say that in those cases betting both ways would evenually profit, even if it is only a side possibility. Considering 7-10% (the results vary so much because the lines vary so much) of games that arel ined 9 land on 9, that is a decent expectation.
Another angle on that argument is that one can only assume a regression to the mean if and only if the same amount is bet one each and every game. If you are betting more on this game or more on that game, then it is impossible to determine if you will ever "even up".
But basically it all has to do with the odds.
As far as the original question, who really knows. Sharps are no different than any other smart guy that knows how to bet. They look at odds wiegh them to expectation and bet or lay off accordingly. The way people talk it is like a "sharp" is a whole other life form or something. Being sharp entails many things. Not just the bility to bet and win, but bet and win consistantly enough to not go broke. In my book anyone that beats a sport is sharp in that sport.
I would be willing to bet that the sharpest guy don't gamble on bases anyways. Or probably any sport for that matter. Bases is just easier to manipulate due to the ML system. Probably why books hate it so much. Smart guys take the best numbers each way and try to lock a profit, or the very least buy back a side to assure a break even one way and a nominal profit on the isde they feel strongest about. Basically taking free shots at teams with like. Because anyone that gambles knows that you are not going to hit enough games consistantly to make up for the losses. But if you never lose, and win even 35% of the time, you will be further ahead over the long run than if you were hitting 75% of your plays.
Winning isn't the answer, not losing is.If someone can scalpa game and make 65-200 for nothing, doesn't that make more sense than risking 1500 to possibly make 1000? I only need 7-15 bets to make that FOR SURE. A guy gambling needs to HOPE to hit 6 of 10 sides at an average of price of -125 consistantly to show that much profit. So over 100 games he will have 40 losers, over 100 games I will have none. He will have a lot more big wins, but in the end profit wise we are dead even.
Everyone has their own approach. Some just settle for less I guess. But when it is free money I don't care. Someone once said they wouldn't bother wasting their time for 20K in a year they could make scalping baseball. That guy must be so rich he wouldn't bend over to pick up a 10 spot on the ground because it might waste his time.:ughhh:
Another angle on that argument is that one can only assume a regression to the mean if and only if the same amount is bet one each and every game. If you are betting more on this game or more on that game, then it is impossible to determine if you will ever "even up".
But basically it all has to do with the odds.
As far as the original question, who really knows. Sharps are no different than any other smart guy that knows how to bet. They look at odds wiegh them to expectation and bet or lay off accordingly. The way people talk it is like a "sharp" is a whole other life form or something. Being sharp entails many things. Not just the bility to bet and win, but bet and win consistantly enough to not go broke. In my book anyone that beats a sport is sharp in that sport.
I would be willing to bet that the sharpest guy don't gamble on bases anyways. Or probably any sport for that matter. Bases is just easier to manipulate due to the ML system. Probably why books hate it so much. Smart guys take the best numbers each way and try to lock a profit, or the very least buy back a side to assure a break even one way and a nominal profit on the isde they feel strongest about. Basically taking free shots at teams with like. Because anyone that gambles knows that you are not going to hit enough games consistantly to make up for the losses. But if you never lose, and win even 35% of the time, you will be further ahead over the long run than if you were hitting 75% of your plays.
Winning isn't the answer, not losing is.If someone can scalpa game and make 65-200 for nothing, doesn't that make more sense than risking 1500 to possibly make 1000? I only need 7-15 bets to make that FOR SURE. A guy gambling needs to HOPE to hit 6 of 10 sides at an average of price of -125 consistantly to show that much profit. So over 100 games he will have 40 losers, over 100 games I will have none. He will have a lot more big wins, but in the end profit wise we are dead even.
Everyone has their own approach. Some just settle for less I guess. But when it is free money I don't care. Someone once said they wouldn't bother wasting their time for 20K in a year they could make scalping baseball. That guy must be so rich he wouldn't bend over to pick up a 10 spot on the ground because it might waste his time.:ughhh:
