NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02

[DeucesUp]

Thanks Performify, I wasn't aware that the trend had been published and widely read. You're right that alone could kill it as there's no way the books are going to let bundles of complete newbies who read some article in a magazine/newspaper beat them with a simple system. But it all depends on how many people (and dollars) are following it.


And I think your general assessment of the "betting public" may very well be accurate, I like the way you presented it. I was going to mention the run of NFL favs as further support, but thought my post was too long and unfocused as it was.

Anyway, look forward to your additional thoughts.

[NoChance]

I would compare this to fish in the poker room though. There are plenty of books out there but not everyone is reading them or beliving them to be right. Same goes with these articles. I can't imagine too many people would stick with it long term without proof. They may try it for a few games and then just forget about it, no? I just think it was one of those years. As already mentioned, it was a strange year for the NFL also.

[DeucesUp]

That's absolutely a valid comparison and a good point. Definitely there are always going be a lot of really bad sports bettors out there. The problem is that, unlike poker, you can't just play against the bad sports bettors by playing small stakes, you play against everybody. Actually, you're playing against everybody weighted by how much they bet and on average the big bettors are going to be better. If just a few big bettors have adopted your system, it could take most of the value out of it.


To continue the comparison, I think the proliferation of information has, on average, made online poker much tougher than it was 2 years ago. Sure you can still find plenty of fish but the average player is much better. If the same thing has happened in sports betting, it could mean sports betting will become difficult to beat, particularly with straight-forward, well-publicized angles. For example, we may have seen the death of the NFL home dog. Even if a whole lot of squares are still putting in their $50 bets on the road favorites, there are now SO many sharps and even not-so-sharps who know about the home dog angle who are just waiting to pour in their money on any home dog that it seems unlikely there will be much value there in the future.



I'm not saying that any of this is really occurring. I really don't have any data to back it up nor enough experience to make a judgement call. I'm also not critisizing the system, as I said previously it seems to be based on reasonable principles and of course going slightly under .500 over 30 games this season doesn't even begin to prove the system isn't working. I just think it makes for an interesting discussion and even serves as a platform to discuss the bigger issue of whether traditional sharp angles will continue to remain effective as sport-betting information becomes more-and-more available.

[Easy E]

As I was going through these new replies, I was thinking about the dangers of sharing sports information and comparing it to poker.

Continuing your "poker vs. sports betting" knowledge transfer, I think sharing information is a lot less dangerous in poker than it may be for sports betting systems. Poker play requires a [/b]lot[/b] of information and even more discipline to properly implement it. Therefore, I posit that it is less 'dangerous' to share poker information.

[ QUOTE ]
I just think it makes for an interesting discussion and even serves as a platform to discuss the bigger issue of whether traditional sharp angles will continue to remain effective as sport-betting information becomes more-and-more available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something else to discuss- does a bettor get more help from others' input, when sharing over boards such as this one, that he or she loses by the knowledge becoming more public?

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]

just a hypothesis obviously not qualitiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one reason that I'm not keen on blindly following any system without analysis. If the fundamental underpinnings start changing, you'd want to re-evaluate the system before you get sucked in to a long-term losing trend that has changed.

As to what may be your main point, Performify, do we stop sharing information, at least publically? I can't believe that our 2+2 discussions resulted in this:

[ QUOTE ]
This trend was published in two major general interest publications this year.

This alone may have been enough to kill the trend.

The combined weight of the semi-literate betting public moved the value out of these unranked teams thru the publication of our "system".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you are saying that others have also known about this trend and figured it out on their own (though it may be good for NoChance's ego to think that he is the master of the NCAA universe [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )

I think the books have some of the best resources to pick up trends, since that's what they do for a living. Hopefully, they may not be able to do that much about it, due to public betting patterns.

[Performify]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you are saying that others have also known about this trend and figured it out on their own (though it may be good for NoChance's ego to think that he is the master of the NCAA universe [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )


[/ QUOTE ]

Not enough time for a full response, but this trend existed and was shared before NoChance. I was aware of the trend and already betting it before NoChance started posting it on here. If you go back to his first couple threads on it when people started questioning it, you'll see me jumping in communicating from the side of someone already aware of the trend.

I first heard about it from my sports betting mentor about six years ago.

When i talk about the trend being published, the worst case was that it was published in a major mens general interest publication which probably has 500k subscribers, a vast percentage of which would fall in to the exact group we're worried about.

I don't believe we stop sharing information on 2p2. The analogy to poker information is correct, a small percentage of people are going to make their way here. however exactly like your poker analogy, with sports betting its much easier to apply the information (following a pick is a lot different from employing a poker technique).