When are lines most efficient?

[ImStillBen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Opening lines outperformed closing lines in the NBA this season.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's exactly what you're saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I only speak English.

[ QUOTE ]
That opening lines were better just this season and just in the NBA?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my statement was quite clear. Perhaps you should go over the syntax with your ESL tutor.

[ QUOTE ]
Opening lines are better in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would strenuously disagree with this, but you're free to make your own assumptions.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the information of past years we can't decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have reliable data from past NBA seasons. One would expect this one to have been an anomaly, though perhaps not.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have a clue about the right answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a koan?

[sirio11]

My bad, I just was trying to make you elaborate on your statement and find out if there was any substance.

Won't happen again

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it. ... "

[knicknut]

[ QUOTE ]
My bad, I just was trying to make you elaborate on your statement and find out if there was any substance.

Won't happen again

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it. ... "

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry about him. He makes empty claims and backs it up with intimidation.

[Thremp]

knicknut,

Since you seem to be unable to back your claims and just want to rely on some dude with a book:

http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/ap...itt-040304.pdf

There is the article. His dataset is mentioned on the top of page 13. Please read the foot notes as well, they are great for a laugh. They are almost as good as DS on sports betting (You can bet games with an edge of 2 pts).

Here is Levitt making another interesting comment which I also disagree with somewhat and agree withs somewhat:

http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/200...ports-betting/

Here's a response to that:

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot....-is-wrong.html

I was unable to find several of the sources he uses, but some seem to make no sense and if they corroborate his footnotes. Most suck ass.

[knicknut]

"Since you seem to be unable to back your claims and just want to rely on some dude with a book:"

You were the one that made the claim that they're crap. It's not my job to disprove your claim. It's your job to justify it. Don't use empty rhetoric to try to demean me.

I told you I've read the article thoroughly, so linking to it won't automatically make me see your side. He mentions the limitations on his data. I agree that it is likely the best source available, albeit imperfect.

Your blog links are interesting. I agree that that is pretty sophomoric logic, and it surprises me that he thinks that way. However, that's not proof that his actual econometric analysis is faulty.

[Ortho]

[ QUOTE ]
His data sets are in his article. I don't feel obligated to state a case for him. They're Ph.D.s in financial econometrics. Sports betting is a financial market. They're trained in what they do. Until I see a rational argument discrediting some of the methodology, I think I'm going to take their side over some empty claims from anonymous online posters.

I may fully agree with you, but I can't be convinced if you can't tell me why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, just read the Levitt article and think about how the dataset might be different from actual NFL betting. A layman with reasonable critical thinking skills can see that it's hogwash. Someone with your super-duper skills shouldn't be taken in by it for a minute.

[Thremp]

knicknut,

Are you [censored] stupid? You cited an economic article that doesn't pertain to the discussion of efficient lines. Let me enumerate it:

1) Your above conclusion didn't follow from the paper, and the paper sucks. So I can't see any part of your original argument being any good. (The one about large games being less efficient)
2) You use a straw man argument to support his analysis, which still sucks. Why is he right here? Maybe I can reference how Hawking, the foremost expert on black holes for the last three decades, was wrong before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_h...mation_paradox

In case the point of this eludes you, being an expert does not make you correct. Nor would I say that Levitt is any sort of expert judging by the complete hogwash he cites in his paper.
3) I find it interesting you say its my responsibility to support my argument that yours sucks when all you do is link to a academic journal that sucks. Is that the new gold standard of the intelligentsia? If I write a paper on it and find some nitwit to publish it, it becomes fact. Not to mention I can barely figure out what part of his paper you are referencing.

All,

Here's a sweet statement that Levitt also writes: [ QUOTE ]
Given the incentives for the bookmaker to get the spread right, it is hardly surprising that the
most talented individuals would be employed as the odds makers.

[/ QUOTE ]

HYACHACHACHAHCHA

Obviously the existence of people getting barred from placing bets precludes the truth of this statement.

[knicknut]

You're wrong to assume I blindly follow all his methodology and conclusions. His conclusions were that in his data set, linesmakers don't always create a market clearing price to balance action on both sides of the line. I find that to be an entirely reasonable and well-supported conclusion, given his dataset. While wagerline not might be perfectly representative of actual betting at a book, there isn't reason to believe it would be substantially different, given the bet distributions and the line movements didn't change. From that, if books take unbalanced action, it's less likely a popular game with lots of (possibly unbalanced) action will cause a line to be less efficient.

I don't blindly follow everything else he writes.

There you go, I justified it a bit, not that it was my job. I cited widely-accepted articles from academia in making my original point--that's called supporting it. If you want to refute it, you can't say "prove it" again, you have to provide reasonable analysis to disprove it.

Everyone, please notice that besides ridiculing a couple of questionable asides Levitt makes in his paper and blog which are not central to his thesis, Thremp has yet to make any actual criticisms of his methodology. Notice the empty rhetoric that continues. Continuing to use the word "sucks" over and over does not make me believe you. I guess your circular logic will have to carry you through.

I guess I'll have to take your analysis of my intelligence over the review committee that gave my paper highest distinction as well as a number of the published sports-betting economists who like it. Then again, you don't respect them anyway.

I'm done. Not worth getting in a pissing contest. When you write your thesis proving everyone else wrong, let me know.

[rush66]

[ QUOTE ]
His conclusions were that in his data set, linesmakers don't always create a market clearing price to balance action on both sides of the line. I find that to be an entirely reasonable and well-supported conclusion, given his dataset. While wagerline not might be perfectly representative of actual betting at a book, there isn't reason to believe it would be substantially different, given the bet distributions and the line movements didn't change. I don't blindly follow everything else he writes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no read this paper or looked at his stats, and do not have time right this second (Will later). This part of his conclusion is right on the money and knicknut saying he follows only this part should end this thread. Sorry Thremp.

That being said, I do not need this paper to tell me that information.

[Performify]

Let's keep it civil, everyone.

you can have heated debate without relegating to childish name calling...