|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Likely dumb vig question
[ QUOTE ]
Since the relationship between the price and its associated probability is not linear the mean of the two prices is not the mean of their associated probabilities. So no you cannot just take the average of the two. For each price calculate the associated probability and then take the mean of those two probabilities and translate this back to a line. Probability asssocaited with -300= 300/400=0.750 Probability associated with -240= 240/340=0.706 (.75+.706)/2=.728 Line= 100*.728/(.728-1)=-268 (versus -260 by just taking the average) [/ QUOTE ] Ty for the work, but wouldn't the "average" be -270? Can I also infer that the neg side will ALWAYS need to be a bit lower? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Likely dumb vig question
Yes, the average would be -270. Probably just a typo.
For those following along at home, you can do all the math above with a Moneyline Converter, for example http://www.smartcapper.com/tool_mone...converter.html Just find the two percentages for the two lines and take the average of those (add them, divide by two, ldo). -P |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Likely dumb vig question
http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...tml#post112449
This is what I was looking for. While the above posts are a step in the correct direction, they aren't correct. Buchdahl's book touches on this subject in the opening paragraph. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Likely dumb vig question
Thremp,
If the line is efficient, how would you find the true line at higher prices then? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Likely dumb vig question
[ QUOTE ]
Thremp, If the line is efficient, how would you find the true line at higher prices then? [/ QUOTE ] Guess? I have not really gotten that far. Though from the research and economic arguments I've seen (And anecdotal evidence), it pretty clearly points to large MLs not being accurately represented by the no vig line. Which ironically may actually make a bastardized version like the one presented above or a true average more useful. |
|
|