Sports Betting Question From Bluff This

[David Sklansky]

1) If a gambler spent the necessary time to become a very good handicapper in one or more sports, as in basically full time, BUT did not also throughout the day constantly monitor the opening lines or movements in same either online or in a B&M sportsbook, could he still beat sports? That is, if he got up late, checked the lines only twice a day and either bet them or not at those limited times, would that be sufficient?

2) What general type of heuristic do even excellent professional handicappers make insufficient use of?

1)There are two types of professional sports bettors. Those who get a great deal of there edge from getting the best number. They bet a lot of games. And those whose main edge comes from identifying games where the line, in their opinion is quite a bit "off". The second type can still win under your scenario if they are good enough.

2) The gratest handicapper I ever met used three basic techniques to find bets where his line differed significantly from the actual line. Get into the heads of the athletes to find situations where one side was much more into the game than the other even though it wasn't obvious to the public. (This included realizing when home court was over or underated). Identify situations where the intelligence of the coach or the players themselves made up for a small talent differential. Identify situations where the simplistic power line differential was wrong because there was something about how these two teams styles or individual players matched up that would result in something different than what scores against other teams might indicate. He almost always bet underdogs.

[BluffTHIS!]

Thanks for those excellent answers. When you say he "got into the heads of the athletes", did he do so partially or a great deal via inside information, i.e. actually talking to them or those who know them, or did he mainly rely on minutely analyzing public news reported comments of the athletes and coaches?

[David Sklansky]

No inside information

[Fishhead24]

Getting the best number is critical in profitig from sportsbetting.

-FH-

[r3vbr]

Are most pro sports bettors who work online using betting exchanges such as betfair and wsex or at regular sportsbooks playing against the house?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Are most pro sports bettors who work online using betting exchanges such as betfair and wsex or at regular sportsbooks playing against the house?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both. All about the best numbers.

[fungaimike56]

Heuristic--adj. useful for discovering knowledge, e.g. of a teaching method which encourages the pupil to proceed by his own investigation // of the creation of models as a working hypothesis of a goal or solution...Webster's Dictionary.

Computerized modeling would be my answer to question #2. Not everyone has the ability to do this. I certainly don't. I do believe individuals with this ability could gain significant edge.

I'm reminded of a dispute I read of in which two titans of the poker/gambling world hired a guy to create a model to aid in baseball betting. The results advocating bets that the gamblers could not believe. One gambler abstained completely while the other bet the other side. The model held up. The dispute was whether the modeler should have been paid since no profit was made. The betting gambler refused to pay while the abstainer did pay.

[johnnyrocket]

thats great, i'll send my brother this page so he can do a little better since he is a degenerate sports better.

[BobAllinSki]

1) & 2) Can both be computer programs, getting a model to generate prices is a bit tricky but writing software to scrape websites to monitor odds is fairly trivial, I definately think that is the direction a lot of sports betting is going.

[varsity629]

I think even in those situations where you knew something about the game the general public didnt know or realize...you would still need to get the best possible line to make a significant impact over a large period of time.

I remember one of these instances recently in the 2005 NCAA tournament. Syracuse played Vermont in the first round and were favored by 8, but the Big East was so strong that year they were being heavily favored in most games. Vermont had 5 guys on the court who could shoot the 3 and basically shot Syracuse out of the zone. Anyone who followed bball closely that year knew Vermont had the edge to WIN the game outright and I remember people I know making alot of money off that game.