Could you explain the reduction in variance. I'm not seeing it.

ETA: That post you linked doesn't really illuminate anything either. Its really basic.

Dreamer, are you trying to say that in the past people bet Wong Teasers because their expectation for -1.5 to -2.5 going forward was > 50% ATS?

Because that's what it sounds like.

Some people do this as a first level analysis, but no one I consider intelligent uses this type of analysis as anymore than masturbatory.

[QUOTE=Thremp;15548958]Could you explain the reduction in variance. I'm not seeing it.

ETA: That post you linked doesn't really illuminate anything either. Its really basic.[/QUOTE]

So why is everyone and their uncle in this thread questioning my suggestion that Wong teasers wont be as profitable going forward when most people agree that certain subsets such as short HDs will be closer to 50% going forward?

If you are looking at the same given situation, variance is a function of edge.

If they had a 100% edge how much va****** would you have?

D.

But the point is that the 22% is suspect because it's based on lines in the past that he's arguing were potentially inefficient. Your argument for the 22% going forward is based on it being 22% in the past.

No one is suggesting that you don't treat the lines going forward as 50/50.

[QUOTE=Dreamer;15549793] That isn't strictly what variance means. I'm not math geek, but I did seek clarification on that point. And it appears you're using variance to mean some amount of swongage necessary to reach a certain amount of dollars. Like a Sharpe Ratio or something of that sort. In which case, then I'd agree.

No one is questioning that HDs teased won't be as profitable going forward. If that is what you're trying to prove, you should construct a more sound argument, as the one you've presented is quite dubious (HD covering at 48%) and the examples you use, somewhat asinine (54% SU is superior to a 6 pt teaser garnering 19% more).

Your seems to imply that you think NFL isn't efficient regarding HDs and/or that the teaser "sweet spot" won't fall in greater than a breakeven amount. I could very well be misunderstanding this, but that seems to be the source of a large amount of contention.

This.

All of these decimal expressions can be expressed as fractions with a denominator of 2219, which means you are somehow basing them on some sort of sample of 2219 games (and reporting the results with an accuracy to the billionths lol) This means you have a massive margin of error which you are completely ignoring and accounts for the irregularities I described earlier in the thread.

If you do not respond I will assume you agree and are conceding the argument to me. I will also further assume you are finally agreeing I am a better sportsbettor than you.

Looking forward to your response.

first of all, sick burn

second of all, lmao @ 2219

[QUOTE=Dreamer;15549793] Seems like enough time has gone by that this can be tested now.