BTW, I messed up royally this week regarding line predictions. I liked Balt+7 at first but didn't get on it, and now its moved significantly. I'm still unsure of methods for predicting line movement. Looking back(and trying to learn from this mistake) Baltimore's line did move last week as well and the fact that FO has Baltimore as such a better team that public thought could lead me to believe that sharp money is going to continue to make Balt's lines move.

I'm guessing that predicting line movement is something that can't be "learned from a textbook" but can only come with experience.

Definitely a mistake on my part, but if I can learn from it I'll be happy.

Anticipating (accurately) line moves is both an art and science.

Follow the line moves from the previous week for a given team. Generally, money coming in on team A in week 1 (that moves the line), will also come in again on team A in week 2, assuming team A covers. The openers try to adjust for it, but usually undershoot the move. This is more typical of line moves immediately after the opener, as opposed to moves just prior to game time. A quick example: USC against Oregon St. USC opened -9 against Ohio St, then moved up to -11.5. USC covered easily. Next game against Oregon St., subjectively fair line would be in -20 range, opened -21.5, moved up to -25.5 before closing -24. This week's Marshall/West Virginia spread (+17 down to +14) is another example.

I already mentioned MNF total moves in a previous post in this thread.

Just more tools in the arsenal.

You ever stop and think for a minute that maybe, just maybe, the problem is... you?

Of course. You never reveal (or at least admit to) what you've learned on this forum (and others similar). If I've learned 10%, you've probably learned 99%.

Last question before I go to the FAQ....

I noticed that everyone ignored my tax questions....obviously I don't expect anyone to want to publicly admit that they don't pay taxes, so let me rephrase the question so that answering it does not implicate anyone:

If you pay taxes on your winnings is it still possible to beat sports betting for a worthwhile win rate?

Many posters here "speak code." They don't like it when you don't describe matters in the exact same way/technique they do. It's insulting to them. Even simple and fundamental terms as +EV have been derided and redefined to derivative bankroll management terms like "expected growth."

Yes, I do. For example, with my statement about line shopping not being that important, I fully realized that it could've been my fault for being unclear and I apologized if I was unclear. Another example would be MT2R's example of line shopping by fading my bets. I fully realized his point and agreed with it, and I've made steps to improving there. Moreover, I realized that it was my fault for continuing to respond more to these types of posts instead of concentrating on responding to the serious posts, and I've made it clear that I'll stop doing that(yet I'm replying to this one, LOL...guess I never learn).

However, when posters such as ND post and then don't even read or respond to my replies and then just post the same thing again, I'm 100% certain that they're just trolling.

No. I don't think that is accurate at all. I think it's pretty common knowledge that I manage to get 10x what the average reg gets out of this forum and that I wouldn't know virtually anything if it hadn't been for all the people who've helped me learn it.

There are many creative ways for reducing your "reported" gambling winnings.

Betting +EV middles and showing the losing ticket is a solid start.

I guess you concede on the 99% part?

Acknowledged, although I have not seen much evidence of you citing credit...

I don't understand why you think this. Expected growth is a very important measurement and concept. If you went purely on +EV the next time you found a bet you thought was +EV you would place your whole roll on it in order to maximize your expected value.

EG is necessary for proper bet sizing (kelly) and to determine when to take -EV bets as optimal hedges.

This is not just some posters here making something up to be purposefully obfuscatory or to appear smart.

Nah, there really are a lot of *******s here.

You're missing the point. +EV is the most fundamental aspect of picking winners. Bankroll management can be done by an accountant, assuming the AP knows what his +EV is.

You cannot hedge 2 -EV bets and make it a +EV bet. I understand that hedging/middling using -EV plays can improve your return, but you still need a +EV foundation bet to start with.

I did not claim that anybody is "making something up." It's just that +EV has been derided to the point that some people actually believe that with simple bankroll management you can win, when in reality you can't win without +EV bets.

But that part is trivial and assumed. No discussion of BR management can go anywhere without +EV wagers.

Well it might be "trival and assumed" to you, but when posters here say "EG is more important than EV", they got it wrong, plain and simple.

Expected growth is the result of bankroll management, through +EV plays. Obviously, the better your EV, the better your expected growth. This is why EV is more important than EG.

I have learned from him in this thread and I don't feel the same as you do...

Assani, didn't your mom teach you to ignore the bad things in life... just stop fueling the flaming by responding to it.

I have learned a ton in this thread!

I believe the correct interpretation of what they are saying is "maximizing eg >>> maximizing ev" which is def correct.

I don't know how this is obvious in any way except obviously wrong.

In a world where you have a single coinflip at +200 your EV will be the "best" (You have made a bet with the highest possible EV) at 100% of your BR. This is also the point where you growth is the absolute worst it can possibly be.

for full kelly:
10% edge on +1000 bet = 0.9% EG
5% edge on +100 bet = 2.4% EG

I like how that post has now been criticized by three separate people who have each pointed out unique flaws.

Apples to oranges, is it not?

Again, you are missing the point. I am not at all saying that you should stupidly bet your entire bankroll on a +EV bet, am I?

Bankroll management FOLLOWS +EV.

...and how each of the responses are flawed?

Maximizing EV would imply some kind of bankroll management method, would it not?

As I read through the FAQ, I'll just list random questions and comments here. Forgive me if its unorganized.....


Is the info in the chapter on Sports Betting in Sklansky's Getting the Best of It important enough that its worth buying the book solely to read that chapter? I already plan on buying Yao's book after I finish SSB.



Ok, reading through that now....


"Vigorish is similar to the fee a stock broker
charges you for making a trade on the stock market, with the difference being the
sportsbook only charges winning customers."

I obviously knew what the vig was already, but I found this to be an interesting way of describing it.



"This calculation will
result in the number 0.0455 = 4.55%"

Interesting in that most squares probably don't see the vig as a big deal whatsoever(they're more concerned with "did I win or not?"), but that 4.55% edge that the casino is getting over squares who pick games without any sharp knowledge is comparable or larger than most pit games.



Reading through the definitions of practical hold % and theoretical hold %, leads me to ask what I'm sure is a complete newb question but one that I've never seen totally answered(at least by someone whose opinion I trust): Does the casino strive to balance action or are there games in which they fully expect to have uneven action based upon their line and they want the uneven action because they strongly believe that the public is overvaluing or undervaluing one side. If its the latter, then how do they account for sharp bettors who fully realize whats going on? I would think that there are a ton more squares than sharps but that the sharps, on avearge, are betting a lot more money, so I'm not sure which side is more important for the casino to beat(maybe not "beat" the sharps but at least "negate their edge" by offering a line that is not >52.4% either way).



I mentioned that I found a book that offers -105 for all lines, so to convert it over(I'm doing the math myself, correct me if I'm wrong):

100/105 = .9523 meaning it pays out $95.23 on a $100 bet.

$95.23(100-x) = 100x
($95.23(100-x))/x = 100
($9523 -$95.23x)/x = 100
($9523/x) - ($95.23x/x) = 100
($9523/x) - $95.23 = 100
$9523/x = $195.23
$9523/ $195.23 = 48.78
x = 48.78
100 -x = 51.22

So I must win >51.22% of picks to beat -105 lines.

Again I'm sure I'm falling victim to square type thinking or to standard ego getting involved(much like at poker) but it seems to me like I'd surely be able to beat 51.22% of NFL picks.(no need to rebuke me here, I agree that its probably harder than I think...but I'm just being honest in my thoughts as I figure its better to be honest that to say what I know you guys want to hear)




"The favorite price is -120, and the underdog price is +110. The sportsbook
considers both teams have balanced action when the favorite player risks $120 for
every $100 the underdog player risks"

At first glance this seems counterintuitive to me...wouldn't balanced action be equal betting on each side? So the sportsbook is actually trying to have more more risked on the favorite than the underdog in relation to what the odds are.....



"You should also be able to see that the sportsbook only profits when the underdog
wins as the vigorish charge for the favorite is 0%. Note: This is only theoretical as
this is only true when the money wagered on both sides of the money line is
balanced."

Another very interesting aspect I hadn't considered.






End of Chapter 1. Nothing too groundbreaking imo, but a few tidbits I found interesting.