Joined: 07/22/2009
Posts: 6855
Pro Prospect
5000 - 7499 Posts
wiz12268 said:
One other point OPENERS (in every major spread based sport) over the past decade have performed better at 'picking winners' than the moves have. Which IMO means books set a better line than guys betting the 'market'.
So an example of this would be a game opening -5, closing -7, and +7 winning more often than -5?
[/quote]
Lloyd Christmas said:
One other point OPENERS (in every major spread based sport) over the past decade have performed better at 'picking winners' than the moves have. Which IMO means books set a better line than guys betting the 'market'.
So an example of this would be a game opening -5, closing -7, and +7 winning more often than -5?
[/quote]
LOL - prove it! Define an opener!
[/quote]
Will quote both.
Cant define opener or closer in most cases. Because then it starts becoming 'tout' speak and 'widely available' or when limits change or some non sense. But the first click t most books are more accurate 'prediction' of who wins than what a lone moves to or closes at.
Hard to 'prove' in all the sports but in a vacuum if a game opens -5 (and we accept that number) and it moves to -7, the cases where the team that had the move covered even the -5 are less than the times the team covered +5. Now combining them all and getting +5, +6 and +7 its sort of close, but still wont outperform the opener more than half the time.
I know this thread has since deteriorated to the typical forum nonsense but just wanted to point some of this out.
But trying to identify and break all this down is really impossible because not all moves are equal and some small moves can represent a lot more than some major moves. Especially now that most books move on air or follow 'major' books and just try to squeeze some extra vig out. Some books LITERALLY (and using that word correctly) chase Pinnacle moves on the second. But if Pinnacle is (in a spread sport) -4 -112, the other book would offer -4 -114. In baseball they might offer up -132/119 to Pinnacles 130/120. But that too is another topic for another post.
Getting the best odds is only going to keep you in the game longer if you cant pick enough winners otherwise. But if someone is habitually getting worse odds (no matter if they win or lose) theyre probably not a winning bettor anyway. Because experience and knowledge is going to make them 'guess' right at least once in awhile. But if theyre always (or predominantly) on the 'wrong side' of moves or give out games at one price and they move a nickle or more (in baseball) over and over again, those types arent winning players. While no one ever gets the very best line every time, they do get the best or really close to it way more than half the time.
Last comment in this thread, like I said its become a thread about other things besides actually disseminating knowledge/experience.
[/quote]
You are attempting to give your side of things without a million exclamation points or capital letters so I appreciate that, it's just really hard to swallow when this has been 90% of my handle for 5 years and it's been extremely succescul. I have beat soccer for four years and I still couldn't tell you every position on the field, but according to you, picking off numbers does not work. I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree.