Where did all the horses go?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think that's very bad gambling advice.

Diversification works in the stock market because different investments perform well in different sorts of market conditions. It's the equivalent of hedging. It's variance reduction.

But playing different gambling games suggests a gigantic discipline problem. The fact of the matter is that in just about every gambling game where advantage play is even possible, only a tiny percentage of people beat the game. (In poker, we have the numbers from online play-- it was about 4 percent of players.)

The vast majority of players lose, including the vast majority of players who think they are good enough to win. And the players that win devote vast amounts of study to the activity in order to do it.

The odds that ANY gambler is skilled enough and has studied enough to put themselves in that 4 percent in two totally different games is basically close enough to zero to be rounded down to it.

(Also anecdotally, the number of poker players I know who make a profit betting sports is zero, and I know a lot of very smart poker players who bet sports.)

I offered DIVERSIFICATION as "advice". Betting multiple gambling games wasn't an "advice"...it's what I do. And...such a practice may well mean a "gigantic discipline problem" for almost everybody else...but it doesn't present a problem for me. All "modesty" aside...I bet sports, poker AND the horses...and I exercise discipline in ALL of them. And...although I suffer the same "losing streaks" as everybody else...I consider ALL of them to be attractive wagering opportunities for me.

The reason you haven't met a poker player who is profitable betting sports is because, you haven't yet met ME.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I'm really not sure what you're getting at with your recent posts but I suspect your risk tolerance is very different than most on here and most places.

Do you know when to quit each session of play?

I'm treating your above post as your way of making a joke. Btw, a very good one, IMO.

It was PHRASED as a "joke"...but it reflects REALITY.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It was PHRASED as a "joke"...but it reflects REALITY.

Well, then your risk tolerance is even worse than I was initially thinking.

Because most of your activities are very risky gambles, every way I view it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Well, then your risk tolerance is even worse than I was initially thinking.

Because most of your activities are very risky gambles, every way I view it.

Yes...my "risk tolerance" level is very high...but I wouldn't call it "worse". I am who I am...and there is no "better or "worse" about it. If I determine that my best "edge" is in gambling...then, why should I invest my money in municipal bonds?

Of course...I would never advise others to do as I do.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...my "risk tolerance" level is very high...but I wouldn't call it "worse". I am who I am...and there is no "better or "worse" about it. If I determine that my best "edge" is in gambling...then, why should I invest my money in municipal bonds?

Of course...I would never advise others to do as I do.

No, it was worse than I suspected not as you expected.

Only a few people have a high risk tolerance for certain activities and a lot of them IMO are just adrenaline junkies.

You know there was a saying which I came across years ago which I always liked. It was .... Gambling is not the Problem .... Losing Is!!

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I offered DIVERSIFICATION as "advice". Betting multiple gambling games wasn't an "advice"...it's what I do. And...such a practice may well mean a "gigantic discipline problem" for almost everybody else...but it doesn't present a problem for me. All "modesty" aside...I bet sports, poker AND the horses...and I exercise discipline in ALL of them. And...although I suffer the same "losing streaks" as everybody else...I consider ALL of them to be attractive wagering opportunities for me.

The reason you haven't met a poker player who is profitable betting sports is because, you haven't yet met ME.

I usually don't have to say this, because most "professional" gamblers meet their doom on the discipline question, not strategy, but strategy is important. Sports betting pools are dominated by extremely sophisticated bettors who have extremely sophisticated models and encyclopedic knowledge- it is highly suspect that anyone would be able to profit in that sort of market over a statistically significant number of wagers doing anything less than full time, extremely intensive study of the subject matter.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I usually don't have to say this, because most "professional" gamblers meet their doom on the discipline question, not strategy, but strategy is important. Sports betting pools are dominated by extremely sophisticated bettors who have extremely sophisticated models and encyclopedic knowledge- it is highly suspect that anyone would be able to profit in that sort of market over a statistically significant number of wagers doing anything less than full time, extremely intensive study of the subject matter.

True. If it were easy...then EVERYBODY would do it.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I usually don't have to say this, because most "professional" gamblers meet their doom on the discipline question, not strategy, but strategy is important. Sports betting pools are dominated by extremely sophisticated bettors who have extremely sophisticated models and encyclopedic knowledge- it is highly suspect that anyone would be able to profit in that sort of market over a statistically significant number of wagers doing anything less than full time, extremely intensive study of the subject matter.

Quick questions Dilan; If I make more money than the line-maker's salary, shouldn't I be one of the best in the business, and just work for myself?...And if I scour through 10 different online sports-books looking for the best value against my lines, don't I only have to beat the worst opinion of the 10 to be successful?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Quick questions Dilan; If I make more money than the line-maker's salary, shouldn't I be one of the best in the business, and just work for myself?...And if I scour through 10 different online sports-books looking for the best value against my lines, don't I only have to beat the worst opinion of the 10 to be successful?

I don't understand the first question. I'd take the vigorish side over any sports bettor, even a good one, because it is possible to set a line in a game theory optimal manner that makes a loss impossible with a guaranteed 2 1/2 percent winrate, which is better than any actual sports bettor achieves long term.

As for the second, nothing wrong with arbitrage when you can obtain it, but arbitrage is only going to get you fairly small variations in the line. That would be the equivalent of a takeout decrease of a couple of percentage points in horse racing- it helps, but it isn't going to change the basic math of the game that makes most players losers.

Further, the REASON for line variations is because the linemaker moves off the game theory optimal position to exploit bettors. In other words, this practice increases the books' winrate. For that reason, it is perverse to assume that these variations can actually be effectively capitalized on by players. You aren't exploiting them- they are exploiting you!

Finally, one meta-comment. The variance in sports results is immense. Everything from freak plays to garbage time scores affect the results. You are probably looking at 50,000 or 100,000 contests to get a significant sample. And nobody bets that much (nor should they, as the vast majority of contests should see lines that are within a 2 1/2 percent probability of being correctly set, depriving the sports bettor of any +EV play).

The efficient markets hypothesis is a real bugger, RR. Or as one successful poker pro I know puts it, the world runs on delusion and arrogance:

http://jessetakesashot.blogspot.com/...gance.html?m=1

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

...Further, the REASON for line variations is because the linemaker moves off the game theory optimal position to exploit bettors. In other words, this practice increases the books' winrate..

Give me an example of how this would apply to a football line.

[Al Gobbi]

First race today at Belmont scratched down to a field of three from six entries.

Also the G3 Miami Mile at Gulfstream (R5) has been scratched down from seven to four.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Give me an example of how this would apply to a football line.

In theory, the point spread is set to divide the action close to 50-50, in which case the bookmaker is assured profit based on the vig. By varying the point spread higher or lower than the 50-50 position, the bookmaker can direct the action tone team or the other. In other words, if the bookmaker believes 3.5 points is the 50-50 line, by setting the line at 3 or 4, he can move the action in favor of one of the teams. So if the Cowboys are minus 3.5 against the Giants, if the bookmaker believes the Giants are a winner, he might set the line at 3 to induce greater action on the Cowboys, thus exploiting the bettors.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In theory, the point spread is set to divide the action close to 50-50, in which case the bookmaker is assured profit based on the vig. By varying the point spread higher or lower than the 50-50 position, the bookmaker can direct the action tone team or the other. In other words, if the bookmaker believes 3.5 points is the 50-50 line, by setting the line at 3 or 4, he can move the action in favor of one of the teams. So if the Cowboys are minus 3.5 against the Giants, if the bookmaker believes the Giants are a winner, he might set the line at 3 to induce greater action on the Cowboys, thus exploiting the bettors.

Yes...this practice is called "taking a position against the line"...and this is done mostly by the smaller "street bookies", who are not satisfied with the revenue that the vig provides them with. But, by adopting such a practice...the bookmaker gets exposed to "exploitation" HIMSELF.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...this practice is called "taking a position against the line"...and this is done mostly by the smaller "street bookies", who are not satisfied with the revenue that the vig provides them with. But, by adopting such a practice...the bookmaker gets exposed to "exploitation" HIMSELF.

This also answers the question, how does a bookmaker go broke?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In theory, the point spread is set to divide the action close to 50-50, in which case the bookmaker is assured profit based on the vig. By varying the point spread higher or lower than the 50-50 position, the bookmaker can direct the action tone team or the other. In other words, if the bookmaker believes 3.5 points is the 50-50 line, by setting the line at 3 or 4, he can move the action in favor of one of the teams. So if the Cowboys are minus 3.5 against the Giants, if the bookmaker believes the Giants are a winner, he might set the line at 3 to induce greater action on the Cowboys, thus exploiting the bettors.

I think the reasons are clear why lines move. Bookies and sports books aren't in the business of gambling. So when one side gets over played they adjust and try to balance out the action. You might find a local bookie who takes a stand thinking a certain team is a winner but I don't think you will find any of that in Las Vegas. I do know that sharp players in Las Vegas will influence the linemaker. If 70% of the action is on one team all bet by squares and the 30% bet on the other side is done by the sharp players, the linemakers will be less likely to move a line.