Busting out of a Slump at the windows. What do you do to bust out of it?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Another shining example of your inability to grasp the inner nuances of serious gambling. The Super Bowl line is even MORE exploitable than the other NFL lines...for the very reason that you state above. There is WAY more uninformed money wagered on the Super Bowl than there is on any other single game in existence...and the bookmaker's job is to structure the line in a way which accommodates the avalanche of "heart-felt" opinions of the masses, which often defy the logic associated with the realities of the game. Yes, there won't be a solid wager to be found in most Super Bowls...but to categorically state that "anyone who bets the Super Bowl is a loser" is to admit your ignorance of these more intricate matters...which take real knowledge to comprehend.

Mathematically, this is dead wrong. While it is true that there is more recreational money in the Super Bowl pool than a regular game, that doesn't matter because the line is set nationally and not locally and plenty of reasonably informed sports bettors- all of whom are supremely confident in their expertise- bet the Super Bowl and would exploit any inefficient line.

The Efficient Markets Hypothesis isn't falsified by the fact there is a ton of dumb money in the stock market. As long as there is enough smart money to move the market should an inefficient price occurs, the dumb money doesn't matter. That is actually a key part of the theory.

[thaskalos]

So, in your honest opinion...all the bettors who wagered on the Eagles+5 in last year's Super Bowl are confirmed LOSERS...who were wildly misled in their estimations that they had found a legitimate wagering opportunity in that game...because the line was so "solid" that no meaningful edge could possibly have existed in that situation...RIGHT? And, in spite of this lunacy...you ask us to take your sports-betting assertions SERIOUSLY here?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's an innumerate statement.

The Super Bowl line is almost certainly fixed within the probability band of 48 to 52 percent. I.e., if any bettor bets it every year, long term they will lose.

Bear in mind EVERY sports bettor believes they have an edge on every game they bet. That's why they bet them- they believe that the Rams are more likely than not to beat the 49'ers by 3 or more points. But aggregate edge- the likelihood that you are able to identify inefficient lines and not bet efficient ones- is the only way to actually beat the game. And you get no aggregate edge playing the Super Bowl. So yeah, betting the Super Bowl is what the bookies' saying says it is.

Betting on all NFL games is done in an efficient market in the aggregate. There is nothing special about the Super Bowl. There have been many studies done on the efficiency of betting markets. Being efficient in the aggregate does not mean every line offers no edge to a bettor. I would concur that a bettor who makes a Super Bowl bet every year just because it is the Super Bowl is destined for a bad aggregate outcome. It is ridiculous to believe, however, that a sharp bettor making a bet because of a perceived edge in the Super bowl is
a losing bettor.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So, in your honest opinion...all the bettors who wagered on the Eagles+5 in last year's Super Bowl are confirmed LOSERS...who were wildly misled in their estimations that they had found a legitimate wagering opportunity in that game...because the line was so "solid" that no meaningful edge could possibly have existed in that situation...RIGHT? And, in spite of this lunacy...you ask us to take your sports-betting assertions SERIOUSLY here?

In my opinion:

1. Sports bettors improperly look at the specific line of a specific game rather than whether a line is efficient. In other words, as long as, over time, there was a less than 52 percent possibility that a game with the specific characteristics of the Super Bowl would have fallen on either side of the line, the line was efficient.

Your argument is like arguing that people were right to bet Justify in the Belmont because he won. But the win doesn't prove the odds were good. The question is whether a horse in that situation, over time, is worth that price.

2. Sports bettors bet the Super Bowl because it is a single game, the last game of the season, and is the most important sports event in the country. You can't pass it, and the fact that y'all bet it every year (and most sports bettors do) is indicative of the fact that y'all are not brilliant and dispassionate seekers of exploitative opportunities but rather people who are psychologically incapable of passing such a big game with no comparable wager available for months.

[Robert Fischer]

If you bet the superbowl because it's the superbowl and you want some action = bad


If you bet the superbowl because you feel the public perception is off and value exists = good

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

In my opinion:

1. Sports bettors improperly look at the specific line of a specific game rather than whether a line is efficient. In other words, as long as, over time, there was a less than 52 percent possibility that a game with the specific characteristics of the Super Bowl would have fallen on either side of the line, the line was efficient.

Your argument is like arguing that people were right to bet Justify in the Belmont because he won. But the win doesn't prove the odds were good. The question is whether a horse in that situation, over time, is worth that price......

If bettors did what you suggest above they would never bet on anything. Lines are efficient in the aggregate but that doesn't mean you can't find bets looking at lines for a specific game.

Why do you bet horses? Horses with 50% of the win money bet on them win about 50% of the time. Ditto for 40%, 30%, 25%, etc. The lines are very efficient. By your logic you can't look at specific horses and specific lines because everything is efficient.

[PaceAdvantage]

There are some really EXCELLENT replies in this thread...especially among the first 15 or so...

Vic's is particularly excellent IMO...provided you're not a degenerate....lol

[MadVindication]

I just enjoy life as a well-cultivated pillar of vice and grab a bottle of wine and a pack of smokes to guzzle and burn through while looking over PPs.

I don't rip up losing tickets-- I keep them so I can indulge in an apathetic shrug as I look them over again.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MadVindication

I just enjoy life as a well-cultivated pillar of vice and grab a bottle of wine and a pack of smokes to guzzle and burn through while looking over PPs.

I don't rip up losing tickets-- I keep them so I can indulge in an apathetic shrug as I look them over again.

Me too. But when I am handicapping the Southern California races...I switch to a champagne spritzer.

[Redboard]

If I’m getting my ass kicked for an extended period, I dumb down my bets and regroup with this method. Instead of playing exactas, tris, pick 3s, & pick 4s, I just make two simple win bets per race: one bet on who I think is most likely to win the race, and the other win bet on who I think gives the best value. OK, so you are going to lose one of these bets each race, but by playing value you don’t get into the rut of eating chalk, which can drive you insane when you lose.

[Valuist]

Read a book on card counting. It will fully explain the wild swings known as variance, and you will get a better understanding of how variance effects all kinds of gambling. We tend to overestimate our abilities during good times, and believe the world is ending when we are in a slump. In blackjack, variance is more black and white. In horse racing, it isn't always crystal clear whether its variance, or just poor decision making on our part. It could be a bit of both. But we tend to underestimate variance in racing and sports betting.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Read a book on card counting. It will fully explain the wild swings known as variance, and you will get a better understanding of how variance effects all kinds of gambling.

So true.

http://www.soccerwidow.com/football-...osing-streaks/

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/pic...ak-calculator/

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So true.

http://www.soccerwidow.com/football-...osing-streaks/

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/pic...ak-calculator/

Here's an even easier way to learn about it.

Next time you are in Vegas or any casino with roulette, go around to the roulette tables at the casino. Look at the displays that show the last 25 spins. You will see plenty of patterns. You will see wheels that hit the same number 4 or 5 times. You will see wheels that hit black 12 out of the last 15 spins.

Random variance all.

[MadVindication]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Me too. But when I am handicapping the Southern California races...I switch to a champagne spritzer.

The juice of kings

[groupie doll]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I never believe in taking a break.

My ROI is higher annually when I take breaks in a slump and I am selective about what I play. If a race doesn't draw a field in line with where my strengths lie then I pass the race. If I "Lukas" myself into running through a slump I generally lose way more than I would otherwise. I'm a low-roller. This is how I play for value and I've been funding an IRA with my winnings.