I"ve had a good year at sports betting, having won about 60% of my bets. But
the VIG kills you, and I only eeeked out a modest profit. I would have been
better off playing $100 9/5 Jacks or better. I bet sports because its fun,
as far as an edge ...total nonsense. Perhaps elite pro's can make money by
fixing events, insider information , and scouts at various betting parlors
and bookies taking odds adjustments which are favorable. Most average Joes
find themselves on the short end of the stick, despite winning more bets
than lost because of the high VIG. Sports betting is one of the largest
money makers for the casinos, and will stay that way for many more years to
come.
just my 2 cents...Tom
PS - take the GIANTS and under !!
----- Original Message -----
From: "GURU PERF" <guruperf@att.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JAN 2012
One difference that Bob doesn't mention (and I'm not entirely disagreeing
with his article) is that betting on sports, as opposed to VP, is that
sports betting, particularly NFL betting is a constantly mutating animal.
Yes, I know that new games, and paytables and comp rates change for VP, but
they are mathematically quantifiable into a predetermined +/- %. But there
are a number of factors that cannot be predetermined in NFL betting that may
have changed without anyone's knowledge.
In the 1970's there were a number of specific situations that would come up
that had very predictable winning percentages. Using the comparatively
primitive computers of the day, the patterns became clearly evident by data
mining through historic databases. You would not be guaranteed a win every
time, but the winning percentage of these plays could approach or even
exceed 80%. One such example, as I recall, was non-divisional games where
the spread on the home team was P'em to -1 1/2. Of course, there weren't
very many games that fit into this limited set of characteristics, probably
fewer than 8-10 a year. But there were many different angles that could be
played, some of which used information that was not available to the average
bettor, or most probably to bookies. So on any given Sunday, there were
almost always one or more plays that fit into one of the angles. And if you
were playing with an 80% or better edge, one could make quite a nice living.
As computers became more widespread, more people became aware of the
patterns, including those setting the lines. Or as one bookie once told me,
"I like your play, even though you win, because it offsets the way the rest
of the bettors are going, and I don't have to lay so much off." As the
knowledge of the angles spread, the winning percentages went down, because
the lines were adjusted to reflect increased public betting on the angle
plays. Where a team might have been a 1 point favorite, it was now 3 or 3
1/2 or 4. Fairly subtle difference, but enough to take away the edge from
the play.
So my point is, where Bob has every reason to expect that he will have a
winning year next year because he is playing against definable mathematical
certainties , Fezzik has been handicapping using certain criteria that may
have been changed on him. Unless he adapts to the "new normal" and revises
his methodology, there is probably a very good chance that he will have
another losing season next year as well. That being said, since he has been
successful for a long time, it speaks well of his ability to adapt, and I
would expect that he could, and would, do so.
Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you
can't win. -Lazarus Long
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is. -Yogi Berra
There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate
preparation to cope with a statistical universe. -Robert Heinlein
