Here is terrific post by "Crony" in a MajorWager.com forum thread. You have to scroll down a bit in the thread to see his post. Worthwhile!
Crony's post about buying points in MajorWager.com
Friday, October 28, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Hedging: Common mistakes
Hedging: Common mistakes
In general, hedging is a bad idea in sports betting. People think about hedging bets that they have made where they have already won part of the wager, or look like they are winning the wager. Here are a couple of examples:
A 2nd half hedge
Player bets the Underdog +10 in a football game. At the half, the Underdog team is winning by 14 points! The player then decides to bet the Favorite by laying points in the second half. This way the player has a window of a big middle. Let’s say the line in the 2nd half was the Favorite -10. So now the player has a 14 point window where he wins or ties both bets.
Underdog wins by 4: win one bet, push on the other
Underdog wins by 1-3: win both bets
Favorite wins by 1-9: win both bets
Favorite wins by 10: win one bet, push on the other
This is irresistible to many players. Their maximum loss is very small, just the vig. And their maximum win is now two bets. It feels like they are being given a 20-1 shot on 14 points. Feels good, doesn’t it?
But here’s the problem with that. The original bet of the Underdog +10 has such a great chance of winning if they are up by 14 at the half, that it should be pretty much counted as a 90% winning ticket. In fact, what is going on with the hedge is that the player is only losing the vig to the bookmaker. And, if other players have the same idea of hedging their Underdog wager, then that means the line is probably too shaded towards the favorite.
Think about it – who is likely to use the 2nd half line to hedge? The players that bet the favorite or the players that bet the underdog? The players that bet the favorite are not going to think about hedging because they would be putting themselves into a reverse middle of 14 points…no one wants that. So this means when the Underdog is winning by so much at the half, the line is likely to be shaded towards the favorite.
So the hedger in this scenario has two problems:
1. he loses on his hedge because he has to pay the bookmaker’s vig.
2. he may lose even more on the vig or the line because the line/vig is already shaded towards the favorite by more than it should be.
There may be reasons to bet the favorite in the 2nd half – but those reasons should have nothing to do with the existing wager of the Underdog in the game. Think of those two wagers as two complete wagers. One is already a very likely winner (the Underdog +10), while the other is simply flipping a coin and paying vig to do so.
A parlay hedge
This is a silly mistake to make, but one that I understand people make all the time. It’s when someone places a parlay with many teams – say 5 teams – with one of the teams on Sunday night or Monday night. If they win the first 4 games, they automatically think about hedging the 5th game so they can lock in some money. Typically, they are just betting the opposite team on the 5th game at the same line that they took the initial team.
Example:
Player parlays 5 teams that pays 20-1 (this in itself is a poor odds to get, but that’s for another topic). The player wagers $10 and hopes to win $200.
ATL -2
OAK +3
SEA -3
IND -14
BAL +10.5 – Monday Night game
The player then goes to win the first four games. But then on Monday afternoon, he decides to bet PIT -10.5, so that he is guaranteed a winner. He may bet as little as $10, so he is guaranteed a push if PIT covers. Or he may bet as much as $110 to win $100, so he wins $90 regardless of who covers the game.
Here are the problems with this thought process:
1. He’s giving up edge both ways. Not only is he giving up edge on the Parlay side (fair odds on a 5 team parlay should be 31-1, and if he had bet the games individually at -110, it would be 24.3-1), but he is also giving up the vig on the PIT hedge. This is how bookmakers make money!
2. Why did the player play a 5 team parlay? Why not only play a 4 team parlay if he is going to hedge the 5th game after winning the first 4 games.
In the next post, I’ll discuss issues when it may be correct to hedge. In my mind, there are only three solid reasons to hedge.
In general, hedging is a bad idea in sports betting. People think about hedging bets that they have made where they have already won part of the wager, or look like they are winning the wager. Here are a couple of examples:
A 2nd half hedge
Player bets the Underdog +10 in a football game. At the half, the Underdog team is winning by 14 points! The player then decides to bet the Favorite by laying points in the second half. This way the player has a window of a big middle. Let’s say the line in the 2nd half was the Favorite -10. So now the player has a 14 point window where he wins or ties both bets.
Underdog wins by 4: win one bet, push on the other
Underdog wins by 1-3: win both bets
Favorite wins by 1-9: win both bets
Favorite wins by 10: win one bet, push on the other
This is irresistible to many players. Their maximum loss is very small, just the vig. And their maximum win is now two bets. It feels like they are being given a 20-1 shot on 14 points. Feels good, doesn’t it?
But here’s the problem with that. The original bet of the Underdog +10 has such a great chance of winning if they are up by 14 at the half, that it should be pretty much counted as a 90% winning ticket. In fact, what is going on with the hedge is that the player is only losing the vig to the bookmaker. And, if other players have the same idea of hedging their Underdog wager, then that means the line is probably too shaded towards the favorite.
Think about it – who is likely to use the 2nd half line to hedge? The players that bet the favorite or the players that bet the underdog? The players that bet the favorite are not going to think about hedging because they would be putting themselves into a reverse middle of 14 points…no one wants that. So this means when the Underdog is winning by so much at the half, the line is likely to be shaded towards the favorite.
So the hedger in this scenario has two problems:
1. he loses on his hedge because he has to pay the bookmaker’s vig.
2. he may lose even more on the vig or the line because the line/vig is already shaded towards the favorite by more than it should be.
There may be reasons to bet the favorite in the 2nd half – but those reasons should have nothing to do with the existing wager of the Underdog in the game. Think of those two wagers as two complete wagers. One is already a very likely winner (the Underdog +10), while the other is simply flipping a coin and paying vig to do so.
A parlay hedge
This is a silly mistake to make, but one that I understand people make all the time. It’s when someone places a parlay with many teams – say 5 teams – with one of the teams on Sunday night or Monday night. If they win the first 4 games, they automatically think about hedging the 5th game so they can lock in some money. Typically, they are just betting the opposite team on the 5th game at the same line that they took the initial team.
Example:
Player parlays 5 teams that pays 20-1 (this in itself is a poor odds to get, but that’s for another topic). The player wagers $10 and hopes to win $200.
ATL -2
OAK +3
SEA -3
IND -14
BAL +10.5 – Monday Night game
The player then goes to win the first four games. But then on Monday afternoon, he decides to bet PIT -10.5, so that he is guaranteed a winner. He may bet as little as $10, so he is guaranteed a push if PIT covers. Or he may bet as much as $110 to win $100, so he wins $90 regardless of who covers the game.
Here are the problems with this thought process:
1. He’s giving up edge both ways. Not only is he giving up edge on the Parlay side (fair odds on a 5 team parlay should be 31-1, and if he had bet the games individually at -110, it would be 24.3-1), but he is also giving up the vig on the PIT hedge. This is how bookmakers make money!
2. Why did the player play a 5 team parlay? Why not only play a 4 team parlay if he is going to hedge the 5th game after winning the first 4 games.
In the next post, I’ll discuss issues when it may be correct to hedge. In my mind, there are only three solid reasons to hedge.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Sports betting vs Poker
Someone sent me an email wondering why all the recent posts are about sports and none about poker. There are a few of reasons why I am so much more interested in sports at this time of year than poker:
1. It is the football season. Football creates so many more betting opportunities than all the other sports combined that any serious sports bettor must give their undivided attention to the game at this time of the year. Poker one can play any time of the year and achieve the same expectancy. If one wanted to put their full effort into sports in, say February, there is too little opportunity.
2. Making money by betting sports is capital-intensive while making money playing poker is labor-intensive. If one has the capital, and doesn't want to put in the laborious hours, all else equal, sports betting is better. Playing poker effectively means one needs to pay attention to the game at all times. In sports, the analysis comes before the game where there is plenty of time to think about the games. The only times when one has to put in the labor is during the gamedays. This means Saturdays and Sundays are super busy days that require full concentration, but the rest of the week (except for Monday night) one can use their own time. Compare this to playing poker full-time: it means putting in 30-50 hour "play" weeks, which means working 5 days a week.
3. During my trading career, I always thrived when learning something new and switching gears. In trading, it's almost impossible to go back and forth between two different types of jobs. One can't be an expert making markets in equity index options and also dabble (with positive expectancy) in mortgage bonds. It's just not feasible. With sports and poker, it is. During the football season, it's a perfect time to focus my attention on sports (remember, the baseball playoffs and the beginning of the basketball season occurs at this time too).
Of course it is all personal preference. During the football season, I prefer to concentrate on sports. And that means the posts in the blog will mostly about sports.
1. It is the football season. Football creates so many more betting opportunities than all the other sports combined that any serious sports bettor must give their undivided attention to the game at this time of the year. Poker one can play any time of the year and achieve the same expectancy. If one wanted to put their full effort into sports in, say February, there is too little opportunity.
2. Making money by betting sports is capital-intensive while making money playing poker is labor-intensive. If one has the capital, and doesn't want to put in the laborious hours, all else equal, sports betting is better. Playing poker effectively means one needs to pay attention to the game at all times. In sports, the analysis comes before the game where there is plenty of time to think about the games. The only times when one has to put in the labor is during the gamedays. This means Saturdays and Sundays are super busy days that require full concentration, but the rest of the week (except for Monday night) one can use their own time. Compare this to playing poker full-time: it means putting in 30-50 hour "play" weeks, which means working 5 days a week.
3. During my trading career, I always thrived when learning something new and switching gears. In trading, it's almost impossible to go back and forth between two different types of jobs. One can't be an expert making markets in equity index options and also dabble (with positive expectancy) in mortgage bonds. It's just not feasible. With sports and poker, it is. During the football season, it's a perfect time to focus my attention on sports (remember, the baseball playoffs and the beginning of the basketball season occurs at this time too).
Of course it is all personal preference. During the football season, I prefer to concentrate on sports. And that means the posts in the blog will mostly about sports.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Sports: What to think about when betting NFL futures
Sports: What to think about when betting NFL futures
When people think about betting NFL futures, they typically ask themselves the typical questions: “Who do I think will win the Super Bowl?” “Who do I think will win the NFC?” And then they proceed to bet on the team they like. A few more savvy players will bet on teams they think have value. That is, teams that they may not think is the favorite to win, or the most likely to win, but teams they think are being offered better odds than they are worth. I do not like this approach.
I think the better approach is to handicap how the market will place the playoff teams in the money line throughout the playoffs.
Example:
Let’s say it is in late December and the Chicago Bears have wrapped up the NFC North and you are looking to bet them to win the NFC. Assume the Bears only have a 7-7 record, but they have a 2 game lead over the other crappy teams in their division, so they have clinched their division. Since it is clear they won’t be getting a bye in the first round, it means they will have to play three games in order to win the NFC. Is 20-1 worth the price? Some may look at it and think that they are only one of 6 teams to make the playoffs in the NFC, so it is worth it, but here’s a better way to evaluate it:
1. In the first game, they play a Wild Card team. Since they won the division, the Bears will play at home. But likely, the wild card team will be a better team, a team that didn’t win their division but still had a 10-6 or 9-7 record. The Bears will be playing at home, and historically, home playoff teams have had great against the spread and straight up records, so the Bears will get a small boost in the line. But still, it is likely they will only be a small favorite. Given the situation, I would peg them as a 1 point favorite, about 52% to win the game.
2. If they win the first game, then they will have to travel and play one of the teams that received a bye. It is still late October as I type this, but it looks likely it will be a strong team like the Atlanta Falcons or the Philadelphia Eagles. Teams that don’t play in the first week are typically big favorites at home in the second week. Given that the Bears are relatively week, and both ATL and PHI are considered the cream of the crop in the NFC, it means the Bears may be getting as much as 10 points in that 2nd game. Getting 7 points is about a 25% chance of winning. Getting 10 points is about a 20% chance of winning. Let’s use an in-between number and use 22.5%
3. If they win the second game, it is likely they’ll have to travel again for the conference finals. Since they were such big dogs in the 2nd game, if they win it, it is likely they won in a close game rather than a blow-out. The other team is more likely to win in a blow-out, so there is a chance the line for the NFC Conference game is still very high. For example, let’s say the Eagles finish the season 11-5. They’ll be going for their second NFC Championship, and have been in that game each of the last 4 years. With big stars like McNabb and Owens, clearly they will be a big favorite. So I would peg the chances of the Bears winning the last game against a team like the Eagles at close to the same as the 2nd game – 22.5%. There is some hope for the Bears though – it is possible the other game in the 2nd round is an upset too, so they may be playing the third or lower seed. So maybe this boosts their chances of winning the NFC Championship game (once they get there) up to 26%. This is a rough estimate.
So now we have the estimated probabilities. Yes, they are rough estimates, but they still have value.
Game 1: 53%
Game 2: 22.5%
Game 3: 26%
Multiply them all, and the answer is 3.1%. That’s about 31-1. Betting them at 20-1 is not a good bet. One can synthetically get better than 20-1 odds by just betting the Bears in each of these weeks. Of course there is the risk that the estimated line is wrong, but that is where your skill comes into play.
It gets more complicated when the season is still young as it is now (late October). There are still many possible derivations of playoff matchups. Except for the Colts, who seem to be in line to get home field advantage throughout the playoffs, it seems difficult to peg any other team. As for the Colts – I would estimate them having a very high chance of getting the top seed in the AFC. As high as 80% given their schedule and their lead on the rest of the AFC teams right now. If they play two games at home, it would not be surprising to see them as 10 point faves in the first game and 7 point faves in the AFC Championship game. 10 point faves = 80%, 7 point faves = 75%. So just off of this derivation where they win the top seed, they would be 80% x 80% x 75% = 48% to make it to the Super Bowl. This is without adding for the 10% of the time when they get the second seed or the wild card. Can one stomache betting a team as a favorite to make it to the Super Bowl at this early stage in the season? Most people won’t, even though they think IND is a great team, but when you look at the specific numbers, it becomes clear that it’s not a bad bet to take them at even money to win the AFC.
Without figuring out the expected probability for the playoff games, one would be hard pressed to get such low odds for a team to reach the Super Bowl. Bettors may be more likely to take a long shot like the Bears at 20-1 than the Colts at even money, even if the playoffs started today. This is one of the few times when the favorites in sports may actually be a solid bet.
When people think about betting NFL futures, they typically ask themselves the typical questions: “Who do I think will win the Super Bowl?” “Who do I think will win the NFC?” And then they proceed to bet on the team they like. A few more savvy players will bet on teams they think have value. That is, teams that they may not think is the favorite to win, or the most likely to win, but teams they think are being offered better odds than they are worth. I do not like this approach.
I think the better approach is to handicap how the market will place the playoff teams in the money line throughout the playoffs.
Example:
Let’s say it is in late December and the Chicago Bears have wrapped up the NFC North and you are looking to bet them to win the NFC. Assume the Bears only have a 7-7 record, but they have a 2 game lead over the other crappy teams in their division, so they have clinched their division. Since it is clear they won’t be getting a bye in the first round, it means they will have to play three games in order to win the NFC. Is 20-1 worth the price? Some may look at it and think that they are only one of 6 teams to make the playoffs in the NFC, so it is worth it, but here’s a better way to evaluate it:
1. In the first game, they play a Wild Card team. Since they won the division, the Bears will play at home. But likely, the wild card team will be a better team, a team that didn’t win their division but still had a 10-6 or 9-7 record. The Bears will be playing at home, and historically, home playoff teams have had great against the spread and straight up records, so the Bears will get a small boost in the line. But still, it is likely they will only be a small favorite. Given the situation, I would peg them as a 1 point favorite, about 52% to win the game.
2. If they win the first game, then they will have to travel and play one of the teams that received a bye. It is still late October as I type this, but it looks likely it will be a strong team like the Atlanta Falcons or the Philadelphia Eagles. Teams that don’t play in the first week are typically big favorites at home in the second week. Given that the Bears are relatively week, and both ATL and PHI are considered the cream of the crop in the NFC, it means the Bears may be getting as much as 10 points in that 2nd game. Getting 7 points is about a 25% chance of winning. Getting 10 points is about a 20% chance of winning. Let’s use an in-between number and use 22.5%
3. If they win the second game, it is likely they’ll have to travel again for the conference finals. Since they were such big dogs in the 2nd game, if they win it, it is likely they won in a close game rather than a blow-out. The other team is more likely to win in a blow-out, so there is a chance the line for the NFC Conference game is still very high. For example, let’s say the Eagles finish the season 11-5. They’ll be going for their second NFC Championship, and have been in that game each of the last 4 years. With big stars like McNabb and Owens, clearly they will be a big favorite. So I would peg the chances of the Bears winning the last game against a team like the Eagles at close to the same as the 2nd game – 22.5%. There is some hope for the Bears though – it is possible the other game in the 2nd round is an upset too, so they may be playing the third or lower seed. So maybe this boosts their chances of winning the NFC Championship game (once they get there) up to 26%. This is a rough estimate.
So now we have the estimated probabilities. Yes, they are rough estimates, but they still have value.
Game 1: 53%
Game 2: 22.5%
Game 3: 26%
Multiply them all, and the answer is 3.1%. That’s about 31-1. Betting them at 20-1 is not a good bet. One can synthetically get better than 20-1 odds by just betting the Bears in each of these weeks. Of course there is the risk that the estimated line is wrong, but that is where your skill comes into play.
It gets more complicated when the season is still young as it is now (late October). There are still many possible derivations of playoff matchups. Except for the Colts, who seem to be in line to get home field advantage throughout the playoffs, it seems difficult to peg any other team. As for the Colts – I would estimate them having a very high chance of getting the top seed in the AFC. As high as 80% given their schedule and their lead on the rest of the AFC teams right now. If they play two games at home, it would not be surprising to see them as 10 point faves in the first game and 7 point faves in the AFC Championship game. 10 point faves = 80%, 7 point faves = 75%. So just off of this derivation where they win the top seed, they would be 80% x 80% x 75% = 48% to make it to the Super Bowl. This is without adding for the 10% of the time when they get the second seed or the wild card. Can one stomache betting a team as a favorite to make it to the Super Bowl at this early stage in the season? Most people won’t, even though they think IND is a great team, but when you look at the specific numbers, it becomes clear that it’s not a bad bet to take them at even money to win the AFC.
Without figuring out the expected probability for the playoff games, one would be hard pressed to get such low odds for a team to reach the Super Bowl. Bettors may be more likely to take a long shot like the Bears at 20-1 than the Colts at even money, even if the playoffs started today. This is one of the few times when the favorites in sports may actually be a solid bet.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Book review: Three Nights in August by Buzz Bissinger
3 Nights in August is a very solid baseball book, one that should be enjoyable to any baseball fan. It is interesting to see how an accomplished manager thinks throughout the game, not only about the specific strategies of the three games in question, but also about his players, about players on other teams and about other issues in baseball. While describing the accounts of an important three game series in August, 2003 against the Chicago Cubs, Bissinger also tells us about how Tony La Russa, the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, thinks about some general baseball issues. These issues include: throwing at hitters, handling individual players, looking at statistics as a guide only, steroids, and family life.
Some of his ideas are controversial. For example, it seems La Russa believes that any opponent pitcher that hits one of his batters did it on purpose. In particular, a pitch thrown by Kerry Wood in the second game of the three game series grazes the shirt of Pujols. It doesn’t even hit any skin, muscle or bone, just nicks the shirt. In baseball, this is still considered a hit-batsman, and Pujols is awarded first base. However, La Russa still has vengeance in his head, and it is described how he plans to plunk Sosa, and is perturbed when his pitcher does not do the job correctly in the following innings. An eye for an eye, anytime his hitters gets hit, he wants to go after their guys. That’s La Russa’s philosophy, and in my opinion, it’s a dangerous one and a stupid one. If he’s going to plunk Sosa, what would stop the opposing manager from taking retaliation himself – especially if Pujols was not even hit, but it only nicked the shirt? I’ll bet if La Russa was in the manager of the opposing team too, he would look at a possible Sosa plunking as reason to go after another one of the Cardinal hitters. And that’s how these beanbrawls escalate.
The book also covers a bit about La Russa’s views on steroids. He’s one of the few people in baseball that admits that he had an inkling that baseball players, on his team and others as well, were using them. However what bothers me about the account about steroids in this book is the lack of insight into Mark McGwire. La Russa was his manager for many years with Oakland and St. Louis. Yet the discussion in this book is more on Canseco than McGwire. There’s even a bit of propaganda that Bissinger writes: “He (McGwire) was big when he came into the league in 1986…” This was mentioned to mean that McGwire didn't get all that big, therefore he wasn't on steroids. But anyone who has ever seen one of McGwire’s rookie baseball cards (just hit it up on ebay and you can find one) can easily see that by 1998, McGwire was about four times as big as he was back in his rookie season in 1986. He was a twig back then, a tall lanky guy with a long swing. In 1998, he was Paul Bunyon in real life, making even Sammy Sosa look like a little man. Why spend the time to harp on Canseco when McGwire is the more important baseball figure, and the one that La Russa knew more about? That was disappointing, but understandable since La Russa is still loyal to McGwire, but not to Canseco.
As for some folks that think this is an anti-Moneyball book – it is not…definitely not. There is rare mention of Moneyball or sabremetrics.
All in all, I thought this was a worthwhile book. Bissinger does a good job in relaying how La Russa thinks. Of course, not everyone is going to like or agree with every one of his thoughts, but the fact they were presented clearly and in an enjoyable way makes this book highly recommended.
Some of his ideas are controversial. For example, it seems La Russa believes that any opponent pitcher that hits one of his batters did it on purpose. In particular, a pitch thrown by Kerry Wood in the second game of the three game series grazes the shirt of Pujols. It doesn’t even hit any skin, muscle or bone, just nicks the shirt. In baseball, this is still considered a hit-batsman, and Pujols is awarded first base. However, La Russa still has vengeance in his head, and it is described how he plans to plunk Sosa, and is perturbed when his pitcher does not do the job correctly in the following innings. An eye for an eye, anytime his hitters gets hit, he wants to go after their guys. That’s La Russa’s philosophy, and in my opinion, it’s a dangerous one and a stupid one. If he’s going to plunk Sosa, what would stop the opposing manager from taking retaliation himself – especially if Pujols was not even hit, but it only nicked the shirt? I’ll bet if La Russa was in the manager of the opposing team too, he would look at a possible Sosa plunking as reason to go after another one of the Cardinal hitters. And that’s how these beanbrawls escalate.
The book also covers a bit about La Russa’s views on steroids. He’s one of the few people in baseball that admits that he had an inkling that baseball players, on his team and others as well, were using them. However what bothers me about the account about steroids in this book is the lack of insight into Mark McGwire. La Russa was his manager for many years with Oakland and St. Louis. Yet the discussion in this book is more on Canseco than McGwire. There’s even a bit of propaganda that Bissinger writes: “He (McGwire) was big when he came into the league in 1986…” This was mentioned to mean that McGwire didn't get all that big, therefore he wasn't on steroids. But anyone who has ever seen one of McGwire’s rookie baseball cards (just hit it up on ebay and you can find one) can easily see that by 1998, McGwire was about four times as big as he was back in his rookie season in 1986. He was a twig back then, a tall lanky guy with a long swing. In 1998, he was Paul Bunyon in real life, making even Sammy Sosa look like a little man. Why spend the time to harp on Canseco when McGwire is the more important baseball figure, and the one that La Russa knew more about? That was disappointing, but understandable since La Russa is still loyal to McGwire, but not to Canseco.
As for some folks that think this is an anti-Moneyball book – it is not…definitely not. There is rare mention of Moneyball or sabremetrics.
All in all, I thought this was a worthwhile book. Bissinger does a good job in relaying how La Russa thinks. Of course, not everyone is going to like or agree with every one of his thoughts, but the fact they were presented clearly and in an enjoyable way makes this book highly recommended.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Sports: What’s the toughest part of betting correlated parlays?
Sports: What’s the toughest part of betting correlated parlays?
Sometimes two sport bets will have a connection to each other. If one happens, then the other is more likely than usual to happen. An easy example is: if Team A in the NFL covers the pointspread in the first half, then they are likely to cover the pointspread for the game…well, more likely than previously thought before the game started. Say the probability of Team A to cover the first half is 50% … and the probability of Team A to cover the game is 50%. But if Team A has already covered the first half, then the probability of them also covering the game is obviously greater than 50%. Let’s use 70%.
So if you parlayed Team A First Half and Game, the true odds would be: 50% x 70% = 35%.
If you find a stupid bookie who still offers regular parlay odds on these type of correlated parlays, then you’ve got a goldmine. Regular parlay odds are 2.6 to 1, which is equivalent to 27.8%
But of course, it is highly unlikely to find anyone willing to let you bet these type of parlays, they are too obvious. The good news is there are other type of events that are correlated, the events do have a connection to each other where if one thing happens, another thing is more likely than usual to happen. Unfortunately, I’m not going to mention those things at the moment, I just want to point out they exist. And there are a few books that are willing to take these type of parlays because they don’t know the edge it could give to the player.
So there are two tough parts to these correlated parlays:
1. Figuring out which bets are correlated.
2. Finding a book that’s willing to take them….and figuring out how to keep betting them week to week, year to year before they cut your limit or stop the parlays.
I think #2 is tougher than #1. #1 is easy for anyone who is intelligent and is willing to work hard to find. Whether by logic or by searching through a database, it’s just not that difficult to figure out what is correlated and what isn’t. I think #2 is tougher because the books don’t have to know that a parlay is correlated to kick you out, or to stop you from betting it. All that has to happen is that you have to have several good weeks for them to start to scratch their heads and wonder if they should cut you off. They do that anyways with some players who are just betting straight bets. But with straight bets, they have the ability to lay off to other books, so they may be willing to take a sharp guy’s action in order to get the information. With parlays (and other derivative type of bets), that’s a different story.
So here’s a plan on what to do:
1. Search hard to find a book that takes these type of parlays.
2. Don’t play them too big, you don’t want to kill the golden goose too fast. Unless you think other players will take advantage of it also (say it’s a new book), then you may want to push it to the limit since you know they’ll stop it for everyone sooner or later. In that case, you might as well get your bets in, because they’ll stop those parlays based on other players’ actions and not just yours.
3. If you find an isolated book, or an isolated play, then also sprinkle in other type of plays at that book, so it is not obvious what you are doing. Make your straight wagers at the same book at the same time you put in your parlays. This way it will not be as obvious as you will have a greater portfolio of bets.
4. Don’t tell anyone else except for possibly someone who you think can help you figure things out. Say you think two plays are correlated and you found a book willing to take the plays. But you aren’t sure of your own abilities to figure out the edge, and are worried you may be betting parlays with zero correlation, and thus losing a lot of vig. In that case, it may be best to go to someone else privately (don’t post in a chat room or a forum) and ask for help. It is better to go directly to an individual because then it is only one other person that may use the information. Whereas if the info was posted in a forum, then there could be many hundreds who take it up and kill the opportunity for you.
Sometimes two sport bets will have a connection to each other. If one happens, then the other is more likely than usual to happen. An easy example is: if Team A in the NFL covers the pointspread in the first half, then they are likely to cover the pointspread for the game…well, more likely than previously thought before the game started. Say the probability of Team A to cover the first half is 50% … and the probability of Team A to cover the game is 50%. But if Team A has already covered the first half, then the probability of them also covering the game is obviously greater than 50%. Let’s use 70%.
So if you parlayed Team A First Half and Game, the true odds would be: 50% x 70% = 35%.
If you find a stupid bookie who still offers regular parlay odds on these type of correlated parlays, then you’ve got a goldmine. Regular parlay odds are 2.6 to 1, which is equivalent to 27.8%
But of course, it is highly unlikely to find anyone willing to let you bet these type of parlays, they are too obvious. The good news is there are other type of events that are correlated, the events do have a connection to each other where if one thing happens, another thing is more likely than usual to happen. Unfortunately, I’m not going to mention those things at the moment, I just want to point out they exist. And there are a few books that are willing to take these type of parlays because they don’t know the edge it could give to the player.
So there are two tough parts to these correlated parlays:
1. Figuring out which bets are correlated.
2. Finding a book that’s willing to take them….and figuring out how to keep betting them week to week, year to year before they cut your limit or stop the parlays.
I think #2 is tougher than #1. #1 is easy for anyone who is intelligent and is willing to work hard to find. Whether by logic or by searching through a database, it’s just not that difficult to figure out what is correlated and what isn’t. I think #2 is tougher because the books don’t have to know that a parlay is correlated to kick you out, or to stop you from betting it. All that has to happen is that you have to have several good weeks for them to start to scratch their heads and wonder if they should cut you off. They do that anyways with some players who are just betting straight bets. But with straight bets, they have the ability to lay off to other books, so they may be willing to take a sharp guy’s action in order to get the information. With parlays (and other derivative type of bets), that’s a different story.
So here’s a plan on what to do:
1. Search hard to find a book that takes these type of parlays.
2. Don’t play them too big, you don’t want to kill the golden goose too fast. Unless you think other players will take advantage of it also (say it’s a new book), then you may want to push it to the limit since you know they’ll stop it for everyone sooner or later. In that case, you might as well get your bets in, because they’ll stop those parlays based on other players’ actions and not just yours.
3. If you find an isolated book, or an isolated play, then also sprinkle in other type of plays at that book, so it is not obvious what you are doing. Make your straight wagers at the same book at the same time you put in your parlays. This way it will not be as obvious as you will have a greater portfolio of bets.
4. Don’t tell anyone else except for possibly someone who you think can help you figure things out. Say you think two plays are correlated and you found a book willing to take the plays. But you aren’t sure of your own abilities to figure out the edge, and are worried you may be betting parlays with zero correlation, and thus losing a lot of vig. In that case, it may be best to go to someone else privately (don’t post in a chat room or a forum) and ask for help. It is better to go directly to an individual because then it is only one other person that may use the information. Whereas if the info was posted in a forum, then there could be many hundreds who take it up and kill the opportunity for you.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Sports Betting: How to beat Parlay Cards in Vegas
Sports: How to beat Parlay Cards in Vegas
Many sportsbooks in Las Vegas have parlay cards. It is usually the highest profit area in the sportsbook due to the bad odds and the stupid bettors. However, there are ways to beat the parlay cards.
There are many different variations, but I’ll stick with one example to illustrate. With just a few adjustments, you should be able to calculate the numbers for any other variation using this example as a guide.
The example I’ll choose is one that has the least variance, and the highest chance of the player winning – the 3 team parlay. Some casinos will have different parlay cards, so you have to be careful in checking the odds that are offered (see the back of the card). The odds that is usually the best are the ones that offer 6.5 for 1. This means the casino will pay you $6.50 for every $1 that you bet. In other words, it really is 5.5 to 1, since you are only winning $5.50 for every $1 you bet. They are just refunding you the $1 that you wagered to begin with. This is a tricky way to state odds, and is different than the way sportsbooks state their odds for futures bets. It’s similar to how some craps table shows the odds (10 for 1 or 8 for 1 on some hardways bets).
So, 6.5 for 1 = 5.5 to 1 = 1/6.5 = 15.38%
Since there are three teams, we take the cube root of 15.38%. This is not as scary as it sounds. Simply type in =15.38%^(1/3) in excel. This means taking 15.38% to the 1/3rd power. The answer is 53.58%.
So we need to be able to win each game at the rate of 53.58% in order to break even to the parlay card. In order to check the work, multiply 53.58% by itself 3 times:
53.58% x 53.58% x 53.58% = 15.38%
For four or more teams, do a similar analysis. Say a 4 team parlay pays 11 for 1. In percentages, 11 for 1 = 1/11 = 9.09% Take 9.09% to the (1/4) power, and you get: 9.09% ^ (1/4) = 54.9%. These odds are worse than the 3 team 6.5 for 1 payout.
Typically, these odds wouldn’t be exciting. Since betting a team at -110 is a breakeven rate of 52.4%, having to win at 53.58% is a bad bet. However, the difference is that the lines on the parlay cards may not be accurate at the moment. These parlay cards are printed earlier in the week (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday), so when the lines move as the week progresses, the lines in the parlay card will be off a touch. The casinos realize this too, and will often post something like “Game #15 is off the parlay card”. So when a game line moves a few points, you won’t get to take advantage of them. However, a line doesn’t have to move all that much for the player to gain some edge. The key is to know what a half point or a point is worth depending on the game (College or NFL) and the value of the point.
So aside from looking for 1 or 2 point differences on the card versus the board, you want to look for parlay cards that show half points only or ties win. And then compare those lines to the current lines. The NFL is typically better for half point differences because the frequency of pushes on certain key points is greater than it’s College counterpart (see Stanford Wong’s Sharp Sports Betting for more info). The most common is when the favorite is a 3 point favorite – in that case the probability of the favorite winning the game is about 10%. So let’s imagine there are 3 games lined at 3 in the NFL. If you can find a parlay card with half points or ties win, then you have a decent wager and can beat the parlay card. Here’s an example.
Current lines show
ATL -3 DAL
PIT -3 NYJ
SD -3 OAK
But the parlay cards show:
ATL -2.5 DAL
PIT -3.5 NYJ
SD -2.5 OAK
In this case, you would consider taking ATL, NYJ and SD in the parlay card, because you are getting the free half point. So how often do you expect to win given the free half point? Here’s some quick math:
ATL -3 DAL
ATL is expected to win by exactly 3 points roughly 10% of the time. If the line is efficient, then that means they should win by more than 3 about 45% of the time, and lose the game (or win by 1 or 2) about 45% of the time.
ATL wins by 4 or more: 45%
ATL wins by 3 : 10%
ATL wins by 1 or 2 or loses the game: 45%
Total: 100%
If you can twist the 3 into a win, then that would make your winning chances go up to 55% (45% + 10%).
So ATL -2.5 is a 55% play.
The same can be show for NYJ +3.5 and SD -2.5….and so you have 3 55% plays.
55% x 55% x 55% = 16.64%
That is greater than the breakeven rate of 15.38% that is on the 6.5 for 1 parlay cards. So we have a winning bet.
Now in practice, it isn’t as easy as this. Often you may find two games that are off, but not a third. Since the minimum number of games needed on the parlay cards is typically three games, you’ll have to find another game. This is when you’ll need to know the push percentages of every key point in the NFL. So say you find:
ATL -2.5 (current line -3)
PIT -2.5 (current line -3)
But no other game that is off by a half point from the 3. But you do find:
IND -6.5 (current line -7)
Then you’ll need to know exactly what the 7 is worth. It is about 6%. So that means IND -6.5 is a 53% winner if the IND -7 is a fair market line. 53% is less than the 53.58% we require to breakeven, but may still be useful to use this game, even though it is less than 53.58% because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the two 55% games.
55% x 55% x 53% = 16.03%
In fact, if we have two 55% games, we need a third game of greater than 50.85% in order to give us an edge in the parlay cards. Knowing this is helpful, you can use a “losing bet” in order to get that 3rd team in.
It gets a bit dicier if there is only one game off by a half point from the 3, but two games off a half point from the 7. Then you get:
55% x 53% x 53% = 15.45%
15.45% is only a smidge greater than 15.38%. If you have an opinion on any of those games and would have bet them anyway, then this may be worthwhile because you are getting into a zero expectancy bet, and don’t have to lay the vig in order to get your action.
Once you start playing these parlay cards, you’ll see some other issues which will become important. For example, how do you adjust a game when the current line is:
ATL -3 -120 NYJ
NYJ +3 +100 ATL
So the line is a bit shaded towards ATL -3, and the fair market line is ATL -3 -110.
In that case, if you see ATL -2.5 on the parlay card, then it is greater than a 55% play. But if you see NYJ +3.5, then it is a worse than a 55% play.
So you will have to keep abreast of the current lines, know how to adjust based on the vig on the line.
Profitability:
Let’s use the example where we had 3 teams lined at 3, and we are getting a free half point on each of them on the parlay card. In that case, the expected winning percentage of the 3 team parlay is 16.64%. If the wager was for $100, then the expectancy is:
= ($550 x 16.64%) + (-$100 x (100% - 16.64%))
= ($550 x 16.64%) + (-$100 x 83.36%)
= $91.52 - $83.36
= $8.16
The Return on Investment is very high. 8.16%.
Actually betting:
Casinos and their employees are not the brightest people in the world, but they are not dumb either. Especially after some losses, they will re-think their position and make a few adjustments. As for these parlay cards, they do keep an eye when there are many games lined at 3. And when game lines move away from the posted lines on the parlay cards, they will take them off the card and not allow bettors to take advantage of them. If you try to put too many high dollar wagers, they may stop you and take a small portion or none of them. By a high dollar wager, I mean a $300 bet or higher. Usually this is nothing for an individual game, even in the smaller casinos, but because the payoff is higher (the casino could lose $1650 on a $300 wager), they often have to get approval from the supervisor.
It takes a lot of work to bet these parlay cards profitably. Because of the low dollar amount that most books will take, the way to do it correctly is to stay under the radar and to bet them at many books for low dollar amounts. You can imagine how much work this takes. A ton of driving, a ton of walking. It's a real tough job to do it right for a significant amount of money. But one doesn't have to do it for a living to have fun with it while getting positive expectancy.
Many sportsbooks in Las Vegas have parlay cards. It is usually the highest profit area in the sportsbook due to the bad odds and the stupid bettors. However, there are ways to beat the parlay cards.
There are many different variations, but I’ll stick with one example to illustrate. With just a few adjustments, you should be able to calculate the numbers for any other variation using this example as a guide.
The example I’ll choose is one that has the least variance, and the highest chance of the player winning – the 3 team parlay. Some casinos will have different parlay cards, so you have to be careful in checking the odds that are offered (see the back of the card). The odds that is usually the best are the ones that offer 6.5 for 1. This means the casino will pay you $6.50 for every $1 that you bet. In other words, it really is 5.5 to 1, since you are only winning $5.50 for every $1 you bet. They are just refunding you the $1 that you wagered to begin with. This is a tricky way to state odds, and is different than the way sportsbooks state their odds for futures bets. It’s similar to how some craps table shows the odds (10 for 1 or 8 for 1 on some hardways bets).
So, 6.5 for 1 = 5.5 to 1 = 1/6.5 = 15.38%
Since there are three teams, we take the cube root of 15.38%. This is not as scary as it sounds. Simply type in =15.38%^(1/3) in excel. This means taking 15.38% to the 1/3rd power. The answer is 53.58%.
So we need to be able to win each game at the rate of 53.58% in order to break even to the parlay card. In order to check the work, multiply 53.58% by itself 3 times:
53.58% x 53.58% x 53.58% = 15.38%
For four or more teams, do a similar analysis. Say a 4 team parlay pays 11 for 1. In percentages, 11 for 1 = 1/11 = 9.09% Take 9.09% to the (1/4) power, and you get: 9.09% ^ (1/4) = 54.9%. These odds are worse than the 3 team 6.5 for 1 payout.
Typically, these odds wouldn’t be exciting. Since betting a team at -110 is a breakeven rate of 52.4%, having to win at 53.58% is a bad bet. However, the difference is that the lines on the parlay cards may not be accurate at the moment. These parlay cards are printed earlier in the week (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday), so when the lines move as the week progresses, the lines in the parlay card will be off a touch. The casinos realize this too, and will often post something like “Game #15 is off the parlay card”. So when a game line moves a few points, you won’t get to take advantage of them. However, a line doesn’t have to move all that much for the player to gain some edge. The key is to know what a half point or a point is worth depending on the game (College or NFL) and the value of the point.
So aside from looking for 1 or 2 point differences on the card versus the board, you want to look for parlay cards that show half points only or ties win. And then compare those lines to the current lines. The NFL is typically better for half point differences because the frequency of pushes on certain key points is greater than it’s College counterpart (see Stanford Wong’s Sharp Sports Betting for more info). The most common is when the favorite is a 3 point favorite – in that case the probability of the favorite winning the game is about 10%. So let’s imagine there are 3 games lined at 3 in the NFL. If you can find a parlay card with half points or ties win, then you have a decent wager and can beat the parlay card. Here’s an example.
Current lines show
ATL -3 DAL
PIT -3 NYJ
SD -3 OAK
But the parlay cards show:
ATL -2.5 DAL
PIT -3.5 NYJ
SD -2.5 OAK
In this case, you would consider taking ATL, NYJ and SD in the parlay card, because you are getting the free half point. So how often do you expect to win given the free half point? Here’s some quick math:
ATL -3 DAL
ATL is expected to win by exactly 3 points roughly 10% of the time. If the line is efficient, then that means they should win by more than 3 about 45% of the time, and lose the game (or win by 1 or 2) about 45% of the time.
ATL wins by 4 or more: 45%
ATL wins by 3 : 10%
ATL wins by 1 or 2 or loses the game: 45%
Total: 100%
If you can twist the 3 into a win, then that would make your winning chances go up to 55% (45% + 10%).
So ATL -2.5 is a 55% play.
The same can be show for NYJ +3.5 and SD -2.5….and so you have 3 55% plays.
55% x 55% x 55% = 16.64%
That is greater than the breakeven rate of 15.38% that is on the 6.5 for 1 parlay cards. So we have a winning bet.
Now in practice, it isn’t as easy as this. Often you may find two games that are off, but not a third. Since the minimum number of games needed on the parlay cards is typically three games, you’ll have to find another game. This is when you’ll need to know the push percentages of every key point in the NFL. So say you find:
ATL -2.5 (current line -3)
PIT -2.5 (current line -3)
But no other game that is off by a half point from the 3. But you do find:
IND -6.5 (current line -7)
Then you’ll need to know exactly what the 7 is worth. It is about 6%. So that means IND -6.5 is a 53% winner if the IND -7 is a fair market line. 53% is less than the 53.58% we require to breakeven, but may still be useful to use this game, even though it is less than 53.58% because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the two 55% games.
55% x 55% x 53% = 16.03%
In fact, if we have two 55% games, we need a third game of greater than 50.85% in order to give us an edge in the parlay cards. Knowing this is helpful, you can use a “losing bet” in order to get that 3rd team in.
It gets a bit dicier if there is only one game off by a half point from the 3, but two games off a half point from the 7. Then you get:
55% x 53% x 53% = 15.45%
15.45% is only a smidge greater than 15.38%. If you have an opinion on any of those games and would have bet them anyway, then this may be worthwhile because you are getting into a zero expectancy bet, and don’t have to lay the vig in order to get your action.
Once you start playing these parlay cards, you’ll see some other issues which will become important. For example, how do you adjust a game when the current line is:
ATL -3 -120 NYJ
NYJ +3 +100 ATL
So the line is a bit shaded towards ATL -3, and the fair market line is ATL -3 -110.
In that case, if you see ATL -2.5 on the parlay card, then it is greater than a 55% play. But if you see NYJ +3.5, then it is a worse than a 55% play.
So you will have to keep abreast of the current lines, know how to adjust based on the vig on the line.
Profitability:
Let’s use the example where we had 3 teams lined at 3, and we are getting a free half point on each of them on the parlay card. In that case, the expected winning percentage of the 3 team parlay is 16.64%. If the wager was for $100, then the expectancy is:
= ($550 x 16.64%) + (-$100 x (100% - 16.64%))
= ($550 x 16.64%) + (-$100 x 83.36%)
= $91.52 - $83.36
= $8.16
The Return on Investment is very high. 8.16%.
Actually betting:
Casinos and their employees are not the brightest people in the world, but they are not dumb either. Especially after some losses, they will re-think their position and make a few adjustments. As for these parlay cards, they do keep an eye when there are many games lined at 3. And when game lines move away from the posted lines on the parlay cards, they will take them off the card and not allow bettors to take advantage of them. If you try to put too many high dollar wagers, they may stop you and take a small portion or none of them. By a high dollar wager, I mean a $300 bet or higher. Usually this is nothing for an individual game, even in the smaller casinos, but because the payoff is higher (the casino could lose $1650 on a $300 wager), they often have to get approval from the supervisor.
It takes a lot of work to bet these parlay cards profitably. Because of the low dollar amount that most books will take, the way to do it correctly is to stay under the radar and to bet them at many books for low dollar amounts. You can imagine how much work this takes. A ton of driving, a ton of walking. It's a real tough job to do it right for a significant amount of money. But one doesn't have to do it for a living to have fun with it while getting positive expectancy.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Sports: upcoming topics
I have been fairly lazy lately in posting to my blog. To motivate myself, I've decided to list a few topics that I will cover before the year is over. Hopefully I have enough energy to get to these topics soon.
1. Parlays: How to beat Parlay Cards in Vegas
2. Parlays: What's the toughest part of betting correlated parlays?
3. Futures: What to think about when playing futures in the NFL
4. Futures: Playing the favorites in most type of bets is negative EV, but not always in Futures.
5. Teasers: distributions of scores based on the level of the total
6. Teasers: Looking at teaser records in a more focused way
7. Cover: Does one need to use cover (making zero or negative EV bets to confuse the book about your true abilities) when betting sports?
8. Cover: What type of zero EV bets are best for cover?
1. Parlays: How to beat Parlay Cards in Vegas
2. Parlays: What's the toughest part of betting correlated parlays?
3. Futures: What to think about when playing futures in the NFL
4. Futures: Playing the favorites in most type of bets is negative EV, but not always in Futures.
5. Teasers: distributions of scores based on the level of the total
6. Teasers: Looking at teaser records in a more focused way
7. Cover: Does one need to use cover (making zero or negative EV bets to confuse the book about your true abilities) when betting sports?
8. Cover: What type of zero EV bets are best for cover?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Sports Betting: Linemakers activity and the baseball playoffs
Link to an article by Dave Tuley
Interesting article about the linemakers' busy season of baseball playoffs, regular season football and the hockey season starting. Baseball betting is small compared to football, but with the playoffs coming,there will be more money on each game than the regular season. In particular, I found this interesting:
----------------
"Baseball betting has been dormant since the NFL started, but now people who don't usually bet baseball will be getting involved in the playoffs," O'Brien said. "There's more pressure to set a good line, because each individual game gets more attention. It's not like a Detroit-Tampa Bay game in the middle of August. You can't make a significant error and have it go unnoticed. Even with fewer teams, we do as much work, because we're doing stuff like props that you don't do during the regular season."
----------------
With the public betting on games in the baseball playoffs, it is now possible to see games skewed too much towards the favorites in must-win situations. For example, if the Padres win Game 1, the line will probably come out too high for the Cardinals in Game 2...but it won't be the right time to bet it. That's because the line will only drift up as bettors will simply think "there's no way the Padres can go up 2-0 on the Cardinals". If the true line for Game 2 should be STL -180, it may open up STL -210 and drift up to STL -230 (just using those numbers to illustrate the point). The same goes for the Angels vs Yankees. But not so for the Astros vs Braves since that is a even money matchup.
There is a theory in the NBA playoffs called the Zig Zag Theory. The idea behind it is to bet on the team that lost in the previous game. So if Team A loses in Game 1 of the series, then bet on Team A in Game 2. This can be seen reflected in the lines. If the line for Game 1 was Team A -5, then if they win, the line may go down to Team A -4...but if they lose, it will go up to Team A -6. Historically, this theory is accurate (to some degree). If the linemakers did not move the lines based on what happened in previous games, they would get killed by the bettors - public and professional. However, it is my opinion that the Zig Zag Theory does not hold in baseball. Why? Because it is a completely different game. Basketball is a team sport where energy and focus as a team means a lot. Baseball is an individual sport disguised as a team sport. Individual focus is important. But the focus is different in the two sports. In basketball, the team needs to be focused all the time. In baseball, the players on defense (other than the pitcher/catcher), when there is no men on base, don't need to be all that focused until the pitcher is about to pitch. It's not as hard to maintain the focus in that way. Meanwhile, the pitchers and batters are always focused, no matter what, so there is no fear of losing focus ... like a team may in basketball. A study on how the zig-zag theory works in baseball is difficult because the starting pitchers change the probability of who should win the game so much. I believe it is not existent in the baseball playoffs, but I do believe the bettors think it exists.
The last section in that article is interesting too - regarding the sportsbooks early lines on Sunday night. Despite all the talk about the importance of offshore books, Las Vegas is still important and useful for professional bettors.
Interesting article about the linemakers' busy season of baseball playoffs, regular season football and the hockey season starting. Baseball betting is small compared to football, but with the playoffs coming,there will be more money on each game than the regular season. In particular, I found this interesting:
----------------
"Baseball betting has been dormant since the NFL started, but now people who don't usually bet baseball will be getting involved in the playoffs," O'Brien said. "There's more pressure to set a good line, because each individual game gets more attention. It's not like a Detroit-Tampa Bay game in the middle of August. You can't make a significant error and have it go unnoticed. Even with fewer teams, we do as much work, because we're doing stuff like props that you don't do during the regular season."
----------------
With the public betting on games in the baseball playoffs, it is now possible to see games skewed too much towards the favorites in must-win situations. For example, if the Padres win Game 1, the line will probably come out too high for the Cardinals in Game 2...but it won't be the right time to bet it. That's because the line will only drift up as bettors will simply think "there's no way the Padres can go up 2-0 on the Cardinals". If the true line for Game 2 should be STL -180, it may open up STL -210 and drift up to STL -230 (just using those numbers to illustrate the point). The same goes for the Angels vs Yankees. But not so for the Astros vs Braves since that is a even money matchup.
There is a theory in the NBA playoffs called the Zig Zag Theory. The idea behind it is to bet on the team that lost in the previous game. So if Team A loses in Game 1 of the series, then bet on Team A in Game 2. This can be seen reflected in the lines. If the line for Game 1 was Team A -5, then if they win, the line may go down to Team A -4...but if they lose, it will go up to Team A -6. Historically, this theory is accurate (to some degree). If the linemakers did not move the lines based on what happened in previous games, they would get killed by the bettors - public and professional. However, it is my opinion that the Zig Zag Theory does not hold in baseball. Why? Because it is a completely different game. Basketball is a team sport where energy and focus as a team means a lot. Baseball is an individual sport disguised as a team sport. Individual focus is important. But the focus is different in the two sports. In basketball, the team needs to be focused all the time. In baseball, the players on defense (other than the pitcher/catcher), when there is no men on base, don't need to be all that focused until the pitcher is about to pitch. It's not as hard to maintain the focus in that way. Meanwhile, the pitchers and batters are always focused, no matter what, so there is no fear of losing focus ... like a team may in basketball. A study on how the zig-zag theory works in baseball is difficult because the starting pitchers change the probability of who should win the game so much. I believe it is not existent in the baseball playoffs, but I do believe the bettors think it exists.
The last section in that article is interesting too - regarding the sportsbooks early lines on Sunday night. Despite all the talk about the importance of offshore books, Las Vegas is still important and useful for professional bettors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
