Interesting question

[Blue]

I will be there Wednesday for the show Screw ✈️

[MonkeyF0cker]

assuming an efficient market - which can be debated since the US fucked gamblers - bookmaking is very simple. It was certainly easier with higher volume but it's still not tricky.

 

Ok.  You can't have it both ways.  Either the line isn't efficient and the sharps ARE betting into it.  Or the line is 50% (no edge) and sharps aren't loading up on one side.

[Timely Hitting]

Roughly 50%? How do you figure? The line that was loaded up on was off market.

 

That's why your math is off.

well yes but that's the fault of a slow moving book/line and etc. In the long run the market is efficient enough - imo - that you should never give back hold as a bookmaker. This is assuming enough volume and market intelligence leading the bookmaking side to capitalise on their market edge.

[MonkeyF0cker]

well yes but that's the fault of a slow moving book/line and etc. In the long run the market is efficient enough - imo - that you should never give back hold as a bookmaker. This is assuming enough volume and market intelligence leading the bookmaking side to capitalise on their market edge.

 

Your math is wrong.

 

Sharps are not betting into an efficient line.  Period.

 

You are not getting loaded up on a 50% side.

 

The entire premise of that post you quoted is absolutely incorrect.

[Timely Hitting]

Ok. You can't have it both ways. Either the line isn't efficient and the sharps ARE betting into it. Or the line is 50% (no edge) and sharps aren't loading up on one side.

this is assuming that all sharps and originators are playing off/finding the same odds and "edges" though which we know isn't the case.

[Screw Andrews]

Welcome to TGF Screw.

 

Always nice to read the input of the old school crew.

 

Just avoid the cretins and this place is nice enough.

Thanks I think I'll be ok.....go ahead KINGER tell them where the IP is

[MonkeyF0cker]

this is assuming that all sharps and originators are playing off/finding the same odds and "edges" though which we know isn't the case.

 

That's the entire point of market efficiency.  That's why one side gets more action than another and why lines SHOULD be moved.

 

Doesn't mean that every sharp in the market is betting the same side but the market will overall find the edge if it exists and it will take more action than the opposing side.

[Screw Andrews]

well yes but that's the fault of a slow moving book/line and etc. In the long run the market is efficient enough - imo - that you should never give back hold as a bookmaker. This is assuming enough volume and market intelligence leading the bookmaking side to capitalise on their market edge.

Your opinion is your problem....keep the day job....and may all your bets be winners

[Sol Aristatel]

Thanks I think I'll be ok.....go ahead KINGER tell them where the IP is

 

I'm guessing Cinci area... 

[Timely Hitting]

That's the entire point of market efficiency. That's why one side gets more action than another and why lines SHOULD be moved.

Yeah, I'm not arguing lines shouldn't move. Lines obviously should move. That's part of the way of making a more efficient market. That's not laying off action.

 

What I don't agree with you on is that all one sided action is sharp action. Some of it is, sure... moving a number should - in long term theory - help to balance your action while maintaining more hold than laying off your action at -110 elsewhere would.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Yeah, I'm not arguing lines shouldn't move. Lines obviously should move. That's part of the way of making a more efficient market. That's not laying off action.

 

What I don't agree with you on is that all one sided action is sharp action. Some of it is, sure... moving a number should - in long term theory - help to balance your action while maintaining more hold than laying off your action at -110 elsewhere would.

 

But that's part of the equation.  You don't get loaded up 9/1 on a side by moving the lines.

 

Not laying off in that instance is most certainly gambling especially when much of that action is supposedly sharp action.

[Screw Andrews]

I'm guessing Cinci area... 

That's because even though you broke the lead you can still write with the pencil....btw that's Cincy

[Timely Hitting]

Your opinion is your problem....keep the day job....and may all your bets be winners

2% of gamblers - that might be generous - are winning. Now the 2% volume is certainly higher than the average loser by a lot, but if the market was inefficient there would be a higher % of winners than exist today.

[Sol Aristatel]

That's because even though you broke the lead you can still write with the pencil....btw that's Cincy

 

Haha.  I'm not breaking anything.  I just pay attention. 

[Screw Andrews]

2% of gamblers - that might be generous - are winning. Now the 2% volume is certainly higher than the average loser by a lot, but if the market was inefficient there would be a higher % of winners than exist today.

I hope it was a nice night at work....enjoy your evening

[Screw Andrews]

Haha.  I'm not breaking anything.  I just pay attention. 

Don't poke your finger on one of those tacks...

[Sol Aristatel]

Don't poke your finger on one of those tacks...

 

Ok rainbow.  

 

[Timely Hitting]

But that's part of the equation. You don't get loaded up 9/1 on a side by moving the lines.

 

Not laying off in that instance is most certainly gambling especially when much of that action is supposedly sharp action.

well that brings us back the old question of whether or not you move a number off square money. Obviously all money is not equal - that I do agree one - but at some point if you left yourself in a vulnerable position that all of your 9-1 money is sharp money then you did not move with the market. You should have some dead money on that side as well which decreases your risk in theory - unless you are of the opinion that dead money becomes sharp money when supported by sharp money?

[Timely Hitting]

It's been a good discussion. Still don't think over the long haul you should lay off action but to each their own.

 

I'd recommend reading that thread for all who haven't. We'll get back to calling disabler out later on down the road monkey.

[Screw Andrews]

Ok rainbow.  

 

       

[Sol Aristatel]

 We'll get back to calling disabler out later on down the road monkey.

 

Yeah.  I'm sure I'll disagree with you again at some point.  And you will lose your shit and call me a dope/moron/idiot.  

 

Or just leave the thread never to return like you normally do when you get embarrassed.  

 

I'm sure we'll be there again.  

[MonkeyF0cker]

well that brings us back the old question of whether or not you move a number off square money. Obviously all money is not equal - that I do agree one - but at some point if you left yourself in a vulnerable position that all of your 9-1 money is sharp money then you did not move with the market. You should have some dead money on that side as well which decreases your risk in theory - unless you are of the opinion that dead money becomes sharp money when supported by sharp money?

 

Depends how much you want to gamble as a bookmaker.  Any time your books aren't balanced, you're gambling.  Bookmakers are pretty blind to the inherent fair value of a line.  So, the market (or the bettors history) might be telling that bookmaker at that point in time that the action is square.  But they don't truly know where the market closes.  Plenty of people like Billy Walters have used known squares to beard for them.  Maybe, that bet is actually sharp.  Or maybe the market moves with their bet and you're stuck loaded up on a side where a square whale happened to play the sharp side heavily.  In any case, you're gambling.  A bookmaker should always try to balance their books to minimize variance.  The more variance they incur, the greater their risk of ruin.  That's why laying off isn't a terrible idea.  The bookmaker just needs to minimize the games where they take imbalanced action so that it's not a common occurrence.

[KingRevolver]

Thanks I think I'll be ok.....go ahead KINGER tell them where the IP is

Midwest.

[Screw Andrews]

Depends how much you want to gamble as a bookmaker.  Any time your books aren't balanced, you're gambling.  Bookmakers are pretty blind to the inherent fair value of a line.  So, the market (or the bettors history) might be telling that bookmaker at that point in time that the action is square.  But they don't truly know where the market closes.  Plenty of people like Billy Walters have used known squares to beard for them.  Maybe, that bet is actually sharp.  Or maybe the market moves with their bet and you're stuck loaded up on a side where a square whale happened to play the sharp side heavily.  In any case, you're gambling.  A bookmaker should always try to balance their books to minimize variance.  The more variance they incur, the greater their risk of ruin.  That's why laying off isn't a terrible idea.  The bookmaker just needs to minimize the games where they take imbalanced action so that it's not a common occurrence.

And locals have a nice advantage if they are smart.....just depends on how much you want to work like I said before

[Screw Andrews]

Midwest.

That's not LA or Panama I guess.....lol