Can you win if you’re funded at one book only?

[nymets11]

JJ how many books do you think you have to be funded at, in your opinion?

 

[hustledouble]

KVB is right. KVB seems very sharp in a lot of these threads

Very book dependent too. Most books aren't going to let you win forever in a way that is worth your while. A few will.

I am currently posted at 26 books. Would not bother if I only had access to 1

 

[Pimike]

Yes

Of course

 

[JDS]

KVB is right. KVB seems very sharp in a lot of these threads

Very book dependent too. Most books aren't going to let you win forever in a way that is worth your while. A few will.

I am currently posted at 26 books. Would not bother if I only had access to 1

He’s the sharpest tool in the BMR shed.

 

[Tanko]

KVB is right. KVB seems very sharp in a lot of these threads

Very book dependent too. Most books aren't going to let you win forever in a way that is worth your while. A few will.

I am currently posted at 26 books. Would not bother if I only had access to 1

Wow 26 books. Thats a lot of cash to have spread around. The 5 I have seem to suffice for the major sports but I find I don't have access to every line (e.g. African CAF championship lines).


Also, you are dead-on about KVB. Calling him sharp is kind of selling him short.

 

[rolandcorts]

One book is plenty because juice doesn't matter since there is no juice when you win

 

[carolinakid]

with one book you got to be willing to buy pts on a reg thing

 

[KVB]

with one book you got to be willing to buy pts on a reg thing

You and Brock Landers have a lot in common.

A lot.

 

[rolandcorts]

People think when their bet won it's because they made the right choice. When their bet loses, they must have made a mistake. They think they just need to stop making mistakes and they can win.

Of course the reality is they are guessing and will hit 50% regardless of how much 'research' they do, and will lose overall because of juice. Juice is only worth a few % points. So are points and half points, which can be obtained from shopping.

Having 3-4 outs nearly allows a recreational gambler to break even.

 

[KVB]

People think when their bet won it's because they made the right choice. When their bet loses, they must have made a mistake. They think they just need to stop making mistakes and they can win.

Of course the reality is they are guessing and will hit 50% regardless of how much 'research' they do, and will lose overall because of juice. Juice is only worth a few % points. So are points and half points, which can be obtained from shopping.

Having 3-4 outs nearly allows a recreational gambler to break even.

It's the difference between trying to make the bet that wins and trying to make the winning bet.

Half points obtained from shopping are very different than half points obtained by buying them, like CK suggests and other rec and amateurs like him who don't see the conversion factors involved.

That math is one thing that separates good traders and professional bettors from the rest.

That's why I said CK and Brock Landers have a lot in common, like the vast majority of bettors, they don't realize that the math involved matters and that conversions tend to be equal when normalized.

You can't just be at a bad book with bad numbers and expect to buy your way into a "good number" as that simply isn't how it works from a successful betting standpoint. That book would have to be making a gross error in their converted prices.

 

[JDS]

It's the difference between trying to make the bet that wins and trying to make the winning bet.

Half points obtained from shopping are very different than half points obtained by buying them, like CK suggests and other rec and amateurs like him who don't see the conversion factors involved.

That math is one thing that separates good traders and professional bettors from the rest.

That's why I said CK and Brock Landers have a lot in common, like the vast majority of bettors, they don't realize that the math involved matters and that conversions tend to be equal when normalized.

You can't just be at a bad book with bad numbers and expect to buy your way into a "good number" as that simply isn't how it works from a successful betting standpoint. That book would have to be making a gross error in their converted prices.

@Wagerallsports do you disagree with anything that he said because I was trying to convey this point earlier this year before KVB came over and you threw a hissy fit at me pal ? No I don’t expect you to respond because you never respond when it doesn’t suit you.

 

[KVB]

Push rates matter and how we calculate them can vary drastically.

I, for one, deal with the most up to date and advanced working push rates you can possibly work with in the market.

This is because I know my push rates, calculated different ways, and because I know what push rates virtually every book is using at any given time, and how they calculate them.

These rates fluctuate with a couple of variables. That's part of a broader push rate video or discussion.

 

[rolandcorts]

It's the difference between trying to make the bet that wins and trying to make the winning bet.

Half points obtained from shopping are very different than half points obtained by buying them, like CK suggests and other rec and amateurs like him who don't see the conversion factors involved.

That math is one thing that separates good traders and professional bettors from the rest.

That's why I said CK and Brock Landers have a lot in common, like the vast majority of bettors, they don't realize that the math involved matters and that conversions tend to be equal when normalized.

You can't just be at a bad book with bad numbers and expect to buy your way into a "good number" as that simply isn't how it works from a successful betting standpoint. That book would have to be making a gross error in their converted prices.

Math isn't their issue. It's lack of functioning brain cells. Obviously buying points isn't free.

KVB what is your opinion of Pinn's half point schedules, and those of SO (a certain Jersey-based odds service...)?

 

[KVB]

I didn't really mean to pick on those posters, but you can usually if someone bets meaningfully by what they say but sometimes you can tell for sure they do not based on what they say.

As far as the half point schedules I usually agree, for the most part, with them. If some issue is off, it's usually off all the down the line, but that's because the line is off, not usually because they made a mistake in the number or conversion.

Sometimes that can really be off though, depending on the sport and how close or far we are from significant numbers. You can find opportunity in the right cases, even at the tightest of books.

There's a lot of fluctution, and like I said, different ways to calculate and weigh push rates.

Those who just take every score and run some frequencies are leaving a lot out, including recent performance and reactions to rule changes. But there is even more, and some of the biggest reasons push rates fluctuate, just not sure I should get too into it.

Sharps often dictate where the line goes and stops, another reference to that video Knowing Your Markets, we also dictate push rates.

That means we can dictate the prices the books use. Manipulation comes in many forms and it's not just the line or number that gets moved, push rates do to, accordingly. Believe it or not it can be most exploited in sports like football where significant numbers can be used to play not only a psychological game with the market participants, but also an actual creation of value in buying and selling points, partly because of that game.

This is a little something not many think about and the types of nuggets I wanted to put into a daily video for BMR.

 

[rolandcorts]

I think SO halfpoints are considered far too valuable. One of many problems with that software.

KVB it would be nice if you spent some time and wrote something specific because that is pretty vague.

 

[JDS]

I think SO halfpoints are considered far too valuable. One of many problems with that software.

KVB it would be nice if you spent some time and wrote something specific because that is pretty vague.

@rolandcorts always bringing the strong sarcasm angle.

 

[KVB]

@rolandcorts always bringing the strong sarcasm angle.

Good, because actually I was considering taking some of stuff out of that post, because of how specific it was.

In the end though, it all depends on your level of handicapping. What I wrote up there has appeal for all levels, right down to exactly where look for decent discrepencies in half points. Some ight think that was vague, but says a lot. Those who dabble will look closer at football rates, for example.

To those not realy concerned daily with making their own push rates or with what the market is using for push rates it might seem a lot more vague. For them, it offers more to the case of how to get to making winning bets over just trying to make the bets that win. Hopefully some can see that push rates can be important, important enough to manipulate. If that's vague to everyone, it's because you know I like to teach by example. A good spot will come, but it likely won't happen unitl I am sharing those rates, like in a vid.

I have to stop short on some parts too. I've been having a real internal debate for a long time about how much to share when it comes to push rates.

At least I'm talking about the fact that many ways exist, and are useful, and that I am willing to share specific rates in the market, if even on video.

As far as calculating them, I can only add so much into to when sharing that eventually I have to stop short, again. It doesn't mean what I give isn't useful, and it doesn't mean it isn't profitable, but I thinking creating cutting edge rates, and current rates, has to be held a little tight.

Sharon doesn't like it when we share too much.

 

[samsncharge99]

Yes. Called winning and not being professional at getting best number

cash out monday baby here we go

 

[rolandcorts]

KVB you kind of just wrote the same thing again.

There are many ways to calculate push rates and it's an art not a science. But Pinnacle's been doing it for decades and they are going to be right 99% of the time, so it's hard to believe there is much value to extract in the 1% of cases... if they even exist. And you haven't given any examples of how/when they might exist. As such you haven't really said much at all.

 

[JDS]

I may have misspoke once again