Sorry. No, I couldn't find them both at the same time. 
No. You won't find offers like that simultaneously. If you do find those, it's more like you took an early position, and then hedged off of it type of thing.
I got my -2 at a local, but I think I recall -2 being offered at around -110 earlier at matchbook.
Matchbook HAD -101, but now it's at -107. The market's kind of volatile sometimes.
And no: these instances are not super-frequent. They're worth searching for though. And then since it's people making the offers, sometimes mistakes are made. I got KC +1 at even once when KC -1 was -105...at the exact same time. I'm sure the guy who offered KC +1 really meant to have SD -1 for even, but yeah. You'll find things like that from time to time, but normally, things like this will occur because of line changes, just like at real books.
Matchbook is a nice out.
)
No. You won't find offers like that simultaneously. If you do find those, it's more like you took an early position, and then hedged off of it type of thing.
I got my -2 at a local, but I think I recall -2 being offered at around -110 earlier at matchbook.
Matchbook HAD -101, but now it's at -107. The market's kind of volatile sometimes.
And no: these instances are not super-frequent. They're worth searching for though. And then since it's people making the offers, sometimes mistakes are made. I got KC +1 at even once when KC -1 was -105...at the exact same time. I'm sure the guy who offered KC +1 really meant to have SD -1 for even, but yeah. You'll find things like that from time to time, but normally, things like this will occur because of line changes, just like at real books.
Matchbook is a nice out.
)
Actually if you look at historical results (which most people do) to look "value" points, then 1.5 points isn't "worth" that much.Fishhead said:
The "probabilty" of a middle here is roughly 12/516(historical results of -2 through -3.5 lines where the game landed on 3) with a side probability of 9/516 (historical results where the game landed on 2). So roughly a 21/512 (4% chance) to hit a "non negative result". That nmakes it roughtly "worth" 8 cents or so.
Again theoretical based on past results and in no way reflects what might happen this game, but even so, past results are pretty much what "value" is based on.
If you get -2 and +4, you get somewhat of a reprieve and gain 7 more games with a "side" so then your expectation raises to 28/512, which makes it "worth" just about 11 cents.
I know what Pinny charges and what they pay, and their figures aren't exactly accurate. But they make up for it in volume. They will "charge" you 10-12 and "pay" you 7-9 cents per half point so people like to think that that makes the "value" somewhere in the middle (9 cents or so per half point), which it really isn't. If people took the time to look at the results they could see where they have a "theoretical" advantage as to when to buy and when not to.
The "best" way to figure it out is to look and see what the probabilities of a middle are, and as I have shown they have been roughly 12/512 (2.34% chance) of happening, going back to 1995.
D2bets said:
Ok simple answer to the original question is/was "no" then..hows that?
I try to offer reasoning as to why an answer is yes or no, rather than throwing out unsubstantiated answers. Which is usually what you get on these places. or they give an answer that is based on incorrect assumptions, generally perpetuated by people that think they know because someone said it once, or "proved" it once.
Show me where enough games have landed on the 3 between those two numbers enough times to make it worth it and I will recant my stance. Until then it is not a profitable middle/side shot period.
Getting the +3.5 for -101 was probably better than the -2 -110, not because it covered, but because it was a "better" line at lower vig.
But trying to get a result in between them for 11 cents isn't worth it, even with a side on the 2.
Playing one side or the other on either, would be more profitable in the long run than trying to hit a middle with both.
Getting the +3.5 for -101 was probably better than the -2 -110, not because it covered, but because it was a "better" line at lower vig.
But trying to get a result in between them for 11 cents isn't worth it, even with a side on the 2.
Playing one side or the other on either, would be more profitable in the long run than trying to hit a middle with both.
wantitall4moi said:
So you're saying there were only 516 games lines -2 to -3.5 since 1995?
I don't know the exact figure but there's gotta be at least 2,000 (probably way more) lined games per year. So that's 20,000+ games ince 1995. You mean to tell me that only 516 of them were lined between -2 and -3.5? That can't possibly be. Gotta be way over 2,000 games in there lined that way. And way more hit the number than you say.
I could make better guesses without databse than you can quote figures with a database.
Databases-R-Us might not be the best source of info.
Ya I screwed up. I used +2 and +3.5 for both. Not -2 and +3.5
New figures(a little better)...
59 of 1584 (3.7%)games lined between those numbers landed on a 3 point differential. Middle
57 of 1584 (3.6%) landed on a 2 pt differential. Side
Not sure if this is really the correct way to "proof" it or not, but I guess it is as "good" as you wil find. But it does become profitable using these numbers. But that also is counting games that were lined PK, -1, -1.5,-2,-2.5, -3, and -3.5. So not sure it is the "right" way to do it.
Looking at games simply lines -2 AND -3.5 there are 536 total games. 294 closing at +3.5, and 242 closing at -2. Of those 20 (10 each) landed on a 3 pt differential. And 17 landed ona 2pt differential. SO that gives us a 20/536 (3.7%) chance at a middle, and 17/536 (3.1%) chance at a side.
If you take every result (3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 3.7) and take the median , that is roughly a 3.5% "probabilty" of getting a "positive" result. At 11 cents it isn't quite worth in IMO.
All depends on how you slice it. One way it is profitable, the other way it is not profitable.
I stand by my contention that if you did it every game you would lose money.
New figures(a little better)...
59 of 1584 (3.7%)games lined between those numbers landed on a 3 point differential. Middle
57 of 1584 (3.6%) landed on a 2 pt differential. Side
Not sure if this is really the correct way to "proof" it or not, but I guess it is as "good" as you wil find. But it does become profitable using these numbers. But that also is counting games that were lined PK, -1, -1.5,-2,-2.5, -3, and -3.5. So not sure it is the "right" way to do it.
Looking at games simply lines -2 AND -3.5 there are 536 total games. 294 closing at +3.5, and 242 closing at -2. Of those 20 (10 each) landed on a 3 pt differential. And 17 landed ona 2pt differential. SO that gives us a 20/536 (3.7%) chance at a middle, and 17/536 (3.1%) chance at a side.
If you take every result (3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 3.7) and take the median , that is roughly a 3.5% "probabilty" of getting a "positive" result. At 11 cents it isn't quite worth in IMO.
All depends on how you slice it. One way it is profitable, the other way it is not profitable.
I stand by my contention that if you did it every game you would lose money.
wantitall4moi said:
Now that you got your database correct you messed up the profitability calculation. Now let's figure with a 3.7% chance middle on '3' and 3.6% chance side on '2'. So let's take 1,000 plays of this at a dime each:
-2-110 1100/1000
+3.5-101 1055/1045
37 times middle win 2045 = +75,665
26 times side win 1045 = +27,170
937 times lose 55 = -51,535
Net + 51,300
That's $51.30 profit per try and you're risking $55 per try. Damn near 100% profit per $ risked.
How you can say this would lose money is incomprehensible.
I suppose now you'll go on a tangent about how every situation is different and you can't really know the probability of any individual middle and it's all speculation etc etc...
