After building my bankroll through other methods I decided in the beginning of May to try and see if I could make money sharp-betting sports. I bet almost exclusively MLB games with the occasional NBA and NHL play-off game. To improve the value I shopped lines between my funded accounts at Matchbook, Pinnacle, Canbet and BetRoyal, always making the bet where I got the best line (with the lines at Matchbook already adjusted for the commission).
I didn't do very well so far (fortunately used a minimal unit size), but what seems interesting to me is that I got killed at Matchbook much more than at the other sportsbooks. By my records at the other three books I'm a combined 129-for-249 = 51.8% (most bets at Pinnacle but about the same win percentage at all three books) while at Matchbook I'm 91-for-226 = 40.3%. I didn't do a thorough analysis yet but as far as I can see it's not like I bet more dogs at Matchbook or such, I simply get worse results there.
Has anyone made similar experiences?
I know, the sample sizes are not really huge but, I believe, not quite insignificant, either. Is this still a statistical anomaly? Or do you think that it's possible that Matchbook is controlled by sharp money to an extent that if a line is better than at the other books (especially including a cheap book like Pinnacle) then this is a sign that it's a line the sharpies don't like = an unprofitable bet?
Currently it seems if I have decided on a play but learn that the best odds offered for that play are at Matchbook it might be best to pass on that play, but perhaps I'm stupid and what happened so far for me at Matchbook was just random bad luck.
Does anybody have an opionion on this?
I didn't do very well so far (fortunately used a minimal unit size), but what seems interesting to me is that I got killed at Matchbook much more than at the other sportsbooks. By my records at the other three books I'm a combined 129-for-249 = 51.8% (most bets at Pinnacle but about the same win percentage at all three books) while at Matchbook I'm 91-for-226 = 40.3%. I didn't do a thorough analysis yet but as far as I can see it's not like I bet more dogs at Matchbook or such, I simply get worse results there.
Has anyone made similar experiences?
I know, the sample sizes are not really huge but, I believe, not quite insignificant, either. Is this still a statistical anomaly? Or do you think that it's possible that Matchbook is controlled by sharp money to an extent that if a line is better than at the other books (especially including a cheap book like Pinnacle) then this is a sign that it's a line the sharpies don't like = an unprofitable bet?
Currently it seems if I have decided on a play but learn that the best odds offered for that play are at Matchbook it might be best to pass on that play, but perhaps I'm stupid and what happened so far for me at Matchbook was just random bad luck.
Does anybody have an opionion on this?
