Steamsharp Chronicles.

Discuss winning strategies, theories and ideas
steamsharp
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by steamsharp » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:25 pm

ill look into that for sure. I like pinny because they never slow pay me, even when i extract 25k. matchbook doesn't either after WSEX got booted and Andrew Pantling took over. they are the most honest folk in a shady biz. is SIA reliable and honest with no slow pays on big extractions?

I wish we were more profitable to be honest. The hardest problem in this game is discovering what teams are going to get crushed. we tried a lot of different tricks with data, run differential, run volatility, win differential, but it really does seem that noise is now the name of the game and on any given day the astros can destory the cardinals. That is why i joined up here to learn from people on what makes a favorite a "good favorite". what do you think? If I could solve that problem I'd be stupid wealthy.

Arch
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by Arch » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:47 pm

SIA's is no where near as reliable thats why I mentioned having your lads have multiple accounts so u can keep the "Red Flags" down by having the $ wagered spread across multiple accounts.

This guy Ryan who is Canadian aswell has used this strategy with success. I'll put him in contact with u over twitter if he doesnt see what were talking about over here.

Kaboshed
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:26 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by Kaboshed » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Arch, just need to figure out when the Thaiwanese are betting before tip ;)

Arch
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by Arch » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:28 pm

Koboshed Its best to just follow the advice AKA "New Rule" PLP gave in the other thread where he said its best and IMO more constructive of everyones time just to avoid Steve's thread and not talk to each other.

Go Read what PLP wrote again concerning u 2. So far Steve has followed PLPs Advice ie the (New Rule) and I think its wise to do so aswell.

Kaboshed
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:26 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by Kaboshed » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:37 pm

Ok no problem, I'm not sure if I had to keep out of the thread or just not directly reply to him. I come from gambling boards where harsh criticism is the norm.

Ryan0079
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:20 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by Ryan0079 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:47 pm

steamsharp wrote:ill look into that for sure. I like pinny because they never slow pay me, even when i extract 25k. matchbook doesn't either after WSEX got booted and Andrew Pantling took over. they are the most honest folk in a shady biz. is SIA reliable and honest with no slow pays on big extractions?

I wish we were more profitable to be honest. The hardest problem in this game is discovering what teams are going to get crushed. we tried a lot of different tricks with data, run differential, run volatility, win differential, but it really does seem that noise is now the name of the game and on any given day the astros can destory the cardinals. That is why i joined up here to learn from people on what makes a favorite a "good favorite". what do you think? If I could solve that problem I'd be stupid wealthy.
SIA is reliable and will pay but not nearly as quick and efficient as Pinnacle. SIA unlike Pinny has a small threshold for pain so if you beat them for 15-20K they will pay you and proceed to cancel your account and send you an email stating their " RECREATIONAL PLAYERS ONLY" Policy which really should be changed to " DEGENERATE LOSERS ONLY PLEASE". They way around this is getting people you trust to create accounts for you and using them as beards which is harder than it sounds but does work. Also don't try and crush these slow moving books as quickly as possible just milk them a little each day and you may keep your account longer.

steamsharp
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by steamsharp » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:25 pm

lol im out. hit me back if yall want to talk gambling on my twitter, im open, share data and am happy to help. cant deal with morons like kaboshed.

MattyKGB
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by MattyKGB » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:17 pm

Hi Steve - glad to have you aboard. Apologies for the late reply, I've been a little busy with my first born son who decided to show up 2 1/2 weeks early.

This is an area I find very interesting so I will offer my thoughts.
steamsharp wrote:Compiled WE's attached for download.
WE in our minds is the precent chance a team has at beating a randomly chosen team performance of a set of 5000+ games. we predict the performance on the field and ask our computer to take the last 10 k home or away games and figure out how many of those team performances would they beat on average. WE is NOT a win probability. It is only a measure of how a teams recent data will perform against random performances drawn from a large set of recorded games in baseball hostory. baseball is random.

when you calculate your WE's you look at the implies WE of pinnacle -> 1/odds and then compare the % value difference between expected WE and implied WE. if there is a lot of signal (high delta) we bet it. you must understand that there is always a lot of Noise in the system so you are looking for enough signal to overcome the randomness in the game. i'll leave it up to everyone to interpret as they will.
You say that WE is not a win probability but then you're kind of treating it like one (by comparing it to the odds-implied win probability), aren't you?
steamsharp wrote: Caveat: our WE's are very poor at understanding when a favorite team is going to win despite being ridiculously juiced. use caution when looking at our data. we make lots of money on underdogs but we have a big bankroll that can withstand the dreaded "all juiced day" truly the worst part of betting is a game like the dodgers today where the books are hilarious and give you 1.339 odds. best to avoid this.
I'm not sure what you mean here. 1.339 can be great odds if, for example, you determine that a team has a 75% win probability. If your model is causing you to bet almost exclusively dogs, there are two possible explanations for that...either Pinnacle's odds are extremely biased or your model is. Either one is plausible but I'm inclined to believe that if Pinnacle's odds were that biased, other people would have picked up on it a long time ago.
steamsharp wrote:A great analogy is facebook stock. if you shorted it at the IPO, you got stupid rich.
This is a good example of "hindsight is 20-20". At the time of the IPO there were lots of people who thought it would go up and lots who thought it would go down. Of course one or the other is going to happen, but that doesn't necessarily prove the validity of any underlying method or logic.
steamsharp wrote: so we understand that sports are pretty noisy so we intentionally bet every single game (like a mutual fund) and do beat the closing lines at pinnacle. we do this by betting games where we feel the "signal" beats out the noise
Please help me understand this as you appear to be contradicting yourself. You bet every game, but you only bet games where you feel the signal beats the noise. So what about the games where you feel the signal doesn't beat the noise?
steamsharp wrote: We just gladly bet every single game (which most people say is retarded)
It's not retarded but it may be unwise if you're attempting to be profitable in the long run. Let's say you determine that each side is equally likely to win a game, and Pinnacle is offering -104/-104. There is no possible way for you to bet this game profitably. So why bet it at all?
steamsharp wrote: but lo and behold after 2000 bets we are up 50k on an 100k bankroll. average odds bet = 2.24. win accuracy = 47.43% $500 a bet.
This is very impressive, congratulations! I'd like to learn more about the models behind your pitching and batting WEs if you care to share?

I notice from your files that both your pitching and batting WEs average around 55-56%, resulting in calculated edges that are positive much more often than they are negative. Is this intentional?

ProlinePlayer
Site Admin
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:33 am

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by ProlinePlayer » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:03 am

MattyKGB wrote:Hi Steve - glad to have you aboard. Apologies for the late reply, I've been a little busy with my first born son who decided to show up 2 1/2 weeks early.

This is an area I find very interesting so I will offer my thoughts.
congrats on the first born son

I myself was greatly interested in following up on this line but it appears Steve has left us. I wrote a PM to Steve about a week back covering some of the same things but never got a reply. I'll repost it here as I would be interested in your thoughts on what I see as a major flaw in the 'WE' approach.

PLP

ProlinePlayer
Site Admin
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:33 am

Re: Steamsharp Chronicles.

Post by ProlinePlayer » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:07 am

Steve,

I've taken some time to look over the spreadsheet and have some questions/observations.

First, I love the idea of calculating for each team a % against a random selection of opponents/past results. This should allow for a much better sampling then just trying to find a probability for a specific match-up.

However to be honest I just don't see it as far as the conclusions drawn from the pitching/batting WE.
WE is NOT a win probability. It is only a measure of how a teams recent data will perform against random performances drawn from a large set of recorded games in baseball hostory.
got it. but
look at the implies WE of pinnacle -> 1/odds and then compare the % value difference between expected WE and implied WE
the Pinnacle line does not give a WE as you have defined it above. What you are calling the implied Pinnacle WE is the implied probability of each team against a specific opponent. This is something completely different than the pitching/batting WEs and I do not see that a comparison between these two numbers is valid.

As I said at the start I really like the idea of rating the teams as you have (WEs) but it seems to me that you need to add another step. Now that you've calculated each team's probability against a random opponent those numbers should be converted to each team's probability in the actual match-up

For example from yesterday's sheets using the first game Cubs-Dodgers.
Cubs pitching WE 47.06%
Dodgers pitching WE 68.53%
I would guess there are lots of formulas that do this but I borrowed the technique from Trading Bases to convert these %s against average/random opponents to the probabilities for a match-up of the teams.
Pitching WEs
Cubs = .4706 * (1-.6853) = .1481
Dodgers = .6853 * (1-.4706) = .3628
Cubs Win % = .1481 / (.1481 + .3628) = 28.99%
Dodgers Win % = .3628 / (.1481 + .3628) = 71.01%

repeating the above for batting WEs
Cubs win% = 36.06%
Dodgers win% = 63.94%

Although a 1 to 1 relationship is probably not accurate, for now I would just average the 2 sets of numbers and get
Cubs - 32.52%
Dodgers 67.48%

Almost a dead match for the implied probabilities of the Pinnacle line.
Using the method above what I see based on your WEs is not an edge on the dog, but a set of probabilities that is completely in sync with the going line and therefore a pass.

Be interested in your thoughts here

PLP

Post Reply