Isn't the classic middler (which is what we used to call it) still the 1979 Super Bowl? The line opened at 3 1/2, which produced a big rash of plays on the Steelers. And then the line went up to 4 1/2, which produced a lot of counterplay on Dallas. And of course the final score was 35 to 31. I would think that any game that straddled 3 1/2 > 4 1/2 would be extremely dicey for any individual book, since it's so commonplace for a game to wind up with a 4 point spread.

Any of you experts out there know when football odds began being expressed more in point spreads than as a money line? I know you can still get a money line now, but I'm talking about when even the newspapers expressed it that way. It had to go back at least 60-70 years, but a few of you guys seem so well versed on the general subject that I thought you might know the answer. I guess a simpler way of putting it would be: When did point spreads first gain popular acceptance for football (and basketball)?

Charles McNeil is credited with the point spread. He was a math teacher turned bookie after he kept getting cut off from his bookies. That was in the late 1940s...it took off pretty quick from there. It is much easier on the psych to bet a team like Florida -10 against Bama rather than pay 360 to win $100.

Especially since Bama's gonna whip their butts.

Regarding Martingale's: Unless the books/casinos have no maximum you will eventually lose. It doesn't even take that many losses in a row to hit the maximum at blackjack.

LVHCM: I guess I consider a 'sharp' someone who has the bankroll and bets professionally as well. Even if I had the bankroll, I cannot imagine doing it professionally. It is much more fun to learn how to 'beat the system' then actually doing it for a living. I place occasional bets if I can find a rogue line that is off by enough that one could bet it without doing any analysis, but those types of bets, with reputable sportsbooks, is far and few between. I think I feel this way due to poker. I used to love playing online and reading the 2+2 books (i.e. Theory of Poker, Small Stakes Hold'em, Sklanksy, etc... Then I got rakeback (which even a break-even player can use to profit with), then poker tracker (maybe rakeback was first), ace HUD (don't know if still around), and went from playing one table, to buying a second monitor and playing up to 8 tables at a time. I went from having fun to one of the most boring jobs I ever had. Sure it beat going to an office every day and sitting at a desk doing the same thing over and over again, but other than making my own schedule (and girls thinking it was cool...) it was the same, if not worse than an office job (at least for me).
DE
In the Psychology of Baseball the author mentions studies where people don't perform as well and lose enjoyment once they do something for money or have to do something. I know I found it almost unbearable to play and I would dread having to play. It has been three years since I have even played one hand of poker. But, I still love discussing with my friends how they played a hand, theory, etc... I pretty much feel the same way about sports betting, with the exception that I never had the bankroll to do it professionally, and, even if I did, not living in Vegas, and knowing how boring it would get, prevent me from even attempting to do so.

I definitely need to digress soon, but I pretty much retract my original statement of half of BBTF members being able to beat the books. I believe they could, but I imagine a lot would feel like I did playing poker, and would quit after realizing it was boring as hell. Running simulations, programming, etc would be way more fulfilling.

And of course the final score was 35 to 31. I would think that any game that straddled 3 1/2 > 4 1/2 would be extremely dicey for any individual book, since it's so commonplace for a game to wind up with a 4 point spread.

Yes. The most common score differences are 3, 4 and 7. The most common spreads are 3 and 4 (and 3.5, I assume). I remember reading a book by the bookmaker at LV Hilton a long time ago; he said that there was usually a specific threshold of money, where if the book became unbalanced by that amount or more, the line would move half a point. He said that those thresholds were doubled when the spread was 3-4 points.

Clog: As a pro AP for over 20 years (mostly blackjack), you're spot on about the boredom, and "The Life" certainly isn't for everyone - regardless of backround. My colleagues range from Harvard/MIT grads to high school dropouts. It almost takes a certain anti-social personality to be successful, and in that I'm certainly most qualified :^). I found your posts interesting in the fact that it's extremely rare to find someone so knowledgeable in the subculture who's not at least a "serious" amateur.

Harold: Are you sure it isn't 3, 7, 1, and then 4? The way that the game is scored would seem to make this a more likely order (and is also what I remember my db showing, but I would have to dig that out).

Also, are you sure that book wasn't by a bookmaker for Caesar's Palace?

I imagine those thresholds, particularly on the 3 are now larger than double than before online sports betting took off. Moving off of the 3 is a huge gamble for the books. Particularly since if they go to 3.5 the dog is going to get hammered, and they will just be moving back to 3. And moving the line to 2.5 sets up the first of two legs of a Wong teaser. Of course, I am sure people bet favs at 3.5 and take dogs at 2.5, which might offset this.

Harold: Are you sure it isn't 3, 7, 1, and then 4?

Yeah, I think you're right.
Also, are you sure that book wasn't by a bookmaker for Caesar's Palace?

Yes. It was Super Bookie by Art Manteris of the LV Hilton. Here's a review.

I've found that not having the ability to play live has killed my desire for poker. Coming back to Austin 3 years ago after a 2 year hiatus in DFW, the only culture shock in moving back to where I'd lived for 7 years was no poker. DFW had poker all over; bars had live tournaments, there were clubs everywhere (I had my own, which is still running the last time I was up there and looking.) I didn't play all that often, probably averaging once a week, usually the $50 buyin nightly on some random weekday night, sometimes $25-30 if it meant we'd get 25-30 instead of 15-20 people. Rebuys, and people went nuts, so it'd get up to having $2k in the pool. I was so cash positive that game, there's no reason I shouldn't have played every night. In fact, I'm still sitting on a streak of my last 5 of those coming in 1, 3, 2, 1, 1. But without the being able to play live in Austin, I was stuck online. My playing time dwindled even though I was way cash positive the micro turbo SnGs I was playing ($6.60 buyin, 45 people, in a 30 tournament stretch I cashed in all but 3, final 3 in over half, and won 10.)

I finally cashed out during a particularly poor "I'm a student again" stretch, my account at $0 for the first time in years. When I thought about adding back, it was such a pain (I never deposited at Poker Stars after my original $30) that I gave up, and just played some play money games for a while. Then I stopped completely. I still enjoy talking theory, analyzing hands, just like baseclog (and I have all the same books, plus Caro) [speaking of, if anyone here wants a collection of basically every poker book you could possibly want, plus a ton more, all in PDFs, I could upload it to my UT Webspace]* and I still love playing against good players. It's the ####### nutballs that are all over everywhere that sap what little motivation I have very quickly. Now I can't even final table consistently in the WSOP: Tournament of Champions game I downloaded off PirateBay. Even in Tunica. That's mostly because the computer players (especially the name pros) are ####### literal whackjobs raising and calling with anything, and blinds go up every 9 hands, meaning you can't play how you should against whackjobs. And with everyone being a whackjob, one or two end up having four times your stack in under one spin around the table and then they really go nuts. Still, my game has slipped to the point I can't consistently cream that game even with the conditions totally adverse to my style and to any sort of consistent game plan. I have found myself playing it quite a bit, so maybe the bug is back a little, but without the ability to go to a card room or even underground club, meh.

(And apropos of Harold, I just got bounced from the $2000 No-Limit at the San Diego Rincon after a guy raised from gun the minimum, I pop to 6 BB all day on the button with KK, he calls, flop comes J82 rainbow, 4 turn, 6 river, me pounding the whole way, him just smooth calling, and he flips over 86o for a river 2-pair.)

And moving the line to 2.5 sets up the first of two legs of a Wong teaser.

Wok in the thread in 3, 2, 1....

That's mostly because the computer players (especially the name pros) are ####### literal whackjobs raising and calling with anything, and blinds go up every 9 hands, meaning you can't play how you should against whackjobs. And with everyone being a whackjob, one or two end up having four times your stack in under one spin around the table and then they really go nuts. Still, my game has slipped to the point I can't consistently cream that game even with the conditions totally adverse to my style and to any sort of consistent game plan. I have found myself playing it quite a bit, so maybe the bug is back a little, but without the ability to go to a card room or even underground club, meh.

Very aggressive players will make any game tougher and will cause huge swings in your bankroll. They are actually playing somewhat correctly though, but are just a bit loose. In a 6-max game the LAG will lose less money than a tight passive player. But, if you are tight aggressive you will still win money off the LAG. Playing against 'good players' will not net a win in the long run (you might even win over a very large sample of hands). The LAGs are just frustrating and the loose-passive players can be frustrating, but they are cash machines. They call you down, but when ahead they don't raise (which is great for you) and when behind, they pay you off. LPs are pretty much any poker player's dream.

(And apropos of Harold, I just got bounced from the $2000 No-Limit at the San Diego Rincon after a guy raised from gun the minimum, I pop to 6 BB all day on the button with KK, he calls, flop comes J82 rainbow, 4 turn, 6 river, me pounding the whole way, him just smooth calling, and he flips over 86o for a river 2-pair.)

I don't know what stage of the tournament you are in, but do you really want that guy to fold? You got unlucky. If you wanted him to fold then raise more preflop (Even if you don't want him to fold, he raised UTG, signifying a strong hand (usually), you might be able to get a very good, but not KK good hand, to call or reraise.). If he doesn't fold, then either get it all in on the flop or, if real early in the tourney, bet at least the pot (but, getting it all in here might still be better). Seriously, even on the flop, if you knew his cards you would have been thrilled. Obviously the guy was not a good player, as it doesn't appear he bet or raised you on the river. So, theoretically you were getting +EV the entire hand. He called all of your bets with the worst of it and never raised/bet when ahead.

Wok in the thread in 3, 2, 1....

I don't get this. Inside joke?

Are you in San Diego?

The LAGs are just frustrating and the loose-passive players can be frustrating, but they are cash machines. They call you down, but when ahead they don't raise (which is great for you) and when behind, they pay you off. LPs are pretty much any poker player's dream.

Oh, sure. These players (and remember, it's players controlled by the computer) are just weird, though. Very, very, very loose preflop, very aggressive for the first raise preflop, and then they turn into very passive, "tight calling stations", if such a thing can exist. They dump way too many hands when they're pot committed and should call with anything, and they call with way too many hands when they literally have nothing. Not just Ace high nothing, I'm talking like jack high nothing. It took a while, but I finally figured their game out. The key is ignoring the first preflop raise to 3x BB. Anyone at the table will make the first raise from any position with any two cards with any number of people limping (or everyone folding) in front of them. Doesn't matter. I just treat every hand like the blinds are triple what they actually are.

Playing against 'good players' will not net a win in the long run (you might even win over a very large sample of hands).

Sure, and of course I've yet to run across a decent poker AI. They all call way too much, they very rarely bluff twice in the same hand (though this game at least does that more, I even had a computer player fire three bullets at me on a bluff; too bad for him I had the rock nuts), they don't differentiate enough between bet sizes. If the AI says "call", it'll call your bet whether it's $20 into a $1000 pot or $800 into the same pot.

I don't know what stage of the tournament you are in, but do you really want that guy to fold?

Of course not. I want him making those calls every single time. I'd loan him the money to make those calls.

I don't get this. Inside joke?

Chris Wok is another poster here, one who often makes jokes about Asian penises, so "Wong teaser" ought to make him pop up at some point.

Are you in San Diego?

Nope, Austin. Harold is in SD, which is why it was apropos at that very moment that I was bouncing out of the SD tournament in the game.

And moving the line to 2.5 sets up the first of two legs of a Wong teaser.

Wok in the thread in 3, 2, 1....

Yeah, 2.5 is a little generous when counting the legs of a Wong teaser, isn't it?

Nope, Austin. Harold is in SD, which is why it was apropos at that very moment that I was bouncing out of the SD tournament in the game.

How is it an SD tournament? I know Rincon is a casino around here. I'm just confused as to what it means here. Do casinos sponsor tourneys on the on-line poker sites or something?

Heh, I'm apparently not communicating well. There's a game called "World Series of Poker: Tournament of Champions". For the PC. I downloaded it and I am playing that. Not online or anything. The Rincon is one of the stops on the WSOP Circuit Tour, at least in the game. So they're truly computer-controlled players.

Yeah, 2.5 is a little generous when counting the legs of a Wong teaser, isn't it?

If the line opened at 3 and you could have bought it up to 3.5 would that be better? I honestly don't know. I also don't know/can't remember if +3.5 -130 and -2.5 -110 (or less than -110) is profitable/better either.

As far as 2.5, you would cross the 3 and 7. Quite a few online books had even money two team teasers and some of those had a push count as a tie (wouldn't matter on this leg of teaser but could on the other leg) and not a loss (do people really bet two team teasers at -110 with a push counting as a los?). I imagine at even money you are still getting value on the 2.5 to 8.5. You need a 71% chance (approx) on each leg to do a bit better than break even and 1.5 to 2.5 point dogs do considerably better than that (wow, I cannot believe I cannot remember the exact percentage, but isn't it 79%? same with 8.5 to 7.5 down to 2.5 to 1.5?).

Jeff: Yeah, I think I was confused as well about it being a game. At first I thought, "wait, isn't he in austin (I remembered Austin because I was going to ask you about a PL game I used to play in when I lived there.)?" Then I thought "why is he playing at rincon?" When I would go play live I rarely went there as the games weren't that good. Of course, I used to drive to Sycuan which the drive there, the (at best) 25 hands an hour, and rake in the games probably made buying lottery tickets higher ev. What part of Austin are you in?

I see this article as neither evidence of success nor a reflection of community.

Agree and agree.

But I see the responses as a reflection of our community. On the whole I'm pretty happy with the way things have played out. I'd be totally happy if there was a "paid programming" disclaimer but aside from that:

A fair amount of specific, informative and correct criticisms. Nice job guys.

Yes, I'm serious.

baseclog, I work for the University, and I live right by it. 26th and Red River, if that means anything to you. The football practice field, Frank Denius fields (the huge tarp looking building for anyone who drives by on I-35, is across 26th from me. The north wall of it is about 60 yards from my front door.

This thread is only getting 11.8 comments a day. So it doesn't have velocity. But it has torque.

I can't see how anyone could post point-counterpoint without mentioning the best one ever.

I Am So Starving

I Am So Starving is greatness, but it's a lesser version of the Nigeria one. I think all that I listed are better, though I'll note that I waffled on putting IASS on there. I had truly forgotten how great the sexual harassment one is.

Check out the bottom of the front page, just above the list of logged-in members. There's a link to Joe Gambler's first piece.

baseclog, my post 114 was a joke. I don't even know what a Wong teaser is.

It is important to realize that teams go through a 182 game regular season schedule. During those 182 games, teams will be hot and teams won’t be hot. The key for success is figuring out exactly when that hot streak is going to occur.

For instance, once the Milwaukee Brewers traded for C.C. Sabathia, they got hot. Why? A lot of it had to do with confidence. C.C. brought a certain brand of confidence to the team that ended up going through individual players. If it sounds crazy, it sort of is, but it also makes total sense. Baseball is at its core a psychological game

.

My finding from playing roto baseball is that hot streaks may be largely random. A roto team with players assembled from random teams can get every bit as hot or cold as an actual team. My better than average 2008 team fell out of contention in May when about a half dozen starting pitchers from different teams fell apart. The pitching stabilized later without the benefit of a new pitching coach.