Bump. Any more insight about this?
I think a big issue is that the outcomes that determine if you win/lose is just too easily manipulated. There are so many individuals who could single handedly influence the outcome that its just to risky to make large bets, no matter how “knowledgeable” you may be. It might not happen now- but if sports betting got as big as the financial markets and large profits could go under the radar what would keep a b-baller from missing free throws or a quarterback from throwing an interception. I think it would be greatly corrupted if a ton of money were thrown into the mix. How do you ‘audit’ for that?? Other business models don’t generally have such a short term win vs lose scenario.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2943095 Good call. I remember this story as well. While watching the Lakers playoffs in 2004, I remember one game where in the 4th quarter the whistles were blowing like mad. I commented that this game may be fixed with all these fouls being called. They called me crazy. Another time, Chicago Bulls were playing the T-Wolves in MN. Michael Jordan gets word that his mother is in the hospital halfway through the game which turned out to be a hoax.
It’s not scalable. Most betting websites want recreational punters, who would risk better few quid to few hundred quid on a game. They are net losers and thus highly thought after. Those few who do win, often see their limits minimized drastically. I remember having one of more obscure sport bet limits set at $5. Ha!
Ed Thorp & co. tried it with a small amount of money. I agree with Trogdor, not scalable.
There are places like this. I interviewed at one, but they never called themselves a hedge fund. They did a lot of betting on sports events but mostly speculated on ticket prices and traded those. They did very well, too. Kind of interesting, but I didn’t see it helping my resume in the long run.
By the way, IF you can analyze the sports data efficiently and have substantial capital, why would you want to be on betting end? You would rather open sportsbetting operation and earn the margin.
Trogdor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By the way, IF you can analyze the sports data > efficiently and have substantial capital, why > would you want to be on betting end? You would > rather open sportsbetting operation and earn the > margin. Good question. Why try to beat Vegas if you can just be Vegas?
Is this brought up today because (as much as it pains me to say it) taking Florida and the over is a complete layup?
Famous last words 
Now that you jinxed Gators, Oklahoma is going to win 10-7. Completely way off topic, but yes Gators and OVER 69 seem to be most likely outcomes. I haven’t run any quantitative analysis, but as unbiased observer I felt that USC and Florida were the most impressive this season. But we have Florida and Oklahoma in the final, so by induction Florida is my favorite. Of course odds reflect that too. If I were forced to punt on the game OVER 69 would be my pick. Sooners had 6 consecutive 58+ point games, and most of the rest were at least in mid 40. The only game they lost in a whole season they scored 35 points. Now Florida is not as prolific of a scorer, but had some score run-ups as well. What worry me more is that they managed to contain the opponent to reasonably low scoring, with 31 (Mississippi) being the highest. So, 35-31 can be quite plausible.
If I jinxed the gators I would quit watching sports while I was ahead… Two things jump out at me in terms of betting on this game: A) The line has essentially doubled Florida’s way since it opened, reaching as high as 7.5 at pinnacle, which indicates a major smart money factor. B) OU is starting a third-string MLB, which spells disaster against the turds…
^^^^Why are people so obsessed with 1 out of 11 players being a third-stringer?
That was a big bump. I thought virginCFAhooker was back until I looked at the date.
because this would lead to game fixing - which is illegal
soxboys21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^^^^Why are people so obsessed with 1 out of 11 > players being a third-stringer? Middle Linebacker is too critical of a position against UF, if you have to use safeties to back up your MLB against Tebow taking it up the middle then you end up leaving Harvin and Murphy open on the outside and they torch you.
I agree that MLB is a critical position, but you can’t overlook the other 10 positions. I think Oklahoma has a lot of depth and talent on defense and Brent Venables will have them well prepared.
I’m not questioning that, I think they have depth, I just don’t think they have the personelle to take on the 4 WR sets UF will throw at them and still stop Tebow up the middle. I guess it all comes down to OU’s DT’s vs UF’s G’s and C and I’m not sure I see them being that dominant.
I guess only time will tell… Have fun watching the game–I’m looking forward to it.
you too…
doubled Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, this is not really related to CFA, but I > always wondered why Hedge Funds don’t diversify > into these areas. Sports betting (‘investment’) > is very similar to speculating in financial > instruments, and games such as poker and black > jack are also very beatable when played by good > players. Is it just legally messy for a hedge fund > to engage in these activities, because I can’t > imagine hedge funds unable to make a ton of money > going into these areas. > > I know this question might be silly, but just > wanted to have some feedback on this from > intelligent folks. > > thanks! probably because people would feel less assured to realize that they are acually just gambling wih their money.