when do you value inside information?

[dankhank]

so if you visit this forum regularly or any sports betting information site, you will get a ton of information and analysis about virtually any game you want. some of the information is easy to dismiss because it's in the form of "joey harrington is a head case, ain't no way detroit will cover, i'm betting all my student loan money on this one bros" and is patently not reliable. other informaton/analysis is easy to dismiss because based on what you already know, you don't agree with it, or don't consider it to be relevant.

some analysis you accept quickly because it makes sense and is verifiable. a recent post about tonight's CSU-NMU game that points out NMU's strong runnning game and CSU's poor run defense fits in this category. we know that running offense vs running defense is an important vector for handicapping football games.

then there is a lot of publically available information somewhere in between these extremes, that offer data, news, and analysis of a sporting event. each handicapper individually internalizes this information to varying degrees. the source of the information is very important here - you learn over time that some people can be trusted to give you good info about some teams. but this network takes time and discernment to build.

then, i think, there is a category of information that is less publically available. included here are things like a team's motivation, confidence, and chemistry, where people who are close to the team (or on the team) would have the most knowledge. also included here is analysis that simply isn't publically available (think a high school basketball coach who watches the local college team every game and can tell early in the season how the squad stacks up compared to other years, and other teams in the conference). this category is what i would label inside information.

i would submit that inside information can be the crucial thing that makes a wager +EV. if one knew that jake peavy had a broken rib prior to pitching game1 against st. louis, then a wager on STL would've made good sense. if one knew the extent of the lakers' 2004 chemistry problems and how they might manifest themselves on the court, a wager on the pistons in the finals would've been easier to pull the trigger on.

the problem i see is that 99% of all inside information we get has to be dismissed because it is not verifiable. we can speculate about cincinatti's mindset coming into a huge home game against pittsburgh, but we'll often be wrong. it's not as if we (or the reporters we read, the friends we talk to) actually know any of the players or coaches well at all. or have watched them carefully enough to know how they respond. so when i think from a conservative, cold-blooded EV perspective (which i know from poker is probably the best way to approach sports betting) i dismiss all inside information i get from tv, newspapers, forums, et all. it's just not a good gamble to base bets on that stuff. and in terms of expert analysis i have to dismiss most of that too because there are so many experts saying such different things, that i don't know who to go with.

but i wonder if there are ways to get useful inside information. when i was in college i worked as a reporter covering university of missouri football and basketball. i was quite knowledgeable about both the internal drama and external abilities of those teams. to be honest, that experience is the impetus for this post, but i now realize that since i only placed a single bet during college that i can't actually say whether my inside information contributed to a betting edge. but it still makes me wonder, coming back to sports as i now am, if i can possibly accumulate enough knowledge about these teams to beat the bookmakers? or if i should stick to basing my betting mainly on what i observe about the market (ie that historically the public incorrectly bets on favorites in the NFL) and line moves.

the obvious answer is that you need to mix market knowledge with particular information vectors that over time you decide are useful. i'm not sure what motivated me to start this post in the first place because i no longer know what i'm asking - but as i've already written so much i've decided to finish it. i've narrowed down the question for myself already to: if i follow an nba team closely this season, watching most of their games and reading about them in the paper regularly, will there be a point in the season when i have a greater edge than if i just piggybacked other people's picks and was a careful shopper? i don't presume any of you can answer that for me, but i welcome any thoughts on these ramblings anyway.