Closing line value is useful, but bettors often interpret it too simply. Learn what CLV actually measures, where it falls short, and how to use it as part of a broader process.
Back to VideosClosing line value is the best indicator of exactly how good your bets are. And it can also be the fastest way to build your betting process on an unsafe foundation. I preach closing line value because it works. If you're consistently getting CLV, you're going to be a long-term winner, full stop. But, and this part actually matters, it only works if you're using it in the right markets the right way. CLV is more guidepost than gospel because you can follow the CLV playbook perfectly and still bleed your bankroll down to nothing all while whispering it's just variance into your pillow every night. Lots of bettors build a mental model of how all markets work and stop there.
But the truth is that not all markets are created equal. It's like saying that basketball is basketball and then using that logic to bet the Las Vegas Aces and the OKC Thunder the exact same way. One plays in the most important league on the planet with 30 teams, international appeal, and an intense fan interest. And the other one plays in a 13-team league where the fans, well, they're prone to a little unexpected participation. There was a moment when uh something was thrown onto the court. I think it's ridiculous. It's dumb. It's corny. Yeah, it's stupid. If you try to judge both of them by the same CLV rules, you're playing the wrong game.
Today, I'm going to give you a three-part test to find out if CLV is a real rock-solid foundation for your bets or if you're trying to fit a semicircle into a square hole.
This is a square. It goes in the square hole. A cylinder. I think that goes in the square hole. Semicircle? That's right. It's the square hole. First, let's get on the same page about what closing line value is. CLV compares the bet you made to the bet's closing line, or the last price the wager was available at when the game started. The gist is that the more information there is in a market, usually in the form of bets, the more efficient it is. The whole point of betting on sports is to find inefficiencies in these markets. Sports have a lot of randomness baked in. No sports betting market is ever going to achieve perfect efficiency.
But the lines do tend towards efficiency. So, the last line we get before the game starts is going to be the most efficient, or the truest line that we're going to get. What closing line value assumes is that if you make an NFL bet at minus three, and the market closes at minus three and a half, the closing number is the fair price, and your bet at minus three has an edge. You'll realize that edge in the long run. When it's reliable, CLV is a truth serum for most bettors. It can reveal a good underneath bad results, and it won't let you gloss over a bad process just because of good results.
If it shows that you're just in an unlucky stretch, it can help to stave off panic. Or stop you from overcorrecting a healthy process. But how do you know if CLV is reliable for your market? And that's where these tests come in. If a team is favored by four in an NFL game, is their first quarter line always minus one?
Well, it can be, but not always. And here's why not. It's because a partial game bet, like a quarter or a half, is a derivative bet. It's based on the full game spread, but there are other factors involved as well. For instance, who will get the ball first affects the first quarter spread. That's determined at the coin toss, and books generally close their lines by then. That's the heart of the first test. Is there information that you can't possibly know beforehand that has a dramatic effect on how the bet plays out? The coin flip issue is tough for you and tough for anyone else looking to play that market. It creates less signal to the market.
I'd contend the coin toss is when in-game betting first begins in a game, as opposed to wagering on the coin toss, which is where selling your plasma for bankroll money first begins. Other partial game derivatives are problematic for CLV as well. The biggest reason is they just don't get enough sharp money to shape the lines efficiently. Okay, so derivatives can prove tricky for CLV. What about markets that don't depend on another market to set a price? The recreational book model is pretty straightforward.
Wait for sharper books to set or move a line. Recreational books piggyback off the information the sharp books collect through price discovery. But what happens when there isn't a real signal coming from the sharp books? Then you don't pass the second test, which is does this market have true sharp information shaping it? Now, this is going to be related to our third test, but it's not exactly the same thing. There are markets that are like a 70s television with a busted antenna. They just get no signal. The biggest culprit is prop markets. No book is truly sharp when it comes to props.
There's too much surface area for sharp books to defend and the limits are too low for the sharpest of the sharp to make props a significant part action. Books do tend to move their lines on prop action, but it's more to protect their liability rather than booking to sharp action. So, the more esoteric the prop, the more likely its CLV is meaningless. Here's a good rule of thumb. If you can't find your market on a sharp book like Pinnacle or Circa, then it's probably not a market where CLV matters. Plus, props tend to get moved significantly from services and touts that recommend a certain play.
Some of this might be sharp projections, but it's also just as likely to be a move caused by square action. Extremely square, gullible action. And if you want to see if people are actually buying my packages, everyone paying 9.95, 9.95. And of course, as any sharp bettor knows, getting limited on props is very easy to do if you show any resemblance of being sharp. So, if just action moves props and sharp action is restricted, the movement you see could be misleading.
And that brings us to our last test. The toughest markets to beat in sports betting are NFL full game sides and totals. But NFL markets also have the highest limits and the most money bet into them. They're the gold standard of liquidity and the gold standard for efficiency. If you're getting closing line value consistently on NFL sides and totals, you're doing something right. But how do you know which markets are the most liquid? Because liquidity is the third and most important test of them all. If you're not sure, there are a few ways to check. You can look at books like Circa that post their limits by sport.
And if sports betting industry watching is your jam, you can look at state reports on handle by individual sport. Or consider how much surface area a book has to defend in a sport. In the NFL, there are 16 games a week at most. In college basketball, well, if the odd screen needs a scroll bar to get you to the bottom, you're in trouble. The more ground there is to cover, the harder it is for books to keep up. Their lines on a week three mid-major game won't be as sharp as they are for a February NBA matchup.
But what about those in between markets where there's some buzz, but you're not sure if it's big enough to be efficient. Well, there's a proxy you can use in prediction markets and exchanges. They will show you how much liquidity there has been traded in any market. Now, there's not a hard fast cutoff for how much money it takes to make a market truly efficient. But the liquidity on prediction markets and exchanges can help you be directionally correct. If you routinely see $1 million in volume on an NBA game, but only 10,000 on a WNBA game, or 1,000 on a Korean baseball game, that can give you a clue as to which markets tend towards efficiency.
If props and partial game bets are weak for CLV, what markets actually pass the test? Well, sides and totals in major sports leagues are at the top.
The NFL and NBA lead the way for US sports. English Premier League in Europe. The more minor the sport is, the weaker the CLV signal. College sports are less efficient than major league sports. And then we get down to prop markets and the obscure sports. If you can only find the league on ESPN Ocho, there's no CLV. And how were you even betting that in the first place? Stop it. Get some help.
However, even more important than gaining positive CLV is knowing why the line moved. If you're a top-down bettor, this is an important skill to learn to help you move from just chasing steam to figuring out how markets really work. And if you're originating, knowing why a line moved will make you a better handicapper. CLV will tell you that you're on the right track, but purely judging your performance on CLV alone isn't wise. Pursuing expected value, or EV, is still the best recipe for making money in sports betting. When the markets are efficient, like you'd see in major sports like NFL, NBA, and so on, you're free and clear to judge your bets based on closing line value.
If not, pump the brakes.
