Closing Line Value: Does it actually predict long-term success?

[SharpEddie47]

I want to start a discussion about Closing Line Value because I think it's one of the most important concepts in sports betting but also one of the most misunderstood. For those who don't know, CLV refers to the difference between the line you bet and the closing line when the game starts. If you bet a team at minus 3 and the line closes at minus 4, you have positive CLV of one point.

The theory behind CLV is straightforward. The closing line is the sharpest line because it incorporates all available information and the maximum amount of betting action. If you consistently beat the closing line, meaning you're getting better numbers than the sharp closing line, you should be profitable long term even if your short term results are poor.

I've been tracking CLV meticulously for over 15 years and I can state definitively that it's the single best predictor of long term profitability in sports betting. My average CLV across thousands of bets is plus 0.8 points in NFL and plus 1.2 points in NBA. That edge translates directly to my positive ROI over that time period.

But here's what I want to discuss. Many bettors, especially newer ones, don't understand CLV or actively track it. They focus entirely on win-loss record and ignore whether they're beating the closing line. This is a fundamental mistake because short term results are mostly variance but CLV is a true measure of your ability to identify value before the market does.

The question I want to pose is this: Should bettors be focusing more on achieving positive CLV than on short term win-loss records? And for those who do track CLV, what has your experience been? Does positive CLV actually translate to long term profitability in your results?

 

[FadeThePublic]

Eddie I track CLV religiously and my experience confirms what you're saying. Over the past three years my average CLV is plus 0.6 points and I'm profitable long term. But I want to add some nuance because I think there are situations where CLV can be misleading.

First, CLV assumes the closing line is efficient and represents the true probability. In most major markets like NFL and NBA that's probably true. But in smaller markets or less popular sports, the closing line might not be as efficient. You could beat the closing line consistently in those markets and still lose money if the closing line itself is wrong.
Second, CLV doesn't account for the reason behind line movement. Sometimes a line moves because of sharp action that has legitimate information. Other times it moves because of public sentiment that's wrong. If you're betting early and the line moves against you because the public piles on, you have positive CLV but maybe you were actually wrong about the game.

Third, and this is important for my approach, public betting patterns can create situations where negative CLV is actually acceptable or even desirable. If I bet a game at minus 3 on Sunday morning right before kickoff when the public has pushed it from minus 1.5, I have negative CLV relative to the opening line. But I'm getting the best available number at the time I'm betting because I'm betting after the public has created the inefficiency I'm exploiting.

That said, I absolutely agree that CLV is a crucial metric. I just think it needs to be understood in context rather than treated as the only metric that matters. My approach is I track CLV separately for different betting strategies. For my early week bets I expect positive CLV because I'm trying to beat market efficiency. For my late week contrarian bets I sometimes accept negative CLV because I'm betting into public-driven line moves.

Overall though, yes, positive CLV is a strong indicator that you're making good decisions even if short term results don't show it. The market is smarter than any individual bettor over large samples, so consistently beating the closing line means you're doing something right.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I'll be honest, I don't track CLV as systematically as Eddie and Fade do. I understand the concept and I think it's valuable, but I've always focused more on whether my analysis was correct rather than whether I beat the closing line.
Here's my perspective as someone who focuses on coaching matchups and situational factors. Sometimes the information I'm using to make a bet isn't the kind of information that moves lines. If I think a coaching matchup favors one team in specific situations, that's not something that shows up in the closing line because the market doesn't value coaching the way I do.
So I might bet a game on Tuesday at minus 3, the line stays at minus 3 all week, and I have zero CLV. But if my coaching analysis was correct and the team covers, was that a bad bet just because I didn't beat the closing line? I don't think so. I found value in an area the market doesn't properly price, which is a different type of edge than beating the closing line.

That said, I do pay attention to line movement and I get concerned if the line consistently moves against me after I bet. If I'm betting minus 3 and it's closing at minus 1.5 regularly, that tells me the sharp money disagrees with me and I should probably reconsider my approach.
I think CLV is extremely valuable for bettors who are trying to beat market efficiency with models or data analysis. If you're playing the same game as the market, you need to prove you're better at it than the market is, and CLV does that. But if you're finding edges in areas the market doesn't look at, CLV might not be the best measure of your success.

The real question is profitability over large samples. Whether you achieve that through positive CLV or through finding inefficiencies the market doesn't price, the end result is what matters. Eddie's right that CLV is a better predictor than short term win-loss, but I'd argue that long term ROI over 500 plus bets is the ultimate measure, regardless of how you get there.

 

[BlueMoonTips]

I want to start a discussion about Closing Line Value because I think it's one of the most important concepts in sports betting but also one of the most misunderstood. For those who don't know, CLV refers to the difference between the line you bet and the closing line when the game starts. If you bet a team at minus 3 and the line closes at minus 4, you have positive CLV of one point.

The theory behind CLV is straightforward. The closing line is the sharpest line because it incorporates all available information and the maximum amount of betting action. If you consistently beat the closing line, meaning you're getting better numbers than the sharp closing line, you should be profitable long term even if your short term results are poor.

I've been tracking CLV meticulously for over 15 years and I can state definitively that it's the single best predictor of long term profitability in sports betting. My average CLV across thousands of bets is plus 0.8 points in NFL and plus 1.2 points in NBA. That edge translates directly to my positive ROI over that time period.

But here's what I want to discuss. Many bettors, especially newer ones, don't understand CLV or actively track it. They focus entirely on win-loss record and ignore whether they're beating the closing line. This is a fundamental mistake because short term results are mostly variance but CLV is a true measure of your ability to identify value before the market does.

The question I want to pose is this: Should bettors be focusing more on achieving positive CLV than on short term win-loss records? And for those who do track CLV, what has your experience been? Does positive CLV actually translate to long term profitability in your results?

Couldn’t agree more — CLV is the heartbeat of sharp betting, but most punters still chase the dopamine hit of short-term wins. If you’re serious about sustainability, your only goal should be to consistently beat the closer.

I’ve tracked it for years too — nothing fancy, just manual logs and odds screen comparisons — and the correlation with long-term ROI is undeniable. Every profitable bettor I know has solid positive CLV, even during rough patches. The ones bragging about “10–2 weekends” but never mention their average line movement? They’re usually dust a few months later.

That said, here’s the nuance: CLV isn’t a trophy — it’s a signal. You can have positive CLV and still lose if you’re mispricing injury context, weather edges, or market reactions. But if you can’t beat the closer, your model or instincts aren’t sharp enough yet.

So yes — focus less on results, more on process. Log every bet, compare your price to the closer, and aim to be early on moves, not chasing steam. Win-loss tells you what happened. CLV tells you whether you’re actually good.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay so I had to google what CLV even is because I've never tracked this or really thought about it. From what I understand it's basically whether you got a better line than the final line before the game starts?
I definitely don't track this at all. I usually just bet games on Sunday morning before they start or sometimes during the week if I'm excited about a game. I have no idea if the lines are moving in my favor or against me after I bet. Should I be paying attention to this?

Like if I bet the Chiefs at minus 6 on Thursday and then on Sunday it's minus 7, does that mean I made a good bet even if the Chiefs lose? That seems weird because the result is I still lost money. How is it a good bet if I lost?
I guess what Eddie is saying is that over a long time if you're consistently getting better lines than the closing line you'll be profitable even if individual bets lose? That makes sense in theory but it's hard to wrap my head around caring more about the line than the result.

Also how do you even track this? Do you write down what line you bet at and then check what the closing line was before every game? That seems like a lot of work. Is there an easier way to track CLV or do you just have to do it manually?

 

[SharpEddie47]

Princess your questions highlight exactly why most bettors don't think about CLV even though it's critically important. Let me address each point directly.

Yes, if you bet Chiefs minus 6 and the line closes at minus 7, that's a good bet regardless of whether it wins or loses. The closing line represents the market's best estimate of the true line after incorporating all information and betting action. If you got minus 6 instead of minus 7, you got a better price than the sharp consensus. Over hundreds of bets, consistently getting better prices than the closing line will make you profitable even though individual bets still lose at the normal rate.

Think about it this way. If the true fair line is Chiefs minus 6.5, and you bet them at minus 6, you have an edge. If someone else bets them at minus 7, they're overpaying. The first bet is profitable long term even though any individual instance might lose. This is the fundamental concept of value betting and CLV measures whether you're getting value relative to the sharpest possible line.

Regarding tracking, yes it requires work but it's essential work if you're serious about betting. I maintain a spreadsheet where I log the line I bet, the closing line, and the difference. Many betting tracking apps will do this automatically if you input your bets, but I prefer manual tracking because it forces me to pay attention to line movement.

Tony raises an interesting point about finding edges the market doesn't price. I'm skeptical of this in major markets. The NFL closing line is extremely efficient and incorporates information from thousands of bettors including sophisticated syndicates with massive resources. The idea that a coaching matchup analysis is going to find value that the market misses consistently is possible but unlikely. More often what happens is bettors think they've found an edge the market doesn't see, but really the market has priced it correctly and the bettor is wrong.
That said, in smaller markets or less efficient situations, Tony's point has more validity. A college basketball game between two mid-majors might not have a perfectly efficient closing line, so there could be genuine inefficiencies that don't show up in CLV.

Fade's nuance about different betting strategies is well taken. If you're betting late to exploit public overreaction, you might accept negative CLV in exchange for betting into a line that's been pushed too far by the public. But even then you should be tracking whether that approach actually produces positive results over large samples.

The broader principle stands: CLV is the single best leading indicator of whether your bets are good or not, independent of short term results. If you're consistently beating the closing line, you're almost certainly doing something right. If you're consistently getting worse numbers than the closing line, you're almost certainly doing something wrong.
@ParlayPrincess_88 to answer your specific question about whether you should track this, yes absolutely. Start logging the line you bet and the closing line for every bet. After 100 bets calculate your average CLV. If it's positive, you're on the right track even if your win-loss record is mediocre. If it's negative, you need to change your approach because you're buying at bad prices.

 

[FadeThePublic]

I want to push back on Eddie's point about coaching edges not being real because the market should price them in. The market is efficient at pricing information that's widely known and quantifiable. But qualitative assessments of coaching matchups or situational factors are harder for the market to price perfectly.

That doesn't mean Tony's approach is guaranteed to work, but it's not automatically wrong just because the market should theoretically price everything. Markets can have blind spots, especially around qualitative factors that don't show up in traditional metrics.

That said, Eddie's right that you need to prove it works over large samples. If Tony's coaching analysis produces positive ROI over 500 bets, then clearly he's found something the market isn't fully pricing. But he needs the data to back it up.
On the CLV tracking question, I use a spreadsheet where I record the opening line, the line I bet, and the closing line for every bet. Then I calculate CLV as the difference between my line and the closing line. I also track what percentage of my bets have positive CLV versus negative CLV.

My targets are to have positive CLV on at least 55% of bets and average CLV of plus 0.5 points or better. When I hit those targets my ROI is consistently positive. When I fall below those targets my results suffer even if I'm still winning more than 50% of my bets.

Princess here's a simple example of why CLV matters more than win rate. Bettor A bets 100 games at minus 110 odds and wins 55 of them. Sounds good right? But if they're consistently getting worse numbers than the closing line, they're buying high and their 55% win rate is just short term luck. Over 1,000 bets they'll regress to 50% or worse.

Bettor B bets 100 games at minus 110 odds and only wins 52 of them. But they consistently beat the closing line by an average of 1 point. Over 1,000 bets they'll likely maintain that 52-53% win rate because they're consistently getting good prices. The extra point of value translates to real long term profit.

That's why CLV is a better predictor than short term win rate. Win rate is noisy over small samples. CLV is a direct measure of whether you're getting good prices, which is what actually drives long term profitability.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Eddie and Fade both make fair points. I should probably be tracking CLV more systematically than I do. My ROI over the past five years is positive but I don't know what my average CLV is because I haven't been tracking it consistently.
I think what I'll do is start logging CLV going forward and see if there's a correlation between my CLV and my profitability. If I find that my positive ROI is accompanied by neutral or negative CLV, that would support my theory that I'm finding edges the market doesn't price. If I find that I only win when I have positive CLV, that would suggest Eddie's right that the market is efficient even on coaching factors.

The honest truth is I've been resistant to tracking CLV because it feels like extra work for a metric that might not apply to my approach. But that's lazy thinking. If CLV is as predictive as Eddie claims, I should be tracking it regardless of my betting style, because the data will tell me whether my approach actually works or whether I've just been getting lucky.

Princess I think you should definitely start tracking CLV. It's not that much extra work and it gives you valuable information about whether your bets are good independent of whether they win. Here's how you do it: write down the line you bet, then right before the game starts check what the line closed at and calculate the difference. Do that for 50 or 100 bets and see what your average CLV is.
If you're consistently getting worse numbers than the closing line, that tells you you're either betting at bad times or making poor decisions about which games to bet. If you're getting better numbers, that's a good sign even if your results are break even or slightly negative.

One question I have for Eddie. What do you consider good CLV? Is plus 0.5 points good? Plus 1 point? At what level of positive CLV should someone expect to be profitable long term?

 

[SharpEddie47]

@CoachTony_Bets that's an excellent question. The relationship between CLV and expected profitability depends on several factors including the sport, the typical odds, and how sharp the closing line is. Let me give you some benchmarks based on my experience and the research I've done.
In NFL betting at standard minus 110 odds, average CLV of plus 0.5 points should translate to roughly 2% to 3% ROI over large samples. Plus 1 point of CLV should translate to roughly 4% to 5% ROI. These are approximate because the actual conversion depends on where on the curve the points land, but they're reasonable estimates.

In NBA betting the relationship is slightly different because totals and spreads move more frequently and in larger increments. Plus 0.5 points of CLV might only translate to 1.5% to 2% ROI because individual points matter less in basketball than football.
The key insight is that even small amounts of positive CLV compound significantly over large samples. If you're beating the closing line by just half a point on average across 500 bets, you should be profitable. If you're losing to the closing line by half a point, you're almost certainly losing money long term regardless of your short term win rate.

To Tony's point about tracking going forward, I strongly encourage that. You might find that you do have positive CLV even though you're not consciously trying to beat the closing line. Or you might find that your positive ROI is happening despite neutral or negative CLV, which would be fascinating and would suggest you really are finding inefficiencies the market doesn't price.

My prediction is that if you track it carefully you'll find your profitable bets correlate strongly with positive CLV and your losing bets correlate with negative CLV. That's what the data shows for virtually every bettor who tracks this metric. But I'm genuinely curious to see if your situational approach produces different results.
One more thing about CLV that's worth emphasizing. It's a forward-looking metric not a backward-looking one. You can't change your CLV after the fact. If you bet minus 3 and it closes at minus 4, you have plus one CLV regardless of whether the game wins or loses. This makes it a much cleaner metric than ROI for evaluating your process because it's not contaminated by result-oriented thinking.
When you review your bets, you should be asking "did I beat the closing line" not "did I win the bet." Winning the bet is variance. Beating the closing line is skill. Focus on the skill component and the results will follow over time.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay this is making more sense now. So CLV is basically a way to measure if you're making good bets before you know the outcome of the game. And if you consistently beat the closing line that means you're consistently getting good prices which should make you profitable long term even if you have some losing streaks.
I'm definitely going to start tracking this. It actually seems less stressful than just looking at whether I won or lost because like Eddie said, winning or losing individual bets is variance but beating the closing line is something I can control by betting at the right time or picking the right sides.

One question though. If I usually bet on Sunday mornings right before the games start, am I automatically going to have bad CLV because I'm betting at the closing line? Like if I bet right at noon and the closing line is also at noon, my CLV would be zero right? Does that mean I should be betting earlier in the week to try to beat the closing line?
Or is it okay to bet at the closing line as long as I'm picking the right sides? I'm confused about whether CLV is about timing or about picking good games or both.