Originally Posted by
redietz
Referring to your personal estimates/guesses/speculations as "EV" is the height of arrogance. Comical arrogance, but arrogance nonetheless. Imposing some kind of precise math terms on imprecise processes doesn't imbue those processes with added precision.
Using past results of sporting events in calculations of "EV" is completely wrong. It has no mathematical basis. You have no idea what is going into the calculation of any given pointspread, given that pointspreads are designed to balance action, not evaluate teams. What applied yesterday or the day before or for a decade or for a century may or may not have any relevance for today's games.
In sports betting, outside of bonus analysis or pure arbitrage, laying on some "EV" jive just means you are making shit up, as most people looking for an excuse to gamble, or to call themselves "APs," tend to do.
I get a kick out of some folks. They argue that, oh yeah, well this spread is off by two points, so I'll whack the hell out of it. Then you give them a reason that particular line is two points different, and they freeze in their tracks.
And by the way, I did receive an invitation to The Wise Guys Contest, which is back after a two-year pandemic hiatus. About 60 people received invitations. I am technically retired, so I'm leaning to passing on it this season, but it's nice to be recognized as worthy of an invite. The Wise Guys Contest is about 35 years old. I think I've had the best college ATS record overall for the 30 years I was in it. My NFL games may have dragged me down to second or third overall, depending on method of calculation.
I love account. He said people should be analyzing actual pointspread results to identify correlations with winning. He's a genius. About 30 years behind the times, but a genius nonetheless.
On my 66th birthday, I leave you guys with this:
Some people win in public under their own names for 45 years. And some people win in public under their own names for 45 years and get tagged for invitation-only contests reserved for the best in their business. And some of those same people work as sports gambling consultants for filmmakers and writers.
Other people, with not a shred of public evidence that they've won anything doing anything, hold court anonymously and explain that the people who've won publicly for 45 years are wrong and why those people are wrong and folks should stop listening to them. They explain that the filmmakers and writers and industry professionals in business for 50 years are wrong about the alleged experts.
It's up to readers to figure things out.