Page 173 of 501 FirstFirst ... 73123163169170171172173174175176177183223273 ... LastLast
Results 3,441 to 3,460 of 10013

Thread: The WoV Thread

  1. #3441
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I couldn't tell if he was expecting to be taken seriously or if he was just yanking everybody's chain. That's the only thing of his that I've read.
    Babs was constantly on Nathan for posting what Babs considered to be drivel now here she is defending mdawg the idiot. His "billions" is more likely playing nickel video keno. And this is just more proof she was out to get Nathan.

    Redietz, you have a lot to offer that site because of your knowledge of sports and sports betting. I suggest you fill out your profile because after people start reading your sports material they are going to want to know more about you so will click on your name to read your profile.

    As for Babs, the best thing you can do is jump in the political threads and let your left leaning tendencies be known. You'll have Babs eating out of your hand. She's a hard lefty but says she's a moderate Republican. She let's the lefties troll the political threads with impunity but keeps a tight leash on those with more conservative views. I have one friend that says she's not a moderator she's a molderator.

    Another thing you might be interested in. Shack has a strategy for half point parlay cards during NFL. There's threads on it and it looks like some people made money with it. If you look into it let us know what you think about it.

    Mickey, I will check out the half point parlay card strategy. But let me take a potential dig at Shack first, knowing full well I could be wrong. I'm going to take a stab before reading it that just maybe it is a relatively well known idea from the 80's where you find the games (usually college games) where the line has moved during the week significantly but the card still has it live. Then you stagger the games time-wise so that you have the best of the number and set up potential middling/hedging situations as the results progress. If this is the core of the strategy, people started doing it in the early 80's. As a relatively small player back then, I actually got into it with the sports book manager at the Stardust (he was semi-famous, went to take a Borgata position, I'm blocking on his name). I wasn't even trying to torture them -- too much. It's just that I had to get a Stardust seat early, and I had two hours plus to kill after I got my seat, so I did the parlay card thing with the time-staggered, best-number stuff for a couple hundred dollars total. Well, pretty soon, the manager was coming over every time I went to the window and shutting me down on every parlay card more than $20. It was actually pretty funny, because I wasn't doing it with any seriousness. I was just killing time. There were other people who ran around to all of the Boyd properties (Stardust was Boyd at the time) and used this idea as a big deal strategy, trying to keep under the radar by scattering their money around all of the Boyd places. I made a couple thousand a year doing it, but it was obviously hit or miss. And for Argentino's benefit, this is the only type of parlay card play I used.

    Anyway, I'll read up to see if this is the gist of what he was doing.

    I would never kiss up to Babs for self interest. I just don't do that. In fact, I won't edit one word I write until now and the 20th post. I may even take a couple of shots at her to maintain my own integrity. If I get banned before Post #20, so be it. Her tone is just friggin' obnoxious.

    One of things that annoys me about math guys trying to bet sports is that they tend to hypnotize themselves into believing they discovered something. John Ferguson (aka Stanford Wong) tried to take credit for "discovering" that certain teasers had more value than others. LOL. People were aware of that stuff 20 years before he touched a teaser. They just didn't put a name to it...because they weren't dumb enough to point it out.

    Anyway, thanks for the suggestions, mickey. Much appreciated. Not much chance, though, that I'll be sweet talkin' the Babster.

  2. #3442
    And here I was thinking you were gonna give us who was a lock to win the Home Run Derby tonight.

  3. #3443
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I couldn't tell if he was expecting to be taken seriously or if he was just yanking everybody's chain. That's the only thing of his that I've read.
    Babs was constantly on Nathan for posting what Babs considered to be drivel now here she is defending mdawg the idiot. His "billions" is more likely playing nickel video keno. And this is just more proof she was out to get Nathan.

    Redietz, you have a lot to offer that site because of your knowledge of sports and sports betting. I suggest you fill out your profile because after people start reading your sports material they are going to want to know more about you so will click on your name to read your profile.

    As for Babs, the best thing you can do is jump in the political threads and let your left leaning tendencies be known. You'll have Babs eating out of your hand. She's a hard lefty but says she's a moderate Republican. She let's the lefties troll the political threads with impunity but keeps a tight leash on those with more conservative views. I have one friend that says she's not a moderator she's a molderator.

    Another thing you might be interested in. Shack has a strategy for half point parlay cards during NFL. There's threads on it and it looks like some people made money with it. If you look into it let us know what you think about it.

    Mickey, I will check out the half point parlay card strategy. But let me take a potential dig at Shack first, knowing full well I could be wrong. I'm going to take a stab before reading it that just maybe it is a relatively well known idea from the 80's where you find the games (usually college games) where the line has moved during the week significantly but the card still has it live. Then you stagger the games time-wise so that you have the best of the number and set up potential middling/hedging situations as the results progress. If this is the core of the strategy, people started doing it in the early 80's. As a relatively small player back then, I actually got into it with the sports book manager at the Stardust (he was semi-famous, went to take a Borgata position, I'm blocking on his name). I wasn't even trying to torture them -- too much. It's just that I had to get a Stardust seat early, and I had two hours plus to kill after I got my seat, so I did the parlay card thing with the time-staggered, best-number stuff for a couple hundred dollars total. Well, pretty soon, the manager was coming over every time I went to the window and shutting me down on every parlay card more than $20. It was actually pretty funny, because I wasn't doing it with any seriousness. I was just killing time. There were other people who ran around to all of the Boyd properties (Stardust was Boyd at the time) and used this idea as a big deal strategy, trying to keep under the radar by scattering their money around all of the Boyd places. I made a couple thousand a year doing it, but it was obviously hit or miss. And for Argentino's benefit, this is the only type of parlay card play I used.

    Anyway, I'll read up to see if this is the gist of what he was doing.

    I would never kiss up to Babs for self interest. I just don't do that. In fact, I won't edit one word I write until now and the 20th post. I may even take a couple of shots at her to maintain my own integrity. If I get banned before Post #20, so be it. Her tone is just friggin' obnoxious.

    One of things that annoys me about math guys trying to bet sports is that they tend to hypnotize themselves into believing they discovered something. John Ferguson (aka Stanford Wong) tried to take credit for "discovering" that certain teasers had more value than others. LOL. People were aware of that stuff 20 years before he touched a teaser. They just didn't put a name to it...because they weren't dumb enough to point it out.

    Anyway, thanks for the suggestions, mickey. Much appreciated. Not much chance, though, that I'll be sweet talkin' the Babster.
    Redietz, I followed those half point threads and from what you wrote above about staggering/middling/hedging looks like you have more insight into it than what I seen in those threads.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  4. #3444
    Redietz, here's a link to half point parlay cards 2015 season:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...A7mm4SDmCa3k6H
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  5. #3445
    I still haven't gotten to read it, but there's two ways to go about it. The first way, which is mainly NFL games, is simply to find the NFL games that have been knocked off 3 and 7 by the half-point nature of the cards. You take the appropriate line and split the remaining minimum number of games under the assumption that you have an edge. If there are multiple NFL games on 3 or 7 the same day (or Sunday/Monday night), even better. Then you load up on the appropriate numbers and split what you need to play the minimum, which is generally three games.

    The second way is what I described, which is predicated on heavy college football line moves. Usually, a book will take the largest moves off the card by making those games ineligible. This is more common now than in the 80's and 90's. Then, they rarely yanked games from the cards. But to circumvent some of the current yanking, you can play the cards early in the day when there are big-ass favorites playing at night. Those late games (think Florida State or LSU at home, playing some worthless opponents) often get line moves in the last hour or so, and you can have your parlay cards in early on the faves, as the lines will go up 75% of the time. Sometimes they can get pumped 2 or 2 1/2 points at the end. So you can time stagger the games, hopefully with the big-ass televised favorites as the final game. It's not uncommon to get a half dozen college games with Tuesday (parlay printing) to Saturday line moves of three points or more. Most sports books won't make all of them ineligible for parlay card play.

    The thing is, as you know, the oldtime sports bettors didn't need to be told about this stuff. As Chevy Chase says in Caddyshack, it was "see the ball, hit the ball." If it was there, everybody knew the ballpark math and everybody did the correct things. I can vouch for this being the case in the early 80's, and it undoubtedly predates me by many years.

    As far as results go, I don't have an objective tally, but the college idea -- if put into play for three or four years -- is going to come out ahead. The NFL angle has probably won the last two or three years, but I believe it had a little drought the six or seven years previous to that.

    P.S. I'm told I occasionally get Chevy Chase and Vlad Guerrero confused.
    Last edited by redietz; 07-08-2019 at 08:40 PM.

  6. #3446
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I couldn't tell if he was expecting to be taken seriously or if he was just yanking everybody's chain. That's the only thing of his that I've read.
    Babs was constantly on Nathan for posting what Babs considered to be drivel now here she is defending mdawg the idiot. His "billions" is more likely playing nickel video keno. And this is just more proof she was out to get Nathan.

    Redietz, you have a lot to offer that site because of your knowledge of sports and sports betting. I suggest you fill out your profile because after people start reading your sports material they are going to want to know more about you so will click on your name to read your profile.

    As for Babs, the best thing you can do is jump in the political threads and let your left leaning tendencies be known. You'll have Babs eating out of your hand. She's a hard lefty but says she's a moderate Republican. She let's the lefties troll the political threads with impunity but keeps a tight leash on those with more conservative views. I have one friend that says she's not a moderator she's a molderator.

    Another thing you might be interested in. Shack has a strategy for half point parlay cards during NFL. There's threads on it and it looks like some people made money with it. If you look into it let us know what you think about it.

    Mickey, I will check out the half point parlay card strategy. But let me take a potential dig at Shack first, knowing full well I could be wrong. I'm going to take a stab before reading it that just maybe it is a relatively well known idea from the 80's where you find the games (usually college games) where the line has moved during the week significantly but the card still has it live. Then you stagger the games time-wise so that you have the best of the number and set up potential middling/hedging situations as the results progress. If this is the core of the strategy, people started doing it in the early 80's. As a relatively small player back then, I actually got into it with the sports book manager at the Stardust (he was semi-famous, went to take a Borgata position, I'm blocking on his name). I wasn't even trying to torture them -- too much. It's just that I had to get a Stardust seat early, and I had two hours plus to kill after I got my seat, so I did the parlay card thing with the time-staggered, best-number stuff for a couple hundred dollars total. Well, pretty soon, the manager was coming over every time I went to the window and shutting me down on every parlay card more than $20. It was actually pretty funny, because I wasn't doing it with any seriousness. I was just killing time. There were other people who ran around to all of the Boyd properties (Stardust was Boyd at the time) and used this idea as a big deal strategy, trying to keep under the radar by scattering their money around all of the Boyd places. I made a couple thousand a year doing it, but it was obviously hit or miss. And for Argentino's benefit, this is the only type of parlay card play I used.

    Anyway, I'll read up to see if this is the gist of what he was doing.

    I would never kiss up to Babs for self interest. I just don't do that. In fact, I won't edit one word I write until now and the 20th post. I may even take a couple of shots at her to maintain my own integrity. If I get banned before Post #20, so be it. Her tone is just friggin' obnoxious.

    One of things that annoys me about math guys trying to bet sports is that they tend to hypnotize themselves into believing they discovered something. John Ferguson (aka Stanford Wong) tried to take credit for "discovering" that certain teasers had more value than others. LOL. People were aware of that stuff 20 years before he touched a teaser. They just didn't put a name to it...because they weren't dumb enough to point it out.

    Anyway, thanks for the suggestions, mickey. Much appreciated. Not much chance, though, that I'll be sweet talkin' the Babster.
    I was playing the half-point parlay card system early 2000s before Mike ever said anything or published anything about it. So it's not Mike system he just happened to publish the math on the data .

  7. #3447
    I don't participate in or read Wizard so I don't know what is being claimed. But I have been out of sports betting for over 20 years and we were doing it for many years back then. So it definitely is not his system. Was not my area, but our team had a couple guys that were especially good with these. We could not play in Illinois because of certain relationships with the guy that operated and controlled the parlay cards in Illinois. All action had to go elsewhere.

  8. #3448
    Shack never claimed to have invented it. He just put the picks up every week for people to follow his lead. I think some people did well with it but axel knows more about that than me.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  9. #3449
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    I don't participate in or read Wizard so I don't know what is being claimed. But I have been out of sports betting for over 20 years and we were doing it for many years back then. So it definitely is not his system. Was not my area, but our team had a couple guys that were especially good with these. We could not play in Illinois because of certain relationships with the guy that operated and controlled the parlay cards in Illinois. All action had to go elsewhere.
    Shackleford never claimed to have discovered the system, but by analyzing the data and publishing it, he kind of lays claim to having brought it out into the open. So what was the payoff for Shackleford? It's kind of like The Masked Magician spilling the beans. Why do it? Or why do it first? It serves no purpose other than to make the publisher look clever -- and people have had the math pretty much in their heads for decades, so there actually isn't much cleverness in working out the details down to such-and-such decimal places.

    The same with the Wong/Ferguson teaser analysis. Why do it? Why publicize something because you worked out some historical data base and you can do math? To look clever? To stick your name on it? All that resulted was worse teaser odds for the ranges in question. It didn't take a genius to figure out that would be the result of publicizing it.

    I don't play parlay cards or parlays, other than the college version of what's described above, and I don't in general do too much with teasers, either. So it's very little skin off my nose. But really, what is the purpose of publicizing this stuff? All you do is effectively kill the plays more quickly. And that's what's occurred -- sports books have no qualms about disqualifying a bunch of games from the parlay cards these days, and odds are worse for the teasers in question. So you get to wear a cleverness crown that doubles as a dunce cap.

    I guess my point is that some people gamble seriously. As far as sports goes, Shackleford plays at gambling. So he really should not be doing the accountant/CPA showing off when it could cost people their livelihood. I don't get the whole "king of the frat boys" mentality. You get people pissed off enough, they burn the frat house down.
    Last edited by redietz; 07-09-2019 at 08:45 AM.

  10. #3450
    Red you're always worrying about what other people do what they like to do because they're good at it, as if it's hurting you in some way or form. Just focus on your own efforts, and that feeling will go away.

  11. #3451
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    I don't participate in or read Wizard so I don't know what is being claimed. But I have been out of sports betting for over 20 years and we were doing it for many years back then. So it definitely is not his system. Was not my area, but our team had a couple guys that were especially good with these. We could not play in Illinois because of certain relationships with the guy that operated and controlled the parlay cards in Illinois. All action had to go elsewhere.
    Shackleford never claimed to have discovered the system, but by analyzing the data and publishing it, he kind of lays claim to having brought it out into the open. So what was the payoff for Shackleford? It's kind of like The Masked Magician spilling the beans. Why do it? Or why do it first? It serves no purpose other than to make the publisher look clever -- and people have had the math pretty much in their heads for decades, so there actually isn't much cleverness in working out the details down to such-and-such decimal places.

    The same with the Wong/Ferguson teaser analysis. Why do it? Why publicize something because you worked out some historical data base and you can do math? To look clever? To stick your name on it? All that resulted was worse teaser odds for the ranges in question. It didn't take a genius to figure out that would be the result of publicizing it.

    I don't play parlay cards or parlays, other than the college version of what's described above, and I don't in general do too much with teasers, either. So it's very little skin off my nose. But really, what is the purpose of publicizing this stuff? All you do is effectively kill the plays more quickly. And that's what's occurred -- sports books have no qualms about disqualifying a bunch of games from the parlay cards these days, and odds are worse for the teasers in question. So you get to wear a cleverness crown that doubles as a dunce cap.

    I guess my point is that some people gamble seriously. As far as sports goes, Shackleford plays at gambling. So he really should not be doing the accountant/CPA showing off when it could cost people their livelihood. I don't get the whole "king of the frat boys" mentality. You get people pissed off enough, they burn the frat house down.
    You had no problem with the "hot sucker" thread.
    #FreeTyde

  12. #3452
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    I don't participate in or read Wizard so I don't know what is being claimed. But I have been out of sports betting for over 20 years and we were doing it for many years back then. So it definitely is not his system. Was not my area, but our team had a couple guys that were especially good with these. We could not play in Illinois because of certain relationships with the guy that operated and controlled the parlay cards in Illinois. All action had to go elsewhere.
    Shackleford never claimed to have discovered the system, but by analyzing the data and publishing it, he kind of lays claim to having brought it out into the open. So what was the payoff for Shackleford? It's kind of like The Masked Magician spilling the beans. Why do it? Or why do it first? It serves no purpose other than to make the publisher look clever -- and people have had the math pretty much in their heads for decades, so there actually isn't much cleverness in working out the details down to such-and-such decimal places.

    The same with the Wong/Ferguson teaser analysis. Why do it? Why publicize something because you worked out some historical data base and you can do math? To look clever? To stick your name on it? All that resulted was worse teaser odds for the ranges in question. It didn't take a genius to figure out that would be the result of publicizing it.

    I don't play parlay cards or parlays, other than the college version of what's described above, and I don't in general do too much with teasers, either. So it's very little skin off my nose. But really, what is the purpose of publicizing this stuff? All you do is effectively kill the plays more quickly. And that's what's occurred -- sports books have no qualms about disqualifying a bunch of games from the parlay cards these days, and odds are worse for the teasers in question. So you get to wear a cleverness crown that doubles as a dunce cap.

    I guess my point is that some people gamble seriously. As far as sports goes, Shackleford plays at gambling. So he really should not be doing the accountant/CPA showing off when it could cost people their livelihood. I don't get the whole "king of the frat boys" mentality. You get people pissed off enough, they burn the frat house down.
    His job is analyzing gambling games and publishing strategies on the Wizard of Odds. That's what he does. There is nothing on the internet comparable to his site. You might as well say he should shut down his site. I would say he is not under obligation to protect other sports bettors. And what about other authors, like this new book out, The Logic Of Sportsbetting by Ed Miller?
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  13. #3453
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    I don't participate in or read Wizard so I don't know what is being claimed. But I have been out of sports betting for over 20 years and we were doing it for many years back then. So it definitely is not his system. Was not my area, but our team had a couple guys that were especially good with these. We could not play in Illinois because of certain relationships with the guy that operated and controlled the parlay cards in Illinois. All action had to go elsewhere.
    Shackleford never claimed to have discovered the system, but by analyzing the data and publishing it, he kind of lays claim to having brought it out into the open. So what was the payoff for Shackleford? It's kind of like The Masked Magician spilling the beans. Why do it? Or why do it first? It serves no purpose other than to make the publisher look clever -- and people have had the math pretty much in their heads for decades, so there actually isn't much cleverness in working out the details down to such-and-such decimal places.

    The same with the Wong/Ferguson teaser analysis. Why do it? Why publicize something because you worked out some historical data base and you can do math? To look clever? To stick your name on it? All that resulted was worse teaser odds for the ranges in question. It didn't take a genius to figure out that would be the result of publicizing it.

    I don't play parlay cards or parlays, other than the college version of what's described above, and I don't in general do too much with teasers, either. So it's very little skin off my nose. But really, what is the purpose of publicizing this stuff? All you do is effectively kill the plays more quickly. And that's what's occurred -- sports books have no qualms about disqualifying a bunch of games from the parlay cards these days, and odds are worse for the teasers in question. So you get to wear a cleverness crown that doubles as a dunce cap.

    I guess my point is that some people gamble seriously. As far as sports goes, Shackleford plays at gambling. So he really should not be doing the accountant/CPA showing off when it could cost people their livelihood. I don't get the whole "king of the frat boys" mentality. You get people pissed off enough, they burn the frat house down.
    His job is analyzing gambling games and publishing strategies on the Wizard of Odds. That's what he does. There is nothing on the internet comparable to his site. You might as well say he should shut down his site. I would say he is not under obligation to protect other sports bettors. And what about other authors, like this new book out, The Logic Of Sportsbetting by Ed Miller?
    Here's my argument in a nutshell. Shackleford is not a sports bettor. It's not like he's discovered or invented anything. He was tipped off to some strategies and angles. If he's going to present this stuff, he should give public credit to at least some of the people who were doing it 30 years before he publishes it. I haven't read all of Shackleford's discussions of this, so maybe he has done that. Does anybody know? But if he has not given due credit to other people for "doing the math" 30 years before he "published the math," then that is wrong. It's like a high profile professor hijacking some grad student's work from 30 years ago and not giving credit where credit is due.

    Personally, I don't care about the parlay card stuff much, as I did it as a small subsidiary thing. I have never really done the NFL part of the equation, and there are reasons for that. I have much more of an issue with the teaser "analysis" Ferguson/Wong did than I do with the parlay card stuff. But in total, these things do not really affect me. They have, however, affected other people.

    I think the main problem I have, now that I think about it, is that Shackleford and Ferguson are playing point man for information that originated with other people. I hate the word "community," but I'll use it for the first time here. KewlJ overuses the damned word, and I hate it, but here goes. A community developed those techniques. Shackleford was not part of that community at the time they were developed, and really is not right now.

    As for other authors, I don't really read anybody else. There's probably about a hundred people or teams who actually win long term in this country. Most of them are more maestro than statisticians. Data mining doesn't win the day. Most of the math that people write about is obvious to the hundred or so who win.

    I'll wrap up with this. Shackleford and some of the LVA writers have made an overlapping recommendation regarding one aspect of sports betting. Their basic math is correct, but the conclusions are naive. I'm never going to say anything about them being wrong. In fact, when I'm asked about it, I usually say, "That sounds logical" or "The math seems right to me." Sometimes math is just a starting point, and people without other skills interpret it as the most important element and therefore draw completely wrong conclusions and give completely wrong advice.

  14. #3454
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    Shackleford never claimed to have discovered the system, but by analyzing the data and publishing it, he kind of lays claim to having brought it out into the open. So what was the payoff for Shackleford? It's kind of like The Masked Magician spilling the beans. Why do it? Or why do it first? It serves no purpose other than to make the publisher look clever -- and people have had the math pretty much in their heads for decades, so there actually isn't much cleverness in working out the details down to such-and-such decimal places.

    The same with the Wong/Ferguson teaser analysis. Why do it? Why publicize something because you worked out some historical data base and you can do math? To look clever? To stick your name on it? All that resulted was worse teaser odds for the ranges in question. It didn't take a genius to figure out that would be the result of publicizing it.

    I don't play parlay cards or parlays, other than the college version of what's described above, and I don't in general do too much with teasers, either. So it's very little skin off my nose. But really, what is the purpose of publicizing this stuff? All you do is effectively kill the plays more quickly. And that's what's occurred -- sports books have no qualms about disqualifying a bunch of games from the parlay cards these days, and odds are worse for the teasers in question. So you get to wear a cleverness crown that doubles as a dunce cap.

    I guess my point is that some people gamble seriously. As far as sports goes, Shackleford plays at gambling. So he really should not be doing the accountant/CPA showing off when it could cost people their livelihood. I don't get the whole "king of the frat boys" mentality. You get people pissed off enough, they burn the frat house down.
    His job is analyzing gambling games and publishing strategies on the Wizard of Odds. That's what he does. There is nothing on the internet comparable to his site. You might as well say he should shut down his site. I would say he is not under obligation to protect other sports bettors. And what about other authors, like this new book out, The Logic Of Sportsbetting by Ed Miller?
    Here's my argument in a nutshell. Shackleford is not a sports bettor. It's not like he's discovered or invented anything. He was tipped off to some strategies and angles. If he's going to present this stuff, he should give public credit to at least some of the people who were doing it 30 years before he publishes it. I haven't read all of Shackleford's discussions of this, so maybe he has done that. Does anybody know? But if he has not given due credit to other people for "doing the math" 30 years before he "published the math," then that is wrong. It's like a high profile professor hijacking some grad student's work from 30 years ago and not giving credit where credit is due.

    Personally, I don't care about the parlay card stuff much, as I did it as a small subsidiary thing. I have never really done the NFL part of the equation, and there are reasons for that. I have much more of an issue with the teaser "analysis" Ferguson/Wong did than I do with the parlay card stuff. But in total, these things do not really affect me. They have, however, affected other people.

    I think the main problem I have, now that I think about it, is that Shackleford and Ferguson are playing point man for information that originated with other people. I hate the word "community," but I'll use it for the first time here. KewlJ overuses the damned word, and I hate it, but here goes. A community developed those techniques. Shackleford was not part of that community at the time they were developed, and really is not right now.

    As for other authors, I don't really read anybody else. There's probably about a hundred people or teams who actually win long term in this country. Most of them are more maestro than statisticians. Data mining doesn't win the day. Most of the math that people write about is obvious to the hundred or so who win.

    I'll wrap up with this. Shackleford and some of the LVA writers have made an overlapping recommendation regarding one aspect of sports betting. Their basic math is correct, but the conclusions are naive. I'm never going to say anything about them being wrong. In fact, when I'm asked about it, I usually say, "That sounds logical" or "The math seems right to me." Sometimes math is just a starting point, and people without other skills interpret it as the most important element and therefore draw completely wrong conclusions and give completely wrong advice.
    I have been involved with Mike betting some sports and my results have all been good. Its not due to variance due to the volume of bets made. NO SERVICE FEES EITHER.

  15. #3455
    Yeah, Mike has been involved in sportbetting for quite awhile. Redietz, do you remember that string of safeties in the Super Bowls. Shack was always touting the great prices for no safety in the super bowl. But then he got in a bad run for a few years. Do you remember that safety to start the game with the Colts/Saints? Shack had like 8 grand on that and got ruined on the first play of the game. LOL!
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  16. #3456
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Yeah, Mike has been involved in sportbetting for quite awhile. Redietz, do you remember that string of safeties in the Super Bowls. Shack was always touting the great prices for no safety in the super bowl. But then he got in a bad run for a few years. Do you remember that safety to start the game with the Colts/Saints? Shack had like 8 grand on that and got ruined on the first play of the game. LOL!
    You're still salty you got banned at WOV and can't rejoin, aren't you?
    #FreeTyde

  17. #3457
    Well, I've just gotten a three day suspension on WOV for sending a Member a PM claiming that I was a New Member. Got suspended after just joining three days ago! Horrible!

  18. #3458
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Yeah, Mike has been involved in sportbetting for quite awhile. Redietz, do you remember that string of safeties in the Super Bowls. Shack was always touting the great prices for no safety in the super bowl. But then he got in a bad run for a few years. Do you remember that safety to start the game with the Colts/Saints? Shack had like 8 grand on that and got ruined on the first play of the game. LOL!
    I believe the game with an opening safety was Super Bowl 46 with the Giants vs the Patriots. Brady threw a ball down the middle of field under a tremendous rush from the end zone. The game started 2-0. Major change on the Super Bowl squares that day.

  19. #3459
    Originally Posted by Blackjackpro View Post
    Well, I've just gotten a three day suspension on WOV for sending a Member a PM claiming that I was a New Member. Got suspended after just joining three days ago! Horrible!
    just like Nathan to sit and explain everything that happened to her and another forum.

  20. #3460
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Yeah, Mike has been involved in sportbetting for quite awhile. Redietz, do you remember that string of safeties in the Super Bowls. Shack was always touting the great prices for no safety in the super bowl. But then he got in a bad run for a few years. Do you remember that safety to start the game with the Colts/Saints? Shack had like 8 grand on that and got ruined on the first play of the game. LOL!
    You're still salty you got banned at WOV and can't rejoin, aren't you?
    What the fuck is your problem, bitch? There have been suggestions that if I apologize there is a possibility I could be reinstated. Have you seen me apologize, bitch? Have you seen me sockpuppet the site, bitch? Someone recently contacted me saying they could work behind the scenes to get me unbanned. I told them don't waste their time because I would never participate there even if asked. That site is fucked up. Nothing but dick sucking and ass kissing going on over there. Now go suck Comrade Babs dick in the women's room.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 50 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 50 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  2. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. A thread for losses.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM
  5. The Kicker Thread
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •