Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
Originally Posted by
redietz
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.