Originally Posted by redietz
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerI saw that and felt left out and lonely.....Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
A few comments on the comments:
1. I understand a parlay is a bad bet, not the least because of not being able to get the best numbers all at the same book. However, not being a savant in this area and the fact that I'm only betting $100/parlay each week for entertainment purposes, makes it an interesting side bet. I've only made about 3 or 4 parlay bets in my life and remember, I had a $40,000+ winner on my last one 6 years ago. So all it takes is one 5-0 week to be a breakout season winner.
2. While my parlay will remain at $100, each week I'm upping my per-game wager by $100, at $500 max. Why not eat better quality road kill each passing week?
3. I'll address the tournament factor that people like redietz, Fezzik and others like to tout as support for their being big shots or something in the sports betting field. To me, tournaments are not barometers--you're playing against other players and you can win even with a not-so-stellar record. Instead, show me someone who puts his picks up BEFORE the games are played and I'll be a believer. The reason I did the Singer Five on LVA was to prove you don't need to be some big deal name in the sports betting world to make some money betting on games. I've always been a big believer in if you are motivated to be good at something...ANYTHING...and if you are not not physically limited, then it can be done by you. I chose to be good at betting NFL games, and although I very infrequently have had the time to do it properly over the years, I have the time now.
Tournaments are not pure barometers, but if they are ATS tournaments, and you cannot beard multiple entries, then they are pretty good indicators that you're doing something correct that season. Where they fall short is that, in this day and age, with spreads moving in college sports as much as they do, WHEN you bet a game is almost as important as WHO you bet.
Much of the actual profit in betting college sports comes from anticipating line moves and shooting for middles. You can be dumb as a rock when it comes to handicapping, but if you can look at a college line and say, "It's gotta move this way," you can still make money.
By the way, in case Argentino didn't understand what he was looking at in the Retro Road Trip thread, the standings in the various "Tipsters or Gypsters?" are not tournament standings. They are obviously a reportage of the actual handicapping records of the participants that year, as monitored by Seattle Times reporter, Mike McCusker.
Classic example tonight of what I mentioned. I took Kent +22 (-120) Monday early because I thought the line was too steep and there was a chance of bad weather (not the case). I could have done better, as +22 1/2 could have been had right out of the box Sunday night at -110, but midweek stand-alone games can draw a lot of fave action, so one has to be a bit careful. I was actually somewhat sloppy, partly because I had no real opinion on the game.
In any event, I'll be laying -17 at the worst the other way tonight for 90% of the wager. I might be able to do better; we'll see.
But this is a prime example of WHEN mattering more than WHO. I have very little opinion on the game itself. I just thought the number was likely to shift down.
For sports aficionados, I will mention that a side effect of doing stuff like this is that you become un-data-mine-able. Nobody can profile what kinds of teams you actually take as straight bets. Some offshores are actually profiling clients these days. When some individuals check the same book with two different accounts, they sometimes get two different numbers. Yes, you can be profiled.
Reply With Quote
