Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 200

Thread: Nothing is impossible

  1. #141
    .....................................





    the problem from the buyers perspective - paying for picks in any way is this:


    even if the capper you are buying from is solid - he is surely going to have only a small edge - and what you pay is going to cut into whatever that edge is by so much


    probably those that pay consistently don't look at it that way - some may be betting very big so this doesn't apply
    but for others they may be overlooking this or kidding themselves
    please don't feed the trolls

  2. #142
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    I really don't know exactly what everyone is doing, touting picks, selling picks, recruiting customers that pay for service packages, getting free roll percentages from investors etc etc. Whatever the case, it's all the same to me no matter how they wrap it up.

    If everybody's making money year after year after year with a proven solid record then I don't see how I could have an issue with it. But what I oftentimes see if someone has a good year and suddenly everybody's hooked. Eventually may end up tanking everything averages out and everybody ends up a loser. I've seen too far too often guys are fudging their stats. I don't know, there's all kinds of shenanigans going on.
    This is why "Tipsters or Gypsters?" stopped publishing in the 90's. Most sports services dropped out because, unlike other monitors, McCusker published multi-year records. Once services were confronted with their modest multi-year records in print, they decided being X-rayed wasn't the percentage thing to do. And McCusker was tough -- he assigned a line (usually Leroy's Friday line at 3 PM or thereabouts) to grade, so you actually were down between 1% and 2% in the published results from what you had done betting-wise with shopping.

    People didn't just fudge their stats -- when USA Today first started publishing, there were two full pages in their Friday issues filled with sports service ads. The ads claimed 89-7 and 110-11 records for this, that, and the other thing. Eighth page ads on down claiming completely impossible things in full view of everyone. Finally, after thousands of complaints, those two pages were reduced to a handful of classifieds. I actually called USA Today at the time and said, "You know, all of this stuff is impossible. You are doing people a disservice."

    Now, philosophically, is any of this worse than fast food restaurants using clowns with the net effect of creating obese children, or is any of this worse than the Marlboro Man? Probably not. So if you consider fudging (make that out and out bald-faced lying) stats a terrible thing, there is an immense laundry list of capitalistic abuses in virtually every field of goods and services that should also be addressed and condemned. "Things go better with Coke?" Do they really, and do those things include dentist visits?

    Winning at sports betting is not something that is guaranteed year to year. Every year is different. You can kill it for three or four years, as Billy Walters did with his original computer group, and then the well runs dry, and if you do not know the sport intimately and completely, if you are relying on angles and algorithms and trends, you can be completely dead in the water going forward. That's part of the reason I get such a kick out of people nonchalantly saying they win at college hoops and NBA, and oh by the way, hockey, and maybe the WNBA while they're at it. Sure they do. And Things Go Better With Coke.
    Last edited by redietz; 11-28-2019 at 07:09 AM.

  3. #143
    Redietz those numbers 89-7 and 110-11 remind me of some of my own personal results.

    Not the results of the games I bet. With those games that I wager I am going to guess I have a life time win of about 47.6%, which of course is 50-50 less the vig.

    But for each game I wager there is probably 1 or 2 games that I am considering wagering that I decide not to. And on those "decide not to" games, in which I don't wager....you guessed it...it seems like I have a winning percentage of about 90% similar to those mentioned.

    Funny how it works that way. anyway happy Thanksgiving Redietz and everyone.

  4. #144
    I'm not sure if I'm following Axel's comment correctly but legitimate +EV sports bettors have to recruit betting partners (i.e. outs) which I guess can resemble a tout looking for marks. Unlike every other form of AP I'm familiar with it can make sense for legitimate sports bettors to have a public profile and even market themselves a bit.

  5. #145
    "Unlike every other form of AP I'm familiar with it can make sense for legitimate sports bettors to have a public profile and even market themselves a bit."

    I wonder if Jeopardy champ James Holzhauer is having an overexposure problem?

  6. #146
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    I really don't know exactly what everyone is doing, touting picks, selling picks, recruiting customers that pay for service packages, getting free roll percentages from investors etc etc. Whatever the case, it's all the same to me no matter how they wrap it up.

    If everybody's making money year after year after year with a proven solid record then I don't see how I could have an issue with it. But what I oftentimes see if someone has a good year and suddenly everybody's hooked. Eventually may end up tanking everything averages out and everybody ends up a loser. I've seen too far too often guys are fudging their stats. I don't know, there's all kinds of shenanigans going on.
    This is why "Tipsters or Gypsters?" stopped publishing in the 90's. Most sports services dropped out because, unlike other monitors, McCusker published multi-year records. Once services were confronted with their modest multi-year records in print, they decided being X-rayed wasn't the percentage thing to do. And McCusker was tough -- he assigned a line (usually Leroy's Friday line at 3 PM or thereabouts) to grade, so you actually were down between 1% and 2% in the published results from what you had done betting-wise with shopping.

    People didn't just fudge their stats -- when USA Today first started publishing, there were two full pages in their Friday issues filled with sports service ads. The ads claimed 89-7 and 110-11 records for this, that, and the other thing. Eighth page ads on down claiming completely impossible things in full view of everyone. Finally, after thousands of complaints, those two pages were reduced to a handful of classifieds. I actually called USA Today at the time and said, "You know, all of this stuff is impossible. You are doing people a disservice."

    Now, philosophically, is any of this worse than fast food restaurants using clowns with the net effect of creating obese children, or is any of this worse than the Marlboro Man? Probably not. So if you consider fudging (make that out and out bald-faced lying) stats a terrible thing, there is an immense laundry list of capitalistic abuses in virtually every field of goods and services that should also be addressed and condemned. "Things go better with Coke?" Do they really, and do those things include dentist visits?

    Winning at sports betting is not something that is guaranteed year to year. Every year is different. You can kill it for three or four years, as Billy Walters did with his original computer group, and then the well runs dry, and if you do not know the sport intimately and completely, if you are relying on angles and algorithms and trends, you can be completely dead in the water going forward. That's part of the reason I get such a kick out of people nonchalantly saying they win at college hoops and NBA, and oh by the way, hockey, and maybe the WNBA while they're at it. Sure they do. And Things Go Better With Coke.
    So how many games do you think it would take to prove or disprove someone's claims they are a winning Sports bettor? Let's take some of the more reputable guys who somehow make money from sports betting(other than only just betting and making for themselves) do they let their clients know before they get involved you may not have a winning year? I can't imagine that's a very good sales tactic.

  7. #147
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    I'm not sure if I'm following Axel's comment correctly but legitimate +EV sports bettors have to recruit betting partners (i.e. outs) which I guess can resemble a tout looking for marks. Unlike every other form of AP I'm familiar with it can make sense for legitimate sports bettors to have a public profile and even market themselves a bit.
    I would hope legitimate +EV Sports Bettors don't recruit investors that gives to the plus +EV Sports bettor a bigger percentage or some type of free roll situation.

  8. #148
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    I really don't know exactly what everyone is doing, touting picks, selling picks, recruiting customers that pay for service packages, getting free roll percentages from investors etc etc. Whatever the case, it's all the same to me no matter how they wrap it up.

    If everybody's making money year after year after year with a proven solid record then I don't see how I could have an issue with it. But what I oftentimes see if someone has a good year and suddenly everybody's hooked. Eventually may end up tanking everything averages out and everybody ends up a loser. I've seen too far too often guys are fudging their stats. I don't know, there's all kinds of shenanigans going on.
    This is why "Tipsters or Gypsters?" stopped publishing in the 90's. Most sports services dropped out because, unlike other monitors, McCusker published multi-year records. Once services were confronted with their modest multi-year records in print, they decided being X-rayed wasn't the percentage thing to do. And McCusker was tough -- he assigned a line (usually Leroy's Friday line at 3 PM or thereabouts) to grade, so you actually were down between 1% and 2% in the published results from what you had done betting-wise with shopping.

    People didn't just fudge their stats -- when USA Today first started publishing, there were two full pages in their Friday issues filled with sports service ads. The ads claimed 89-7 and 110-11 records for this, that, and the other thing. Eighth page ads on down claiming completely impossible things in full view of everyone. Finally, after thousands of complaints, those two pages were reduced to a handful of classifieds. I actually called USA Today at the time and said, "You know, all of this stuff is impossible. You are doing people a disservice."

    Now, philosophically, is any of this worse than fast food restaurants using clowns with the net effect of creating obese children, or is any of this worse than the Marlboro Man? Probably not. So if you consider fudging (make that out and out bald-faced lying) stats a terrible thing, there is an immense laundry list of capitalistic abuses in virtually every field of goods and services that should also be addressed and condemned. "Things go better with Coke?" Do they really, and do those things include dentist visits?

    Winning at sports betting is not something that is guaranteed year to year. Every year is different. You can kill it for three or four years, as Billy Walters did with his original computer group, and then the well runs dry, and if you do not know the sport intimately and completely, if you are relying on angles and algorithms and trends, you can be completely dead in the water going forward. That's part of the reason I get such a kick out of people nonchalantly saying they win at college hoops and NBA, and oh by the way, hockey, and maybe the WNBA while they're at it. Sure they do. And Things Go Better With Coke.
    So how many games do you think it would take to prove or disprove someone's claims they are a winning Sports bettor? Let's take some of the more reputable guys who somehow make money from sports betting(other than only just betting and making for themselves) do they let their clients know before they get involved you may not have a winning year? I can't imagine that's a very good sales tactic.

    I always did. But then again -- LOL -- I was also known as the guy who, until I turned 35, never kept a client I actually met in person. People do not appreciate reality. They prefer dreams.

    My estimate on that kind of thing is 200 or more plays AND spread out over three years or more. That is not a lot of plays, variance-wise, but you can get a sense of what someone is trying to accomplish and what their style is from that number of plays. Some people don't like knowing that their losing plays are likely to get drilled by 30 points or more (my personal favorite kind of loss). Some people don't care one way or the other.

    And frankly, things can turn on a dime. Some seasons are amenable to certain kinds of handicappers beating them. At the same time that Billy Walters was having one of his monster early years, I had a huge season. My season was not as good as his, however. But sometimes success creates a feedback loop wherein handicappers want to stick with precisely what worked best (trendsvestite-ism), and that is often a bad idea.

    I treat each season as its own challenge. I am well aware that I am at risk and can get my head taken off if I just do some rote things.

    P.S. Something just occurred to me. It makes me uncomfortable when talking with non-civilians to refer to people as "sports handicappers." There are people who win at college hoops. There are people who win at college football. I've known people who won at NBA totals. I don't know anyone who has won at more than two sports from a pure handicapping straight play standpoint. I mean, I've won at more than two sports, but it's because of futures. I don't straight play them. If you have someone like Billy Walters, who assembles roundtables of specific experts, then I guess you can say Billy Walters won at multiple sports, but he's not doing the actual handicapping.

    I did know one brilliant guy ahead of his time who won via middles/arbitrage 20 years ahead of everyone else. He's the only guy who said he won every year, and I believed him. But what he was doing wasn't straight handicapping. It was 24/7 numbers maneuvering. He was on top of offshore betting before most people had internet access.
    Last edited by redietz; 11-29-2019 at 09:16 AM.

  9. #149
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    I'm not sure if I'm following Axel's comment correctly but legitimate +EV sports bettors have to recruit betting partners (i.e. outs) which I guess can resemble a tout looking for marks. Unlike every other form of AP I'm familiar with it can make sense for legitimate sports bettors to have a public profile and even market themselves a bit.
    I would hope legitimate +EV Sports Bettors don't recruit investors that gives to the plus +EV Sports bettor a bigger percentage or some type of free roll situation.
    No just chops, as in the sports bettor pays 80% of the bet and gets 80% of the win. It's a way of circumventing anti-beard rules.

  10. #150
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    I'm not sure if I'm following Axel's comment correctly but legitimate +EV sports bettors have to recruit betting partners (i.e. outs) which I guess can resemble a tout looking for marks. Unlike every other form of AP I'm familiar with it can make sense for legitimate sports bettors to have a public profile and even market themselves a bit.
    I would hope legitimate +EV Sports Bettors don't recruit investors that gives to the plus +EV Sports bettor a bigger percentage or some type of free roll situation.
    No just chops, as in the sports bettor pays 80% of the bet and gets 80% of the win. It's a way of circumventing anti-beard rules.
    I'm not sure what the term "+EV sports bettor" is supposed to mean. If you mean historically, then why not just say "Winning sports bettor?" If you mean some angles that have historically won, that's ancient history. It's not "+EV." If you mean the guys who have flipped the odds in their favor by pay-after-you-win contracts per game or per week, you seem to be saying something is wrong with that, but I'm not clear.

    I mean, technically speaking, there is no such thing as a "+EV sports bettor" unless you are referring strictly to those people who arbitrage numbers. That's a part of what I do, but it's not handicapping.

  11. #151
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    I would hope legitimate +EV Sports Bettors don't recruit investors that gives to the plus +EV Sports bettor a bigger percentage or some type of free roll situation.
    No just chops, as in the sports bettor pays 80% of the bet and gets 80% of the win. It's a way of circumventing anti-beard rules.
    I'm not sure what the term "+EV sports bettor" is supposed to mean. If you mean historically, then why not just say "Winning sports bettor?" If you mean some angles that have historically won, that's ancient history. It's not "+EV." If you mean the guys who have flipped the odds in their favor by pay-after-you-win contracts per game or per week, you seem to be saying something is wrong with that, but I'm not clear.

    I mean, technically speaking, there is no such thing as a "+EV sports bettor" unless you are referring strictly to those people who arbitrage numbers. That's a part of what I do, but it's not handicapping.
    It seems strange to me that you find the term "+EV sports bettor" unclear.

  12. #152
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post

    No just chops, as in the sports bettor pays 80% of the bet and gets 80% of the win. It's a way of circumventing anti-beard rules.
    I'm not sure what the term "+EV sports bettor" is supposed to mean. If you mean historically, then why not just say "Winning sports bettor?" If you mean some angles that have historically won, that's ancient history. It's not "+EV." If you mean the guys who have flipped the odds in their favor by pay-after-you-win contracts per game or per week, you seem to be saying something is wrong with that, but I'm not clear.

    I mean, technically speaking, there is no such thing as a "+EV sports bettor" unless you are referring strictly to those people who arbitrage numbers. That's a part of what I do, but it's not handicapping.
    It seems strange to me that you find the term "+EV sports bettor" unclear.

    Unless you are arbitraging numbers, there is no such thing as a "+EV sports bettor." Using that phrase makes assumptions either based on the bettor's historical track record or based on assumptions about historical angles, trends, whatever of various bets. In either case, the use of that phrase is inappropriate unless you are exclusively talking about arbitraging numbers or auto-profits, as we used to call them.

    I think that particular phrase, unless applied specifically to arbitrage, is a way for losers to feel as if they're winners because they've allegedly found +EV situations. Plus EV situations? Really? Based on what?

    I mean, maybe -- stretching a bit -- one can use that phrase to discuss mega-bonus-whoring or rebate applications along with arbitrage. Bonus shopping and rebates are great, but I still would not refer to those relying on them as "+EV sports bettors." Maybe call them "+EV bonus/rebate experts" or something.

    I find it very weird when people apply stock market phrases or gambling-in-general phrases to discuss things they know very little about. Jargon doesn't make somebody an expert. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. The whole "sharps/squares" lingo is comical. Anybody who uses it (sorry, Dan) is marking themselves as a dodecahedron. That was sarcasm, by the way.

    And frankly, I don't care if "+EV sports bettors" is a phrase that's used on a dozen forums or by a dozen pseudo-experts. Shared jargon is a red flag, not evidence of correctness. It's misleading and wrong.
    Last edited by redietz; 12-01-2019 at 11:44 AM.

  13. #153
    Expected value is a term from statistics that seems so self-explanatory and ubiquitous in advantage gambling that I'm not sure it should qualify as jargon.

    Regardless the general problem of jargon is not as simple as you represent it to be. Jargon can be used to give the appearance of expertise where there is none (for example in paranormal investigations) or it can be used to communicate precise concepts within a specific body of knowledge shared by those communicating. For example, doctors discussing a possible diagnosis.

  14. #154
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Expected value is a term from statistics that seems so self-explanatory and ubiquitous in advantage gambling that I'm not sure it should qualify as jargon.

    Regardless the general problem of jargon is not as simple as you represent it to be. Jargon can be used to give the appearance of expertise where there is none (for example in paranormal investigations) or it can be used to communicate precise concepts within a specific body of knowledge shared by those communicating. For example, doctors discussing a possible diagnosis.
    Maybe this is a tense issue. You could, past tense, say I was a "+EV sports bettor" in that I have won. Have I taken advantage of something one could generally call +EV opportunities? I would never describe what I do like that because it suggests there is a formula, a math application, a manual of info, or some kind of training one can acquire to be a "+EV sports bettor." There is not.

    I think using that phrase suggests winning going forward, and it also suggests there is a category of people one could label "+EV sports bettors." It provides a math veneer to something best not described that way.

    Other than arbitrage, explain to me a scenario where the term has any sports betting usefulness. There are no +EV scenarios if you eliminate arbitrage, bonuses, and rebates.

    Let's try this. Winning at sports betting is about opinion, not math. So I think using the phrase "+EV sports bettor" is inappropriate. It suggests a built-in math element.

    Ubiquity in advantage gambling means nothing to me. Sports betting is not really "advantage gambling." I've debated this with people here, but again, outside of arbitrage, bonuses, and rebates, there is no "advantage gambling" element to sports betting. There's no wrangling of the math that says you have an advantage, ergo it's not really advantage gambling.

  15. #155
    So I have only placed bets with 1 entity in past 10 years. I found a local book who offers juice free parlays but only on the lines that were even, so they ended up on on .05. I'd go take pinny's line and round robin'd the fuck outta every edge so that I got the juice free parlays. Over 1 thousand wagers I made probably 1-2% per bet. Came within a hair of making 5% had a round robin parlay hit every leg. I know nothing about sports but I know enough that when someone found me a bookie and this was their promo, I exploited the crap out of it.

    How am I not an advantage sports bettor? I cherry pick my spots and don't wager if I don't expect a positive outcome.

    There are always unknowns and edges are never precise, but not sure how I wouldn't be considered an advantage sports bettor even if I almost never bet.

    PS I don't go around calling myself that, but for the sake of this discussion. I would place a wager if I happened across one but I'm not that much into it outside of proving a point. It was a lot of fun sweating all the bets and if I knew how to find such a dopey bookie I'd surely do it again.

    TBH I can't remember exactly what I was doing. They put their numbers on .05 type lines, but then pinny doesn't do that. So these bets were always likely off compared to pinny but also were juice free. "Juice Free Parlays" was the promo for their book. I gave a little other action. I should go play poker with those guys one day and see if they had any clue, I was cut off because of affiliate had a lot of bad debts and they weren't making $$ off me. At least that is what I was told. I'm sure I would have won more had I been given more time.
    Last edited by accountinquestion; 12-01-2019 at 01:57 PM.

  16. #156
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    So I have only placed bets with 1 entity in past 10 years. I found a local book who offers juice free parlays but only on the lines that were even, so they ended up on on .05. I'd go take pinny's line and round robin'd the fuck outta every edge so that I got the juice free parlays. Over 1 thousand wagers I made probably 1-2% per bet. Came within a hair of making 5% had a round robin parlay hit every leg. I know nothing about sports but I know enough that when someone found me a bookie and this was their promo, I exploited the crap out of it.

    How am I not an advantage sports bettor? I cherry pick my spots and don't wager if I don't expect a positive outcome.

    There are always unknowns and edges are never precise, but not sure how I wouldn't be considered an advantage sports bettor even if I almost never bet.

    PS I don't go around calling myself that, but for the sake of this discussion. I would place a wager if I happened across one but I'm not that much into it outside of proving a point. It was a lot of fun sweating all the bets and if I knew how to find such a dopey bookie I'd surely do it again.

    TBH I can't remember exactly what I was doing. They put their numbers on .05 type lines, but then pinny doesn't do that. So these bets were always likely off compared to pinny but also were juice free. "Juice Free Parlays" was the promo for their book. I gave a little other action. I should go play poker with those guys one day and see if they had any clue, I was cut off because of affiliate had a lot of bad debts and they weren't making $$ off me. At least that is what I was told. I'm sure I would have won more had I been given more time.
    Well, yeah, if you have a "local book" offering juice free parlays, or if I have an offshore that once every five years makes a futures line error, that's "+EV sports betting." But realistically, you're talking about something not available to people. So why use a phrase like "+EV sports betting" as if it's something exploitable or accessible or something that actually can be found? Use the description you just gave of some local book with juice free parlays. That description is the reality of it. I mean, if you call yourself a "+EV sports bettor" without saying "local book with juice free parlays," you're creating the misleading illusion that people can do what you're doing. They can't. Personally, I've never run into a juice free parlay book except for some holiday promotions.

    Same goes for me. If I exploit some once-a-decade futures error by an offshore, which I did this year by the way, does that make me a "+EV sports bettor?" Naw, that's too arrogant a title. I'm a guy who once every couple years exploits a futures error if I like it. If I explain it fully, rather than calling it a "+EV sports bettor play," then I haven't done people the disservice of implying they can do it.

    Things like juice-free parlays and flat-out errors are extremely rare. I've never seen juice-free parlays outside of short-term promos to get people in the habit of betting parlays, and I've seen maybe three errors on futures in the last decade. Those errors had $500 limits.
    Last edited by redietz; 12-01-2019 at 03:53 PM.

  17. #157
    Arbitrage = +EV, right?

    The way the +EV is "created" through arbitrage is because at least one side is +EV. The 'other' side might be -EV, +EV, or 0 EV. Regardless, a +EV side still exists and you don't need to bet the other side to be +EV.


    The concept of +EV isn't some newfound knowledge or anything weird. It's very straightforward at its core -- if the probability of winning is greater than the (implied?) odds on the wager, then it's +EV. This is the basis of advantage play. Although sports betting is a different animal than other forms of AP, the core to winning is the same: Make +EV bets.

    Not to mention, you can't be a "winning" sports bettor without being a +EV sports bettor. By "winning" I mean long-term expected to make money/profit (and not the "has won due to luck" type).
    #FreeTyde

  18. #158
    redietz wrote:

    "I think using that phrase suggests winning going forward, and it also suggests there is a category of people one could label "+EV sports bettors." It provides a math veneer to something best not described that way.

    Other than arbitrage, explain to me a scenario where the term has any sports betting usefulness. There are no +EV scenarios if you eliminate arbitrage, bonuses, and rebates.

    Let's try this. Winning at sports betting is about opinion, not math. So I think using the phrase "+EV sports bettor" is inappropriate. It suggests a built-in math element.

    Ubiquity in advantage gambling means nothing to me. Sports betting is not really "advantage gambling." I've debated this with people here, but again, outside of arbitrage, bonuses, and rebates, there is no "advantage gambling" element to sports betting. There's no wrangling of the math that says you have an advantage, ergo it's not really advantage gambling. "

    If for example you wanted to bet heavy on the Pats tonight wouldn't you want to know that at least seven players have the flu and took a seperate plane to Dallas. Last week Dallas players were the ones with the flu playing the Pats. I have no idea who won versus that spread. The point I am making is that Advantage gamblers are always trying to get that edge any way they can.

  19. #159
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    Well, yeah, if you have a "local book" offering juice free parlays, or if I have an offshore that once every five years makes a futures line error, that's "+EV sports betting." But realistically, you're talking about something not available to people. So why use a phrase like "+EV sports betting" as if it's something exploitable or accessible or something that actually can be found? Use the description you just gave of some local book with juice free parlays. That description is the reality of it. I mean, if you call yourself a "+EV sports bettor" without saying "local book with juice free parlays," you're creating the misleading illusion that people can do what you're doing. They can't. Personally, I've never run into a juice free parlay book except for some holiday promotions.

    Same goes for me. If I exploit some once-a-decade futures error by an offshore, which I did this year by the way, does that make me a "+EV sports bettor?" Naw, that's too arrogant a title. I'm a guy who once every couple years exploits a futures error if I like it. If I explain it fully, rather than calling it a "+EV sports bettor play," then I haven't done people the disservice of implying they can do it.

    Things like juice-free parlays and flat-out errors are extremely rare. I've never seen juice-free parlays outside of short-term promos to get people in the habit of betting parlays, and I've seen maybe three errors on futures in the last decade. Those errors had $500 limits.
    Well I don't really disagree with this, but you also said there isn't a set of skills that can be taught etc. That's not true. If you're bright enough, you can be taught quite a bit to understand where edges might be found. I mean I never call myself a positive sports bettor, but I set out to bet with the bookie with the intention of finding a way to beat him. It is just they made it fairly easy in this case.

    It really seems to boil down to people calling themselves that vs labeling someone that. When someone labels themselves as such, you sort of assume they'll be giving picks or some angle. However I'm fairly certain there are quite a few positive sports bettors out there whom can fairly be labeled as +EV sports bettors.
    .

  20. #160
    Serious sports betting, when trusting others (sport services), is difficult. I did very well with Mike Warren for three years (in the mid 80"s) and the fourth year hurt badly. You never knew why picks were made. You had to trust them. While personally, I did not lose money, I have no idea why individuals take advise without knowledge backing the advise. We would not do this in other endeavors but we will do it involving sports and opinions.

    Now, as an absolute idiot, I am in a high end money pool out of Scranton, PA, and I have done well, but out of the money. Four picks per week. I came in fourth place in my first three years (they pay out for three places) out of 75 individuals. Tough losses. Tied for first place this year with a pedestrian 32-19-1 record.

    I agree with Redietz. I do not know what a +EV is. I do this for fun, but, damn, I would love to have an absolute positive experience.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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