Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
Integrity Sports says kelly betting does not apply to sports betting because just because you consistently won in the past does not mean you will win in the future.

Integrity Sports also promised something like a 10% or 15% return for a 4 month investment. In other words, those future bets are going to cash and show a profit.

So in the first case, according to Integrity Sports, you CAN'T count on winning, but in the 2nd case, you CAN count on winning.

How does that work, redietz?
I get your point. Dietz is making flip-flopping, contradictory statements to serve his needs.

But here is what I would ask. Just what constitutes a large enough sample size (of past results) to have meaning? 100's of games? thousands of games? 10's of thousands of games? The guys that use computer analysis are analyzing thousands and 10's of thousands of games.

So what about this first 2 weeks of NFL underdogs? The data shows for 12 years now I think, Dogs +points have won significantly, showing a profit every year or every year but 1 (I forget). But it is NOT 12 years of all games. It is 12 years of the first 2 weeks games. @ 16 games a week that is 32 games a year or 384 games. Is that a big enough sample size? Probably not.

What do you think mickey? I can't wait to hit this play. Last year I bet moderately big and the first week lost, and the second week won, more than the first weeks loss for a reasonably smallish profit. This year, I am going to hit it big. Move money around, throw half my bankroll at it spread around the Vegas books. Going all in, so to speak. Kelly says not to do this. Fuck it, I am going all in. 6-26 or 8-24 over the 2 weeks could spell my first ever losing year as an AP. I am going with the math. Over-betting, but going with the math.

And this is the last time I am going to speak about it until after week 2 results. Will give the KJ haters something to root for.