Originally Posted by
redietz
A sample of 40 to 50 plays doesn't tell you much of anything, except perhaps the style of the handicapper and what he's trying to accomplish. If Argentino goes 15-5 down the stretch, he'll hit the 60% he said he'd hit.
Since it's a game of opinion, I try to not directly apply probability to the task. "The math" doesn't say, necessarily, that Argentino will lose. He may have insights or abilities beyond the formulas used to determine the spreads. The one spot wherein math does apply, however, is in the macro-betting. In other words, the parlays. The parlays, as mickey pointed out, are a bad bet oddswise even if you have an advantage over the oddsmakers themselves. In other words, if you are indeed brighter than the formulas used to determine spreads, there is no incentive to bet parlays.
I said this a couple of times regarding parlays when the endeavor began. Betting parlays without a good reason smacks of hubris, as does the proclamation that someone will hit 60%. Betting parlays also suggests a lack of discipline and a need to have some semi-progressive big payday looming out there in never-never land. The potential for the quick bailout. In reality, there are no quick bailouts.
Interestingly, the Wise Guys contestants are doing remarkably well this season. They had a stellar weekend again. I'm 17-11 and 10-4 with best bets, and I'm nowhere close to the leaders. They are killing it.
It's tough when reality is there keeping your stats for you. No voodoo to help. No avoidance of record-keeping. Your public record is inescapable. I've been doing this for 40 years. It ain't easy.
Reply With Quote