Originally Posted by
redietz
Well, it comes down to this, basically, regarding the Leonardo da AP narrative.
1) What's more likely, (A1) that experts in particular sports have managed to win, grinding and battling each season or (A2) a population of self-proclaimed APs have managed to solve "sports betting" -- across all or most sports -- based on angles and principles and shopping?
2) That (B1) experts in particular sports can anticipate line moves based on their experience with the public, their experience with where most money will come from, and their experience with interpreting media coverage so as to provide the occasional arbitrage opportunity or consistent middle shots or (B2) APs can arbitrage most sports most of the time?
3) That (C1) line moves are erratic, based as often on media coverage, how the public interprets information, and vulnerable to zig-zagging by someone like Billy Walters or (C2) taking advantage of "slow" or "weak" lines is something APs can do on a regular basis?
4) That (D1) winning handicappers are specialists, focusing on particular sports where they have massive experience and intimate knowledge or (D2) winning handicappers are APs using their generalized approach to conquer all sports?
5) That (E1) winning handicappers are few and far between and have lifetimes of records backing them up or (E2) APs can be winning handicappers with some insight and application of their ideas as to what comprises an edge, but have no public records of such edges?
What's more likely, really, that many APs are jacks of all trades, conquering the betting world from every direction or that they are overestimating their abilities because they prefer to think of themselves as conquering polymaths?
One would expect the APs to be dominating all of the handicapping competitions. But they do not.
I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
Reply With Quote