Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
I took a meteorology course, if that's what you mean. Not a phantom one at Villanova, either. And had lunch with a Mr. Munchkin yesterday, if that counts.

KewlJ(s) have discovered the effects of weather on sports. Happy days. Next they'll be getting checks from casinos to avoid getting robbed.

Or not.

The nuggets of wisdom here are top notch. Deep thoughts.
You took a meteorology course? Yeah, just like you read a probability book. Ahahahahaha!

Did you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?
Lol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!

Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.

Redietz stick with sports bettors.

Again, for the umpteenth time, since I will not allow you to misrepresent anything I said (which is undoubtedly why you don't use direct quotes of me and instead paraphrase everything), EV is fine for arbitrage or middles shooting calculations. It's also fine to use in PAST TENSE to describe what the EV WAS for a particular play or project. But you should not use EV going forward for sports investing outside of arbitrage or middles shooting calculations because you are not dealing with random events. It really is that simple. No amount of history or past results or success/failure allows one to logically use EV going forward for sports betting outside of those parameters because:

1) You do not know what is currently affecting what is an open real-world system. A change in rules season to season, or in-season, or a change in the pool of people doing the gambling (demographic or money profile) -- in other words, a change in the source of the money -- changes the current odds relationship with past odds. To blithely presume none of these matter is utter naivete and utter arrogance, which leads to:

2) You always have to ask yourself, what is more likely? That people (A) overestimate their ability to describe, calculate, and predict events based on their data access and abilities, or (B) they underestimate their abilities to do so. Hint -- it's not B.

So what I suggest is asking what's more likely, is the idea one can use blanket, simple skills to win at everything in reality, or is doing so both self-aggrandizement and an excuse to gamble. If people answer that question honestly, then they may get some awareness of their Fred Flintstone gamble/gamble/gamble problem.

Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling, unless they simply want an excuse to (1) claim expertise they do not have and (2) gamble, gamble, gamble.