I'm something of a Fezzik fan in that he accomplished things playing large-entry-fee contests that will probably never be matched. I also give caveats regarding Fezzik, however, because he did some things after partnering with people that were not cool at all. He tried to circumvent authority structures with people with whom you do not circumvent chain of command.Originally Posted by cyberbabble
Anyway, he was a great contest player, but that does not always translate into week-to-week sports betting gambling. He did very poorly one season (we all have "those seasons," don't get me wrong), and his performance and conduct led him to publicly announce his self-retirement from large-scale wagering. He said he was restricting himself. You may be able to track down the actual column he claimed to be semi-retiring; it was in the LV Reviews-Journal/Sun, I think. About five years passed, and he was allowed to ease back into the public eye and start wagering significantly again.
March Madness has such a volatile structure year-to-year that I'm not sure any lessons in historicity have much value, but I am not a specialist. College basketball is the one sport that has been amenable to being solved by both savants and programmers and combinations of both, but tweaks in rules that seem less-than-huge can and will have large, sometimes unpredictable effects. The composition of the tournament committee can have similarly large, unpredictable effects (see UNC's inclusion this year as an example).
Historically, college basketball has been the most vulnerable sport in terms of players who wager actually making money.
Reply With Quote