Originally Posted by mcap
You are, of course, correct (as most anonymous online expert gamblers are). As someone who has either the best or second best lifetime record ATS in The Wise Guys Contest (which I retired from in 2023, not 1990, by the way), I clearly am out of my depth. Picking two games ATS a week for 30 years, with those games appearing on national newsstands, has no validity whatsoever.
And yes, Sheldon, that's sarcasm.
You guys are a trip. Do you really think market lingo has been imported and adopted in sports gambling because the books DON'T WANT it? C'mon, have some brains.
The combination of arrogance, naivete, and the willingness to believe people who are not tracked by third parties...not sure what to make of it. It's an odd confluence. Here's a simple gambling rule -- if you are presented with two alternatives, and (A) says winning is easy, requiring basic math skills, and no, we have no long-term, third-party tracking, and (B) says winning is hard, achieved by less than 1% of the population, and winning requires more than basic math skills, and yes, we have third-party historical tracking of results, which proponent do you think is more likely to be telling the truth, (A) or (B)?
Reply With Quote