|
|
#72
12-03-2005, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29
FWIW I thought shamu was the square of the century from the DEN -13 thread (and still can't completely shake that feeling). But his posts in this thread are actually reasonable.
Also, I know that at least one of my "sharp" betting sources was on Illinois (though at a better line). 
|
|
#73
12-03-2005, 09:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I thought shamu was the square of the century from the DEN -13 thread (and still can't completely shake that feeling). But his posts in this thread are actually reasonable. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I agree. [ QUOTE ] Also, I know that at least one of my "sharp" betting sources was on Illinois (though at a better line). [/ QUOTE ] What line?
|
|
#74
12-03-2005, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29
Evansville leads most of the way and survives a late Purdue rally by making all their free throws and wins by 4.
Like I've been saying, follow the strategy, not the system. At the risk of starting another huge debate, here's another example, playing home dogs in the NFL. The system (loosely calling it a system because there are many systems that are based on it) that's been profitable for something like the past 20 years. But why? Because the strategy behind it is that favorites are usually overvalued and it has been a solid betting strategy betting against them. But this year (up to this point), there hasn't been as much value in the dogs. If you've been taking them blindly, you've been losing. But if you're following the strategy and only making the plays when it applies to each individual matchup, you've been fine.
|
|
#77
12-03-2005, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29
But see, this is the problem with handicapping. Any random square thinks they're a genius this year because the favorites keep covering (not that I'm saying you're a random square).
The thing is, maybe they're right and all the lines are off. But maybe they're just lucky so far and it'll revert back to where favorites aren't winning at a 58% clip. I think the latter is much more likely, but how can I tell someone they're just lucky? They can easily make the case that I'm just wrong every week and for whatever reason favorites are consistently undervalued this year. I really can't "disprove" it like I can disprove roulette systems. What I CAN do is point to the fact that known sharps continue to bet dogs, and argue that it's unlikely that lifetime losers are now smarter than lifetime winners. One of the things about sports betting is that you never really know your edge, or even if it exists. You can try to find evidence though. P.S. Congrats on your Evansville bet, which I like and think was well-reasoned. Are they still the Purple Aces? And do they still have the t-shirt jerseys?
|
|
#78
12-04-2005, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29
[ QUOTE ]
But see, this is the problem with handicapping. Any random square thinks they're a genius this year because the favorites keep covering (not that I'm saying you're a random square). The thing is, maybe they're right and all the lines are off. But maybe they're just lucky so far and it'll revert back to where favorites aren't winning at a 58% clip. I think the latter is much more likely, but how can I tell someone they're just lucky? They can easily make the case that I'm just wrong every week and for whatever reason favorites are consistently undervalued this year. I really can't "disprove" it like I can disprove roulette systems. What I CAN do is point to the fact that known sharps continue to bet dogs, and argue that it's unlikely that lifetime losers are now smarter than lifetime winners. One of the things about sports betting is that you never really know your edge, or even if it exists. You can try to find evidence though. P.S. Congrats on your Evansville bet, which I like and think was well-reasoned. Are they still the Purple Aces? And do they still have the t-shirt jerseys? [/ QUOTE ] I agree completely. Most of the time it's not so easy to determine which side is the "right side". I guess that's the real trick in handicapping, eh? I know I made it sound like it was really easy and simple but I know it's not. I guess I was just surprised that people would throw money at a matchup where they barely even looked at the teams involved and so I was trying to explain why that's not always the best strategy. But about the home dogs in the NFL, I also think that because the system has been successful for so long, there are many people that have followed it and now think they are experts because they have been winning for many years. And the longer the system works, the more "experts" that are created. They all think they are great because they're winning all this money. And anyone that goes against their picks are obviously squares and losers right? But it's not until the system breaks down for a while that the true good handicappers are revealed. And all the followers are now losing money because the system doesn't work anymore and they can't analyze the games themselves. But it's compounded because they think they are experts now and are much more reluctant to change, so obviously they are still making plays on the right side right? They're just getting unlucky right? They've been winning for so long, how can they be wrong? But in this internet age with information so available and with so many sports betting forums, everywhere you look, there seems to be a "pro" who is betting on the home dogs and who thinks he's an expert. When my friends who don't even bet start talking about "home dogs", you know that maybe the strategy is a little overexposed. Isnt it at least possible that it's reached a tipping point where there's so many "experts" now that the books are tired of losing money to them and have adjusted the lines so the favorites arent so overvalued anymore? The linesmakers aren't rocks that just mechanically put out lines. These guys are responsible for billions of dollars so I'm pretty sure they know what's going on. Let's give them some credit here. If you think about it, what's more likely, that there's several tens or hundreds of thousands of pros on all these internet forums and sports betting websites, and they are all smarter than the books but are just going through an unlucky stretch, or that the linesmakers whom the books trust their billions of dollars to are actually ahead of the curve and have long adjusted their lines to account for the betting patterns of all these pros? No offense to anyone here, but I would tend to put my money on the linesmakers. Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert. I'm just trying to figure stuff out and make sense of everything like everyone else. But if I make a bet I want to have some logical reasoning behind it, more than "oh that's just the way it's been so just do it". But it seems like many of the experts on this forum are just "system created experts" and when you try to have a reasonable discussion, they can't offer anything more than "that's the way it's been so I'm right" or "just wait until things return to the norm and you'll see that you're wrong". Either that or they just get mad at you for disagreeing with them.
|
|
#79
12-05-2005, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29
[ QUOTE ]
(22)Wake Forest @ Elon 12/3 (9)Memphis @ Cincinnati 12/3 (15)Arizona @ Houston 12/3 (20)Nevada @ Pacific 12/3 none of these providing us with any oppurtunity [/ QUOTE ] Only 24 games fell into this trend last year... 
|
|
#80
12-05-2005, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29
[ QUOTE ]
I do think that I'm a poor sports bettor to be honest. I was on the run of my life until that week the Eagles lost to the Cowboys (was that week 5 or 6??). I lost pretty much the whole roll that week. I have rebuilt though and I'm on another run Indy [/ QUOTE ] Sounds as if you need to rethink your sports bankroll management, if this comment (and the Seahawks comment for tonight's game) is accurate.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
