Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 0-2
Record: 1-3
Well, that didn't work out well, dropped both, and was fighting from behind in both pretty much all the whole game.
Sides have sucked so I'm trying a few totals today.
Using an Under play that was just 16-13 reg season but 11-5 with an additional qualifying stat required.
Post season it's just 4-5 overall; with the subset with the extra qualifier it's at 1-0.
Three games: Wisc/N'West, Tex A&M/Kentucky, Fla/'Bama.
Wisc vs N'West - just about every stat I look at (scoring averages, recent play) says this one sails over the posted 135.
Tex A&M vs Kentucky - stats on this one look just as bad for an under as Wisc/N'West.
Fla vs 'Bama - if you use Statfox as one of your sources you know they use colors to highlight strong % stats, red for losing records, green for winning. The Fla/'Bama game has NINE stats highlighted in green, pointing to this game going Over.
So, based on the above, why am I playing the Under in all three?
Because if you look deep into stats you can usually come up with stats that support a play on both teams, and both the under and over.
And because if winning at sports betting was simply a matter of betting on what looks good on paper it would be easy to win. But it's not.
Nobody bets on a side or total that they don't like, they bet on what they like, what looks good to them. And most people lose.
Sometimes, ya just gotta go contrarian (and hope ya don't get kicked in the ass.)
Wisc/N'West Un 135'
Tex A&M/Kentucky Un 159
Fla/'Bama Un 173'
Tournament Play
Recap: 0-2
Record: 1-3
Well, that didn't work out well, dropped both, and was fighting from behind in both pretty much all the whole game.
Sides have sucked so I'm trying a few totals today.
Using an Under play that was just 16-13 reg season but 11-5 with an additional qualifying stat required.
Post season it's just 4-5 overall; with the subset with the extra qualifier it's at 1-0.
Three games: Wisc/N'West, Tex A&M/Kentucky, Fla/'Bama.
Wisc vs N'West - just about every stat I look at (scoring averages, recent play) says this one sails over the posted 135.
Tex A&M vs Kentucky - stats on this one look just as bad for an under as Wisc/N'West.
Fla vs 'Bama - if you use Statfox as one of your sources you know they use colors to highlight strong % stats, red for losing records, green for winning. The Fla/'Bama game has NINE stats highlighted in green, pointing to this game going Over.
So, based on the above, why am I playing the Under in all three?
Because if you look deep into stats you can usually come up with stats that support a play on both teams, and both the under and over.
And because if winning at sports betting was simply a matter of betting on what looks good on paper it would be easy to win. But it's not.
Nobody bets on a side or total that they don't like, they bet on what they like, what looks good to them. And most people lose.
Sometimes, ya just gotta go contrarian (and hope ya don't get kicked in the ass.)
Wisc/N'West Un 135'
Tex A&M/Kentucky Un 159
Fla/'Bama Un 173'
Okay, between the time I made my buys, then started and finished writing and editing my post (yes, I can get a bit wordy), the Wisc line has dropped to 134'.
So that's the number I'll use here, because posting lines that aren't really available is a dick move made by "Hey - look at ME!" attention 'ho's.
So that's the number I'll use here, because posting lines that aren't really available is a dick move made by "Hey - look at ME!" attention 'ho's.
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 2-2
Record: 3-5
Got a split last night as UT Arl won SU and saved my day.
Going contrarian on a couple games didn't help at 1-2, but I'll take it because it could have easily gone on 0-3 as the Wisconsin game was on a solid pace to go Ov my Un 134'.
At the two minute mark it was sitting on 129, six points in the final two minutes would kill my bet, and I was pretty sure they'd get at least that many factoring in the typical foul shooting in the last minute of the game.
But . . . only TWO points were scored in the final two minutes and the game lands on 131 for a W.
That was a lousy beat for anyone who had the Over.
Got one for today, Un in Long Beach St/Cal Davis.
Unders didn't work out well for me yesterday but I have to stick with my stats and charts, they're all I've got.
Overs in this spot were 16-22 reg season, and with an extra qualifier added its 4-7. Postseason this Ov spot is 3-8 overall, 1-2 with the additional qualifier added. So . . .
Long Beach State/Cal Davis Un 144
Tournament Play
Recap: 2-2
Record: 3-5
Got a split last night as UT Arl won SU and saved my day.
Going contrarian on a couple games didn't help at 1-2, but I'll take it because it could have easily gone on 0-3 as the Wisconsin game was on a solid pace to go Ov my Un 134'.
At the two minute mark it was sitting on 129, six points in the final two minutes would kill my bet, and I was pretty sure they'd get at least that many factoring in the typical foul shooting in the last minute of the game.
But . . . only TWO points were scored in the final two minutes and the game lands on 131 for a W.
That was a lousy beat for anyone who had the Over.
Got one for today, Un in Long Beach St/Cal Davis.
Unders didn't work out well for me yesterday but I have to stick with my stats and charts, they're all I've got.
Overs in this spot were 16-22 reg season, and with an extra qualifier added its 4-7. Postseason this Ov spot is 3-8 overall, 1-2 with the additional qualifier added. So . . .
Long Beach State/Cal Davis Un 144
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 0-0-1
Record: 3-5
Well FFFFFFFuck me! I came in to share a few plays and add a W to my post season play, but . . . I posted Un 144 in the Long Beach game??!!
I had 145. Common # when I posted was 144/144'. I didn't use 145 because I like to use lines that are readily available to most players, not ones that only 1-2 houses have. Looks like I left the ' off the posted number??!!
And double F me because this was a spot that called for an Under 144' in a game that saw ZERO pts scored in the first four minutes.
They were a combined 0-12 to start the game.
They had just 59 at the half.
I had a cushion of > 85 needed in the second half before I would be screwed.
Should have been an easy Un, but, ends up a push for me here.
Need some better luck this week (or better attention to detail when posting.)
Got a few today.
My #'s say Xav is a Wronged Dog in this game, diss'd by the books who made Geo the Fav.
The basic spot they qualify for is just 3-3 post season, but it fits two other plays I chart that are 2-1 and 4-2 post season, and when both those plays call for a bet on the same team it's 1-0, so I'm on 'em.
And I have a play that's 3-8 Ov on teams in this spot, with a subset that adds an additional qualifier that has a record of 0-3 (including the Long Beach spot I wrote about above, which was also a Fade on the Ov.) So, Un it is for me.
Xav+1'
Xav/Geo Un 156'
Also, I have an NBA play charted at 7-19 on Overs. But despite those attractive #'s I only played two or three of them, for a few reasons:
1 - I don't like the NBA. Even when I have money on a game I find myself changing the channel to find something even remotely interesting to watch. I don't like the game, don't like many of the players, loathe a few of them (and their pedo-looking commissioner.)
2 - Every day when I update my charts and 'cap the day's card I see the record getting worse and wonder why I don't play more Fades on it, or at least post them for others to decide if they'd like to play 'em or not.
Every day I think, "Start playing and posting these today", but in the end, I don't, because I keep thinking I've missed the boat (bus?) on these plays and it's due to regress back to .500 as all plays eventually do.
But this week I'm playing 'em and posting 'em all. Fair warning - the spot is ripe for regression toward the mean.
Anyway . . .
Char Un 203
Good luck with your plays today.
Tournament Play
Recap: 0-0-1
Record: 3-5
Well FFFFFFFuck me! I came in to share a few plays and add a W to my post season play, but . . . I posted Un 144 in the Long Beach game??!!
I had 145. Common # when I posted was 144/144'. I didn't use 145 because I like to use lines that are readily available to most players, not ones that only 1-2 houses have. Looks like I left the ' off the posted number??!!
And double F me because this was a spot that called for an Under 144' in a game that saw ZERO pts scored in the first four minutes.
They were a combined 0-12 to start the game.
They had just 59 at the half.
I had a cushion of > 85 needed in the second half before I would be screwed.
Should have been an easy Un, but, ends up a push for me here.
Need some better luck this week (or better attention to detail when posting.)
Got a few today.
My #'s say Xav is a Wronged Dog in this game, diss'd by the books who made Geo the Fav.
The basic spot they qualify for is just 3-3 post season, but it fits two other plays I chart that are 2-1 and 4-2 post season, and when both those plays call for a bet on the same team it's 1-0, so I'm on 'em.
And I have a play that's 3-8 Ov on teams in this spot, with a subset that adds an additional qualifier that has a record of 0-3 (including the Long Beach spot I wrote about above, which was also a Fade on the Ov.) So, Un it is for me.
Xav+1'
Xav/Geo Un 156'
Also, I have an NBA play charted at 7-19 on Overs. But despite those attractive #'s I only played two or three of them, for a few reasons:
1 - I don't like the NBA. Even when I have money on a game I find myself changing the channel to find something even remotely interesting to watch. I don't like the game, don't like many of the players, loathe a few of them (and their pedo-looking commissioner.)
2 - Every day when I update my charts and 'cap the day's card I see the record getting worse and wonder why I don't play more Fades on it, or at least post them for others to decide if they'd like to play 'em or not.
Every day I think, "Start playing and posting these today", but in the end, I don't, because I keep thinking I've missed the boat (bus?) on these plays and it's due to regress back to .500 as all plays eventually do.
But this week I'm playing 'em and posting 'em all. Fair warning - the spot is ripe for regression toward the mean.
Anyway . . .
Char Un 203
Good luck with your plays today.
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-1
Record: 4-6
NBA: 0-1
Got a W with the Un in Xav/Geo, lost the Xav +1' spot by a hook.
I haven't been of much help so far, hopefully that changes.
When I post it's for anyone/everyone, but with a lean towards new bettors, with info that can hopefully help them.
For example, take a close look at your losses. Don't just dismiss them, look at them. Can you learn anything from them?
Anything you can correct for future bets? As they saying goes, "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
You look at the records and trends of teams you're thinking of betting on or against, looking for strengths or weaknesses to exploit or avoid, but do you look at your own record for the same things?
What's your record for Favs? Dogs? Overs? Unders?
It seems like fairly obvious advice but I talk to a lot of bettors who don't track their own play.
But it's a wise use of your time that can up your W %.
So, what did I learn from my losses yesterday?
I could have been a better line shopper. I usually am, but wasn't yesterday.
Not much I could have done on the Xav loss, the line was +1', +1 and even pick 'em.
But I screwed up on the Orl Under play. I didn't buy wisely because I didn't even look at it with the proper amount of scrutiny.
Because of my lack of interest in the NBA I didn't put the same time into 'capping it as I do for my college picks.
I didn't look at the opening number and the current number to try and get a feel for where the line was going.
It wasn't laziness, I just wasn't interested, which is foolish if you're going lay your money down on a bet like I did.
The result?
A one point loss at Un 203.
In a game where later in the day I could have easily gotten 204 for a push or 204'/205 for a W as all three became available.
I won't make that mistake again.
LOOK at your losses. See if there is anything you can learn from them. It WILL up your W %.
I got nuttin' for NCAA today. A few games qualify but they're not in my strongest spots. Down 2 units and juice thus far in the post season I'll wait for a stronger spot to show up (and there's another lesson for new bettors - you DON'T have to bet every day.)
Yesterday I said, "This week I'm playing 'em and posting 'em all (one of my NBA spots.) Fair warning - the spot is ripe for regression toward the mean."
After yesterday's win for the play it sits at 8-19 on Overs. Got one for today, a Fade on the Ov in Mil/Bos.
Mil is 0-2 in this spot this season, Bos 1-0.
Line opened 223'/224. Common number right now is 224 but there are one or two 224' available.
I'm thinking this one drops so I'm buying it now.
Mil/Bos Un 224
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-1
Record: 4-6
NBA: 0-1
Got a W with the Un in Xav/Geo, lost the Xav +1' spot by a hook.
I haven't been of much help so far, hopefully that changes.
When I post it's for anyone/everyone, but with a lean towards new bettors, with info that can hopefully help them.
For example, take a close look at your losses. Don't just dismiss them, look at them. Can you learn anything from them?
Anything you can correct for future bets? As they saying goes, "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
You look at the records and trends of teams you're thinking of betting on or against, looking for strengths or weaknesses to exploit or avoid, but do you look at your own record for the same things?
What's your record for Favs? Dogs? Overs? Unders?
It seems like fairly obvious advice but I talk to a lot of bettors who don't track their own play.
But it's a wise use of your time that can up your W %.
So, what did I learn from my losses yesterday?
I could have been a better line shopper. I usually am, but wasn't yesterday.
Not much I could have done on the Xav loss, the line was +1', +1 and even pick 'em.
But I screwed up on the Orl Under play. I didn't buy wisely because I didn't even look at it with the proper amount of scrutiny.
Because of my lack of interest in the NBA I didn't put the same time into 'capping it as I do for my college picks.
I didn't look at the opening number and the current number to try and get a feel for where the line was going.
It wasn't laziness, I just wasn't interested, which is foolish if you're going lay your money down on a bet like I did.
The result?
A one point loss at Un 203.
In a game where later in the day I could have easily gotten 204 for a push or 204'/205 for a W as all three became available.
I won't make that mistake again.
LOOK at your losses. See if there is anything you can learn from them. It WILL up your W %.
I got nuttin' for NCAA today. A few games qualify but they're not in my strongest spots. Down 2 units and juice thus far in the post season I'll wait for a stronger spot to show up (and there's another lesson for new bettors - you DON'T have to bet every day.)
Yesterday I said, "This week I'm playing 'em and posting 'em all (one of my NBA spots.) Fair warning - the spot is ripe for regression toward the mean."
After yesterday's win for the play it sits at 8-19 on Overs. Got one for today, a Fade on the Ov in Mil/Bos.
Mil is 0-2 in this spot this season, Bos 1-0.
Line opened 223'/224. Common number right now is 224 but there are one or two 224' available.
I'm thinking this one drops so I'm buying it now.
Mil/Bos Un 224
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: no plays yesterday
Record: 4-6
NBA: 0-2
From 2 days ago: "Fair warning - the spot (7-19) is ripe for regression toward the mean."
Now 9-19.
Regression towards the mean is a bitch (which is why jumping on streaks is usually a bad idea.)
I'd like to jump off but I said I'd post and play all this week, so I'll go another day, one spot today: NY/Den.
Same 9-19 play says it goes Over.
NY/Den Un 207'
Also have a spot that is just 1-1 tournament time but was my highest W% play during the regular season.
I have to lay DD's (Double Digits) which I try to avoid (I'm usually a dog player.)
Unfortunately I don't have the stats for when this spot laid DD's to help me in my decision.
I'm going back through my data to get the record for when the # was 10 or >.
Thirty games qualified reg season so it will take about an hour (game tips in 1' hrs.)
If it's above 53% I'm on Creighton.
They're at -12 right now, opened at -13 so the delay in making the decision doesn't look like it's going to hurt me, line's moving my way.
Back with an update after I run the numbers.
Good luck in the Madness . . .
Tournament Play
Recap: no plays yesterday
Record: 4-6
NBA: 0-2
From 2 days ago: "Fair warning - the spot (7-19) is ripe for regression toward the mean."
Now 9-19.
Regression towards the mean is a bitch (which is why jumping on streaks is usually a bad idea.)
I'd like to jump off but I said I'd post and play all this week, so I'll go another day, one spot today: NY/Den.
Same 9-19 play says it goes Over.
NY/Den Un 207'
Also have a spot that is just 1-1 tournament time but was my highest W% play during the regular season.
I have to lay DD's (Double Digits) which I try to avoid (I'm usually a dog player.)
Unfortunately I don't have the stats for when this spot laid DD's to help me in my decision.
I'm going back through my data to get the record for when the # was 10 or >.
Thirty games qualified reg season so it will take about an hour (game tips in 1' hrs.)
If it's above 53% I'm on Creighton.
They're at -12 right now, opened at -13 so the delay in making the decision doesn't look like it's going to hurt me, line's moving my way.
Back with an update after I run the numbers.
Good luck in the Madness . . .
Update: I did the 'capping and found that the play noted above has a record of 1-2 when the spread is 10 or >.
So, though I like the Jays today, no play.
I did buy two games, Wronged Dogs.
S Car based on my #'s for situational spot that had a slight edge at 11-8 reg season, 3-2 tournaments.
And Samford who qualifies for three different spots, reg season 11-8, 31-18, 5-3 (when two diff spots both say Wrong Dog of 7 pt diff or >);
tournaments 3-2, 6-3, 2-1
S Car +2
Sam +7'
So, though I like the Jays today, no play.
I did buy two games, Wronged Dogs.
S Car based on my #'s for situational spot that had a slight edge at 11-8 reg season, 3-2 tournaments.
And Samford who qualifies for three different spots, reg season 11-8, 31-18, 5-3 (when two diff spots both say Wrong Dog of 7 pt diff or >);
tournaments 3-2, 6-3, 2-1
S Car +2
Sam +7'
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-1
Record: 5-7
NBA: 0-3
Got a split last time in, was lucky to do that as Samford was getting killed for most of the game.
NBA fade lost.
No plays yesterday, personal stuff happened, lost the day.
The NBA fade had NO/Mia Over, and the game stayed Under. That play is 9-20 now.
So if I had stuck with the "Post and fade all plays this week" strategy I would have gotten back one of the three units lost, right?
Wrong.
When I looked at the card in the morning I decided that after the three straight losses I was going to actually play on the Over since it looked like regression towards the mean was the way to go.
Got busy with life and didn't post or play, saved myself a unit.
Today, Phx/SA qualifies. When I faded it I lost, had I played on it last night I would have lost too. Clearly not seeing these clearly so posted (in case anyone is interested) but not played. I have some stuff in college that I like. Starting with...
Cin -6
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-1
Record: 5-7
NBA: 0-3
Got a split last time in, was lucky to do that as Samford was getting killed for most of the game.
NBA fade lost.
No plays yesterday, personal stuff happened, lost the day.
The NBA fade had NO/Mia Over, and the game stayed Under. That play is 9-20 now.
So if I had stuck with the "Post and fade all plays this week" strategy I would have gotten back one of the three units lost, right?
Wrong.
When I looked at the card in the morning I decided that after the three straight losses I was going to actually play on the Over since it looked like regression towards the mean was the way to go.
Got busy with life and didn't post or play, saved myself a unit.
Today, Phx/SA qualifies. When I faded it I lost, had I played on it last night I would have lost too. Clearly not seeing these clearly so posted (in case anyone is interested) but not played. I have some stuff in college that I like. Starting with...
Cin -6
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 6-7
NBA: 0-3
Got an easy win with Cincy yesterday.
Unfortunately, I don't have any plays today, but the forum is for sharing information to help bettors win. Picks are just part of it.
So here's some information for bettors who look for people to tail (which is the majority of visitors to this site, and who should be treated with the respect they deserve and given accurate information to help them make their bets.)
DON'T TAIL BLINDLY!
Check posters records.
And don't be surprised if you find that a guy you were thinking of tailing is actually someone you should fade.
Don't be surprised if, "hypothetically" speaking for example, a guy who says he's 14-13 to start the day is really 11-15, 42%.
And 19-34, 35%, in units, based on the *'s he assigns each bet.
In this eXample, a bEttor who foolishly tails him usiNg a standard unit Of $110 to win $100 is down almost $2,000.00 (in just 3 days of tournament play) if they don't do their due diligence.
Same BS, different season. And the behavior should be exposed not protected or enabled.
DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW someone based on the record they post.
Truth matters (but unfortunately not to everyone.)
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 6-7
NBA: 0-3
Got an easy win with Cincy yesterday.
Unfortunately, I don't have any plays today, but the forum is for sharing information to help bettors win. Picks are just part of it.
So here's some information for bettors who look for people to tail (which is the majority of visitors to this site, and who should be treated with the respect they deserve and given accurate information to help them make their bets.)
DON'T TAIL BLINDLY!
Check posters records.
And don't be surprised if you find that a guy you were thinking of tailing is actually someone you should fade.
Don't be surprised if, "hypothetically" speaking for example, a guy who says he's 14-13 to start the day is really 11-15, 42%.
And 19-34, 35%, in units, based on the *'s he assigns each bet.
In this eXample, a bEttor who foolishly tails him usiNg a standard unit Of $110 to win $100 is down almost $2,000.00 (in just 3 days of tournament play) if they don't do their due diligence.
Same BS, different season. And the behavior should be exposed not protected or enabled.
DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW someone based on the record they post.
Truth matters (but unfortunately not to everyone.)
Recap: No plays last time in, just stopped by to post a public advisory to forum members who look to tail others that a poster who has a long history of being a confirmed, habitual cheater has shown up again for the tournaments.
And, of course, is cheating as usual, padding his record with three wins he didn't have and shaving two losses off to make it look like he's winning - a five game swing in just the first weekend of play.
So do your due diligence, check records and DON'T TAIL BLINDLY!
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 6-7
NBA: 0-3
So, yeah, I don't make a lot of plays. I'm a grinder.
I don't try to make a living at this (I ran a book on the Vegas strip and have seen too many people lose to try to be one of the 2% of bettors who can use sports betting to pay the bills.) I handicap for the challenge of beating the book's numbers, to provide a little entertainment, and to grind out a small profit (a very reasonable goal, considering the odds.)
As the number of games on the daily schedule dwindles, I have fewer and fewer games that qualify for one of the situational plays I track.
I have one NCAA game that qualifies today but I don't have enough of a statistical edge to play it or recommend it.
But I do have a lesson for new bettors, and a play in the NBA.
Here's the lesson: A play that is 5-10 is just as valuable to a bettor as a play that is 10-5.
Yeah, sounds obvious, but I still see many posters in the various forums asking stuff like, "Who is a good poster to follow?" or, "Who's hot right now?"
First - if winning at sports betting was as simple and easy as jumping on a streak a lot more people would be beating the books.
And that ain't the case.
If you're on a streak, ride it out. But looking for someone who's hot and jumping on an already established streak is usually bucking the odds.
Second - it's estimated that 98% of bettors lose in the long run, so by seeking a winning handicapper you're looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. It's easier to find someone who's losing. And fade his play.
Which is why A play that is 5-10 is just as valuable to a bettor as a play that is 10-5.
Keep that in mind as you look for someone to follow.
Of course, my first recommendation is HANDICAP YOUR OWN PLAYS!!!
And if you're not good at it - WORK HARDER.
Try different methods.
Reduce your wager size while you're trying to figure things out and find something that works for you.
For the newest of new bettors, or anyone who is trying but can't find something that works, I'll give some examples of different handicapping methods to get you thinking outside the box you're in.
I'll do it in a future post, this one's already too long. (My posts are NOT for the 300 character attention-span Twitter types.)
So, in practicing what I preach about fading, and 5-10 being as valuable as 10-5, here's my play today.
I'm currently using two methods for finding NBA totals to play. I've only been tracking it since the beginning of the month, because I don't like, follow, or watch the NBA. But now that college ball is ending I'll put more time into it to see if I can come up with something profitable.
I wish my database had numbers for the full season, but it doesn't.
Here is what I do have is a play that is now 11-23, 32%, when it says play the Over.
Warning - this is the same play that stuck me with my 0-3 record here this season.
And it has been hitting at about 50% over the last 17 games.
BUT, when I get a conflict, when the other method I use says take the same game Under, the record on the Over is 2-5.
And none of the three previous plays had that extra qualifier. So I'll give it a shot tonight.
Ok/NO Un 223'
Good luck with your play today . . .
And, of course, is cheating as usual, padding his record with three wins he didn't have and shaving two losses off to make it look like he's winning - a five game swing in just the first weekend of play.
So do your due diligence, check records and DON'T TAIL BLINDLY!
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 6-7
NBA: 0-3
So, yeah, I don't make a lot of plays. I'm a grinder.
I don't try to make a living at this (I ran a book on the Vegas strip and have seen too many people lose to try to be one of the 2% of bettors who can use sports betting to pay the bills.) I handicap for the challenge of beating the book's numbers, to provide a little entertainment, and to grind out a small profit (a very reasonable goal, considering the odds.)
As the number of games on the daily schedule dwindles, I have fewer and fewer games that qualify for one of the situational plays I track.
I have one NCAA game that qualifies today but I don't have enough of a statistical edge to play it or recommend it.
But I do have a lesson for new bettors, and a play in the NBA.
Here's the lesson: A play that is 5-10 is just as valuable to a bettor as a play that is 10-5.
Yeah, sounds obvious, but I still see many posters in the various forums asking stuff like, "Who is a good poster to follow?" or, "Who's hot right now?"
First - if winning at sports betting was as simple and easy as jumping on a streak a lot more people would be beating the books.
And that ain't the case.
If you're on a streak, ride it out. But looking for someone who's hot and jumping on an already established streak is usually bucking the odds.
Second - it's estimated that 98% of bettors lose in the long run, so by seeking a winning handicapper you're looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. It's easier to find someone who's losing. And fade his play.
Which is why A play that is 5-10 is just as valuable to a bettor as a play that is 10-5.
Keep that in mind as you look for someone to follow.
Of course, my first recommendation is HANDICAP YOUR OWN PLAYS!!!
And if you're not good at it - WORK HARDER.
Try different methods.
Reduce your wager size while you're trying to figure things out and find something that works for you.
For the newest of new bettors, or anyone who is trying but can't find something that works, I'll give some examples of different handicapping methods to get you thinking outside the box you're in.
I'll do it in a future post, this one's already too long. (My posts are NOT for the 300 character attention-span Twitter types.)
So, in practicing what I preach about fading, and 5-10 being as valuable as 10-5, here's my play today.
I'm currently using two methods for finding NBA totals to play. I've only been tracking it since the beginning of the month, because I don't like, follow, or watch the NBA. But now that college ball is ending I'll put more time into it to see if I can come up with something profitable.
I wish my database had numbers for the full season, but it doesn't.
Here is what I do have is a play that is now 11-23, 32%, when it says play the Over.
Warning - this is the same play that stuck me with my 0-3 record here this season.
And it has been hitting at about 50% over the last 17 games.
BUT, when I get a conflict, when the other method I use says take the same game Under, the record on the Over is 2-5.
And none of the three previous plays had that extra qualifier. So I'll give it a shot tonight.
Ok/NO Un 223'
Good luck with your play today . . .
Who’s the cheater that reappeared?
I think UK got cheated with the talent they had. Tonight Calipari meets with the Guy who decides if they need a new coach. IMO it’s tough but should not be for 18-19 year olds to play against 23-24 year olds
I think UK got cheated with the talent they had. Tonight Calipari meets with the Guy who decides if they need a new coach. IMO it’s tough but should not be for 18-19 year olds to play against 23-24 year olds
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 6-7
(Note - NBA updates posted in NBA forum. Still stinking at it.)
I was down 2 units in the tournament so I've been very choosy about making my next play.
Got one unit back last time in, five day ago. I have one play today.
I have 'Bama as a 'dissed-by-the-books Wronged Dog.
Tournament record for this spot is 11-8, not great but with only a few games remaining I don't have time to wait another five days hoping for a play on my charts with a higher W %.
The # opened at 4, right now most books have it at 4', but some houses are adding extra juice to NC -4', so with a # that might be going up, and Joe Public's love for betting late and playing favorites, I'll wait to buy it
Hoping I can get to +5 or > later this afternoon/evening (Caesar's has +5 now.)
My play: Bama + TBD
skoda, an answer to your question: "Who’s the cheater that reappeared?"
Two posters warned the forum about him this week - and both posts were disappeared, despite being factual.
So I guess he's "He Who Cannot Be Named."
Or, "He Who We Cannot Allow To Be Exposed as a Fraud."
But here's a clue, an eXamplE, just oNe Of the many ploys he uses to deceive forum members.
"Hypothetical" example:
Az is -7 or 7' vs Clemson at all books.
Every forum member who gives a pick on the game uses 7 or 7'.
Except one. As usual.
He posts "Clem +9 -115."
Az hits the first shot of the game and goes up 2-0.
And he posts, "Live bet, Az -5. Going for a middle."
Fake lines, fake juice, fake bets.
All from a guy who year after year continually, consistently, brazenly and blatantly cheats on his record.
Why?
Because he knows he can get away with it.
DO YOUR RESEARCH - DON'T BLINDLY TAIL ANYONE BASED ON THEIR POSTED RECORD.
Good luck to all with your plays today.
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 6-7
(Note - NBA updates posted in NBA forum. Still stinking at it.)
I was down 2 units in the tournament so I've been very choosy about making my next play.
Got one unit back last time in, five day ago. I have one play today.
I have 'Bama as a 'dissed-by-the-books Wronged Dog.
Tournament record for this spot is 11-8, not great but with only a few games remaining I don't have time to wait another five days hoping for a play on my charts with a higher W %.
The # opened at 4, right now most books have it at 4', but some houses are adding extra juice to NC -4', so with a # that might be going up, and Joe Public's love for betting late and playing favorites, I'll wait to buy it
Hoping I can get to +5 or > later this afternoon/evening (Caesar's has +5 now.)
My play: Bama + TBD
skoda, an answer to your question: "Who’s the cheater that reappeared?"
Two posters warned the forum about him this week - and both posts were disappeared, despite being factual.
So I guess he's "He Who Cannot Be Named."
Or, "He Who We Cannot Allow To Be Exposed as a Fraud."
But here's a clue, an eXamplE, just oNe Of the many ploys he uses to deceive forum members.
"Hypothetical" example:
Az is -7 or 7' vs Clemson at all books.
Every forum member who gives a pick on the game uses 7 or 7'.
Except one. As usual.
He posts "Clem +9 -115."
Az hits the first shot of the game and goes up 2-0.
And he posts, "Live bet, Az -5. Going for a middle."
Fake lines, fake juice, fake bets.
All from a guy who year after year continually, consistently, brazenly and blatantly cheats on his record.
Why?
Because he knows he can get away with it.
DO YOUR RESEARCH - DON'T BLINDLY TAIL ANYONE BASED ON THEIR POSTED RECORD.
Good luck to all with your plays today.
Reg Season: 11-9
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 7-7
A real important W for me with 'Bama last time in, for two reasons.
First, it got me back to .500 for the tournaments, second, with only a few games left I'm likely to have nothing that qualifies as a play for me.
This is where my season's picks may end. Hopefully I'll get one more to recoup the college juice, though it's covered by my reg season play.
Though I may have no more picks, I can still offer advice for new bettors.
Here's today's pearl of wisdom (or sow's ear, if your POV is the same as Cheater Boy's):
MLB has started - beware of anyone who posts a W/L record only, and does not include an accurate unit count or dollar amount.
(Accurate being the key word here.)
"Hey, look at me! I'm 5-3!" means nothing when the three losses are in the -200 to -300 money line range.
I'll give you a "hypothetical" example using *'s to designate the size of the play (units, *'s, $-lines, its all the same, re: bet size.)
Bets:
Tenn under 148, 1*
Tenn +4', -125, 3*
Tenn loses ATS, the game stays under.
Next post:
"I'm 1-1 today."
The "1-1 today" is deceiving. It's meant to convey a break even day.
How do we know it's a "hypothetical" poster's intentional attempt to deceive?
Two ways.
1 - Had it been a 1-1 day with the 3* play winning he would have noted it in the post, ("1-1 BUT I hit my BIG play!")
2 - Everything posters of this ilk do - lines, bets, records, "cancelled" bets - is with the intent to con posters into believing they're winning.
Using standard odds of 110/100, the one win is worth $100.
The one loss (but three units at -125) is a loss of $375.00
So, a net loss of -$275.
Or, as he would have you believe, 1-1, about even.
DON'T BLINDLY TAIL ANYBODY!
Tournament Play
Recap: 1-0
Record: 7-7
A real important W for me with 'Bama last time in, for two reasons.
First, it got me back to .500 for the tournaments, second, with only a few games left I'm likely to have nothing that qualifies as a play for me.
This is where my season's picks may end. Hopefully I'll get one more to recoup the college juice, though it's covered by my reg season play.
Though I may have no more picks, I can still offer advice for new bettors.
Here's today's pearl of wisdom (or sow's ear, if your POV is the same as Cheater Boy's):
MLB has started - beware of anyone who posts a W/L record only, and does not include an accurate unit count or dollar amount.
(Accurate being the key word here.)
"Hey, look at me! I'm 5-3!" means nothing when the three losses are in the -200 to -300 money line range.
I'll give you a "hypothetical" example using *'s to designate the size of the play (units, *'s, $-lines, its all the same, re: bet size.)
Bets:
Tenn under 148, 1*
Tenn +4', -125, 3*
Tenn loses ATS, the game stays under.
Next post:
"I'm 1-1 today."
The "1-1 today" is deceiving. It's meant to convey a break even day.
How do we know it's a "hypothetical" poster's intentional attempt to deceive?
Two ways.
1 - Had it been a 1-1 day with the 3* play winning he would have noted it in the post, ("1-1 BUT I hit my BIG play!")
2 - Everything posters of this ilk do - lines, bets, records, "cancelled" bets - is with the intent to con posters into believing they're winning.
Using standard odds of 110/100, the one win is worth $100.
The one loss (but three units at -125) is a loss of $375.00
So, a net loss of -$275.
Or, as he would have you believe, 1-1, about even.
DON'T BLINDLY TAIL ANYBODY!
