Mad,
I told you that you would only bet the Lakers -2200 if your stats say that they should win 96% and higher. If not, you don't bet it. Now if they lose the first game, yes, you are down 2200.. But now, according to your numbers, they should win 96 of the next 99.. And when they do, you will be up +800 dollars, instead of the current 2200 that you are down.
I told you that you would only bet the Lakers -2200 if your stats say that they should win 96% and higher. If not, you don't bet it. Now if they lose the first game, yes, you are down 2200.. But now, according to your numbers, they should win 96 of the next 99.. And when they do, you will be up +800 dollars, instead of the current 2200 that you are down.
Sick -
Yes, but you also have to take ionto consideration that for that bet you had to have a decent size bank roll. Because if all you have is 2 dimes, then you are done after that bet.
Anyway, we can argue bout this for years. I am just saying. I would stay away from anything over -160.
-MC
Yes, but you also have to take ionto consideration that for that bet you had to have a decent size bank roll. Because if all you have is 2 dimes, then you are done after that bet.
Anyway, we can argue bout this for years. I am just saying. I would stay away from anything over -160.
-MC
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadCapper:
Sick -
Yes, but you also have to take ionto consideration that for that bet you had to have a decent size bank roll. Because if all you have is 2 dimes, then you are done after that bet.
-MC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely. Bankroll was NEVER mentioned in this thread once. That is a whole new ballgame. But then again, if you have a 2 dime bankroll, you would not be playing 100 to lay over 2 dimes. You can still lay the 2200, but instead of winning 100, you can maybe bet to win 20 to lose 440 instead.
Sick -
Yes, but you also have to take ionto consideration that for that bet you had to have a decent size bank roll. Because if all you have is 2 dimes, then you are done after that bet.
-MC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely. Bankroll was NEVER mentioned in this thread once. That is a whole new ballgame. But then again, if you have a 2 dime bankroll, you would not be playing 100 to lay over 2 dimes. You can still lay the 2200, but instead of winning 100, you can maybe bet to win 20 to lose 440 instead.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
There you go jwunderdog.
I would not suggest to any new player to be laying much vig. 110 is hard enough to beat, let alone 111 or more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
_______
Geez General, then why the hell do you even ask us if you knew the answer to it already. So you're going against me and fish here. Do you hear that fish? This kid is going against our opinion.. General, keep betting only -110's and don't bet teams that are only laying 135 with teams at home who have 59-22 records, as in my Spos this year. My spos were 59-22 at home Genny, and guess what, they're were laying an avg of 130 a game as a favorite. But no, that was not smart right, because it was over -110.
I can't believe you wasted my time for the last 20 minutes answering you and giving you my advice, then you go against me.
YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There you go jwunderdog.
I would not suggest to any new player to be laying much vig. 110 is hard enough to beat, let alone 111 or more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
_______
Geez General, then why the hell do you even ask us if you knew the answer to it already. So you're going against me and fish here. Do you hear that fish? This kid is going against our opinion.. General, keep betting only -110's and don't bet teams that are only laying 135 with teams at home who have 59-22 records, as in my Spos this year. My spos were 59-22 at home Genny, and guess what, they're were laying an avg of 130 a game as a favorite. But no, that was not smart right, because it was over -110.
I can't believe you wasted my time for the last 20 minutes answering you and giving you my advice, then you go against me.
YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL.
Good info SG. Thanks for the participation. Of course I already had an opinion. I was born in the dark, but not last night
I do see your point about the ML, but that's some tracking to do there over several seasons. I track every Team in the NBA ATS (sides & totals) every season on a spreadsheet. I do not track ML's though.
Good info SG. Thanks for the participation. Of course I already had an opinion. I was born in the dark, but not last night
I do see your point about the ML, but that's some tracking to do there over several seasons. I track every Team in the NBA ATS (sides & totals) every season on a spreadsheet. I do not track ML's though.
This thread is quite telling of some poster's lack of expertise when betting on sports...
Rather than pointing out some of the distorted thinking, I can say that Sick Gambler and Strutt are 2 people who people should pay very close attention to if they want to improve their chances of winning in the long run...
THE SHRINK
Rather than pointing out some of the distorted thinking, I can say that Sick Gambler and Strutt are 2 people who people should pay very close attention to if they want to improve their chances of winning in the long run...
THE SHRINK
Sick, what kind of analogy is that, so what if the Expos were 59-22 at home. That is after the fact, meaningless #. Tell me what their record is going to be next year and it may mean something. That would be like me saying I should have faded det. every game because now that I know they only will win 25% of their games it's a money maker.
JWUNDERDOG
I TOTALLY AGREE. IT'S AFTER THE FACT, AND I AM NOT STUPID. THAT'S LIKE SOMEONE SAID THIS WEEK THAT BETTING FAV'S IN THE NFL ARE A GOOD BET BECAUSE THEY WENT 14-1 THIS PAST WEEK. I KNOW.. IT'S AFTER THE FACT.
BUT THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS BETTING -170'S ARE NOT STUPID. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY -170'S I'VE PLAYED IN MY CAREER THAT WERE GREAT VALUE WITH THE ACE OF THE STAFF AT HOME AND THE SCORE WOULD BE 6-0 FINAL AND PITCHER PITCHES A 2 HIT SHUTOUT AND I GET AN EASY WIN. I AM JUST SAYIN THAT LAYING 170 IS NOT DUMB, LIKE PEOPLE MIGHT THINK. YOU LAY MORE JUICE, BUT YOU WIN MORE GAMES, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO LAYING 110 AND WINNING LESS GAMES.. THERE'S NO DISADVANTAGE LAYING 170, AND I AM SURE YOU AGREE WITH ME.
I TOTALLY AGREE. IT'S AFTER THE FACT, AND I AM NOT STUPID. THAT'S LIKE SOMEONE SAID THIS WEEK THAT BETTING FAV'S IN THE NFL ARE A GOOD BET BECAUSE THEY WENT 14-1 THIS PAST WEEK. I KNOW.. IT'S AFTER THE FACT.
BUT THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS BETTING -170'S ARE NOT STUPID. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY -170'S I'VE PLAYED IN MY CAREER THAT WERE GREAT VALUE WITH THE ACE OF THE STAFF AT HOME AND THE SCORE WOULD BE 6-0 FINAL AND PITCHER PITCHES A 2 HIT SHUTOUT AND I GET AN EASY WIN. I AM JUST SAYIN THAT LAYING 170 IS NOT DUMB, LIKE PEOPLE MIGHT THINK. YOU LAY MORE JUICE, BUT YOU WIN MORE GAMES, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO LAYING 110 AND WINNING LESS GAMES.. THERE'S NO DISADVANTAGE LAYING 170, AND I AM SURE YOU AGREE WITH ME.
Nobody here is stupid. The question was in regards to a new player.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just curious if this is good strategy to help a newer guy do better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The new player would be hard pressed to understand what all is being discussed here anyway with the ML's.
I suggest to friends not to play the heavy vig. I think that is solid advice to your average bettor. Not for your average Rx poster maybe
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just curious if this is good strategy to help a newer guy do better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The new player would be hard pressed to understand what all is being discussed here anyway with the ML's.
I suggest to friends not to play the heavy vig. I think that is solid advice to your average bettor. Not for your average Rx poster maybe
"I never posted there is no value in big favorites, but it is harder to find because of the extra vig that goes with it"
There is no extra vig in playing big favourites. If you play randomly into a -110/-110 line, then in the long run you will lose 4.8% of your turnover. If you play randomly into a -200/+180 line, even if every bet is on the -200 favourite, then over the long run you will only lose 2.4% of your turnover.
The only factor that affects your profits is the probability of the event occurring compared to the line that you bet at. Dogs, favourites...it doesn't matter.
There is no extra vig in playing big favourites. If you play randomly into a -110/-110 line, then in the long run you will lose 4.8% of your turnover. If you play randomly into a -200/+180 line, even if every bet is on the -200 favourite, then over the long run you will only lose 2.4% of your turnover.
The only factor that affects your profits is the probability of the event occurring compared to the line that you bet at. Dogs, favourites...it doesn't matter.
