Well if you won't lay more than three then it makes no sense to take les than three either I would have to assume. Thinking that way pretty much eliminates about a third of all the NFL games.
It also puts a huge predisposition for you to get dogs to cover. Which had been profitable until last year for themost part. Obviously a generice rule, and not set in stone.
But ANY limitation especially in the NFL is a detriment. Even if you do not follow it to the letter of a law, it has an underlying psychological affect on a person when they are thinking about betting a game that has that benchmark.
It also puts a huge predisposition for you to get dogs to cover. Which had been profitable until last year for themost part. Obviously a generice rule, and not set in stone.
But ANY limitation especially in the NFL is a detriment. Even if you do not follow it to the letter of a law, it has an underlying psychological affect on a person when they are thinking about betting a game that has that benchmark.
That is a great point fish!! I'm a horseplayer myself and can't begin to tell you how many times people will tell me "that isn't the way you should bet". When in reality I have a proven track record of winning year in and year out. Have always believed people should bet the way they are comfortable and not worry about what anybody else says.Fishhead said:
btw: I happen to have a 4 point spread as my limit..
But ANY limitation especially in the NFL is a detriment. Even if you do not follow it to the letter of a law, it has an underlying psychological affect on a person when they are thinking about betting a game that has that benchmark... QUOTE by Wantitall
Actually, by following this particular rule to the EXACT tea, the psyclological affect you are talking about is 100% POSITIVE for me.
By the way, do you criticize the golf swing of Arnold Palmer?
Actually, by following this particular rule to the EXACT tea, the psyclological affect you are talking about is 100% POSITIVE for me.
By the way, do you criticize the golf swing of Arnold Palmer?
"It also puts a huge predisposition for you to get dogs to cover. Which had been profitable until last year for themost part. Obviously a generice rule, and not set in stone. "
Not sure under which time frame you are looking at ? but this is a common myth. ALthough you would lose less, betting dogs is not a winning prop over the long term the #s I have seen in the past are between 50% and 51% of the time dogs win maybe a little higher in some years but still with juice, a loser.
Not sure under which time frame you are looking at ? but this is a common myth. ALthough you would lose less, betting dogs is not a winning prop over the long term the #s I have seen in the past are between 50% and 51% of the time dogs win maybe a little higher in some years but still with juice, a loser.
Yes you are correct, if you NEVER bet a line that is more than -3, then that eliminates the psychology. Unfortuantely it takes a great deal of commitment to look at a team you think should be -10, and see them at -5.5. I have to think that may happen in 5-10 games a year. THAT is the psychological factor I am speaking of. If those games that you see that truly do stick out, cover, then what good does following that line of thinking do for you? You basically gave away 5 to 10 winners in a sport where 5-10 winners can most definately mean the difference between winning or losing.
But it isn't a criticism, it is more of an observation. Any line of thinking that is broadband and basically based on a blind assertion doesn't make sense. You can bet a team that moves to -2.5, but refuse to bet them if they are -3? Even if you bet the 3, NOT betting them at 3.5 is the same difference. Letting an arbitrary line made up by people who's sole job is to confuse, and moved by people that don't really have a clue more than half the time doesn't make sense.
NFL is maybe the sport where experience and finding small edges on a team by team basis, makes the most difference. So when you eliminate more than 2/3s the games on the schedule, at least on one side, it is a huge detriment.
To be successful you are basically relying on dogs to cover. Other than that you have 4-5 games a week with -3 faves or less, and basically you have about a 50/50 shot of having them win and cover as well.
It just makes your plays go from around 512 possible teams to maybe 300. That is a lot of sides to eliminate on a rule like this.
IMO it should be based on a game by game team by team basis. Hope you make enough right decsions to overcome the wrong ones. If I can hit 54% regualrly, then I will still hit 54% by betting the "bad" numbers. I doubt that eliminating plays will make my win percentage high enough to over compensate the volme.
But it isn't a criticism, it is more of an observation. Any line of thinking that is broadband and basically based on a blind assertion doesn't make sense. You can bet a team that moves to -2.5, but refuse to bet them if they are -3? Even if you bet the 3, NOT betting them at 3.5 is the same difference. Letting an arbitrary line made up by people who's sole job is to confuse, and moved by people that don't really have a clue more than half the time doesn't make sense.
NFL is maybe the sport where experience and finding small edges on a team by team basis, makes the most difference. So when you eliminate more than 2/3s the games on the schedule, at least on one side, it is a huge detriment.
To be successful you are basically relying on dogs to cover. Other than that you have 4-5 games a week with -3 faves or less, and basically you have about a 50/50 shot of having them win and cover as well.
It just makes your plays go from around 512 possible teams to maybe 300. That is a lot of sides to eliminate on a rule like this.
IMO it should be based on a game by game team by team basis. Hope you make enough right decsions to overcome the wrong ones. If I can hit 54% regualrly, then I will still hit 54% by betting the "bad" numbers. I doubt that eliminating plays will make my win percentage high enough to over compensate the volme.
It's not a weakness to have some personal rules you follow, in the NBA for instance I don't lay money on road favs. After years of tracking my own results I have found that was a bankroll drain for me. Sure it cuts down on the amount of available games you can bet but if it cuts the fat out then you are miles ahead of the game.
Not saying it's best for everyone, if you look at the card and every side and total is bettable at the same level of competency more power to you. To make it long term it's not enough to know what you are good at, find out what you are weak at. The edge we do have in books is we can invest, when we want, how much we want, and on what we want. Why play in traffic if you don't have to?
Not saying it's best for everyone, if you look at the card and every side and total is bettable at the same level of competency more power to you. To make it long term it's not enough to know what you are good at, find out what you are weak at. The edge we do have in books is we can invest, when we want, how much we want, and on what we want. Why play in traffic if you don't have to?
Yes you are correct, if you NEVER bet a line that is more than -3, then that eliminates the psychology. Unfortuantely it takes a great deal of commitment to look at a team you think should be -10, and see them at -5.5. I have to think that may happen in 5-10 games a year. THAT is the psychological factor I am speaking of.......QUOTE by Wantit
In the above scenario you mentioned, that doesnt bother me in the LEAST.
More times than not, those games are possibly TRAP situations anyway.
Like i have mentioned before, respect any and everybodys position if it works for them.
Meanwhile, i will personally go about my merry way and follow this rule and a few others for the time-being ...........STRICTLY.
In the above scenario you mentioned, that doesnt bother me in the LEAST.
More times than not, those games are possibly TRAP situations anyway.
Like i have mentioned before, respect any and everybodys position if it works for them.
Meanwhile, i will personally go about my merry way and follow this rule and a few others for the time-being ...........STRICTLY.
I am a little confused here- is fishhead the Lee Trevino of sportsbetting, or the Arnold Palmer?
It is sad to see so many come to the defense of something so ridiculous. I don't mean to bash fishhead, but I believe you owe it to your "followers" to give a better explanation of your "rule" than:
"There are MANY underlying factors, as well as the obvious, as to why i will never do this again in my lifetime............reasons that would take hours of sitting down and talking face to face to my fellow comrades to explain."
I blame our education system.:bowl:
It is sad to see so many come to the defense of something so ridiculous. I don't mean to bash fishhead, but I believe you owe it to your "followers" to give a better explanation of your "rule" than:
"There are MANY underlying factors, as well as the obvious, as to why i will never do this again in my lifetime............reasons that would take hours of sitting down and talking face to face to my fellow comrades to explain."
I blame our education system.:bowl:
