sharp post win,drinking and gambling dont mix
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fezzik:
The only problem is that the books are pretty bad. And the best selling books aren't the ones you should be reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Fez ...
Where may we examine your long term documented and verifiable record on sports gambling from an unbiased 3rd party ?
You talk a good game. I can only assume you have it documented so your credibility is unquestionable.
Link ?
TIA
-K1
The only problem is that the books are pretty bad. And the best selling books aren't the ones you should be reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Fez ...
Where may we examine your long term documented and verifiable record on sports gambling from an unbiased 3rd party ?
You talk a good game. I can only assume you have it documented so your credibility is unquestionable.
Link ?
TIA
-K1
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fezzik:
The only problem is that the books are pretty bad. And the best selling books aren't the ones you should be reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fez:
I bought Wong's "Sharp Sports Betting" book and it has sound sound advice in it, including some by you. I asked this question in a thread in this forum "when will Fezzik write a book about sports gambling?" Can we expect you to be publishing sometime soon? I would buy one of your books.
Can you tell us which books are the best ones?
The only problem is that the books are pretty bad. And the best selling books aren't the ones you should be reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fez:
I bought Wong's "Sharp Sports Betting" book and it has sound sound advice in it, including some by you. I asked this question in a thread in this forum "when will Fezzik write a book about sports gambling?" Can we expect you to be publishing sometime soon? I would buy one of your books.
Can you tell us which books are the best ones?
I have no desire to put something in print right now.
Re: Credibility. I won't bore any with my personal betting experiences which go back many years.
Sharpsportsbetting.com has my 2001-2003 betting results vs. Widely Available lines. In 2001 and 2002 my picks were given out at Sharpsportsbetting.com. In 2003 my picks were given out at LVAsports.com and SSB.
LVAsports.com shows my 2004 hoops record.
My winning record has been around 54%ATS. My NFL record has been much better than my college football record and hoops record.
My 2003 college football record was horrible, and really knocked down my overall win percentage to that 54% level.
If I see one more USC cover vs. an inflated line, I might break a remote control.
Re: Credibility. I won't bore any with my personal betting experiences which go back many years.
Sharpsportsbetting.com has my 2001-2003 betting results vs. Widely Available lines. In 2001 and 2002 my picks were given out at Sharpsportsbetting.com. In 2003 my picks were given out at LVAsports.com and SSB.
LVAsports.com shows my 2004 hoops record.
My winning record has been around 54%ATS. My NFL record has been much better than my college football record and hoops record.
My 2003 college football record was horrible, and really knocked down my overall win percentage to that 54% level.
If I see one more USC cover vs. an inflated line, I might break a remote control.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fezzik:
If I see one more USC cover vs. an inflated line, I might break a remote control. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
in other words, he is trying to say he will be on Va. Tech this weekend.
good luck in Week 1 of the Stardust Invite vs. David Stratton. Olympic has you a -140 fave, with Stratton +110
If I see one more USC cover vs. an inflated line, I might break a remote control. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
in other words, he is trying to say he will be on Va. Tech this weekend.
good luck in Week 1 of the Stardust Invite vs. David Stratton. Olympic has you a -140 fave, with Stratton +110
Never watch a game on tv. Never, if your're in this to win money. If you're a small bettor, fine, nothing wrong. Go get'm.
I think the key to sucessful handicapping is, however you handicapp, do the same for every team, every game of a season. Don't watch one game( you may see a good or bad game) since it's not a complete representation. If you have to mainline tv games, if you have to aggravitate yourself, then turn the sound down, don't ever listen to the ego moronic announcers. JMHO (I'm no big sucess either).....ScottyS
I think the key to sucessful handicapping is, however you handicapp, do the same for every team, every game of a season. Don't watch one game( you may see a good or bad game) since it's not a complete representation. If you have to mainline tv games, if you have to aggravitate yourself, then turn the sound down, don't ever listen to the ego moronic announcers. JMHO (I'm no big sucess either).....ScottyS
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fezzik:
I have no desire to put something in print right now.
Re: Credibility. I won't bore any with my personal betting experiences which go back many years.
Sharpsportsbetting.com has my 2001-2003 betting results vs. Widely Available lines. In 2001 and 2002 my picks were given out at Sharpsportsbetting.com. In 2003 my picks were given out at LVAsports.com and SSB.
LVAsports.com shows my 2004 hoops record.
My winning record has been around 54%ATS. My NFL record has been much better than my college football record and hoops record.
My 2003 college football record was horrible, and really knocked down my overall win percentage to that 54% level.
If I see one more USC cover vs. an inflated line, I might break a remote control. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unbiased 3rd Party documented results !
Too Funny
Good luck Fezz, reel em in pal.
-K1
I have no desire to put something in print right now.
Re: Credibility. I won't bore any with my personal betting experiences which go back many years.
Sharpsportsbetting.com has my 2001-2003 betting results vs. Widely Available lines. In 2001 and 2002 my picks were given out at Sharpsportsbetting.com. In 2003 my picks were given out at LVAsports.com and SSB.
LVAsports.com shows my 2004 hoops record.
My winning record has been around 54%ATS. My NFL record has been much better than my college football record and hoops record.
My 2003 college football record was horrible, and really knocked down my overall win percentage to that 54% level.
If I see one more USC cover vs. an inflated line, I might break a remote control. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unbiased 3rd Party documented results !
Too Funny
Good luck Fezz, reel em in pal.
-K1
http://forum.therx.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=100090022&f=988094022&m=600109771
University of knowledge here. I hope you are taking notes.
University of knowledge here. I hope you are taking notes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wantitall4moi:
If you like the dog bet the ML, if you like the fave don't worry about the points.
If you can pick the SU winner you will cash about 81% of the time. So aways best to have those extra odds with the dog on the ML than have them plus (usually) meaningless points at -107/110. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've seen this quoted many times and it is always misleading.
If the pointspread "only" comes into play 19% of the time (actually I've generally seen much lower, like 16%), let's look at the breakdown...
don't have numbers in front of me, but the dog covers about 51% so for 1000 games
dogs cover about 510
favs cover about 490
now if the spread comes into effect 19% of the time, that is 190 games.
Dog covers but doesn't win: 190
dog wins straight up 320
which means you need the pointspread about 37% of the time when playing dogs in order to win ATS.
or when picking dogs straight up instead of moneyline, you will lose an additional 1/3 of your bets
just a clarification before people start thinking the added points are not worthwhile
If you like the dog bet the ML, if you like the fave don't worry about the points.
If you can pick the SU winner you will cash about 81% of the time. So aways best to have those extra odds with the dog on the ML than have them plus (usually) meaningless points at -107/110. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've seen this quoted many times and it is always misleading.
If the pointspread "only" comes into play 19% of the time (actually I've generally seen much lower, like 16%), let's look at the breakdown...
don't have numbers in front of me, but the dog covers about 51% so for 1000 games
dogs cover about 510
favs cover about 490
now if the spread comes into effect 19% of the time, that is 190 games.
Dog covers but doesn't win: 190
dog wins straight up 320
which means you need the pointspread about 37% of the time when playing dogs in order to win ATS.
or when picking dogs straight up instead of moneyline, you will lose an additional 1/3 of your bets
just a clarification before people start thinking the added points are not worthwhile
