3rd,
I agree with you -- almost to the word. I said in my post to the shrink that the only reason he paid the 7 was because the bet was not cancelled immediately. The other 2 bets were tied together and from the view of Dave were clear "shots" at a bad line.
NOW, I HATE the bad line rule and think that any book that has it is potentially a scam book. BUT, show me an off-shore that does not have the rule. Show me a watchdog that demands the books to take the rule out of their rules before they take their advertising dollars. It is a farce. Shink and accross the street take advertising money from joints that they know have the bad line clause in their rules and NOW The Shrink is bustin Daves balls. Shrink, make your advertisers take out the bad line rule and then you will really be on top of your game. I damn sure would support that effort.
I agree with you -- almost to the word. I said in my post to the shrink that the only reason he paid the 7 was because the bet was not cancelled immediately. The other 2 bets were tied together and from the view of Dave were clear "shots" at a bad line.
NOW, I HATE the bad line rule and think that any book that has it is potentially a scam book. BUT, show me an off-shore that does not have the rule. Show me a watchdog that demands the books to take the rule out of their rules before they take their advertising dollars. It is a farce. Shink and accross the street take advertising money from joints that they know have the bad line clause in their rules and NOW The Shrink is bustin Daves balls. Shrink, make your advertisers take out the bad line rule and then you will really be on top of your game. I damn sure would support that effort.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SunDevil:
Beenthere, as I said earlier please refute the mathematical analysis of my other thread or desist from calling the +605/-435 situation a "worse" line than the +120/+100....because that simply is not the truth. Numbers don't lie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sundevil, I was not using Pinnacle + 435 but rather cbs plus 400. The numbers I posted of 33% and 18% are both close to accurate using the numbers I was using. The 18% variance is pushing the envelop BUT, you must understand, I think a bet written should be a bet paid. I am not taking up for Dave, I am simply saying that if the f/ing rule is in place everywhere is is foolish to think that it will not be used AND this was a place it was justified in being used.
Beenthere, as I said earlier please refute the mathematical analysis of my other thread or desist from calling the +605/-435 situation a "worse" line than the +120/+100....because that simply is not the truth. Numbers don't lie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sundevil, I was not using Pinnacle + 435 but rather cbs plus 400. The numbers I posted of 33% and 18% are both close to accurate using the numbers I was using. The 18% variance is pushing the envelop BUT, you must understand, I think a bet written should be a bet paid. I am not taking up for Dave, I am simply saying that if the f/ing rule is in place everywhere is is foolish to think that it will not be used AND this was a place it was justified in being used.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raiders72001:
Beenthere- When you get a little more experience on the posting boards you will realize the reason for the question. GL rookie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you catch up to the number of post I have around the net, I will take that under advisement. I signed up under the name of beentheredonethat to give a poster who has been proven to be a scammer a little follower --- I have several hundred post here under another name and a few thousand accross the street under a different name. Rookie? I doubt anyone in the business would call me a rookie.
Beenthere- When you get a little more experience on the posting boards you will realize the reason for the question. GL rookie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you catch up to the number of post I have around the net, I will take that under advisement. I signed up under the name of beentheredonethat to give a poster who has been proven to be a scammer a little follower --- I have several hundred post here under another name and a few thousand accross the street under a different name. Rookie? I doubt anyone in the business would call me a rookie.
Beenthere- With each statement you prove more and more why I wanted to know who you are. Your opinions are contrary to the knowledgeable posters on this board. You are taking up a position for a book when it's obvious to most that the book is wrong. You signed up June 24 and have 12 posts. You do the math.
Beenthere, you're still missing my point that I hoped to make clear in the other thread. The "variance" figures you are posting are irrelevant. Any scalper (with a finite bankroll and/or finite limits) will be better off encountering a +100/+120 situation than they will encountering a -435/+605 situation. Hence a book hanging a +120 when they should be hanging a +100 is actually hanging a "worse" line than the CBS did in hanging their +605 if a -435 was available (as it was). This is exactly why the +605 is a "bad line" defense holds no water unless one is first willing to say that the +120 would be a "bad line" and void plays made on that number.
Raiders,
The "knowledgeable posters" are playing into books that have the rule in place. Hell are even playing into books that have the Little Nasa rule in place. Why should anyone be surprised when the books dust of the rule and use it. The crime is not that they use it and anyone being amazed about that is naive BUT, the crime is the rule is there in the first place.
The "knowledgeable posters" are playing into books that have the rule in place. Hell are even playing into books that have the Little Nasa rule in place. Why should anyone be surprised when the books dust of the rule and use it. The crime is not that they use it and anyone being amazed about that is naive BUT, the crime is the rule is there in the first place.
Sundevil,
It is you that is missing the point. betcbs did not have 435, they had 400 which is what I was basing my math on. AND, I did not say that the plus 120 vs plus 100 was not a bad line. Hell, I have seen half time lines cancelled because of a point difference --- the issue is as I have said, not that they cancelled the bet BUT that they have the rule in place that will allow the bet to be cancelled.
It is you that is missing the point. betcbs did not have 435, they had 400 which is what I was basing my math on. AND, I did not say that the plus 120 vs plus 100 was not a bad line. Hell, I have seen half time lines cancelled because of a point difference --- the issue is as I have said, not that they cancelled the bet BUT that they have the rule in place that will allow the bet to be cancelled.
Shrink-
Top notch post.
I have STRONG doubts about the claim that they knew about the line before the game started. From my past experience, their standard operating procedure is to have no idea that the bets were even in, until after the game was graded and they saw the sheet for the day (considering how early the Tennis match was played). Most likely, Dave Johnson and his merry management were not even in the office that morning until after the work was graded.
If the date was Monday the 23rd, when Areeff first posted. No day baseball (first game 7:05 EDT). Do you really think anybody was there and aware when the game got graded?
The funny thing is: if my guess is actually correct, then it was yet another bone-head move for Dave to make up a lie that is more damaging than the truth. Wouldn't be the first time.
As Areeff responded, Dave is an accomplished spin-doctor, but no matter how artistically you try to sculpt crap, it's still crap.
CBS: Caught Bull Shitting
Top notch post.
I have STRONG doubts about the claim that they knew about the line before the game started. From my past experience, their standard operating procedure is to have no idea that the bets were even in, until after the game was graded and they saw the sheet for the day (considering how early the Tennis match was played). Most likely, Dave Johnson and his merry management were not even in the office that morning until after the work was graded.
If the date was Monday the 23rd, when Areeff first posted. No day baseball (first game 7:05 EDT). Do you really think anybody was there and aware when the game got graded?
The funny thing is: if my guess is actually correct, then it was yet another bone-head move for Dave to make up a lie that is more damaging than the truth. Wouldn't be the first time.
As Areeff responded, Dave is an accomplished spin-doctor, but no matter how artistically you try to sculpt crap, it's still crap.
CBS: Caught Bull Shitting
Raider,
I am not really missing the point. I think that every bet could have been cancelled given the rule that is in place. The 7 bets were not cancelled because the rule did not allow it, but rather because Dave felt that given the circumstances it was the appropriate thing to do to pay them. The two that were not paid were in Dave's opinion taking a shot and KNEW they were taking a shot. The rule should not have ever been accepted that allows for a cancelled bet but, alias, it was ---- and Dave decided he would cancel the bets. The line mistake was there (I did not investigate this and the post showing plus 600 at eurobet puts this in doubt) and he had the right to cancel it. He should be praised for paying the bets he paid, not taken to task for not paying the guys that took the shot. AGAIN, GIVEN THE UNACCEPTABLE RULES THAT WE ALL AGREE TO PLAY BY ALLOWING THE BOOKS SOLE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE IF A LINE IS BAD.
I am not really missing the point. I think that every bet could have been cancelled given the rule that is in place. The 7 bets were not cancelled because the rule did not allow it, but rather because Dave felt that given the circumstances it was the appropriate thing to do to pay them. The two that were not paid were in Dave's opinion taking a shot and KNEW they were taking a shot. The rule should not have ever been accepted that allows for a cancelled bet but, alias, it was ---- and Dave decided he would cancel the bets. The line mistake was there (I did not investigate this and the post showing plus 600 at eurobet puts this in doubt) and he had the right to cancel it. He should be praised for paying the bets he paid, not taken to task for not paying the guys that took the shot. AGAIN, GIVEN THE UNACCEPTABLE RULES THAT WE ALL AGREE TO PLAY BY ALLOWING THE BOOKS SOLE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE IF A LINE IS BAD.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SunDevil:
Beenthere...
If a player bets into a +120 when the market consensus is at +100, should the book have the right to cancel the play? If you think not and think that somehow Areff bet into a worse line than that by taking Dave's +605, please see my "Math of bad lines" thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well this thread is SURE bringing out a lot of lurkers!
Sun Devil, there are many cases in which we can complement a common sensical explanation with a mathematical demonstration (P Chem is a good example of this). There are times when the mathematical result does not accord with our common sense.
Let's apply this notion to the CBS situation and deal with your mathematical theory. In short, the difference is $20 on the $100 w/a +100/+120 line discrepancy VERSUS $205 on the dollar w/a +400/+605 line discrep. It is $20 versus $205.
I don't need to look past the common sense reasoning, $20 versus $205--YES there is a difference. If I had to derive the formula, that could be done as well but would come at a considerable expense.
Beenthere...
If a player bets into a +120 when the market consensus is at +100, should the book have the right to cancel the play? If you think not and think that somehow Areff bet into a worse line than that by taking Dave's +605, please see my "Math of bad lines" thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well this thread is SURE bringing out a lot of lurkers!
Sun Devil, there are many cases in which we can complement a common sensical explanation with a mathematical demonstration (P Chem is a good example of this). There are times when the mathematical result does not accord with our common sense.
Let's apply this notion to the CBS situation and deal with your mathematical theory. In short, the difference is $20 on the $100 w/a +100/+120 line discrepancy VERSUS $205 on the dollar w/a +400/+605 line discrep. It is $20 versus $205.
I don't need to look past the common sense reasoning, $20 versus $205--YES there is a difference. If I had to derive the formula, that could be done as well but would come at a considerable expense.
