<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pancho Sanza:
You couldn't be more wrong want.
Like Krack said, it may have been worth it way back when, but now its better to just keep the good number.
As far as risk vs return, there are strategies out there that are somewhat riskier, but the returns are so much greater (although more volatile) that it's not even close.
As far as you lookling at every angle, well all I can say is its obvious you missed some nuggets along the way.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not doing it full time this year so I can't be as definitive as in years past. BUT, there is no such thing as a "good" number.
The pre steam numbers have actually been the better numbers from what I have seen this year. Steam plays have been a disaster. They are hitting less than 25% from what I have seen. But then again what is steam, and what is favke steam? Unless you know the people that are causing the steam you can't say for sure. I am looking at games/lines, that move 15 or more cents from an original opener. And only lines that move very quickly, not a gradual move that takes all day to occur.
Agian, this isn't a pissing contest. I made money. I surely made enough to be happy. I also made enough over the past 8 years or so (with sports betting and poker as sole sources of income) to venture out into other things. Obviously I stil gamble, since I am basically working for myself, and still find the time t do it here and there. It just is boring as hell.
Having one way action is more exciting for sure, but what is better having a thrill or habing a bankroll?
It is like calling an all in with A 10 suited pre flop. You might have a couple over cards, and it surely is exciting, but at best you are 45% chance of winning. I would rather wait til I have the nuts, let theother guy bet, and snap his ass off then. That is much more exciting, and much mmore profiteable.
I know this is cross referencing, but it is all the same thing. Why gamble when you don't have to? Sooner or later, if you play your cards right (pun intended) you will get yours.
You couldn't be more wrong want.
Like Krack said, it may have been worth it way back when, but now its better to just keep the good number.
As far as risk vs return, there are strategies out there that are somewhat riskier, but the returns are so much greater (although more volatile) that it's not even close.
As far as you lookling at every angle, well all I can say is its obvious you missed some nuggets along the way.
I am not doing it full time this year so I can't be as definitive as in years past. BUT, there is no such thing as a "good" number.
The pre steam numbers have actually been the better numbers from what I have seen this year. Steam plays have been a disaster. They are hitting less than 25% from what I have seen. But then again what is steam, and what is favke steam? Unless you know the people that are causing the steam you can't say for sure. I am looking at games/lines, that move 15 or more cents from an original opener. And only lines that move very quickly, not a gradual move that takes all day to occur.
Agian, this isn't a pissing contest. I made money. I surely made enough to be happy. I also made enough over the past 8 years or so (with sports betting and poker as sole sources of income) to venture out into other things. Obviously I stil gamble, since I am basically working for myself, and still find the time t do it here and there. It just is boring as hell.
Having one way action is more exciting for sure, but what is better having a thrill or habing a bankroll?
It is like calling an all in with A 10 suited pre flop. You might have a couple over cards, and it surely is exciting, but at best you are 45% chance of winning. I would rather wait til I have the nuts, let theother guy bet, and snap his ass off then. That is much more exciting, and much mmore profiteable.
I know this is cross referencing, but it is all the same thing. Why gamble when you don't have to? Sooner or later, if you play your cards right (pun intended) you will get yours.
I really do not have a problem with any profitable method. I think the key is determining what will be profitable in which situation. There are some games where I middle, scalp and gamble. I do a lot of blends, part of position scalps, to earn the juice for the middle. Good example last two NBA Finals game. I was gambling with Motown to win in 5, +2.30. I could have done a lot of things with that position, in game #5. Middled taking +3 1/2 Lakers, scalped taking +1.60 against +2.30, or gamble. I gambled. But I had gambled just to get into that position with game #4. After the result, you choose again. Also I shot middles and scalps with totals, hitting 3 middles in last two games. One 2nd half middle I also scalped to pay for juice. If middle had not hit, was a cheap or free shot. That is my OMNIVOROUS approach, I take it all in, as long as there seems to be a shot. It all fits the bigger picture with football and basketball. Could I scalp fulltime, probably not. And college football middles can break you on juice. You have to be very selective. So, in my case, there is no (vs). Best Wishes...OF
OF, that is the only way I bet the NBA now. Series prices, and futures. I don't bet the regular season at all, and am further ahead for sure.
It seems like boks have no idea how to correlate trueodds for series based on how they post ML for games.
I have also done this in bases here and there the past couple years. Although in 3 game they are much better at getting it close. But even so a series might be -120/+110, and going int the final game you might get -105 both ways, so depending on how it turns out you have your odds built in. It generally works better on the dog side, meaing betting the dog in the series, and hoping they win one of the first two. This is obviously moot if they go 0-2 the first two. These are of course more gamble than anything, but can offer some nice shots.
As far as middles. The only thing I saw that was consistantly worth middling was the WNBA a few years ago, but now the movement is almost non existant, so not even worth looking at aymore.
It seems like boks have no idea how to correlate trueodds for series based on how they post ML for games.
I have also done this in bases here and there the past couple years. Although in 3 game they are much better at getting it close. But even so a series might be -120/+110, and going int the final game you might get -105 both ways, so depending on how it turns out you have your odds built in. It generally works better on the dog side, meaing betting the dog in the series, and hoping they win one of the first two. This is obviously moot if they go 0-2 the first two. These are of course more gamble than anything, but can offer some nice shots.
As far as middles. The only thing I saw that was consistantly worth middling was the WNBA a few years ago, but now the movement is almost non existant, so not even worth looking at aymore.
