Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
@brn2loslive2win
Quote Originally Posted by brn2loslive2win:
@vanzack Something I’ve been thinking about lately- I’ll use the Tampa/Detroit game as an example. If the lines available to me are Tampa +6.5 -110 or Tampa +6 +100. In a situation like this I assume that you would play it as a 6.75 with an average -105. Instead of this do you think it’s better to just put the whole bet on +6? The way I see it is that if it’s a 7 point Detroit win, I lose either way. The only drawback is obviously that in a 6 point game I push whereas the 6.5 bettors win. Seeing as only a small percentage of games land on a 6 point margin, is it better to make the bet on 6 with no juice? Why bother paying for 6.5 or 6.75? Again, at 7 the bet is a loser anyway, so why not just make the bet with zero vig? Maybe it’s silly to trade off a possible win for a push (on a 6 point game obviously) but in the long term is it better to be paying no vig and trade off the occasional push for a win?
Lemme take a crack: First off, +6 +100, there's still vig. Even though you're receiving 100% of your bet, there's still vig you're giving up in the range between the +100 and whatever -negative number you see for the -6 Detroit line (only saying all this to help reframe your perspective on value/lines/price/etc.). That's like saying there's no vig on betting red in roulette. Even though you're getting "even money", you're not getting exactly true odds in return, and the vig is hidden within the green numbers at the table (in simple terms). As for 6vs6.25, it boils down to long term value betting that +6.25 (-105) than +6.0 (+100). If Van, for example, liked a +6.25(-105) play more than a +6(+100) play, I guarantee you he's done the math of what the long term value would be if he put the entire wager on the +6 instead of getting the +6.25. And he decided there's long term value (over thousands of plays) receiving 5% less than even money. That's not to say every 6.25vs6.0 situation means there's more value on the 6.25. You just have to do your own calculation. First layer would be looking at key numbers throughout the NFL and where they land. Second layer would apply a normal distribution to the results you see in this game, and see if it's weighted more in any other key numbers, or spread out in a way that says that extra 5% you'd receive in all non-6point Detroit winning finals OUTWEIGHS the moments (although 'rare' as they might seem) when you pushed when you could have received half a win (nearly 50% more return than the push).
|
vanzack | 175 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Quote Originally Posted by the1toturn2: I have bee liking the Falcons all week What is your reasoning for the Bucs? Mostly has to do with the Falcons cannot get to the passer and is horrible against the pass. Baker can get it done when not under constant pressure - he should have time today - and the ATL secondary has been terrible. Atl has no offensive advantage - and if they fall behind Ridder is 3rd in the NFL in turnover potential. All of it adds up to a good day for TB. @van, in this regard, looks like Falcons are #4 in Hurry% and #3 in Pressure% I assume you've pinpointed how that % changes when they are up vs when they are down? |
vanzack | 94 |
|
|
Marlins dropped below +195 earlier today....so why weren't they a play?
|
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
I sent you a friend request Luckydan
|
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
I hope I dont' seem like a basher, I just don't like seeing these kind of threads, where people might come in, and blow their bankroll by accidentally hitting the downswing of these underdogs.
We're all in this together to get the bookies, and we need better discussions about it
|
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
You could also argue that at some books the Padres and Royals cracked the +135 threshold.
So this 'system' can even change depending on the book your'e at. If you're at 5dimes, with reduced juice (as smart handicappers should be taking advantage of), they would have 2 extra losses with the Padres and Royals. Trust me when I say you need a more sound underdog approach. I like what irage is doing in his underdog thread, and I like what ADG is doing in regards to systems
|
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Luckydan: I played it daily thru this site last year. I was up around 8K playing $100 increments. I backed off in September with football starting. I researched this system prior to last season, and was impressed with the simplicity of the system as well as always being on the dog side. It is having a good night tonight with 2 in and leading in the third game as of this post. Good Luck. I don't doubt your results, but you can see when backtracking, you just hit a good stretch. It, LIKE EVERY OTHER SYSTEM, regresses back down to its mean
|
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
Someone on this forum sent me the 2010 results and its exactly like I said....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anojo4_0kvDSdFhZNTQ1Nm1LdEJaSm1TREc0MzVDZlE |
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
This system looks all great and all, because underdogs do go on streaks, but they also drop in crazy stretches where you will lose your bankroll in hours
|
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
Like I said last year....
just like rc1 mentioned on page 2, this system has been out for a while and another poster (LasVegasSystems) dissected the hell out of it.
think about the point in a few weeks, when you have a couple d bets, a c bet, a few b bets, and a sprinkling of a. there are points, he explained,where youll lose about 60% of your bankroll in a couple days. THAT'S IDIOTIC. and like the great vanzack always says, chasing is for losers. just tryin to help yall before you get knee deep in this. it happens far too often on this system&strategies section |
jv040 | 201 |
|
|
OKC should have been the play. I had no idea Jack was out for GS
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
Milwaukee is a play.
[C] (Larry sanders out)
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
Clearly, CHARLOTTE will be a 2H play
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
Good to see you in the black. Keep it up, and best of luck to our knicks and heat plays
|
StoneColdNinja | 13 |
|
|
[F] Portland Trailblazers +5
(cuz Batum and Matthews seem to playing)
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Shabazlyq: [C] Indiana Pacers -2.5 (don't like this play, with the 76er injuries, and Pacers on b2b2b. But it's on the spreadsheet nevertheless) Mistake; play should be [A] Indiana Pacers +2.5
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
[A] New York Knicks -5
(Beal out for WAS)
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
[C] Charlotte Bobcats +6
(MKG out)
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by asian_shadow: is at +2.5 not -2.5 Thanks. Sorry for the typo
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
|
Need confirmation on Batum and Matthews for the POR/DAL game
|
Shabazlyq | 19 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.