I also think that all 3 will lose.
Honestly.
I know you cant understand that, or why I would bet teams that I thought were going to lose.
So to come in and tell me that betting 3 dogs is wrong - when one of them has already lost - isnt very useful.
If I lose a game, a day, a week, or even the whole postseason isnt the issue. I play for longterm profits.
Do you keep track of that? Games you think are going to lose but play anyway because of line value? With the amount of games you play, it would seem that you could generate a large enough sample size to analyze in a short amount of time.
Do you keep track of that? Games you think are going to lose but play anyway because of line value? With the amount of games you play, it would seem that you could generate a large enough sample size to analyze in a short amount of time.
I keep track of everything.
Almost every underdog I play falls in to that category though. Certainly all underdogs over +120.
Nobody would have bet the rockies today at -100. Nobody would bet the Twins at -100. Nobody would bet the Dodgers today at -100. Anybody betting those 3 teams today bet them because of the PRICE, not because they thought they would win.
You should read the book "Fooled by Randomness" by Taleb. I am about halfway through it. It talks about probabilistic outcomes, and how he finds values in trading the stock market because people undervalue rare events (big underdogs in sports gambling).
Im not trying to make a point that big dogs in sports gambling have inherent value - it is just a fantastic book for spelling out how everything has a probability assigned to it - and the outcome is JUST ONE OF THE MANY OUTCOMES THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE - so the payout is the sole determinant to longterm success.
People at covers for the most part wont understand this. They want the winner of the day, and worship the hot capper of the day. The author talks about winning LONGTERM - and it is counterintuitive to follow a longterm winner who loses 99 out of 100 times, than a longterm loser who wins 99 out of 100 times. (the winner getting paid enough on his one win to cover the 99 losses, while the loser doesnt make enough on the 99 wins to cover the one loss). Given the choice, most gamblers will choose to follow the loser.
I keep track of everything.
Almost every underdog I play falls in to that category though. Certainly all underdogs over +120.
Nobody would have bet the rockies today at -100. Nobody would bet the Twins at -100. Nobody would bet the Dodgers today at -100. Anybody betting those 3 teams today bet them because of the PRICE, not because they thought they would win.
You should read the book "Fooled by Randomness" by Taleb. I am about halfway through it. It talks about probabilistic outcomes, and how he finds values in trading the stock market because people undervalue rare events (big underdogs in sports gambling).
Im not trying to make a point that big dogs in sports gambling have inherent value - it is just a fantastic book for spelling out how everything has a probability assigned to it - and the outcome is JUST ONE OF THE MANY OUTCOMES THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE - so the payout is the sole determinant to longterm success.
People at covers for the most part wont understand this. They want the winner of the day, and worship the hot capper of the day. The author talks about winning LONGTERM - and it is counterintuitive to follow a longterm winner who loses 99 out of 100 times, than a longterm loser who wins 99 out of 100 times. (the winner getting paid enough on his one win to cover the 99 losses, while the loser doesnt make enough on the 99 wins to cover the one loss). Given the choice, most gamblers will choose to follow the loser.
I think you are a prime candidate to pick up the book I mentioned "fooled by randomness". You can get it at the library.
It was recommended to me by secondagain, beeasy, and Koaj - it does a great job of summing up exactly what you say above - he talks in terms of the stock markets and trading - but just how life is all about probabilities - and how we are often "fooled by randomness" and attribute randomness to tangible things (trends in sportsbetting etc).
GL
I keep track of everything.
Almost every underdog I play falls in to that category though. Certainly all underdogs over +120.
Nobody would have bet the rockies today at -100. Nobody would bet the Twins at -100. Nobody would bet the Dodgers today at -100. Anybody betting those 3 teams today bet them because of the PRICE, not because they thought they would win.
You should read the book "Fooled by Randomness" by Taleb. I am about halfway through it. It talks about probabilistic outcomes, and how he finds values in trading the stock market because people undervalue rare events (big underdogs in sports gambling).
Im not trying to make a point that big dogs in sports gambling have inherent value - it is just a fantastic book for spelling out how everything has a probability assigned to it - and the outcome is JUST ONE OF THE MANY OUTCOMES THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE - so the payout is the sole determinant to longterm success.
People at covers for the most part wont understand this. They want the winner of the day, and worship the hot capper of the day. The author talks about winning LONGTERM - and it is counterintuitive to follow a longterm winner who loses 99 out of 100 times, than a longterm loser who wins 99 out of 100 times. (the winner getting paid enough on his one win to cover the 99 losses, while the loser doesnt make enough on the 99 wins to cover the one loss). Given the choice, most gamblers will choose to follow the loser.
Funny you should mention that, I'm actually in the middle of reading "Fooled By Randomness" right now. About halfway done. Its opened my eyes a bit that is for sure. When I finish the book I'd like to discuss some things with you.
I agree with you both.
Funny you should mention that, I'm actually in the middle of reading "Fooled By Randomness" right now. About halfway done. Its opened my eyes a bit that is for sure. When I finish the book I'd like to discuss some things with you.
I would love to as well.
I will be done with it by the end of the weekend....
.I have been at covers a long time, and I say to myself almost every day here that it is the worst it has ever been.
The IQ here is sub-retarded.
People at covers for the most part wont understand this. They want the winner of the day, and worship the hot capper of the day. The author talks about winning LONGTERM - and it is counterintuitive to follow a longterm winner who loses 99 out of 100 times, than a longterm loser who wins 99 out of 100 times. (the winner getting paid enough on his one win to cover the 99 losses, while the loser doesnt make enough on the 99 wins to cover the one loss). Given the choice, most gamblers will choose to follow the loser.
If Covers ever chooses to launch a spin-off site, how about FollowTheLoser.com? Could it be more pinpoint?
I keep track of everything.
Almost every underdog I play falls in to that category though. Certainly all underdogs over +120.
Nobody would have bet the rockies today at -100. Nobody would bet the Twins at -100. Nobody would bet the Dodgers today at -100. Anybody betting those 3 teams today bet them because of the PRICE, not because they thought they would win.
You should read the book "Fooled by Randomness" by Taleb. I am about halfway through it. It talks about probabilistic outcomes, and how he finds values in trading the stock market because people undervalue rare events (big underdogs in sports gambling).
Im not trying to make a point that big dogs in sports gambling have inherent value - it is just a fantastic book for spelling out how everything has a probability assigned to it - and the outcome is JUST ONE OF THE MANY OUTCOMES THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE - so the payout is the sole determinant to longterm success.
People at covers for the most part wont understand this. They want the winner of the day, and worship the hot capper of the day. The author talks about winning LONGTERM - and it is counterintuitive to follow a longterm winner who loses 99 out of 100 times, than a longterm loser who wins 99 out of 100 times. (the winner getting paid enough on his one win to cover the 99 losses, while the loser doesnt make enough on the 99 wins to cover the one loss). Given the choice, most gamblers will choose to follow the loser.
This is stuff that should be obvious, but isn't.
My main source of action is horseracing, which I have bet successfully for around 10 years now. Horseracing is all about value because most of the horses you are going to play are between 3-1 and 12-1 odds. By definition, even if the crowd is very "wrong," none of your horses have better than about a 35%-40% chance of winning, and often you are betting horses you think should be 5-1 (16.7% chance of winning w/o takeout) that are going off at 12-1. When novices go to the races with me they will ask who is going to win this race. To which I respond something like "that's not the point." Usually the favorite is the most likely winner and usually it's not a good bet. Occasionally it is. Tiznow in the Santa Anita Handicap in 2001 at even money for instance. That was incredibly generous - the horse should have been 2/5.
Anyway, this is why I like baseball, and why so many of my NFL betting friends have no ****ing clue what they are doing on baseball. Point spread bettors are just trying to pick the more likely outcome. That's what they are conditioned to do. The more likely outcome, however, is not very helpful in most baseball games because you have to assess the value, as in horseracing.
A friend of mine (who I call Woody Woodpecker because he loves -300 favorites) wanted to bet STL yesterday. I am a STL fan and went to the game, so I never bet STL games either way. But I told him it was insane to lay all that wood on a road team in Game 1 of a playoff series, regardless of pitching matchups, given that LA had won so many games. He didn't listen, of course.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
