The reason you guys don't understand is, it's beyond your comprehension. If you don't think a team in baseball has a 50/50 chance to win. You have no idea about percentages or how the game of baseball works. The worst team in the league has a 50/50 chance at beating the best team in the league. In baseball. You don't know that?
0
Quote Originally Posted by fsutomahawk:
This is beyond stupid
The reason you guys don't understand is, it's beyond your comprehension. If you don't think a team in baseball has a 50/50 chance to win. You have no idea about percentages or how the game of baseball works. The worst team in the league has a 50/50 chance at beating the best team in the league. In baseball. You don't know that?
The reason you guys don't understand is, it's beyond your comprehension. If you don't think a team in baseball has a 50/50 chance to win. You have no idea about percentages or how the game of baseball works. The worst team in the league has a 50/50 chance at beating the best team in the league. In baseball. You don't know that?
Enjoy the hookers and booze
0
Quote Originally Posted by dcmc34f:
The reason you guys don't understand is, it's beyond your comprehension. If you don't think a team in baseball has a 50/50 chance to win. You have no idea about percentages or how the game of baseball works. The worst team in the league has a 50/50 chance at beating the best team in the league. In baseball. You don't know that?
If you think Houston has a 50/50 chance of beating Justin Verlander, I have a lot of cool stuff I can sell you.
Now, usually the public will pound Verlander, and make the Tigers odds of winning higher than the actual odds...thus you will lose long term eating chalk and being a square on his games.
Winning long term in gambling is all about spotting value, and staying away from guarantees. The whole time knowing you will lose some games in the process. A perfect example tonight is Cuba. Cuba at -300 is awful value. The play today IF you put a gun to my head is the Dutch...however its just a no play for me as I don't have a Colt 45 placed against my noggin.
If you don't understand this basic idea you should clean your account, and just watch.
0
If you think Houston has a 50/50 chance of beating Justin Verlander, I have a lot of cool stuff I can sell you.
Now, usually the public will pound Verlander, and make the Tigers odds of winning higher than the actual odds...thus you will lose long term eating chalk and being a square on his games.
Winning long term in gambling is all about spotting value, and staying away from guarantees. The whole time knowing you will lose some games in the process. A perfect example tonight is Cuba. Cuba at -300 is awful value. The play today IF you put a gun to my head is the Dutch...however its just a no play for me as I don't have a Colt 45 placed against my noggin.
If you don't understand this basic idea you should clean your account, and just watch.
If you think Houston has a 50/50 chance of beating Justin Verlander, I have a lot of cool stuff I can sell you.
Now, usually the public will pound Verlander, and make the Tigers odds of winning higher than the actual odds...thus you will lose long term eating chalk and being a square on his games.
Winning long term in gambling is all about spotting value, and staying away from guarantees. The whole time knowing you will lose some games in the process. A perfect example tonight is Cuba. Cuba at -300 is awful value. The play today IF you put a gun to my head is the Dutch...however its just a no play for me as I don't have a Colt 45 placed against my noggin.
If you don't understand this basic idea you should clean your account, and just watch.
Just for the record, the one time Verlander faced the Astros.118 pitches, 5 inns. 7 hits, 3 earned runs. No Decision, and Tigers lost. I know, I know, it's only one game. What else do you need. He pitched against them.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrinknByTheBay:
If you think Houston has a 50/50 chance of beating Justin Verlander, I have a lot of cool stuff I can sell you.
Now, usually the public will pound Verlander, and make the Tigers odds of winning higher than the actual odds...thus you will lose long term eating chalk and being a square on his games.
Winning long term in gambling is all about spotting value, and staying away from guarantees. The whole time knowing you will lose some games in the process. A perfect example tonight is Cuba. Cuba at -300 is awful value. The play today IF you put a gun to my head is the Dutch...however its just a no play for me as I don't have a Colt 45 placed against my noggin.
If you don't understand this basic idea you should clean your account, and just watch.
Just for the record, the one time Verlander faced the Astros.118 pitches, 5 inns. 7 hits, 3 earned runs. No Decision, and Tigers lost. I know, I know, it's only one game. What else do you need. He pitched against them.
Just last year Verlander lost to, Cleveland twice, Boston twice, and KC twice. All last place teams. Now what are you people going to say.
What were the odds in each of those games? Baseball is not played in a vacuum.
He also beat KC (2), Pit (2), Min (2), Cubs, Bos, Sea and Tor. All crappy teams too. So what, 10-6? If you convert that to a break even, you will not want to pay more juice than ~-165 (62.5%). Anything less than that is value, anything more than that and you risk paying to much, and losing money long term.
The public sees Verlander and the Royals on the card, they assume it's an easy win for the Tigers. Verlander usually will bring out a -190 line or something like that. Thanks to your research, and my math skills we will know this is an expensive proposition. The juice is not worth the squeeze. The public - chalk eaters - will bet on Detroit, and over the long haul will lose money.
That's why betting on Cuba tonight is pretty dumb. The -300 line they are laying means they need to win 75% of the time just to break even. That's not very reasonable in baseball against a team with current and former major leaguers, as well as some pretty decent prospects. Even the crappiest teams (see Houston) win 35% of the time.
So yes, Verlander and the Tigers will lose to crappy teams. As a gambler, you must only wager games that present value. A play at -150 might not be a play at -175.
You can send me a check for my Gambling 101 lesson.
Also, here is a ML converter so you don't bother anyone else with your 50/50 nonesense: anymore: https://www.usagambler.net/MoneyLineConverter.aspx
0
Quote Originally Posted by dcmc34f:
Just last year Verlander lost to, Cleveland twice, Boston twice, and KC twice. All last place teams. Now what are you people going to say.
What were the odds in each of those games? Baseball is not played in a vacuum.
He also beat KC (2), Pit (2), Min (2), Cubs, Bos, Sea and Tor. All crappy teams too. So what, 10-6? If you convert that to a break even, you will not want to pay more juice than ~-165 (62.5%). Anything less than that is value, anything more than that and you risk paying to much, and losing money long term.
The public sees Verlander and the Royals on the card, they assume it's an easy win for the Tigers. Verlander usually will bring out a -190 line or something like that. Thanks to your research, and my math skills we will know this is an expensive proposition. The juice is not worth the squeeze. The public - chalk eaters - will bet on Detroit, and over the long haul will lose money.
That's why betting on Cuba tonight is pretty dumb. The -300 line they are laying means they need to win 75% of the time just to break even. That's not very reasonable in baseball against a team with current and former major leaguers, as well as some pretty decent prospects. Even the crappiest teams (see Houston) win 35% of the time.
So yes, Verlander and the Tigers will lose to crappy teams. As a gambler, you must only wager games that present value. A play at -150 might not be a play at -175.
You can send me a check for my Gambling 101 lesson.
Also, here is a ML converter so you don't bother anyone else with your 50/50 nonesense: anymore: https://www.usagambler.net/MoneyLineConverter.aspx
What were the odds in each of those games? Baseball is not played in a vacuum.
He also beat KC (2), Pit (2), Min (2), Cubs, Bos, Sea and Tor. All crappy teams too. So what, 10-6? If you convert that to a break even, you will not want to pay more juice than ~-165 (62.5%). Anything less than that is value, anything more than that and you risk paying to much, and losing money long term.
The public sees Verlander and the Royals on the card, they assume it's an easy win for the Tigers. Verlander usually will bring out a -190 line or something like that. Thanks to your research, and my math skills we will know this is an expensive proposition. The juice is not worth the squeeze. The public - chalk eaters - will bet on Detroit, and over the long haul will lose money.
That's why betting on Cuba tonight is pretty dumb. The -300 line they are laying means they need to win 75% of the time just to break even. That's not very reasonable in baseball against a team with current and former major leaguers, as well as some pretty decent prospects. Even the crappiest teams (see Houston) win 35% of the time.
So yes, Verlander and the Tigers will lose to crappy teams. As a gambler, you must only wager games that present value. A play at -150 might not be a play at -175.
You can send me a check for my Gambling 101 lesson.
Also, here is a ML converter so you don't bother anyone else with your 50/50 nonesense: anymore: https://www.usagambler.net/MoneyLineConverter.aspx
Tomorrow night, the Rockets are playing at the Warriors. Is it a 50/50 chance the Rockets win this game?
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrinknByTheBay:
What were the odds in each of those games? Baseball is not played in a vacuum.
He also beat KC (2), Pit (2), Min (2), Cubs, Bos, Sea and Tor. All crappy teams too. So what, 10-6? If you convert that to a break even, you will not want to pay more juice than ~-165 (62.5%). Anything less than that is value, anything more than that and you risk paying to much, and losing money long term.
The public sees Verlander and the Royals on the card, they assume it's an easy win for the Tigers. Verlander usually will bring out a -190 line or something like that. Thanks to your research, and my math skills we will know this is an expensive proposition. The juice is not worth the squeeze. The public - chalk eaters - will bet on Detroit, and over the long haul will lose money.
That's why betting on Cuba tonight is pretty dumb. The -300 line they are laying means they need to win 75% of the time just to break even. That's not very reasonable in baseball against a team with current and former major leaguers, as well as some pretty decent prospects. Even the crappiest teams (see Houston) win 35% of the time.
So yes, Verlander and the Tigers will lose to crappy teams. As a gambler, you must only wager games that present value. A play at -150 might not be a play at -175.
You can send me a check for my Gambling 101 lesson.
Also, here is a ML converter so you don't bother anyone else with your 50/50 nonesense: anymore: https://www.usagambler.net/MoneyLineConverter.aspx
Tomorrow night, the Rockets are playing at the Warriors. Is it a 50/50 chance the Rockets win this game?
Tomorrow night, the Rockets are playing at the Warriors. Is it a 50/50 chance the Rockets win this game?
I'm not going to hold your hand here, bud. Although I do enjoy the fact that you are now grasping at straws. I don't know the NBA well enough to bet on it. Who's at home? Is one team on a slide? I know Houston isn't playing well as of late - just a random thing I've read. I also know Lin doesn't play well against solid guards, does Golden State have a solid guard? I mean, lots of crap goes into capping a game.
I understand your logic. You can either win or lose, and on any given Sunday. Sure. I get it. It's just faulty. True, there are two outcomes for each team tomorrow (they can either win or lose.) However, the odds of each outcome occurring aren't 50%. It's not a coin with two sides. I don't understand how you don't get this concept. It is very elementary.
That's why someone can make a perfectly sound wager, and lose. AND THAT'S OKAY! Kinda cool, huh?
0
Quote Originally Posted by dcmc34f:
Tomorrow night, the Rockets are playing at the Warriors. Is it a 50/50 chance the Rockets win this game?
I'm not going to hold your hand here, bud. Although I do enjoy the fact that you are now grasping at straws. I don't know the NBA well enough to bet on it. Who's at home? Is one team on a slide? I know Houston isn't playing well as of late - just a random thing I've read. I also know Lin doesn't play well against solid guards, does Golden State have a solid guard? I mean, lots of crap goes into capping a game.
I understand your logic. You can either win or lose, and on any given Sunday. Sure. I get it. It's just faulty. True, there are two outcomes for each team tomorrow (they can either win or lose.) However, the odds of each outcome occurring aren't 50%. It's not a coin with two sides. I don't understand how you don't get this concept. It is very elementary.
That's why someone can make a perfectly sound wager, and lose. AND THAT'S OKAY! Kinda cool, huh?
I'm not going to hold your hand here, bud. Although I do enjoy the fact that you are now grasping at straws. I don't know the NBA well enough to bet on it. Who's at home? Is one team on a slide? I know Houston isn't playing well as of late - just a random thing I've read. I also know Lin doesn't play well against solid guards, does Golden State have a solid guard? I mean, lots of crap goes into capping a game.
I understand your logic. You can either win or lose, and on any given Sunday. Sure. I get it. It's just faulty. True, there are two outcomes for each team tomorrow (they can either win or lose.) However, the odds of each outcome occurring aren't 50%. It's not a coin with two sides. I don't understand how you don't get this concept. It is very elementary.
That's why someone can make a perfectly sound wager, and lose. AND THAT'S OKAY! Kinda cool, huh?
I appreciate your cander in a mature matter. GL to you
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrinknByTheBay:
I'm not going to hold your hand here, bud. Although I do enjoy the fact that you are now grasping at straws. I don't know the NBA well enough to bet on it. Who's at home? Is one team on a slide? I know Houston isn't playing well as of late - just a random thing I've read. I also know Lin doesn't play well against solid guards, does Golden State have a solid guard? I mean, lots of crap goes into capping a game.
I understand your logic. You can either win or lose, and on any given Sunday. Sure. I get it. It's just faulty. True, there are two outcomes for each team tomorrow (they can either win or lose.) However, the odds of each outcome occurring aren't 50%. It's not a coin with two sides. I don't understand how you don't get this concept. It is very elementary.
That's why someone can make a perfectly sound wager, and lose. AND THAT'S OKAY! Kinda cool, huh?
I appreciate your cander in a mature matter. GL to you
But I Lokk around the forum and I see about 5-15% actually winning money on this meaningless ball
Just for the record, you're getting much more effort from the guys trying to make the roster or even just improve their position in the club when they come in than you're getting from a lot of the starters in the dog days of summer. So what's a meaningless game to the club means everything to most of the guys playing the game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DoubleUp4Life:
Nawww I would trust Jesus
But I Lokk around the forum and I see about 5-15% actually winning money on this meaningless ball
Just for the record, you're getting much more effort from the guys trying to make the roster or even just improve their position in the club when they come in than you're getting from a lot of the starters in the dog days of summer. So what's a meaningless game to the club means everything to most of the guys playing the game.
Hot Forum Topics
