Anchor Baby, A yknot betting concept.

Honest answer....

I take my relationship with covers seriously.  Almost sacred.  It is one thing to post nonsense and acknowledge it is nonsense - that is great for the forum.

It is another altogether to post nonsense as serious.  Thats when I take it personally.  This forum has great value to those of us that share information.  This value cant be had elsewhere - it is a concentrated bunch of people doing their best to be profitable at sports gambling.  But for the most part - even if it is totally misdirected - posters here make an honest attempt to share information.

You have done the opposite.  Your goal is honest disinformation.  You have attempted over and over to plow us with nonsense, while disguising it as factual.  Nobody here cares about your personal record.  Start posting stuff we can use.  Teach us stuff.  Dont tell us about betting an odd or even number of games like that makes any difference - and post that as some sort of revelation.  It is not an honest attempt to help the community.  It is simply attention getting, or worse.

That is the best way I can put it.  This is why I have such a big problem with you, and why I had a problem with your previous incarnation as Uncle Benelli.  You are deliberately dishonest.  You post strawman arguments.  You post theories that are purposely confusing and vague.  You post zero details that could help anyone.  You self promote constantly.

Change it, and I am fine with you.  Dont change it - and I will be on you constantly.  Because I value this place.  And as bad as it is at times, it is not dishonest.  You sir, are dishonest.

@undermysac

 Maybe. But this certainly has been the most entertaining thread I’ve seen on Covers in years

@vanzack

 Disagree,  at the end of the day,  we shall see  average Van,.

Good day sir, please dont read my threads or post in them.  Its unwanted.  Move along, nothing but stupidity and misinformation.

You got me,  Back in my whole.  And you go back th throwing darts.
If you really cared about covers, you would realize how badly they need someone to pick a consistent winner.
Time to make a new account.  look for a new guy with a 17-3 record,  it will be 77-7 after Sunday.
Should be easy to spot by all the 7s.

Class dismissed.

@brewster

 Thats what bothers them!  

Nah.  You dont get to decide this.

I know the covers rules, and I will not violate.  But I will be vocal about your nonsense.  Because it does have an affect on the forum as a whole, not just you.

Sorry pal.

@vanzack

 10-4  get ready for another winner post of nonsense, sheriff 

@yknot

 Y do u insist on lying to the classroom?

I guarantee you are a virgin with biological women...however for the M or trans categories you are a raging sloot

@packersbackers

 God has no step children and he blesses you.

Your team is a lock to win this week.   There is not one single prayer in Hell that the Packers Lose.

So you have that going for you which is nice.

@vanzack

Couldnt be more right 

Look Man, just start a new thread from this point on with all your said and teaching knowledge. We don't give a Fick about the  77-7 record. If that was the case ( 77-7) you would not be on Cover's wasting your time. The way you  promote yourself, someone would have seen your success and talent along time ago and snatched your ass to do same. I just can't fathom this ridiculous record. I see your 17-3 record, ( Although I can't find it ). Open new thread and lets see how it goes. BTW, why can't you just drop this and move on ?  Anyway, good luck man with your plays 

@DW7

  #211

Last paragraph good point mah man 

@vanzack

  #201 

Let’s finalize this prolonged thread and move on shall we there’s games to be played this weekend.

Anyone interested?

By any chance can we consider this matter 

Sounds about right!

@DW7

 Sir they did snatch me up, at a very young age.  Thats how I learned all this.   Santa anita Orphaned  ! 

Are you serious bro, stating this on here ? You know damn well this was not the meaning of " Snatched ". Again, drawing attention and opening another subject. 

I see you started another thread, MOVE ON. 

@Macwestie1

 Great point

Lot of clutter in here

Let's do a thread summary and close this up

Know the added risk of a -3.5 wager...since approx. 15% of NFL games end in 3 as your sample size grows you will end up landing on 3 around 15% of the time. 

Therefore any -3.5 bet is already at a 15% disadvantage for you. As approx. 15% of all nfl games end in a differential of 3. Guaranteeing your -3.5 won't cover around 15% of the time as approx. 15% of games in nfl history end on 3.

Regarding +2.5 you have to factor the dog winning/covering and have to cut that 15% down. For easy numbers we will say the dog covers half the time.

So on a +2.5 line you will guarantee a loser around 7.5% of the time in the longterm as the dog will lose by 3 around 7.5%, because as we know approx.15% of all nfl games end on 3...(the other option here is dog wins by 3 which covers)

The above is strictly long term as most don't plan on quitting sports gambling and will make thousands of wagers in their lifetime. 

There seems to be a misunderstanding about variables in sports betting but thats a topic for another day. 

Regarding +ev and end results I think their is some confusion as well. But that is another topic in itself as well

Lots of good in here through the clutter...

But you leave out a variable - that cant be left out.  Price.

If the cost of going from +2.5 to +3 is more than the probability of it landing on 3 (which only gets you a push BTW, not a win), then +2.5 is a better bet.

You ignore that fact in every single post you have made in this thread - as if everyone on every +2.5 game can simply choose to bet +3 at no additional cost.

In general terms - the cost of this move brings down your overall profitability.  It increases your chances of not losing that one bet - but it decreases your chances of being profitable long term.

The other part - which is more complicated - is identifying games with higher STD Dev so that the 3 becomes less of a likely outcome.  But for the purposes of simplicity - I will leave it to the above - which is very simple and something you keep ignoring.

Very simple.

@vanzack

You are finally coming around

I have not ignored price once. You just keep beating a dead horse....

No one is talking price. The market moves all week. You know this and argue it...you sound silly

The GB line moved around -3.0 and -3.5 all week last week. Both could be had for around -110 at one point or another in the week..whether Tuesday at 11pm or Saturday at 4pm This is cappers job. To find the best line. Or get the best possible line.

"The other part - which is more complicated - is identifying games with higher STD Dev so that the 3 becomes less of a likely outcome"

This is numerically wrong. No matter the number you calculate for standard deviation....has no bearing on the fact that approx. 15% of all nfl games end in 3

I think you are also typing from a personal standpoint...in that you are a successful capper and trust YOUR numbers...

I am talking about the average Joe or everyday bettor that doesn't have a grasp on the numbers like you do....maybe they are just learning or starting out but want to get better

This leads into the confusion in this thread  between +ev and end result....

Nice nfl season by the way

Let me blow your mind....

15% of all games land on 3.  What if you could identify the 15% of all games - before they start - that have the best chance of landing on 3?

If you could do this, or even do this at a rate that reduces your risk of betting on these games that are likely to end on 3 - then you are at a big advantage.  This is what STD DEV distributions do for you.

I know - a bridge too far for our mouthbreathers in this thread.  And I realized you wouldnt understand the concept when I typed it.

As far as the other - if you are saying that on games where a line is available at -3.5, -3, and -2.5 all at -110 - that you should always bet -2.5, well - I have no argument with that.  It is kind of like saying if you have the choice to breathe, or to not breathe - you should breathe - but there really cant be an argument.  Congrats on this big revelation.

"Let me blow your mind....

15% of all games land on 3.  What if you could identify the 15% of all games - before they start - that have the best chance of landing on 3?

If you could do this, or even do this at a rate that reduces your risk of betting on these games that are likely to end on 3 - then you are at a big advantage.  This is what STD DEV distributions do for you."

Agreed, that's even more in depth 

Does your excel attempt to do this for you or are you just talking theoretically?

@vanzack

 And no not -2.5...

this was specifically between -3.0 and -3.5 and the difference in units over thousands of wagers where you will inevitably push some of the -3.0 instead of losing at -3.5

At my book last week the GB line didn't get to -2.5 . It went from -3.5 (forget odds) to -3.0 at -105 and then ended at -3.0 -125

Obviously we aren't talking price but this is a good example of prices during the week and that patience is key....

Some of the mis-information regarding +ev in this thread is disgusting.  To anyone reading be careful. 

I do this on every game, every week.

It is one of the outputs of my analysis.  The idea being that I do not want to bet on 1 score games.  Which games have the highest probability of landing outside of 1 score - regardless of which team does it?  Very valuable information.  Next level stuff.  One ingredient in the soup.