@Ppkay Dont be surprised when Bo Nix has better career than the top 3 projected. Purdy is the model. The more collegiate starts, from a non national champion contender, that has quick release and is decisive in decision making. GL with Caleb and Jayden.
I like Nix and Daniels more than Williams or Maye.....hoping Vikings get one of the former.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoPinkie:
@Ppkay Dont be surprised when Bo Nix has better career than the top 3 projected. Purdy is the model. The more collegiate starts, from a non national champion contender, that has quick release and is decisive in decision making. GL with Caleb and Jayden.
I like Nix and Daniels more than Williams or Maye.....hoping Vikings get one of the former.
@Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over?
I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser.
I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation.
2
Quote Originally Posted by Indydog:
@Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over?
I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser.
I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation.
There is a very good book by Michael Konik, by the name of "The Smart Money"....which details his life as a runner for Billy Walters when Billy was the man in sports betting. Having won hundreds of thousands, even millions from the Las Vegas bookmaking empire, the bookies severely limited Walters' betting, so to get around the restriction he employed people to make his bets for him. The bookmakers became paranoid of any big bettor who won consistently with good reason....some of them were runners for Walters. Konig had to pretend he was an ignorant whale (a big bettor) who just happened to be on a hot streak, rather than placing bets for the Michael Jordan of sports betting that used the expertise of a computer group to make his bets.....it is a fascinating read!
And mostly fictitious!
2
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
There is a very good book by Michael Konik, by the name of "The Smart Money"....which details his life as a runner for Billy Walters when Billy was the man in sports betting. Having won hundreds of thousands, even millions from the Las Vegas bookmaking empire, the bookies severely limited Walters' betting, so to get around the restriction he employed people to make his bets for him. The bookmakers became paranoid of any big bettor who won consistently with good reason....some of them were runners for Walters. Konig had to pretend he was an ignorant whale (a big bettor) who just happened to be on a hot streak, rather than placing bets for the Michael Jordan of sports betting that used the expertise of a computer group to make his bets.....it is a fascinating read!
Quote Originally Posted by Indydog: @Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over? I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser. I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation.
@Indigo999
I’m in Vegas too. Westgate raised the juice higher than before all year unfortunately. Stations and William Hill still -125.
So I just posted this but William Hill you can do a parlay where you adjust the line:
KC +7.5/OVER 41 (-116)
I think they catch on to the mistake soon. I wanted to see what your data said about the OVER. I like OVER 41, so even a middle opportunity for if this goes back to -1 or pk.
to win 1u unless noted
0
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
Quote Originally Posted by Indydog: @Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over? I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser. I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation.
@Indigo999
I’m in Vegas too. Westgate raised the juice higher than before all year unfortunately. Stations and William Hill still -125.
So I just posted this but William Hill you can do a parlay where you adjust the line:
KC +7.5/OVER 41 (-116)
I think they catch on to the mistake soon. I wanted to see what your data said about the OVER. I like OVER 41, so even a middle opportunity for if this goes back to -1 or pk.
Quote Originally Posted by Indydog: @Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over? I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser. I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation.
Something S. Wong opined correctly imho. This is a troubling developement personally as teasers had become my focus using a regression model and an anchor.
Dam shame as this showed promise with SDQL additions.
2
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
Quote Originally Posted by Indydog: @Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over? I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser. I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation.
Something S. Wong opined correctly imho. This is a troubling developement personally as teasers had become my focus using a regression model and an anchor.
Dam shame as this showed promise with SDQL additions.
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999: Quote Originally Posted by Indydog: @Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over? I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser. I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation. @Indigo999 I’m in Vegas too. Westgate raised the juice higher than before all year unfortunately. Stations and William Hill still -125. So I just posted this but William Hill you can do a parlay where you adjust the line: KC +7.5/OVER 41 (-116) I think they catch on to the mistake soon. I wanted to see what your data said about the OVER. I like OVER 41, so even a middle opportunity for if this goes back to -1 or pk.
Thanks for the heads up.....one still will need to hit 55%+ to make it a profitable exercise at -125.
I don't begrudge those that utilize teasers....it's just not what I do....if a sportsbook is offering it, it means with their data analysis it is profitable to do so for them.
You utilize William Hill then? and other sportsbooks?....I just yesterday cashed out of South Point's conglomeration, as they didn't offer overnight lines and their limits were low.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo:
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999: Quote Originally Posted by Indydog: @Indigo999 So if I digested everything correctly, it sounds like the best bet is to tease KC and the over? I like the OVER but the majority of data likes the UNDER, so I am not on a total...and Westgate Sportsbook is charging -140 on a two team teaser. I haven't line shopped a ton of other sportsbooks but the three to four that I have here in Vegas charge the same commission ....it is obvious that the sportsbooks have gotten burned on teasers and now they are strongly discouraging its implementation. @Indigo999 I’m in Vegas too. Westgate raised the juice higher than before all year unfortunately. Stations and William Hill still -125. So I just posted this but William Hill you can do a parlay where you adjust the line: KC +7.5/OVER 41 (-116) I think they catch on to the mistake soon. I wanted to see what your data said about the OVER. I like OVER 41, so even a middle opportunity for if this goes back to -1 or pk.
Thanks for the heads up.....one still will need to hit 55%+ to make it a profitable exercise at -125.
I don't begrudge those that utilize teasers....it's just not what I do....if a sportsbook is offering it, it means with their data analysis it is profitable to do so for them.
You utilize William Hill then? and other sportsbooks?....I just yesterday cashed out of South Point's conglomeration, as they didn't offer overnight lines and their limits were low.
Like the Chiefs also...is it concerning that the betting public will be on them?
Yeah, it IS concerning. Up until this past weekend, the public was 0-4 ATS on consensus picks before they got it right on the Lions covering over SF and obviously they needed a fourth down conversion in the very last minute to get me the money.
From my studies, the public is wrong around 55-57% of the time with a consensus over 60% in basketball and football.
I mentioned last week that the public have done well on totals, this NFL playoffs...I haven't bothered to study totals correlated to consensus betting so over the long-term I don't know how the public typically does....I do know that the public loves to bet OVERs,...probably 75-80% of the time in football they'll play it OVER.
It makes me uneasy when I side with the public....I haven't gone crazy on this Chiefs bet, but after losing twice going against Mahomes/Reid in Super Bowls, I wouldn't consider ever going against them in the playoffs again....Last year Mahomes was gimping around before and during the game on a bad ankle and they still got the money.
Mahomes is looking like an icon of sport to me...the Bradys, Tiger Woods, Bill Russell, Wayne Gretzkys, Montanas, Michael Jordans, etc.....as long as he and Reid are together if we haven't already, we're gonna have to get used to seeing them triumph the vast majority of the time.
2
Quote Originally Posted by lmb4321:
Like the Chiefs also...is it concerning that the betting public will be on them?
Yeah, it IS concerning. Up until this past weekend, the public was 0-4 ATS on consensus picks before they got it right on the Lions covering over SF and obviously they needed a fourth down conversion in the very last minute to get me the money.
From my studies, the public is wrong around 55-57% of the time with a consensus over 60% in basketball and football.
I mentioned last week that the public have done well on totals, this NFL playoffs...I haven't bothered to study totals correlated to consensus betting so over the long-term I don't know how the public typically does....I do know that the public loves to bet OVERs,...probably 75-80% of the time in football they'll play it OVER.
It makes me uneasy when I side with the public....I haven't gone crazy on this Chiefs bet, but after losing twice going against Mahomes/Reid in Super Bowls, I wouldn't consider ever going against them in the playoffs again....Last year Mahomes was gimping around before and during the game on a bad ankle and they still got the money.
Mahomes is looking like an icon of sport to me...the Bradys, Tiger Woods, Bill Russell, Wayne Gretzkys, Montanas, Michael Jordans, etc.....as long as he and Reid are together if we haven't already, we're gonna have to get used to seeing them triumph the vast majority of the time.
Quote Originally Posted by lmb4321: Like the Chiefs also...is it concerning that the betting public will be on them? Yeah, it IS concerning. Up until this past weekend, the public was 0-4 ATS on consensus picks before they got it right on the Lions covering over SF and obviously they needed a fourth down conversion in the very last minute to get me the money. From my studies, the public is wrong around 55-57% of the time with a consensus over 60% in basketball and football. I mentioned last week that the public have done well on totals, this NFL playoffs...I haven't bothered to study totals correlated to consensus betting so over the long-term I don't know how the public typically does....I do know that the public loves to bet OVERs,...probably 75-80% of the time in football they'll play it OVER. It makes me uneasy when I side with the public....I haven't gone crazy on this Chiefs bet, but after losing twice going against Mahomes/Reid in Super Bowls, I wouldn't consider ever going against them in the playoffs again....Last year Mahomes was gimping around before and during the game on a bad ankle and they still got the money. Mahomes is looking like an icon of sport to me...the Bradys, Tiger Woods, Bill Russell, Wayne Gretzkys, Montanas, Michael Jordans, etc.....as long as he and Reid are together if we haven't already, we're gonna have to get used to seeing them triumph the vast majority of the time.
1
@Indigo999
SPOT ON!!!
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
Quote Originally Posted by lmb4321: Like the Chiefs also...is it concerning that the betting public will be on them? Yeah, it IS concerning. Up until this past weekend, the public was 0-4 ATS on consensus picks before they got it right on the Lions covering over SF and obviously they needed a fourth down conversion in the very last minute to get me the money. From my studies, the public is wrong around 55-57% of the time with a consensus over 60% in basketball and football. I mentioned last week that the public have done well on totals, this NFL playoffs...I haven't bothered to study totals correlated to consensus betting so over the long-term I don't know how the public typically does....I do know that the public loves to bet OVERs,...probably 75-80% of the time in football they'll play it OVER. It makes me uneasy when I side with the public....I haven't gone crazy on this Chiefs bet, but after losing twice going against Mahomes/Reid in Super Bowls, I wouldn't consider ever going against them in the playoffs again....Last year Mahomes was gimping around before and during the game on a bad ankle and they still got the money. Mahomes is looking like an icon of sport to me...the Bradys, Tiger Woods, Bill Russell, Wayne Gretzkys, Montanas, Michael Jordans, etc.....as long as he and Reid are together if we haven't already, we're gonna have to get used to seeing them triumph the vast majority of the time.
Of course the line the Vegas bookmaker puts out has a big part of how we decide we'll be betting on a particular game....if I am on the Chiefs, what line would I have considered betting on the 49ers? Some bettors make overlay betting their 100% focus....to be profitable it requires that their line is more efficient than the bookmakers' line is, a daunting task for a bettor as discussed before.
I would have played the Chiefs up to -3.5...at -3.5 I would have no-played it. Using historical data is my methodology and what I am about in sports betting, and in this case, everything I use to determine who'll cover in the Super Bowl is on the Chiefs.
Overlay betting was the method used by Alan Woods and Bill Benter, the two horse racing punters that collaborated for awhile to make hundreds of millions out of Hong Kong racing circuit....they were systematic about it and developed a computer algorithm that worked using many, many parameters to come up with their own odds....for example if their computed odds on a horse was 5 to 1 and the bookmaker offered 8 to 1, it was an overlay and a bet.
They started out together using Woods' money and horse racing acumen. When Benter, who had done the computer and data entry work said that he wanted more than the 10% of the profits that Alan Woods had offered him, they split up and each had their own computer program that was highly successful. The first year, they made 100,000 bucks, and after that they never made less than a million in the horse racing season.
Of course the line the Vegas bookmaker puts out has a big part of how we decide we'll be betting on a particular game....if I am on the Chiefs, what line would I have considered betting on the 49ers? Some bettors make overlay betting their 100% focus....to be profitable it requires that their line is more efficient than the bookmakers' line is, a daunting task for a bettor as discussed before.
I would have played the Chiefs up to -3.5...at -3.5 I would have no-played it. Using historical data is my methodology and what I am about in sports betting, and in this case, everything I use to determine who'll cover in the Super Bowl is on the Chiefs.
Overlay betting was the method used by Alan Woods and Bill Benter, the two horse racing punters that collaborated for awhile to make hundreds of millions out of Hong Kong racing circuit....they were systematic about it and developed a computer algorithm that worked using many, many parameters to come up with their own odds....for example if their computed odds on a horse was 5 to 1 and the bookmaker offered 8 to 1, it was an overlay and a bet.
They started out together using Woods' money and horse racing acumen. When Benter, who had done the computer and data entry work said that he wanted more than the 10% of the profits that Alan Woods had offered him, they split up and each had their own computer program that was highly successful. The first year, they made 100,000 bucks, and after that they never made less than a million in the horse racing season.
Indigo I noticed that with the 2 team teaser's at Caesars in NFL, 6 to 7 point. In NJ I think it was formerly WH. They raised the juice to -145 I think for 7 points!!! Totally BS, I was telling the guy at the counter. I do think CFB was reasonable, 2 team 6 point even money if not mistaken.
1
Indigo I noticed that with the 2 team teaser's at Caesars in NFL, 6 to 7 point. In NJ I think it was formerly WH. They raised the juice to -145 I think for 7 points!!! Totally BS, I was telling the guy at the counter. I do think CFB was reasonable, 2 team 6 point even money if not mistaken.
Indigo I noticed that with the 2 team teaser's at Caesars in NFL, 6 to 7 point. In NJ I think it was formerly WH. They raised the juice to -145 I think for 7 points!!! Totally BS, I was telling the guy at the counter. I do think CFB was reasonable, 2 team 6 point even money if not mistaken.
Yes, that's interesting....sportsbooks tell us what they don't want bettors to do, obviously, so it behooves us to listen....I suppose you can do the analogy that you can buy a 60,000 dollar car where the only one available is in the lot for 75,000....you'll get a great car, but you'll be paying more than you should. To some it's worth it to be in that car and how it makes you feel, and to others it wouldn't be. I suppose if you have a couple of million dollars in your bank account that amount of money isn't a big deal....there's a lot of variables that go into our decision making process.
I've paid 28 bucks for a hamburger before.....lol.....
Here in Vegas, at the Westgate it was 100 to win 71, or -140.
1
Quote Originally Posted by haymo:
Indigo I noticed that with the 2 team teaser's at Caesars in NFL, 6 to 7 point. In NJ I think it was formerly WH. They raised the juice to -145 I think for 7 points!!! Totally BS, I was telling the guy at the counter. I do think CFB was reasonable, 2 team 6 point even money if not mistaken.
Yes, that's interesting....sportsbooks tell us what they don't want bettors to do, obviously, so it behooves us to listen....I suppose you can do the analogy that you can buy a 60,000 dollar car where the only one available is in the lot for 75,000....you'll get a great car, but you'll be paying more than you should. To some it's worth it to be in that car and how it makes you feel, and to others it wouldn't be. I suppose if you have a couple of million dollars in your bank account that amount of money isn't a big deal....there's a lot of variables that go into our decision making process.
I've paid 28 bucks for a hamburger before.....lol.....
Here in Vegas, at the Westgate it was 100 to win 71, or -140.
Of course the line the Vegas bookmaker puts out has a big part of how we decide we'll be betting on a particular game....if I am on the Chiefs, what line would I have considered betting on the 49ers? Some bettors make overlay betting their 100% focus....to be profitable it requires that their line is more efficient than the bookmakers' line is, a daunting task for a bettor as discussed before. I would have played the Chiefs up to -3.5...at -3.5 I would have no-played it. Using historical data is my methodology and what I am about in sports betting, and in this case, everything I use to determine who'll cover in the Super Bowl is on the Chiefs.
This is my methodology as well, particularly in soccer, where I've put together databases for teams and leagues that go back 15 years. I had DMed you a while back because I wanted to have a conversation about the general strategy.
I wrote a book-length manuscript that attracted an agent, but the agent has yet to attract a publisher in spite of some promising discussions. I really believe in it as a strategy. Instead of constructing a narrative of what you think is likely to happen, you ask, "How often does this actually happen, and in what circumstances?"
1
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
Of course the line the Vegas bookmaker puts out has a big part of how we decide we'll be betting on a particular game....if I am on the Chiefs, what line would I have considered betting on the 49ers? Some bettors make overlay betting their 100% focus....to be profitable it requires that their line is more efficient than the bookmakers' line is, a daunting task for a bettor as discussed before. I would have played the Chiefs up to -3.5...at -3.5 I would have no-played it. Using historical data is my methodology and what I am about in sports betting, and in this case, everything I use to determine who'll cover in the Super Bowl is on the Chiefs.
This is my methodology as well, particularly in soccer, where I've put together databases for teams and leagues that go back 15 years. I had DMed you a while back because I wanted to have a conversation about the general strategy.
I wrote a book-length manuscript that attracted an agent, but the agent has yet to attract a publisher in spite of some promising discussions. I really believe in it as a strategy. Instead of constructing a narrative of what you think is likely to happen, you ask, "How often does this actually happen, and in what circumstances?"
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999: Of course the line the Vegas bookmaker puts out has a big part of how we decide we'll be betting on a particular game....if I am on the Chiefs, what line would I have considered betting on the 49ers? Some bettors make overlay betting their 100% focus....to be profitable it requires that their line is more efficient than the bookmakers' line is, a daunting task for a bettor as discussed before. I would have played the Chiefs up to -3.5...at -3.5 I would have no-played it. Using historical data is my methodology and what I am about in sports betting, and in this case, everything I use to determine who'll cover in the Super Bowl is on the Chiefs. This is my methodology as well, particularly in soccer, where I've put together databases for teams and leagues that go back 15 years. I had DMed you a while back because I wanted to have a conversation about the general strategy. I wrote a book-length manuscript that attracted an agent, but the agent has yet to attract a publisher in spite of some promising discussions. I really believe in it as a strategy. Instead of constructing a narrative of what you think is likely to happen, you ask, "How often does this actually happen, and in what circumstances?"
Very good, it is not common that I hear someone using historical data as their main premise in handicapping.
The non-response from me was not intentional....I don't recall getting anything from you.
1
Quote Originally Posted by garbagetime:
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999: Of course the line the Vegas bookmaker puts out has a big part of how we decide we'll be betting on a particular game....if I am on the Chiefs, what line would I have considered betting on the 49ers? Some bettors make overlay betting their 100% focus....to be profitable it requires that their line is more efficient than the bookmakers' line is, a daunting task for a bettor as discussed before. I would have played the Chiefs up to -3.5...at -3.5 I would have no-played it. Using historical data is my methodology and what I am about in sports betting, and in this case, everything I use to determine who'll cover in the Super Bowl is on the Chiefs. This is my methodology as well, particularly in soccer, where I've put together databases for teams and leagues that go back 15 years. I had DMed you a while back because I wanted to have a conversation about the general strategy. I wrote a book-length manuscript that attracted an agent, but the agent has yet to attract a publisher in spite of some promising discussions. I really believe in it as a strategy. Instead of constructing a narrative of what you think is likely to happen, you ask, "How often does this actually happen, and in what circumstances?"
Very good, it is not common that I hear someone using historical data as their main premise in handicapping.
The non-response from me was not intentional....I don't recall getting anything from you.
a Super Bowl favorite off a home favorite win has been 4-13 ATS (-10.24) and 7-10 straight up (-5.29)....................and 0-5 ATS (-10.50), 1-4 straight up if they didn't cover in that home favorite victory.
Results
Rams -14 53 Patriots 17-20
Patriots -12 41 Giants 14-17
Patriots -3 54 Giants 17-21
Patriots -4 49 Eagles 33-41
Rams -4' 48' Bengals 23-20
2
In the Super Bowl.....
a Super Bowl favorite off a home favorite win has been 4-13 ATS (-10.24) and 7-10 straight up (-5.29)....................and 0-5 ATS (-10.50), 1-4 straight up if they didn't cover in that home favorite victory.
Hot Forum Topics
