TOTALS: 79-57 (58.1%) & + 54.53 UNITS
YESTERDAY :
1-0
& +2.21 Units
RECENT RUN: 8 DAY, 26-15 (63.4%) & +20.79 UNITS
TODAY’S PLAY(s): (will be playing/posting the other game (s)
in the reply section here…)
PITTSBURGH ML @ -140 FOR 5.6 UNITS TO WIN 4
UNITS
YESTERDAY’S PLAY:
Parlay:
MONTREAL ML @ -190 & ANAHEIM/FLORIDA OVER 5.5 FOR 1 UNIT
TO WIN 2.21
UNITS
I could not disagree with
you more Sir. You don't know me, I don't know you, but I am a living
breathing testament over the long, long term that the information you are
providing here is not only incorrect, it can potentially cost some unsuspecting
'players' money fairly quickly. Though few on here truly know me, and my
story, I ABSOLUTELY KNOW, as surely as I know I am typing this reply, you are
completely wrong to your core. I am non-confrontational in this Forum,
BUT I have gotten to know a few people on here recently, and am concerned that
your, seemingly, well laid-out theory will actually convince even one person on
here to bet straight dogs--a mistake.
I personally play short
dogs, and some heavy Favs, but rarely--though I do at times--play long dogs.
I cap on a season (NHL) basis of 58-63%, the last time I finished outside
that realm was well beyond 15 seasons ago, when I began recording and keeping
record of my plays/stats.
The truth to the matter
is that this 'system' of thought you are laying out here is a 'Lazy man's
ideology', pure and simple--effectively cutting out 50% of the potential plays
that are, more often than not, winners. This is no more correct, nor
accurate in saying you should ONLY play favorites, you should ONLY play Under
on all 6 goal O/Us, Over all 5 goal O/Us, ONLY play a fade when a team lost 4
straight, jump on last years playoff teams each time they win 2 straight.
Sir, I have heard, and seen, them all. The ONLY correlating
similarities in every single one of them is that are present is that it derives
from a man's mind that is either too confused to contemplate ALL aspects of the
available games and needs to shorten his 'scope', or just too lazy to put real
work in to beat the book.
Take the potential
world's greatest pitcher that is told early on that high velocity fast balls
are not worth throwing b/c many of them are hit for HR's and lose games--you
are automatically eliminating everything over 85 mph, as you are doing in this
frail argument.
I thank God that I was
taught the ropes correctly early on, and had not been infected by this type of
limited thought process, but surely hope that I was ALWAYS smart enough to not
of fallen victim to it.
FACT: There are values
at any level of line. Using an actual game I capped, and won recently...
I ran the analytics, simulations, research, and I concluded that I had a 74%
chance of getting a return on my investment (wining my ticket). The line
was -130. Given those numbers. Now the only question is whether or
not my calculations are correct. Given 15 years of statistical data, I
know I have up to a 3% statistical variance.
So let’s go with 3% negative sway to my figures, that means I would lose
this play (the sport no longer matters, it is now simply a statistical
proposition) 29%, and win 71% of the time.
Now, all I care about is that my figures are correct, and no longer
concerned if I win, or lose, this particular play. As long as my figures are correct, there will
be swings both ways in my route to say…1,000 plays that fall into this
percentile. So, I play 1,000 (@$130 per
for instructional purposes) of these tickets (in a variety of sports) and win
710, and lose 290 of them. NOTE: I am
not concerned about the 10 straight I win in this bracket, nor of the 10
straight I lose. It will all even out to
winning between 710 and 770 of these plays, but we are using the bottom end for
instructional purposes (710). So, I win
$100 X 710 (= $71,000), and lose $130 X 290 (=$37,700). And you are telling me that I should just
write these (favorites) off? Good thing
I did not run into you, nor the “Guru” who “knows his stuff” long ago, I surely
would have had to of worked a “Real job” throughout my life, lol.
In short, and once more,
I am non-confrontational here, and in my life, but you are sprewing untruths
that have been spawned, clearly, by someone who knows not what the hell he is
talking about, and obviously has you bamboozled into thinking he is a
Sharp. I can only hope you believe me,
for your sake, that he is definitely NOT a sharp. I personally know some of the top
handicappers on planet earth, and NOT ONE of them would agree with word one of
your post. It simply makes no sense, but
unfortunately, someone is probably going to read it and follow it, to their own
peril. I give people the benefit of the
doubt, and will just chalk this up to you being someone who has been shammed,
and you mean only to help, but you are not helping Sir. Most of the people on here, if they are
honest about it, they lose more than they win, and bad information will only
perpetuate those losses, so I could not sit back idly by and not sound off in
hopes that someone who might of bought into this crock will think again.
No matter what, I wish
you luck, and all the best going forward.
Note I will not be back to counter any replies, I spent more time than I
have on this reply. Good day Sir.
7NLN7,
I agree with your philosophy for sure but how do I get the analytics, simulations and research without waiting the next 15 years to obtain data. Is there a formula or a stat program you came up with? I want to be in on those plays with a 70 to 79% chance of winning.
7NLN7,
I agree with your philosophy for sure but how do I get the analytics, simulations and research without waiting the next 15 years to obtain data. Is there a formula or a stat program you came up with? I want to be in on those plays with a 70 to 79% chance of winning.
in College football, spreadsheeted several years' results, parsed them & figured out what they're doing so now I can come up with my own new plays. My CFB picks aren't for everyone since they are VERY high probability % winners but come with high juice where you need to be careful about still finding a value edge. I don't care what the % winning is as long as there is a long-term edge. A couple years ago I played pretty much all MLB dogs (mostly small dogs) for half a season & netted over 40 units. After awhile, I decided my heart couldn't take that sort of excitement for too long though, with days of no wins (I don't think I ever had a losing week though)! 
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
