1. I didn't fabricate a story concerning my grandfather though I can see how one might think that. In fact, I even thought about not posting that play but I rarely make plays without posting them here. The only times I do is if it's stupid (parlay or teaser and know better than to be playing it) or if I tailed someone else, both of which I rarely do. I actually UNDERBET what I wanted to on that play because the past two plays were easy draw calls and were extremely profitable for myself. I still maintain that my grandfather mis-relayed the information to me and meant to say Chievo/Catania. But I'm done arguing this point, I won't post the next play my grandfather gives me but I will still play it for the same amount, if not more.
2. I value plays less to do with my conviction and more so to do with the edge I perceive (which may be one in the same) but for betting purposes, all edges should be exploited no matter how small. I unfortunately (and naively) don't track my bets in Excel so I can't tell you the winning percentages of my bets, but I can tell you that my conviction has little to do with it. If I bet with my conviction, I'd be broke by now because my gut is almost always wrong. I try to objectively determine value the best that I can.
3. Thank you for probing and prying, makes me do some introspection which is always good. I have a lot to learn and am anxious to do so.
0
1. I didn't fabricate a story concerning my grandfather though I can see how one might think that. In fact, I even thought about not posting that play but I rarely make plays without posting them here. The only times I do is if it's stupid (parlay or teaser and know better than to be playing it) or if I tailed someone else, both of which I rarely do. I actually UNDERBET what I wanted to on that play because the past two plays were easy draw calls and were extremely profitable for myself. I still maintain that my grandfather mis-relayed the information to me and meant to say Chievo/Catania. But I'm done arguing this point, I won't post the next play my grandfather gives me but I will still play it for the same amount, if not more.
2. I value plays less to do with my conviction and more so to do with the edge I perceive (which may be one in the same) but for betting purposes, all edges should be exploited no matter how small. I unfortunately (and naively) don't track my bets in Excel so I can't tell you the winning percentages of my bets, but I can tell you that my conviction has little to do with it. If I bet with my conviction, I'd be broke by now because my gut is almost always wrong. I try to objectively determine value the best that I can.
3. Thank you for probing and prying, makes me do some introspection which is always good. I have a lot to learn and am anxious to do so.
DJ ... have to agree with mickjam, i've really enjoyed stopping by your thread ... and that avatar is outstanding ... i keep trying to figure out what song she's bumbin' to ... very nice !
0
DJ ... have to agree with mickjam, i've really enjoyed stopping by your thread ... and that avatar is outstanding ... i keep trying to figure out what song she's bumbin' to ... very nice !
I can't believe Arsenal would bring on van Persie/Fabregas when they were WINNING. Wenger is so lucky they didn't get injured or he would have never heard the end of it.
0
I can't believe Arsenal would bring on van Persie/Fabregas when they were WINNING. Wenger is so lucky they didn't get injured or he would have never heard the end of it.
Wish you posted some your thoughts and knowledge earlier.
DJ,
Thanks for making that 10% bet and getting Syke out of the closet and spreading the "wealth."
I wish they would start a new thread where they, along with a few others such as kreatture, would postulate on sports investing. Sort of like 'Face the Nation', except that it would be interesting.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Lank66:
Syke,
Wish you posted some your thoughts and knowledge earlier.
DJ,
Thanks for making that 10% bet and getting Syke out of the closet and spreading the "wealth."
I wish they would start a new thread where they, along with a few others such as kreatture, would postulate on sports investing. Sort of like 'Face the Nation', except that it would be interesting.
I really liked that pick of Habs/Sens Under. Didn't realize that the team had given up so completely on Clousten. Now it's just a question of whether they fire him right away or wait until after the game Tuesday when they head into the All-Star break. Dead Man Walking!
0
I really liked that pick of Habs/Sens Under. Didn't realize that the team had given up so completely on Clousten. Now it's just a question of whether they fire him right away or wait until after the game Tuesday when they head into the All-Star break. Dead Man Walking!
Just my 2 cents. Syke1911 is completely correct on the ROI subject. I have just completed reading your thread from inception to see how you were doing. The one guy going crazy about chasing is usually associated with what I call gamblers. Gamblers have to win and have to win big and win big now. So for a gambler (and I get it everyone wagering is gambling) to return 37% on his money is nothing. He might kill himself if that's all he has to look forward to, however for someone that considers this an investment then a 37-50% return is almost incredible. I am also in the finance industry and if I can offer my investors a return of 40% I am a hero. We typically show our investors a ROI of about 15-20%. For most of our investors that is plenty and very favorable against the markets. On occasion we can return in excess of these amounts but again its not the norm. Now if I offer a gambler a return of 15-20% he would tell me to get lost cause he has to double his money every week or he feels unsuccessful as a gambler. Most gamblers lose over the long haul and some investors lose over the long haul but with the right investment strategies most investors should win unless they take careless risks. So keep doing what you are doing and if it takes you 6 months or a year to double up then so be it. A 100% return on your investment in a year is far ahead of any return an investor can expect on the street. Just my 2 cents
0
Just my 2 cents. Syke1911 is completely correct on the ROI subject. I have just completed reading your thread from inception to see how you were doing. The one guy going crazy about chasing is usually associated with what I call gamblers. Gamblers have to win and have to win big and win big now. So for a gambler (and I get it everyone wagering is gambling) to return 37% on his money is nothing. He might kill himself if that's all he has to look forward to, however for someone that considers this an investment then a 37-50% return is almost incredible. I am also in the finance industry and if I can offer my investors a return of 40% I am a hero. We typically show our investors a ROI of about 15-20%. For most of our investors that is plenty and very favorable against the markets. On occasion we can return in excess of these amounts but again its not the norm. Now if I offer a gambler a return of 15-20% he would tell me to get lost cause he has to double his money every week or he feels unsuccessful as a gambler. Most gamblers lose over the long haul and some investors lose over the long haul but with the right investment strategies most investors should win unless they take careless risks. So keep doing what you are doing and if it takes you 6 months or a year to double up then so be it. A 100% return on your investment in a year is far ahead of any return an investor can expect on the street. Just my 2 cents
I use sportsbook.com (don't love it but that was just the site I chose) and they don't offer 'pk' lines on soccer. So what I've been doing instead of just playing the line to win, I've been betting the team to win and the team to tie. I don't have the same bankroll as you and I haven't tailed every pick because I've seen some of these too late. But over the past few days that I've started doing the win and tie bets that it's been doing better for me than your 'pk' has for you. I did some crunching and split your bets in half so it still stays at the same percentage play.
Here's my calculations: 22nd Mechelen 'pk' -180 $338.11 to win 187.84 PUSH (0) mechelen to win even $169.05 to win 169.05 LOSE [-169.05] mechelen to tie +225 $169.05 to win 380.36 WIN [211.31]
Zulte waregem 'pk' +102 $265.41 to win 270.72 LOSE (-265.41) Zulte waregem to win +195 $132.70 to win 258.77 LOSE [78.61] Zulte waregem to tie +165 $132.70 to win 218.96 LOSE [-54.09]
24th Novara 'pk' -163 $120.38 to win 73.85 PUSH (-265.41) Novara to win +125 $60.19 to win 75.24 LOSE [-114.28] Novara to tie +185 $60.19 to win 111.35 WIN [-2.93]
25th Aston Villa 'pk' - 150 $242.41 to win 161.61 WIN (-103.8) Aston Villa to win +120 $121.20 to win 145.44 WIN [142.51] Aston Villa to tie +220 $121.20 to win 266.64 LOSE [21.31]
Now I have to say looking back I probably shouldn't have bet like that tailing you on Zulte Waregem, because either way both ways lose the same, but you have more value for your 'pk' bet. But now on those other three, in my opinion to to win and to tie bets look better. I think it is best evident on the Novara bet, where both lines I got pay better than the 'pk' line. But, in my opinion it seems like the Aston Villa and Mechelen bets are worth doing my way as well, because of the narrow difference between win and 'pk' vs the large gap between 'pk' and tie payouts.
I hope I made myself clear, as at times I tend to ramble on and lose track of the point. Also, I'm not in anyway declaring myself right, but I definitely want to get your view on this subject. If you happen to agree then awesome for me, if not sorry to waste all this space in your killer thread!!!
0
I use sportsbook.com (don't love it but that was just the site I chose) and they don't offer 'pk' lines on soccer. So what I've been doing instead of just playing the line to win, I've been betting the team to win and the team to tie. I don't have the same bankroll as you and I haven't tailed every pick because I've seen some of these too late. But over the past few days that I've started doing the win and tie bets that it's been doing better for me than your 'pk' has for you. I did some crunching and split your bets in half so it still stays at the same percentage play.
Here's my calculations: 22nd Mechelen 'pk' -180 $338.11 to win 187.84 PUSH (0) mechelen to win even $169.05 to win 169.05 LOSE [-169.05] mechelen to tie +225 $169.05 to win 380.36 WIN [211.31]
Zulte waregem 'pk' +102 $265.41 to win 270.72 LOSE (-265.41) Zulte waregem to win +195 $132.70 to win 258.77 LOSE [78.61] Zulte waregem to tie +165 $132.70 to win 218.96 LOSE [-54.09]
24th Novara 'pk' -163 $120.38 to win 73.85 PUSH (-265.41) Novara to win +125 $60.19 to win 75.24 LOSE [-114.28] Novara to tie +185 $60.19 to win 111.35 WIN [-2.93]
25th Aston Villa 'pk' - 150 $242.41 to win 161.61 WIN (-103.8) Aston Villa to win +120 $121.20 to win 145.44 WIN [142.51] Aston Villa to tie +220 $121.20 to win 266.64 LOSE [21.31]
Now I have to say looking back I probably shouldn't have bet like that tailing you on Zulte Waregem, because either way both ways lose the same, but you have more value for your 'pk' bet. But now on those other three, in my opinion to to win and to tie bets look better. I think it is best evident on the Novara bet, where both lines I got pay better than the 'pk' line. But, in my opinion it seems like the Aston Villa and Mechelen bets are worth doing my way as well, because of the narrow difference between win and 'pk' vs the large gap between 'pk' and tie payouts.
I hope I made myself clear, as at times I tend to ramble on and lose track of the point. Also, I'm not in anyway declaring myself right, but I definitely want to get your view on this subject. If you happen to agree then awesome for me, if not sorry to waste all this space in your killer thread!!!
Oh, and also, I know this is a small sample size and that the $125.11 my way came out ahead isn't a good picture. I'm sure over the long haul it might very well come out to even due to 2 out of these 4 resulting in a tie. I'm mainly wanting to point out the - vs + odds that are paid in the 'pk' vs win/tie method. Also, I wanted to point out that I would think it would definitely have to be on a bet by bet basis, because like I said the odds were definitely better on the 'pk' on the one bet. Again DJ thanks for your time.
0
Oh, and also, I know this is a small sample size and that the $125.11 my way came out ahead isn't a good picture. I'm sure over the long haul it might very well come out to even due to 2 out of these 4 resulting in a tie. I'm mainly wanting to point out the - vs + odds that are paid in the 'pk' vs win/tie method. Also, I wanted to point out that I would think it would definitely have to be on a bet by bet basis, because like I said the odds were definitely better on the 'pk' on the one bet. Again DJ thanks for your time.
Hot Forum Topics
