Posted:
#151
is paire a lock or no
0
MY TENNIS PICKS 2016
Posted:
#152
Quote Originally Posted by accountant4life:
is paire a lock or no
There is no lock mate. I go with who I feel SHOULD win the match. The other player might have other ideas. Here's what you must ALL understand. I'm not a magician, I've had a good run so far this year. But I'm due three or four consecutive losses. I know they will come.is paire a lock or no
You all must realise that too. That's why I bet so conservatively and I've been successful at this for many years. You have to take it slowly...
0
Posted:
#153
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
You see that Lousybets? Thats the perfect example. Simon should have walked this match. But here he is losing in straight sets to a journeyman. That's why I don't go crazy with how much I bet. I've seen people's bankrolls wiped out in a few days. When they got too over confident and cocky about a betting strategy.
You see that Lousybets? Thats the perfect example. Simon should have walked this match. But here he is losing in straight sets to a journeyman. That's why I don't go crazy with how much I bet. I've seen people's bankrolls wiped out in a few days. When they got too over confident and cocky about a betting strategy.
Not all dogs win just like not all favs win all the time. Everyone knows that.
0
Posted:
#154
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
There is no lock mate. I go with who I feel SHOULD win the match. The other player might have other ideas. Here's what you must ALL understand. I'm not a magician, I've had a good run so far this year. But I'm due three or four consecutive losses. I know they will come.
There is no lock mate. I go with who I feel SHOULD win the match. The other player might have other ideas. Here's what you must ALL understand. I'm not a magician, I've had a good run so far this year. But I'm due three or four consecutive losses. I know they will come.
You all must realise that too. That's why I bet so conservatively and I've been successful at this for many years. You have to take it slowly...
I am not saying you are or not. I am looking at the rankings and player vs player. I am not familiar with anything above top 30. I am just really upset that Simon just thew that away.
0
Posted:
#155
Quote Originally Posted by lousyjets:
Right, the secret is to narrow the field. That's why I touch NOTHING either side of 1.40---1.67. It's the field of long term success. I can turn an annual profit year in year out. Because I can usually hold a 66% winning STRIKERATE over the long term. About two wins to every loss. But more importantly. And the reason I've been successful with this for several years. Is losing streaks beyond 5 are very rare.Not all dogs win just like not all favs win all the time. Everyone knows that.
And that's very important. Your strategy is only as strong as the weakest link. And the weakest link with all strategies is the long losing streak. Few people realize this. And it's the reason most fail long term...
0
Posted:
#156
Quote Originally Posted by accountant4life:
Yes he did, and I don't particularly like him. There Are three top 30 players I never touch.I am not saying you are or not. I am looking at the rankings and player vs player. I am not familiar with anything above top 30. I am just really upset that Simon just thew that away.
SIMON, NISHIKORI AND CILIC. They fold like cheap suits at the worst of times.
The time I put together an18 match winning streak it was done mostly with Challenger and ITF matches. When youre climbing the mountain you're often much hungrier than the one at the top of the mountain.
I have never won more than 6 bets in a row when betting purely on ATP/WTA matches...
0
Posted:
#157
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
Right, the secret is to narrow the field. That's why I touch NOTHING either side of 1.40---1.67. It's the field of long term success. I can turn an annual profit year in year out. Because I can usually hold a 66% winning STRIKERATE over the long term. About two wins to every loss. But more importantly. And the reason I've been successful with this for several years. Is losing streaks beyond 5 are very rare.
Right, the secret is to narrow the field. That's why I touch NOTHING either side of 1.40---1.67. It's the field of long term success. I can turn an annual profit year in year out. Because I can usually hold a 66% winning STRIKERATE over the long term. About two wins to every loss. But more importantly. And the reason I've been successful with this for several years. Is losing streaks beyond 5 are very rare.
And that's very important. Your strategy is only as strong as the weakest link. And the weakest link with all strategies is the long losing streak. Few people realize this. And it's the reason most fail long term...
Not really following 1.40---1.67 concept. Please elaborate. If I think what this (which I don't to be honest) you will not necessarily find these bets readily available to you for betting. Not often for sure.
0
Posted:
#158
Quote Originally Posted by lousyjets:
You don't need to think. You just watch it unfold. I've done all the studying and put all the hours in to know it works like nothing I ever found in my 52 years. And I tried it all. From roulette to baseball. I couldn't beat any of them. Then I found tennis. And it all worked.Not really following 1.40---1.67 concept. Please elaborate. If I think what this (which I don't to be honest) you will not necessarily find these bets readily available to you for betting. Not often for sure.
There's always plenty of bets 1.40--1.67. I decide which ones I feel have the best chance. I live in the UK. So I have no limits. I can bet on any match around the world. From slam to ITF.
If you're going to lose on a favourite don't lose on a favourite priced 1.18 like Simon was. You have to win too many times to pull it back.
That's why the idea that betting on only favourites is suicide came about. The secret is to shorten the deficit. So two wins match one loss. Now when you have a good run you build up the bankroll. And when you have a few losses you know a wins not far away. That's when YOU RAISE. This is how you edge ahead. And in the long term you will show a profit.
You must be patient. VERY PATIENT. This is no get rich quick scheme. Treat it like a business. I aim to increase my bank by 6--8% per month compounded. If you can truly do that you really have something...
0
Posted:
#160
Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel3:
You don't need to think. You just watch it unfold. I've done all the studying and put all the hours in to know it works like nothing I ever found in my 52 years. And I tried it all. From roulette to baseball. I couldn't beat any of them. Then I found tennis. And it all worked.
You don't need to think. You just watch it unfold. I've done all the studying and put all the hours in to know it works like nothing I ever found in my 52 years. And I tried it all. From roulette to baseball. I couldn't beat any of them. Then I found tennis. And it all worked.
There's always plenty of bets 1.40--1.67. I decide which ones I feel have the best chance. I live in the UK. So I have no limits. I can bet on any match around the world. From slam to ITF.
If you're going to lose on a favourite don't lose on a favourite priced 1.18 like Simon was. You have to win too many times to pull it back.
That's why the idea that betting on only favourites is suicide came about. The secret is to shorten the deficit. So two wins match one loss. Now when you have a good run you build up the bankroll. And when you have a few losses you know a wins not far away. That's when YOU RAISE. This is how you edge ahead. And in the long term you will show a profit.
You must be patient. VERY PATIENT. This is no get rich quick scheme. Treat it like a business. I aim to increase my bank by 6--8% per month compounded. If you can truly do that you really have something...
Senti,
I agree w/you. Point is when to throw $ in dog. Not all dog is going to win. Not all fave are in this point range that you talk about.
Give some ex if you can for upcoming game (ex Paire). Thanks
0
Posted:
#164
Quote Originally Posted by lousyjets:
Senti,
well as I understand it in the American books basically a minus number is the fave and a plus number is the dog correct?Senti,
What does 1.5 equates to in US books? Seems like this is Euro thing.
We have -150 (ex) or +150.
I am pretty sure you know.
As I only bet on faves from 1.40 to 1.67. All you have to do is put a minus in front of them and you have the American book conversion okay?
0
Posted:
#167
1.50 is -200 in american odds. American odds are way more complicated than decimal odds. Like Sentinel said, decimal odds are as easy to understand as it gets when it is 1.50 you get 1.50 times your bet.
-200 means that you have to wager 200 to win 100, which is the equivalent, but too weird for nothing...
0
Posted:
#175
Quote Originally Posted by coscos:
1.50 is -200 in american odds. American odds are way more complicated than decimal odds. Like Sentinel said, decimal odds are as easy to understand as it gets when it is 1.50 you get 1.50 times your bet.
Okay I get you there
1.50 is -200 in american odds. American odds are way more complicated than decimal odds. Like Sentinel said, decimal odds are as easy to understand as it gets when it is 1.50 you get 1.50 times your bet.
-200 means that you have to wager 200 to win 100, which is the equivalent, but too weird for nothing...
0
Hot Forum Topics
