Does anyone else want to explain this again? Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
Correct, but I think you are going to need to go into more detail considering we have been discussing this for two pages and Rodwoman still got it completely incorrect.
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
Does anyone else want to explain this again? Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
Correct, but I think you are going to need to go into more detail considering we have been discussing this for two pages and Rodwoman still got it completely incorrect.
Seems like he is still convinced he can survive as a dime player with a 20k bankroll so even the most simple premise of money management that everyone agrees on he dismisses. We all know where that leads its only a matter of how much time it will take till he busts out if he insists on playing dimes with a 20k roll.
Hitting @55% on - 110, full Kelly amount is actually 5.5% of br per wager. High risk of bankruptcy never the less and question is how well cg's psyche will cope with the extreme swings of full Kelly betting
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:
Seems like he is still convinced he can survive as a dime player with a 20k bankroll so even the most simple premise of money management that everyone agrees on he dismisses. We all know where that leads its only a matter of how much time it will take till he busts out if he insists on playing dimes with a 20k roll.
Hitting @55% on - 110, full Kelly amount is actually 5.5% of br per wager. High risk of bankruptcy never the less and question is how well cg's psyche will cope with the extreme swings of full Kelly betting
Does anyone else want to explain this again? Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
Please explain again if you lose you pay vig if you win you pay no vig so what difference does the vig make if you win all your wagers.You stake comes back regardless on a winner.
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
Does anyone else want to explain this again? Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
Please explain again if you lose you pay vig if you win you pay no vig so what difference does the vig make if you win all your wagers.You stake comes back regardless on a winner.
Does anyone else want to explain this again? Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
You mean if he's in Malta?
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
Does anyone else want to explain this again? Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
Does anyone else want to explain this again?Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
Please explain again if you lose you pay vig if you win you pay no vig so what difference does the vig make if you win all your wagers.You stake comes back regardless on a winner.
We're assuming cg's been wagering the same amount. Reread the conversation between me and vanzack, can't put it more clearly than that.
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
Does anyone else want to explain this again?Not if he loses them all would be correct. Winning them all makes the difference between betting at - 110 and - 105 larger.
Please explain again if you lose you pay vig if you win you pay no vig so what difference does the vig make if you win all your wagers.You stake comes back regardless on a winner.
We're assuming cg's been wagering the same amount. Reread the conversation between me and vanzack, can't put it more clearly than that.
I don't know what you are doing with your time but the capping of these games is horrendous. This has been a consistent theme lately. And I'm the only guy here picking them apart.
You are picking the Wolverines because of:
1) Pride
2) Illini shoot 41%
Let's look at #1. The Wolverines were such a proud team this year they went and put their home fans through the WORST LOSS in the history of their program to a school you should know quite well: The New Jersey Institute of Technology. Yes, a tech school beat them at home! They in some ways are like their football program that suffered through their worst season ever.
I don't see pride as their alleged strong suit.
Let's look at #2.
Yes, the Illini shoot 41%. 41.8% in fact.
But guess what Michigan shoots? 42%!
So how are either of these things a strong point to back Mich?
The 4 points is nice but your reasoning is outrageously flawed.
UNC? They are a TOUGH OUT after getting swept by Duke and desperately want a rematch. And you basically get a little over a ML to knock them off.
I see a 1-1 day at best with the Erosion of the Bankroll Via Vig continuing.
CG,
I don't know what you are doing with your time but the capping of these games is horrendous. This has been a consistent theme lately. And I'm the only guy here picking them apart.
You are picking the Wolverines because of:
1) Pride
2) Illini shoot 41%
Let's look at #1. The Wolverines were such a proud team this year they went and put their home fans through the WORST LOSS in the history of their program to a school you should know quite well: The New Jersey Institute of Technology. Yes, a tech school beat them at home! They in some ways are like their football program that suffered through their worst season ever.
I don't see pride as their alleged strong suit.
Let's look at #2.
Yes, the Illini shoot 41%. 41.8% in fact.
But guess what Michigan shoots? 42%!
So how are either of these things a strong point to back Mich?
The 4 points is nice but your reasoning is outrageously flawed.
UNC? They are a TOUGH OUT after getting swept by Duke and desperately want a rematch. And you basically get a little over a ML to knock them off.
I see a 1-1 day at best with the Erosion of the Bankroll Via Vig continuing.
Please explain again if you lose you pay vig if you win you pay no vig so what difference does the vig make if you win all your wagers.You stake comes back regardless on a winner.
When you lose, you lose everything you risked. Juice does not matter, it's all gone.
When you win, you get a % of your risk back, relative to the price you played your wager at. So juice affects your winning payout, not the losing one.
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:
Please explain again if you lose you pay vig if you win you pay no vig so what difference does the vig make if you win all your wagers.You stake comes back regardless on a winner.
When you lose, you lose everything you risked. Juice does not matter, it's all gone.
When you win, you get a % of your risk back, relative to the price you played your wager at. So juice affects your winning payout, not the losing one.
The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
Guys,
The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
Louisville Cardinals +2.5 (-110) $1100/$1000. Not impressed by Carolina. Louisville D will be the difference
I'd lean Ville myself, but you bet them vs Duke so you were clearly "impressed" with them at that point. Now off that one game, you aren't impressed? Is that your capping?
Quote Originally Posted by collegegambler:
Louisville Cardinals +2.5 (-110) $1100/$1000. Not impressed by Carolina. Louisville D will be the difference
I'd lean Ville myself, but you bet them vs Duke so you were clearly "impressed" with them at that point. Now off that one game, you aren't impressed? Is that your capping?
The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
This is the ultimate loser response right here.
Quote Originally Posted by Ballerholic:
Guys,
The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
I don't know what you are doing with your time but the capping of these games is horrendous. This has been a consistent theme lately. And I'm the only guy here picking them apart.
You are picking the Wolverines because of:
1) Pride
2) Illini shoot 41%
Let's look at #1. The Wolverines were such a proud team this year they went and put their home fans through the WORST LOSS in the history of their program to a school you should know quite well: The New Jersey Institute of Technology. Yes, a tech school beat them at home! They in some ways are like their football program that suffered through their worst season ever.
I don't see pride as their alleged strong suit.
Let's look at #2.
Yes, the Illini shoot 41%. 41.8% in fact.
But guess what Michigan shoots? 42%!
So how are either of these things a strong point to back Mich?
The 4 points is nice but your reasoning is outrageously flawed.
UNC? They are a TOUGH OUT after getting swept by Duke and desperately want a rematch. And you basically get a little over a ML to knock them off.
I see a 1-1 day at best with the Erosion of the Bankroll Via Vig continuing.
You are the only one attacking it, but not the only one noticing it.
I don't know anything about hoops. There are so many flaws in this "betting empire" that I am trying to stick with what I know.
CGs absolute honesty and transparency also brings out his handicapping method - which even knowing nothing about hoops - seems about as random as the rest of his decisions.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
CG,
I don't know what you are doing with your time but the capping of these games is horrendous. This has been a consistent theme lately. And I'm the only guy here picking them apart.
You are picking the Wolverines because of:
1) Pride
2) Illini shoot 41%
Let's look at #1. The Wolverines were such a proud team this year they went and put their home fans through the WORST LOSS in the history of their program to a school you should know quite well: The New Jersey Institute of Technology. Yes, a tech school beat them at home! They in some ways are like their football program that suffered through their worst season ever.
I don't see pride as their alleged strong suit.
Let's look at #2.
Yes, the Illini shoot 41%. 41.8% in fact.
But guess what Michigan shoots? 42%!
So how are either of these things a strong point to back Mich?
The 4 points is nice but your reasoning is outrageously flawed.
UNC? They are a TOUGH OUT after getting swept by Duke and desperately want a rematch. And you basically get a little over a ML to knock them off.
I see a 1-1 day at best with the Erosion of the Bankroll Via Vig continuing.
You are the only one attacking it, but not the only one noticing it.
I don't know anything about hoops. There are so many flaws in this "betting empire" that I am trying to stick with what I know.
CGs absolute honesty and transparency also brings out his handicapping method - which even knowing nothing about hoops - seems about as random as the rest of his decisions.
The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
You meant to say....
This is how most recreational, action junkie, sports bettors go about.
Quote Originally Posted by Ballerholic:
Guys,
The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
You meant to say....
This is how most recreational, action junkie, sports bettors go about.
Scal, we get it, you don't like his "write-ups" or lack thereof. CG either isn't sharing all his thoughts/analysis behind his plays, or he doesn't have anything additional to share. Regardless of which is true, it's the way he is doing it, and constantly posting about it ad nauseam is just getting old.
Scal, we get it, you don't like his "write-ups" or lack thereof. CG either isn't sharing all his thoughts/analysis behind his plays, or he doesn't have anything additional to share. Regardless of which is true, it's the way he is doing it, and constantly posting about it ad nauseam is just getting old.
That's 28k a year. He used to make that much at his job, and now he is giving it away?
Betting at pinnacle is not cash in hand, but it is damn close. And there is no law you are skirting. None whatsoever.
My situation is a little different. Cash in hand is worth more than 28k, and I can't get a Pinnacle account. I didn't know Pinnacle accepted US residents??
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
A MONTH!
That's 28k a year. He used to make that much at his job, and now he is giving it away?
Betting at pinnacle is not cash in hand, but it is damn close. And there is no law you are skirting. None whatsoever.
My situation is a little different. Cash in hand is worth more than 28k, and I can't get a Pinnacle account. I didn't know Pinnacle accepted US residents??
You are the only one attacking it, but not the only one noticing it.
I don't know anything about hoops. There are so many flaws in this "betting empire" that I am trying to stick with what I know.
CGs absolute honesty and transparency also brings out his handicapping method - which even knowing nothing about hoops - seems about as random as the rest of his decisions.
Today is the first today I mentioned ANYTHING about his "capping" as well. He has a decent sample size and picking games is the least of his issues, but sounds like an elementary style at best.
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
You are the only one attacking it, but not the only one noticing it.
I don't know anything about hoops. There are so many flaws in this "betting empire" that I am trying to stick with what I know.
CGs absolute honesty and transparency also brings out his handicapping method - which even knowing nothing about hoops - seems about as random as the rest of his decisions.
Today is the first today I mentioned ANYTHING about his "capping" as well. He has a decent sample size and picking games is the least of his issues, but sounds like an elementary style at best.
My situation is a little different. Cash in hand is worth more than 28k, and I can't get a Pinnacle account. I didn't know Pinnacle accepted US residents??
They accept US Citizens with a residence in any country they accept.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by mbialowas:
My situation is a little different. Cash in hand is worth more than 28k, and I can't get a Pinnacle account. I didn't know Pinnacle accepted US residents??
They accept US Citizens with a residence in any country they accept.
Guys,The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
This is the ultimate loser response right here.
This is actually partly correct and we could recalculate cg's bet history assuming he'd been betting 1050 instead of 1100, for a constant return. Doesn't matter the vig being what it is the net result would still be around -$1200 on - 110 compared to -105. (You Americans should BTW seriously switch to decimal odds cause it makes each and every calculation so much easier)
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
Quote Originally Posted by Ballerholic:
Guys,The vig only matters if you lose. In CG's case he would either bet $1100 to win $1000 or $1050 to win $1000. At a -105 most people would risk $1050. Either way you win $1000, but how much you lose depends on the line you got. This is how most sports bettors go about.
This is the ultimate loser response right here.
This is actually partly correct and we could recalculate cg's bet history assuming he'd been betting 1050 instead of 1100, for a constant return. Doesn't matter the vig being what it is the net result would still be around -$1200 on - 110 compared to -105. (You Americans should BTW seriously switch to decimal odds cause it makes each and every calculation so much easier)
Hot Forum Topics
