Betting Talk

Question For Mr Goats

DogsoutDogsout Senior Member
edited July 2013 in Sports Betting
Quote Originally Posted by organic313 View Post
Exact opposite actually. Members post, I fade. Other than Buffet of course. I think people should really consider this and they will start seeing positive outcomes.
Thanks for the response. GL with that in the long run.

I would take the time to explain why fading someone is not a feasible strategy, but I doubt it would sway you.

I started a new thread so as not to contaminate the good Dr's thread. I am having a very hard time digesting your comment above and to be honest I think a blanket statement above could use an explanation. I not being the sharpest tack in the box certainly think that there is money to be made fading anyone at anytime. (Ras included) Everyone has there ups and downs, some more then others, that is a fact of life. Now on some people your fading window may not last long, but in example Stevie Y, a very good capper on on sour run would be making someone some decent amount of cash fading his picks at the present. Not trying to start a fight but would very much appreciate an explanation from your side. The guy was being a dick entering the Doc's thread and by no means defending that, but I am having a hard time finding fault in his fading strategy in general. Keep in mind I am questioning your statement includes all cappers not just specific ones.
«1

Comments

  • newcombenewcombe Senior Member
    edited June 2013
    Dogsout wrote: »
    but I am having a hard time finding fault in his fading strategy in general. Keep in mind I am questioning your statement includes all cappers not just specific ones.

    Im certainly not goats but figured I would take a stab as an outsider looking in.

    how do you know when to fade someone and whom to fade? just b/c they are experience negative variance and even if that negative is lasting longer than expected, when do you decide the fade is on and when does this fading timeline end? Its ridiculous to think you can pinpoint this to accurately make money off of it vs other methods. plain and simple... let alone the idea of line value w/in this fading equation.
  • DogsoutDogsout Senior Member
    edited June 2013
    Its ridiculous to think you can pinpoint this to accurately make money off of it vs other methods.

    I am not sure where your TIMING statement comes from. Correct me if I am wrong but the lions share of people are at best going to hit 50% of their bets give or take a little. You could start a fad on a person that is coming off of a 10 game winning streak and still win fading this person. Would you say that statement is wrong?
  • RightAngleRightAngle Admin
    edited June 2013
    Streaks, or ups and downs, are not predictable.
  • baseRunnerbaseRunner Senior Member
    edited June 2013
    I support this idea completely. I strongly encourage you to fade Doc for the rest of the year.
  • RightAngleRightAngle Admin
    edited June 2013
    Dogsout wrote: »
    You could start a fad on a person that is coming off of a 10 game winning streak and still win fading this person. Would you say that statement is wrong?

    The results of the previous 10 events have no bearing on the next event.

    It is like if you flipped a coin and heads came up 10 times in a row, it doesn't make tails at -110 a good bet on the next toss.
  • buythehookbuythehook Senior Member
    edited June 2013
    You may agree or disagree, buy I have been fading Lang for 3 years. I have made very good money,He is a looser and a scam artist. He has had some win streaks, but not too crazy. He is the only one I think I would blindly fade.
  • Obi OneObi One Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    Dogsout wrote: »
    Its ridiculous to think you can pinpoint this to accurately make money off of it vs other methods.

    I am not sure where your TIMING statement comes from. Correct me if I am wrong but the lions share of people are at best going to hit 50% of their bets give or take a little. You could start a fad on a person that is coming off of a 10 game winning streak and still win fading this person. Would you say that statement is wrong?

    Let's say for example that this is the thread where you post all your well-timed fades for the next 5 years. Guess what?! After 10 years and about 5000 plays later, guess where you'll be..........

    Yup, that's right.....

    50%

    You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

    PS. Jets went 4-1 today.....where's that dickhead that faded him?
  • DogsoutDogsout Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    I am not in the habit of fading anyone, but have in the past. I still stand by my statement that fading a -110 bet you have as much chance to make money as you do to lose money. Goats statement was "fading someone is not a feasible strategy" again waiting for his answer. To all of the pro gamblers on here no where in my statement did I say I was going to time a WIN streak or a LOSING streak. You can fade anyone at anytime and make money. I knew I was swimming up stream on this post when I did it. I also knew the math would come out hell look at my start date I just didn't fall off the turnip truck. Seems if you don't conform to the boards general rule of thinking you are automatically assumed to be wrong. As for Buy The Hook I think you should give back you fade winnings because it is not in line with conventional wisdom. Again not trying to start a FIGHt here was just asking for Goats clarification that is it. I NEVER once said he was wrong or flatly claimed my statement was right.
  • GoatsGoats Head Moderator
    edited July 2013
    As usual, I wasn't around last night to respond, but the responses you received have pretty much covered the issue.

    You cannot predict streaks (positive or negative) and even the worst cappers will regress to just under 50% (for -110 sports) in the long run.

    It's just as hard to hit below 47.6% in the long run as it is to hit above 52.4%, possibly harder.

    BTW, appreciate you starting a new thread. Not only does it not clutter up someone else's thread, but it's likely a topic worthy of its own thread.
  • buythehookbuythehook Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    As for Buy The Hook I think you should give back you fade winnings because it is not in line with conventional wisdom. Again not trying to start a FIGHt here was just asking for Goats clarification that is it. I NEVER once said he was wrong or flatly claimed my statement was right.[/QUOTE]

    Loll.. Conventional wisdom...what is that exactly?? Across the street at 2 places there are thousands of faders of this clown.... That's exactly why ppl fade him... He is a looser and a scam artist. Like. Said, I blindly fade him... Even in feb-march he was on a hot streak, I still played same dollar amount and eventually he lost it all back and more.

    I don't have the balls to just pick and fade anyone else, but convention wisdom?? That's a good one on a Monday morning. Watch some of Lang's videos and you probably want to fade him as well

    I know Goats and many other will disagree with my thoughts, but it works for me.

    Have a great 4th of July week everyone!!
  • TommyLTommyL Super Moderator
    edited July 2013
    Dogsout wrote: »
    Seems if you don't conform to the boards general rule of thinking you are automatically assumed to be wrong.

    Obviously you don't agree, but in this instance it is wrong (and not because it doesn't "conform" to "board's" thinking). This isn't just a matter of opinion that a few of the "pros" on the board cooked up, it's something that's pretty much a proven fact. If winning/losing streaks were predictive, then you'd have a great strategy. They aren't, and the streaks are just variance that can't be timed successfully.
  • GoatsGoats Head Moderator
    edited July 2013
    TommyL wrote: »
    Obviously you don't agree, but in this instance it is wrong (and not because it doesn't "conform" to "board's" thinking). This isn't just a matter of opinion that a few of the "pros" on the board cooked up, it's something that's pretty much a proven fact. If winning/losing streaks were predictive, then you'd have a great strategy. They aren't, and the streaks are just variance that can't be timed successfully.

    Well said.
  • newcombenewcombe Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    Dogsout wrote: »
    Its ridiculous to think you can pinpoint this to accurately make money off of it vs other methods.

    I am not sure where your TIMING statement comes from. Correct me if I am wrong but the lions share of people are at best going to hit 50% of their bets give or take a little. You could start a fad on a person that is coming off of a 10 game winning streak and still win fading this person. Would you say that statement is wrong?

    timing and predictability as others have noted are exactly what I was referring to. thanks others for clarifying a little better than I did.
  • jets96jets96 Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    obi one, what does that statement exactly mean , (PS. Jets went 4-1 today.....where's that dickhead that faded him?)
  • GoatsGoats Head Moderator
    edited July 2013
    jets96 wrote: »
    obi one, what does that statement exactly mean , (PS. Jets went 4-1 today.....where's that dickhead that faded him?)

    Start with this post and read down the thread: http://www.bettingtalk.com/threads/173735-2013-bases?p=802766&viewfull=1#post802766

    This is what spawned this thread and where you were mentioned.
  • homerplayerhomerplayer Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    Dogsout wrote: »
    I still stand by my statement that fading a -110 bet you have as much chance to make money as you do to lose money.

    fade or follow matters not becuase paying -110 is worse.
  • buffettgamblerbuffettgambler Senior Handicapper
    edited July 2013
    Unless you are fading someone that is moving the lines or believe someone is simply inherently unlucky, you are under the assumption of two variables that require a large leap of faith.

    1. Someone incorporates variables not accurately discounted by the market, but incorporates them incorrectly in a way where it generates anti-value.
    2. Despite methodology not working, person will continue to use the same method.

    Goats alluded to there being possibly being a small differential of handicappers that fall in the >52.4% and <47.6%. That may be true given both subsets being a small percentage of the population. That said, it is more likely that someone would stay in the former subset than the latter.
  • GoatsGoats Head Moderator
    edited July 2013
    Dogsout wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong but the lions share of people are at best going to hit 50% of their bets give or take a little.

    The lion's share of people are going to hit AT WORST 50% of their bets give or take a little as well.

    99%+ of gamblers lose b/c of the vig and poor money management, not b/c they're hitting drastically below 50%.
  • worm33worm33 Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    buffettgambler wrote: »
    Unless you are fading someone that is moving the lines or believe someone is simply inherently unlucky, you are under the assumption of two variables that require a large leap of faith.

    1. Someone incorporates variables not accurately discounted by the market, but incorporates them incorrectly in a way where it generates anti-value.
    2. Despite methodology not working, person will continue to use the same method.

    Goats alluded to there being possibly being a small differential of handicappers that fall in the >52.4% and <47.6%. That may be true given both subsets being a small percentage of the population. That said, it is more likely that someone would stay in the former subset than the latter.

    Correct, the only person u can fade is one who moves lines.
  • RightAngleRightAngle Admin
    edited July 2013
    worm33 wrote: »
    Correct, the only person u can fade is one who moves lines.

    Even then, for someone to move lines long term, they have to be doing something right, so unless you are handicapping at a very high level, think its a fake, and/or think you know more than the person moving the line on a particular game, it is still a dicey proposition.
  • worm33worm33 Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    RightAngle wrote: »
    Even then, for someone to move lines long term, they have to be doing something right, so unless you are handicapping at a very high level, think its a fake, and/or think you know more than the person moving the line on a particular game, it is still a dicey proposition.

    Yes I didnt mean to make it sound like "if they move lines fade them". I honestly would say its better though to fade someone like RAS at the top of the line move (if you could time it obv) then to fade a random BT capper. To sum it up, fading random capper=lighting money on fire.
  • RightAngleRightAngle Admin
    edited July 2013
    buythehook wrote: »
    You may agree or disagree, buy I have been fading Lang for 3 years. I have made very good money,He is a looser and a scam artist. He has had some win streaks, but not too crazy. He is the only one I think I would blindly fade.

    Not going to say you are lying, but I just don't buy the notion that Lang (or anyone else) hits below 47% long term. I've browsed the threads on it at other forums, they are always adding different things to the "system", certain types of plays, martingale type stuff, etc. Let me see his flat record on last 2000+ plays.
  • buythehookbuythehook Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    RightAngle wrote: »
    Not going to say you are lying, but I just don't buy the notion that Lang (or anyone else) hits below 47% long term. I've browsed the threads on it at other forums, they are always adding different things to the "system", certain types of plays, martingale type stuff, etc. Let me see his flat record on last 2000+ plays.

    I don't follow his units, I flat bet his plays. He has stopped posting plays at certain times, but he has definitely lost money the past 3 years. I didn't have a lot time to go back, but this is his record so far this year. I copied it from across the street. I know you dont believe in fading anyone, but Lang is a lifetime looser.

    LOSER LANG SPORTS TRACKER


    NFL PRESEASON (2012)

    1-2, -30 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    25 DIME: 1-2


    NFL REGULAR SEASON (2012)

    19-15, +181.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 7-4
    80 DIME: 0-2
    75 DIME: 1-2
    50 DIME: 7-2
    25 DIME: 4-3
    10 DIME: 0-2


    NFL PLAYOFFS (2013)

    6-1, +540 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    200 DIME: 1-0
    100 DIME: 4-1
    50 DIME: 1-0


    NFL REGULAR SEASON (2011)

    35-46-3, -1,383 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 2-7-1
    80 DIME: 0-1
    75 DIME: 3-9
    50 DIME: 3-6-1
    40 DIME: 3-6-1
    30 DIME: 7-5
    25 DIME: 3-1
    20 DIME: 13-10
    15 DIME: 0-1
    10 DIME: 1-0


    NFL PLAYOFFS (2012)

    6-6, +288.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    200 DIME: 1-0
    100 DIME: 1-0
    75 DIME: 3-1
    50 DIME: 0-1
    30 DIME: 1-2
    25 DIME: 0-2


    COLLEGE FOOTBALL (2012)

    11-16, -485.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 0-1
    90 DIME: 0-1
    80 DIME: 0-1
    75 DIME: 1-2
    60 DIME: 0-1
    50 DIME: 2-2
    40 DIME: 0-1
    30 DIME: 5-2
    25 DIME: 3-5


    COLLEGE FOOTBALL (2011)

    35-41, -351 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 0-1
    75 DIME: 4-4
    50 DIME: 3-4
    40 DIME: 4-4
    30 DIME: 3-3
    25 DIME: 5-4
    20 DIME: 9-10
    15 DIME: 5-6
    10 DIME: 2-5


    CFB BOWL SEASON (2012-13)

    4-8, -312.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 1-3
    75 DIME: 1-0
    50 DIME: 1-3
    25 DIME: 1-2


    CFB BOWL SEASON (2011-12)

    4-15-1, -644 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 3-4-1
    50 DIME: 0-6
    40 DIME: 0-2
    30 DIME: 0-2
    20 DIME: 0-1
    15 DIME: 1-0


    COLLEGE HOOPS (2012-13)

    35-20-1, +151 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 2-2
    80 DIME: 3-2
    75 DIME: 0-2
    60 DIME: 4-1
    50 DIME: 0-2
    40 DIME: 3-2
    30 DIME: 0-2
    25 DIME: 6-2
    20 DIME: 5-2
    15 DIME: 3-2
    10 DIME: 9-1-1


    COLLEGE HOOPS TOURNAMENT (2013)

    12-11, -216 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    200 DIME: 0-1
    100 DIME: 4-4
    80 DIME: 0-1
    60 DIME: 1-1
    50 DIME: 1-0
    40 DIME: 1-1
    30 DIME: 1-1
    20 DIME: 1-1
    15 DIME: 2-0
    10 DIME: 1-1


    COLLEGE HOOPS (2011-12)

    30-46-3, -402 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 0-1
    80 DIME: 0-1
    75 DIME: 5-1
    50 DIME: 1-4
    40 DIME: 1-0
    30 DIME: 0-1
    25 DIME: 1-4
    20 DIME: 12-18-2
    15 DIME: 0-3
    10 DIME: 10-13-1


    COLLEGE HOOPS TOURNAMENT (2012)

    10-15, +137.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 5-1
    75 DIME: 1-1
    50 DIME: 0-1
    40 DIME: 1-2
    30 DIME: 0-1
    20 DIME: 2-6
    10 DIME: 1-3


    NBA (2012-13)

    8-8, -41.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    50 DIME: 0-1
    25 DIME: 3-2
    20 DIME: 1-1
    15 DIME: 1-1
    10 DIME: 3-3


    NBA PLAYOFFS (2013)

    25-32-2, -884.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    200 DIME: 0-1
    100 DIME: 2-3
    80 DIME: 0-1
    75 DIME: 3-2
    60 DIME: 1-4-1
    50 DIME: 2-8
    40 DIME: 3-3
    30 DIME: 1-2
    25 DIME: 6-3
    20 DIME: 2-2-1
    10 DIME: 5-3


    NBA (2011-12)

    8-12-1, +42 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    80 DIME: 2-0
    50 DIME: 1-1
    40 DIME: 1-1
    30 DIME: 0-1
    25 DIME: 4-3
    20 DIME: 0-2
    15 DIME: 0-1
    10 DIME: 0-3-1


    NBA PLAYOFFS (2012)

    18-15, +184 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    80 DIME: 1-0
    50 DIME: 3-1
    40 DIME: 1-0
    30 DIME: 1-1
    25 DIME: 4-4
    20 DIME: 7-6
    15 DIME: 0-1
    10 DIME: 1-2


    MLB REGULAR SEASON (2013)

    15-21, -388 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    100 DIME: 1-3
    60 DIME: 2-1
    50 DIME: 0-1
    40 DIME: 1-3
    30 DIME: 4-2
    25 DIME: 3-3
    20 DIME: 0-2
    15 DIME: 2-2
    10 DIME: 2-4


    MLB REGULAR SEASON (2012)

    24-45, -134 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    75 DIME: 2-0
    50 DIME: 0-1
    30 DIME: 2-3
    25 DIME: 1-1
    20 DIME: 0-4
    15 DIME: 2-3
    10 DIME: 17-25
    05 DIME: 0-8


    MLB PLAYOFFS (2012)

    0-2, -112.5 Dimes

    DIME RATINGS

    50 DIME: 0-1
    25 DIME: 0-1
  • DogsoutDogsout Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    Well hasn't this taken on a life of its own. Will try one last time and by no means am I saying anyone is wrong in their thinking regarding this topic. Lets take a years worth of bets on Joe Blow gambler. All of his bets are -110, no props not dumb ass bets ALL -110. Taking into consideration the juice aspect of betting which is a assured. If he went (Just throwing a # out here fellas) 250 Wins and 300 looses I am having a hard time seeing where I could not make some money off of fading Joe B. I am not trying to time a streak, I take the good with the bad but faithfully bet against every bet he makes all year. Again not a rocket scientist but I think I make some cash and Joe loses some cash. If good ole Joe has a good year then I in turn take it in the shorts. Come on guys you make it sound like I don't know Joe could have a good season also,I DO! All I was asking for clarification was on Goats blanket statement that fading a person is not a feasible option. Under the above described circumstances I still believe that it is. Let the party begin.
  • baseRunnerbaseRunner Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    I support this idea completely.

    Going forward I would suggest that you fade using a full Kelly staking strategy, and estimate your inverse-edge based on the 500 sample set. This strategy cannot lose IMO.
  • newcombenewcombe Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    a 'cannot lose strategy'? c'mon baseRunner... no need for me to elaborate.
  • SnakeheadSnakehead Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    Goats wrote: »
    You cannot predict streaks (positive or negative) and even the worst cappers will regress to just under 50% (for -110 sports) in the long run.

    It's just as hard to hit below 47.6% in the long run as it is to hit above 52.4%, possibly harder.
    My thinking, which is somewhat different than Dogsout, and loosely based on Goats' response, is to fade a person on an unreal hot streak and follow someone on an out-of-character losing streak. A "regression towards the mean" ideoloqy. But that goes against following hot (& cold) streaks, so nobody would want to do that.

    Your thoughts, Goats?
  • Obi OneObi One Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    From which hat are you going to pull the 250-win-300-loss-capper?

    Real question: how do you decide who to fade?

    As has been said over and over again, it's as hard to find a capper who you should follow, as it is to find one to fade. In the long term 98% will even out around 50%
  • worm33worm33 Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    Time for a sticky.....
  • duritodurito Senior Member
    edited July 2013
    If Joe went 250-300 the fact that he was under 50% is very very likely to just be variance (his true rate should be ~50%). So fading him going forward should do about the same as tailing him. The fact that he ran poorly on his last 550 plays is irrelevant going forward.
    Goats wrote: »

    It's just as hard to hit below 47.6% in the long run as it is to hit above 52.4%, possibly harder.

    I would say it's much harder. In fact I don't think there is anyone betting into widely available lines that is going to hit below 47%. I am sure there exists some large squares that when presented with shaded lines (say Bodog/SIA) will pick the wrong side nearly every time, but fading them requires access to those very same books as the fade # is not widely available (and we all know how to win with those lines without having to fade someone).
Sign In or Register to comment.