you know something about the game that no one else knows in the whole world over a huge number of games to overcome variance, that is the other method of winning long term, sound feasible?
I know you are good at math. But what did you score in reading comprehension?
oh dont give me any math credit and its obvious I deserve zero credit for grammar and my reading comprehension probably not just because of the lightning quick review of everything in life and instant to quick of judgment, so yeah dumb
you know something about the game that no one else knows in the whole world over a huge number of games to overcome variance, that is the other method of winning long term, sound feasible?
- - - Updated - - -
oh dont give me any math credit and its obvious I deserve zero credit for grammar and my reading comprehension probably not just because of the lightning quick review of everything in life and instant to quick of judgment, so yeah dumb
We all have our strengths and weaknesses. You have strong beliefs and just do not understand how markets actually work. But that is not rare. Academics that claim to understand it, don't understand it either.
how do you mean? I just really dont get what part you think I am missing
I have explained this to you more than once. The problem is your applying market efficiency theory to the gambling market and then your idea of how and why lines move. You have a very strange idea of how this all works.
the gambling market is entirely market efficiency if it wasn't it would not exist
- - - Updated - - -
I am speaking major known efficient markets
No, it isn't. Market efficiency is a flawed theory. The entire financial crisis was due to the belief of market efficiency even when a market was so inefficient it was obvious to anyone that looked at it and painfully obvious in hindsight. Yet no minds were changed.
No, it isn't. Market efficiency is a flawed theory. The entire financial crisis was due to the belief of market efficiency even when a market was so inefficient it was obvious to anyone that looked at it and painfully obvious in hindsight. Yet no minds were changed.
you think the sports betting market in major markets is not efficient? come on dude you know better than that. yes one or two games here or there are not efficient sure but overall the market is efficient and if we only bet 1 or 2 games that are truly not efficient you are still screwed because its not enough to overcome the variance monster ask DRH
- - - Updated - - -
I stopped all the methods I had and stopped picking 1 or 2 games per day and now do 40-50 a day because even if I truly have an edge on 1 or 2 games its not enough to consistently win.
you think the sports betting market in major markets is not efficient? come on dude you know better than that. yes one or two games here or there are not efficient sure but overall the market is efficient and if we only bet 1 or 2 games that are truly not efficient you are still screwed because its not enough to overcome the variance monster ask DRH
- - - Updated - - -
I stopped all the methods I had and stopped picking 1 or 2 games per day and now do 40-50 a day because even if I truly have an edge on 1 or 2 games its not enough to consistently win.
No, it is not efficient. As I have pointed out before, the NE Patriots and SA Spurs destroyed the gambling market for years despite people knowing these teams beat the market. That cannot happen in an efficient market. It cannot happen in a market that is even close to efficient. The market is efficient enough to rely on CLV and such. It is not so efficient that even casual gamblers can beat it if they have enough discipline to do so.
you will always have those outliers in anything ie Spurs Pats but that does not diminish the market efficiency. again it is not efficient in all cases but overall!
and casual gamblers lose long term except for SB survivors
you will always have those outliers in anything ie Spurs Pats but that does not diminish the market efficiency. again it is not efficient in all cases but overall!
and casual gamblers lose long term except for SB survivors
Casual gamblers lose on the average. Not in the specific. For a market to be efficient, it has to be efficient in ALL cases. It isn't.
ok if every single game has to be 100% efficient than if that is the case then the market is not efficient. I think the market is overall efficient and those inefficient games are not enough for most to overcome variance
most people would not bet if they actually knew the line meant anything. most people lose before the 1st pitch is even thrown and they dont even know it
most people would not bet if they actually knew the line meant anything. most people lose before the 1st pitch is even thrown and they dont even know it
This is your problem. You deal with people that have an edge or believe they have an edge and you apply basic theory to their case in particular.
When you argue with professional gamblers about whether or not an edge exists, you always make the argument as if they are a novice with no edge.
This is your problem. You deal with people that have an edge or believe they have an edge and you apply basic theory to their case in particular.
When you argue with professional gamblers about whether or not an edge exists, you always make the argument as if they are a novice with no edge.
I think some people truly have an edge, I think that number is super small and I would say 8 out of 10 people that think they have an edge probably dont, dont you agree?
I think some people truly have an edge, I think that number is super small and I would say 8 out of 10 people that think they have an edge probably dont, dont you agree?
This means nothing to a man with an edge. You argue the point. Not that an edge is impossible.
I am saying most people that think they have an edge dont
An edge is truly real and there are some people with an edge, that is not a thing I have implied or think. I do think that people that have an edge and that edge is not correlated to similar line value probably dont actually have an edge long term! there are exceptions to this of course go back to my tennis guy who took my money!
I am saying most people that think they have an edge dont
An edge is truly real and there are some people with an edge, that is not a thing I have implied or think. I do think that people that have an edge and that edge is not correlated to similar line value probably dont actually have an edge long term! there are exceptions to this of course go back to my tennis guy who took my money!
Yes, you have spent tens of hours arguing this point with people that agree with you thinking they thought differently.
ok I am going to say a completely not with value guess and that is the Sparks just dont have the power to keep rolling this close. I would say Dream + anything is free money! now that sounds super toutish but its just my opinion of the tons of hours of games I have looked at in the WNBA, my bet would be Dream +.5 2nd half for sure
Comments
Right. They charge 10% and that is a hell of a charge.
Here we go again.
I know you are good at math. But what did you score in reading comprehension?
you know something about the game that no one else knows in the whole world over a huge number of games to overcome variance, that is the other method of winning long term, sound feasible?
- - - Updated - - -
oh dont give me any math credit and its obvious I deserve zero credit for grammar and my reading comprehension probably not just because of the lightning quick review of everything in life and instant to quick of judgment, so yeah dumb
We all have our strengths and weaknesses. You have strong beliefs and just do not understand how markets actually work. But that is not rare. Academics that claim to understand it, don't understand it either.
Yes. You have no concept of how gambling markets actually work.
how do you mean? I just really dont get what part you think I am missing
I have explained this to you more than once. The problem is your applying market efficiency theory to the gambling market and then your idea of how and why lines move. You have a very strange idea of how this all works.
- - - Updated - - -
I am speaking major known efficient markets
No, it isn't. Market efficiency is a flawed theory. The entire financial crisis was due to the belief of market efficiency even when a market was so inefficient it was obvious to anyone that looked at it and painfully obvious in hindsight. Yet no minds were changed.
you think the sports betting market in major markets is not efficient? come on dude you know better than that. yes one or two games here or there are not efficient sure but overall the market is efficient and if we only bet 1 or 2 games that are truly not efficient you are still screwed because its not enough to overcome the variance monster ask DRH
- - - Updated - - -
I stopped all the methods I had and stopped picking 1 or 2 games per day and now do 40-50 a day because even if I truly have an edge on 1 or 2 games its not enough to consistently win.
No, it is not efficient. As I have pointed out before, the NE Patriots and SA Spurs destroyed the gambling market for years despite people knowing these teams beat the market. That cannot happen in an efficient market. It cannot happen in a market that is even close to efficient. The market is efficient enough to rely on CLV and such. It is not so efficient that even casual gamblers can beat it if they have enough discipline to do so.
and casual gamblers lose long term except for SB survivors
Casual gamblers lose on the average. Not in the specific. For a market to be efficient, it has to be efficient in ALL cases. It isn't.
You think Baseball lines are efficient ? I doubt it.
<tbody>
[TH="align: center"]ATS:[/TH]
239-238-13 (-0.40, 50.1%)
</tbody>
This is your problem. You deal with people that have an edge or believe they have an edge and you apply basic theory to their case in particular.
When you argue with professional gamblers about whether or not an edge exists, you always make the argument as if they are a novice with no edge.
<tbody>
[TH="align: center"]H[/TH]
<tbody>
[TH="align: center"]SU:[/TH]
20723-17703 (0.15, 53.9%)
avg line: -128.1 / 115.5
on / against: -$88,903 / -$102,382
ROI: -1.7% / -2.4%
[TH="align: center"]RL:[/TH]
14104-16728 (-0.38, 45.7%)
avg line: 117.0 / -131.9
on / against: -$85,443 / -$102,125
ROI: -2.4% / -2.3%
[TH="align: center"]OU:[/TH]
17909-18612-1793 (0.42, 49.0%)
avg total: 8.6
over / under: -$239,285 / -$109,847
ROI: -5.7% / -2.6%
</tbody>
</tbody>
- - - Updated - - -
I think some people truly have an edge, I think that number is super small and I would say 8 out of 10 people that think they have an edge probably dont, dont you agree?
This means nothing to a man with an edge. You argue the point. Not that an edge is impossible.
An edge is truly real and there are some people with an edge, that is not a thing I have implied or think. I do think that people that have an edge and that edge is not correlated to similar line value probably dont actually have an edge long term! there are exceptions to this of course go back to my tennis guy who took my money!
Yes, you have spent tens of hours arguing this point with people that agree with you thinking they thought differently.