I honestly don't remember ... I have the Betbud app on the I phone,I pulled his record and that's what came up.... I'm too pissed off to look any further in details... Bad week all around in gambling for me this week... That chargers game killed me.... Unbelievable!!!
if I remember correctly, last yr on Scott's original website, didn't he offer a first month of the season special(or wks 2 thru 5 maybe)... the reason being that in his entire history that was historically his best time of year? does anyone else recall that offer?
my point is: if I'm remembering that right, these 5 weeks are even more unexpected. I plan to be around when this season goes the other way for him.
The thing is for the season, scott does not have closing line value, which cant mean anything good. Is a sample of not beating the line for over a dozen plays a good indication of someone being not sharp? Doesnt help that he's running poorly too. It always is possible for someone to be historically good, but then the market catches up to their methods. Just like a professional athlete, sometimes u just lose a step later in ur career and ur not as good anymore. Think Mike Tyson or like Agassi towards end of his career.
how much of a sample would you need to see someone not beat the closing line to be considered enough?
Good question. The bigger the sample got with bad CLV the more concerned I would be. Maybe another 50-100 plays before affecting my original confidence level.
" Five of those selections are actually the same side of a well known NFL handicapper..."
I don't think there's any rule against naming him, especially if he's "regularly ridiculed around these parts for being a coin-flipper last 2 years."
I at first thought Dr. Bob, but since it's totals I then thought of Sharp.
The games have already been played so I see no reason not to name him.
Can Bearded Taco - or someone else - state who this refers to?
I forgot about Fezzik - I feel sure it has to be one of those 3. I don't pay attention to any of their plays so don't know who's being referred to.
"Scott has 8 totals selection so far this year. Five of those selections are actually the same side of a well known NFL handicapper that is regularly ridiculed around these parts for being a coin-flipper last 2 years."
You're saying that this capper moves the market, and that in each case Scott released afterwards?
The last thing that I would do after 5 bad weeks would be to suddenly start fading a handicapper that's historically hit around 55%.
This. I hate to keep bringing up poor Stevie as an example, but I do because he is respected and this is one of the most extreme streaks I have ever gone through in 10+ years of betting. A few years ago at SSB he lost something like 16 straight NHL games. He finished right around even for the year and has done quite well since. I'm sure there would be a similar thread about that if he had done it while posting here.
In any case, my general point echoes Tommy's. Take a look at CLV if you'd like, email Scott if you have any specific questions, research whatever you feel is relevant, and if your opinion of his expected win rate going forward changes, so be it. But in a vacuum, as terrible as 6-18 or whatever is, it's way too small of a sample size to negate a decade of hitting nearly 55% over 1000 picks IMO. Variance happens.
I understand Variance and have been gambling for years, Handicapping for years (about 15 years)
I think it is some just bad luck some variance and some of the Dr. Bob theory.
He used to release his math models back in the day, the year or two after his run of amazing success. Ras I think just stopped posting information like that not soon after Dr. Bob took a nose dive. Also I do not think Dr. Bob provides any of that information for college not even sure if he still does for NFL.
I think Scott should keep his handicapping theories to himself. He has to look at something.
Do not give the computer and math guys at the casino books and chance to see what you doing that works.
This is a war with the books General keep our battle plans quiet.
As Ed said 19 -6 or 6-19 is variance to think anything else of it is a joke. The only thing I would say should tamper down a bit is the suggestion of wagering 3% a play. The NFL is an awful hard market. Another thing you have to remember is you had replacement officials they affected a lot of totals. The personalities of certain teams just weren't the same they are now starting to come back.
Variance should be defined as follows... Another word to help disguise a shitty pick
If you really have this little of an understanding of Variance and what it means, then I'd give up wagering if I were you (I'm not saying it to be a jerk, I'm just being honest as variance is something that anyone that will be successful at this over the long haul has to understand).
I'm not even a member of his service nor am I betting his plays. I just think it's funny that variance is the cause of every bad weekend. Look I am a member of ras and have been for a long time. I will agree with this past weekend that variance was the case our losses cause we got completely fucked in every game that we lost other than smu over. I love ras I'm all about it and it's the only service I've ever bought. It was hard for me to turn down Scott kellen cause ras endorsed it but like you said the NFL is a hard market to win at. I do all my big betting on Saturday's and I don't want to have to sweat big money again the next day in the NFL where I would rather just pick em on my own for very small
What would most sharps (or others) consider strong CLV for today's NFL market - for sides and totals? I think most agree that this is the number we need to be paying the most attention to, but I have no idea what's considered good for NFL. Thanks in advance for any input.
The greatest concern as mentioned by some is the fact that no influential bettors have agreed with Scott over the last two or three weeks. In fact, most have disagreed with his picks, which is cause for even greater concern. With that being said I'm not quite sure you can blame variance. If the market were agreeing with him and he was losing like this, that would be variance. He's just flat out making bad bets right now, which can happen to anyone from time to time.
I'd say winning almost every year since he became a pro gives him a little wiggle room. It's very hard to win for one year, let alone 15 or 20.
I'm not even a member of his service nor am I betting his plays. I just think it's funny that variance is the cause of every bad weekend. Look I am a member of ras and have been for a long time. I will agree with this past weekend that variance was the case our losses cause we got completely fucked in every game that we lost other than smu over. I love ras I'm all about it and it's the only service I've ever bought. It was hard for me to turn down Scott kellen cause ras endorsed it but like you said the NFL is a hard market to win at. I do all my big betting on Saturday's and I don't want to have to sweat big money again the next day in the NFL where I would rather just pick em on my own for very small
Variance isn't the "cause" of a bad weekend, it's simply a concept that should make you look at the bigger picture a lot more than the smaller picture. If Handicapper "A" went 1-9 this past weekend and has a lifetime 55% record, while Handicapper "B" went 9-1 but doesn't keep a long term record, who would you think is more likely to win next weekend. Obviously I'd take A since I understand variance, but I'm not sure if everyone here would agree (and I know that there are other places on the net where many would disagree).
These other things like lack of closing line value, unit size, the difficulty of the market, etc are all good points to discuss. But not understanding what Variance means is pretty short sighted.
Pads. I get it. Ras went 1-4 this past weekend and I wouldn't think twice about not taking his plays again. But with 5 straight losing weeks it could be a bit more than variance as weeds pointed out
Comments
That was before today's games.
Is the push the Giants last week?
That was a loser if played when he released/at his release number.
His email release with this week's plays stated "YTD 5-13 –27.90%".
The last thing that I would do after 5 bad weeks would be to suddenly start fading a handicapper that's historically hit around 55%.
my point is: if I'm remembering that right, these 5 weeks are even more unexpected. I plan to be around when this season goes the other way for him.
... 2 word motto: money management.
Good question. The bigger the sample got with bad CLV the more concerned I would be. Maybe another 50-100 plays before affecting my original confidence level.
Can Bearded Taco - or someone else - state who this refers to?
I forgot about Fezzik - I feel sure it has to be one of those 3. I don't pay attention to any of their plays so don't know who's being referred to.
"Scott has 8 totals selection so far this year. Five of those selections are actually the same side of a well known NFL handicapper that is regularly ridiculed around these parts for being a coin-flipper last 2 years."
You're saying that this capper moves the market, and that in each case Scott released afterwards?
Same here, but didn't realize anyone of those is moving the market consistently - I guess Sharp on totals (?).
This. I hate to keep bringing up poor Stevie as an example, but I do because he is respected and this is one of the most extreme streaks I have ever gone through in 10+ years of betting. A few years ago at SSB he lost something like 16 straight NHL games. He finished right around even for the year and has done quite well since. I'm sure there would be a similar thread about that if he had done it while posting here.
In any case, my general point echoes Tommy's. Take a look at CLV if you'd like, email Scott if you have any specific questions, research whatever you feel is relevant, and if your opinion of his expected win rate going forward changes, so be it. But in a vacuum, as terrible as 6-18 or whatever is, it's way too small of a sample size to negate a decade of hitting nearly 55% over 1000 picks IMO. Variance happens.
I think it is some just bad luck some variance and some of the Dr. Bob theory.
He used to release his math models back in the day, the year or two after his run of amazing success. Ras I think just stopped posting information like that not soon after Dr. Bob took a nose dive. Also I do not think Dr. Bob provides any of that information for college not even sure if he still does for NFL.
I think Scott should keep his handicapping theories to himself. He has to look at something.
Do not give the computer and math guys at the casino books and chance to see what you doing that works.
This is a war with the books General keep our battle plans quiet.
:cool2::cool2::cool2
I wish Scott all the best in turning this around.
thank you for your sarcastic response. Just attempting to contribute my opinion.
Remeber the old saying if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all.
Let me add:
Buy low, sell high.
A stitch in time saves nine.
Be sure to drink enough water.
Seriously -
Just saying "money management" in a vacuum means nothing.
If you really have this little of an understanding of Variance and what it means, then I'd give up wagering if I were you (I'm not saying it to be a jerk, I'm just being honest as variance is something that anyone that will be successful at this over the long haul has to understand).
I'd say winning almost every year since he became a pro gives him a little wiggle room. It's very hard to win for one year, let alone 15 or 20.
Variance isn't the "cause" of a bad weekend, it's simply a concept that should make you look at the bigger picture a lot more than the smaller picture. If Handicapper "A" went 1-9 this past weekend and has a lifetime 55% record, while Handicapper "B" went 9-1 but doesn't keep a long term record, who would you think is more likely to win next weekend. Obviously I'd take A since I understand variance, but I'm not sure if everyone here would agree (and I know that there are other places on the net where many would disagree).
These other things like lack of closing line value, unit size, the difficulty of the market, etc are all good points to discuss. But not understanding what Variance means is pretty short sighted.