Sarms, you know I always admired "Do" players that had the balls to turn around and bet wrong when the dice went cold. I miss craps. Haven't played in 15 years. Etiquette has changed, especially when you have low lifes screaming for 7's amid good rolls with the minimun wager on the DNP line.
Sarms, you know I always admired "Do" players that had the balls to turn around and bet wrong when the dice went cold. I miss craps. Haven't played in 15 years. Etiquette has changed, especially when you have low lifes screaming for 7's amid good rolls with the minimun wager on the DNP line.
I kicked myself last week for not fading when he went 2-4, he probably should have went 0-6 since his 2 wins were Seattle and Denver. I knew the odds were against me & he's due to have a winning week, but I can not bring myself to play any of his games anymore. He's had a few bad beats but most of his games haven't been close. I've had my fair share of bad services over the years, but never seen any of them have a year this bad. Chances are he turns it around & finishes in the 40% range but there won't be anyone around.
I will say this. I have no idea if Scott will start winning again long term. My guess is he will. I stopped following his picks about 4 weeks ago because they weren't just losing, but losing badly. Still I think he'll be a long term winner.
I will say this though, Scott handicaps (I think) largely through situations. He sites historical situations in his write ups. Situations change. Other people pick up on them and what worked in the past may not work going forward.
I'll give you an example. Back until about 2007 or 2008, you could blindly bet 2H O if the home team was behind and 2H U if the home NFL was ahead. These hit about 55% for 10+ years. There were better subsets based on dog/favorite and how big. In any case, these have lost significantly since 2008 or 2009. People catch one. Books catch on. They price things differently when a subset is very strong.
I will say this. I have no idea if Scott will start winning again long term. My guess is he will. I stopped following his picks about 4 weeks ago because they weren't just losing, but losing badly. Still I think he'll be a long term winner.
I will say this though, Scott handicaps (I think) largely through situations. He sites historical situations in his write ups. Situations change. Other people pick up on them and what worked in the past may not work going forward.
I'll give you an example. Back until about 2007 or 2008, you could blindly bet 2H O if the home team was behind and 2H U if the home NFL was ahead. These hit about 55% for 10+ years. There were better subsets based on dog/favorite and how big. In any case, these have lost significantly since 2008 or 2009. People catch one. Books catch on. They price things differently when a subset is very strong.
thanks that is so true. the books eventually catch up with just about everything. years ago i only played dogs during the regular season because the public was all over the favorites. you barely ever had a edge with a favorite. now people are more educated and the line is so much more on the money.now my bark is bigger than my bite.
Scott is a documented long-term winner. That can't be argued or taken away from him. But his CLV is nothing short of laughable this season, which is cause for great concern if you ask me.
JMO we all have been through some bad weeks, Months and yes years. Keeping a thread like this going day after day week after week accomplishes nothing. So again it's just an opinion it's gone beyond any valuable information at this point so how about letting this one die.
Goats why not lock this up? This thread was dead long ago. Yes I know I'll get some responses don't open it or some other smart ass remarks. The reason is your wasting time and taking a spot on page one and you know most people don't go to page two so let this one go to page two.
I have said it before, but know im dead serious.... I'm do done with this Guy and his picks.... Not one winning week....in 3 months of nfl football..not one winning week.... Old ladies do better than that!!
With all due respect .... He is not due and ppl have been saying that for 8 months... Why is he due???? That is such bullshit... No one is due in gambling!
I understand losing streaks but a dart board has a better shot this year. I can handle the losing The one thing I don't understand is the Over's 50,51,52, it's given out like nothing I know the NFL has changed but that's Big Total's to give out. Playing games like Tenn/Jax or Seattle as road favorites. Seattle shouldn't never be played as a road favorite against anyone. Minn shouldn't be played on the road in a divisional game this year anytime unless your looking at DD points Chicago a pretty good Home and defensive team. Tenn regardless of how bad Jax is playing them as a road favorite is just tough. I read the write-ups and I'm going off of memory on this one (don't want to go look) But I believe it was said Chicago according to the numbers should be a 4 point favorite so that justifies a bet at +6 I could more or less understand +7 I'm just confused by the teams that are being given.
Pathetic stuff, never for the life off me have i seen such rubbish, I'm not American and i enjoy watching the NFL where i live in EUrop and i've followed Scott for years. But i'm sorry this is a disgrace, i'm kicking myself for playing those totals but i said Scott knows better, the numbers appeared so high. Like in Soccer when betting high total lines for goals in games it's difficult to win at those games in the long run. As for Seattle pfffff
I have about 3 bets left so i'm pretty much broke as well. 12 weeks of not winning just how can you even do that? I bet on Soccer for a living and i know what bad runs are like and they ain't this bad, so angry he can do one now. 12 weeks of losing is some record it's just mad.
I told my mate that i was going to write him and tell him to stick the picks up his arse. He text back saying "No we need Scott's picks he is DUE for a winning week"
I think he posts on here so maybe he can give his point of view on it, no way do i trust a winning week from Scott anytime soon.
The worst is I bet against my dolphins and they won outright..... I'm pretty pissed I followed this guy this week.... So close to not playing his picks..
The worst is I bet against my dolphins and they won outright..... I'm pretty pissed I followed this guy this week.... So close to not playing his picks..
Honestly i don't believe any self respecting bettor can play his picks anymore. I might play his props on superbowl night that's about it. Surprised we don't 4% and 5% bets now.
Not trying to pick on anyone here but this is a great argument for BR management.
Hardly in all fairness, the tipster is down must be close on 70% that's the problem. If you were betting 9% and 10% of you bank i'd say fair enough, bad management of your bank roll. Anyway no matter what he's on course to wipe anybody who stays with him this long bank roll out.
Hardly in all fairness, the tipster is down must be close on 70% that's the problem. If you were betting 9% and 10% of you bank i'd say fair enough, bad management of your bank roll. Anyway no matter what he's on course to wipe anybody who stays with him this long bank roll out.
The whole point of betting a % of BR is that when you're going bad your bet size is diminished. I've followed the entire season and I'll survive just fine.
The whole point of betting a % of BR is that when you're going bad your bet size is diminished. I've followed the entire season and I'll survive just fine.
Ignoring Kellen completely... THIS is a general concept people need to understand.
With all due respect, Kellen advises you to bet 3.00% of your bankroll per play and doesn't go into any specifics on if you should recalculate or not, and if so when. I personally bet the same amount throughout an entire season, which is 1.00% of my bankroll. I think a lot of people bet the same amount throughout the season. So if these people are risking that same 3.00% amount per play, you would have lost over 60.00% over your bankroll, which is what his site indicates.
I wouldn't consider losing 60.00% of your bankroll in 12 weeks of work "surviving just fine". But that's just my two cents.
Comments
I kicked myself last week for not fading when he went 2-4, he probably should have went 0-6 since his 2 wins were Seattle and Denver. I knew the odds were against me & he's due to have a winning week, but I can not bring myself to play any of his games anymore. He's had a few bad beats but most of his games haven't been close. I've had my fair share of bad services over the years, but never seen any of them have a year this bad. Chances are he turns it around & finishes in the 40% range but there won't be anyone around.
There's no such thing as "due."
I will say this though, Scott handicaps (I think) largely through situations. He sites historical situations in his write ups. Situations change. Other people pick up on them and what worked in the past may not work going forward.
I'll give you an example. Back until about 2007 or 2008, you could blindly bet 2H O if the home team was behind and 2H U if the home NFL was ahead. These hit about 55% for 10+ years. There were better subsets based on dog/favorite and how big. In any case, these have lost significantly since 2008 or 2009. People catch one. Books catch on. They price things differently when a subset is very strong.
So confused
Goats why not lock this up? This thread was dead long ago. Yes I know I'll get some responses don't open it or some other smart ass remarks. The reason is your wasting time and taking a spot on page one and you know most people don't go to page two so let this one go to page two.
That would be over-censorship IMO. If I locked every thread I felt no longer held value... I'm sure you get the point.
I try not to lock threads as long as no rules are broken and posters remain civil.
With all due respect .... He is not due and ppl have been saying that for 8 months... Why is he due???? That is such bullshit... No one is due in gambling!
Fade or don't play at all!!
I have about 3 bets left so i'm pretty much broke as well. 12 weeks of not winning just how can you even do that? I bet on Soccer for a living and i know what bad runs are like and they ain't this bad, so angry he can do one now. 12 weeks of losing is some record it's just mad.
I told my mate that i was going to write him and tell him to stick the picks up his arse. He text back saying "No we need Scott's picks he is DUE for a winning week"
I think he posts on here so maybe he can give his point of view on it, no way do i trust a winning week from Scott anytime soon.
Honestly i don't believe any self respecting bettor can play his picks anymore. I might play his props on superbowl night that's about it. Surprised we don't 4% and 5% bets now.
Not trying to pick on anyone here but this is a great argument for BR management.
Hardly in all fairness, the tipster is down must be close on 70% that's the problem. If you were betting 9% and 10% of you bank i'd say fair enough, bad management of your bank roll. Anyway no matter what he's on course to wipe anybody who stays with him this long bank roll out.
The whole point of betting a % of BR is that when you're going bad your bet size is diminished. I've followed the entire season and I'll survive just fine.
Ignoring Kellen completely... THIS is a general concept people need to understand.
I wouldn't consider losing 60.00% of your bankroll in 12 weeks of work "surviving just fine". But that's just my two cents.