Lets not confuse a post displaying supplemental data for a claim on entitlement. No posts in this thread from me are meant to be excuses. I have never been shy when it comes to attributing positive variance to good years, and a skewed data point would have been mentioned just as likely if it went the other way.
This is not a bullpen weighting issue. Disproportions like the above mentioned can be predominately described from being on the short end of performance variability of closers. Nature of the beast.
I agree, I wouldn't ever recommend weighting any aspect of your model based on results. Not accusing you of making excuses at all.
Keep on trucking, and best of luck. I've been in the discouraging position you are in, it isn't fun.
Funny. No one is acting entitled. You could take the worst bullpen in baseball every game and get better late game results. There is nothing you can do about it, it can happen to anyone. Of course no one ever mentions when it is running the other way.
When you are claiming bad beats, it's the definition of entitlement. I was entitled to a win, but I didn't get it. It's part of human nature, and I'm not knocking anyone for it, just saying that it doesn't have any basis in the betting world.
When you are claiming bad beats, it's the definition of entitlement. I was entitled to a win, but I didn't get it. It's part of human nature, and I'm not knocking anyone for it, just saying that it doesn't have any basis in the betting world.
Did I once say "bad beat"? Blown saves happen, usually happen both ways. If you find yourself on the very short end of them, there is nothing you can do about it, but you can use them to gauge your season. If I was down 20 units and was 6-20 in the blown saves for/against, I would feel better about how I was playing than if I was -20 units and 20-6 BS for/ag. You know it is part of the game and you accept it when you bet baseball. You have one bad season and everyone thinks the sky is falling. You mention it, more so to show why you are still plodding along and not giving up than to say "oh poor me". When it was happening to me last year, I mentioned I wasn't frustrated and got ripped "how can you not be frustrated". I'd be more frustrated if i was pulling out a ton of games and was still down or just completely out of the park.
I never felt entitled to anything in my life. If I did, I wouldn't work as hard as I do.
You mention it, more so to show why you are still plodding along and not giving up than to say "oh poor me".
Right, I agree with this. But it's certainly understandable why someone would take BG's post as the latter half. He obviously cleared that up with his follow up post, but just based off the original you could easily take it as "oh poor me".
Did I once say "bad beat"? Blown saves happen, usually happen both ways. If you find yourself on the very short end of them, there is nothing you can do about it, but you can use them to gauge your season. If I was down 20 units and was 6-20 in the blown saves for/against, I would feel better about how I was playing than if I was -20 units and 20-6 BS for/ag. You know it is part of the game and you accept it when you bet baseball. You have one bad season and everyone thinks the sky is falling. You mention it, more so to show why you are still plodding along and not giving up than to say "oh poor me". When it was happening to me last year, I mentioned I wasn't frustrated and got ripped "how can you not be frustrated". I'd be more frustrated if i was pulling out a ton of games and was still down or just completely out of the park.
I never felt entitled to anything in my life. If I did, I wouldn't work as hard as I do.
I hear you, BG posted a log of "bad beats". That's what I referring to.
I don't log results: average win margin vs. average loss margin, blown saves, etc. I just use market agreement to tell me if I am on the right track or not. I'm not accusing anyone of acting entitled here. As you know, results often don't tell the real story, everything falls on a probability distribution and that distribution accounts for all facets of the game.
Exactly, pretty sure betting the opponent live every time we are up 4+ runs this year is up well over 100 units -- not even including the 8 run game where there wasn't even a line because fair is like +10000
Number of plays
"Volume can vary depending on the efficiency of the market, but will likely average around 15 side plays per week throughout the season."
What happened? Amazing the volume skyrocketed as the deficit increased. In April you averaged approx 18 plays per week and then the market opened up for you? 'Touthood' is a tough game isn't it?
P.s. A response would be appreciated in layman terms.
The plays have dramatically increased because of this - "If the service does not produce at least 1 UNIT of profit...... you will receive a full refund at the end of the season." At 35 units down 18 plays a week is NOT going to get anyone back to even. Anyone in this current position would and should be hitting every game possible because at this point it's all about getting back to even to keep everyone's subscription fee. We are talking about possibly six figures here. Why not hit a ton of games because the normal amount of plays (18) quite simply can NOT get anyone back to even almost half way through the season and +1 is the magical total to keep everyone's subscription fee. For this reason alone going forward with the plays is not a good idea.
Number of plays
"Volume can vary depending on the efficiency of the market, but will likely average around 15 side plays per week throughout the season."
What happened? Amazing the volume skyrocketed as the deficit increased. In April you averaged approx 18 plays per week and then the market opened up for you? 'Touthood' is a tough game isn't it?
P.s. A response would be appreciated in layman terms.
Anyone in this current position would and should be hitting every game possible because at this point it's all about getting back to even to keep everyone's subscription fee.
Just to play devil's advocate, someone with integrity wouldn't and shouldn't be doing that, so not quite "everyone."
You're right Goats. I was looking at it from a business/monetary perspective. I personally don't see anything wrong with increasing the plays or not increasing the plays, a business decision is a business decision.
You're right Goats. I was looking at it from a business/monetary perspective. I personally don't see anything wrong with increasing the plays or not increasing the plays, a business decision is a business decision.
You don't see anything wrong with someone selling picks under the premise of trying to help others win money giving out extra picks he normally wouldn't because of the refund clause? I sure do.
Just to play devil's advocate, someone with integrity wouldn't and shouldn't be doing that, so not quite "everyone."
Yeah, this is why I hate the guarantee route. I can understand the concept of having confidence in your work, but the subscriber is ultimately the one deciding your service is a good investment. You shouldn't feel the need to guarantee anything in my opinion. If you're down big and your volume increases people are going to accuse you of yoshing. If you're up big and your volume decreases people are going to accuse you of anti-yoshing.
I do see something wrong with that. The "extra plays" don't necessarily mean they are bad plays, they just might not be as "sharp" as some of the others posted. But I'm saying from a "getting back to even" perspective it makes sense to play more games to try and get back to even. Maybe not from the subscribers point of view it isn't but I thought my post brought up a good point.
Yeah, this is why I hate the guarantee route. I can understand the concept of having confidence in your work, but the subscriber is ultimately the one deciding your service is a good investment. You shouldn't feel the need to guarantee anything in my opinion. If you're down big and your volume increases people are going to accuse you of yoshing. If you're up big and your volume decreases people are going to accuse you of anti-yoshing.
This is the 12th week of 7 days from the first play. Here are the other 11 with week # and the amount of plays for that 7 days. So week 1 had 15 plays...week 2 had 22 plays....
I think the 15/week may have been a conservative estimate so that he wasn't over promising. Most people want more plays, not less. You promise 15 and give 30, it's ok. You promise 30 and give 15, and people bitch that they aren't getting as much as they signed up for.
I certainly don't think 30 plays/week is an unreasonable amount.
There are a lot in this business that have struggled with baseball this year. Some of the best here in town have shut it down for the year. I'm not talking about touts. If you got a bad hand there is nothing wrong with folding. You can't do that when you're selling plays.
I'm gonna drop out after this, but two quick last comments...
1. I'm personally not a big fan of the refund policy for the reasons procap mentioned.
2. I fully understand and agree with the points mjnapco was making from the business/math standpoint of the tout. I didn't think he was incorrect from that perspective, just felt the need to address the ethical component.
I'm gonna drop out after this, but two quick last comments...
1. I'm personally not a big fan of the refund policy for the reasons procap mentioned.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. If someone has done research and has made the decision to purchase someones picks then there should be no guarantee.
The problem is when offering such a return policy, there is the possibility that more plays will be posted if the record dips below negative units.
In my opinion. If you are selling a service. Sell it. No guarantees. Mention the warnings provide a track record and that's it. Getting cute with the money back is not helping anyone.
I think the 15/week may have been a conservative estimate so that he wasn't over promising. Most people want more plays, not less. You promise 15 and give 30, it's ok. You promise 30 and give 15, and people bitch that they aren't getting as much as they signed up for.
I certainly don't think 30 plays/week is an unreasonable amount.
I agree with this, the majority of the people who buy picks are interested in more plays. But you also have to look at someone who is putting together their game plan before the season, i.e., figuring out exactly how they'll stake their bets, what outs they will use, how they will spread their action across those outs, etc. That game plan could change when you are anticipating roughly 2-3 plays a night and are getting 4-5. To BG's credit he does say depending on market conditions, but 15 and 26 aren't exactly in the same ballpark, especially when earlier in the season he stated market conditions were unfavorable.
Last comment on this. But stating market conditions are unfavorable and then increasing the plays is not good. The only reason the plays increased were because the units were down.
Like I've said all along I root for the group. But adding more plays when getting killed isn't the recipe for success in my opinion.
Comments
I agree, I wouldn't ever recommend weighting any aspect of your model based on results. Not accusing you of making excuses at all.
Keep on trucking, and best of luck. I've been in the discouraging position you are in, it isn't fun.
When you are claiming bad beats, it's the definition of entitlement. I was entitled to a win, but I didn't get it. It's part of human nature, and I'm not knocking anyone for it, just saying that it doesn't have any basis in the betting world.
Did I once say "bad beat"? Blown saves happen, usually happen both ways. If you find yourself on the very short end of them, there is nothing you can do about it, but you can use them to gauge your season. If I was down 20 units and was 6-20 in the blown saves for/against, I would feel better about how I was playing than if I was -20 units and 20-6 BS for/ag. You know it is part of the game and you accept it when you bet baseball. You have one bad season and everyone thinks the sky is falling. You mention it, more so to show why you are still plodding along and not giving up than to say "oh poor me". When it was happening to me last year, I mentioned I wasn't frustrated and got ripped "how can you not be frustrated". I'd be more frustrated if i was pulling out a ton of games and was still down or just completely out of the park.
I never felt entitled to anything in my life. If I did, I wouldn't work as hard as I do.
Right, I agree with this. But it's certainly understandable why someone would take BG's post as the latter half. He obviously cleared that up with his follow up post, but just based off the original you could easily take it as "oh poor me".
I hear you, BG posted a log of "bad beats". That's what I referring to.
I don't log results: average win margin vs. average loss margin, blown saves, etc. I just use market agreement to tell me if I am on the right track or not. I'm not accusing anyone of acting entitled here. As you know, results often don't tell the real story, everything falls on a probability distribution and that distribution accounts for all facets of the game.
Munson, I think he was looking to take a huge price on the Marlins.
That's a tough spot, I wouldn't rush to my pen if I had what the mets have out there.
BG, MIL from yesterday (6/23) is graded wrong. BOL, it'll turn around eventually.
"Volume can vary depending on the efficiency of the market, but will likely average around 15 side plays per week throughout the season."
What happened? Amazing the volume skyrocketed as the deficit increased. In April you averaged approx 18 plays per week and then the market opened up for you? 'Touthood' is a tough game isn't it?
P.s. A response would be appreciated in layman terms.
You might be on to something.:shifty:
Plus it was in layman's terms for us board members just following along.
Just to play devil's advocate, someone with integrity wouldn't and shouldn't be doing that, so not quite "everyone."
You don't see anything wrong with someone selling picks under the premise of trying to help others win money giving out extra picks he normally wouldn't because of the refund clause? I sure do.
Yeah, this is why I hate the guarantee route. I can understand the concept of having confidence in your work, but the subscriber is ultimately the one deciding your service is a good investment. You shouldn't feel the need to guarantee anything in my opinion. If you're down big and your volume increases people are going to accuse you of yoshing. If you're up big and your volume decreases people are going to accuse you of anti-yoshing.
1 - 15
2 - 22
3 - 19
4 - 27
5 - 24
6 - 29
7 - 35
8 - 35
9 - 28
10 - 29
11 - 36
12 - 23 not counting 26/27 of june
I certainly don't think 30 plays/week is an unreasonable amount.
1. I'm personally not a big fan of the refund policy for the reasons procap mentioned.
2. I fully understand and agree with the points mjnapco was making from the business/math standpoint of the tout. I didn't think he was incorrect from that perspective, just felt the need to address the ethical component.
I agree with this, the majority of the people who buy picks are interested in more plays. But you also have to look at someone who is putting together their game plan before the season, i.e., figuring out exactly how they'll stake their bets, what outs they will use, how they will spread their action across those outs, etc. That game plan could change when you are anticipating roughly 2-3 plays a night and are getting 4-5. To BG's credit he does say depending on market conditions, but 15 and 26 aren't exactly in the same ballpark, especially when earlier in the season he stated market conditions were unfavorable.
Like I've said all along I root for the group. But adding more plays when getting killed isn't the recipe for success in my opinion.