[DeucesUp]

That's absolutely a valid comparison and a good point. Definitely there are always going be a lot of really bad sports bettors out there. The problem is that, unlike poker, you can't just play against the bad sports bettors by playing small stakes, you play against everybody. Actually, you're playing against everybody weighted by how much they bet and on average the big bettors are going to be better. If just a few big bettors have adopted your system, it could take most of the value out of it.


To continue the comparison, I think the proliferation of information has, on average, made online poker much tougher than it was 2 years ago. Sure you can still find plenty of fish but the average player is much better. If the same thing has happened in sports betting, it could mean sports betting will become difficult to beat, particularly with straight-forward, well-publicized angles. For example, we may have seen the death of the NFL home dog. Even if a whole lot of squares are still putting in their $50 bets on the road favorites, there are now SO many sharps and even not-so-sharps who know about the home dog angle who are just waiting to pour in their money on any home dog that it seems unlikely there will be much value there in the future.



I'm not saying that any of this is really occurring. I really don't have any data to back it up nor enough experience to make a judgement call. I'm also not critisizing the system, as I said previously it seems to be based on reasonable principles and of course going slightly under .500 over 30 games this season doesn't even begin to prove the system isn't working. I just think it makes for an interesting discussion and even serves as a platform to discuss the bigger issue of whether traditional sharp angles will continue to remain effective as sport-betting information becomes more-and-more available.