|
|
#161
10-11-2005, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
The power of the 3 and 7 on even a team you dont like is more powerful than wortless numbers on teams you DO like. [/ QUOTE ] The power of the 3 through 8, or 2 through 7, are more powerful than 5 through 10, I will never, ever debate that. What I will debate is the value of betting on "worthless" (also using the word loosely) teams that are not afforded enough tease value over a good team to wager on with their "worthless" added tease value, when forced to choose a 2nd team in a teaser. I don't want to be made to choose the 50%+22% team over the 64%+11% team in a tease when I must pick a 2nd team to tease. 
|
|
#162
10-11-2005, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
NO is so highly rated a game ..... because each week, my system tells me to fade the Falcons more than the previous week. [/ QUOTE ] lol it's certainly looking that way, huh?
|
|
#163
10-11-2005, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
yes, but your never forced to bet the teaser!
if you like oakland that much bet them flat and ignore the teaser. or pair them with a basic startegy team. or open tease them if you can. these are all better than inserting teams that dont qualify for a teaser into a teaser.
|
|
#164
10-11-2005, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
if you like oakland that much bet them flat and ignore the teaser. or pair them with a basic startegy team. or open tease them if you can. these are all better than inserting teams that dont qualify for a teaser into a teaser. [/ QUOTE ] What didn't you like about these stats I gave earlier? Oak +8 82% chance of cover NO +10.5 77% chance of cover 82% x 77% = 63%. Is this +EV or not? Or is your real argument I should shift my money away from the teaser entirely and just hit Oak +2 and NO +4.5 harder with the money devoted to the tease? That I'm open to debating.
|
|
#166
10-11-2005, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
Can you make any concession to the idea of diversifying risk away from my Oakland +2 pick (I'm actually hitting Oakland SU instead) by picking up the 3 and 7 on the way to teasing 8 while pairing it with another likely winner (which is at least getting 7 and 10 in a tease). If you see little to no value to diversifying away risk at all then we probably can't have a real debate.
|
|
#167
10-11-2005, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
yes! if your going to tease, BOTH teams need to be gaining the 3 and the 7 (99% of the time, the other 1% you are getting the 1/2 off the 3) if not, flat bet. [/ QUOTE ] Not if the flat bets are less +EV than the teas. Sublime you should know better than that.
|
|
#168
10-11-2005, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] yes! if your going to tease, BOTH teams need to be gaining the 3 and the 7 (99% of the time, the other 1% you are getting the 1/2 off the 3) if not, flat bet. [/ QUOTE ] Not if the flat bets are less +EV than the tease. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly right. I think his argument is if all bets are equally +EV, don't waste your time with the tease, but maybe I misunderstood.
|
|
#169
10-11-2005, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] yes! if your going to tease, BOTH teams need to be gaining the 3 and the 7 (99% of the time, the other 1% you are getting the 1/2 off the 3) if not, flat bet. [/ QUOTE ] Not if the flat bets are less +EV than the teas. Sublime you should know better than that. [/ QUOTE ] Uggh. I just spent 10 posts saying that the tease that doesnt gain the 3/7 WONT be more EV.
|
|
#170
10-11-2005, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] yes! if your going to tease, BOTH teams need to be gaining the 3 and the 7 (99% of the time, the other 1% you are getting the 1/2 off the 3) if not, flat bet. [/ QUOTE ] Not if the flat bets are less +EV than the tease. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly right. I think his argument is if all bets are equally +EV, don't waste your time with the tease, but maybe I misunderstood. [/ QUOTE ] The ONLY way a teaser is +EV is if BOTH teams cross the 3 and ther 7. Thats it, plain and simple. If you going to argue otherwise, then go ahead. Time will (and has) prove(en) you wrong.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
