|
|
#171
10-11-2005, 08:52 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 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. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for changing my thinking a bit, I appreciate it. 
|
|
#172
10-11-2005, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] To wrap this up in a short and sweet manner, do you see any value to diversifying risk through teasing in the manner described (one play capturing 3/7, the other stronger ATS play capturing only 7/10)?
|
|
#173
10-11-2005, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] To wrap this up in a short and sweet manner, do you see any value to diversifying risk through teasing in the manner described (one play capturing 3/7, the other stronger ATS play capturing only 7/10)? [/ QUOTE ] No. The 3 is the foundation of the play.
|
|
#174
10-11-2005, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
To wrap this up in a short and sweet manner, do you see any value to diversifying risk through teasing in the manner described (one play capturing 3/7, the other stronger ATS play capturing only 7/10)? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No. The 3 is the foundation of the play. [/ QUOTE ] Very good and thank you for the mental gymnastics.
|
|
#175
10-11-2005, 09:04 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 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. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're too focused on following "general rules" and "guidelines". While it may be true (and I think it is true) that the only teasers that are +EV in general are those that cross the 3/7, it doesn't mean that "no other" teaser bets are +EV. If Syg's system says a teas bet, with or without crossing the magic numbers, is +EV and he believes that his system is correct, then it would be incorrect for him NOT to bet them. I think you are trying to apply a general rule that applies to random selections to a system that does not. By the way, you are not the only one who has criticized Syg for not follwing the "generally accepted sportsbetting principles" -- Craig R comes to mind as someone who has criticized Syg's non-buying of points and Syg has very clearly explained his rationale for his decisions there as well (not to say he's right, just saying he's thought about all this stuff pretty deeply).
|
|
#176
10-11-2005, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
. If Syg's system says a teas bet, with or without crossing the magic numbers, is +EV and he believes that his system is correct, then it would be incorrect for him NOT to bet them.
Then his 'system' is flawed. The math has been done on this by many and you will not find a teaser subest that is +EV that does not involve the 3. Syg, dont take that as a personal knock, its not. I admire anyone who bets what think is the better side. Your just fighting a losing battle here. Plenety have been down this road before and have come the same conclsions i am presenting to you.
|
|
#177
10-11-2005, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 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. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're too focused on following "general rules" and "guidelines". While it may be true (and I think it is true) that the only teasers that are +EV in general are those that cross the 3/7, it doesn't mean that "no other" teaser bets are +EV. If Syg's system says a teas bet, with or without crossing the magic numbers, is +EV and he believes that his system is correct, then it would be incorrect for him NOT to bet them. I think you are trying to apply a general rule that applies to random selections to a system that does not. By the way, you are not the only one who has criticized Syg for not follwing the "generally accepted sportsbetting principles" -- Craig R comes to mind as someone who has criticized Syg's non-buying of points and Syg has very clearly explained his rationale for his decisions there as well (not to say he's right, just saying he's thought about all this stuff pretty deeply). [/ QUOTE ] I think sublime is absolutely right on the merits of 3-7 and I've never disagreed about the importance of that track. I have some different thoughts about diversifying risk but really we're hardly far apart.
|
|
#178
10-11-2005, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
. If Syg's system says a teas bet, with or without crossing the magic numbers, is +EV and he believes that his system is correct, then it would be incorrect for him NOT to bet them. Then his 'system' is flawed. The math has been done on this by many and you will not find a teaser subest that is +EV that does not involve the 3. Syg, dont take that as a personal knock, its not. I admire anyone who bets what think is the better side. Your just fighting a losing battle here. Plenety have been down this road before and have come the same conclsions i am presenting to you. [/ QUOTE ] See my last post. The only differing conclusion is about risk management. Thanks again for the thought game -- I am never done learning at this craft and have come away with some different thinking as a result.
|
|
#180
10-11-2005, 09:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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 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. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're too focused on following "general rules" and "guidelines". While it may be true (and I think it is true) that the only teasers that are +EV in general are those that cross the 3/7, it doesn't mean that "no other" teaser bets are +EV. If Syg's system says a teas bet, with or without crossing the magic numbers, is +EV and he believes that his system is correct, then it would be incorrect for him NOT to bet them. I think you are trying to apply a general rule that applies to random selections to a system that does not. By the way, you are not the only one who has criticized Syg for not follwing the "generally accepted sportsbetting principles" -- Craig R comes to mind as someone who has criticized Syg's non-buying of points and Syg has very clearly explained his rationale for his decisions there as well (not to say he's right, just saying he's thought about all this stuff pretty deeply). [/ QUOTE ] I think sublime is absolutely right on the merits of 3-7 and I've never disagreed about the importance of that track. I have some different thoughts about diversifying risk but really we're hardly far apart. [/ QUOTE ] I agree about the diversifying risk part, but not about the rest. Just as an example, if you have a team that abnormally will cover 12 (vs. 6) points more than what is expected in general, then it may be more +EV to teas that team vs playing them straight up at +6. I don't know if your system generates this type of analysis, but certainly its feasible. To use a bad poker analogy, I think its generally accepted that calling two bets cold with 45s with 3 opponents from the button is generally -EV, but against the right opponents, it might be +EV. In the right situation (again, not saying your system tells you this), playing an unconventional teas might be correct. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Lets just say I have no doubt that I'm right.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
