|
|
#201
10-13-2005, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] its pretty simple. you are overestimating your edge. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. [/ QUOTE ] trust me, its not meant as an insult. far from it. the market is effeciant. no matter what you think about a particular game, rarely is the market wrong as much as you think it is in the game we are talkign about. o33.5 is an AWESOME bet, and the market activity afterwards confirms that. o34 is proabbly +EV, but its scraping the bottom of the barrell. 
|
|
#203
10-13-2005, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
I still feel very comfortable recommending ov 35 at reduced units. Had I been away from a computer all week until tonight like I was 2 weeks ago (away until Wed.) I'd be laying my 2 units at ov 35. If the game lands on 34 Sunday, then it lands on 34...I wouldn't complain because I know the consequences of having lost that 1.5 pt edge earlier in the week. However, I'd still know it was worth it and would do it again.
|
|
#204
10-13-2005, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
have you ever read "a random walk down wall st" or "liars poker"? both are good books, that will backhandedly help with understanding how a marketplace operates. [/ QUOTE ] Nope, haven't read either but heard good things about them.
|
|
#205
10-13-2005, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
He said the value was gone, not the possibility of winning. A huge diff. [/ QUOTE ] If the value is gone on one side, it must all be on the other (n/i vig).
|
|
#206
10-13-2005, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
clearly, you have NO idea what you are talking about. [/ QUOTE ] Sir, if his system tells him that the game will go over 35 53% of the time (assuming -110), then the VALUE is NOT gone. You play by strict rules. Fine. But don't generalize so much because its misleading.
|
|
#207
10-13-2005, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He said the value was gone, not the possibility of winning. A huge diff. [/ QUOTE ] If the value is gone on one side, it must all be on the other (n/i vig). [/ QUOTE ] How so? Value isn't a zero-sum game--it can go up and down and vanish completely depending on the game/line. If there was 20 cents of value on over 33.5, and the line moves to 35, the under doesn't automatically have 20 cents of value. I don't understand how it ALL goes to the other side.
|
|
#208
10-13-2005, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He said the value was gone, not the possibility of winning. A huge diff. [/ QUOTE ] If the value is gone on one side, it must all be on the other (n/i vig). [/ QUOTE ] well, there is vig. which is signifigant. also, who says 35 isnt the perfect number? in theory, since thats what it is, it IS perfect.
|
|
#209
10-13-2005, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He said the value was gone, not the possibility of winning. A huge diff. [/ QUOTE ] If the value is gone on one side, it must all be on the other (n/i vig). [/ QUOTE ] well, there is vig. which is signifigant. also, who says 35 isnt the perfect number? in theory, since thats what it is, it IS perfect. [/ QUOTE ] I believe in an efficient marketplace. But it because it is efficient does not mean that it is always "correct". My nightly discourse with you is over. See ya tomorrow. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#210
10-13-2005, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He said the value was gone, not the possibility of winning. A huge diff. [/ QUOTE ] If the value is gone on one side, it must all be on the other (n/i vig). [/ QUOTE ] well, there is vig. which is signifigant. also, who says 35 isnt the perfect number? in theory, since thats what it is, it IS perfect. [/ QUOTE ] I believe in an efficient marketplace. But it because it is efficient does not mean that it is always "correct". My nightly discourse with you is over. See ya tomorrow. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. Its not always correct, but usually it is. when it ISNT it moves to correct itself (33.5 ----> 35) those who think they can beat the second number long term AFTER sharp players have played the better line are incorrect. i have said my piece on the subject, and have years of darta to support my claim. anybody out there care to do some datamining? check lines that open at 33.5 and close at 35 and tell me how the 35 would have done betting under. i would be VERY surprised if it was even b/e after the juice.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
