|
|
#211
10-13-2005, 08:21 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 ] James Suroweicki, the New Yorker financial page editor, wrote a good book called "The Wisdom of Crowds". I didn't finish it but I suspect it had a lot of same ideas as "A Random Walk..." 
|
|
#212
10-13-2005, 08:22 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 ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Whip, I'm not sure I understand you exactly, but I think you're sort of making my point. That is, he made an affirmative statement that there no longer is ANY value at 35 because it went to 35. That makes no sense. If there was NO value at 35, bet the under and buy the 1/2 pt. Pretty simple I think.
|
|
#213
10-13-2005, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Now you're saying something different. I still don't necessarily subscribe to it completely, but this is a much more plausible statement than the one I earlier responded to. And I too would love to see that analysis if someone can do it (not because it at all relates to my points here, but just because I'm interested).
|
|
#215
10-13-2005, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Now you're saying something different. I still don't necessarily subscribe to it completely, but this is a much more plausible statement than the one I earlier responded to. And I too would love to see that analysis if someone can do it (not because it at all relates to my points here, but just because I'm interested). [/ QUOTE ] its not different, its just said in a way that you can (or better yet are willing to)accept.
|
|
#216
10-13-2005, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Week 6, post 8 (ii)
[ QUOTE ]
I think your fundamental assumption is that every line has value on one side or the other, which I refuse to accept. If 35 is a perfectly fair number, there would be no value on either side. [/ QUOTE ] yes you are correct....and my statement was really not accurate and was a sloppy way of making my point. but my point, later clarified I hope, was correct.
|
|
#217
10-13-2005, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Week 6, post 12
Jacksonville Jaguars +3.5 -115
$57.50 to win $50.00 10/13/05 Note: -123 is the highest number to play for a bet at +3.5. This wager is not playable at +3 with a commensurate wager price if Jacksonville was also bet to win on the money line. Cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks
|
|
#220
10-14-2005, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Week 6, post 15
New Orleans to win +219.7
$45.52 to win $100.00 10/14/05 Note: +215 is the lowest number to play for a 2 unit bet on this game. +180 is the lowest number to play for a 1 unit bet. Cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
