Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

myturn - jagbag?
That's a new one.

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

can we change the title of this thread i clicked on it and thought it was about bc

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rush, I don't think most on here have a problem with him saying he's a winner. I think he even makes a few decent points in some spots. I think people have problems with:

A) Him being a dick to everyone
B) Him saying everyone else must be a loser b/c they don't agree with him
C) Him making some pretty ridiculous claims that, if true, would make him probably the biggest documented winner on a % basis in the history of sportsbetting

And the combination of B & C together are things that make everyone question his general level of credibility on any and every point he makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

reply:

to 1) i was affronted and ridiculed by people i never met nor knew, on multiple occasions. i found contributions i attempted to make rebutted not by data or persuasion but by snears. this was well before i made any unpleasant rejoinders. i have more direct methods for dealing with such treatment, in person.

to 2) the evidence indicates that most bettors lose. those who claim to make money doing nothing more than sharping the odds have, both in my experience and in the literature, been questioned. also, since the general consensus i encounter here, on any given game, mirrors public opinion, and the public loses money, yes, i suspect the majority of posters here are liars when they claim to win money. the few selections i have made here were in response to overwhelming consensus that was just plain wrong, and very stupid. like NE failing to cover against buffalo, or GB beating the Bears. i'm not here to post selections, but to monitor foolishness; alas something i have not yet mastered is keeping my tongue in my mouth when i hear it. i hope to do better.

what i find of most interest here, is that someone claiming to do nothing and making money is credited more than someone who works at the game and possesses talent for it. i think you all need to sit down and examine that. IT REEKS OF DELUSIONAL THINKING: YOU ARE THE PUBLIC YOU PROFESS TO DETEST. that's what everybody in the world wants, something for nothing, easy money, reward without capacity. god, you think yourselves so enlightened, and you embrace the silliest notions.

to 3) "you get from the market what you expect to find"--Ed Seykota. i expect to win. i win. at some bets i have a remarkable history: since an ML play is for me an occasional play--a regular play, in that i examine the ML for games i feel strongly about--but occasional since i make very few of them, it's not so very odd that i would have a great history. if, however, i were to play every ML that comes along, no, i would NOT have a great history. in fact, i would likely have a dismal history. and to the two or four ears out there with brains between them, i would say, you can do much better at this game than twoplustwo's all twoplustwo group-think here says you can. it's just not by endorsing the group-think product.

tlt.

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

[ QUOTE ]

what i find of most interest here, is that someone claiming to do nothing and making money is credited more than someone who works at the game and possesses talent for it. i think you all need to sit down and examine that. IT REEKS OF DELUSIONAL THINKING: YOU ARE THE PUBLIC YOU PROFESS TO DETEST. that's what everybody in the world wants, something for nothing, easy money, reward without capacity. god, you think yourselves so enlightened, and you embrace the silliest notions.

[/ QUOTE ]

tlt

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what i find of most interest here, is that someone claiming to do nothing and making money is credited more than someone who works at the game and possesses talent for it. i think you all need to sit down and examine that. IT REEKS OF DELUSIONAL THINKING: YOU ARE THE PUBLIC YOU PROFESS TO DETEST. that's what everybody in the world wants, something for nothing, easy money, reward without capacity. god, you think yourselves so enlightened, and you embrace the silliest notions.

[/ QUOTE ]

is that clear and brief enough?

tlt

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

Got a stutter? Yes, there are quite a few squares here, but there are also some very good posters. If you want to see a really square forum, head over to SBR (Ganchrow excepted). Anyway, can you not get through your thick skull that it is very easy to beat sports betting through line shopping? This is how I make the vast majority of my bets. I really only handicap rugby and Pac 10 football and basketball.

As for your ML dog plays. Are they so rare that you won't even make 20 the rest of the season in NFL/NCAAF combined?

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

TLT,

Who said they make money doing nothing? Finding rogue lines and actually betting them or beating the books numbers consistently is a lot of work. So is finding arbs and betting the soft sides. Did u not see the program Utah created to find arbs and bet them. Id bet that took a ton of work and because of the work he initially invested he can do currently next to nothing and still make money. Just because someone isn't hustling 24/7/365 doesn't mean they don't work hard or haven't. Creating your own system that works takes time, in some cases years. So if someone works their ass off for years, and is able to work less hard now because of that, are they a square?

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

Lock or change title, no need for this thread to clutter up every damn Thu nite game rest of year. I doubt anyone has changed their mind [zomg what a shock] after reading the same outrageous claims for the 15th time.

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

I post every single play I make, so, at least my wins are documented. I could easily say, "I post a 65% win rate" but never provide any proof.

But TLT will say he doesn't need the validation (but he obv. does).

Re: Thurs night NCAA football
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rush, I don't think most on here have a problem with him saying he's a winner. I think he even makes a few decent points in some spots. I think people have problems with:

A) Him being a dick to everyone
B) Him saying everyone else must be a loser b/c they don't agree with him
C) Him making some pretty ridiculous claims that, if true, would make him probably the biggest documented winner on a % basis in the history of sportsbetting

And the combination of B & C together are things that make everyone question his general level of credibility on any and every point he makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

reply:

to 1) i was affronted and ridiculed by people i never met nor knew, on multiple occasions. i found contributions i attempted to make rebutted not by data or persuasion but by snears. this was well before i made any unpleasant rejoinders. i have more direct methods for dealing with such treatment, in person.

to 2) the evidence indicates that most bettors lose. those who claim to make money doing nothing more than sharping the odds have, both in my experience and in the literature, been questioned. also, since the general consensus i encounter here, on any given game, mirrors public opinion, and the public loses money, yes, i suspect the majority of posters here are liars when they claim to win money. the few selections i have made here were in response to overwhelming consensus that was just plain wrong, and very stupid. like NE failing to cover against buffalo, or GB beating the Bears. i'm not here to post selections, but to monitor foolishness; alas something i have not yet mastered is keeping my tongue in my mouth when i hear it. i hope to do better.

what i find of most interest here, is that someone claiming to do nothing and making money is credited more than someone who works at the game and possesses talent for it. i think you all need to sit down and examine that. IT REEKS OF DELUSIONAL THINKING: YOU ARE THE PUBLIC YOU PROFESS TO DETEST. that's what everybody in the world wants, something for nothing, easy money, reward without capacity. god, you think yourselves so enlightened, and you embrace the silliest notions.

to 3) "you get from the market what you expect to find"--Ed Seykota. i expect to win. i win. at some bets i have a remarkable history: since an ML play is for me an occasional play--a regular play, in that i examine the ML for games i feel strongly about--but occasional since i make very few of them, it's not so very odd that i would have a great history. if, however, i were to play every ML that comes along, no, i would NOT have a great history. in fact, i would likely have a dismal history. and to the two or four ears out there with brains between them, i would say, you can do much better at this game than twoplustwo's all twoplustwo group-think here says you can. it's just not by endorsing the group-think product.

tlt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm probably wasting my time here, but here goes...

To #3 above, are you saying your ML sample size is so small that you are at 75% now b/c you are on the positive side of variance? Or are you saying that your sample size is large enough, it's just that you are so selective that you are able to consistently able to find 75% winners when you bet?

Because if it's the latter and you really do believe you can win at 75%, my prop bet offer still stands. Please accept.

As far as how many ML wagers you make, in another post above you said you made two last week. Is that close to how many you make each week? If so, we can extend the length of the wager a bit to make sure you can hit 20 bets. I'd also be OK with decreasing the total wager number a bit from 20. Let me know which you prefer.

Also, please stop writing like you just woke up from a 150-year nap.