Re: Paying For Picks
 

Good post, Spackler...

Re: Paying For Picks
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. If you're a winning handicapper, why not place your bets, and then sell them to make more $$$$? Even if you're the best sports bettor in the world, there is still risk involved, as it's pretty common knowledge there's no such thing as a true lock (with the exception of my cfb play of the year which is now 2-0 dating back to my first poty in 2005 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). But the $$$ you make from selling your picks IS a lock.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, and this is the same advice I give about posting plays here on 2+2 and sharing information, and is one of the main reasons I post my set of public picks here. But I still don't buy the validity of purchased picks, just from the aspect of we're playing a negative sum game here and I can't see giving up information edges in releasing your picks when you can exploit them to near infinity.

The short of it is that the people making picks aren't any more certain about their results than any of the rest of us. You're just paying for expert advice, the same way you would with a stockbroker. Yeah, its possible that someone is honest and is a lifetime 55% or 60% capper and is selling picks to maximize the smoothness of their income. That's theoretically possible. I'll certainly admit that. But I just don't see it often in practice. Instead we see the industry littered with touts who advertise impossible winning percentages who are most interested in getting your money.

But that said, there is another factor not mentioned in all of this: line availability. when you're talking about betting small edges, as we are in sports betting, lineshopping and line availability makes all the difference in the world. Someone releasing a pick where you can't get the line they get, tracking their record against a different line, that's not going to do you much value. Reference Fezzik, where most of his followers can't get the lines he tracks at. He's legit in his picks, but there are a lot of people that follow Fezzik but are slower in grabbing the lines and shift from winners to losers just based on the line/vig moves. Its the reason I track my public picks against WA lines when I post the play, not necessarily against what I secured, if that's NLA.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, theoretically is there not a point where your bankroll grows so large that you as an individual cannot exploit all of your edges with the maximum wagers you would like?

[/ QUOTE ]

To some extent, yes. If you had a multi-million dollar bankroll there would certainly be diminishing returns where your movement on a line would result in a line shift immediately. But I really don't think that this is the problem with touts, that they have so much money that they can't maximize the equity of their picks and such have to result to selling their picks.

This is also a big part of where syndicates come in - simply a group of people with disparate accounts who can make transactions for a single pick in the same immediate timeframe.

For example, purely hypothetical, say that both I, my wife, and my brother have accounts on Pinnacle, all of which I have control of - could be direct control i.e. I have their user/pass, or could be I just call them up and say "ok, bet #242 for $5000". When i release a MMA wagering card, I use all three accounts - either myself, or even at the further extreme of contacting each of them to place the bets for my little "syndicate". While its certainly possible that we can shift the line when we place, we're all likely to secure nearly the same line and we've circumvented the max wager amount. Not to mention sites like Pinny where the max bet is a one-time max and not a total max. If i wanted to wager $100k on an MMA fight I could do it with my own account, albeit after making a series of 20 bets at the 5k max (or whatever) giving Pinny an opportunity to adjust the line for each...

Re: Paying For Picks
 

Am I understanding this correctly on Fezzik's main page right now:

118-61
+50.80u
(66%)

That following his picks and getting his lines would lead you up 50 Units so far this year? Does this not include juice on the losses? This seems very high to me.

Also, if this is true ( and this is more trustworthy then any other tout's site) then you don't need to play, winning picks are free.

Ken

Re: Paying For Picks
 

I would suggest if you are going to use a handicapper, and pay for the picks, then at least use one who pays to be monitored by a legitimate sports monitoring service. I think there certainly are legitimate and trustworthy researchers out there who are simply trying to offer good honest advice.

But like a lot of things, there are so many [censored] bags that make it hard for the good guys.

Re: Paying For Picks
 

My understanding is that Fezzik's record is both public and accurate.

The problem with trying to track Fezzik's picks is that he relies a lot on geting good numbers which you may not be able to get. I don't mean that he is falsifying things, but rather that when he says "Giants +4.5 -110 for 2 units" the whole world rushes out to bet the Giants and the number quickly becomes much worse.

So unless you're watching and ready to pounce on everything he posts, it'll be hard to do as well as he does.

Re: Paying For Picks
 

Is he really 118-61? Does that include a lot of favorites on big moneylines? That record is unconscious.

Re: Paying For Picks
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is he really 118-61? Does that include a lot of favorites on big moneylines? That record is unconscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

like most sharps, he lost $$ last year -- but this year, he basically is unconscious.

Re: Paying For Picks
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is he really 118-61? Does that include a lot of favorites on big moneylines? That record is unconscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. He's a legitimate, expert, line-moving, feared-by-casinos sharp who is also on a hot streak. That's a pretty good combination.

Re: Paying For Picks
 

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Fezzik's record is both public and accurate.

The problem with trying to track Fezzik's picks is that he relies a lot on geting good numbers which you may not be able to get. I don't mean that he is falsifying things, but rather that when he says "Giants +4.5 -110 for 2 units" the whole world rushes out to bet the Giants and the number quickly becomes much worse.

So unless you're watching and ready to pounce on everything he posts, it'll be hard to do as well as he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true to an extent. Any publically released plays must be against a WA number or it's a no play. For example here is his pick for last night:



Possible Play on Eagles on MNF
12-04-2006 at 02:27 PM
Play the line 45 minutes prior to game time.
At +3 +105 or +3 +110, play it as a 1 weight.

At +3.5 -110 or better, play it as a 2 weight.

No play at less than +3 +105.

Since Eagles +3 +105 or better was never WA this was graded as a no play.

For anyone here who doesn't read Fezzik's board, you should. There are some posters over there you can learn a lot from.

Re: Paying For Picks
 

As you can see, his plays are weighted. So a 118-61 record doesn't include 179 different games. Some games are 2 or 3 weights. This makes his record look better or worse then it actually is, depending on whether he is having a hot or cold streak.

I have no doubt that he is a positive expectation capper though. Just don't expect an over 55% long-term record from anyone (including Fezzik or anyone for that matter).....unless some handicapper comes along who has access to a Time Machine and an almanac.