Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I had a run where I was winning 17BB/100 over 100+ hands on limit poker where the supposed max sustainable win-rate is around 2 or MAYBE 3BB/100.
Obviously I have proven these claims of max win-rate of 2BB/100 to be horribly incorrect.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

Can someone do the math for me on how it could be profitable to lay 3:2 on 60 out of 100 picks? No terms were stipulated, but let's say a normal betting pattern, no passing up slight EV+ to maintain the higher edge. Also assume the tout isn't close to his brag, but that he's an EV0 or EV+ bettor in the 53% win range.

Seems like 3:2 is a lot to lay in such a situation, but I'm frankly too lazy to do the math, but if someone's saying they'll bet $15k on it, I'd at least hope they'd have done some math behind it...

- C -

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny - perf's avatar shows exactly how I imagine him as he moderates this forum. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I put it together for that exact reason.

bigger version:

http://performify.com/matthughes-close.gif

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

21-10-1 in 2p2 college bowl picks last year, won 4 of last 5 year before that only loss due to over 3ot PSU game with multiple missed XPx and chip-shot FGs, won both PotY. 25-11 is like 69% over a solid sample of bowl games over 2 years!

I want my autographed key to the Forums, dammit!


...or at least an E:60 segment about how i pwn DrBob during bowl season.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

My first posting in SB was last year for NCAAF Week 1. I went 8-0? Anyone remember that? Obviously I am a 100% capper.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

You too? I started the season 2-0. Although I am like 45% since, but hell, I will stick with the 100% capper, it sounds better on my resume.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

the sports-betting sites rig it so that the noob-fish win their first few bets in order to give them confidence and get them hooked.
After that they can rig the games against these bettors because they will be re-depositing anyway.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

this.....is an awesome thread.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

Honestly, I have no idea what my win % is, because, well, IT DOESN'T MATTER. I prefer not betting WA lines anyway - it's a lot easier that way.

I bet sports for $$$, not Internet Forum Win % Brag Points.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

btw, either tlt takes some action or gets banned for hating money. This forum is no place for money-haters.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

i MAKE 3 to 1 on my money. that's the bottom line, bud, either meet it, or shut up.

simply put 3 to 2 is good on one play: you offer me that on all plays? right, that's "massively" EV. your offer is inadequate. i have explained why.

the mod at 2 + 2 is inadequate.

by suitable, i was assuming 59.0 as a low.

and i will take your money.

-c.

and as for you, thremp, my suspicion is, you do not play professionally. that's a strong suspicion.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I'm confused

was Wisconsin @ Penn St not a play of yours???

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
i MAKE 3 to 1 on my money.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol


If you're reliably making 3:1 every 60-90 days, you'd be a multi-millionaire from sports betting alone.

my suspicion is, you are just a troll. that's a strong suspicion.


-P

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
i MAKE 3 to 1 on my money. that's the bottom line, bud, either meet it, or shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gurantee that you do not.

I will lay -1000000000000 that you can not do this on WA spreads.

You're such a fool.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]

i MAKE 3 to 1 on my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perf, change title to "Perpetual Bankroll Tripler" plz.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
and as for you, thremp, my suspicion is, you do not play professionally. that's a strong suspicion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. I am independently wealthy and spend my days posing as an internet gambler for amusement. Look for my youtube's detailing this exciting development.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

Rereading this, the only thing I can think is maybe cat just doesn't get what is being offered.

They're not asking to book your bets.

They're offering a straight up challenge wager, a 10k fight if you will.

You will make your normal bets for the week and record your picks on the record. (there are some minor stipulations of course to ensure you are actually picking reasonable lines and not something completely unavailable).

If at the end of 100 picks you have won 60 or more, you will win the 15k bet against you.

If at the end of 100 picks you have won 59 or less, you will lose the 10k you bet.

You still make your own bets wherever you're currently making them, and profit from them.

If you are really a 60% capper than this is an opportunity to gain significant edge, as being offered 3:2 on a 60% occurrence -- a "true line" for you picking 60/100 would be -150 if you're a 60% capper, but you're being offered +150 which has to be more +EV than what you see in a regular bet unless you're really picking at about 80% ATS.

I do acknowledge I guess that if you don't trust me as the mod to hold the money, than you'd probably want to pay an official escrow service. Many of these exist (just look at the ones trusted by eBay), and even with the escrow fees you're looking at a massively +EV bet if you truly believe you are a 60% capper.

If you beleive you're a 55% capper you're still looking at significantly +EV: the true line for you picking 55/100 would be -122 if that were true.

By laying 3:2, they're actually saying that you're a 40% handicapper. At anything above 40% this bet is +EV for you. The farther above your confidence level, the more +EV you are.

But you know all that, right?

Anyways -- I'm not trying to mock you. I try to be welcoming to all in modding this forum, that's my role here. I'm just trying to explain how +EV this bet would be for you if you truly are the 60% capper you feel your 19-pick record displays that you are.

-P

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

perf - yeah, you might be right.
It really seems like tlt doesn't understand the terms of what is being offered to him.
Otherwise he wouldn't insist on getting paid the same amount that he would make on the bets elsewhere. He is already allowed those bets elsewhere and then this prop would be ON TOP of that. And if he's 3:1 already then him taking this prop should be a no-brainer for him.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

If anyone missed it, here is Thremp's excellent post on how good he has done with selectively making picks and running a little hot

this pwns cato real bad

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

don't feed the troll!!

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
a "true line" for you picking 60/100 would be -150 if you're a 60% capper

[/ QUOTE ]

Er - wouldn't the true line be approx. +100? I don't get it.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i MAKE 3 to 1 on my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perf, change title to "Perpetual Bankroll Tripler" plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't forget Billionaire at the end of that.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

If he's actually 60% to win a game, his "true" line for that game is -150.

Switching subjects, if the widely available line is -110, a 60% win rate represents a Kelly stake of 16% of his bankroll on every game. At half-Kelly, 8% per game in isolation.

If you were taking 5 simultaneous games per Saturday, that would be 40% of your bankroll in action at Full Kelly stakes and bankroll growth of 60% per month.

This would grow $10,000 to $167,772.16 in six months and to $2,814,749.77 in twelve months.

At half-Kelly you'd be talking better than 25% bankroll growth per month with close to 30% of your roll in action on five simultaneous games per weekend.

This would grow $10,000 to $43,980.47 in six months and to $193,428.13 in twelve months.

-P

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he's actually 60% to win a game, his "true" line for that game is -150.

Switching subjects, if the widely available line is -110, a 60% win rate represents a Kelly stake of 16% of his bankroll on every game. At half-Kelly, 8% per game in isolation.

If you were taking 5 simultaneous games per Saturday, that would be 40% of your bankroll in action at Full Kelly stakes and bankroll growth of 60% per month.

At half-Kelly you'd be talking better than 25% bankroll growth per month with close to 30% of your roll in action on five simultaneous games per weekend.

-P

[/ QUOTE ]

And retirement somewhere along month 27 along with bankrupting Pinnacle.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he's actually 60% to win a game, his "true" line for that game is -150.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, obviously, but we were talking about his true line to pick 60/100, weren't we? Wouldn't that be ~+100 (assuming a 60% capper)?

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I had one of those Starbucks coffee Frappuccino things in a bottle earlier today and I thought, "Man, this tastes kind of like pudding."
Then I opened this thread. It was weird.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he's actually 60% to win a game, his "true" line for that game is -150.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, obviously, but we were talking about his true line to pick 60/100, weren't we? Wouldn't that be ~+100 (assuming a 60% capper)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it depends on how you look at it.


Even if the true line is +100, he's still being offered +150, still wildly +EV.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had one of those Starbucks coffee Frappuccino things in a bottle earlier today and I thought, "Man, this tastes kind of like pudding."
Then I opened this thread. It was weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I really want one of those. Thanks, MicroBob.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I went like 140-36 in teasers. My tout site goes up in 3 days. www.wongmessiah.com . It will be subscription only, and my intense and exhaustive analysis of the lines to find games that cover BOTH the 3 and 7 will be available for $999.95 per season.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

This thread really got me thinking introspectively about some stuff. Which I guess is probably a lot more productive than anything I expected to come out of a thread with pudding in the title.

If your goal from the beginning was "eRespect" TLT, you went about it all wrong.

You want to know the best way to build a big eReputation / eFollowing?

Look up WaterOlay.

(head to search, type in WaterOlay in the Username Search field, and select older than 9 months in the date options and you'll find his first posts. When you're ready to move forward, use the older than / newer than combo to go forward through months, for example "older than 8 months but newer than 9" will move backwards a month through his posts.)

He came on here and had one of the sickest, hottest runs of any new capper I've ever seen. Made me money as I hopped on board early and used actual bankroll management to his picks instead of scaling my units the way he did.

Then of course he had personal problems and ended up exercising terrible bankroll management. But if you look at his lifetime win percentage on publicly posted picks against widely available lines he's one of the best cappers this forum or any forum has ever seen.

He had an insane e-following, and a lot of people who e-cared about him. Many offered bankroll management coaching, eFriendship, eFellowship, you name it, when he was having problems.

I'm not sure what your original goal was. From what i've seen and what we've talked in PMs, it seems to me like you truly believe that you are an excellent football handicapper.

You might be. You might not be. The only real way to know is to post picks and let your results speak for themselves.

If you're hot, if you're good, people will notice. eFans will eFlock in eBunches.

If you're not, we'll notice too.

Or you can just come on, and talk betting theory, bankroll optimization, share the occasional +EV nugget and balance that with an array of mockery and snide commentary. Works for some other people too.

But the one thing that never works anywhere in life is walking in somewhere and proclaiming your greatness.

Let your greatness stand by itself. If it's truly there.

-P

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

Would you guys say tapioca is a type of pudding or an entirely realm of dessert due to its emulsified goodness?

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or you can just come on, and talk betting theory, bankroll optimization, share the occasional +EV nugget and balance that with an array of mockery and snide commentary. Works for some other people too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Optimal IMO.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

ldo.

Another pudding question. My local Thai place has a fantastic coconut custardish desert. It has a thai name. Can i call that pudding, if it shares the consistency?

If so, that's clearly my favorite pudding.

Also, what about creme brule?

Is there a formal definition for what truly makes a pudding?

-P

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

Creme brulee is a custard.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
Creme brulee is a custard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man I love me some vanilla creme brulee with some raspberries and whip cream. Doesn't get much better than that.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I really don't like pudding that much.
The texture just feels too icky for me.

It's kind of like mashed potatoes. I can't eat mashed potatoes straight up because the texture makes me want to gag. But with turkey or chicken or steak or whatever and then scooping some potatoes along with works for me.


I would also like some info or speculation as to the origin of the phrase 'proof is in the puddling'.
huh? What pudding? Seems kind of a strange thing to say. Especially considering that some of your audience might not even like pudding.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would also like some info or speculation as to the origin of the phrase 'proof is in the puddling'.
huh? What pudding? Seems kind of a strange thing to say. Especially considering that some of your audience might not even like pudding.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I was wondering the same thing.

Ah, here we go: Link

Someone earlier included the whole saying - props to whoever that was.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I had never heard "proof of the pudding is in the eating" before.
I believe I have heard "proof is in the pudding" since I was a kid. If I heard it when I was 10 years old or so that would have been about 1980.

Yeah, it was an increasingly fast-paced society then too compared with 1960 or something. But it's not like this shortened version came about due to the internet-age or something.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Creme brulee is a custard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man I love me some vanilla creme brulee with some raspberries and whip cream. Doesn't get much better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

flan de castañas is the winner! http://www.gallego-lopez.de/images/rezept_flan.jpg

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i MAKE 3 to 1 on my money.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol


If you're reliably making 3:1 every 60-90 days, you'd be a multi-millionaire from sports betting alone.

my suspicion is, you are just a troll. that's a strong suspicion.


-P

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the definition of a troll and what does it take to be banned from 2+2?

Is a troll someone who is purposely pretending to be retarded? or is a troll someone who genuinely is?

If it is the latter, I don't understand why people make fun of trolls so often...at one point in my life I was also a troll(though somehow magically I cannot remember such a time, nor does my memory beleive that time ever existed).

Also to those making bets with the suspected "troll", how often have you ever had real action from a thread like this? He comes here looking for fame and possibly affirmation of his beliefs and you directly contradict him and want to take the other end of him in a prop bet...Now how could you expect him to bet with you? The entire reason why you suspect he would want to take the bet with you is because if he thinks he is 62%, then he would realize he has an edge that is exploitable via the bet with you. But no one who legitimately makes posts like this would understand the second half and no one who is faking the post would be stupid enough to put money on it. This leads me to believe offering to bet against someone is just another "my penis is larger than yours because I say so" argument. Which is essentially also a troll job.