Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's a boxing knowledge question that translates into a math question. How is that even a debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ you.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't bet on McCline is because I don't like throwing money away.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tuds, at what odds would you consider McCline a play?

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

i've seen one of the sharpest bettors anywhere write that he doesn't bet moneyline favorites of -200 or more, ever. there is so little profit to be found in them. the vast majority of people would be better off if they never got involved with betting huge favorites.

you tried to take a shot at tuds because he didn't give a rigorous enough analysis of why he's passing on a -750 favorite? give me a break.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've seen one of the sharpest bettors anywhere write that he doesn't bet moneyline favorites of -200 or more, ever. there is so little profit to be found in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess those are the same NL live players that "fold and wait for a better spot".

I'm on the under bet that Tuds posted. gl

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

This is either really pathetic on all parts or just sick level after level.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

I'm not attempting to level anyone

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

I think you'll find your posts will get more respect if you base your analysis on mathematics and probability rather than platitudes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have got to be [censored] kidding.

he shouldn't have to expend any energy explaining why he doesn't want to bet on a -750 favorite. your notion that evaluating the EV of a -750 favorite is a math question rather than a boxing knowledge question is really stupid. didn't you learn anything about betting huge moneyline favorites after your retarded chess picks last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember commenting on the poor choice of wager on that chess line.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

I think you'll find your posts will get more respect if you base your analysis on mathematics and probability rather than platitudes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have got to be [censored] kidding.

he shouldn't have to expend any energy explaining why he doesn't want to bet on a -750 favorite. your notion that evaluating the EV of a -750 favorite is a math question rather than a boxing knowledge question is really stupid. didn't you learn anything about betting huge moneyline favorites after your retarded chess picks last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember commenting on the poor choice of wager on that chess line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I went back and took a look at this, and you never once posted in any of my two chess threads.

I guess you remembered wrongly.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've seen one of the sharpest bettors anywhere write that he doesn't bet moneyline favorites of -200 or more, ever. there is so little profit to be found in them. the vast majority of people would be better off if they never got involved with betting huge favorites.

you tried to take a shot at tuds because he didn't give a rigorous enough analysis of why he's passing on a -750 favorite? give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't get anywhere in the fight game if you refuse to touch short-priced favs

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

meh, i bet on ten different sports. simplicity is a good thing.