Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonder if it's a Brit thing, I'd only ever heard it as "proof of the pudding is in the eating"

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

http://www.limbueytor.com/upload/Tiramisu.jpg

imo

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
put me down @ -150 giving op a chance to win 6k more

[/ QUOTE ]

actually i retract my offer, i didn't read p.o's offer correctly; for some reason i keep reading 62% throughout this thread and mistakenly read the prop to mean 62 wins out of 100 w.a picks.

i'm not interested in coin-flippers, if op is interested in taking +150 for his consistent 62% of above winners my offer still holds

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]

What is the definition of a troll

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Could be either, some really believe what they're saying is true and some don't. It matters less than you'd think. The main idea behind trolling is simply to stir [censored] up. They make purposefully inflammatory posts designed to bait people into flaming them or engaging in a long, drawn-out useless argument. They get a kick from getting reactions out of people. It's often disguised as trying to start a meaningful discussion about something, e.g. see Sklansky's posts on various other forums.

[ QUOTE ]

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?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the exact numbers but I'm sure that not many bets with trolls actually take place, mostly because once confronted by someone willing to back up their argument with money, they usually disappear or backtrack, change their terms, etc.

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that it's just an e-peen thing. The regulars in this forum enjoy betting and always have their eyes open for +EV bets. If someone comes in making outlandish statements, then we have no problem trying to make some money off them if the opportunity arises. Supporting your argument by being willing to place money on it strengthens your case and forces the troll to put up or shut up, basically. It also helps to educate the new folks reading the threads; they will be less inclined to believe the trolls who are spouting incorrect (and often harmful) ideas if they see respected regulars willing to make high-stakes bets against them.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.limbueytor.com/upload/Tiramisu.jpg

imo

[/ QUOTE ]

Well obviously tiramisu is the King of all Desserts - I was just giving the creme brulee its just dues.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that it's just an e-peen thing. The regulars in this forum enjoy betting and always have their eyes open for +EV bets. If someone comes in making outlandish statements, then we have no problem trying to make some money off them if the opportunity arises. Supporting your argument by being willing to place money on it strengthens your case and forces the troll to put up or shut up, basically. It also helps to educate the new folks reading the threads; they will be less inclined to believe the trolls who are spouting incorrect (and often harmful) ideas if they see respected regulars willing to make high-stakes bets against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. First off the troll has been identified BEFORE the bet is wagered, meaning the odds of the bet being taken are next to zero from that point already. So what is the purpose of offering the bet? The malicious troller will just continue to stir up controvery saying something like "10K isn't enough, I'll only do it if you want to bet 100 million" or "I don't trust you, prove your worth" etc to keep the controversy going. To me it still boils down to a e-peen thing, but I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise.

Maybe this is a strawman argument, but offering to bet when you know no bet will be placed is a e-peen thing. To me the EV of offering to bet with a troll is less than betting obviously errant lines @ books or begging on the street. The bet is almost never gonna happen.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that it's just an e-peen thing. The regulars in this forum enjoy betting and always have their eyes open for +EV bets. If someone comes in making outlandish statements, then we have no problem trying to make some money off them if the opportunity arises. Supporting your argument by being willing to place money on it strengthens your case and forces the troll to put up or shut up, basically. It also helps to educate the new folks reading the threads; they will be less inclined to believe the trolls who are spouting incorrect (and often harmful) ideas if they see respected regulars willing to make high-stakes bets against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. First off the troll has been identified BEFORE the bet is wagered, meaning the odds of the bet being taken are next to zero from that point already. So what is the purpose of offering the bet? The malicious troller will just continue to stir up controvery saying something like "10K isn't enough, I'll only do it if you want to bet 100 million" or "I don't trust you, prove your worth" etc to keep the controversy going. To me it still boils down to a e-peen thing, but I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise.

Maybe this is a strawman argument, but offering to bet when you know no bet will be placed is a e-peen thing. To me the EV of offering to bet with a troll is less than betting obviously errant lines @ books or begging on the street. The bet is almost never gonna happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'd be like me offering to have a weightlifting competition or offering to meet someone in a dark alley on a message board. Do I genuinely think I'd outlift them or beat the #$(& out of them? Yes. But it doesn't matter, it's still just my e-peen cuz it ain't gonna happen.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
offering to bet when you know no bet will be placed

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly hoping one will be placed!!! Edges are hard enough to find - I push them when I can get them. Not to mention the prospect of forum-wide drama (pronounced "dramma").

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
offering to bet when you know no bet will be placed

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly hoping one will be placed!!! Edges are hard enough to find - I push them when I can get them. Not to mention the prospect of forum-wide drama (pronounced "dramma").

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope has nothing to do with it. You must agree that the odds of the bet being placed are next to 0 and you probably have data to support that, i certainly do.

Hope is a pretty weak argument, especially on a sportsbetting forum.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
odds of the bet being placed are next to 0

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they may be a bit higher than this.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
odds of the bet being placed are next to 0

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they may be a bit higher than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess ur right, I wouldn't bet "willt he bet be placed" No @ -999999. I am just baffled by troll jobs.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

i see what you're saying badbeat, but when post-oak put up his challenge, it IMMEDIATELY showed that cato-tonia was full of crap with his 60% claim. even someone who is new to sports betting knows that money talks. offering a bet and/or seeing it get turned down is a more convincing argument than any amount of replying back and forth.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

All I can tell you is that the one time I offered a bet to a troll, it was accepted and I believe would have gone through except the thread was deleted and I got the impression that the powers that be just wanted the whole thing to disappear quietly.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
i see what you're saying badbeat, but when post-oak put up his challenge, it IMMEDIATELY showed that cato-tonia was full of crap with his 60% claim. even someone who is new to sports betting knows that money talks. offering a bet and/or seeing it get turned down is a more convincing argument than any amount of replying back and forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer offering fair terms and then having someone respond with some sort of convoluted counter like PO previously replied with. Sad thing is... He likely would be the proud owner of my money now if he had just agreed and not tried to backtrack on his own statements.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I think it's hilarious that OP thinks "there aren't 100 games to bet" when there are a boatload of bowl games, NFL reg season/playoffs, and also looks like he bets halftime lines.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
i see what you're saying badbeat, but when post-oak put up his challenge, it IMMEDIATELY showed that cato-tonia was full of crap with his 60% claim. even someone who is new to sports betting knows that money talks. offering a bet and/or seeing it get turned down is a more convincing argument than any amount of replying back and forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, saying people don't make stupid bets here is false. Happens every month if not far more.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i see what you're saying badbeat, but when post-oak put up his challenge, it IMMEDIATELY showed that cato-tonia was full of crap with his 60% claim. even someone who is new to sports betting knows that money talks. offering a bet and/or seeing it get turned down is a more convincing argument than any amount of replying back and forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, saying people don't make stupid bets here is false. Happens every month if not far more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propped someone on a Kubiak projection rounding up on receptions and yards. Then additionally citing they had to pass all three standards in Recptions/Yards/TDs. Even money. Its like someone took lessons from Durrrr on how to prop.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

my two cents:

anyone who would think to post something like this prob just had a bad week and needs to be comforted.

there is NO way this guy bets more than a few hundred a game since anyone who has graduated to more serious betting knows what the expected win % is and doesnt feel the need to make silly brag posts.

I along with anyone here should be willing to take post oak's offer (though obv not at those stakes) for the simple reason that with no real time limit one can simply wait for the most high conviction ideas. I believe that ppl avging 55% can easily move up to 60% with sig patience. The real issue is that no one wants to have 2 bets on a week for a year.

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

I'm not sure what he means by making 3:1 on his money. Lets assume you had a 100 unit bankroll. Lets assume your unit is $200. If you turned it every 6 months or bet 17 units / month and increased your bet inline with your success, that 20k would be over 1m after 2 years. Even if you keep your bet constant, then you still wind up with just under 300k. Any errors in this simple calculation?

Re: the proof is in the pudding
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what he means by making 3:1 on his money. Lets assume you had a 100 unit bankroll. Lets assume your unit is $200. If you turned it every 6 months or bet 17 units / month and increased your bet inline with your success, that 20k would be over 1m after 2 years. Even if you keep your bet constant, then you still wind up with just under 300k. Any errors in this simple calculation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's trying to say he triples his BR every football season. He's an idiot with a small roll. Whatev.

(We can deduce the small roll through mathaments... He was offered a huge +EV wager that needs escrow... blah blah blah)