Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Looks like for the first time since I started doing this, there are no viable actual wongs. A couple ok-looking half wongs, but I'm not really too interested in pushing every edge. For those hard-up for wongs, I recommend the KC/Tenn combo as the best of a weak bunch.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

I'm trying to post all my NFL plays this year somewhere so I just wanted to say that I'm teasing KC and Ten risking 1.1u to win 1u. I actually think this should have pretty decent value as the lines are closer to 2.5 than 3 in both cases so if you're teasing from 3, you're gaining half of the 9 and only losing about 1/5 of the 3. Also, the Tennessee game has the 3rd lowest total on the board while the KC game has a pretty average total so that should help as well.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Looks like the KC & Tenn lines are down to +2.5 on my books. So I teased them both to +8.5 for a unit. I think KC will bounce back from their embarrassing loss at home last week, and lo and behold they're home dogs. Tenessee and TB should be a close one.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Also on KC and Tenn
good subset and lines fit the basic strat now

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

also of note is that KC and Tenn spreads at 2.5 are the Pinny lean on the games as well

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Gah. I took +3s at -110. Lifeaments.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also on KC and Tenn
good subset and lines fit the basic strat now

[/ QUOTE ]

ended up gettng 3 on KC at betpop

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also on KC and Tenn
good subset and lines fit the basic strat now

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I got on them too, last minute(after games even started!) 1 teaser at $690.

KC+3/+9
Tenn +3/+9

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

winner, winner

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also on KC and Tenn
good subset and lines fit the basic strat now

[/ QUOTE ]

ended up gettng 3 on KC at betpop

[/ QUOTE ]

More EZ winners.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gah. I took +3s at -110. Lifeaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I seem to remember you ripping me to pieces for teasing +3's a few weeks ago. But now you tease +3 and it's OK?

Wow, just wow.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gah. I took +3s at -110. Lifeaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I seem to remember you ripping me to pieces for teasing +3's a few weeks ago. But now you tease +3 and it's OK?

Wow, just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're such a clown. Whats worse is you don't even realize why you're a clown when you try to flame me. Could you even give the closing line for either of these two games? Feel free to look it up, think for more then whatever you put into your last post, then... stop posting.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gah. I took +3s at -110. Lifeaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I seem to remember you ripping me to pieces for teasing +3's a few weeks ago. But now you tease +3 and it's OK?

Wow, just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're such a clown. Whats worse is you don't even realize why you're a clown when you try to flame me. Could you even give the closing line for either of these two games? Feel free to look it up, think for more then whatever you put into your last post, then... stop posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The closing line for the +3 games I teased was +2.5. Your point?

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

My point is you're an 888888 and don't understand why.

In addition to support this I would like to point out that "these two games" would refer to the two games I bet. If I cared what you wagered on I would have wrote "your idiotic betaments".

Again... stop.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is you're an idiot and don't understand why.

In addition to support this I would like to point out that "these two games" would refer to the two games I bet. If I cared what you wagered on I would have wrote "your idiotic betaments".

Again... stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not debating whether your bet was a good play, it was. What I am getting at, is the fact that you contradict youself when you tell me that "teasing +3 to +9 is terrible". Under most circumstances it isn't a good play, but when you did it this week, and when I did it a few weeks ago are similar cicumstances.

The true line for the games I teased was below +3, I teased them at +3 and you said I was an idiot.

Maybe I'll just have to accept the fact that you will never admit you were wrong, EVER.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
I already R/R a 3 teamer, because I think the lines will move to 2.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a liar in addition to a fool. I am not incorrect in this matter. You teased +3s not due to a better price (me), you teased them because you predicted a line movement (error). You still can't even calc the breakeven % you need for the move to be correct. You'd have to be absurdly skillful for this to work. I went over this in detail previously, but here you misrepresent yourself and try to portray me as a liar.

I'm wrong in a lot of things, but this isn't one of them. Teasing +3s in an effort to capture half the nine in a potential BST is idiotic and foolhardy regardless of the result that particular time. There are many wagers better served for this.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

The lines WERE 2.5 on most books at the time. But whatever, you resort to name calling in every situation.

I am glad you are a great, wealthy, sportbettor. But it still doesn't make up for the fact that you are by far the biggest a-hole on this forum. (And there is absolutely no debate whatsoever to that point)

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
The lines WERE 2.5 on most books at the time. But whatever, you resort to name calling in every situation.

I am glad you are a great, wealthy, sportbettor. But it still doesn't make up for the fact that you are by far the biggest a-hole on this forum. (And there is absolutely no debate whatsoever to that point)

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. So what we've established.

1) I'm a jerk.
2) You're a liar.
3) I don't talk about being great or wealthy or whatever.
4) I initially tried to help you, and you instead resorted to ridicule and scorn in lieu of assistance.
5) You have misrepresented my statements toward you in several threads since then.

I really don't see the point of this unless you're trying to smear my name through misinformation, as if sheer repetition of a falsehood makes it true. I don't really understand why you continually bring up this issue, while always trying to shift the meaning of your original comments. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The lines WERE 2.5 on most books at the time. But whatever, you resort to name calling in every situation.

I am glad you are a great, wealthy, sportbettor. But it still doesn't make up for the fact that you are by far the biggest a-hole on this forum. (And there is absolutely no debate whatsoever to that point)

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. So what we've established.

1) I'm a jerk.
2) You're a liar.
3) I don't talk about being great or wealthy or whatever.
4) I initially tried to help you, and you instead resorted to ridicule and scorn in lieu of assistance.
5) You have misrepresented my statements toward you in several threads since then.

I really don't see the point of this unless you're trying to smear my name through misinformation, as if sheer repetition of a falsehood makes it true. I don't really understand why you continually bring up this issue, while always trying to shift the meaning of your original comments. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're a KyleB gimmick, aren't you?

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The lines WERE 2.5 on most books at the time. But whatever, you resort to name calling in every situation.

I am glad you are a great, wealthy, sportbettor. But it still doesn't make up for the fact that you are by far the biggest a-hole on this forum. (And there is absolutely no debate whatsoever to that point)

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. So what we've established.

1) I'm a jerk.
2) You're a liar.
3) I don't talk about being great or wealthy or whatever.
4) I initially tried to help you, and you instead resorted to ridicule and scorn in lieu of assistance.
5) You have misrepresented my statements toward you in several threads since then.

I really don't see the point of this unless you're trying to smear my name through misinformation, as if sheer repetition of a falsehood makes it true. I don't really understand why you continually bring up this issue, while always trying to shift the meaning of your original comments. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I am guessing everyone on this forum would agree here.
2) My post 60 mins after [ QUOTE ]
I already R/R a 3 teamer, because I think the lines will move to 2.5.


[/ QUOTE ]
stated that [ QUOTE ]
the lines had moved to 2.5 on over half of the major books

[/ QUOTE ]
The ones remaining were all +3 at around -125 or worse odds.
I don't remember exactly which books had what line at the time.
Where exactly did I lie again?

3) You are kidding right? Ripping on posters left and right calling them morons, saying how they don't understand concepts all the time. This, among other things you post implies you think you are a "much" better sports better than most.

Waving your e-peen, talking about your large amounts wagered, and mid six figure bankroll is evidence you think you are rich.

4)Helpful? Here are the posts you have made to me:
[ QUOTE ]
That is bad bad bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, teasing 3s to 9s is terrible


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't matter. Do you not understand why?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Schwatt,

Because you don't really have a clue what is going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, thanks for all that great insight.

And for the record, even when you are right about something, most of the time you don't even post why you think a certain way. You respond with 1 line rips on people instead.

And to the [ QUOTE ]
you instead resorted to ridicule and scorn in lieu of assistance.


[/ QUOTE ] comment, I have never once called you a name until that last post.
YOU, however have called me an idiot, a liar, a fool, and other names on numerous occasions.
5) I dont recall ever misrepresenting your statements. Evidence?

I don't want to keep going back and forth, but I can't help but rebut to your incorrect statements.

I am not trying to smear your name, but you hammered on me my first few posts here, so that just left a mark on me.
First impressions are hard to forget.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Schwatt,

I don't care what your impressions are. And your previous post is littered full of incorrect statements. Maybe spending some time learning instead of just firing off would be a better idea?

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Look, here's why you tease +3

1) I like teasers wheeeeee!!!!!!
2) +3 big juice, for VALUE, because the true line is basically equivalent to +2.5, and you're getting a free half point (albeit a crappy half of a 9).
3) The true line is +2.5 widely available, and some book is hanging +3 huge juice, so you get a free half point.
4) Because you expect the line to move from true +3 low juice to true +2.5, and you're trying to snap a free half point.

If your reason is 1, well, you don't bet for value, so knock yourself out. If your reason is 2 or 3, congrats, good bet. If your reason is 4, you're wrong for two reasons. First, if the line goes the other way or stays put, you're left with a proportionally much worse bet than if it goes your way, and second, if you're confident enough in the move to bet anyway, bet the GAME, where you're picking up a free half of the *3* instead of a teaser for a free half of the *9*.

Schwatt, whatever your actual reasoning was, you posted that you were teasing because you expected a line move. Your post deserved to get laughed at.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
Look, here's why you tease +3

1) I like teasers wheeeeee!!!!!!
2) +3 big juice, for VALUE, because the true line is basically equivalent to +2.5, and you're getting a free half point (albeit a crappy half of a 9).
3) The true line is +2.5 widely available, and some book is hanging +3 huge juice, so you get a free half point.
4) Because you expect the line to move from true +3 low juice to true +2.5, and you're trying to snap a free half point.

If your reason is 1, well, you don't bet for value, so knock yourself out. If your reason is 2 or 3, congrats, good bet. If your reason is 4, you're wrong for two reasons. First, if the line goes the other way or stays put, you're left with a proportionally much worse bet than if it goes your way, and second, if you're confident enough in the move to bet anyway, bet the GAME, where you're picking up a free half of the *3* instead of a teaser for a free half of the *9*.

Schwatt, whatever your actual reasoning was, you posted that you were teasing because you expected a line move. Your post deserved to get laughed at.

[/ QUOTE ]


good post, but I dont understand the diff between 2 and 3 in your post.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

n2p,

They're the exact same statement reworded. I assume he did this for balance so he'd have 2 "correct" answers and 2 "wrong" answers since it looks better.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Dammit, nobody trainwrecks one of my threads but ME!

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dammit, nobody trainwrecks one of my threads but ME!

[/ QUOTE ]

If I drink 5L of gin, will my blood become gin?

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

Keyboard Gangsta

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dammit, nobody trainwrecks one of my threads but ME!

[/ QUOTE ]

If I drink 5L of gin, will my blood become gin?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only about 40% of it.

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dammit, nobody trainwrecks one of my threads but ME!

[/ QUOTE ]

If I drink 5L of gin, will my blood become gin?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only about 40% of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats the alcohol. Durrr... But if I'm drink Tang 10 then it'd be like 47.5%... gogogoogogogo

Re: Daliman\'s Wong teasers, Season Deux: week 6
 

[ QUOTE ]
good post, but I dont understand the diff between 2 and 3 in your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're the exact same logic, but for different WA lines.