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)