Starting Monday 1/23/06 NEW Posting Picks Rules: Please Read !!

[craig]

Starting this Monday 1/23/06 there will be a few new rules when posting picks.

Instead of having a picks thread for your picks for everyday of the week, please post all picks for the week (Monday-Sunday) in the same thread. Though, if you are posting picks on seperate sports, please create a different thread for each sport per week.

Below are some of the rules for the picks thread:

1) Please include your YTD record updated on a daily basis. Do not include parlays, teasers, etc... in this record. Keep them in a seperate record.

2) Please include your YTD units won/lost as well updated daily. Once again, do not include parlays, teasers, etc... in this units W/L record. We would appreciate it if you kept a weighted and unweighted record, but we will not require that until the beginning of the baseball season.

3) Others may comment in your thread; in fact, we highly encourage this.

Please make sure that you follow the above rules.

[mrbaseball]

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

We (at least I am) are here to discuss sports betting in hopefully a mature fashion. I don't make "picks" threads but I will often break down a game or two and I like to get involved in others games discussions and give my two cents if I have an opinion.

When I do break down a game it won't include records because I don't list every bet I make but I do like to discuss games and ideas.

Pick listing is ridiculous anyway. There are any number of places on the web to list picks and see listed picks. I'd like to see 2+2 rise above the chest pounding smack talkers and actually intelligently discuss sports wagering.

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
We (at least I am) are here to discuss sports betting in hopefully a mature fashion. I don't make "picks" threads but I will often break down a game or two and I like to get involved in others games discussions and give my two cents if I have an opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where in the above rules that I posted did it say that you couldn't discuss individual games? You can still "break down" games. This is for the people that are already making picks (or are going to beging to). As was also mentioned, you can post in people's threads as well. I never said one couldn't.



\ [ QUOTE ]

Pick listing is ridiculous anyway. There are any number of places on the web to list picks and see listed picks. I'd like to see 2+2 rise above the chest pounding smack talkers and actually intelligently discuss sports wagering.


[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of this is so picks can be intelligently discussed. But, records, stats, etc... are important. I know you have mentioned in the past that you don't agree with that as much as others, but some think that it is important.

craig

[craig]

Also, not everybody thinks pick listing is stupid (which is obvious from the amount of pick threads). That is also your opinion.

craig

[gomberg]

I'm relatively new to sports betting (so that's my excuse if this question is insanely stupid)

What is a weighted / unweighted units win/loss record? Does this have something to do with making your unit size bigger according to a growing bankroll?

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm relatively new to sports betting (so that's my excuse if this question is insanely stupid)

What is a weighted / unweighted units win/loss record? Does this have something to do with making your unit size bigger according to a growing bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't insanely stupide. Basically an "unweighted" record is where one would always wager one unit (or to win one unit). "Weighted" would be where they might bet more than one unit on a game.

The reason we wanted it seperate, is because somebody might be down 50 units and then make a post where they bet 50 units on one game. Thus, they would look like a winner, but it would obviously be deceptive.

craig

[tech]

Just so everyone knows ... since I have been moderator of this forum, I have gotten tons of requests for some type of common picks format. I was never willing or able to invest the time necessary to monitor every single thread, so I never pushed hard for a common format.

Craig is willing to do it so more power to him. I will say that in my experience, forums with such a format are infinitely more valuable than those without. However, it will undoubtedly alienate some people, and I hope that you will all be supportive of Craig's efforts when complaints arise (and they certainly will).

[Easy E]

craig, what are you looking for as the final result of your efforts as you've detailed them?

Are you looking to cut down on the number of threads?

Are you looking to weed out potential "salespeople" and fake chest-thumpers?

Are you looking to make it easier to ignore a poster's threads, if they are not up to snuff?

Are you looking to simplify your job as moderator?

As to the W-L records- since those numbers mean very little without validation, wouldn't it be better to list 2+2 posted win/loss records? Those can be verified and judged accurate; other sources usually cannot, due to control questions.

I personally think I'd rather see one "Picks of x/x/06- (sport)" thread that everyone replies to, rather than having to drill down into craig's baseball picks for the week, then find mr baseball and drill down into his for Friday's picks, then hit tech's weekly thread.... and so on.

I am curious what your objectives are here. Given some of the constraints of the forum software, and Search facilities, I don't know if what you're imposing is going to be helpful or not.

Can you give some examples of what you expect the forum to be like?

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to cut down on the number of threads?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to weed out potential "salespeople" and fake chest-thumpers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to make it easier to ignore a poster's threads, if they are not up to snuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to simplify your job as moderator?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a definite "no". If anything this will make moderating tougher. I am going to have to verify (others will help I am sure) that people's records are accurate.


[ QUOTE ]
As to the W-L records- since those numbers mean very little without validation, wouldn't it be better to list 2+2 posted win/loss records? Those can be verified and judged accurate; other sources usually cannot, due to control questions.

I personally think I'd rather see one "Picks of x/x/06- (sport)" thread that everyone replies to, rather than having to drill down into craig's baseball picks for the week, then find mr baseball and drill down into his for Friday's picks, then hit tech's weekly thread.... and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am unsure what you mean by "wouldn't it be better to list 2+2 posted win/loss records"? Do you mean as a group or individually. If you mean as a group, I don't see what the point of that would be. If you mean individually, then that will be pretty tough to go through every thread and add up people's picks. Plus, you will have the extra burden of people saying, "no, I never said, I bet that, I just said I liked it, etc...". But, if they are listing picks in the manner I suggested (and others, I am not just doing this on my own) then it will be easy to verify the records.

As far as one day for each sport, those threads get very long and filled with a bunch of "homerism" and "bs reasoning". Plus, a lot goes unnoticed in the uber-long threads. Plus, others, including myself, don't want to wade through a bunch of that.



[ QUOTE ]
I am curious what your objectives are here. Given some of the constraints of the forum software, and Search facilities, I don't know if what you're imposing is going to be helpful or not.

Can you give some examples of what you expect the forum to be like?

[/ QUOTE ]

My objective is to make the forum better. Other sports betting forums that have had a similar structure seem to produce more well thought out picks and discussions (not less, like others think). When you look at the other strategy forums on 2+2 there is nothing else on the Internet that can even come close to matching the advice and knowledge that is spread. But, unfortunately, this strategy forum does not. There are better Sports Bettting forums and I think that with some type of structure, with us having people with well documented winning records, and with the discussions we are going to have, this forum could also be the best sports betting forum on the Internet. Tech has also mentioned that other forums with similar structures are sometimes better. And I think some accountability will make this forum better.

I am not going to guarantee that this forum will be better because of the new structure. I am also not saying that the new "rules" aren't changeable. I am a reasonable person who is always open to criticism. If this doesn't work well, we (as a group) can change it.

On the same note, not that much is changing. I am not making rules that "you must have X posts before making a post in here" or anything like that. All I am saying is that if you are going to make picks you should be accountable for them. No more bsing us (especially new people) that you have solid winning advice, when you don't. W/L records over the long run do say something. Over the short term, they are meaningless (we all should know that).

If anybody can propose a better and easier system for some form of accountability while making the forum better, I am all ears. You can PM me or post here.

craig

[20Five]

craig, can you tell me if my "20's contribution picks thread" is following all of these guidelines properly..? from what i can tell it seems fine but just want to follow the same standard as everyone else, thanks