Pinnacle Pulse 9/27

[primetime32]

I would be a little more worried about Ohio st then Iowa based on last weeks peformance. Last week Iowa was playing a typical sandwich game. The week before iowa played their in-state rival Iowa St and then had a HUGE look ahead game last week against a crappy illinois team. In college is very common for teams to look bad on the road when they have a HUGE game the following week.

On the other hand, OSU was playing a penn st team that was ranked last week and they were home and they basically won by a score. Penn st was driving (almost at mid field) late in 4th down by only 8. And as a penn st i can honestly say that penn st is simply not a great team this year.

As for tate, he has never been a big time QB. And iowa never has big time stars or high draft picks, but they always have a solid team that plays very tough football at home.

I am on iowa this week and hoping to get 7.5. People who like OSU should play them now since the line is at 6.5 in some places and i expect it to only go up.

[almostbusto]

myturntoraise,

i am not worried about my bankroll. i have a pretty good understanding of risk management, i have been studying it for the last four years(actuary science student) and have also put it into practice building up a stake that makes up 3/4 of my net worth from 50$. My OSU play is well under 5% of my bankroll also. i was just making the comment that i put much more money on the game than i otherwise would have(probably 0) without the comments from the forum.


i guess i am being a *little* defensive here. but my question was just trying to get at the handicapping, i am a competent bettor, but i am an incompetent sports bettor if you know what i mean.

anyway, i find it interesting that you still picked your play as the play of the week even though other people (fezzik for one) are picking the opposite side as +EV. as someone less experienced, i personally don't make a play unless i get a general concensus from those that i trust to be winners that my side is +EV. At worst, i go with picks that most are seeing as no action on either side yet, a few handicappers and I see value in one side. When all the pundits are picking opposite sides, i tend to not play or play for a smaller amount.

In your position, it seems that either you or fezzik seems to have some sort of bias or faulty reason for selecting your respective sides. Now, there is some probability that you are the one with the problem and some probability it is him. Isn't that reason enough to tone down your play on OSU? obviously you disagree of course, but i am curious as to why?

I know the line is meant to split opinions to some extent but when winning handicappers disagree it can't really be a good sign for either party.


to rephrase. lets say in the next X years you and fezzik have disagree on 1000 college games. further assume you and fezzik are both winning sportsbettors. using only those 1000 games as a sample, how confident are you that you are a winner over those thousand? it is my thesis that there is a nontrivial chance that you are a loser over those games despite being a winning bettor, furthermore there is also a chance that you are both losing (due to the vig, and the lines being very accurate on those bets) over those 1000 bets.

[Thremp]

Umm... IIRC Fezzik is a losing CFB sportsbettor. MT2R has an insignificant sample size which I would gladly take over a proven loser.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm... IIRC Fezzik is a losing CFB sportsbettor. MT2R has an insignificant sample size which I would gladly take over a proven loser.

[/ QUOTE ]doesn't really matter for my post. you can replace fezzik's name with your own if you rather. the point still stands. i think its very obvious that i am trying to get at the "theory" of conflicting picks and not really interested in talking about "myturntoraise v fezzik HU for bankrolls"

EDIT: even if you are a proven winner, it is certainly not the case that all your picks need be +EV. so consider: A proven winner with a proven 7% roi picks OSU, a proven winner with a proven 4% roi picks IOWA. how much are you going to bet? what if the gap was more or less? its an intriuging question to me at least and one i haven't seen answered on these forums

[BiPolar_Nut]

[ QUOTE ]
A proven winner with a proven 7% roi picks OSU, a proven winner with a proven 4% roi picks IOWA. how much are you going to bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insufficient data?

I believe to get any possibility of useful info using ROI percentages, you must take units wagered into account and do a "ROI on 2u bets" or "ROI on 1u bets", etc. If Mr 7% ROI earned 2% on single unit wgers and Mr 4% earned 9% on 2 unitt wagers, and Mr 7% was placing a 1u pick while My 4% was placing a 2u pick...that'd skew things considerably.

Just a n00b's take on this sitiation...I may be way off base. If so, please correct me so I can learn more than I already have today in this forum [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A proven winner with a proven 7% roi picks OSU, a proven winner with a proven 4% roi picks IOWA. how much are you going to bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insufficient data?

I believe to get any possibility of useful info using ROI percentages, you must take units wagered into account and do a "ROI on 2u bets" or "ROI on 1u bets", etc. If Mr 7% ROI earned 2% on single unit wgers and Mr 4% earned 9% on 2 unitt wagers, and Mr 7% was placing a 1u pick while My 4% was placing a 2u pick...that'd skew things considerably.

Just a n00b's take on this sitiation...I may be way off base. If so, please correct me so I can learn more than I already have today in this forum [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ] i think you are making an error in your math. it doesn't matter if one is betting a billion units per game and the other is betting 1 units per game. the facts are one is winning (.07) * (units wagered [or dollars for that matter]) and one is winning .04 * (units wagered).

unless in sportsbetting ROI is meant to mean return on bankroll. which is certainly not the case in my post. 7% ROI is/was meant to mean for every dollar the guy wagers he gets back 107 cents long term.

also, there is no reason to really bring this up since its just an example in a vacuum, meaning that unless otherwise stated all else is equal.

EDIT: i suppose it matters if one is picking the play as a marginal play and the other one is betting the farm on it. once again, the post implies they are both picking their respective sides with equal enthusiasm

[BiPolar_Nut]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: i suppose it matters if one is picking the play as a marginal play and the other one is betting the farm on it. once again, the post implies they are both picking their respective sides with equal enthusiasm

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was referring to. If someone lays more units on what they feel are stronger plays then I'd think unit per play variations must be taken into consideration.

If both parties in question always play the same units on every bet, then my point wouldn't apply at all, even if one party used billion dollar units and the other used haypennies.

[Ortho]

[ QUOTE ]
A proven winner with a proven 7% roi picks OSU, a proven winner with a proven 4% roi picks IOWA. how much are you going to bet? what if the gap was more or less? its an intriuging question to me at least and one i haven't seen answered on these forums

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are convinced that both these guys are winners, and you have no way of knowing which, if either of them, is on the right side, and a requirement of your example is that line shopping isn't possible (because it's very possible for winning bettors to both be making +EV wagers on opposite sides of the game) then imho you should almost certainly pass the game. Why would you think in that situation that the chance of either team winning/covering is different than the posted line? If you only have a hammer (in this case, relying on other people's picks) and there aren't any nails around, you're stuck.

[BiPolar_Nut]

Ortho: now that made much more sense than my response!

I love this forum [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A proven winner with a proven 7% roi picks OSU, a proven winner with a proven 4% roi picks IOWA. how much are you going to bet? what if the gap was more or less? its an intriuging question to me at least and one i haven't seen answered on these forums

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are convinced that both these guys are winners, and you have no way of knowing which, if either of them, is on the right side, and a requirement of your example is that line shopping isn't possible (because it's very possible for winning bettors to both be making +EV wagers on opposite sides of the game) then imho you should almost certainly pass the game. Why would you think in that situation that the chance of either team winning/covering is different than the posted line? If you only have a hammer (in this case, relying on other people's picks) and there aren't any nails around, you're stuck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. but this is where it gets interesting. now suppose you are the 4% guy. so would you personally still bet? what if you were the 7% guy? i contend that if you agree that a third party shouldn't bet, then you yourself shouldn't bet. its no different right? the EV still is the same. the only difference now is that you now have to 'go against' your own pick to some extent and put down no action on either side.