Huge Value On THE TRIBE - Page 3

sublime · #21 10-11-2007, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your line on game one is significantly off of market lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

my line -132

pinny non juice line -148

lol 16 cents is SIGNIFIGANT? you cant comprehend that true line could be -132 and -154 is being offered because there is boston bias in the marketplace?

thats not even enough to justify a bet on Cleveland IMO.

MyTurn2Raise · #22 10-11-2007, 03:51 AM

16 cents is significant at that point

sublime · #23 10-11-2007, 03:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

You also need to become aware of the non-linear nature of betting lines. -127 is closer to -160 than pk as I explained earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

-127 equates to a expected win % of 56.14%
-160 equates to a expected win % of 61.54%
Pk equates to 50%

we are not exactly talking huge differences here, son. whatever though, clearly you are a world class expert and everyone else is an idiot.

Thremp · #24 10-11-2007, 03:56 AM

Sublime,

I'll go through this point by point per your quotes:

1) Not really sure what this means. Your request is legit. But numbers are just numbers I could've just as easily made some up. Would that lend credence to my argument? Obv not. But you post some numbers, which disagree with WA ones. Clearly you think Cleveland is underrated as a team and if anyone has the loosest grasp of efficient markets and thinks playoff baseball (sans Yankees) is marginally efficient, than your numbers show you as being wrong.
2) Lame.
3) Okay... I'd like to see how you do your linear weights with park adjustments and lefty/righty splits along with adjustments for starting pitching... We can do BP and defense later.
4) I'm better at betting sports, obv. You are my superior in esoteric baseball arguments.
5) You post a one line argument that suggests someone should be >13% of their bankroll on the Injuns for the series which is both stupid and assinine. You provide no validation for this statement, and have no real track record that you know what you are talking about. I think everyone here would settle for trixtrix posting a random pick with no validation in a UFC thread or perhaps Naj posting his feelings on writers/scientists/CBB futures without much explanation. But for some reason and unknown who is posting an extreme viewpoint needs to back their position. Who would've guessed?

Basically:

Yes. Cause he's a winnar, and you will not be if you believe your numbers. Also, why would someone give me their exact figures (granted there are reasons, but I will not go into detail because they are between me and them) to share with the entire world?

This thread started off bad, got worse, and now atleast some value may be salvaged if everyone learns:

The difference between -101 and +100 is not the same as -145 to -146.

Thremp · #25 10-11-2007, 03:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You also need to become aware of the non-linear nature of betting lines. -127 is closer to -160 than pk as I explained earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

-127 equates to a expected win % of 56.14%
-160 equates to a expected win % of 61.54%
Pk equates to 50%

we are not exactly talking huge differences here, son. whatever though, clearly you are a world class expert and everyone else is an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dad,

I think we've gotten far enough into this discussion to reveal your ignorance.

sublime · #26 10-11-2007, 04:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
5) You post a one line argument that suggests someone should be >13% of their bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, i did this? where?

Thremp · #27 10-11-2007, 04:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) You post a one line argument that suggests someone should be >13% of their bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, i did this? where?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sorry. I assumed you factored in optimal bankroll growth. Silly me. Instead you must favor sub-optimal bankroll growth similar to your handicapping! Cheers!

sublime · #28 10-11-2007, 04:23 AM

thremp i wish i had the energy to make long posts to debate with you all night but i am tired and want to go to sleep.

good luck in life bud!

Thremp · #29 10-11-2007, 04:32 AM

I agree. Go forth and sin no more.

sublime · #30 10-11-2007, 04:33 AM

actually im not done!

one last thing.

i see you respect (and most likely get supplied information from) crockpot.... now last week he said CLE -120 was the likely true line in game 1 vs NY while ny -110 was the WA number iirc. now thats 30 cents...was that too significant for you? or was that different because thats crockpot and im sublime?