Daliman's NFL Wong teasers, Season Deux

[rsigley]

does anyone actually read or just post the same questions over and over

all these questions have been answered in the past week on this board, just search for it

[666shooter]

Yes, some people actually do read. My search of "-110" +Wong +teaser and some other variants brought up posts that I did not interpret to say -110 was necessarily OK. After about half an hour, I figured I'd make a post. So please look past this one and consider it a legitimate question that I actually attempted to research myself and couldn't find an answer to.

[Mojo56]

"according to gambling 102 book a 2 team wong teaser at -110 still has a 3.19% player advantage (using data from 1983 to 2004) which is still pretty good"

posted by rsigley. Thank you for that BTW.

[mindstatez]

Ummmm, do you all realize this guy did not invent wong teasers? They are explained in detail in sharp sports betting by Stanford Wong, you really don't need any advice on the subject if you're capable of reading.

[playersare]

how about just reading the damn book that Wong Teasers were named after in the first place? I think that's what the problem is here. people want free info from the forum instead of a copywritten, published text.

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummmm, do you all realize this guy did not invent wong teasers? They are explained in detail in sharp sports betting by Stanford Wong, you really don't need any advice on the subject if you're capable of reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Captain obvious. We realize that they are Wong teasers for a reason. If no one asked any questions about topics that can be read in books, most discussion throughout many of the 2+2 forums would be very limited.

Perhaps, for something as simple as crossing two key numbers with a tease, it's a bit more efficient to find that information in a forum than from reading an entire book. I had a tax question earlier, but luckily, the person didn't tell me to [censored] off and read the Internal Revenue Code.

[666shooter]

Thanks for the wonderful replies.

Edit: Thanks thing85. Until your post, I thought I was in the [censored] Twilight Zone.

[Limpfold]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a tax question earlier, but luckily, the person didn't tell me to [censored] off and read the Internal Revenue Code.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny sir

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[mindstatez]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, for something as simple as crossing two key numbers with a tease, it's a bit more efficient to find that information in a forum than from reading an entire book.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry I did not realize this is a hard to grasp concept. It's also not even covered for more than a couple pages.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a tax question earlier, but luckily, the person didn't tell me to [censored] off and read the Internal Revenue Code.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny sir

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop being lazy and read the entire damn IRC.

And not the abridged texts either!