Thurs night NCAA football

[hedgie43]

[ QUOTE ]

1)it is unnecessary to expose your bankroll to that kind of pressure: there are any number of games weekly where the probable winner is offered at odds > .5. why chase low probability events? you need a bankroll large enough to sustain ~12 consecutive losses to avoid tap-out. and since these are independent trials, one can easily experience sparse outcomes that will require significantly larger insurances to withstand (e.g.:10L,2W;9L,3W;11L,1W). the variance can be extreme. i will not commit my resources where they are least rewarding.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? 12 consecutive losses wipes out your bankroll here? If you're betting Kelly, you'd be betting 2.5% of your bankroll here and even if you lost 40 in a row, you still wouldn't be broke because you'd be scaling down your bets. Least rewarding? You're a joke.

[ QUOTE ]

repeating from my original post: it is my contention that bookmakers expend huge capital resources on the statistical, mathematical side of the game: they have better data gathering abilities, better modeling capacities, and an unbiased commitment to determining the odds of any game posted based upon objective criteria. i suggest that it is folly to assume, as a bettor, that one can utilize these same techniques to isolate bets promising a +EV. and i further suggest, claims such as hedger and thremp make, that they do so, is improbable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called not betting into WA lines.

[ QUOTE ]
from these data decide a percentage bankroll unit which will optimize br growth, while maintaining a margin of safety for the inevitable variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what Kelly does. Optimizing bankroll growth inherently takes variance into account.

[ QUOTE ]

i would suggest, that anyone capable of determining the accuracy of these two parameters, would be better served isolating opportunities more rewarding and with a higher win rate. and i would likewise suggest, anyone thinking they can so do CONSISTENTLY is due a rude awakening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err, I bet pretty much anything that is +EV, given that it does not limit even more +EV prospects. If you're looking for 80% chances where you can get +200 (which you seem to imply you can find regularly) I suggest it is you who is due for the rude awakening.

[ QUOTE ]

of course, if you're thremp, and make money without working, that's another story. you DO claim to make money without working, don't you thremp? imagine, one amongst us who has found the finacial shangra-la.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to imply here that sports betting is unbeatable. I can't imagine why you would think that.

[ QUOTE ]


and both of you in need of some fine old woodshed introductions to polite behavior and courtesy.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you need an introduction into clear writing. Half of your sentences are unreadable.

[MicroBob]

my suspicion is that by being as obtuse as possible he believes his opinions will somehow be more respected.

[hedgie43]

Spot on MicroBob.

[thelyingthief]

[ QUOTE ]
my suspicion is that by being as obtuse as possible he believes his opinions will somehow be more respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously, using a vocabulary greater than that of a 6 year old is "obtuse" to bob. is that "micro-" a description of your mental powers?

tlt.

[thelyingthief]

hedgie:

you continue to misconstrue, misunderstand, and revise my replies.

i did not say, 12 consecutive losses eliminates your bankroll. i said, since the outcome of these wagers are independent, it is possible to run into sequences of negative outcomes, and that can put undue pressure on your br. if you are too stupid to comprehend what you read, that is YOUR failing, not mine.

kelly optimizes growth when all the parameters are fixed and well determined. it is my contention that sports betting, and football betting in particular are not so determinable. therefore, it is wise to bet percentages of kelly, since any given proposition cannot be determined with sufficient accuracy.

are you so stupid that this eludes you?

if you bet an ASSumed .35 probability (and it IS assumed) into a line that offers .075 return on investment, then you are NOT betting +EV; you are gambling. your entire argument is theoretical to the extreme: again, my argument rests upon the real world observation that you cannot identify any specific outcome with the degree of accuracy necessary to consistently make money at those odds.

are you so stupid that this eludes you?

you state that i SEEM TO IMPLY the unbeatable nature of the game. i in fact state unequivocally that YOU don't beat the game: how this implies the unbeatable nature of the game, i fail to see. furthermore, i have beat the game for significant money every year i have been involved in it. thus, i have irrefutable proof that it IS beatable.

and pardon me if i inadvertently drop the copula. also, if you don't know what "woodshed" implies (and from your behavior it is obvious to me you don't), it's what adults used to do to nasty little children when they were intractable. it's called "spanking" nowadays; it's a shame you weren't introduced to it, then, so your familiars wouldn't have to cope with your childish nastiness, now.

QED: hedgie is, in fact, stupid. tlt.

[ThankgodforRB]

[ QUOTE ]
pirate:

please read the (ahem) above book i wrote explaining my avoidance of said bet. i do bet money line regularly, (OU vs. FSU, Denver vs. GB, fla vs. osu), but would not consider a bet on any team at ML that i did not think could win the game outright. i cash 75% of my ml wagers. i can understand other bettors exercising a more relaxed approach; i would counsel every independent to avoid attempting to quantify a dog with such precision, however, for it is impossible to do so accurately and consistently. i'm talking real world here.

tlt

[/ QUOTE ]

So you regularly bet dog MLs, even fairly heavy dog MLs, and you cash 75% of them? Can you start a tlt underdog ML thread and post all of your plays each week for me? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[thelyingthief]

for those of you who cannot read: please ask someone else to help you. out of a spirit of decency i will reply this one last time:

i did not SAY i ONLY bet huge dogs ML. i stated clearly that i ONLY BET dogs that i think will WIN outright. OU, Denver, and FLA were such plays. the majority of my ML plays are +125/+130. nor do i indicate, nor state, that all my plays are ML; last week, a week in which i was 9 and 4, there were two such plays.

tlt.

[MicroBob]

tlt - I would be interested to see your picks for this weekend's games if you wouldn't mind sharing.

[ThankgodforRB]

[ QUOTE ]
for those of you who cannot read: please ask someone else to help you. out of a spirit of decency i will reply this one last time:

i did not SAY i ONLY bet huge dogs ML. i stated clearly that i ONLY BET dogs that i think will WIN outright. OU, Denver, and FLA were such plays. the majority of my ML plays are +125/+130. nor do i indicate, nor state, that all my plays are ML; last week, a week in which i was 9 and 4, there were two such plays.

tlt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say you ONLY bet huge dogs ML either! I asked you whether or not it was true that you regularly bet dog MLs and still cash on 75% of them. I don't care if you bet all of your dog MLs at +101, I still don't believe you cash 75% of them! And if I'm wrong and you do cash at this rate, then I'd truly love to start following your plays after a while. So either way, I think this TLT underdog ML thread would be a great idea.


I am so willing to back my claim that you don't cash at 75% that I will make you a simple proposition:

You choose 20 dog MLs anytime between now and the end of 2007. I will wager any amount you'd like up to $20K that you go worse than 15-5. i.e. 15 correct choices and 5 incorrect choices (or better) is a win for you (notice I'm even giving you the win on the 75% mark). 14 correct choices and 6 incorrect choices (or worse) is a win for me.

Here's a chance to stop all the banter and just flat out prove to the naysayers that your claims are true. If you accept, then we can work on finding someone to hold the money.

[thelyingthief]

you dont have 20k, rb.