Starting Monday 1/23/06 NEW Posting Picks Rules: Please Read !! - Page 2

TWolf2006 · #11 01-20-2006, 12:39 PM

Have you looked at the forum lately. Its full of people going

I like this team and this team.

And thats it, it needs to be organized and if theres no writeups as to why you like a team then what is it good for without at least showing you are picking more winners then losers.

Easy E · #12 01-20-2006, 12:44 PM

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?

Easy E · #13 01-20-2006, 12:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
then what is it good for without at least showing you are picking more winners then losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

As if a self-reported win/loss record means all of that much, for many posters that match your description?

Much better for validation (if not easier to cross-check) if people would make those "I like" posts. You can't manipulate your w/l record if your posts are available for all to recheck.

Frankly, I feel that using w/l records as justification for the validity of your current picks is misleading/useless in a lot of ways.

Care to expound?

TWolf2006 · #14 01-20-2006, 03:17 PM

Of course a self reported win/loss record is useless without being able to validate it. I dont take into consideration any posters who post their first pick of the year and say they are 33-2 so far this year. If its your first posted pick then your record should be 0-0.

And in awnser to your last paragraph I dont thing that using win/loss records as justification for the validity of your current picks is misleading/useless.

I disagree with you. While betting just on people who have positive units may not net you more wins on the long run and it does not suggest that the people with negaitive units wont end up with positive units and the people with positive units wont end up with negative units does not mean that the information is misleading or useless. By not providing this information you are missing out on facts of the person who posts their picks. Does a guy with +20 units against a guy with -14 units make the +20 unit guy a better tipster, the awnser to that would be yes. Logically if I were to use someones picks I would bet the guy who is making money rather than losing money if I knew nothing about the games that I was betting on. Maybe for you, this is no good as you know what you want to bet on and the info could be useless to you, but this info is needed and wanted by many and if you want to make picks that other people might bet on you need to be accountable for your actions and post all the given facts including win/loss and +/- units. If you are posting picks and you dont want people to use them then whats the point.

craig · #15 01-20-2006, 03:27 PM

[ 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 · #16 01-23-2006, 10:23 PM

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

craig · #17 01-23-2006, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be like Null's and Bill217's pick thread. It is much easier to read through if it is weekly.

craig

20Five · #18 01-23-2006, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be like Null's and Bill217's pick thread. It is much easier to read through if it is weekly.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

if you dont mind, i think i'm going to try to keep it where it is for now.. i dont make a whole bunch of plays per day so its not too confusing, and there doesnt seem to be many other people posting to it so its not that messy.. granted it sucks having to get to the last post.. perhaps once mlb rolls around i'll revamp?

Losing all · #19 01-24-2006, 03:31 AM

Are we using WA lines? if so, how are we coming up with them?

plus_man · #20 01-24-2006, 05:42 AM

Craig, I agree with the new format that you want for this forum but one thing I don't like is having to post separate weekly threads for each sport I'm betting on in a week. I'd rather have all my weekly picks in one weekly thread. Everyone could see my record for each sport within that thread.