|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: HCHC Date: Jan 19, 2007 10:37
Gary Collard wrote:
> "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" wrote:
>>
>>> The goal is 60 winners against the spread.
>>>
>>> Here are today's picks:
>>>
>>> Rhode Island -11 (89-78)
>>> Cincinnati +15.5 (76-77)
>>> South Florida +15 (58-69)
>>>
>>> (lines from Olympic as of about two hours ago)
>>
>> Two wins and a push.
>>
>> Record is 2-0 (push was bought back earlier).
>>
>> 98 picks remaining.
>
> Record is 3-1, 96 picks remaining. ...
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
|
| | 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: DarkKoboldDarkKobold Date: Jan 19, 2007 12:22
HC, quick questions...
Is this something being done for free, i.e. fake gambling, or is it
something you have to pay for?
Really, not a word of this thread made any sense to me, I'm just
curious if a pauper is gambling away his last pennies.
|
| |
|
| | 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: HCHC Date: Jan 19, 2007 12:53
DarkKobold wrote:
> HC, quick questions...
>
> Is this something being done for free, i.e. fake gambling, or is it
> something you have to pay for?
>
> Really, not a word of this thread made any sense to me, I'm just
> curious if a pauper is gambling away his last pennies.
rec.gambling.sports is a newsgroup for the discussion of sports
betting.
The multi-village idiot has in the past proclaimed his expertise in
being able to pick winners against the spread. When you bet on a
basketball game, there is a favorite that is minus points and an
underdog that is plus points. Also in general, there is a "vig" or
"juice" on the wager, meaning for every 100 yo bet to win, you pay 110
if loses. That means to break even you have to be ble to achieve
slightly less than a 53%% win rate. Anything over that is profitable.
|
| Show full article (5.44Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: HCHC Date: Jan 19, 2007 13:03
One more thing.
*My* claimed area of expertise is football, specifically the NFL.
Not counting this season that's just ending, I had the best
*documented* NFL record four years running at RGS, and while there
aren't that many handicappers there, there are a few very talented
handicappers there that I've out-picked, some of the same guys that
taught me how to do this the right way since I first arrived alnmost
ten years ago.
That all means I was profitable over the course of hundreds of picks,
over four seasons in a row. This year was my first losing season in
the NFL in three years, but I made up for it with College Football, and
finished the year slightly in the money, NFL and NCAA combined.
I haven't done the math yet, but even with my losing season this year
in the NFL, when you add it to the last four, I believe I am still
profitable, and that would now be for the last FIVE years in a row.
Parker's wet dream is to be able to pick winners like that. And now
you see why he hates me.
Besides me calling him on all his crap, he's jealous.
HC wrote:
> DarkKobold wrote:
>> HC, quick questions...
>>
>> Is this something being done for free, i.e. fake gambling, or is it
>> something you have to pay for?
>>
>> Really, not a word of this...
|
| Show full article (6.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: HCHC Date: Jan 20, 2007 08:18
> HC wrote:
>
>> There is an entire slimey indutry surrounding the sale of sports picks.
>> People are willing to pay somebody else for picks, so there is a never
>> ending list of people that claim to hit certain percentages, hoping to
>> rope somebody in to pay them for their selections. The problem is, that
>> when you factor in what the "tout" charges for his picks, depending on
>> the amount the winning percentage that oneneeds to be at to break even
>> goes up from the just under 53%% threshhold, because afterall, you have
>> to cover the cost of the picks from the tout with the winnings, so the
>> B/E point for the tout goes up.
>>
>> A few things about that, while a sample size of 100 games is a heck of
>> a lot better than say 10 or 20 games, still even at 100 picks we're not
>> at a high enough sample size to determine if the tout's rate of success
>> or rate of failure for 100 picks is a true indicator of his ability or
>> just a skewed varience of what his true ability or inability actually
>> is, due specifically to the small sample side and something called
>> random chance. ...
|
| Show full article (1.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
