Full Version: Sports Gambling 201
Suns at Wizards (+4)
QUOTE (Swift_Psycho @ Monday, January 26th, 2009, 4:27 PM) 
Suns at Wizards (+4)
You suck.
Try Denver at Memphis (+5.5) tonight.
Wait until you guys start playing golf... it's deadly.
I'm starting to up my golf action a little bit (mostly because of the opening price on Stewie Cink this week at the FBR Open, which was absurd) for the first time since this Martin Kaymer disaster on the last two holes of the tournament was followed a few hours later by a Sage Rosenfels sighting that led to the following:
- A rage/shock induced blackout at work, which forced one of my more empathetic dealers to lead me to the breakroom so he could watch the floor for about an hour while I cried/vomitted.
- A 5x tilt session at a NLHE table in Detroit
- A 10x tilt session at the roulette table later (mitigated in part by some free slot play -- on which I won 2x somehow -- and loooots of free food comps)
- An eventual 1 week "vacation" during which I blew off class and desperately tried not to drink
So, if you guys want some golf action, I'll start you light. I already hammered Stewie hard enough to drop the price from the opener of 58.5-1 all the way down to about 35-1 at the greek, but I would recommend the following:
Bet against JB Holmes. He was a Ryder Cup superstar, and he's really long off the tee. Plus, he's won at this course twice. Unfortunately for him, he's been fucking awful all year. I'm fading him at +juice with Bubba Watson and DJ Trahan.
Bet against Mike Weir. You can do it with Ogilvie some places, which is nice, because he's significantly better than Mike Weir. Weir's been hot lately, inflating his value. I think Ogilvie's carded some good rounds, too, but most unbiased metrics have him as a significant favorite here.
Anyway, sorry I haven't been around much. I'm moving and I've been in a 3-month gambling rut, so I probably don't have much to add right now. Anybody who followed me on sides and futures since the start of NCAA foots season would be break-even at best. Eliminate my futures (Baltimore, Baltimore, Baltimore, Lions, Dolphins, Oklahoma) and I'm stuck more than a third of my bankroll.
If you really want some pain, take a look at Charl Schwartzel in the Dubai Desert Classic. You can still get him at +5250 to win and +1015 to top 5 at The Greek, despite my best attempt to bring that number down.
Wang
I'm starting to up my golf action a little bit (mostly because of the opening price on Stewie Cink this week at the FBR Open, which was absurd) for the first time since this Martin Kaymer disaster on the last two holes of the tournament was followed a few hours later by a Sage Rosenfels sighting that led to the following:
- A rage/shock induced blackout at work, which forced one of my more empathetic dealers to lead me to the breakroom so he could watch the floor for about an hour while I cried/vomitted.
- A 5x tilt session at a NLHE table in Detroit
- A 10x tilt session at the roulette table later (mitigated in part by some free slot play -- on which I won 2x somehow -- and loooots of free food comps)
- An eventual 1 week "vacation" during which I blew off class and desperately tried not to drink
So, if you guys want some golf action, I'll start you light. I already hammered Stewie hard enough to drop the price from the opener of 58.5-1 all the way down to about 35-1 at the greek, but I would recommend the following:
Bet against JB Holmes. He was a Ryder Cup superstar, and he's really long off the tee. Plus, he's won at this course twice. Unfortunately for him, he's been fucking awful all year. I'm fading him at +juice with Bubba Watson and DJ Trahan.
Bet against Mike Weir. You can do it with Ogilvie some places, which is nice, because he's significantly better than Mike Weir. Weir's been hot lately, inflating his value. I think Ogilvie's carded some good rounds, too, but most unbiased metrics have him as a significant favorite here.
Anyway, sorry I haven't been around much. I'm moving and I've been in a 3-month gambling rut, so I probably don't have much to add right now. Anybody who followed me on sides and futures since the start of NCAA foots season would be break-even at best. Eliminate my futures (Baltimore, Baltimore, Baltimore, Lions, Dolphins, Oklahoma) and I'm stuck more than a third of my bankroll.
If you really want some pain, take a look at Charl Schwartzel in the Dubai Desert Classic. You can still get him at +5250 to win and +1015 to top 5 at The Greek, despite my best attempt to bring that number down.
Wang
QUOTE (Shimmering Wang @ Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 5:12 PM)
Bet against JB Holmes. He was a Ryder Cup superstar, and he's really long off the tee. Plus, he's won at this course twice. Unfortunately for him, he's been fucking awful all year. I'm fading him at +juice with Bubba Watson and DJ Trahan.
Bet against Mike Weir. You can do it with Ogilvie some places, which is nice, because he's significantly better than Mike Weir. Weir's been hot lately, inflating his value. I think Ogilvie's carded some good rounds, too, but most unbiased metrics have him as a significant favorite here.
If you really want some pain, take a look at Charl Schwartzel in the Dubai Desert Classic. You can still get him at +5250 to win and +1015 to top 5 at The Greek, despite my best attempt to bring that number down.
Wang
Bet against Mike Weir. You can do it with Ogilvie some places, which is nice, because he's significantly better than Mike Weir. Weir's been hot lately, inflating his value. I think Ogilvie's carded some good rounds, too, but most unbiased metrics have him as a significant favorite here.
If you really want some pain, take a look at Charl Schwartzel in the Dubai Desert Classic. You can still get him at +5250 to win and +1015 to top 5 at The Greek, despite my best attempt to bring that number down.
Wang
I wish I could just put these in on Wednesday and then forget about them until Sunday. Schwartzel is going to give me a MegaTease in Dubai. My 3 big matchups -- Trahan and Watson against Holmes, and Ogilvie against Weir -- have small leads, and I already know Trahan is going to stay near the top of the leaderboard until the 3rd or 4th round, at which point he is going to fall off a cliff and ruin my outright, top 5, and matchup play, along with my entire weekend.
I hate this crap.
QUOTE (Tactical Bear @ Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 11:31 PM)
I wish I could just put these in on Wednesday and then forget about them until Sunday. Schwartzel is going to give me a MegaTease in Dubai. My 3 big matchups -- Trahan and Watson against Holmes, and Ogilvie against Weir -- have small leads, and I already know Trahan is going to stay near the top of the leaderboard until the 3rd or 4th round, at which point he is going to fall off a cliff and ruin my outright, top 5, and matchup play, along with my entire weekend.
I hate this crap.
I hate this crap.
Trahan v. Holmes winner
Watson v. Holmes (almost assuredly a) winner
Ogilvy v. Weir (almost assuredly a) winner
All my outrights are dead (Schwartzel, Stewie, Trahan), and I don't think I'm going to have any top-5 sweats unless something crazy happens, so this was a pleasant start to golf-season. My fades blew up early and missed the cut, so my matchups all cash early, and my outrights can't tease me.
Huzzah!
Wang
PS- FYI, Holmes -- who I said has been downright dreadful this year -- went off for a 70 and a 76, the latter of which was among the very worst rounds of the tournament
QUOTE (Shimmering Wang @ Friday, January 30th, 2009, 1:58 PM)
Watson v. Holmes (almost assuredly a) winner
Ogilvy v. Weir (almost assuredly a) winner
Ogilvy v. Weir (almost assuredly a) winner
Shouldn't the "a's" be outside the parentheses?
Hey wang i dont know if they have matchups for everyone but i would start looking to back Scott Piercey in future events. Its his first full year on tour after finishing top 5 in the money on the Nationwide tour last year. Right now he is tied for 7th in the FBR open after finishing 25th last week and 12th in Hawaii to start the year. I also know him and his caddie personally and Scott is pretty damn focused right now and is hitting pretty long off the tee. I believe either last week or the week before he lead the field in scrambling for the tourney or something like that. The only thing i think he needs some work on is his putting right now.
QUOTE (Poppy_Hillis @ Friday, January 30th, 2009, 7:37 PM)
Shouldn't the "a's" be outside the parentheses?
I formatted the action summaries as such:
"Trahan v. Holmes WINNER"
On the left side, the matchup; on the right, the grade. Matchup: winner or Matchup: loser
When I decided to ignore the unlikely jinx possibility, and include a parenthetical hedge, "Watson v. Holmes (almost assuredly) winner" didn't read right, so I needed to include an indefinite article. For consistency, the "a" had to stay inside parentheses.
In short: no.
QUOTE (powerpoker @ Friday, January 30th, 2009, 9:28 PM)
Hey wang i dont know if they have matchups for everyone but i would start looking to back Scott Piercey in future events. Its his first full year on tour after finishing top 5 in the money on the Nationwide tour last year. Right now he is tied for 7th in the FBR open after finishing 25th last week and 12th in Hawaii to start the year. I also know him and his caddie personally and Scott is pretty damn focused right now and is hitting pretty long off the tee. I believe either last week or the week before he lead the field in scrambling for the tourney or something like that. The only thing i think he needs some work on is his putting right now.
Unlike, say, Anthony Kim, who played his round hung over today, obviously.
I'll keep an eye on him. If Brendan Todd wins a PGA event this year, there's at least a 50/50 chance I'm on him. He's one of my Nationwide follows. You can play most guys as outrights/top fives, but I'm not posted up at 5-Dimes right now, so my matchup plays might be limited to what's offered at TheGreek, and maybe Bodog. They give me good prices on some sides, from time to time, but I try to avoid dropping money into that POS sinkhole whenever I can.
WangBear, have you seen this?
QUOTE (Oziumrules @ Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 1:20 AM)
Interesting read.........
SportsInsights.com (“SIs”) believes in a contrarian approach to sports investing and seeks out value in the sports marketplace. One of the key parameters to SportsInsights' quantitative approach to sports betting is our proprietary sports betting percentages, compiled from several online sportsbooks. The betting percentages tell us the percentage of bets on each side of a bet. Our research has shown that it normally pays to “fade” the public or “bet against the Public.”
The Public typically likes taking the favorite in most sports events. However, this year's Superbowl shows the Public loving the Arizona Cardinals and their Cinderella march to the Superbowl. This is an interesting departure for the Public and shows how much “value” there might be on the Steelers. This contrarian factor of “fading” the Public points to the Steelers.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers
Current Betting Percentages on the Super Bowl
Pittsburg Steelers 42%
Arizona Cardinals 58%
Smart Money and Point Spread Line Movement
SportsInsights uses another indicator that we call “Smart Money Analysis.” This method is more selective but also more powerful because historically, it has had a better winning percentage than using “betting percentages” as a standalone indicator.
For the Superbowl, the “generally-available” line opened at Pittsburgh -6.5. As we saw above, early Superbowl betting has most of the bets (about 60%) coming in on the underdog Arizona Cardinals. Even with the majority of bets landing on Arizona, the line has inched up to Pittsburgh -7. This is a relatively large move in the NFL – especially near a “key number” like 7.
This means that “big money” – which is usually “smart money” – is taking the Steelers. In other words, even though most bettors are on Arizona, “big bets” on Pittsburgh are more than balancing the Public's action on Arizona. This indicator says to go along with the “smart money” and take Pittsburgh.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers -6.5 (Bookmaker.com)
Intangibles and Other Contrarian Angles
In addition to our “quant” or “technical” analysis of the sports marketplace (based on “betting percentages” and “line movement”), SportsInsights tries to analyze games using some approaches that resemble “fundamental analysis” in the financial markets.
For example, are there some extraneous factors that make a bet seem over-valued or under-valued? We try to “buy low and sell high” by using a “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately?” factor. That is, the Public tends to exaggerate the importance of recent events.
Arizona's offense has been pounding the opposition. After being one of the highest-scoring teams during the regular season, Kurt Warner and crew have rung up more than 30 points in each of their playoff match-ups. Warner and his receivers look like they are playing pick-up football against a bunch of five-year-olds! The Public loves offense and this is another reason we feel that Arizona is currently over-valued. We'll “sell” the Cardinals at a recent “high.”
During the early part of the regular season, the media focused on teams like Tennessee and both NY teams as “Superbowl favorites.” Later in the season, fans saw teams like the Eagles, the Chargers, and the Colts streak into the playoffs. Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Steelers played “steady football” all season long and “quietly” (if you can call their defense quiet!) ran up a 12-4 record, yielding a league-low 223 points.
Some of the intangibles point to “selling” the Cardinals at a “high” and “buying” a great Steelers team that avoided being over-hyped.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers -6.5 (Bookmaker.com)
Quick Analysis of Recent Superbowl Scores
SportsInsights' analysts took a quick peek at recent Superbowl scores.
• 3 out of the last 5 Superbowls were settled by a FG or less.
• 4 out of the last 7 Superbowls were settled by a FG or less.
• 6 out the last 11 Superbowls were settled by a TD or less.
We normally hate giving 7 points or more (or even taking a favorite!). However, we let the numbers do the talking. And, yet again, the recent history of Superbowls (and an emphasis on shorter-term events) might be giving us some value. Over the much larger sample size of 42 Superbowl games:
• 29 out of 42 games have been settled by more than a TD.
Football fans seem to be forgetting how we used to see lopsided (and sadly, sometimes boring) Superbowls. This is giving us some value as the general Public is taking the points in this Superbowl.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers -6.5 (Bookmaker.com)
Overview
SportsInsights looks for value in a variety of ways. For more information about SportsInsights.com's philosophy on sports investing, please visit our articles on Sports Investing and Value. For live odds and SIs' exclusive “betting percentages” on major U.S. sporting events, please visit Sports Betting Systems Tools Plus Betting Odds and Articles.
Almost all of our regular angles and analysis of the “sports marketplace” point to contrarian value on the Pittsburgh Steelers. Remember to “shop for the best line” because you can still get Pittsburgh -6.5 if you check around. Does defense win Championships? We'll see in a few days.
SportsInsights.com (“SIs”) believes in a contrarian approach to sports investing and seeks out value in the sports marketplace. One of the key parameters to SportsInsights' quantitative approach to sports betting is our proprietary sports betting percentages, compiled from several online sportsbooks. The betting percentages tell us the percentage of bets on each side of a bet. Our research has shown that it normally pays to “fade” the public or “bet against the Public.”
The Public typically likes taking the favorite in most sports events. However, this year's Superbowl shows the Public loving the Arizona Cardinals and their Cinderella march to the Superbowl. This is an interesting departure for the Public and shows how much “value” there might be on the Steelers. This contrarian factor of “fading” the Public points to the Steelers.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers
Current Betting Percentages on the Super Bowl
Pittsburg Steelers 42%
Arizona Cardinals 58%
Smart Money and Point Spread Line Movement
SportsInsights uses another indicator that we call “Smart Money Analysis.” This method is more selective but also more powerful because historically, it has had a better winning percentage than using “betting percentages” as a standalone indicator.
For the Superbowl, the “generally-available” line opened at Pittsburgh -6.5. As we saw above, early Superbowl betting has most of the bets (about 60%) coming in on the underdog Arizona Cardinals. Even with the majority of bets landing on Arizona, the line has inched up to Pittsburgh -7. This is a relatively large move in the NFL – especially near a “key number” like 7.
This means that “big money” – which is usually “smart money” – is taking the Steelers. In other words, even though most bettors are on Arizona, “big bets” on Pittsburgh are more than balancing the Public's action on Arizona. This indicator says to go along with the “smart money” and take Pittsburgh.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers -6.5 (Bookmaker.com)
Intangibles and Other Contrarian Angles
In addition to our “quant” or “technical” analysis of the sports marketplace (based on “betting percentages” and “line movement”), SportsInsights tries to analyze games using some approaches that resemble “fundamental analysis” in the financial markets.
For example, are there some extraneous factors that make a bet seem over-valued or under-valued? We try to “buy low and sell high” by using a “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately?” factor. That is, the Public tends to exaggerate the importance of recent events.
Arizona's offense has been pounding the opposition. After being one of the highest-scoring teams during the regular season, Kurt Warner and crew have rung up more than 30 points in each of their playoff match-ups. Warner and his receivers look like they are playing pick-up football against a bunch of five-year-olds! The Public loves offense and this is another reason we feel that Arizona is currently over-valued. We'll “sell” the Cardinals at a recent “high.”
During the early part of the regular season, the media focused on teams like Tennessee and both NY teams as “Superbowl favorites.” Later in the season, fans saw teams like the Eagles, the Chargers, and the Colts streak into the playoffs. Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Steelers played “steady football” all season long and “quietly” (if you can call their defense quiet!) ran up a 12-4 record, yielding a league-low 223 points.
Some of the intangibles point to “selling” the Cardinals at a “high” and “buying” a great Steelers team that avoided being over-hyped.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers -6.5 (Bookmaker.com)
Quick Analysis of Recent Superbowl Scores
SportsInsights' analysts took a quick peek at recent Superbowl scores.
• 3 out of the last 5 Superbowls were settled by a FG or less.
• 4 out of the last 7 Superbowls were settled by a FG or less.
• 6 out the last 11 Superbowls were settled by a TD or less.
We normally hate giving 7 points or more (or even taking a favorite!). However, we let the numbers do the talking. And, yet again, the recent history of Superbowls (and an emphasis on shorter-term events) might be giving us some value. Over the much larger sample size of 42 Superbowl games:
• 29 out of 42 games have been settled by more than a TD.
Football fans seem to be forgetting how we used to see lopsided (and sadly, sometimes boring) Superbowls. This is giving us some value as the general Public is taking the points in this Superbowl.
Edge: Pittsburgh Steelers -6.5 (Bookmaker.com)
Overview
SportsInsights looks for value in a variety of ways. For more information about SportsInsights.com's philosophy on sports investing, please visit our articles on Sports Investing and Value. For live odds and SIs' exclusive “betting percentages” on major U.S. sporting events, please visit Sports Betting Systems Tools Plus Betting Odds and Articles.
Almost all of our regular angles and analysis of the “sports marketplace” point to contrarian value on the Pittsburgh Steelers. Remember to “shop for the best line” because you can still get Pittsburgh -6.5 if you check around. Does defense win Championships? We'll see in a few days.
Yeah, I saw that about 4 months ago. They offer consensus data that I use pretty regularly.
Celtics at Sixers (+3)
Sixers ML +130
Whoo.
Sixers ML +130
Whoo.
DOUBLE POST
TREBLE CLEF, NIGGGGAAAAAAAS
QUOTE (Swift_Psycho @ Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 11:28 AM)
Celtics at Sixers (+3)
Sixers ML +130
Whoo.
Sixers ML +130
Whoo.
Yeah that line is retarded. Since I make book, I have the ability to pretty much do whatever I want with these lines, and I know my clientele just well enough to anticipate my action (note: any doubts I had about books being manipulative are slowly being erased, since the action I take from my sharper clients is always outweighed by the squares) will be almost all Celtics. I opened the game at Celtics -3 (at the time at Pinny it was -2.5 -107 [the equivalent of -114 since they use nickel splits], immediately moved it to -3.5, and then moved it to -4 an hour later).
I booked the following action:
2x Boston -3
5x Boston -3.5
3x Boston -4
I will probably drop it back to 3.5 or 3.0 in a little bit just to entice a little more action, and because my sharps play later in the day.
Here's a fun story:
So yesterday I looked at the Spurs/Warriros line, and saw it was SAS-5 at Pinny. I knew, for my regulars, the only options were "Spurs" and "Pass," so I opened the line at SAS-5.5. I ended up taking about 15x action on the Spurs. Well, one of my outs was shopping SAS -4.5 -110 around gametime, and I had to go to bed early, so I thought I'd hedge some of it out to help myself sleep and give myself a full middle try.
At tip-off, my personal positions were:
Golden State +5.5 (+110) 15x
San Antonio -4.5 (-110) 5x
I tried to sleep, but couldn't. At halftime, the Warriors were up 4, and I loaded up all of my outs to see if there was any value on the halftime lines. One of my outs had it at SAS-3.5 -104, and I really REALLY did not want to have to **** around with this game anymore, so I made an ill-advised hedge for the rest of the position so I could sleep (I had an exam in the morning).
My positions were now:
Golden State +5.5 (+110) 15x
San Antonio -4.5 (-110) 5x
San Antonio (3rd and 4th quarters) -3.5 (-105) 10x
Golden State was blowing them out, so I put my head on my pillow and drifted off. I jolted awake in a cold sweat, checked my computer, and saw that San Antonio was completing a ridiculous comeback.
OVERTIME
Golden State +5.5 (+110) (15x pending)
San Antonio -4.5 (-110) (5x pending)
San Antonio -3.5 3rd/4th (WINNER + 10x)
Well, that's awesome. No matter what, I'm in good shape. I either break even, or the Warriors cover and I win 20x. That's a pretty hefty free-roll. Except I forgout about:
Final Score: SPURS 110, WARRIORS 105
Oh yeah. My initial brilliant idea to try for a middle.
END RESULTS
Golden State +5.5 +110 WINNER +16.5x
San Antonio -4.5 -110 WINNER +5x
San Antonio -3.5 2nd half WINNER +10x
WINNER +31.5x
Haha, hilarious. This experiment is going to cost me thousands in the longrun (note: DO NOT HEDGE ASSHOLES), but it's still pretty funny.
[accidentally hit tab and then tried to space, which made me post like 10 times]
QUOTE (Tactical Bear @ Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 11:13 AM)
Yeah that line is retarded.
[b]WINNER +31.5x
[b]WINNER +31.5x
Garnett's out, not that retarded.
Wow nice score.
What about Denver -6 tonight.
QUOTE (Poppy_Hillis @ Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 5:23 PM)
Garnett's out, not that retarded.
Wow nice score.
What about Denver -6 tonight.
Wow nice score.
What about Denver -6 tonight.
I actually didn't know Garnett wasn't playing when I wrote that. Still seems slightly retarded, but I can understand the line intellectually, now. Celtics are getting just hammered, so even though I'd rather be betting ON the team with the injured star, I'll still probably play the Sixers.
With all the money-line action the Spurs are getting, the book probably have a really big position on the Nuggets tonight, so I'm going to be on that game for sure. Again, I'd rather be playing the team on short-rest, but I'm not sure how much the average fan considers the West Coast OT game, followed by a trip to the Thin Denver Air the next night, aspect. The line actually looks just about how I expected, and I really like Denver here, so I'm a little scared, but that won't stop me from playing it.
QUOTE (Swift_Psycho @ Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 11:28 AM)
Celtics at Sixers (+3)
QUOTE (Poppy_Hillis @ Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 5:23 PM)
What about Denver -6 tonight.
Good night for contrarians in the NBA. Too bad we're getting absolutely murdered every other night.
QUOTE (Tactical Bear @ Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 9:34 PM)
Good night for contrarians in the NBA. Too bad we're getting absolutely murdered every other night.
I just saw that Duncan Ginobili and Parker all didn't play. I wish I would have known that going in, I would have bet my entire net worth.
QUOTE (Swift_Psycho @ Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 11:28 AM)
Sixers ML +130
Goddamn Ray Allen.
QUOTE (Poppy_Hillis @ Wednesday, February 4th, 2009, 11:25 AM)
I just saw that Duncan Ginobili and Parker all didn't play. I wish I would have known that going in, I would have bet my entire net worth.
http://www.sbrforum.com/Scores/NBA+Odds/119055/Side.aspx
Yeah, nobody knew until about 830...
Italy 6-1 to beat England in rugby on WillHill.com. Really really worth a bet.
QUOTE
England vs Italy. Willhill has Italy at 6-1 for a victory, this is pretty shocking even if England are at home. They have been abismal of late and Italy has one of the best packs out there with their captain Parisse a world class player. They have a new fly-half coming up aswell.
I think an England victory by 6-9 points but I would definitely put some money on 6-1 Italy as this is a close match and its not a big suprise if Italy win.
I think an England victory by 6-9 points but I would definitely put some money on 6-1 Italy as this is a close match and its not a big suprise if Italy win.
Come on, Aaron Baddeley; blow up early. Don't even give me a sweat on the Top 10 bet. Pull a Steve Marino and get to 4 over ASAP.
Oklahoma City +13 tonight @ Lakers.
I like OKC +7 in the 1st half even better.
I like OKC +7 in the 1st half even better.
QUOTE (Poppy_Hillis @ Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 7:06 PM)
I like OKC +7 in the 1st half even better.
Ef. I knew the Lakers would come out and play like shit tonight, and they did for 21 mins. 15-2 run to close it out. Don't bet against Kob.
QUOTE (Poppy_Hillis @ Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 7:06 PM)
Oklahoma City +13 tonight @ Lakers.
I like OKC +7 in the 1st half even better.
I like OKC +7 in the 1st half even better.
Push.
Utah +2 at home against the Lakers.
Charlotte +2.5 seems to be a strong contrarian pick tonight.
South Carolina -1
So are you all taking Houston at +2 tomorrow against Clevland?
Cal Riverside -2.5
Minnesota -2
really a masters work has i ever seen.it is a great work to let others know of our entire experience.
-----
sathyan
gambling websites
-----
sathyan
gambling websites
hey wang.. Paul Casey is 45-1.. thoughts?
QUOTE (BigDMcGee @ Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 1:20 PM)
hey wang.. Paul Casey is 45-1.. thoughts?
None. I used to unload on Paul Casey on a semi-regular basis, and he let me down time and time again. He's foreign, so he's probably undervalued. I am unable to think clearly right now, because my Memphis futures are going up in flames in the first round.
Are you kidding me with this shit? Down 6 with ten minutes left, and Cal-St. is 7-12 from 3? Fucking FUCK
Wang,
I read the first half of the thread just now, and quickly scanned through the rest. I want you to know that I really enjoyed reading it and will become a serious follower of the thread. I plan to incorporate sports betting into my life (probably the dumbest thing I have ever said). About halfway through, I thought you tossed the reigns over to BigDMcGee.
I read on another poker site (I'm an okay limit holdem player. I've played my original $100 deposit since 2003 and won maybe 15k or so. Not a record keeper) that Doyle Brunson says "you can close your eyes and play college hoop home dogs all year long, and come out a winner." Any thoughts on this? Contrarian laws apply? I went poking around for sports betting stuff because I plan to take $1,000 next hoop season, play the home dogs, and bonus hunt the online sportsbooks like I used to with online poker pre UIGEA. Does the UIGEA effect the movement of money for sports bettors?
Basically, you have a another devoted student. And I'll probably spend most of my time from now until next college hoops season studying and not betting.
I read the first half of the thread just now, and quickly scanned through the rest. I want you to know that I really enjoyed reading it and will become a serious follower of the thread. I plan to incorporate sports betting into my life (probably the dumbest thing I have ever said). About halfway through, I thought you tossed the reigns over to BigDMcGee.
I read on another poker site (I'm an okay limit holdem player. I've played my original $100 deposit since 2003 and won maybe 15k or so. Not a record keeper) that Doyle Brunson says "you can close your eyes and play college hoop home dogs all year long, and come out a winner." Any thoughts on this? Contrarian laws apply? I went poking around for sports betting stuff because I plan to take $1,000 next hoop season, play the home dogs, and bonus hunt the online sportsbooks like I used to with online poker pre UIGEA. Does the UIGEA effect the movement of money for sports bettors?
Basically, you have a another devoted student. And I'll probably spend most of my time from now until next college hoops season studying and not betting.
QUOTE (Banner17 @ Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 10:45 PM)
Wang,
I read the first half of the thread just now, and quickly scanned through the rest. I want you to know that I really enjoyed reading it and will become a serious follower of the thread. I plan to incorporate sports betting into my life (probably the dumbest thing I have ever said). About halfway through, I thought you tossed the reigns over to BigDMcGee.
I read on another poker site (I'm an okay limit holdem player. I've played my original $100 deposit since 2003 and won maybe 15k or so. Not a record keeper) that Doyle Brunson says "you can close your eyes and play college hoop home dogs all year long, and come out a winner." Any thoughts on this? Contrarian laws apply? I went poking around for sports betting stuff because I plan to take $1,000 next hoop season, play the home dogs, and bonus hunt the online sportsbooks like I used to with online poker pre UIGEA. Does the UIGEA effect the movement of money for sports bettors?
Basically, you have a another devoted student. And I'll probably spend most of my time from now until next college hoops season studying and not betting.
I read the first half of the thread just now, and quickly scanned through the rest. I want you to know that I really enjoyed reading it and will become a serious follower of the thread. I plan to incorporate sports betting into my life (probably the dumbest thing I have ever said). About halfway through, I thought you tossed the reigns over to BigDMcGee.
I read on another poker site (I'm an okay limit holdem player. I've played my original $100 deposit since 2003 and won maybe 15k or so. Not a record keeper) that Doyle Brunson says "you can close your eyes and play college hoop home dogs all year long, and come out a winner." Any thoughts on this? Contrarian laws apply? I went poking around for sports betting stuff because I plan to take $1,000 next hoop season, play the home dogs, and bonus hunt the online sportsbooks like I used to with online poker pre UIGEA. Does the UIGEA effect the movement of money for sports bettors?
Basically, you have a another devoted student. And I'll probably spend most of my time from now until next college hoops season studying and not betting.
well he didn't really "toss the reigns" over to me, he just stopped posting as much. Betting home dogs is usually a solid contrarian play, because the reason they are dogs is because the public is in love with the away team. But it's more important to see how the public is wagering on a specific game, than to see if they home team is a dog.
Any thoughts about the bonus hunting the online sportsbooks? What percentage of my bankroll should I have an any one event? Things seem like they can get real dicey when on any given night I could have bet like 8 or 9 games.......
Once again, very interested in the contrarian approach to sports betting. Seems to make sense. I'm an old catholic school kid, and I once heard the story of the priest who would bet a few times a year. He'd wait until even Grandma Jones loved the Patriots, and then he'd call in the other team. Probably just an old bookie's tale.
Once again, very interested in the contrarian approach to sports betting. Seems to make sense. I'm an old catholic school kid, and I once heard the story of the priest who would bet a few times a year. He'd wait until even Grandma Jones loved the Patriots, and then he'd call in the other team. Probably just an old bookie's tale.
QUOTE (Banner17 @ Friday, March 20th, 2009, 11:11 AM)
Any thoughts about the bonus hunting the online sportsbooks? What percentage of my bankroll should I have an any one event? Things seem like they can get real dicey when on any given night I could have bet like 8 or 9 games.......
Once again, very interested in the contrarian approach to sports betting. Seems to make sense. I'm an old catholic school kid, and I once heard the story of the priest who would bet a few times a year. He'd wait until even Grandma Jones loved the Patriots, and then he'd call in the other team. Probably just an old bookie's tale.
Once again, very interested in the contrarian approach to sports betting. Seems to make sense. I'm an old catholic school kid, and I once heard the story of the priest who would bet a few times a year. He'd wait until even Grandma Jones loved the Patriots, and then he'd call in the other team. Probably just an old bookie's tale.
Conservative is always better. My spiritual ascendent John Maynard Keynes said: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." Fucking right, Maynard, you dick.
I basically use a 100x main bankroll, with a 50x roll set aside as "futures and emergency funds." 1x = 1% of my bankroll. Standard plays are 2x, big plays are 3x, very big plays are 4x. Having 16 big plays in a day means I having half of my bankroll in play. That's happened sometimes, when I have to put plays in the night before hand or early in the morning on a busy day. Always fun...
The NCAA tournament is a Contrarian's wet dream. I am playing it close to the vest and I'm still going to lose at least 30x.
EDIT- Does anybody have half a fucking clue how Stephen F. Austin keeps it inside the number? How does Cornell not get blown out of the fucking gym?
As far as bonus whoring goes, I am pretty sure getting posted up at matchbook and using their reduced juice is much better than any bonus could ever be...
Wang
Wang
QUOTE (Tactical Bear @ Friday, March 20th, 2009, 11:33 AM)
Conservative is always better. My spiritual ascendent John Maynard Keynes said: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." Fucking right, Maynard, you dick.
I basically use a 100x main bankroll, with a 50x roll set aside as "futures and emergency funds." 1x = 1% of my bankroll. Standard plays are 2x, big plays are 3x, very big plays are 4x. Having 16 big plays in a day means I having half of my bankroll in play. That's happened sometimes, when I have to put plays in the night before hand or early in the morning on a busy day. Always fun...
The NCAA tournament is a Contrarian's wet dream. I am playing it close to the vest and I'm still going to lose at least 30x.
EDIT- Does anybody have half a fucking clue how Stephen F. Austin keeps it inside the number? How does Cornell not get blown out of the fucking gym?
I basically use a 100x main bankroll, with a 50x roll set aside as "futures and emergency funds." 1x = 1% of my bankroll. Standard plays are 2x, big plays are 3x, very big plays are 4x. Having 16 big plays in a day means I having half of my bankroll in play. That's happened sometimes, when I have to put plays in the night before hand or early in the morning on a busy day. Always fun...
The NCAA tournament is a Contrarian's wet dream. I am playing it close to the vest and I'm still going to lose at least 30x.
EDIT- Does anybody have half a fucking clue how Stephen F. Austin keeps it inside the number? How does Cornell not get blown out of the fucking gym?
Haha....too funny about John Maynard Keynes quote. Seems very true. I'm very excited to keep reading. Was there ever a Sports Gambling 101 or did we skip that class and head right for 201? How do you determine you wager size, be it 2x, 3x or 4x? What criteria have to align for me to upgrade a play?
QUOTE (Banner17 @ Friday, March 20th, 2009, 1:31 PM)
Haha....too funny about John Maynard Keynes quote. Seems very true. I'm very excited to keep reading. Was there ever a Sports Gambling 101 or did we skip that class and head right for 201? How do you determine you wager size, be it 2x, 3x or 4x? What criteria have to align for me to upgrade a play?
You should be flat betting for now, until you get a feel for what separates plays. All plays to win 2x.
Wang,
I had a shitty day in real life, but I had time to suck down a Guinness and look at the Herald. I saw Arizona +1 to Utah.....I mean Arizona had so much bad press for limping into this tournament and they shouldn't be there, etc....I had to be confused by Utah only being a 1 pt favorite, so naturally I played Arizona. Then we had Cleveland State vs Wake Forest. I was pretty certain everyone and their grandmother was gonna bet Wake, so I bet Cleveland State plus 8 even though Cleveland State beat Syracuse at Cuse earlier the year. Finally, you got Siena only a 3 pt dog to THE Ohio State University. How can OSU only be a 3 pt favorite here???? It's almost as if the book is begging you to bet OSU, so I took Siena. Thank you. My friends were baffled by my picks, but I said Wang is my boy and I subscribe to contrarianism even if I don't fully understand it.
Sorry for posting late, but I had a really shitty day in real life. Cost me about double what I made with my starter bankroll on sports. Had to text in bets to my bookie, then I got drunk cuz today sucked. Good looks, Wang.
Jack
I had a shitty day in real life, but I had time to suck down a Guinness and look at the Herald. I saw Arizona +1 to Utah.....I mean Arizona had so much bad press for limping into this tournament and they shouldn't be there, etc....I had to be confused by Utah only being a 1 pt favorite, so naturally I played Arizona. Then we had Cleveland State vs Wake Forest. I was pretty certain everyone and their grandmother was gonna bet Wake, so I bet Cleveland State plus 8 even though Cleveland State beat Syracuse at Cuse earlier the year. Finally, you got Siena only a 3 pt dog to THE Ohio State University. How can OSU only be a 3 pt favorite here???? It's almost as if the book is begging you to bet OSU, so I took Siena. Thank you. My friends were baffled by my picks, but I said Wang is my boy and I subscribe to contrarianism even if I don't fully understand it.
Sorry for posting late, but I had a really shitty day in real life. Cost me about double what I made with my starter bankroll on sports. Had to text in bets to my bookie, then I got drunk cuz today sucked. Good looks, Wang.
Jack
Wang,
So by aligning yourself with the books, you get a +EV bet because you assume the books are gambling in spots where they allow money to come in on one side? You assume that the books can very easily move a line as the money comes in one-sided but choose not to because they know more than the average betting man?
Because no matter who I bet on, I still have to win 53% of my picks to break even at a standard 10% juice book. (I understand this is where matchbook becomes vitally important.) So can I really expect that my contrarian outlook is going to return over 53% winners over the long-term?
Jack
So by aligning yourself with the books, you get a +EV bet because you assume the books are gambling in spots where they allow money to come in on one side? You assume that the books can very easily move a line as the money comes in one-sided but choose not to because they know more than the average betting man?
Because no matter who I bet on, I still have to win 53% of my picks to break even at a standard 10% juice book. (I understand this is where matchbook becomes vitally important.) So can I really expect that my contrarian outlook is going to return over 53% winners over the long-term?
Jack
Oh where oh where did my Wang go? Oh where oh where can he be?
Dude, it ain't no thing to me if you're having a tough time. I'm not going to criticize. I'm thirsty for more contrarian sports betting theory, and I am getting none. I need constant information, and the daily disappointment of the No Wang Posts is upsetting. Sad, but on my way home, I think "I wonder if Wang hit me back".......nope. grrr.
Dude, it ain't no thing to me if you're having a tough time. I'm not going to criticize. I'm thirsty for more contrarian sports betting theory, and I am getting none. I need constant information, and the daily disappointment of the No Wang Posts is upsetting. Sad, but on my way home, I think "I wonder if Wang hit me back".......nope. grrr.
What's the word on Pitt -2? Seems public perception of Villanova is really high, while Pitt has squeaked through some games. 55% action on Nova right now.
QUOTE (Poppy_Hillis @ Saturday, March 28th, 2009, 12:34 PM)
What's the word on Pitt -2? Seems public perception of Villanova is really high, while Pitt has squeaked through some games. 55% action on Nova right now.
When the public takes the underdog over the favorite, and the line doesn't move, I pound the favorite, for what it's worth.
I'm sure there is more to it than just fading the public, but I have been tracking exactly that since last Friday. I play anything that the public is 65% or greater on. My record thus far is 16-13-1. However, tomorrow Sunday 3/29/09, there are 13 plays that go against public. Some of them are very public like Boston -11 to OKC and Phoenix Suns -5.5 to Sacramento.
I'm assuming fading the public opinion as viewed thru wagerline is akin to a stock screen. It narrows down the world of possibilities, from there you homework a bit, and make some selections. Same days more than others. Thoughts?
I'm assuming fading the public opinion as viewed thru wagerline is akin to a stock screen. It narrows down the world of possibilities, from there you homework a bit, and make some selections. Same days more than others. Thoughts?
Okay, so I just reread the thread. I have totally caught the sports betting bug. I'm kinda excessive with everything I do, so I ordered 3 books on sports betting from amazon. First one to come is Michael Konik Smart Money. Anyone read it? It's a story and not much strategy, but it's wicked good. Konik rolls into Vegas with his swinger girlfriend, and bets hundreds of thousands per weekend for a large sports betting syndicate. All while getting full RFB comps and testing the ceiling mirror out with his girlfriend and the hooker she chose. The other two are Sharp Sports Betting by Stanford Wong and Weighing the Odds by King Pao.
Since I first read the thread on 3/20/09, I'm 25-17-1 for a positive 20 units which has grown my bankroll 20% playing a standard 2x unit plays. I may have been doing things wrong since I was looking at wagerline consensus as my source for public plays. Since I have found that it's just a private competition on an online sportsbook, and Vegas Insider is the better place to look. I'll start to use both to get a feel.
Someone had posted some confusion about situations when the public perception is drastically different between wagerline and VI. I would say if there is any confusion in your mind, your best option is to do nothing -- there are no called strikes in investing. You can sit at the plate and wait forever for the perfect pitch.
Since I first read the thread on 3/20/09, I'm 25-17-1 for a positive 20 units which has grown my bankroll 20% playing a standard 2x unit plays. I may have been doing things wrong since I was looking at wagerline consensus as my source for public plays. Since I have found that it's just a private competition on an online sportsbook, and Vegas Insider is the better place to look. I'll start to use both to get a feel.
Someone had posted some confusion about situations when the public perception is drastically different between wagerline and VI. I would say if there is any confusion in your mind, your best option is to do nothing -- there are no called strikes in investing. You can sit at the plate and wait forever for the perfect pitch.
I heard that if you bet on any NBA team other than the Lakers to win the championship on Bodog, Bodog will refund you your bet if the Lakers win.
So, you bet on Cleveland and Cleveland wins, you win. If Cleveland doesn't win, but the Lakers do, you get your bet back. If neither Cleveland nor the Lakers win, you lose.
Thoughts?
So, you bet on Cleveland and Cleveland wins, you win. If Cleveland doesn't win, but the Lakers do, you get your bet back. If neither Cleveland nor the Lakers win, you lose.
Thoughts?
QUOTE (CindyLou @ Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 11:21 AM)
I heard that if you bet on any NBA team other than the Lakers to win the championship on Bodog, Bodog will refund you your bet if the Lakers win.
So, you bet on Cleveland and Cleveland wins, you win. If Cleveland doesn't win, but the Lakers do, you get your bet back. If neither Cleveland nor the Lakers win, you lose.
Thoughts?
So, you bet on Cleveland and Cleveland wins, you win. If Cleveland doesn't win, but the Lakers do, you get your bet back. If neither Cleveland nor the Lakers win, you lose.
Thoughts?
Sounds like a freeroll to take every team in the east, at least the top 3 anyway.
Portland in the second round might give LA problems but ultimately I think they get through the west pretty easy so as long as they get to the finals, that's easy money.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.