is it "rude" to *attack* others and FALSELY ACCUSE OF PAST-POSTING(like Beet moron does) and force countless flame-threads upon this ng?
The Beet Man
>Gary Collard wrote:
>>
>> Brian:
>> > You're still wrong.
>> > Your fictitious example does not substatntiate your claim that
>> > the comparison is invalid, because we cannot claim that the
>> > level of handicapping is "exactly the same"
>> > For all we know, capper A played -3.5 because his skill indicated
>> > that was the worst he would accept, while capper B may well have
>> > had -3.5 available to him but he balked at it, waited, and then
>> > it moved to -4, which he still though was acceptable and he took it.
>>
>> collard:
>> No, I specifically said that player B never had a 4 available.
>==========
>Still irrelevant because nothing FORCES him to accept -4.
>He COULD pass.
Right, but he should take the -4 if he thinks the -4 will hit 55% of
the time. -3.5 might hit 57% of the time, but the -4 is still a good
bet.
>But by choosing -4 he can not by definition
>be demonstrating the EXACT SAME skill level as the guy who
>took -3.5....
They both took a side with positive expectation on that game, ergo,
they both have the same skill level.
>we need to KNOW if the -3.5 guy WOULD HAVE ALSO
>SETTLED FOR -4 if that's all HE had...but we don't know,
Which is of course why you can''t compare different lines.
>Having more outs is NOT a skill per se, but in an attempt to
>EARN MORE PROFITS -- which *is* the bottom line --
>it is irrational to NOT have more outs!!!!!
What if you use a line that's only available at Intertops and Sports
Interaction, and I don't have accounts there? I may have 8 outs, and
you may have 8 outs, but yours might happen to give you a better line
this time.
>The skilled capper makes wise choices to achieve this.
>The lesser skilled cappers may make poorer choices, including
>limiting themselves to ONE out...just because he makes THAT
>poor decision should NOT restrict the WISER DECISION MAKING
>of others.
Not having the exact same outs as you isn't a bad decision. Sometimes
that's the only option. If one of us bets larger amounts, that person
will have fewer outs. If one of us lives in Canada and the other
lives in New Jersey, the one in Canada will have more outs.
>We are being judged also on our decisions regarding
>abilities to EARN MORE PROFIT.
When you normalize to one unit, the guy betting larger units is
EARNING MORE PROFIT overall, but less per unit as he will have fewer
outs.
>Restricting those who MAKE WISER DECISIONS is WRONG!
It's wise to bet smaller units? Strange definition of wise.
>FALSE.
>To argue that all comparisons be made as if there is only *ONE*
>source of lines and no variablitiy IS WHAT IS STUPID HERE,
>since that is *NOT* what the smart/SKILLED capper would do
>in his attempt to EARN MORE PROFIT!
>
>Having more outs is NOT a skill per se, but in an attempt to
>EARN MORE PROFITS -- which *is* the bottom line --
>it is irrational to NOT have more outs!!!!!
>The skilled capper makes wise choices to achieve this.
>The lesser skilled cappers may make poorer choices, including
>limiting themselves to ONE out...just because he makes THAT
>poor decision should NOT restrict the WISER DECISION MAKING
>of others. We are being judged also on our decisions regarding
>abilities to EARN MORE PROFIT.
>Restricting those who MAKE WISER DECISIONS is WRONG!
When are you going to learn that cutting and pasting the same thing
over and over again doesn't make you right?
>Everyone involved DOES HAVE THE CHOICES PRESENTED HIM
>to choose the books which will offer him the BEST opportunities
>to EARN MORE PROFIT.
As has been already stated several times, different people don't have
access to the same books.
>If he chooses NOT to avail himself of those
>freely available choices (and I'm speaking of the overwhelming
>majority here, not isolated cases) then tough for him -- he
>should make better choices to allow him to EARN MORE PROFIT.
>Because the bottom line is the ability to EARN MORE PROFIT,
>and one doesn't help himself AT ALL by not availing himself
>of THOSE free options to do so.
>HIS OWN FAULT!
>HIS POOR DECISION-MAKING COSTS HIM OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFIT,
>and *THAT* is indeed a part of skill...
Betting smaller units earns more profit? Bizarre definition of
profit.
>A surprising "non-sequitor" coming from you,
>because while scalpers may always achieve a positive balance,
>that DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL ALWAYS or for that matter EVER
>rise to the very top compared with actual, GOOD handicappers!
>Try scalping baseball. I know first hand as I did for two (2)
>FULL MONTHS in 2001, and all I came away with was a net of +4.0 units
>and that was using multiple oputs!! BIG DEAL!
>While positive, it hardly compares with the GOOD baseball capper's units!
>Nevertheless, while there is little skill in scalping,
>it still *is* an option available to all, so your point is moot.
If you scalp both sides at one book for a small unit, they probably
won't care, but see how long you last scalping both sides at the same
book for a large unit.
>> collard:
>> I have quarter lines available at some outs, but if I tried to grade them
>> at one unit I would not be honest as they will not even let me play a full
>> unit on them.
>=========
>Grading at one unit per play is REGARDLESS of actual money wagered.
>We are NOT comparing if YOU lay $100 on every bet of a 12-8 record
>vs me betting $500 on every bet of the same 12-8 record.
>WRONG!
>The amount wagered is IRRELEVANT.
Yes it is. Betting smaller units allows one more outs.
>FALSE, directly relevant to the discussion.
>One can't insist that it must be restricted to sides & totals ONLY
>for a comparison of "skill" (which collard states) while at the
>same time ignoring that it is then irrational to EXCLUDE halves
>and quarters. GROSSLY IRRATIONAL.
No, because the limits on quarters are much smaller in general.
>> collard:
>> Yes, it is fair, but you cannot compare those who have different betting
>> options and lines available if those differences make any difference in
>> record, that is patently unfair.
>==========
>FALSE! You just don't get it collard.
>You're making an argument which is tatamount to declaring who is the
>BEST QB, based only on who can throw the ball the farthest downfield.
>
> You are rewarding the guy who MAKES *POOR* CHOICES and limits
>his opportunities to maximize his profits (even though he *does*
>have these options available to him) while at the same time PENALIZING
>the other cappers who make BETTER CHOICES to enhance their potential
>for EARNING MORE PROFIT, and removing the results of their BETTER
>judgement & decision-making, to level the playing field with those
>who choose NOT to avail themselves of freely available options!
>Since the bottom line to handicapping is EARNING PROFIT,
>it follows that one should make better choices toward
>EARNING MORE PROFIT! If he doesn't then it is HE who limits himself.
>A FAIR comparison MUST NOT limit those who make wiser decisions
>toward EARNING MORE PROFIT.
Again, it's a very bizarre definition of "profit" that implies that
it's wise to bet smaller units, and a poor choice to bet larger units.
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
Gary Collard
To underscore this, if you live in Nevada you cannot have an account with
Intertops, they will not take you. If Intertops has a unique line on any
game, the guy from Nevada has already lost the chance to compete fairly
with the guy who has the Itops account.
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
coll...@earthlink.net
One of the worst things about being in a fantasy football league
is trying to explain to your wife why she overheard you call
another guy a 'fantasy stud."
-- Scott E. Frank
Gary Collard
the ability to produce profit, then the guy who plays at Canbet, with its
$5000 NBA limits, has more ability to produce profit than the guy who plays
at SIA, with its $500 limits. Thus the guy who goes 100-85 on NBA sides at
Canbet clearly has the ability to produce a signicantly greater profit than
the guy who goes 100-85 on NBA sides at SIA, but clearly that has zero,
zip, nada to do with the ability to handicap a sport. Conflating profit
with pure ability is the fatal flaw in the logic.
Thanks for your contributions to this thread too, interesting discussion.
The Beet Man wrote:
>
[snip for bandwidth]
obai...@work.com
> To underscore this, if you live in Nevada you cannot have an account with
> Intertops, they will not take you. If Intertops has a unique line on any
> game, the guy from Nevada has already lost the chance to compete fairly
> with the guy who has the Itops account.
==============
So, IF 999 guys CAN use Intertops
but *ONE* guy can't,
then the records of all those posting profits
are IMMEDIATELY DECLARED INVALID,
because according to YOU
it is UNFAIR.
g e e k . t r a g e d y
>it is UNFAIR.
>
you sound like that lil' goil from "the labyrinth".
grok
> you sound like that lil' goil from "the labyrinth".
ITYM, Wizard of Oz.
The Beet Man
No, they're not "declared invalid," you just have to use one line to
judge all of them. And it's not like we're talking about "1 guy out
of 1000," anyway, residents of NJ and NV can't use I-tops, which is
something like 1 in every 15 US residents.
The Beet Man
wrote:
>The Beet Man wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:14:18 GMT, obai...@work.com wrote:
>> >
>> >Having more outs is NOT a skill per se, but in an attempt to
>> >EARN MORE PROFITS -- which *is* the bottom line --
>> >it is irrational to NOT have more outs!!!!!
>>
>> What if you use a line that's only available at Intertops and Sports
>> Interaction, and I don't have accounts there?
>
>To underscore this, if you live in Nevada you cannot have an account with
>Intertops, they will not take you. If Intertops has a unique line on any
>game, the guy from Nevada has already lost the chance to compete fairly
>with the guy who has the Itops account.
Right, and Intertops also doesn't take residents of New Jersey.
g e e k . t r a g e d y
my bad.
g e e k . t r a g e d y
yeah, but are you "bonafide"?
The Beet Man
<barNtOsi...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> I have seen the argument that people can bet more on sides and totals,
>than halves and quarters, and while true, I find it hard to believe that
>this is a realistic issue for anyone here.
Why? A bettor who bets 2% of his bankroll per game only needs a 50k
bankroll to bet 1k per game. Not only is that size bankroll not
unrealistic at all, but there are a few regular RGS'ers who regularly
play poker at limits that require bankrolls much larger than that.
Why would you think they're lying? (Especially since they've been
observed by others playing poker at these limits.)
If you think something like 10k is more realistic, try doing the math
to see how long it would take a 56% handicapper to turn a 10k bankroll
into a 50k one, if he consistently bets 2% of his bankroll per game.
If this handicapper bets all the major sports and only bets 3 games
per day, he'll more than double his bankroll in 1 year unless he has
an abnormally worse than expected year. (Even flat betting $100
without increasing his bet size as his bankroll increases would give
him an 18.4k bankroll at the end of the year) As such, it would take
the guy with the 10k bankroll less than two and a half years to have a
50k bankroll.
>With the outs I have which deal
>quarters, I can get down for at least $2,000 on an NBA quarter - it's less
>than the figure I can get down on the side, but it will be a long while
>before either limit is an issue for me, so this is a moot point at best.
It may be a moot point for you personally, but it's not for others.
And the issue isn't if "you can get down 2k on a quarter," it's
whether or not you can get that amount at all of your outs. I
regularly see books and lines quoted here that have rather small
limits.
> Also take into account your ability to win and the number of games that
>you can get action on. There are twice as many halves as there are games,
>there are 4 times as many quarters as there are games. With a positive
>expectation, a skilled handicapper can double or quadruple his profit
>potential playing halves and quarters as well as full game sides and totals.
>It would take more time to handicap all of these, but if he can do it, great
>for him!
There are also many times as many props as there are games. Olympic
offers tons of props on random games, as to other books. Is it fair
to compare these props with regular sides and totals? Of course not,
because these props have lower betting limits, Additionally for the
purpose of discussion, these lines aren't publically verifiable after
they go off the board.
> Since it is agreed that the overall goal is to earn profit, if a
>handicapper spends much of his time making profit betting halves or quarters
>I see no valid reason to discount it. Everyone has the same option to earn
>profit (units) handicapping halves or quarters if they want, so it seems
>fair to me.
Only if you assume everyone has a small betting unit, which is not the
case.
> The argument to this is that some people don't have accounts at
>sportsbooks which offer halves and quarter bets, so any comparison is
>meaningless. But the valid point has been made that the option to join
>those same books is the same for everyone, including Intertops, which can be
>set up via proxy.
Well, no. First of all, you are nuts if you think I'm going to do
anything that could remotely be considered tax fraud, like placing
bets through a third party or using a false address. The IRS targets
gamblers enough as it is, thank you very much.
Second, those people who bet larger units must be much more careful
about where they deposit their money. If I'm betting $10 a game,
sure, I'll use an offshore that might not be reputable; no big deal if
I lose my money, but when you've already had a significant amount of
money stolen from you by an online casino, get back to me about who
you trust. I had 5k stolen by one two years ago and know another
person who had 57k stolen. It's just not worth it for me to use a
book that I don't know to be reputable. I'm more than happy to stick
with Canbet and a few other larger, well-known books as my money is a
lot safer there, and it's just not worth it for me to get an extra
half point from a book that isn't as well known and/or reputable.
> A couple have argued that sometimes a person might get a 1/2 point better
>line on one of his picks which some others can't get on that game unless
>they also have that same out. The suggestion being that since this can
>happen sometimes, that invalidates any comparison of records. But that
>argument ignores the fact that it will most assuredly work both ways, so
>logically, it should still be a fair comparison.
No, because a book with smaller limits that caters to squares will
usually have better lines on the "good" side of the line (more often
than not the dog.) Look at the discrepancies between the lines on SIA
(a known "square" book) and other books and see which side is "better"
more often than not. It's usually on the dog.
> I saw an argument regarding "scalping" - scalping is hardly a
>handicapping skill, but it is a means of gaining profit. Since the option
>to include it is open to everyone, I see no valid reason to insist all
>comparison of records are invalid because of it.
Try scalping a book on both sides of the line for $20 a game and have
a friend do the same for $500 a game and tell me who gets booted
first.
> The same would apply to "middling" - except that I know from experience
>that middling involves skill, unlike scalping.
For the most part, middling involves a lack of skill when a capper
makes a negative expectation wager to lower their variance. Middling
for the sake of middling is a square's mistake.
The Beet Man
No, but I am "Bonifayed!"
The Beet Man
>Gary Collard wrote:
>>
>> One more point WRT books before I forget - if the ability being measured is
>> the ability to produce profit, then the guy who plays at Canbet, with its
>> $5000 NBA limits, has more ability to produce profit than the guy who plays
>> at SIA, with its $500 limits. Thus the guy who goes 100-85 on NBA sides at
>> Canbet clearly has the ability to produce a signicantly greater profit than
>> the guy who goes 100-85 on NBA sides at SIA, but clearly that has zero,
>> zip, nada to do with the ability to handicap a sport. Conflating profit
>> with pure ability is the fatal flaw in the logic.
>>
>> Thanks for your contributions to this thread too, interesting discussion.
>=========
>
>FALSE.
>The fatal flaw in YOUR LOGIC, is wrongly presuming
>that the measurement is utilizing anything other
>than "one unit per play" regardless of actual amount bet.
>This is the underlying assumption. Always has been.
>When we speak of profit-making,
>we speak of it "within those terms"
>
>Otherwise, the the 100-90 guy who "claims" to lay
>$1,000 per bet. (gross winnings is presumably +$1,000)
>would beat his chest at how much better a capper he is
>at "earning profit" BECAUSE his $1,000 is higher than
>the high school student who went 140-50 on the same games
>but only able to bet $2 a play (gross winnings is only +$170 )
The $2 per play guy has more options available to him than the $1,000
guy, so they must be judged by the same lines (widely available
lines.)
>Abilty to earn profit refers to the comparative measure of NET UNITS.
And that is an invalid measure.
g e e k . t r a g e d y
<i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:47:59 GMT, g e e k . t r a g e d y
><biff_mullins-@-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:10:21 -0500, The Beet Man
>><i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:14:10 GMT, Gary Collard <g...@spamsucks.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Beet Man wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:14:18 GMT, obai...@work.com wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Having more outs is NOT a skill per se, but in an attempt to
>>>>> >EARN MORE PROFITS -- which *is* the bottom line --
>>>>> >it is irrational to NOT have more outs!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> What if you use a line that's only available at Intertops and Sports
>>>>> Interaction, and I don't have accounts there?
>>>>
>>>>To underscore this, if you live in Nevada you cannot have an account with
>>>>Intertops, they will not take you. If Intertops has a unique line on any
>>>>game, the guy from Nevada has already lost the chance to compete fairly
>>>>with the guy who has the Itops account.
>>>
>>>Right, and Intertops also doesn't take residents of New Jersey.
>>>
>>yeah, but are you "bonafide"?
>
>No, but I am "Bonifayed!"
>
better than being "tammy fayed".
Gary Collard
Oooh, a frustrated Pirates fan? My sympathies.
Jim Bridgeford
thread. But I want to comment on the verity of Brian's quoted lines from
various books. I hadnt checked his lines recently(not since before he began
posting half-time lines. Being the skeptic that I am ,I decided to do a
random check of well over 100 of his selection to check thier veracity.
Although, skeptic at first, I found the vast majority to be "right on". Of
the random choices I only used selections that had just been posted.
Naturally there were games I missed because I didnt check RGS or my mail at
the actual time Brian posted the selection so I missed out. Another words, I
couldnt fairly use selections hours after the picks were posted.
I had 138 picks in the surevey and here are the results.
Remember, I checked the line using the source he gave and I must also say, I
am in no way saying this is "scientific".
==============
120 selections I verified to be exacactly what he quoted.
9 selections were half-time and quarter bets that I checked were no longer
available. As noted previously the only selections I used in the survey
were ones I could immediately verify after receiving them. These 9 could
easily be explained away because: Brian has to actually make the bet, then
post it,,,,,then in cyberspace it has to make it to Outlook express(in my
case) before the half or quarter starts. In these 9 games the furtherst
amount of time into the quarter or half was just over 3 mins. Most were one
or two minutes into the game(very insuffeciant amount of time to attempt to
fudge lines).
5 selections I recieved I found them to be 1/2 pnt worse than the line he
gave.
3 selections I actually found a half point better line than posted by Brian!
1 selection I actually found a whole point better than the line Brian
quoted.
This little "unscientific" survey in no way implies that I am taking sides
or that I agree with Brian on all these issues. However, I am convinced that
Brian's lines are accurate.
I will comment on one other issue. It's a rare moment when I disagree with
my good friend Gary Collard. But I have to disagree in part that all
handicappers must be graded by the same lines, betting options and wager
limits. How do you know that Brian doesnt hypothetically bet $20 a wager. In
that case one unit is the same whether or not it is SIA, 5 Dimes, Canbet or
Pinnacle. Of course, *Brian* doesnt bet $20 but maybe someone does.
And....... even If Brian's limits at 5Dimes is not one of his full units on
certain bets, It is hypothetically possible that he has a network of
"friends" who bet the games for him, as well to make it full unit. Wouldnt
be hard to do as long as the same person didnt bet the same exact bets he
did all the time. There are many possiblitlites.
Should the guy who bets canbet and pinnacle be discredited for his higher
accumulated units just because some other schmuch bets MVP and VIP(who have
horrible vig on baseball lines), on the exact same bets? I easily see the
guy who bets only pinnacle accumulating 15-20 units more in a given baseball
season than a guy using MVP and and VIP with the exact same selections.
Oh, I know I said one more thing, but one more thing:
Beetman...........I know for an absoulte certainy, Brian doesnt espouse the
martingale system of wagering. He has several times objected to such a
method. From the fragments I have read between you guys dealing with this
issue, I have to say I lean toward your opinion on parlays. This is not
based on my own mathematical expertise, but rather, of the several books I
have read on the subject, I was more convinced that a two gameparlays will
earn you slightly less than betting one game overall and betting a 3-game
parlay will actually gain you more units overall in the long run. Still, I
feel that certain factors may make it wiser to bet a two game parlay due to
related factors. For example, if you are betting the total and the spread of
the same game, it may be reasonable to expect there's a subtantial increased
chance that if you lose one you will lost both or if you win one, you will
win both. This is the only parlays I make coz even though the long term
money made is higher on 3 term parlays, the win/loss ration short-term
depresses me.......lol.
One other rare exception for me betting two game parlays is to do so for the
sake of minumizing risk. There is the occasional day I bet over 15-20 bets,
especially during football season. If I have a disastous day, that will kill
my bankroll.........so I may then minumize my risks by parlaying some of
those games.
Best of luck to all,
Tnut
Thurb
"Jim Bridgeford" <phi...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:3e3b...@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
>
> I will comment on one other issue. It's a rare moment when I disagree with
> my good friend Gary Collard.
Not so rare at all, really. Not when you lie about saying how Marc sucks
and you will not support him by boycotting the PNGC and then caving in
and playing in it- of course, that was in e-mail. Of course, a lot of other
things that were said in e-mail got reported back to the group "mysteriously"
as well, so heck... who knows, eh?
I just know that you call a *lot* of people "good friend"... and most of those
people end up with knives in their backs.
Go figure.
Wag
Mr. Obvious
"Thurb" <th...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:b1g83s$12snne$1...@ID-29204.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Jim Bridgeford" <phi...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3e3b...@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> >
> > I will comment on one other issue. It's a rare moment when I disagree with
The Beet Man
<phi...@fidnet.com> wrote:
>Just adding my two cents FWIW. This doesnt adress many of the issues of this
>thread. But I want to comment on the verity of Brian's quoted lines from
>various books. I hadnt checked his lines recently(not since before he began
>posting half-time lines. Being the skeptic that I am ,I decided to do a
>random check of well over 100 of his selection to check thier veracity.
>Although, skeptic at first, I found the vast majority to be "right on".
<snip>
>This little "unscientific" survey in no way implies that I am taking sides
>or that I agree with Brian on all these issues. However, I am convinced that
>Brian's lines are accurate.
The other issue is that Brian refuses to document his entire record,
and that there is also no way to tell if these messages were posted
before or after the game started. A website like
sharpsportsbetting.com would be a lot more useful, since they 1)
timestamp all posts and 2) require that you list your entire
record--you can't selectively remove a large chunk of losing picks
like Brian does.
>I will comment on one other issue. It's a rare moment when I disagree with
>my good friend Gary Collard. But I have to disagree in part that all
>handicappers must be graded by the same lines, betting options and wager
>limits. How do you know that Brian doesnt hypothetically bet $20 a wager. In
>that case one unit is the same whether or not it is SIA, 5 Dimes, Canbet or
>Pinnacle. Of course, *Brian* doesnt bet $20 but maybe someone does.
Right, what Brian does is fine for Brian, but for purposes of
comparison to other cappers, you have to use the same line. The other
capper might not have access to those same lines for the many reasons
we have already stated.
>Should the guy who bets canbet and pinnacle be discredited for his higher
>accumulated units just because some other schmuch bets MVP and VIP(who have
>horrible vig on baseball lines), on the exact same bets? I easily see the
>guy who bets only pinnacle accumulating 15-20 units more in a given baseball
>season than a guy using MVP and and VIP with the exact same selections.
By the same measure you can say "Should a guy who shares his picks
with the public early in the day be discredited for being nice just
because some other shumuck waits until the last minute to see if
there's an advantageous line move?" Anyone with half a clue knows
that line shopping will offer an advantage of 1 or 2%, which is why I
wouldn't think any less of a 54% capper who posts his picks early in
the day compared to a 55% guy who posts them late. In other words,
the whole "line shopping" thing is largely irrelevant when we're
talking about comparing handicappers.
>Oh, I know I said one more thing, but one more thing:
>Beetman...........I know for an absoulte certainy, Brian doesnt espouse the
>martingale system of wagering. He has several times objected to such a
>method.
That's why I said "Martingale-esque." The Martingale system weights
random bets more heavily when you're losing in the short term.
Brian's parlay system weights random bets more heavily when you're
winning in the short term. Either way you slice it, any system that
weights random bets more heavily than others is foolish.
>From the fragments I have read between you guys dealing with this
>issue, I have to say I lean toward your opinion on parlays. This is not
>based on my own mathematical expertise, but rather, of the several books I
>have read on the subject, I was more convinced that a two gameparlays will
>earn you slightly less than betting one game overall and betting a 3-game
>parlay will actually gain you more units overall in the long run.
That's if you're talking about the 13/5, 6/1 etc. payout schedule. In
that case, your expection is slightly higher than 3 teamers and
slightly lower with 2 teamers compared to straight bets. We're
talking about parlays that use multiplied odds, in which case your
expectation is identical when you bet parlays.
>Still, I feel that certain factors may make it wiser to bet a two game parlay due to
>related factors. For example, if you are betting the total and the spread of
>the same game, it may be reasonable to expect there's a subtantial increased
>chance that if you lose one you will lost both or if you win one, you will
>win both.
Correct. Parlaying dependent events is a completely different story
than parlaying independent events. Totals and sides can be so
dependent that certain books don't even let you parlay them together
(particularly in hockey.) Brian's "parlay system" parlays completely
independent events.
The Beet Man
wrote:
>The Beet Man wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:47:59 GMT, g e e k . t r a g e d y
>> <biff_mullins-@-yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Right, and Intertops also doesn't take residents of New Jersey.
>> >>
>> >yeah, but are you "bonafide"?
>>
>> No, but I am "Bonifayed!"
>
>Oooh, a frustrated Pirates fan? My sympathies.
How do you know I'm not a Devil Rays fan?
Gary Collard
>
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:36:06 GMT, Gary Collard <g...@spamsucks.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Beet Man wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:47:59 GMT, g e e k . t r a g e d y
> >> <biff_mullins-@-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>Right, and Intertops also doesn't take residents of New Jersey.
> >> >>
> >> >yeah, but are you "bonafide"?
> >>
> >> No, but I am "Bonifayed!"
> >
> >Oooh, a frustrated Pirates fan? My sympathies.
>
> How do you know I'm not a Devil Rays fan?
Good point, but has he had time to screw them up that much yet? And could
even he be any worse than LaMarr?
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
coll...@earthlink.net
"The other day I walked into a pawn shop, and I found that I couldn't
turn around until I had advanced all the way to the other end of the
store and promoted myself to queen."
-- Chris Lipe
The Beet Man
wrote:
>The Beet Man wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:36:06 GMT, Gary Collard <g...@spamsucks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Beet Man wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:47:59 GMT, g e e k . t r a g e d y
>> >> <biff_mullins-@-yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>Right, and Intertops also doesn't take residents of New Jersey.
>> >> >>
>> >> >yeah, but are you "bonafide"?
>> >>
>> >> No, but I am "Bonifayed!"
>> >
>> >Oooh, a frustrated Pirates fan? My sympathies.
>>
>> How do you know I'm not a Devil Rays fan?
>
>Good point, but has he had time to screw them up that much yet? And could
>even he be any worse than LaMarr?
Darn, I was hoping you would counter with "There are no Devil Rays
fans," a point which I could not refute.
But yes, I'm a Pirates fan. I'm also a Red Sox fan, if you'd like
more insight into my mental instablity.
grok
> I'm also a Red Sox fan, if you'd like more insight into my mental
> instablity.
in-stab-lity: Sometimes there are some people that like to do some things
that don't make much sense, very often, to most, even
though others could always argue that if one were given the
proper amount of time to explain such things to those
persons the very same that was involved in creating the
definition in the first place might have their very actions
justified in some sense.
I wrote a song about it. Want to hear it?
If interested, here's a good start. Not mine, but arguably close in
NATURE 'cuz we're all a part OF IT:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/9051/
Nature roolz!!!