The Net's First Fully Interactive Stat Server! CYBERODDS
Cyberodds
specify. Stop being spoon fed sports info - get he stats you want - you
need at CYBERODDS!!
15 seasons of NFL data plus an extensive preseason database
Full college football coverage with the ability to analyzed over 100
college teams.
Coming in Sept - Full online monitoring services. CYBERODDS allows you
to submit your selections to the public in encrypted format before games
are played. An unlock code is made available at the completion of the
day's action. There has never been a more honest way to document your
handicapping abilities. Other monitoring services force you to "just
take their word for the plays their clients make" - CYBERODDS gets the
information in your hands before the games are played.
At last a monitoring method that benefits both the player and the
handicapper.
thea...@my-dejanews.com
> Coming in Sept - Full online monitoring services. CYBERODDS allows you
> to submit your selections to the public in encrypted format before games
> are played. An unlock code is made available at the completion of the
> day's action. There has never been a more honest way to document your
> handicapping abilities. Other monitoring services force you to "just
> take their word for the plays their clients make" - CYBERODDS gets the
> information in your hands before the games are played.
>
> At last a monitoring method that benefits both the player and the
> handicapper.
I beg to differ. Over at the Big Guy Sports Network, all pay service picks
are now displayed 15 minutes after a game has started. Free picks have always
been displayed prior to gametimes and will continue to be. What could be more
honest than that?
David Arico
www.bigguy.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
CLunda
any site would raise hell all over the newsgroups,forums and any message board
they could find, this topic is much ado about nothing. I think the real
question is, " who charges you to be monitored?" Let's get into a discussion
about free.
http://www.zyworld.com/clunda/Home.htm
Bri...@nospam.com
> ... It is my humble opinion that the ideal monitor should model itself
> after Consumer Reports without the rankings. they should engage in honest
> record keeping of selections they obtain directly by signing on like any ojhter
> customer of the service. The reprots issued should not rank services based on
> some contrived level playing field results, but rather should state the range
> of ratings by the service, the results base on every game sold by the service
> at the ratings released, and the cumulative cost to achieve the reuslts. Such
> information would be real world useful information. Rather than ratings
> services based on artificial level performance, a customer should query as to
> a particular service and receive a report stating that Mr. X gives out an
> average of 5 plays per day, and the plays are rated at a low of 3* on a scale
> from 1-5* For the season all basketball selections given out are 52- 40. the
> monetary results applying $10 to each star is $80 on net games won of +8. The
> cost to win that $80 over two months was $2000. People could then compare that
> with a service that gives out plays rated a low of 1* on a scale of 1 to 5* and
> which becuase it gave out its leeser rated plays had a poorer percentage but
> won more money on more plays at less cost. The question is, hoqw many sports
> services out there would be willing to join an industry association with a Code
> of Ethics that is enforced, and support real monitoring?
===
Though I often enjoy reading and support many of your conclusions,
we disagree on this aspect...
The "contrived level playing field" you seem to be refering to
is essentially the industry monitoring standard of
ONE PLAY for ONE UNIT
This is the commonly accepted standard
- not in ALL cases, but MOST -
and will likely remain for the obvious reasons:
1) ease for monitors,
2) ease of comparison for readers,
*3)* removes any chance of "playing catch-up"
with increasingly higher rated picks
(a deceptive practice all too commonly witnessed),
*4)* removes "selective quoting" of "favourable records"
(again a practice which is LEGION in its deceptive use)
Everyone here will have a different opinion I'm sure...
Discussion/polite debate is always welcome.
But these last two points * above are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL
to any discussion about HONESTY and REMOVING POSSIBLE DECEPTION.
While I personally DON'T AGREE with so called "star/unit ratings" on
principle, in fairness, I know that many others do
(although not necessarily representative of the majority).
So I might be prepared to go along with "star/unit ratings"
PROVIDED WE FIND AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ELIMINATING
THE ABOVE TWO * DECPEPTIONS!
In other words, monitoring picks and providing detailed reports
on their various "star/unit ratings" SEEMS fair enough theoretically
(though I sure wouldn't wanna be the guy calculating all that)
but how would it REMOVE exploitation
by aforementioned deceptive practices?
It doesn't.
If anything, documenting "multi-unit picks"
would appear to provide those* deceptive practices a mask of legitimacy!
If we think it through to its logical consequence,
the now legitimized "selective record quoting" which will
surely follow on the majority of (tout) websites/ng posts,
in a market which is already EXTREMELY COMPETITVE,
will, in effect, cause everyone to follow suit.
(Much like steroids in bodybuilding. To compete you almost have to do
it, and as a result --- MOST WILL. Not all, but most)
Losing and/or mediocre touts will simply increase either
a) the "unit rating" of their forthcoming picks, or
b) the frequency of their so-called TOP RATING plays,
...all in an effort to play "the catch-up game" of course.
And because it would be officially monitored/documented,
the scamdicapper has found the "ideal" means to put forth
the illusion of skill...
Surely we can't support a system which provides this opportunity!
(except of course the scamdicappers and wannabees
who I'm SURE would be in favour so this option
is ALWAYS available to them WHEN things go bad)
Ironically, it could actually hurt the few truly HONEST services out
there,
not help.
Where one might NOW stand apart from the mediocre touts
because of good handicapping and a solid "NET UNITS" record,
SUDDENLY he could have P L E N T Y of competitiors
with equal or BETTER "NET UNIT" records.
ALL FULLY LEGITIMIZED...
Any argument that such bogus records would still show a losing win
percentage are pointless because there's nothing FORCING the
scamdicapper wannabee from fully disclosing the COMPLETE documented
record (own website and/or ng posts). They could and WOULD simply
promote whichever "rating" is conveniently showing an alleged profit for
them at any given time...much like many do now, except THEN it would be
legal and documented.
Yes full disclosure would show clearly on the monitor's report card,
but it STILL legitimizes his selective website/ng promotions.
And if his net units are losing - he WOULD simply increase his ratings
so as to eventually create a bogus "profit."
Hopefully none of us are naieve enough to believe
this would NOT occur. But the ONE PLAY for ONE UNIT system
does remove these key deceptions from legitimacy.
As a result, MOST scamdicappers avoid documentation.
And IMO, those touts who are evasive about documentation
- regardless of their alleged excuses -
are in turn disreputable.
The desire to provide an expanded view of one's "multi-unit
recommended picks record" for the few services which are BOTH honest and
successful,
is understandable...but attempting to please these few,
may actually cause far more problems...
Brian Anthony
RobGoodguy
>considering that absolutely any capper whose picks weren't posted correctly
>on
>any site would raise hell all over the newsgroups,forums and any message
>board
>they could find, this topic is much ado about nothing.
The fact that no handicapper is heard to complain does not mean there is no
dishonesty. See my article entitled "An Insider Talks About Sports Watch" at
www.thedailyspread.com and www.gamemasteronline.com. The reason the dispute
between The Arena and Cyberodds is silly is that they both appear to have
methods of tracking selections that assure the honesty of their record keeping.
Hiring an independent audit firm is a third method to accomplish the same
result. It is a matter of preference and the argument is something like two
sports services arguing as to who is better when one has a record of 57.5% and
+$3000 and the other is 57.0% but +$3250. If a record keeping service is
dishonest, the majority of handicappers using it are no more likely to know
than the majority of contestants in a rigged contest. The problem is that
every record keeper skews the sports service numbers in an attempt to even the
playing field in what amounts to a contest and not monitoring. The fact that
services are listed first second and so on causes a percieved advantage in
beating the next competitior. The service is no longer interested in winning
money for clients. The primeary objective becomes achieving and maintaining the
top spot in a contest. If the proprietors of the record keeping firms called
what they do a contest, in the same way that the Ulitimate Handicapping
Challenge, Pro Football Weekly's National Handicapper's Bowl and Big Guy (in
all of which I participated last year) traditionally have, the public would
no longer be fooled, there would be no down side to the Handicapper's clients,
and there would be less perceived advantage to dishonesty. The only concern
becomes the honesty and accuracy of the record keeping. When the record
keeping is dishonest the handicappers don't scream becuase they don't know
unless they are willing participants. What do I mean? All I know is that my
selections are honestly and accurately reported. I am less likely to know that
XYZ service has bribed the record keeper to falsify XYZ's record. I simply
believe that XYZ has honestly achieved a better record than me. In fact, the
public and XYZ's clientel are more likely to know about the dishonesty than I
am. When I blew the whistle on Jack Stewart at Sports Watch, I stood at number
one in basketball and had a top record in football. Blowing the whistle cost
me that business advantage. How many services do you think wish to be martyrs
or profiles in courage? Not many and I don't blame them. The war hero gets
cheered in the victory parade and then he is forgotten while he lives the rest
of his life with his misssing limbs. Similarly in the business world, it
rarely pays to be principled.
Many other handicappers had been ripped off by Jack Stewart, but they kept
their mouths shut out of fear of reprisal. Others, applaud the dishonesty,
They see an advantage in dealing where the police may look the other way. they
would not be caught dead with a truly honest monitoring firm. They are
permitted to have multiple entries in the contest, to track only portions of
their selections and then claim they are monitored while giving out unmonitored
records, to hide their records and to subdivide in order to misrepresent the
total. The fraternity of scoundrels are unified through monitors like Sports
Watch and Sports Monitor, and they make big money vouching for each other's
dishonest methods. Their main tool in so doing are the said "monitors". The
outsider is not likely to want to be a voice of discontent in the wildrness.
He'd rather pay his dues and join the Scoundrel's Club. Since I blew the
whistle on Jack Stewart and Sports Watch about 25% of the handicappers have at
least found the courage to drop out. Many of those have told me that they
communicated to Jack Stewart that they supported my outcry. They did so
privately, however. Not one has yet gone public, as I did, except Jeff
Borshcert of JB Sports, and he has left the business.
I do not yet know how Cyberodds will operate except to say that the record
keeping will be accurate. I'd like to know more. The Big Guy site is honest
and cures many of the ills of the other monitors. They are not yet ideal,
however. It is my humble opinion that the ideal monitor should model itself
after Consumer Reports without the rankings. they should engage in honest
record keeping of selections they obtain directly by signing on like any ojhter
customer of the service. The reprots issued should not rank services based on
some contrived level playing field results, but rather should state the range
of ratings by the service, the results base on every game sold by the service
at the ratings released, and the cumulative cost to achieve the reuslts. Such
information would be real world useful information. Rather than ratings
services based on artificial level performance, a customer should query as to
a particular service and receive a report stating that Mr. X gives out an
average of 5 plays per day, and the plays are rated at a low of 3* on a scale
from 1-5* For the season all basketball selections given out are 52- 40. the
monetary results applying $10 to each star is $80 on net games won of +8. The
cost to win that $80 over two months was $2000. People could then compare that
with a service that gives out plays rated a low of 1* on a scale of 1 to 5* and
which becuase it gave out its leeser rated plays had a poorer percentage but
won more money on more plays at less cost. The question is, hoqw many sports
services out there would be willing to join an industry association with a Code
of Ethics that is enforced, and support real monitoring? How many of you out
there in the public all crying about dishonesty among the services would be
willing to support such an association through dues or by paying for monitoring
reports. The answer is not enough I suspect. If such an association were to
start, my choice for the monitor if their methodology could be chaged from mere
record keeping to true monitoring might well be Big Guy or Cyberodds.
Rob Crowne
The Crowne Club
We're not just picks!
Free Picks On Tape (714)228-6200
thea...@my-dejanews.com
>Your argument is worthy, however my main point which seems to be evaded to date
>is who does it for free?
For your information Chris, I have been monitoring services for over a year
now and I have done so for FREE. I don't think you see any ad banners over at
BigGuy, do you?
>Certainly the quick growth (we launched on July 10th) as well as
>the traffic which projects at 15,000 per month at this early date says to me
>that the surfing public is not satisfied with the current methods.
Well, BigGuy averages 13,000 hits per day. So I guess we must be doing
something right over there.
David Arico
http://www.bigguy.com
CLunda
the group of almost 100 that currently reside on The Handicappers Webring. The
picks are available by automated email 19 mins after the 1:00 pm kickoff to
anyone who requests them. I charge nothing for hosting or reporting and have no
ad sponsors. Certainly the quick growth (we launched on July 10th) as well as
the traffic which projects at 15,000 per month at this early date says to me
something about that, and we won't stop until we satisfy the surfer, not the
industry. Without clientele there is no industry. And services who will not
participate in an open discosure of selected picks have told you all you need
to know.
http://www.zyworld.com/clunda/Home.htm
Gmble
I visit his page and find it refreshing, offering more than record keeping. I
went to look for your 15,000 hits by the way but I guess you chose the hide
stats option at your stats monitor. Lighten up it's about time you guys had
some competition out there. Don't be so defensive. People will start talking.
Gmble
realistic winning percentage is 58% I for one don't pick em all year to win a
couple bucks. Stong plays are what betting is all about. A single unit allows
the service to submit a minimum number of selections to a monitor and cloak the
rest of their selections as well as their ability to choose a strong play.
Perhaps it is easier for the monitor but this is about helping the bettors not
the damn monitoring industry. If a player is resticted to a number of units, he
cannot seperate himself from the services and has put nothing on the line. This
might be a good way for espn to do it, but what next no lines?
The succesful bettor knows when to make the strong play. He doesn't go to the
window trying to impress anybody with some stupid per single unit record.
It's about the bettor and about the bet not about your foolish monitors. They
should get a life or get a system that allows real players to play real
numbers.
Bri...@nospam.com
You speak of betting, much of it I might agree with as a bettor...
If YOU can win a few bucks just by laying significant bucks
on a strong play or two ---GREAT! I'm all for it!
I agree with you! Winning money is what *BETTING* it's all about.
And as a "bettor" I hope you and all others do well.
But that's entirely irrelevent to the discussion about
removing the glaring obvious probability of deceptive practices
if moniotrs were to switch to documenting "multi-unit" picks.
As a "bettor" by all means go ahead and knock'em dead any way you can.
What's that got to do with how we monitor touts???
The problem for *some* HONEST/non-deceptive touts
is they may be the type who releases multi-unit designations
and consequently prefer to be documented this way.
As I carefully stated VERY CLEARLY
I have NO PROBLEM with that
PROVIDED, in so doing, we DO NOT actually legitimize the aforementioned
deceptive practices which MANY, MANY, MANY scamdicappers would
most certainly utilize to mask their deficiencies.
That IS the problem.
I'm NOT wrong.
The tout industry is rife with scamdicappers who LOSE
then play "the catch-up game" by significantly increasing their
unit designations and/or frequency of TOP RATED PLAYS
in an obvious attempt to recoup it all quickly.
Perhaps *YOU* personally don't do this... that's good.
But it's all the others who do AND WILL which is the concern,
and yet, they would then be legitimized from multi-unit documentation.
OTL scamdicappers, to name one, were losing last year consistently
with their picks (almost all were 5 unit, 10 units)
....they were down plenty.
Sure enough out came lots and lots of 50 unit and even 100 unit picks
and they made a brief but astonishing recovery on total net units that
way.
And of course that's all they advertised---their few big wins on their
TOP RATED 50* and 100* picks---and of course that they were UP in total
units overall......
That's the con folks.
Sure, maybe *YOU* would never do such a despicable thing,
but let's not be naieve here...there ARE PLENTY that would.
Perhaps even MOST, at some point in time.
Yet it would all be legitimized by allowing "multi-unit"
documentation...
BTW, OTL subsequently lost more of their BIG 50* and 100* releases
and quietly disappeared.
It doesn't take a MENSA IQ to understand that these guys
are in all likelihood NOW operating under a different name
and will try their luck again...
Same deal. Start off with low-unit ratings,
and when things go bad, raise the stakes until you hit a few winners
which will make your net unit total show a PROFIT!!
And if THAT scam fails--disappear--then reappear as some new guy
claiming to have 12 years experience hitting over 60% winners
consistently.
Stop me if you've already realized this before...
The potential for this is CLEARLY PRESENT.
I am not wrong about this.
Nor am I wrong when I state that "selective quoting of favourable
records"
would become the norm BY MOST... Certainly this is what MOST do now
anyway.
But providing documentation for it gives them the cloak of legitimacy.
How do we overcome this?
If you can win either by
a) playing the same amount on each BUT scoring more winners, or
b) not winning as often BUT winning BIG when you do,
then, AS A BETTOR, whatever works best for *YOU* is just fine!
Go for it!
As a bettor...
And as a bettor - not a tout - how you are documented,
or even BEING documented in the first place, shouldn't matter at all.
Documentation is primarily aimed at the tout industry and betting
contests.
If you, or anyone, can come up with a BETTER alternative which
REMOVES the potential for deception (including selective quoting)
then it would be worthy looking at...
As yet, I have seen nothing fitting those parameters better than
ONE PLAY for ONE UNIT.
Polite discussion welcome from all...
Brian