CBK, FEB 09
obai...@work.coms
Col/CHAR -11 @BOW (also INT)
obai...@work.coms
>
> Col/CHAR -11 @BOW (also INT)
>
Col/CHAR 2h -9-109 @PIN
zach
Once a Martingaler, always a Martingaler.
obai...@work.coms
Once a retard, always a retard...
>> "HC" observed about zach:
>> ...But YOU are retarded.
to which the retard replied:
"What's wrong with being retarded."
- zach "I'm gay AND retarded" trexler, AUG 01
zach
>> Once a Martingaler, always a Martingaler.
>
> Once a retard, always a retard...
Further proving that Brian Anthony is a seriously delusional character
whose only intent on this board is to deceive others and boost his own ego.
obai...@work.coms
zach"I'm gay AND reatrded"trexler wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:03:49 +0000, obaivas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>>
>>>> Col/CHAR -11 @BOW (also INT)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Col/CHAR 2h -9-109 @PIN
>>
>>
>>
>> Once a Martingaler, always a Martingaler.
>
>
> Once a retard, always a retard...
>
>>> "HC" observed about zach:
>>> ...But YOU are retarded.
>
> to which the retard replied:
>
> "What's wrong with being retarded."
>
> - zach "I'm gay AND retarded" trexler, AUG 01
Further proving that zach trexler is a seriously delusional character
whose only intent on this board is to deceive others and remain a troll.
obai...@work.coms
>>
>> L...Col/CHAR -11 @BOW (also INT)
>>
> W...Col/CHAR 2h -9-109 @PIN
Tuesday, FEB 10 wagers:
Bama +10.5 @BOW
CO +7.5 @BOW
G.Tech -3.5 @CAS
obai...@work.coms
SYR -375 @PIN
NC State -7 @PIN
obai...@work.coms
Rich -4-109 @PIN
obai...@work.coms
Iowa (women) +8.5 @5d
The Beet Man
At least he's won the "Most likely to store women's limbs in his
freezer" award for 6 years running and the leading candidate for a
7th.
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
Voodoosportsguru
>>
>SYR -375 @PIN
what value does this play have
The Beet Man
As usual, Brian knows nothing about women.
obai...@work.coms
The Beet Moron the RACIST wrote:
> As usual, Brian knows ...
>
Greatest moment in American sports still could be in 1936, where
African-American, Jesse Owens, wiped the smirk off the Nazi's face,
and those of many similar RACIST-phucks, such as...
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Subject: Re: WHY RICK "DA VOICE" TOLD ME TO STFU OVER NEGREANU COMMENTS !!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN *BLACK* ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*******************************************************************
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
"I feel the same way about the government's FAILURE
to DISCOURAGE ALL *Jewish* relationships.
obai...@work.coms
= 3-4, -1.39 units
WEST WING WEDNESDAY WACKY WAGERS:
Holy TOLEDO! -11.5 @OLY (also BOW, INT)
obai...@work.coms
Wright +2 @INT
Geo.Wash -11 @OLY
Marsh -230 @PIN
Wichita -190 @INT
obai...@work.coms
KSU -222 @PIN
Mich -1 @CAS
obai...@work.coms
Toledo -9 2h @OLY
The Beet Man
Marty Gale!
obai...@work.coms
According to beetMORON's twice-demonstrated reasoning,
if you're at a roulette table and bet ONE chip on RED
and it loses, then on the next spin you bet ONE chip on RED again,
beetmoron believes THAT is Martingale!
Now you know WHY she is accurately referred to as beetMORON
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The Beet Man
Betting red in roulette would be about as stupid as betting on your
CBB picks, yes.
There are modified methods of martingale, for example, your old
"parlaying your way to riches" method. How is that parlay method
coming along?
obai...@work.coms
>>
>> According to beetMORON's legendary STUPIDITY,
>>if you're at a roulette table and bet ONE chip on RED
>>and it loses, then on the next spin you bet ONE chip on RED again,
>>beetmoron believes THAT is Martingale!
>
>
> Betting red in roulette would be (martingale, like I said) yes.
Whatta MORON!!!
ROTFLMFAO!!!
aaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The Beet Man
So you suggest that people bet red?
It's probably a better idea than suggesting that people bet your
picks.
Losing money management schemes are losing money management schemes.
Your pseudo-martingale system is an attempt at "chasing losses," just
like the original martingale system.
obai...@work.coms
>>> According to beetMORON's legendary STUPIDITY,
>>>if you're at a roulette table and bet ONE chip on RED
>>>and it loses, then on the next spin you bet ONE chip on RED again,
>>>beetmoron believes THAT is Martingale!
>>>Whatta MORON!!!
>>>ROTFLMFAO!!!
>>>aaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Losing money management schemes are losing money management schemes.
> Your pseudo-martingale system is an attempt at "chasing losses," just
> like the original martingale system.
So NOW she's saying that making *ANY* net is MARTINGALE!
Wow!!!
Folks did you know this?
I mean, according to beetmoron, if you make a
one-unit bet on SPURS, but lose,
then, THREE WEEKS later you make another
one-unit bet on SPURS, THAT MEANS
you are guilty of some "pseudo-martingale system"
meant to imply you are a moron or ignorant or some such.
See folks...according to beetmoron, you can NEVER, EVER,
make a ONE UNIT BET on any team that lost a bet for you
before at some point in your lifetime! Because if you do,
then YOU are - according to beetmoron's reasoning -
a dreaded "pseudo-martingale system" guy!!
Amazing how quickly the beetmoron has descended
into full-blown dementia...
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Subject: Re: WHY RICK "DA VOICE" TOLD ME TO STFU OVER NEGREANU COMMENTS !!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN *BLACK* ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*******************************************************************
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
"I feel the same way about the government's FAILURE
to DISCOURAGE ALL *Jewish* relationships.
The Beet Man
>The Beet Moron wrote:
>
>>>> According to beetMORON's legendary STUPIDITY,
>>>>if you're at a roulette table and bet ONE chip on RED
>>>>and it loses, then on the next spin you bet ONE chip on RED again,
>>>>beetmoron believes THAT is Martingale!
>>>>Whatta MORON!!!
>>>>ROTFLMFAO!!!
>>>>aaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
>
>> Losing money management schemes are losing money management schemes.
>> Your pseudo-martingale system is an attempt at "chasing losses," just
>> like the original martingale system.
>
>So NOW she's saying that making *ANY* net is MARTINGALE!
>Wow!!!
>Folks did you know this?
>I mean, according to beetmoron, if you make a
>one-unit bet on SPURS, but lose,
>then, THREE WEEKS later you make another
>one-unit bet on SPURS, THAT MEANS
>you are guilty of some "pseudo-martingale system"
>meant to imply you are a moron or ignorant or some such.
Um, no. Bets three weeks later aren't correlated. Bets in the same
game are.
>See folks...according to beetmoron, you can NEVER, EVER,
>make a ONE UNIT BET on any team that lost a bet for you
>before at some point in your lifetime!
Um, no.
>Because if you do,
>then YOU are - according to beetmoron's reasoning -
>a dreaded "pseudo-martingale system" guy!!
Um, no.
>Amazing how quickly the beetmoron has descended
>into full-blown dementia...
Amazing how you spend your entire life in RGS and still haven't
learned anything.
obai...@work.coms
>>>>> According to beetMORON's legendary STUPIDITY,
>>>>>if you're at a roulette table and bet ONE chip on RED
>>>>>and it loses, then on the next spin you bet ONE chip on RED again,
>>>>>beetmoron believes THAT is Martingale!
>>>>>Whatta MORON!!!
>>>>>ROTFLMFAO!!!
>>>>>aaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>>
>>>Losing money management schemes are losing money management schemes.
>>>Your pseudo-martingale system is an attempt at "chasing losses," just
>>>like the original martingale system.
>>
>>So NOW she's saying that making *ANY* net is MARTINGALE!
>>Wow!!!
>>Folks did you know this?
>>I mean, according to beetmoron, if you make a
>>one-unit bet on SPURS, but lose,
>>then, THREE WEEKS later you make another
>>one-unit bet on SPURS, THAT MEANS
>>you are guilty of some "pseudo-martingale system"
>>meant to imply you are a moron or ignorant or some such.
>
>
> Um, no. Bets three weeks later aren't correlated. Bets in the same
> game are.
Um, irrelevant to Martingale or alleged "pseudo-martingale system"
since roulette-bets on RED and losingfollowed by a bet on BLACK
for twice the amount is *NOT* correlated, but *IS* Martingale.
Ergo correlation is irrelevant.
beetmoron confuses the issues ONCE AGAIN!
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
>>See folks...according to beetmoron, you can NEVER, EVER,
>>make a ONE UNIT BET on any team that lost a bet for you
>>before at some point in your lifetime!
>
>
> Um, no.
Um, yes, according to twice stated beetmoron logic.
ROTFLMFAO!
>
>>Because if you do,
>>then YOU are - according to beetmoron's reasoning -
>>a dreaded "pseudo-martingale system" guy!!
>
>
> Um, no.
Um, yes, according to twice stated beetmoron logic.
ROTFLMFAO!
Amazing how quickly the beetmoron has descended
into full-blown dementia...
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Subject: Re: WHY RICK "DA VOICE" TOLD ME TO STFU OVER NEGREANU COMMENTS !!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN *BLACK* ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*******************************************************************
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
"I feel the same way about the government's FAILURE
to DISCOURAGE ALL *Jewish* relationships.
obai...@work.coms
>> WEST WING WEDNESDAY WACKY WAGERS:
>> L...Holy TOLEDO! -11.5 @OLY (also BOW, INT)
>> L...Wright +2 @INT
>> P*..Geo.Wash -11 @OLY
>> W...Marsh -230 @PIN
>> W...Wichita -190 @INT
>> W...KSU -222 @PIN
>> L...Mich -1 @CAS
>
> W...Toledo -9 2h @OLY
= 4-3-1, +0.70
"SURVIVOR THURSDAY" wagers:
E.KY -1.5 @INT (also OLY)
Butler -180 @INT (also ESB)
NOrl -220 @CAS
The Beet Man
DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
Playing catch-up with the big chalk again like you did with 2003 MLB?
How did that turn out?
obai...@work.coms
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:59:14 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>
>
>>obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>WEST WING WEDNESDAY WACKY WAGERS:
>>>>L...Holy TOLEDO! -11.5 @OLY (also BOW, INT)
>>>>L...Wright +2 @INT
>>>>P*..Geo.Wash -11 @OLY
>>>>W...Marsh -230 @PIN
>>>>W...Wichita -190 @INT
>>>>W...KSU -222 @PIN
>>>>L...Mich -1 @CAS
>>>
>>>W...Toledo -9 2h @OLY
>>
>> = 4-3-1, +0.70
>>
>>"SURVIVOR THURSDAY" wagers:
>>E.KY -1.5 @INT (also OLY)
>>Butler -180 @INT (also ESB)
>>NOrl -220 @CAS
>
>
> Fraud alleging above is DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
>
> Playing catch-up with the *BIG* chalk again like you did with 2003 MLB?
Wow! Will these proven RACISTS stop at nothing?
Now even greater stupidity than before!
aaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Amazing how quickly the beetmoron has descended
into full-blown dementia...
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Subject: Re: WHY RICK "DA VOICE" TOLD ME TO STFU OVER NEGREANU COMMENTS !!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN *BLACK* ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*******************************************************************
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
"I feel the same way about the government's FAILURE
to DISCOURAGE ALL *Jewish* relationships.
obai...@work.coms
The *DUPLICITOUS*and RACIST BeetMoron wrote:
>>obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>
>>E.KY -1.5 @INT (also OLY)
>>Butler -180 @INT (also ESB)
>>NOrl -220 @CAS
>
>
> DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
> Playing catch-up with the *BIG* CHALK again ...
From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
Subject: Re: CBB Jan 30
Date: 2004-01-30 16:00:56 PST
"PENN -210 (Cascade)
PRINCETON -208 (Pin)
Columbia +180 (Pin)
Cornell -184 (Pin)
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
HC
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:59:14 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>
<snip>
Jealous loser strikes again!
The Beet Man
Uh, sparky? I was already up 56 units when I posted those. Exactly
what would I be "catching up" to?
HC
> I was already up 56 units when I posted those.
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
obai...@work.coms
Uh racist/fraud, no you weren't...and posting supposed *BIG* chalk is
still (supposedly) posting *BIG* chalk, regardless...
Amazing how quickly the beetmoron has descended
into full-blown dementia...
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Subject: Re: WHY RICK "DA VOICE" TOLD ME TO STFU OVER NEGREANU COMMENTS !!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN *BLACK* ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*******************************************************************
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
"I feel the same way about the government's FAILURE
to DISCOURAGE ALL *Jewish* relationships.
Voodoosportsguru
>LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
>ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
>LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
>ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
>LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
>ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR
>LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLI
>ARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIA
Just curious how old are you again?
The Beet Man
obai...@work.coms
>> WEST WING WEDNESDAY WACKY WAGERS:
>> L...Holy TOLEDO! -11.5 @OLY (also BOW, INT)
>> L...Wright +2 @INT
>> P*..Geo.Wash -11 @OLY
>> W...Marsh -230 @PIN
>> W...Wichita -190 @INT
>> W...KSU -222 @PIN
>> L...Mich -1 @CAS
>> W...Toledo -9 2h @OLY
>>
>> = 4-3-1, +0.70 units
>
> "SURVIVOR THURSDAY" wagers:
> W...E.KY -1.5 @INT (also OLY)
> W...Butler -180 @INT (also ESB)
> W...NOrl -220 @CAS
>
= 3-0, +3.00 units
Saturday, FEB 14 wagers:
Peacocks +103 @PIN
GS Eagles +3 @5d
Sooners -230 @CAS
obai...@work.coms
obai...@work.coms
LSU +10 @BOW
obai...@work.coms
Hurricanes 2h -4.5 @OLY
obai...@work.coms
Hoosiers +293 @PIN
obai...@work.coms
NC Wilma -180 @CAS
Brown -220 CAS
Brown -5 @CAS
La-Lafay -180 @BOW
Hofstra -111 @PIN
Toledo -9.5+102 @PIN
OSU +16.5+101 @PIN
obai...@work.coms
BlueDemons -170 @CAS
Quakers -194 @PIN
Phoenix -320 @BOW
Miss St. -266 @PIN
BlueJays -240 @OLY
Jaguars -216 PIN
SunDevils -216 @PIN
obai...@work.coms
Wis-GB -7.5 @OLY
obai...@work.coms
Rockets -7.5-108 2h @PIN
obai...@work.coms
Idaho St. -2-120 @PIN
Utes -174 @PIN
obai...@work.coms
Fresno -214 @PIN
S C Broncos +9.5 @OLY
obai...@work.coms
Cardinal -185 @CAS
Dons -214 @PIN
Gonzaga -280 @OLY
obai...@work.coms
UTEP -1 2h @OLY
The Beet Man
OBVIOUS documentation fraud.
Didn't you learn your lesson about betting all the big chalk? I feel
sorry for anyone following your picks because they believe your lies
about being a winner. "Bet lots of big chalk, if it loses, I'll just
remove it from my record."
The Beet Man
Marty Gale!
obai...@work.coms
The RACIST troll Beet Moron slithers out to lie some more:
> (OBVIOUS troll falsely alleging Brian of documentation fraud)
>
> Didn't you learn your lesson about betting all the big chalk like:
From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
Subject: Re: CBB Jan 30
Date: 2004-01-30 16:00:56 PST
"PENN -210 (Cascade)
PRINCETON -208 (Pin)
Columbia +180 (Pin)
Cornell -184 (Pin)
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
> I feel
> sorry for anyone following (Voodoo's) picks because they believe his lies
> about being a winner.
oy
obai...@work.coms
Amazing how quickly the RACIST beetmoron has descended
into full-blown dementia...
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Subject: Re: WHY RICK "DA VOICE" TOLD ME TO STFU OVER NEGREANU COMMENTS !!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN *BLACK* ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*******************************************************************
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
"I feel the same way about the government's FAILURE
to DISCOURAGE ALL *Jewish* relationships.
The Beet Man
I bet 3 chalks this season, and they're part of my record, which is
publically available. You bet THIRTEEN chalks in JUST ONE DAY, and as
your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>> I feel
>> sorry for anyone following (Voodoo's) picks because they believe his lies
>> about being a winner.
No, I feel sorry for anyone betting your picks, Brian Anthony.
obai...@work.coms
So?
Risk/reward. If betting chalk was supposedly some alleged
"GUARANTEE of PROFITS" then thousands of us would be doing
nothing than betting the "chalk" to reap in those GUARNATEED
PROFITS which beetmoron is insinuating...
OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
> and as
> your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
> just mysteriously remove them from your record.
This of course is just another LIE from beetmoron,
and as always, UNSUPPORTED by evidence...
>>> I feel
>>>sorry for anyone following (Voodoo's) picks because they believe his lies
>>>about being a winner.
>
>
> No, I feel sorry for anyone betting your picks, Brian Anthony.
No, I feel sorry for anyone related to beetmoron...
HC
>I bet 3 chalks this season,
Nobody cares, you're a putz.
>and they're part of my record
Nobody cares, you're disingenuous and can't be trusted.
>and as
>your past history indicates,
He's a monster WINNER that puts you and your unwarranted, unsubstantiated
attacks in teh clear position of . . . say it with me folks . . . JEALOUS
LOSER.
>you
>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
No such thing has EVER happened. This psycho is making this up . . . lying . .
. becaus he can.
The only question left, dear newsgroup reader, is do you believe him.
I can tell you don't by the lack of reply to his stupidity. Good job RGS,
you;re making me proud. It wasn't long ago that you as a group had great
difficulty distinguishing the good from the bad. Nice to see that it's not a
problem anymore.
> feel sorry for anyone betting your picks, Brian Anthony.
Yeah me too. Getting rich quickly has known to be the worst thing that could
happen to somebody, they inevitably lose what they've made quicker then they've
made it. I would rather suggest hard work as the proper path to riches . . .
and if ya don't believe me, just look at VooDooSportsLoser as the prime
example.
The Beet Man
>>From: The Beet Man
>
>>I bet 3 chalks this season,
>
>Nobody cares, you're a putz.
I'm also ahead 60 units on my documented CBB plays. Brian... isn't.
>>and they're part of my record
>
>Nobody cares, you're disingenuous and can't be trusted.
How's that hedging coming along.
>>and as
>>your past history indicates,
>
>He's a monster WINNER
Only if you believe a certain subset of his record. Anyone can
selectively quote 600+ units from their record.
>that puts you and your unwarranted, unsubstantiated
>attacks in teh clear position of . . . say it with me folks . . . JEALOUS
>LOSER.
I'm jealous that I can't simply bet every -180 to -300 chalk on the
board? It's tough, really.
>>you
>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>
>No such thing has EVER happened. This psycho is making this up . . . lying . .
>. becaus he can.
He has quoted his record a ton of times and has claimed to be up 600+
units, but that includes 40-ish units of CFB that weren't accurately
posted to RGS, and also fails to include -60+ units of MLB that were,
and that's just 2003!
>The only question left, dear newsgroup reader, is do you believe him.
>
>I can tell you don't by the lack of reply to his stupidity.
Uh, have you noticed that there's very little actual content posted to
RGS? You and Brian consist of the majority of the posts because
you've chased out a lot of the contributirs.
>> feel sorry for anyone betting your picks, Brian Anthony.
>
>Yeah me too. Getting rich quickly has known to be the worst thing that could
>happen to somebody,
So you think that betting lots of chalk, either in MLB, or in CBB, is
the way to get rich quickly? Good luck!
You also think that betting at ESB is the way to get rich quickly?
Good luck!
The Beet Man
Of course it's not a "guarantee of profits." It's a pathetic attempt
to end up with a winning record in the short term. Betting big chalk
"works on Usenet" the same way some of you idiots think martingale
"works on Usenet." If your goal is to win x units in a short period
of time, of course you're more likely to do so betting a bunch of 250
to win 100 on a -250 line than betting 100 to win 250 on a +250 line.
In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house, but on
Usenet, where you can just quote your CBB record "up to 2003" and
remove your 2003-2004 record if you wish, it doesn't matter.
>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
No, I understand well how you engage in repeated DOCUMENTATION FRAUD.
>> and as
>> your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
>> just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>
>This of course is just another LIE from beetmoron,
>and as always, UNSUPPORTED by evidence...
It's supported by the evidence of the hundreds of times you've quoted
your MLB record ignoring the 2003 results! In 2003 you bet chalk
after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September, and
predictably got your ass handed to you.
HC
>I'm also ahead 60 units on my documented CBB plays.
He has no documented plays. He is a known forger and liar and thus anything
that he posts to Usenet is judged as that which comes from a FRAUD.
>Brian... isn't.
Brian, Brian, Brian . . . that's all this guy EVER talks about!
>I'm jealous
That's what I said. You're also a loser in every aspect of its meaning.
obai...@work.coms
The RACIST troll Beet Moron slithers out to lie some more:
So now you're contradicting yourself!
> Betting big chalk
Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....enter beetmoron...
> "works on Usenet" the same way some of you idiots think martingale
> "works on Usenet."
Geezus what a FREAKIN *MORON*
This is irrational and STUPID, even for beetMORON!!
> In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house,
Betting favs on the moneyline, by a skilled capper,
is no more nor less a "quick way to the poor house"
than betting favs on baseball moneylines or hockey moneylines.
One analyzes the teams, and their respective chances and the
resulting VALUE against various types of odds...
Betting pt spreads ONLY has lesser chance of winning the bet
(and greater chance of losing) compared to taking a moneyline fav,
however, this does mean the moneyline fav is GUARANTEED to win,
and the losses are CONSIDERABLY HIGHER when they do lose, which
is a significant proportion of the time!
IF betting single-digit moneyline favs ("big chalk" according
to the village idiot) is an "alleged" method to better profits,
there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
and resulting poor value...
No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
skill whatsoever...which is why nobody here does that type FRAUD.
>>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>
>
> No, I understand well how you engage in repeated DOCUMENTATION FRAUD.
OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>>>and as
>>>your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
>>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>>
>>This of course is just another LIE from beetmoron,
>>and as always, UNSUPPORTED by evidence...
>
>
> It's supported by the evidence of the hundreds of times you've quoted
> your MLB record ignoring the 2003 results!
Since I didn't post my record, claiming that chalk losses
resulted in me mysteriously removing THEM from my records,
is a non-sequitor...and therefore a LIE.
> In 2003 you bet chalk
> after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September,
No "chalk" on my totals and props, and I bet a *LOT* of each,
as well as dogs! My so called "chalk" rarely exceeded -210
- a ML which is normally attributed to small 4.5-5 pt spread favs -
and HARDLY, by any stretch, a "prohibitive FAV" nearly guaranteed
a win!....in fact, I PROVED that they don't guarantee SQUAT with
my baseball results last summer - and same for gary"100 units"collard
and his much vaunted "MLB Faves"
That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
and basketball is certainly no secret!
We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneylines is
(allegedly) documentation fraud, when it is CLEAR such plays
actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a
worse net unit payoff) is just *PROVING* for me my case
that beetMORON is a psycho-stalker intent on nothing more
than being an asshole-troll while deliberately disrupting
the newsgroup with constant flames...
HC
>Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneylines is
>(allegedly) documentation fraud, when it is CLEAR such plays
>actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a
>worse net unit payoff) is just *PROVING* for me my case
>that beetMORON is a psycho-stalker intent on nothing more
>than being an asshole-troll while deliberately disrupting
>the newsgroup with constant flames...
>
Not just proven, but proven without a shadow of a doubt.
obai...@work.coms
The *RACIST* troll BeetMoron slithers out to stalk some more:
> thehc...@aol.com (HC) accurately observed:
>
>
>>>From: The Beet Man
>>>I bet 3 chalks this season,
>>
>>Nobody cares, you're a putz.
>
>
> I'm also ahead 60 units on my documented CBB plays. Brian... isn't.
Actually this is another LIE,
as we all know beetMORON has no such record.
>>>and they're part of my record
>>
>>Nobody cares, you're disingenuous and can't be trusted.
>
>
> How's that hedging coming along.
How's that documentation fraud of yours coming along?
>>>and as
>>>your past history indicates,
>>
>>He's a monster WINNER
>
>
> Only if you believe a certain subset of his record. Anyone can
> selectively quote 600+ units from their record.
False....mine's all included in chart except for 2003 MLB,
and the reason for that has been explained numerous times,
although the fact is any HONOURABLE, discreet gentleman
(ie.non-flamer,non-asshole) is welcome to any such info
by e-mailing me, and always have been...OR they can help
themselves to the usenet archives -- it's ALL there...
Many here have already been informed of the correct number,
and if any number other than that is ever alleged by anyone,
they know immediately that it's a LIE...
Brian's ALL-TIME usenet-posted/archived/witnessed results,
FEB 1997 thru JAN 25, 2004:
CFB: 1368-1076, +183.86~`
CBK: 2235-1908, +140.30~` thru Jan 25
NBA: 1668-1428, +102.07~ thru Jan 25
MLB: 1452-1286, +110.78 *(before '03)
NHL: (ML/dogs) +57.93~ thru Jan 25
NFL: 682-599, +32.22~ thru Jan 25
CFL: 274-239, +11.64
Cbb: 19-12, + 0.40
WNBA: 143-135, -21.29
XFL: 8-12, - 5.20
= 8 winning sports for +639.20~*
= 2 losing sports for - 26.49~
(all per the common "one unit per play" documentation standard)
[ NOTE: nobody else with a track record of at least 2 years
on rgs similarly lists *ALL* their ALL-TIME records ]
>>that puts you and your unwarranted, unsubstantiated
>>attacks in teh clear position of . . . say it with me folks . . . JEALOUS
>>LOSER.
>
>
> I'm jealous that I can't simply bet every -180 to -300 chalk on the
> board? It's tough, really.
Brian's ALL-TIME usenet-posted/archived/witnessed results,
FEB 1997 thru JAN 25, 2004:
CFB: 1368-1076, +183.86~`
CBK: 2235-1908, +140.30~` thru Jan 25
NBA: 1668-1428, +102.07~ thru Jan 25
MLB: 1452-1286, +110.78 *(before '03)
NHL: (ML/dogs) +57.93~ thru Jan 25
NFL: 682-599, +32.22~ thru Jan 25
CFL: 274-239, +11.64
Cbb: 19-12, + 0.40
WNBA: 143-135, -21.29
XFL: 8-12, - 5.20
= 8 winning sports for +639.20~*
= 2 losing sports for - 26.49~
(all per the common "one unit per play" documentation standard)
[ NOTE: nobody else with a track record of at least 2 years
on rgs similarly lists *ALL* their ALL-TIME records ]
>>>you
>>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>>
>>No such thing has EVER happened. This psycho is making this up . . . lying . .
>> because he can.
>
>
> He has quoted his record a ton of times and has claimed to be up 600+
> units, but that includes 40-ish units of CFB that weren't accurately
> posted to RGS,
Not posted to rgs does not mean not publicly posted on usenet
and now archived by Google.
> and also fails to include -60+ units of MLB that were,
> and that's just 2003!
There was no "-60+ units of MLB" that was lost in 2003
and many here already know the score on this accurately,
thus you're guilty of unsupported, innuendo once again,
as is typical of RACIST psychos like beetmoron
>>The only question left, dear newsgroup reader, is do you believe him.
>>
>>I can tell you don't by the lack of reply to his stupidity.
>
>
> Uh, have you noticed that there's very little actual content posted to
> RGS? You and Brian consist of the majority of the posts because
> you've chased out a lot of the contributirs.
Actually the reverse is true, but we would expect the RACIST psycho
to point fingers at others....
The whole reason I don't even post much "actual content" here
anymore (and I used to be a MAJOR contributor, second to none)
is *because* of the presence of mocking, assaulting, pick-ridiculing,
non-contributing, asshole-trolls just like beetmoron! It is that ilk
which has stunted the participation of many here, often from direct
assualt by them, and often from the constant flame-threads created
DIRECTLY by those mocking, assaulting, pick-ridiculing,
non-contributing, asshole-trolls just like beetmoron!
We had a relatively peaceful almost pleasant period here
from the end of October until around January 6th or so...
I wonder what the difference was.....hmmmmmmmmm.....
> So you think that betting lots of chalk, either in MLB, or in CBB, is
> the way to get rich quickly? Good luck!
I sure don't! Nobody else here does either!
Reduced value and inherent DISadvantages, which is why
it is STUPID for a psycho to insinuate that posting some
moneyline plays on single-digit favs is somehow a
conspiracy to gain some ADVANTAGE in resulting net units!
aaaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And only a defacto MORON considers the moneyline plays on
single-digit favs to be "BIG CHALK!"
A -220 fav might be considered by *a few* to be "BIG CHALK" in baseball,
but a -220 fav in hoops is a just typical 5 pt home fav, most or all
of which is merely the homecourt advantage!
http://208.138.36.20/sports/basketball/basklines.asp?selection=subtype&subtype=NCAA&cb=0.8154673
And playing favs is a risk/reward situation just like playing dogs
and/or point spreads! If anything, it's TOUGHER to actually show a
better result in net units playing moneyline favs than pt spreads,
so any allegation of "documentation fraud" is pure fiction.
But let's consider the source of the comments I've responded to...
beetMORON, for those who don't know, is the BIGGEST PROVEN LIAR
ever known on rgs history! I have most of the bigger whoopers
archived on file...here's just one episode:
"you (Brian) had ALREADY made 261 picks (on Bigguy) **BEFORE**
you made this supposed "UP FRONT DECLARATION" (Feb 16, 1998)
and **WERE ALREADY DOWN** -3380 units!!!"
"Wow, you've sunk to a new low. I've providing the
goddamn URL where someone can filter it (on Bigguy) and see
for themselves **YOU WERE ALREADY DOWN** -3380 units,
(before the declaration Feb 16, 1998) and you're claiming
that it's a "lie" when anyone can go see THAT for themselves!
Exactly how **STUPID** do you think your readers are?
"When the Bigguy.com SQL is working again, use the filter feature
and it will let you break down (Brian's) record BEFORE (Feb 16, 1998).
After you do that, please do me the favor of posting a correction!!!
...Where did you think I got the 261 picks & -3380 units figure from??
-----> DID YOU THINK I JUST PULLED IT OUT OF MY ASS????
Check it for yourself and verify it for yourself, **I assure you**
that I wouldn't just make up a number out of thin air."
- beetMORON, proven LIAR/FRAUD, 03/16/2003
And the PROOF that beetMORON is a verifiable LIAR:
http://new.bigguy.com/main/peekpast.html?peekid=BRIAN+ANTHONY&cd=1&d1=1995-01-01&d2=1998-02-15&sp=
obai...@work.coms
HC accurately observed:
>>From: The BeetMORON
>>
>>I bet 3 chalks this season,
>>and they're part of my record
>
>
> Nobody cares, you're disingenuous and can't be trusted.
Good point, HC.
>>and as your past history indicates, you
>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>
>
> No such thing has EVER happened. This psycho is making this up . . . lying
He's just making it up as usual, playing the role of
psycho-troll...
> The only question left, dear newsgroup reader, is do you believe him.
>
> I can tell you don't by the lack of reply to his stupidity. Good job RGS,
> you're making me proud. It wasn't long ago that you as a group had great
> difficulty distinguishing the good from the bad. Nice to see that it's not a
> problem anymore.
Good point.
obai...@work.coms
HC accurately observed:
HAMMER - NAIL - HEAD, once again, HC!
The Beet Man
Nope. I said you're trying to catch up by betting big chalk. If
one's goal is to have a postive balance at the end of the day, what is
better to bet, 250 to win 100 at -250 or 100 to win 250 at +250? DUH.
Betting big chalk will provide better short term results, but they're
long term losers.
>> Betting big chalk
>
>Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
>is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
>Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
>playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
>homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
>ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
>pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....enter beetmoron...
And how did that baseball chalk work out for you? It's hilarious that
you're trying the same pathetic "catch up" attempt again.
>> "works on Usenet" the same way some of you idiots think martingale
>> "works on Usenet."
>
>Geezus what a FREAKIN *MORON*
>This is irrational and STUPID, even for beetMORON!!
>
>
>> In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house,
>
>Betting favs on the moneyline, by a skilled capper,
>is no more nor less a "quick way to the poor house"
>than betting favs on baseball moneylines or hockey moneylines.
Betting faves on baseball is the way to the poor house, as you
demonstrated in your 2003 results.
>IF betting single-digit moneyline favs ("big chalk" according
>to the village idiot) is an "alleged" method to better profits,
Short-term. You're the idiot who cant' differentiate between methods
that make actual profit and methods that make short term results
better.
>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
LOL. You've got it completely backwards. Some examples from Olympic
today:
NC Wilm +105
Delaware -125
BYU -240
Colorado +200
Elon +650
Tenn Chatanooga -850
The book's hold on NC Wilm/Delaware is 4.16%, the book's hold on
BYU/Colorado is 3.77%, and the book's hold on Elon/Tenn Chat is 2.73%.
This means the vig is actually LOWER on the heavy favorites.
>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>and resulting poor value...
The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
>which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
>amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
>documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
>skill whatsoever...
Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
VALUE in the heavy favorites!
And if the "fraud" begins in the upper 500s or more, where is the line
drawn? -579? -593? -604? Which line is fair and which is
fradulent?
>>>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>>
>>
>> No, I understand well how you engage in repeated DOCUMENTATION FRAUD.
>
>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
Just like I didn't understand why your martingale-esque parlay method
was flawed, just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
favorites is actually lower.
>>>>and as
>>>>your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
>>>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>>>
>>>This of course is just another LIE from beetmoron,
>>>and as always, UNSUPPORTED by evidence...
>>
>>
>> It's supported by the evidence of the hundreds of times you've quoted
>> your MLB record ignoring the 2003 results!
>
>Since I didn't post my record,
You've posted your MLB record plenty of times. You mysteriously
remove your chalk-laden 2003 record.
>
>> In 2003 you bet chalk
>> after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September,
>
>No "chalk" on my totals and props, and I bet a *LOT* of each,
>as well as dogs! My so called "chalk" rarely exceeded -210
It's fairly rare that any favorite in baseball exceeds -210, YA MORON!
>- a ML which is normally attributed to small 4.5-5 pt spread favs -
>and HARDLY, by any stretch, a "prohibitive FAV" nearly guaranteed
>a win!....in fact, I PROVED that they don't guarantee SQUAT with
>my baseball results last summer
>That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
>and basketball is certainly no secret!
>We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
>Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneylines is
>(allegedly) documentation fraud,
YOU'RE the one claiming that moneyline favorites is DOCUMENTATION
FRAUD. Since the vig is lower on the -850 plays vs the -180 plays,
shouldn't they be perfectly acceptable?
>when it is CLEAR such plays
>actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a
>worse net unit payoff)
Only clear to a clueless person like you. Stick to pretend betting
and leave the real gambling discussion to the rest of us, ok?
The Beet Man
Only on your planet is correcting Brian's blatant errors (thinking
that parlays increase your advantage, thinking that heavy moneylines
have higher vig) considered "disrupting the newsgroup." Remember,
telling Brian he's wrong constitutes a flame!
The Beet Man
>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
LOL. You've got it completely backwards. Some examples from Olympic
today:
NC Wilm +105
Delaware -125
BYU -240
Colorado +200
Elon +650
Tenn Chatanooga -850
The book's hold on NC Wilm/Delaware is 4.16%, the book's hold on
BYU/Colorado is 3.77%, and the book's hold on Elon/Tenn Chat is 2.73%.
This means the vig is actually LOWER on the heavy favorites.
>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>and resulting poor value...
The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
>which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
>amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
>documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
>skill whatsoever...
Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
VALUE in the heavy favorites!
And if the "fraud" begins in the upper 500s or more, where is the line
drawn? -579? -593? -604? Which line is fair and which is
fradulent?
>>>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>>
>>
>> No, I understand well how you engage in repeated DOCUMENTATION FRAUD.
>
>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
Just like I didn't understand why your martingale-esque parlay method
was flawed, just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
favorites is actually lower.
>- a ML which is normally attributed to small 4.5-5 pt spread favs -
>and HARDLY, by any stretch, a "prohibitive FAV" nearly guaranteed
>a win!....in fact, I PROVED that they don't guarantee SQUAT with
>my baseball results last summer
>That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
>and basketball is certainly no secret!
>We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
>Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneylines is
>(allegedly) documentation fraud,
YOU'RE the one claiming that moneyline favorites is DOCUMENTATION
FRAUD. Since the vig is lower on the -850 plays vs the -180 plays,
shouldn't they be perfectly acceptable?
>when it is CLEAR such plays
>actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a
>worse net unit payoff)
Only clear to a clueless person like you. Stick to pretend betting
and leave the real gambling discussion to the rest of us, ok?
HC
>Only on your planet is correcting Brian's
<snip>
Brian Brian Brian, all this guy EVER talks about is BRIAN! You'd think he was
in LOVE with him or something . . .
obai...@work.coms
The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll:
>>>>Risk/reward. If betting chalk was supposedly some alleged
>>>>"GUARANTEE of PROFITS" then thousands of us would be doing
>>>>nothing than betting the "chalk" to reap in those GUARNATEED
>>>>PROFITS which beetmoron is insinuating...
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course it's not a "guarantee of profits." It's a pathetic attempt
>>>to end up with a winning record in the short term.
>>
>>So now you're contradicting yourself!
>
>
> Nope. I said you're trying to catch up by betting big chalk. If
> one's goal is to have a postive balance at the end of the day, what is
> better to bet, 250 to win 100 at -250 or 100 to win 250 at +250? DUH.
> Betting big chalk will provide better short term results, but they're
> long term losers.
No, YOU RETARD...the EXPECTATION IS THE SAME!!!!
Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>>Betting *BIG* chalk...
>>
Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....enter beetmoron...
>>>In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house,
>>
>>Betting ATS favs on the moneyline, by a skilled capper,
>>is no more nor less a "quick way to the poor house"
>>than betting favs on baseball moneylines or hockey moneylines.
>
>
> Betting faves on baseball is the way to the poor house, as you
> demonstrated in your 2003 results.
So then there's no conspiracy.
And according to beetmoron, we are free to bet on ML favs
at our own risk if we choose to do so, even knowing that
the chances of improving our bottom line net units are
actually LOWERED by doing so...
>>IF betting single-digit moneyline favs ("big chalk" according
>>to the village idiot) is an "alleged" method to better profits,
>
>
> Short-term. You're the idiot who cant' differentiate between methods
> that make actual profit and methods that make short term results
> better.
Actually it is YOU who is that idiot.
The EXPECTATION doesn't change, ya MORON!
If beetmoron's statement was true then my recent ML hoops
plays *should* be showing "better" short-term results
like beetmoron says -- but THEY AREN'T!
They're showing WORSE short-term results!
>>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>
>
> LOL. You've got it completely backwards. Some examples from Olympic
> today:
>
> NC Wilm +105
> Delaware -125
>
> BYU -240
> Colorado +200
>
> Elon +650
> Tenn Chatanooga -850
>
> The book's hold on NC Wilm/Delaware is 4.16%, the book's hold on
> BYU/Colorado is 3.77%, and the book's hold on Elon/Tenn Chat is 2.73%.
> This means the vig is actually LOWER on the heavy favorites.
Interesting...because the numbers I used before and see again
for Tuesday's games show different:
Appalachian St. -165
NC Greens (-3.5) +145 = 3.0% hold
Virginia +400
FSU (-9.5) -500 = 3.2% hold
Louis. (-12.5) -1000
Tex. Christian +700 = 3.4% hold
But VALUE on pt spread favs on the ML, however, isn't THAT simplified!
If it was - then it is only logical that virtually *EVERYONE*
would be heavy into betting them - and they ARE NOT!
But they aren't *because* the value ISN'T there!
The large part of the reason WHY the value isn't
there is the psychology of most bettors favouring the favs.
IOW, pt spreads and ML are either set higher on favs or
the favs tend to bet more heavily and driven UP.
Either way FAVS "tend" to be *overvalued* in their
ability to both win and cover. Thus, a good team which
should win 2 out of 3 games versus a given opponent (IMO)
- just because they are favoured and the public tends toward favs -
will OFTEN have the line open or pushed up to a moneyline like -250
Thus if I win 2 but lose one, I'm screwed by that one loss.
That's the nature of fav betting - irrespective of the true chances
of a given fav winning straight up. And the stronger the fav,
the more the public likes them, increasing the RISK that I am
not getting fair returns **because** the lines are set or pushed
to where I'm getting a lesser return than I should compared to
that team's true chances of winning...THAT is an integral part
of the nature of FAV betting, and WHY I and apparently most others
remain convinced that moneyline betting on favs generally offers
LESS value. Value can still be found, but typically less often.
>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>and resulting poor value...
>
>
> The vig is LOWER, you twit.
I've shown where the vig is HIGHER, you TWIT!
>>No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
>>which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
>>amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
>>documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
>>skill whatsoever...
>
>
> Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
> VALUE in the heavy favorites!
NOPE, by my argument (above) the *VALUE* is reduced.
>>>No, I understand well how you engage in repeated DOCUMENTATION FRAUD.
>>
>>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>
>
> Just like I didn't understand why your martingale-esque parlay method
> was flawed,
Well I don't HAVE a parlay method, let alone a martingale-esque
parlay method - so your argument is already flawed because you
begin with a false premise! MORON!
In fact, I've never posted a parlay, but beetmoron has!
And her mentor, the great Abdul Abdul, whom she has persistently
asserted is the be all and end all of handciapping -
actually ADVOCATES PARLAYS!
A proven winning bettor should make more money
betting parlays *WHENEVER PRACTICAL*
> just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
> favorites is actually lower.
Just like you don't understand that the *VALUE* on betting
pt spread favs on the ML is actually lower.
Certainly, if the VALUE on them was HIGHER, virtually
everyone and the family pet would be betting them!!!
They aren't for a reason...
>>>>>and as
>>>>>your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
>>>>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>>>>
>>>>This of course is just another LIE from beetmoron,
>>>>and as always, UNSUPPORTED by evidence...
>>>
>>>
>>>It's supported by the evidence of the hundreds of times you've quoted
>>>your MLB record ignoring the 2003 results!
>>
>>Since I didn't post my record,
>
>>>In 2003 you bet chalk
>>>after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September,
>>
>>No "chalk" on my totals and props, and I bet a *LOT* of each,
>>as well as dogs! My so called "chalk" rarely exceeded -210
>
>
> It's fairly rare that any favorite in baseball exceeds -210, YA MORON!
So?
My average MLB FAV bets were in the -130 to -170 range,
numbers which are barely equivalent to a 3 pt home fav in hoops!
And THOSE amounted to LESS than 20% of my baseball wagers!
BIG FREAKIN DEAL!!!
WHAT THE PHUCKs IT TO *YOU* WHAT I BET MY MONEY ON???
It's already long ago acknowledged that FAV betting offers
generally poor value. You're trying to allege some BIG CONSPIRACY
theory when none exists, and you look like a MORON doding it!
>>- a ML which is normally attributed to small 4.5-5 pt spread favs -
>>and HARDLY, by any stretch, a "prohibitive FAV" nearly guaranteed
>>a win!....in fact, I PROVED that they don't guarantee SQUAT with
>>my baseball results last summer
>>That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
>>and basketball is certainly no secret!
>>We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
>>Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneylines is
>>(allegedly) documentation fraud,
>>when it is CLEAR such plays
>>actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a
>>worse net unit payoff)
>
>
> Only clear to a clueless person like you. Stick to pretend betting
Nah, Ill leave that to YOU...I'll stick with this:
obai...@work.coms
The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll:
>>>>Risk/reward. If betting chalk was supposedly some alleged
>>>>"GUARANTEE of PROFITS" then thousands of us would be doing
>>>>nothing than betting the "chalk" to reap in those GUARNATEED
>>>>PROFITS which beetmoron is insinuating...
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course it's not a "guarantee of profits." It's a pathetic attempt
>>>to end up with a winning record in the short term.
>>
>>So now you're contradicting yourself!
>
>
> Nope. I said you're trying to catch up by betting big chalk. If
> one's goal is to have a postive balance at the end of the day, what is
> better to bet, 250 to win 100 at -250 or 100 to win 250 at +250? DUH.
> Betting big chalk will provide better short term results, but they're
> long term losers.
No, YOU RETARD...the EXPECTATION IS THE SAME!!!!
Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>>Betting *BIG* chalk...
>>
Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....enter beetmoron...
>>>In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house,
>>
>>Betting ATS favs on the moneyline, by a skilled capper,
>>is no more nor less a "quick way to the poor house"
>>than betting favs on baseball moneylines or hockey moneylines.
>
>
> Betting faves on baseball is the way to the poor house, as you
> demonstrated in your 2003 results.
So then there's no conspiracy.
And according to beetmoron, we are free to bet on ML favs
at our own risk if we choose to do so, even knowing that
the chances of improving our bottom line net units are
actually LOWERED by doing so...
>>IF betting single-digit moneyline favs ("big chalk" according
>>to the village idiot) is an "alleged" method to better profits,
>
>
> Short-term. You're the idiot who cant' differentiate between methods
> that make actual profit and methods that make short term results
> better.
Actually it is YOU who is that idiot.
The EXPECTATION doesn't change, ya MORON!
If beetmoron's statement was true then my recent ML hoops
plays *should* be showing "better" short-term results
like beetmoron says -- but THEY AREN'T!
They're showing WORSE short-term results!
>>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>
>
> LOL. You've got it completely backwards. Some examples from Olympic
> today:
>
> NC Wilm +105
> Delaware -125
>
> BYU -240
> Colorado +200
>
> Elon +650
> Tenn Chatanooga -850
>
> The book's hold on NC Wilm/Delaware is 4.16%, the book's hold on
> BYU/Colorado is 3.77%, and the book's hold on Elon/Tenn Chat is 2.73%.
> This means the vig is actually LOWER on the heavy favorites.
>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>and resulting poor value...
>
>
> The vig is LOWER, you twit.
I've shown where the vig is HIGHER, you TWIT!
>>No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
>>which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
>>amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
>>documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
>>skill whatsoever...
>
>
> Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
> VALUE in the heavy favorites!
NOPE, by my argument (above) the *VALUE* is reduced.
>>>No, I understand well how you engage in repeated DOCUMENTATION FRAUD.
>>
>>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>
>
> Just like I didn't understand why your martingale-esque parlay method
> was flawed,
Well I don't HAVE a parlay method, let alone a martingale-esque
parlay method - so your argument is already flawed because you
begin with a false premise! MORON!
In fact, I've never posted a parlay, but beetmoron has!
And her mentor, the great Abdul Abdul, whom she has persistently
asserted is the be all and end all of handciapping -
actually ADVOCATES PARLAYS!
A proven winning bettor should make more money
betting parlays *WHENEVER PRACTICAL*
> just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
> favorites is actually lower.
Just like you don't understand that the *VALUE* on betting
pt spread favs on the ML is actually lower.
Certainly, if the VALUE on them was HIGHER, virtually
everyone and the family pet would be betting them!!!
They aren't for a reason...
>>>>>and as
>>>>>your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
>>>>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
>>>>
>>>>This of course is just another LIE from beetmoron,
>>>>and as always, UNSUPPORTED by evidence...
>>>
>>>
>>>It's supported by the evidence of the hundreds of times you've quoted
>>>your MLB record ignoring the 2003 results!
>>
>>Since I didn't post my record,
>
>>>In 2003 you bet chalk
>>>after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September,
>>
>>No "chalk" on my totals and props, and I bet a *LOT* of each,
>>as well as dogs! My so called "chalk" rarely exceeded -210
>
>
> It's fairly rare that any favorite in baseball exceeds -210, YA MORON!
So?
My average MLB FAV bets were in the -130 to -170 range,
numbers which are barely equivalent to a 3 pt home fav in hoops!
And THOSE amounted to LESS than 20% of my baseball wagers!
BIG FREAKIN DEAL!!!
WHAT THE PHUCKs IT TO *YOU* WHAT I BET MY MONEY ON???
It's already long ago acknowledged that FAV betting offers
generally poor value. You're trying to allege some BIG CONSPIRACY
theory when none exists, and you look like a MORON doding it!
>>- a ML which is normally attributed to small 4.5-5 pt spread favs -
>>and HARDLY, by any stretch, a "prohibitive FAV" nearly guaranteed
>>a win!....in fact, I PROVED that they don't guarantee SQUAT with
>>my baseball results last summer
>>That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
>>and basketball is certainly no secret!
>>We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
>>Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneylines is
>>(allegedly) documentation fraud,
>>when it is CLEAR such plays
>>actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a
>>worse net unit payoff)
>
>
> Only clear to a clueless person like you. Stick to pretend betting
Nah, Ill leave that to YOU...I'll stick with this:
obai...@work.coms
As usual beetmoron beats the "strawman fallacy"
literally to death...and faulty premises do NOT make
beetmoron's arguments truthful...
obai...@work.coms
That's it...the diaper-wearing, non-contributing,
flamer-moron has is obsessed!
"I guess for "some of us" that wear adult DIAPERS
that's rather important."
- the diaper-wearing BeetMORON, July 11
The Beet Man
wrote:
No answer from Brian Anthony yet on this one yet...
Gary Collard
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:22:06 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>
> >there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
> >But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
> >Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
> >but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
> >after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
> >VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>
> LOL. You've got it completely backwards. Some examples from Olympic
> today:
>
> NC Wilm +105
> Delaware -125
>
> BYU -240
> Colorado +200
>
> Elon +650
> Tenn Chatanooga -850
>
> The book's hold on NC Wilm/Delaware is 4.16%, the book's hold on
> BYU/Colorado is 3.77%, and the book's hold on Elon/Tenn Chat is 2.73%.
> This means the vig is actually LOWER on the heavy favorites.
Please stop picking on the mathematically challenged, it's not nice. No
milk with your cookies tonight...
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmco...@yahoo.com
"I was making love to my wife the other night and she screamed out
'deeper, deeper.' So I started whispering Nietzsche quotes into her
ear like 'Man is a rope stretched across the abyss,' and she screamed
out 'not that deep honey, I just wanna get off!'" -- Dennis Miller
obai...@work.coms
>>
>> Interesting...because the numbers I used before and see again
>> for Tuesday's games show different:
>>
>> Appalachian St. -165
>> NC Greens (-3.5) +145 = 3.0% hold
>>
>> Virginia +400
>> FSU (-9.5) -500 = 3.2% hold
>>
>> Louis. (-12.5) -1000
>> Tex. Christian +700 = 3.4% hold
>
> Please stop picking on the mathematically challenged, it's not nice.
oy
The Beet Man
<garyc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>The Beet Man wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:22:06 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>
>> >there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>> >But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>> >Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>> >but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>> >after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>> >VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>>
>> LOL. You've got it completely backwards. Some examples from Olympic
>> today:
>>
>> NC Wilm +105
>> Delaware -125
>>
>> BYU -240
>> Colorado +200
>>
>> Elon +650
>> Tenn Chatanooga -850
>>
>> The book's hold on NC Wilm/Delaware is 4.16%, the book's hold on
>> BYU/Colorado is 3.77%, and the book's hold on Elon/Tenn Chat is 2.73%.
>> This means the vig is actually LOWER on the heavy favorites.
>
>Please stop picking on the mathematically challenged, it's not nice. No
>milk with your cookies tonight...
Well, Brian still has the old "wait until the game started then claim
the line was something else" trick up his sleeve. I pointed out that
Pin and Oly both had Louisville/TCU at -13/+13, while Pin hung a -1100
vs Oly's +1000, so Brian waited until the game started and then
claimed "Well it moved to -1350, you're a LIAR!"
His best case of that was a few months ago, Pin hung lines on Ivy
League CFB and I played Towson +9.5 one night. Literally 20 hours
later, Brian replied with "This line is +7, you're a liar," because,
you know, lines don't move in the space of 20 hours, especially not
something as non-violatile as an Ivy League CFB line. To this day he
still likes mocking the fact that Towson got blown out, since, you
know, winning cappers win 100% of their bets.
obai...@work.coms
Except of course I'm right...there's the rub that pisses off beetmoron.
>
> His best case of that was a few months ago, Pin hung lines on Ivy
> League CFB and I played Towson +9.5 one night.
Actually folks, that's a lie...the line opened at +7
> Literally 20 hours
> later, Brian replied with "This line is +7, you're a liar,"
...becuase beetmoron WAS lying, and, as usual, had absolutely
NOTHING to support her claim...
> you know, lines don't move in the space of 20 hours, especially not
> something as non-violatile as an Ivy League CFB line.
Wow...beetmoron thinks this, huh? Amazing...
> To this day he
> still likes mocking the fact that Towson got blown out, since, you
> know, winning cappers win 100% of their bets.
Nope....I LAUGH at the boastful yet pretentious commentary
INCLUDED by the "pretend-bettor" (who falsely claimed 5dimes
moved a line 2.5 points after an "alleged" $100 bet) who
crassly posted the following assinine remark in order to
make herself feel better after her public humiliation:
"The funny thing is that anyone who doesn't realize
Towson was an **EXTREMELY SHARP** pick
is a complete idiot.
- beetMORON, after Towson+7 was blown out 28-62
Voodoosportsguru
yup
The Beet Man
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>Risk/reward. If betting chalk was supposedly some alleged
> >>>>"GUARANTEE of PROFITS" then thousands of us would be doing
> >>>>nothing than betting the "chalk" to reap in those GUARNATEED
> >>>>PROFITS which beetmoron is insinuating...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Of course it's not a "guarantee of profits." It's a pathetic attempt
> >>>to end up with a winning record in the short term.
> >>
> >>So now you're contradicting yourself!
> >
> >
> > Nope. I said you're trying to catch up by betting big chalk. If
> > one's goal is to have a postive balance at the end of the day, what is
> > better to bet, 250 to win 100 at -250 or 100 to win 250 at +250? DUH.
> > Betting big chalk will provide better short term results, but they're
> > long term losers.
>
>No, YOU RETARD...the EXPECTATION IS THE SAME!!!!
Long-term expectation is irrelevant when we're talking about the
results at the end of the day or at the end of the a short period of
time. If I give you 5:1 odds on one roll of one die, or even money on
one coin flip, which choice is more likely to yield a positive result
after one trial? Both have the same long-term expectation, but, HINT:
one is more likely to yield a positive result after one trial.
>Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
>that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
No fallacy, and you're the one betting the chalk. You're the one
claiming that -330 is fine but -575 isn't.
> >>Betting *BIG* chalk...
> >>
>
>Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
>is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
>Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
>playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
>homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
>ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
>pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....
Only a moron would think there's consistent value in these bets.
> >>>In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house,
> >>
> >>Betting ATS favs on the moneyline, by a skilled capper,
> >>is no more nor less a "quick way to the poor house"
> >>than betting favs on baseball moneylines or hockey moneylines.
> >
> >
> > Betting faves on baseball is the way to the poor house, as you
> > demonstrated in your 2003 results.
>
>So then there's no conspiracy.
The "conspiracy" lies in the fact that you'll remove the losing
results from your record.
>And according to beetmoron, we are free to bet on ML favs
>at our own risk if we choose to do so, even knowing that
>the chances of improving our bottom line net units are
>actually LOWERED by doing so...
Yep. But it's FRAUD to remove these from your record, like you have
done.
It's also FRAUD to allege that a certain line exists between FRAUD and
HONOURABLE. You play 13 -180 to -330 ML's in one day, and it's fine,
but someone plays a single -570 or -600 or whatever, and it's FRAUD,
even though I've demonstrated the vig is often lower on the heavier
chalks. That's just another example of Brian Anthony's hypocrisy.
> >>IF betting single-digit moneyline favs ("big chalk" according
> >>to the village idiot) is an "alleged" method to better profits,
> >
> >
> > Short-term. You're the idiot who cant' differentiate between methods
> > that make actual profit and methods that make short term results
> > better.
>
>Actually it is YOU who is that idiot.
>The EXPECTATION doesn't change, ya MORON!
I'm not talking about long-term expectation. I'm talking about an
attempt to get a short term record. The same is true of martingale or
another bet sizing methods. They dont' turn negative expectation
wagers into positive expectation ones, but they can inflate short term
results.
>If beetmoron's statement was true then my recent ML hoops
>plays *should* be showing "better" short-term results
>like beetmoron says -- but THEY AREN'T!
By that logic, if you're statement that you're a winning handicapper
is true, then your recent CBB results *should* be showing better
short-term results but THEY AREN'T. Hence you admit you're a losing
handicapper!
>They're showing WORSE short-term results!
Thanks for agreeing that you're a losing handicapper.
What's different? The hold on Tenn Chatanooga is lower than all 3 of
those. By your logic, there's more value in Tenn Chatanooga than on
Appy St or Delaware or BYU. Why is betting Tenn Chat at a 2.7% hold
"documentation fraud" while it's perfectly fine to bet Delaware at
4.16%?
>But VALUE on pt spread favs on the ML, however, isn't THAT simplified!
>If it was - then it is only logical that virtually *EVERYONE*
>would be heavy into betting them - and they ARE NOT!
>
>But they aren't *because* the value ISN'T there!
>The large part of the reason WHY the value isn't
>there is the psychology of most bettors favouring the favs.
>IOW, pt spreads and ML are either set higher on favs or
>the favs tend to bet more heavily and driven UP.
>Either way FAVS "tend" to be *overvalued* in their
>ability to both win and cover.
Correct. I'm glad you realize your mistake in playing so many
favorites, especially in MLB. I hope you stop that.
The fact that faves tend to be overvalued doesn't change the fact that
it's easy to inflate one's short term results by betting heavy
favorites. If one's goal is to earn X units in the short term, and
one doesn't care about how much the loss could be, of course you'll
load up on large faves. This is what you do to try to catch up to
even, and if you lose, you just remove these from your record.
>Thus, a good team which
>should win 2 out of 3 games versus a given opponent (IMO)
>- just because they are favoured and the public tends toward favs -
>will OFTEN have the line open or pushed up to a moneyline like -250
>Thus if I win 2 but lose one, I'm screwed by that one loss.
>That's the nature of fav betting - irrespective of the true chances
>of a given fav winning straight up. And the stronger the fav,
>the more the public likes them, increasing the RISK that I am
>not getting fair returns **because** the lines are set or pushed
>to where I'm getting a lesser return than I should compared to
>that team's true chances of winning...THAT is an integral part
>of the nature of FAV betting, and WHY I and apparently most others
>remain convinced that moneyline betting on favs generally offers
>LESS value. Value can still be found, but typically less often.
Then why did you bet so much chalk towards the end of the MLB season?
Sep 14:
SF -177 @P
Bos -112 @P
Minn -107 @P
KC -144 @P
4 chalks, 0 dogs
Sep 15:
Minn -157@P
KC -162 @P
NYY -175 @5d
Bos -240 @CAS
SF -145 @5d
5 chalks, no dogs.
I could keep going on and on.
>
> >>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
> >>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
> >>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
> >>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
> >>and resulting poor value...
> >
> >
> > The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>
>I've shown where the vig is HIGHER, you TWIT!
Not in the examples I showed. Show me one moneyline on Oly with lower
vig than that Tenn-Chattanooga bet, the one you claimed would be
"documentation fraud."
> >>No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
> >>which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
> >>amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
> >>documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
> >>skill whatsoever...
> >
> >
> > Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
> > VALUE in the heavy favorites!
>
>NOPE, by my argument (above) the *VALUE* is reduced.
Then why isn't it similar fraud to bet a team at -9.5 (or whatever the
line was yesterday on Tenn Chat) vs betting that same team at -850?
The vig in the later case is lower.
> >>>No, I understand well how you engage in repeated DOCUMENTATION FRAUD.
> >>
> >>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
> >
> >
> > Just like I didn't understand why your martingale-esque parlay method
> > was flawed,
>
>Well I don't HAVE a parlay method, let alone a martingale-esque
>parlay method - so your argument is already flawed because you
>begin with a false premise!
You argued that parlay method for years and years.
>In fact, I've never posted a parlay, but beetmoron has!
I participated in the Brian Anthony Parlay Challenge, yes.
>And her mentor, the great Abdul Abdul, whom she has persistently
>asserted is the be all and end all of handciapping -
>actually ADVOCATES PARLAYS!
Who is "Abdul Abdul?" If you're talking about Abdul Jalib, he
specifically mentioned 3 team parlays at "vegas odds" once, which can
in fact be more profitable. As can correlated parlays. (I bet
correlated parlays as often as I can.)
I specified that parlays on non-correlated events at "true odds" don't
increase expectation. You're the idiot who got hung up on "events
that start at different times."
>A proven winning bettor should make more money
>betting parlays *WHENEVER PRACTICAL*
And he should also make more money betting MORE MONEY, or using a
martingale system!
> > just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
> > favorites is actually lower.
>
>Just like you don't understand that the *VALUE* on betting
>pt spread favs on the ML is actually lower.
Then why do you bet so many pt spread favs on the ML? Are you trying
to post losing picks? We know you have contempt for the people who
play your picks (you call them leeches). Are you trying to make them
lose?
>Certainly, if the VALUE on them was HIGHER, virtually
>everyone and the family pet would be betting them!!!
>They aren't for a reason...
So if there's no value, how can posting them amount to "DOCUMENTATION
FRAUD?" You can't pad your record with losing picks!
> >>>>>and as
> >>>>>your past history indicates, when you lose on those big chalks, you
> >>>>>just mysteriously remove them from your record.
> >>>>
> >>>>This of course is just another LIE from beetmoron,
> >>>>and as always, UNSUPPORTED by evidence...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's supported by the evidence of the hundreds of times you've quoted
> >>>your MLB record ignoring the 2003 results!
> >>
> >>Since I didn't post my record,
> >
> >>>In 2003 you bet chalk
> >>>after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September,
> >>
> >>No "chalk" on my totals and props, and I bet a *LOT* of each,
> >>as well as dogs! My so called "chalk" rarely exceeded -210
> >
> >
> > It's fairly rare that any favorite in baseball exceeds -210, YA MORON!
>
>So?
>My average MLB FAV bets were in the -130 to -170 range,
>numbers which are barely equivalent to a 3 pt home fav in hoops!
>And THOSE amounted to LESS than 20% of my baseball wagers!
They were the vast majority at the end of the season.
>BIG FREAKIN DEAL!!!
>WHAT THE PHUCKs IT TO *YOU* WHAT I BET MY MONEY ON???
Well, we all know you don't actually bet real money, given that you
claim to use a book that's been known to be a scam for years. That
aside, your LEGITIMATE DOCUMENTED RECORD is certainly my business as
an rgs reader, and you refuse to quote one.
>It's already long ago acknowledged that FAV betting offers
>generally poor value.
So why did you bet so many faves?
So why is it "DOCUMENTATION FRAUD" to bet these? If they're bad bets,
you can't do anything "fradulent" with ones record by playing them!
>You're trying to allege some BIG CONSPIRACY
>theory when none exists,
The "CONSPIRACY" is the fact that you REFUSE to quote your 2003 MLB
record. Your record was poor, and you bet a lot of correlated bets to
try to catch up, in addition to betting a lot of big chalk. Your
attempts predictably failed, so you decided to mysteriously remove
that year from your record. It was a win-win situation, either you'd
end up ahead for the year, or remove it from your record.
> >>- a ML which is normally attributed to small 4.5-5 pt spread favs -
> >>and HARDLY, by any stretch, a "prohibitive FAV" nearly guaranteed
> >>a win!....in fact, I PROVED that they don't guarantee SQUAT with
> >>my baseball results last summer
> >>That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
> >>and basketball is certainly no secret!
> >>We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
> >>Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneylines is
> >>(allegedly) documentation fraud,
> >>when it is CLEAR such plays
> >>actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a
> >>worse net unit payoff)
> >
> >
> > Only clear to a clueless person like you. Stick to pretend betting
>
>Nah, Ill leave that to YOU...I'll stick with this:
Looks like pretend betting to me. Hint: if you have a losing year,
you can't tell your bookie "Oh these bets don't count."
The Beet Man
>From: The Beet Fraud
>
>>I'm also ahead 60 units on my documented CBB plays.
>
>He has no documented plays.
I've posted plenty of them.
>He is a known forger
Who have I ever forged?
>and liar and thus anything
>that he posts to Usenet is judged as that which comes from a FRAUD.
>
>>Brian... isn't.
>
>Brian, Brian, Brian . . . that's all this guy EVER talks about!
Uh, Brian's the one who's obsessed with me being a woman, where I
live, etc. etc. Who's the one who's the "obsessed stalker?" All I
care about is the bogus gambling info this idiot posts. I could care
less where he lives, where he rolls his wheelchair every day, or
whatever.
>>I'm jealous
>
>That's what I said. You're also a loser in every aspect of its meaning.
Because I don't spend my life on RGS like you guys do?
obai...@work.coms
The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll some more:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>Risk/reward. If betting chalk was supposedly some alleged
>>>>>>"GUARANTEE of PROFITS" then thousands of us would be doing
>>>>>>nothing than betting the "chalk" to reap in those GUARNATEED
>>>>>>PROFITS which beetmoron is insinuating...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it's not a "guarantee of profits." It's a pathetic attempt
>>>>>to end up with a winning record in the short term.
>>>>
>>>>So now you're contradicting yourself!
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. I said you're trying to catch up by betting big chalk. If
>>>one's goal is to have a postive balance at the end of the day, what is
>>>better to bet, 250 to win 100 at -250 or 100 to win 250 at +250? DUH.
>>>Betting big chalk will provide better short term results, but they're
>>>long term losers.
>>
>>No, YOU RETARD...the EXPECTATION IS THE SAME!!!!
>
>
> Long-term expectation is irrelevant when we're talking about the
> results at the end of the day or at the end of the a short period of
> time.
Oooooooooohhhh.....well, we'll just have to out that in quotes:
"Long-term expectation is irrelevant when we're
talking about the results at the end of the day
or at the end of the a short period of time."
>>Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
>>that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>
>
> No fallacy,
Short-term = small sample size
> and you're the one betting the chalk.
Chalk = moneyline fav; fav ...and 100% of us here who
regularly bet moneyline sports, bet chalk.
That's 100%, INCLUDING beetmoron.
In fact, the duplicitous beetmoron bets "BIG chalk"
in hoops too - AS WELL AS CORRELATED PLAYS - as posted
here in January!
>>>DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
>>>Playing catch-up with the *BIG* CHALK again ...
>>
>>From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
>>Subject: Re: CBB Jan 30
>>Date: 2004-01-30 16:00:56 PST
>>
>> "PENN -210 (Cascade)
>> PRINCETON -208 (Pin)
>> Columbia +180 (Pin)
>> Cornell -184 (Pin)
>> --
>> This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
>>
JAN 25:
>FSU +2 -109 PIN
>NOTRE DAME +4 -110 CASCADE
>RICHMOND +8 -110 CASCADE
>IONA +8.5 -110 CASCADE
>PURDUE -4.5 -110 OLY
>WAKE FOREST/FSU u144 -110 (SIA)
>VILLANOVA +3.5 -103 PIN
>VILLANOVA +137 PIN
>VILLANOVA/MIAMI o143 -108 PIN
>VILLANOVA/MIAMI 2h o75 -108 (PIN)
>>>>Betting *BIG* chalk...
>>>>
>>
>>Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
>>is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
>>Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
>>playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
>>homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
>>ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
>>pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....
>
>
> Only a moron would think there's consistent value in these bets.
Only a MORON would think anyone who plays *SOME* moneylines
(on pt spreads) or *some* plays on over -200 favs in baseball,
is a person who therefore thinks there is "consistent value"
in playing those type of bets ALL THE TIME, rather than selectively
when handicapping indicates there is good value in *some*
>>>>>In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house,
>>>>
>>>>Betting ATS favs on the moneyline, by a skilled capper,
>>>>is no more nor less a "quick way to the poor house"
>>>>than betting favs on baseball moneylines or hockey moneylines.
>>>
>>>
>>Betting faves on baseball is the way to the poor house, as you
>>demonstrated in your 2003 results.
>>
So then there's no conspiracy.
>>And according to beetmoron, we are free to bet on ML favs
>>at our own risk if we choose to do so, even knowing that
>>the chances of improving our bottom line net units are
>>actually LOWERED by doing so...
>That's just another example of Brian Anthony's hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy?
LOL!
In fact, the HYPOCRITICAL beetmoron bets "BIG chalk"
in hoops - AS WELL AS CORRELATED PLAYS!! - as posted
here in January:
>>>DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
>>>Playing catch-up with the *BIG* CHALK again ...
>>
>>From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
>>Subject: Re: CBB Jan 30
>>Date: 2004-01-30 16:00:56 PST
>>
>> "PENN -210 (Cascade)
>> PRINCETON -208 (Pin)
>> Columbia +180 (Pin)
>> Cornell -184 (Pin)
>> --
>> This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
>>
JAN 25:
>FSU +2 -109 PIN
>NOTRE DAME +4 -110 CASCADE
>RICHMOND +8 -110 CASCADE
>IONA +8.5 -110 CASCADE
>PURDUE -4.5 -110 OLY
>WAKE FOREST/FSU u144 -110 (SIA)
>VILLANOVA +3.5 -103 PIN
>VILLANOVA +137 PIN
>VILLANOVA/MIAMI o143 -108 PIN
>VILLANOVA/MIAMI 2h o75 -108 (PIN)
>>>>IF betting single-digit moneyline favs ("big chalk" according
>>>>to the village idiot) is an "alleged" method to better profits,
>>>
>>>
>>>Short-term. You're the idiot who cant' differentiate between methods
>>>that make actual profit and methods that make short term results
>>>better.
>>
>>Actually it is YOU who is that idiot.
>>The EXPECTATION doesn't change, ya MORON!
>
>
> I'm not talking about long-term expectation. I'm talking about an
> attempt to get a short term record. The same is true of martingale or
> another bet sizing methods. They dont' turn negative expectation
> wagers into positive expectation ones, but they can inflate short term
> results.
And yet beetMORON posts THEM, and also CORRELATED PLAYS!!!!!
Talk about yer contradictory MORON/hypocrite!!!
aaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>>If beetmoron's statement was true then my recent ML hoops
>>plays *should* be showing "better" short-term results
>>like beetmoron says -- but THEY AREN'T!
>>They're showing WORSE short-term results!
>
>
there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>>
>>Interesting...because the numbers I used before and see again
>>for Tuesday's games show different:
>>
>>Appalachian St. -165
>>NC Greens (-3.5) +145 = 3.0% hold
>>
>>Virginia +400
>>FSU (-9.5) -500 = 3.2% hold
>>
>>Louis. (-12.5) -1000
>>Tex. Christian +700 = 3.4% hold
>
>
> What's different?
oy vey what a MORON!
>
>
>>But VALUE on pt spread favs on the ML, however, isn't THAT simplified!
>>If it was - then it is only logical that virtually *EVERYONE*
>>would be heavy into betting them - and they ARE NOT!
>>
>>But they aren't *because* the value ISN'T there!
>>The large part of the reason WHY the value isn't
>>there is the psychology of most bettors favouring the favs.
>>IOW, pt spreads and ML are either set higher on favs or
>>the favs tend to bet more heavily and driven UP.
>> Either way FAVS "tend" to be *overvalued* in their
>> ability to both win and cover.
>
>
> Correct.
Of course I'm right, and I'm glad you finally realize it.
> I'm glad you realize your mistake in playing so many
> favorites, especially in MLB. I hope you stop that.
Would be stupid to stop a sound handicapping practice.
I just counted the so called "*BIG* chalk" plays (-200 and over)
I made last July/August/September for which a certain MORON
has taken it upon herself to ridicule me for: 33-10, +11.19 units
All still archived for confirmation...
And I plan no changes in that area this season.
> The fact that faves tend to be overvalued doesn't change the fact that
> it's easy to inflate one's short term results by betting heavy
> favorites.
And yet beetMORON posts THEM, and also CORRELATED PLAYS!!!!!
Talk about yer contradictory MORON/hypocrite!!!
aaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>
>>Thus, a good team which
>>should win 2 out of 3 games versus a given opponent (IMO)
>>- just because they are favoured and the public tends toward favs -
>>will OFTEN have the line open or pushed up to a moneyline like -250
>>Thus if I win 2 but lose one, I'm screwed by that one loss.
>>That's the nature of fav betting - irrespective of the true chances
>>of a given fav winning straight up. And the stronger the fav,
>>the more the public likes them, increasing the RISK that I am
>>not getting fair returns **because** the lines are set or pushed
>>to where I'm getting a lesser return than I should compared to
>>that team's true chances of winning...THAT is an integral part
>>of the nature of FAV betting, and WHY I and apparently most others
>>remain convinced that moneyline betting on favs generally offers
>>LESS value. Value can still be found, but typically less often.
>
>
> Then why did you bet so much chalk towards the end of the MLB season?
Uh, gee, maybe it's because, as random chance would have it
for those particular days, my style of capping didn't find
any particular value in any dogs (at the available lines at least)
but - at the lines that were available - I believed various favs
had a decent chance...Strange that something so simple goes
right over beetMORON's head...not that it's any of beetmoron's
business whether I find value in favs or dogs or totals or props.
Who died and made her queen?
> Sep 14:
> SF -177 @P
> Bos -112 @P
> Minn -107 @P
> KC -144 @P
>
> 4 chalks, 0 dogs
>
> Sep 15:
> Minn -157@P
> KC -162 @P
> NYY -175 @5d
> Bos -240 @CAS
> SF -145 @5d
>
> 5 chalks, no dogs.
>
> I could keep going on and on.
You could and you would be doing so for EVERYONE, including yourself,
as 100% of us here who regularly bet moneyline sports, BET CHALK!
Chalk = moneyline fav; fav
>>>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>>>and resulting poor value...
>>>
>>>
>>>The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>>
>>I've shown where the vig is HIGHER, you TWIT!
>
>
> Not in the examples I showed.
In the examples I showed.
>
>>>>No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
>>>>which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
>>>>amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
>>>>documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
>>>>skill whatsoever...
>>>
>>>
>>>Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
>>>VALUE in the heavy favorites!
>>
NOPE, by my argument (above) the *VALUE* is reduced.
>>
>>OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just like I didn't understand why your martingale-esque parlay method
>>>was flawed,
>>
>>Well I don't HAVE a parlay method, let alone a martingale-esque
>>parlay method - so your argument is already flawed because you
>>begin with a false premise!
>
>
> You argued that parlay method for years and years.
Well I don't HAVE a "parlay method," let alone a "martingale-esque
parlay method" - so your argument is already flawed because you
begin with a false premise
In fact, I've never posted a parlay, but beetmoron has!
>>And her mentor, the great Abdul Abdul, whom she has persistently
>>asserted is the be all and end all of handciapping -
>>actually ADVOCATES PARLAYS!
>
>
> Who is "Abdul Abdul?" If you're talking about Abdul Jalib, he
> specifically mentioned 3 team parlays at "vegas odds" once, which can
> in fact be more profitable. As can correlated parlays. (I bet
> correlated parlays as often as I can.)
>
> I specified that parlays on non-correlated events at "true odds" don't
> increase expectation. You're the idiot who got hung up on "events
> that start at different times."
And I specified that the issue always was and for me still *IS*
a comparison to "straight wagering" - when the exact SAME amounts
are being put at risk (to be removed and not returned to one's BR)
***AND INCLUDING*** my oft repeated/archived caveats, which includes
but is not limited to "whenever practical" .... if it ain't practical/
feasible, DON'T BET PARLAYS!!! If it is, then do it as often as
practical/fereasible.
In fact, here's some excerpts from the PARLAY-boy, Abdul:
From: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ_...@PosEV.com)
Subject: RGS Week #10 NFL Picks by Abdul (or Round Robins for Fun and Profit)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
Date: 1998/11/06
"This week I'll try something different again - a round robin parlay.
It seems to me that this SHOULD BE part of *EVERY* sports bettor's
REGULAR bets, because the effective vig per game is lower, and
because the total exposure/risk is lower when betting several games
simultaneously."
From: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ_...@PosEV.com)
Subject: Re: Yo Abdul, you're trying too hard man!
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
Date: 1998/11/16
> > chiuk...@aol.com writes:
> >
> >Give it up because no matter what the outcome, it is 50-50. Your
> >experimentation in factorial experiment is futile. I don't think there are
> >any factors that will cause your result to be anything but normal.
Mr. "Chiukahing", you seem to be addressing my post on parlays and round
robins. The name of the game is doing better than 50-50. Convince me
that I can't do better than 50% (or actually 51.22% as I'll note later),
and I'll stop trying.
...the required win probability to break even
for 3 team parlays (and hence 3 way round robins) is slightly less than
that for -110 bets.
If your win probability is considerably above break even, then parlays
provide an extra boost to your EV!!
>>A proven winning bettor should make more money
>>betting parlays *WHENEVER PRACTICAL*
>
>
> And he should also make more money betting MORE MONEY,
Of course, but that isn't always possible nor logical,
whereas betting parlays *WHENEVER PRACTICAL* is always possible
and logical.
> or using a martingale system!
Now beetmoron is advocating Martingale!
>>>just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
>>>favorites is actually lower.
>>
>>Just like you don't understand that the *VALUE* on betting
>>pt spread favs on the ML is actually lower.
>
>
> Then why do you bet so many pt spread favs on the ML?
1/ What the phuck is it to you WHAT I choose to wager on?
WHY does Brian bet so many quarter bets in NBA?
WHY does Brian bet so many 1-AA football games?
WHY does Brian bet on women's college basketball?
WHY does Brian bet on props in every sport?
WHY does Brian, why does Brian, why does Brian....
WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY???????
2/ "so many pt spread favs on the ML????"
Geezuzz what a PHUCKIN MORON!
I've posted about 4,200 college hoops wagers, and
from all those, less than 1% were moneyline favs!
Less than 1% - THEY ARE LOSERS - and beetMORON is WHINING!
When my picks are winning, beetMORON is WHINING!
When my picks are LOSING beetMORON is STILL WHINING!
UN-freakin-BELIEVABLE!
Some change her gawdamn diapers!
"I guess for "some of us" that wear adult diapers
that's rather important."
- the diaper-wearing BeetMORON, July 11
> Are you trying
> to post losing picks? We know you have contempt for the people who
> play your picks (you call them leeches). Are you trying to make them
> lose?
How can they LOSE if they can't get down on them, MORON!
And the only "leeches" are the turds who show contempt for me
on one hand but gladly grab the results of my hard work with the other.
>>Certainly, if the VALUE on them was HIGHER, virtually
>>everyone and the family pet would be betting them!!!
>>They aren't for a reason...
>
>
> So if there's no value,
ho can beetmoron keep WHINING when Brian posts ML picks
in hoops - just like she has and now voodoo?
>
>>>>>In 2003 you bet chalk
>>>>>after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September,
>>>>
>>>>No "chalk" on my totals and props, and I bet a *LOT* of each,
>>>>as well as dogs! My so called "chalk" rarely exceeded -210
>>>
>>>
>>>It's fairly rare that any favorite in baseball exceeds -210, YA MORON!
>>
>>So?
>>My average MLB FAV bets were in the -130 to -170 range,
>>numbers which are barely equivalent to a 3 pt home fav in hoops!
>>And THOSE amounted to LESS than 20% of my baseball wagers!
>
>
> They were the vast majority at the end of the season.
I'll cap and choose whether I want to bet on dogs
or favs as I deem relevant....If you wnat to bet
ONLY dogs (despite the fact you certainly posted
"chalk" last summer) then YOU can go right ahead
and post all dogs if you wish...
Good thing I revamped a certain portion of my capping
and opened myself up to betting more "chalk" last summer
as that change slowed the losing considerably in the
second half, going 33-10, +11.19 with favs of 200+
after July 01...and I'll be doing the same again this
year as that is my choice on how and what to bet on.
>>BIG FREAKIN DEAL!!!
>>WHAT THE PHUCKs IT TO *YOU* WHAT I BET MY MONEY ON???
>
>
> Well, we all know you don't actually bet real money,
Well, since that is a faulty premise, your argument fails.
> That
> aside, your LEGITIMATE DOCUMENTED RECORD is certainly my business as
> an rgs reader, and you refuse to quote one.
And you're welcome to go look it up yourself and have the
info YOU want...THAT is YOUR business....
What I choose to bet on is NONE of your business.
And YOU are the one who claims usenet documentation is
invalid anyway so the whole thing is moot (in your case)
>>It's already long ago acknowledged that FAV betting offers
>>generally poor value.
>>You're trying to allege some BIG CONSPIRACY
>>theory when none exists,
>
>
> The "CONSPIRACY" is the fact that you REFUSE to quote your 2003 MLB
> record.
LIE, I **WELCOME** quoting my 2003 MLB record --
to any HONOURABLE, discreet, non-troll, non-asshole,
non-flamer/jerk, who e-mails me with sincere and
honourable intentions. NO PROBLEM!
And several good folks here have availed themselves already!
Let alone the fact, that I am not obliged to "quote my
2003 MLB record" BECAUSE IT IS ALL ARCHIVED FOR ANYONE
WHO WANTS TO KNOW TO GO LOOK IT UP FOR THEMSELVES!
My reasons for NOT stating it here are valid and have
already been posted a few times, and I will adhere to them.
> Your record was poor,
Yep, bad season, but still UP significantly for 2003
due to 2003 NBA, CFL, NFL, CBK, and CFB, so not worried...
> and you bet a lot of correlated bets
A lot? Nope. Some, though irrelevant.
> to try to catch up, in addition to betting a lot of big chalk.
Nope, lie. I post only what I actually handicap for profit.
I do this for a full-time occupation. If betting the second
half of a given game looks like a winning pick based on my
capping stats, the situation, and my experience, then I
make the wager and post it for documentation - BECAUSE it is
a reflection of my TRUE handicapping skills.
Some win, some lose.
Posting occasional bets on a second half which I also happen
to have a bet on for the game, or (heaven forbid) betting on a
fav, despite your delusions to the contrary, troll,
are NOT "playing catch-up" - a phrase I coined here years ago.
Although even if by some bizarro world irrational process of logic
one thought that posting occasional bets on a second half which
one also happens to have a bet on for the game, or (heaven forbid)
actually betting on a fav - was considered "playing catch-up" -
it's not illegal, immoral, nor unethical to study the board, employ
actual handicapping skills and bet on a fav or a second half play,
and EVERYONE can avail themselves of the SAME opportunity.
Legit, ernest, hard work via REAL handicapping goes into each play
*SEPARATELY* - and I accept the results win or lose.
However, last September 19 we saw the perfect example of
documentation FRAUD --- by beetmoron --- where the same can
NOT be said of each and every one of those *EIGHTY* (80) MLB picks.
> attempts predictably failed, so you decided to mysteriously remove
> that year from your record.
Non-sequitor. A YTD was NEVER reported right from the start
of the year so it's impossible that anything
was removed from what is a non-existant public record.
Every pick posted is still there, nothing has been removed.
Check the archives.
A PRIVATE accounting, which honourable folks are entitled to see
without having to do all the work themselves, was kept and
several have been privy to it, and NOTHING has been removed
from it either.
Privately (via e-mail) I have nothing to hide from
other HONOURABLE cappers who are interested.
> It was a win-win situation, either you'd
> end up ahead for the year, or remove it from your record.
Non-sequitor.
Can't remove something from a record that was never there.
Now, if you weren't so STUPID, different wording
would bring new and logical meaning...
Rather than the non-sequitor: "remove it from your record"
..."withhold it from your listed All-time records"
would be a functionally logical statment.
And *because* of the assholes, this is what I choose to do.
However, I list my all-time records while NOBODY else does.
If, in some people's minds, it is "allegedly" wrong to
refuse to post *some* results for picks which are archived
for anyone to check themselves, then by that logic, it is
just as wrong or even MORE wrong for anyone to REFUSE to
post and itemize each and all of THEIR ALL-TIME records.
Concealing one's ALL-TIME records is actually WORSE, IMO,
and none of THEM have the same valid reasons I do.
But moreover, the ONE person *NOBODY* has to answer to
let alone show an ounce of respect, is the asshole-flamer-troll
who herself has stated that usenet documentation is invalid
anyway, and therefore the whole thing is moot.
That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
and basketball is certainly no secret!
We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneyline favs is
(allegedly) documentation fraud, when it is CLEAR such plays
actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a worse
net unit payoff) is an allegation beyond ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Stick to pretend betting
>>
>>Nah, Ill leave that to YOU...I'll stick with this:
>>
>> Brian's ALL-TIME usenet-posted/archived/witnessed results,
>> FEB 1997 thru JAN 25, 2004:
>>
>> CFB: 1368-1076, +183.86~`
>> CBK: 2235-1908, +140.30~` thru Jan 25
>> NBA: 1668-1428, +102.07~ thru Jan 25
>> MLB: 1452-1286, +110.78 *(before '03)
>> NHL: (ML/dogs) +57.93~ thru Jan 25
>> NFL: 682-599, +32.22~ thru Jan 25
>> CFL: 274-239, +11.64
>> Cbb: 19-12, + 0.40
>> WNBA: 143-135, -21.29
>> XFL: 8-12, - 5.20
>>
>> = 8 winning sports for +639.20~*
>> = 2 losing sports for - 26.49~
>>
>> (all per the common "one unit per play" documentation standard)
>
> Looks like pretend betting to me.
"Looks like?"
It "looks like?????"
Let's see how things have "looked like" to beetMORON before...
A year ago I was FALSELY accused of past-posting a bet
on the "AirForce/V.Tech Bowl game," because it "looked like"
that to beetMORON - despite the fact the RETARD *OBVIOUSLY* didn't
actually bother to *READ* my posted picks that day TO BE CERTAIN!
(she was proven WRONG of course, as the archives still show)
Still laughing over that BLUNDER!
Then, after she thought she knew what something "look liked"
the bumbling incompetent, BUFFOON, claimed and INSISTED:
"you (Brian) had already made 261 picks (on Bigguy) *BEFORE* you
made this supposed "UP FRONT DECLARATION" (Feb 16, 1998)
and were already down -3380 units!"
- BeetMORON, proven liar/buffoon, 03/14/2003
"Wow, you've sunk to a new low. I've providing the
goddamn URL where someone can filter it (on Bigguy)
and see for themselves you were *already down* -3380 units,
and you're claiming that it's a "lie" when anyone can go
see that for themselves.
Exactly how *STUPID* do you think your readers are?
- BeetMORON, proven liar/buffoon, 03/14/2003
"When the Bigguy.com SQL is working again, use the filter feature
and it will let you break down (Brian's) record before (Feb 16, 1998).
After you do that, please do me the favor of posting a correction!
...Where did you think I got the 261 picks & -3380 units figure from??
-----> DID YOU THINK I JUST PULLED IT OUT OF MY ASS?!?!?!?!
Check it for yourself and verify it for yourself, I *assure* you
that I wouldn't just make up a number out of thin air."
- beetMORON, proven LIAR/FRAUD, 03/16/2003
And the VERIFIABLE PROOF that Beaten-man is a documented MORON & LIAR:
http://new.bigguy.com/main/peekpast.html?peekid=BRIAN+ANTHONY&cd=1&d1=1995-01-01&d2=1998-02-15&sp=
Here's what *REALLY* looks like pretend-betting, and it INCLUDES
more than one pick of each "wager type", mulitple correlated plays,
plenty of chalk, and OBVIOUSLY no handcapping realistically involved
in at least 50% of the 80 posted pretend-bets....
EIGHTY!
From one day of 16 baseball games.
I've had a couple Saturday's in college hoops where,
from among 145+ games, I managed to handicap, wager,
and post 45 SEPARATELY HANDICAPPED GAMES...very rare,
mind you....But EIGHTY *REAL WAGERS* from only 16 games?
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
Subject: Re: Beet Man baseball, Sep 19
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-09-19 12:12:15 PST
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:05:08 GMT, The Beet Man <bee...@splot.org>
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:02:29 GMT, The Beet Man <bee...@splot.org>
>wrote:
>
>>YTD 77 bets +0.10u
>>
>>PIT +148 (Bran/FOG)
>>CHI/PIT u8 -116 (Bran/Fog)
>>PIT +139 (Crew/TORE)
>>CHI/PIT u9 -113 (Crew/Tore)
>>PHI -223 (Hal/WOOF)
>>CIN/PHI o8.5-116 (Hal/Woof)
>>FLA +112 (BECK/Ort)
>>FLA/ATL u9 -121 (Beck/Ort)
>>MIL +170 (John/DAVE)
>>AZ/MIL u7.5 -118 (John/DAVE)
>>SD +115 (HOW/Elle)
>>SD/COL u13 -107 (How/Elle)
I accidentally typed the wrong side here. As the line is now o13+107,
I will simply use the new line as even if I had accidentally bet the
wrong side, I could buy it back without costing anything.
>>HOU +112 (OZ/Moe)
>>Hou/STL u7.5 -110 (Oz/Moe)
>>SF +160 (HERM/Brow)
>>SF/LA u6.5 -105 (HERM/Brow)
>>BAL +127 (Disco/DOLL)
>>TOR/BAL o9.5 -103 (Disco/DOLL)
>>BOS -154 (BURK/Stan)
>>BOS/CLE u10 -113 (Burk/Stan)
>>TB +153 (Cunt/WATCH)
>>NYY/TB u9.5 -113 (Cunt/Watch)
>>CHW -163 (Right/BURLY)
>>KC/CHW o9 -102 (Right/Burly)
>>MIN -225 (Bond/MILT)
>>DET/MIN o9 -112 (Bond/Milt)
>>TEX -112 (Lack/DICK)
>>ANA/TEX u10.5 -107 (Lack/Dick)
>>SEA +162 (FRANK/Son)
>>SEA/OAK u7.5 -113 (Frank/Son)
>MON -102 (ZACH GAY/Glav)
>MON/NYM u8 -105 (Zach Gay/Glav)
>
>above lines all from pinnacle
>
>below are all same listed pitchers
>
>PIT +1.5 -104 G1
>PIT +1.5 -108 G2
>PHI -1.5 -115
>MON -1.5 +151
>FLA +1.5 -175
>MIL +1.5 +101
>SD +1.5 -159
>HOU +1.5 -186
>SF +1.5 -145
>BAL +1.5 -122
>BOS -1.5 -110
>TB +1.5 -102
>CHW -1.5 +125
>MIN -1.5 -130
>TEX -1.5 +167
>SEA +1.5 -135
>
>above all from pinnacle
>
>PIT G1 -1.5 +275 (PIN)
>PIT G2 -1.5 +270 (PIN)
>PIT G1 +2.5 -160 (OLY)
>PIT G2 +2.5 -170 (OLY)
>PHI +1.5 -342 (PIN)
>PHI -2.5 +160 (OLY)
>MON +1.5 -211 (PIN)
>MON +2.5 -310 (OLY)
>FLA -1.5 +175 (OLY)
>FLA +2.5 -245 (OLY)
>MIL -1.5 +335 (PIN)
>MIL +2.5 -150 (OLY)
>SD -1.5 +156 (PIN)
>SD +2.5 -260 (OLY)
>HOU -1.5 +180 (PIN)
>HOU +2.5 -285 (OLY)
>SF -1.5 +265 (PIN)
>SD +2.5 -240 (OLY)
>BAL -1.5 +228 (PIN)
>BAL +2.5 -185 (OLY)
>BOS +1.5 -305 (PIN)
>BOS -2.5 +135 (OLY)
>TB -1.5 +285 (PIN)
>TB +2.5 -155 (OLY)
>CHW +1.5 -265 (PIN)
>CHW -2.5 +200 (OLY)
>MIN +1.5 -350 (PIN)
>MIN -2.5 +155 (OLY)
>TEX +1.5 -173 (PIN)
>TEX -2.5 +240 (PIN)
>SEA -1.5 +265 (PIN)
>SEA +2.5 -230 (OLY)
>
> Hint: if you have a losing year,
> you can't tell your bookie "Oh these bets don't count."
>
Pssst: everyone here already knows this...why are YOU
the only one left just learning this fact now?
LOL!
obai...@work.coms
The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll some more:
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
> Scott Brady <sbra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Failure to discourage all homosexual relationships
> is a serious error as public policy.
"I feel the same way about the government's failure
to DISCOURAGE all JEWISH relationships!
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*********************************************************
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN BLACK ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
> On 16 Feb 2004 01:42:45 GMT, thehc...@aol.com (HC) wrote:
>
>
>>From: The Beet Fraud
>>
>>
>>>I'm also ahead 60 units on my documented CBB plays.
>>
>>He has no documented plays.
>
>
> I've posted plenty of them.
Not amounting to anything over single-digit units, no...
>>He is a known forger
>
>
> Who have I ever forged?
Me for one.
>>and liar and thus anything
>>that he posts to Usenet is judged as that which comes from a FRAUD.
>>
>>
>>>Brian... isn't.
>>
>>Brian, Brian, Brian . . . that's all this guy EVER talks about!
>
>
> Uh, Brian's the one who's obsessed with me being a woman,
So you finally admit you are a woman, and a dumbass at that....
> Who's the one who's the "obsessed stalker?"
beetMORON, OBVIOUSLY....
> All I
> care about is the bogus gambling info this idiot posts.
aaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
ROTFLMFAO!
>>>I'm jealous
>>
>>That's what I said. You're also a loser in every aspect of its meaning.
>
>
> Because I don't spend my life on RGS like you guys do?
Apparently you spend an inordinate amount of time here
for no reason other than to troll and deliberately
disrupt the newsgroup YOU termed "a toilet," "a sewer,"
and "ueseless."
The Beet Man
Wrong. I'm documented over 60 units this year.
>>>He is a known forger
>>
>>
>> Who have I ever forged?
>
>Me for one.
When? When have I ever forged a post in your e-mail address? I
don't even know your e-mail address! Nor do I even know the last time
you posted under your e-mail address.
>>>and liar and thus anything
>>>that he posts to Usenet is judged as that which comes from a FRAUD.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian... isn't.
>>>
>>>Brian, Brian, Brian . . . that's all this guy EVER talks about!
>>
>>
>> Uh, Brian's the one who's obsessed with me being a woman,
>
>So you finally admit you are a woman, and a dumbass at that....
Don't forget that I'm a black woman. But wait, how can a black woman
be a racist?
The Beet Man
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll some more:
You've said before that I'm black. How can a black person be racist?
892 lines? I know RGS is your life, but that's a bit much even for
you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Risk/reward. If betting chalk was supposedly some alleged
>>>>>>>"GUARANTEE of PROFITS" then thousands of us would be doing
>>>>>>>nothing than betting the "chalk" to reap in those GUARNATEED
>>>>>>>PROFITS which beetmoron is insinuating...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it's not a "guarantee of profits." It's a pathetic attempt
>>>>>>to end up with a winning record in the short term.
>>>>>
>>>>>So now you're contradicting yourself!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope. I said you're trying to catch up by betting big chalk. If
>>>>one's goal is to have a postive balance at the end of the day, what is
>>>>better to bet, 250 to win 100 at -250 or 100 to win 250 at +250? DUH.
>>>>Betting big chalk will provide better short term results, but they're
>>>>long term losers.
>>>
>>>No, YOU RETARD...the EXPECTATION IS THE SAME!!!!
>>
>>
>> Long-term expectation is irrelevant when we're talking about the
>> results at the end of the day or at the end of the a short period of
>> time.
>
>Oooooooooohhhh.....well, we'll just have to out that in quotes:
>
> "Long-term expectation is irrelevant when we're
> talking about the results at the end of the day
> or at the end of the a short period of time."
That's correct. In more complicated terms for those with a clue about
math, long-term expectation is less relevant than variance when short
term results are discussed.
Betting a coin toss at even money, or betting a roll of one die at
5:1, are equal in long-term expectation, but the former will more
often show a positive result after one trial. In more complicated
terms for those with a clue about math, the variance is higher in the
latter example.
>>>Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
>>>that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>>
>>
>> No fallacy,
>
>Short-term = small sample size
Results after a short period of time ARE a small sample! If I'm
talking about "my results for the week" well, DUH, that's a small
sample.
>> and you're the one betting the chalk.
>
>Chalk = moneyline fav; fav ...and 100% of us here who
>regularly bet moneyline sports, bet chalk.
>That's 100%, INCLUDING beetmoron.
>In fact, the duplicitous beetmoron bets "BIG chalk"
>in hoops too - AS WELL AS CORRELATED PLAYS - as posted
>here in January!
Those are your rules.
You haven't stated yet what the limit is, on big chalk. Where to
honourable people draw the line?
> >>>DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
> >>>Playing catch-up with the *BIG* CHALK again ...
> >>
> >>From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
> >>Subject: Re: CBB Jan 30
> >>Date: 2004-01-30 16:00:56 PST
> >>
> >> "PENN -210 (Cascade)
> >> PRINCETON -208 (Pin)
> >> Columbia +180 (Pin)
> >> Cornell -184 (Pin)
> >> --
> >> This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
> >>
> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Penn+group:rec.gambling.sports&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=30&as_minm=1&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=2004&selm=nvrl105m2loriqn8rvmctvbfobaafvn706%404ax.com&rnum=6&filter=
> >
>
>JAN 25:
> >FSU +2 -109 PIN
> >NOTRE DAME +4 -110 CASCADE
> >RICHMOND +8 -110 CASCADE
> >IONA +8.5 -110 CASCADE
> >PURDUE -4.5 -110 OLY
> >WAKE FOREST/FSU u144 -110 (SIA)
> >VILLANOVA +3.5 -103 PIN
> >VILLANOVA +137 PIN
> >VILLANOVA/MIAMI o143 -108 PIN
> >VILLANOVA/MIAMI 2h o75 -108 (PIN)
I can't play by your rules?
>>>>>Betting *BIG* chalk...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
>>>is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
>>>Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
>>>playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
>>>homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
>>>ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
>>>pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....
>>
>>
>> Only a moron would think there's consistent value in these bets.
>
>
>Only a MORON would think anyone who plays *SOME* moneylines
>(on pt spreads) or *some* plays on over -200 favs in baseball,
"Some?" You bet almost nothing but those at the end of the year.
>is a person who therefore thinks there is "consistent value"
>in playing those type of bets ALL THE TIME, rather than selectively
>when handicapping indicates there is good value in *some*
You bet almost every single -180 to -330 favorite on the board that
day. 13 of them in fact. That's not "some" that's "all."
>> I'm not talking about long-term expectation. I'm talking about an
>> attempt to get a short term record. The same is true of martingale or
>> another bet sizing methods. They dont' turn negative expectation
>> wagers into positive expectation ones, but they can inflate short term
>> results.
>
>And yet beetMORON posts THEM, and also CORRELATED PLAYS!!!!!
>Talk about yer contradictory MORON/hypocrite!!!
>aaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I'm hypocritical because I can't play by your rules?
No, the real hypocrite is you. You play correlated play after
correlated play, and then I try to do the same thing, and you claim
they don't count as "documentation fraud."
How many correlated plays can one make? How many is fine and how many
is honourable?
>>>If beetmoron's statement was true then my recent ML hoops
>>>plays *should* be showing "better" short-term results
>>>like beetmoron says -- but THEY AREN'T!
>>>They're showing WORSE short-term results!
>>
>>
>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>
>>>
>>>Interesting...because the numbers I used before and see again
>>>for Tuesday's games show different:
>>>
>>>Appalachian St. -165
>>>NC Greens (-3.5) +145 = 3.0% hold
>>>
>>>Virginia +400
>>>FSU (-9.5) -500 = 3.2% hold
>>>
>>>Louis. (-12.5) -1000
>>>Tex. Christian +700 = 3.4% hold
>>
>>
>> What's different?
>
>oy vey what a MORON!
I showed you that the line on Tenn Chat at -850 was lower than the vig
on FSU -500 and Appy ST -165 and some other team at -125. Of course
you snipped all these.
>> I'm glad you realize your mistake in playing so many
>> favorites, especially in MLB. I hope you stop that.
>
>Would be stupid to stop a sound handicapping practice.
>I just counted the so called "*BIG* chalk" plays (-200 and over)
>I made last July/August/September for which a certain MORON
>has taken it upon herself to ridicule me for: 33-10, +11.19 units
Good job using these for catch-up! Variance was your friend!
You were playing almost every big chalk on the board at the end of the
year.
>And I plan no changes in that area this season.
So you plan on getting killed early in the year and you plan on using
the chalk to catch up? Remind everyone in April and May not to play
your picks again!
>>
>>>Thus, a good team which
>>>should win 2 out of 3 games versus a given opponent (IMO)
>>>- just because they are favoured and the public tends toward favs -
>>>will OFTEN have the line open or pushed up to a moneyline like -250
>>>Thus if I win 2 but lose one, I'm screwed by that one loss.
>>>That's the nature of fav betting - irrespective of the true chances
>>>of a given fav winning straight up. And the stronger the fav,
>>>the more the public likes them, increasing the RISK that I am
>>>not getting fair returns **because** the lines are set or pushed
>>>to where I'm getting a lesser return than I should compared to
>>>that team's true chances of winning...THAT is an integral part
>>>of the nature of FAV betting, and WHY I and apparently most others
>>>remain convinced that moneyline betting on favs generally offers
>>>LESS value. Value can still be found, but typically less often.
>>
>>
>> Then why did you bet so much chalk towards the end of the MLB season?
>
>Uh, gee, maybe it's because, as random chance would have it
>for those particular days, my style of capping didn't find
>any particular value in any dogs (at the available lines at least)
>but - at the lines that were available - I believed various favs
>had a decent chance...
"Those particular days" were weeks and weeks at a time! Faves rarely
have value, but for a few weeks, you happened to find value in all
faves? This being near the end of a season where faves would give you
a chance to catch up (more so than betting dogs, as the faves are
lower variance), and if that didn't work, you could just remove them
from your record.
>Strange that something so simple goes
>right over beetMORON's head...not that it's any of beetmoron's
>business whether I find value in favs or dogs or totals or props.
It's my business if you use it to fudge your record.
>You could and you would be doing so for EVERYONE, including yourself,
>as 100% of us here who regularly bet moneyline sports, BET CHALK!
I most certain don't go weeks at a time betting all chalk!
>>>>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>>>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>>>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>>>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>>>>and resulting poor value...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>>>
>>>I've shown where the vig is HIGHER, you TWIT!
>>
>> Not in the examples I showed.
>
>In the examples I showed.
Nope. None of your examples had a lower vig than my fave of -850,
where the dog was +650. Why would playing that be documentation
fraud?
>>>>>No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
>>>>>which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
>>>>>amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
>>>>>documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
>>>>>skill whatsoever...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
>>>>VALUE in the heavy favorites!
>>>
>NOPE, by my argument (above) the *VALUE* is reduced.
How is the value reduced when the vig is lower? -850, when the dog is
+650, is lower than any moneyline you quoted. Why is the value
reduced?
And if the value is reduced, how could it be fraudulent to play these?
If the value is reduced, they're losers!
>>>And her mentor, the great Abdul Abdul, whom she has persistently
>>>asserted is the be all and end all of handciapping -
>>>actually ADVOCATES PARLAYS!
>>
>>
>> Who is "Abdul Abdul?" If you're talking about Abdul Jalib, he
>> specifically mentioned 3 team parlays at "vegas odds" once, which can
>> in fact be more profitable. As can correlated parlays. (I bet
>> correlated parlays as often as I can.)
>>
>> I specified that parlays on non-correlated events at "true odds" don't
>> increase expectation. You're the idiot who got hung up on "events
>> that start at different times."
>
>And I specified that the issue always was and for me still *IS*
>a comparison to "straight wagering" - when the exact SAME amounts
>are being put at risk (to be removed and not returned to one's BR)
>***AND INCLUDING*** my oft repeated/archived caveats, which includes
>but is not limited to "whenever practical" .... if it ain't practical/
>feasible, DON'T BET PARLAYS!!! If it is, then do it as often as
>practical/fereasible.
And has been explained to you many times, the amount "to be removed
and not returned" isn't relevant.
Heck, I have a bookie who lets me bet on credit. Let's say I make 10
bets this week at $500 each and they go 5-5, and lose $55. I take $50
from my bankroll on Friday and it won't be returned. I guess I make
$55 of wagers that week?
>In fact, here's some excerpts from the PARLAY-boy, Abdul:
3 team parlays at Vegas odds, not "true odds." You were discussing
parlays at "true odds." 3 teamers at Vegas odds do have a slightly
higher return (6:1 when the true odds would be about 5.96:1.) If you
can find identical lines at -110, you will make a bit more money
parlaying them, vs making straight bets, yes.
You were discussing betting 2 team parlays at true odds, where the
expectation is identical instead of making straight bets. In fact,
you even claimed that making 4 team parlays or more (I forget exactly
where you drew the line) were LOSING propsitions, when in fact that's
also wrong! It doesn't matter if you make straight bets, 2 team
parlays, 4 team parlays, 10 team parlays (assuming non-correlated
events and true odds parlays), the expectation is the same.
It's always possible to bet ones entire bankroll. Why not do that?
>whereas betting parlays *WHENEVER PRACTICAL* is always possible
>and logical.
>
>> or using a martingale system!
>
>Now beetmoron is advocating Martingale!
Um, no. I'm the one saying that all of your "money management
schemes" are silly. Betting 1 unit per play, then doubling when you
win, will make more on average than flat betting 1 unit per play, yes.
So will using your martingale-esque parlay system. That doesn't mean
either is correct.
>>>>just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
>>>>favorites is actually lower.
>>>
>>>Just like you don't understand that the *VALUE* on betting
>>>pt spread favs on the ML is actually lower.
>>
>>
>> Then why do you bet so many pt spread favs on the ML?
>
>1/ What the phuck is it to you WHAT I choose to wager on?
I know you don't choose to wager on anything. You claim to use ESB
which is a well known scam book. That doesn't matter to me, but your
documentation should reflect real wagering, which it doesn't.
>2/ "so many pt spread favs on the ML????"
> Geezuzz what a PHUCKIN MORON!
> I've posted about 4,200 college hoops wagers, and
> from all those, less than 1% were moneyline favs!
> Less than 1% - THEY ARE LOSERS - and beetMORON is WHINING!
> When my picks are winning, beetMORON is WHINING!
> When my picks are LOSING beetMORON is STILL WHINING!
I don't care if you win or lose, I care that you honestly document.
And you don't honestly doocument.
> UN-freakin-BELIEVABLE!
> Some change her gawdamn diapers!
>
> "I guess for "some of us" that wear adult diapers
> that's rather important."
> - the diaper-wearing BeetMORON, July 11
>
>
>> Are you trying
>> to post losing picks? We know you have contempt for the people who
>> play your picks (you call them leeches). Are you trying to make them
>> lose?
>
>How can they LOSE if they can't get down on them, MORON!
What makes you think people can't get down on them? (Other than the
ESB picks, of course.) And if you don't want people to get down on
them, don't play them.
>So you're trying to keep
>And the only "leeches" are the turds who show contempt for me
>on one hand but gladly grab the results of my hard work with the other.
And who are those people?
>>>Certainly, if the VALUE on them was HIGHER, virtually
>>>everyone and the family pet would be betting them!!!
>>>They aren't for a reason...
>>
>>
>> So if there's no value,
>
>ho can beetmoron keep WHINING when Brian posts ML picks
>in hoops - just like she has and now voodoo?
Since your plan is to remove those from your record if they lose, of
course I can!
And, YOU'RE the one whining about heavy favorites being "DOCUMENTATION
FRAUD!" LOL, what a hypocrite! Why is a -575 favorite "fraud" while
your -330 favorite is fine? Where's the line drawn? What's the
reason for that line?
>Good thing I revamped a certain portion of my capping
>and opened myself up to betting more "chalk" last summer
>as that change slowed the losing considerably in the
>second half, going 33-10, +11.19 with favs of 200+
>after July 01...
Small sample fallacy, but good job padding your record, and good luck
making money on these in the future.
That having been said, betting those chalks is a much better idea than
betting on ESB!
>>>BIG FREAKIN DEAL!!!
>>>WHAT THE PHUCKs IT TO *YOU* WHAT I BET MY MONEY ON???
>>
>>
>> Well, we all know you don't actually bet real money,
>
>Well, since that is a faulty premise, your argument fails.
ESB proves it, as does your claim that betting 2-4% is a good idea.
You'd have gone broke betting that much on your MLB picks.
>>>It's already long ago acknowledged that FAV betting offers
>>>generally poor value.
>>>You're trying to allege some BIG CONSPIRACY
>>>theory when none exists,
>>
>>
>> The "CONSPIRACY" is the fact that you REFUSE to quote your 2003 MLB
>> record.
>
>LIE, I **WELCOME** quoting my 2003 MLB record --
>to any HONOURABLE, discreet, non-troll, non-asshole,
>non-flamer/jerk, who e-mails me with sincere and
>honourable intentions. NO PROBLEM!
>And several good folks here have availed themselves already!
>
>Let alone the fact, that I am not obliged to "quote my
>2003 MLB record" BECAUSE IT IS ALL ARCHIVED FOR ANYONE
>WHO WANTS TO KNOW TO GO LOOK IT UP FOR THEMSELVES!
It's dishonest to selectively quote your record. Either quote all of
it, or quote none of it. Quoting "my NBA record for 2001 and Dec
2002" is dishonest.
>> Your record was poor,
>
>Yep, bad season, but still UP significantly for 2003
>due to 2003 NBA, CFL, NFL, CBK, and CFB, so not worried...
Only because it's a pretend betting record. Using your recommended
betting on your MLB results would have broken you.
>> and you bet a lot of correlated bets
>
>A lot? Nope. Some, though irrelevant.
Relevant if you're using them as "1 unit" on each.
>> to try to catch up, in addition to betting a lot of big chalk.
>
>Nope, lie. I post only what I actually handicap for profit.
>I do this for a full-time occupation.
How exactly do you "profit" off ESB? Why are you the only person in
the world they actually pay? How exactly do you "profit" with an MLB
record like yours betting 2-4% as a unit?
>If betting the second
>half of a given game looks like a winning pick based on my
>capping stats, the situation, and my experience, then I
>make the wager and post it for documentation - BECAUSE it is
>a reflection of my TRUE handicapping skills.
Then why aren't my correlated picks allowed?
>Some win, some lose.
>Posting occasional bets on a second half which I also happen
>to have a bet on for the game, or (heaven forbid) betting on a
>fav, despite your delusions to the contrary, troll,
>are NOT "playing catch-up" - a phrase I coined here years ago.
Then why aren't my correlated picks allowed?
>Although even if by some bizarro world irrational process of logic
>one thought that posting occasional bets on a second half which
>one also happens to have a bet on for the game, or (heaven forbid)
>actually betting on a fav - was considered "playing catch-up" -
>it's not illegal, immoral, nor unethical to study the board, employ
>actual handicapping skills and bet on a fav or a second half play,
>and EVERYONE can avail themselves of the SAME opportunity.
Then why aren't my correlated picks allowed?
>Legit, ernest, hard work via REAL handicapping goes into each play
>*SEPARATELY* - and I accept the results win or lose.
>However, last September 19 we saw the perfect example of
>documentation FRAUD --- by beetmoron --- where the same can
>NOT be said of each and every one of those *EIGHTY* (80) MLB picks.
I had no problem with the results. You're the one with the problem
(jealous that my 2003 MLB record was so much better than yours.)
What's the problem? How many correlated bets are allowed? Why can
you post 5 bets on the same game, but I can't?
Why can you post a -330 fave, but I can't post a -550 one?
>> attempts predictably failed, so you decided to mysteriously remove
>> that year from your record.
>
>Non-sequitor. A YTD was NEVER reported right from the start
>of the year so it's impossible that anything
>was removed from what is a non-existant public record.
Wrong. You quote your "All time records as of Jan 25" yet remove your
MLB record. Mysterious removal.
>A PRIVATE accounting, which honourable folks are entitled to see
>without having to do all the work themselves, was kept and
>several have been privy to it, and NOTHING has been removed
>from it either.
>
>Privately (via e-mail) I have nothing to hide from
>other HONOURABLE cappers who are interested.
And what's the reason to not post it? Oh right, because you lost.
>> It was a win-win situation, either you'd
>> end up ahead for the year, or remove it from your record.
>
>Non-sequitor.
>Can't remove something from a record that was never there.
Wrong. You quote your "All time records as of Jan 25" yet remove your
MLB record. Mysterious removal.
>And *because* of the assholes, this is what I choose to do.
In other words "because I lost."
>However, I list my all-time records while NOBODY else does.
>If, in some people's minds, it is "allegedly" wrong to
>refuse to post *some* results for picks which are archived
>for anyone to check themselves, then by that logic, it is
>just as wrong or even MORE wrong for anyone to REFUSE to
>post and itemize each and all of THEIR ALL-TIME records.
It's wrong for anyone to selectively quote a record. It would be
wrong for me to say "My all time NFL record as of Jan 1: 1999-2003 +89
units" if my 1998 record was -30u. It would be wrong for me to quote
my "2003-2004 NBA record Jan 1 - Feb 15 +30u" if Nov 1- Jan 1 was
-35u.
>Concealing one's ALL-TIME records is actually WORSE, IMO,
Nope. At least quoting nothing doesn't allege anything.
>and none of THEM have the same valid reasons I do.
The only "valid" reasons are in your sick head. You've made lots of
enemies because you're a mentally ill individual who's impossible in
engaging in intelligent debate. You and HC chased Abdul Jalib off
because you were jealous of his success. You chased Sean Duffy off
because you were jealous of his success. You chased Roboto off
because you were jelaous of his success. (But wait, Roboto was me,
but his picks don't count on my record? That doesn't make sense!)
See the pattern? Because you chased these people off, and because
you refused to admit you made some mistakes in the parlay thread, I
think you're a gaseous windbag who'll never amount to anything because
you don't listen to other people, and RGS will always be a sewer as
long as you (and HC) are here.
>That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
>and basketball is certainly no secret!
>We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
>Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneyline favs is
>(allegedly) documentation fraud, when it is CLEAR such plays
>actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a worse
>net unit payoff) is an allegation beyond ridiculous.
Nope. It's you who claims that they're "documentation fraud."
We have a clear pattern here. You do something and it's fine (bet
correlated plays, bet lots of moneyline chalk), but when someone else
does it, and wins with it, it's "fraud," "
>>>>
>>>> Stick to pretend betting
>>>
>>>Nah, Ill leave that to YOU...I'll stick with this:
>>>
>>> Brian's ALL-TIME usenet-posted/archived/witnessed results,
>>> FEB 1997 thru JAN 25, 2004:
>>>
>>> CFB: 1368-1076, +183.86~`
>>> CBK: 2235-1908, +140.30~` thru Jan 25
>>> NBA: 1668-1428, +102.07~ thru Jan 25
>>> MLB: 1452-1286, +110.78 *(before '03)
>>> NHL: (ML/dogs) +57.93~ thru Jan 25
>>> NFL: 682-599, +32.22~ thru Jan 25
>>> CFL: 274-239, +11.64
>>> Cbb: 19-12, + 0.40
>>> WNBA: 143-135, -21.29
>>> XFL: 8-12, - 5.20
>>>
>>> = 8 winning sports for +639.20~*
>>> = 2 losing sports for - 26.49~
>>>
>>> (all per the common "one unit per play" documentation standard)
>>
>
>> Looks like pretend betting to me.
>
>"Looks like?"
ESB.
>It "looks like?????"
>
>Let's see how things have "looked like" to beetMORON before...
>
>A year ago I was FALSELY accused of past-posting a bet
>on the "AirForce/V.Tech Bowl game," because it "looked like"
>that to beetMORON - despite the fact the RETARD *OBVIOUSLY* didn't
>actually bother to *READ* my posted picks that day TO BE CERTAIN!
It didn't matter what your picks were. You explicitly said, for your
contest, the deadline was 10:30, and you posted a play after 10:30.
That's past posting, and SportsNut called you on it. You predictably
responded with flames.
As a (presumably relevant) aside, several years ago I built a rather
substantial part of my bankroll betting SportsNut's NFL picks. (I may
be forgetting someone but I think SportsNut, RS, Abdul, and Sean Duffy
are the only people from RGS who's picks I've respected enough to
bet.) So why would Brian be jealous of SportsNUt? Sounds like we
know who the "jealous loser" is.
I'm not responsible for an error in Big Guy.
And your BigGuy record is something to brag about? Should be trying
to hide it.
>Here's what *REALLY* looks like pretend-betting, and it INCLUDES
>more than one pick of each "wager type", mulitple correlated plays,
>plenty of chalk, and OBVIOUSLY no handcapping realistically involved
>in at least 50% of the 80 posted pretend-bets....
Winning 39 units isn't "skill?" If not, then what is it? Why can you
make correlated picks, but I can;t?
>EIGHTY!
> From one day of 16 baseball games.
I have 39+ reasons why it's not "pretend betting."
>I've had a couple Saturday's in college hoops where,
>from among 145+ games, I managed to handicap, wager,
>and post 45 SEPARATELY HANDICAPPED GAMES...very rare,
>mind you....But EIGHTY *REAL WAGERS* from only 16 games?
What's the limit on how many bets can honourably made in one day?
47?
56?
67?
78?
89?
>aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Laughing all the way to the bank!
total +39.79u
>> Hint: if you have a losing year,
>> you can't tell your bookie "Oh these bets don't count."
You're the one who had a losing year, not me.
HC
<snip>
Why is this idiot talking to me? All I ever do is piss on him.
He must like being pissed on.
Gary Collard
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:48:07 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>
> >Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
> >that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>
> No fallacy, and you're the one betting the chalk. You're the one
> claiming that -330 is fine but -575 isn't.
Huh? That makes no sense. If one is legit, the other clearly is legit.
The only thing some have complained about in here before is really really
big faves, like a -3000ish college football game. But that is really
disingenuous, since the mythical standard has been if a book offers it, it
is legit. I imagine the reason it drew complaints at the time was who
posted the play, not the play itself. The only real issue with posting big
moneyline faves at a full unit is the same as with posting some props at a
full unit - running into bet limits.
obai...@work.coms
The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll some more:
> You've said before that I'm black.
I got this far.
It appears you spent considerable time typing the rest
and I'm glad because I didn't read it, and WON'T waste
my time with a liar of such dishonour as yourself.
BLATANT LIES such as the above simply underscore WHY
beetmoron is nothing more than a LYING TROLL, a racist
one at that, unworthy of any believability due these
constant LIES and intent on stalking and disrupting the newsgroup
she has claimed is "a toilet," "a sewer," and "useless"
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
> Scott Brady <sbra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Failure to discourage all homosexual relationships
> is a serious error as public policy.
"I feel the same way about the government's failure
to DISCOURAGE all JEWISH relationships!
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*********************************************************
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN BLACK ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
>
>>>>>>> Risk/reward. If betting chalk was supposedly some alleged
>>>>>>> "GUARANTEE of PROFITS" then thousands of us would be doing
>>>>>>> nothing than betting the "chalk" to reap in those GUARNATEED
>>>>>>> PROFITS which beetmoron is insinuating...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> Long-term expectation is irrelevant when we're talking about the
>> results at the end of the day or at the end of the a short period of
>> time.
>
>
> Oooooooooohhhh.....well, we'll just have to out that in quotes:
>
> "Long-term expectation is irrelevant when we're
> talking about the results at the end of the day
> or at the end of the a short period of time."
>
>
>>> Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
>>> that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>>
>>
>>
>> No fallacy,
>
>
> Short-term = small sample size
>
>
>> and you're the one betting the chalk.
>
>
> Chalk = moneyline fav; fav ...and 100% of us here who
> regularly bet moneyline sports, bet chalk.
> That's 100%, INCLUDING beetmoron.
> In fact, the duplicitous beetmoron bets "BIG chalk"
> in hoops too - AS WELL AS CORRELATED PLAYS - as posted
> here in January!
>
>
>>>>DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
>>>>Playing catch-up with the *BIG* CHALK again ...
>>>
>>>From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
>>>Subject: Re: CBB Jan 30
>>>Date: 2004-01-30 16:00:56 PST
>>>
>>> "PENN -210 (Cascade)
>>> PRINCETON -208 (Pin)
>>> Columbia +180 (Pin)
>>> Cornell -184 (Pin)
>>> --
>>> This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Penn+group:rec.gambling.sports&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=30&as_minm=1&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=2004&selm=nvrl105m2loriqn8rvmctvbfobaafvn706%404ax.com&rnum=6&filter=
>>
>
> JAN 25:
>>FSU +2 -109 PIN
>>NOTRE DAME +4 -110 CASCADE
>>RICHMOND +8 -110 CASCADE
>>IONA +8.5 -110 CASCADE
>>PURDUE -4.5 -110 OLY
>>WAKE FOREST/FSU u144 -110 (SIA)
>>VILLANOVA +3.5 -103 PIN
>>VILLANOVA +137 PIN
>>VILLANOVA/MIAMI o143 -108 PIN
>>VILLANOVA/MIAMI 2h o75 -108 (PIN)
>
>
>
>
>>>>> Betting *BIG* chalk...
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone, who suggests the moneyline side of a -4.5 fav "BIG CHALK"
>>> is by direct inference, a COMPLETE IMBECILE.
>>> Hell, a -4.5 pt fav, in a lot of venues, suggests the teams
>>> playing are EVENLY matched, and that -4.5 is merely the
>>> homecourt edge...sometimes MORE...MUCH MORE!
>>> ONLY A MORON would consider the moneyline plays of single-digit
>>> pt spreads to be "BIG CHALK"....
>>
>>
>>
>> Only a moron would think there's consistent value in these bets.
>
>
>
> Only a MORON would think anyone who plays *SOME* moneylines
> (on pt spreads) or *some* plays on over -200 favs in baseball,
> is a person who therefore thinks there is "consistent value"
> in playing those type of bets ALL THE TIME, rather than selectively
> when handicapping indicates there is good value in *some*
>
>
>
>>>>>> In real life, of course, this is a quick way to the poor house,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Betting ATS favs on the moneyline, by a skilled capper,
>>>>> is no more nor less a "quick way to the poor house"
>>>>> than betting favs on baseball moneylines or hockey moneylines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Betting faves on baseball is the way to the poor house, as you
>>> demonstrated in your 2003 results.
>>>
> So then there's no conspiracy.
>
>>> And according to beetmoron, we are free to bet on ML favs
>>> at our own risk if we choose to do so, even knowing that
>>> the chances of improving our bottom line net units are
>>> actually LOWERED by doing so...
>
>
>
>> That's just another example of Brian Anthony's hypocrisy.
>
>
> Hypocrisy?
> LOL!
>
> In fact, the HYPOCRITICAL beetmoron bets "BIG chalk"
> in hoops - AS WELL AS CORRELATED PLAYS!! - as posted
> here in January:
>
>>>>DOCUMENTATION FRAUD..
>>>>Playing catch-up with the *BIG* CHALK again ...
>>>
>>>From: The Beet Man (bee...@splot.org)
>>>Subject: Re: CBB Jan 30
>>>Date: 2004-01-30 16:00:56 PST
>>>
>>> "PENN -210 (Cascade)
>>> PRINCETON -208 (Pin)
>>> Columbia +180 (Pin)
>>> Cornell -184 (Pin)
>>> --
>>> This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Penn+group:rec.gambling.sports&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=30&as_minm=1&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=2004&selm=nvrl105m2loriqn8rvmctvbfobaafvn706%404ax.com&rnum=6&filter=
>>
>
> JAN 25:
>>FSU +2 -109 PIN
>>NOTRE DAME +4 -110 CASCADE
>>RICHMOND +8 -110 CASCADE
>>IONA +8.5 -110 CASCADE
>>PURDUE -4.5 -110 OLY
>>WAKE FOREST/FSU u144 -110 (SIA)
>>VILLANOVA +3.5 -103 PIN
>>VILLANOVA +137 PIN
>>VILLANOVA/MIAMI o143 -108 PIN
>>VILLANOVA/MIAMI 2h o75 -108 (PIN)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>> IF betting single-digit moneyline favs ("big chalk" according
>>>>> to the village idiot) is an "alleged" method to better profits,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Short-term. You're the idiot who cant' differentiate between methods
>>>> that make actual profit and methods that make short term results
>>>> better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually it is YOU who is that idiot.
>>> The EXPECTATION doesn't change, ya MORON!
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not talking about long-term expectation. I'm talking about an
>> attempt to get a short term record. The same is true of martingale or
>> another bet sizing methods. They dont' turn negative expectation
>> wagers into positive expectation ones, but they can inflate short term
>> results.
>
>
> And yet beetMORON posts THEM, and also CORRELATED PLAYS!!!!!
> Talk about yer contradictory MORON/hypocrite!!!
> aaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>
>
>
>>> If beetmoron's statement was true then my recent ML hoops
>>> plays *should* be showing "better" short-term results
>>> like beetmoron says -- but THEY AREN'T!
>>> They're showing WORSE short-term results!
>>
>>
>>
> there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>
>>>
>>> Interesting...because the numbers I used before and see again
>>> for Tuesday's games show different:
>>>
>>> Appalachian St. -165
>>> NC Greens (-3.5) +145 = 3.0% hold
>>>
>>> Virginia +400
>>> FSU (-9.5) -500 = 3.2% hold
>>>
>>> Louis. (-12.5) -1000
>>> Tex. Christian +700 = 3.4% hold
>>
>>
>>
>> What's different?
>
>
> oy vey what a MORON!
>
>>
>>
>>> But VALUE on pt spread favs on the ML, however, isn't THAT simplified!
>>> If it was - then it is only logical that virtually *EVERYONE*
>>> would be heavy into betting them - and they ARE NOT!
>>>
>>> But they aren't *because* the value ISN'T there!
>>> The large part of the reason WHY the value isn't
>>> there is the psychology of most bettors favouring the favs.
>>> IOW, pt spreads and ML are either set higher on favs or
>>> the favs tend to bet more heavily and driven UP.
>>> Either way FAVS "tend" to be *overvalued* in their
>>> ability to both win and cover.
>>
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>
>
> Of course I'm right, and I'm glad you finally realize it.
>
>
>> I'm glad you realize your mistake in playing so many
>> favorites, especially in MLB. I hope you stop that.
>
>
> Would be stupid to stop a sound handicapping practice.
> I just counted the so called "*BIG* chalk" plays (-200 and over)
> I made last July/August/September for which a certain MORON
> has taken it upon herself to ridicule me for: 33-10, +11.19 units
> All still archived for confirmation...
> And I plan no changes in that area this season.
>
>
>
>> The fact that faves tend to be overvalued doesn't change the fact that
>> it's easy to inflate one's short term results by betting heavy
>> favorites.
>
>
> And yet beetMORON posts THEM, and also CORRELATED PLAYS!!!!!
> Talk about yer contradictory MORON/hypocrite!!!
> aaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>
>
>>
>>> Thus, a good team which
>>> should win 2 out of 3 games versus a given opponent (IMO)
>>> - just because they are favoured and the public tends toward favs -
>>> will OFTEN have the line open or pushed up to a moneyline like -250
>>> Thus if I win 2 but lose one, I'm screwed by that one loss.
>>> That's the nature of fav betting - irrespective of the true chances
>>> of a given fav winning straight up. And the stronger the fav,
>>> the more the public likes them, increasing the RISK that I am
>>> not getting fair returns **because** the lines are set or pushed
>>> to where I'm getting a lesser return than I should compared to
>>> that team's true chances of winning...THAT is an integral part
>>> of the nature of FAV betting, and WHY I and apparently most others
>>> remain convinced that moneyline betting on favs generally offers
>>> LESS value. Value can still be found, but typically less often.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then why did you bet so much chalk towards the end of the MLB season?
>
>
> Uh, gee, maybe it's because, as random chance would have it
> for those particular days, my style of capping didn't find
> any particular value in any dogs (at the available lines at least)
> but - at the lines that were available - I believed various favs
> had a decent chance...Strange that something so simple goes
> right over beetMORON's head...not that it's any of beetmoron's
> business whether I find value in favs or dogs or totals or props.
> Who died and made her queen?
>
>
>> Sep 14:
>> SF -177 @P
>> Bos -112 @P
>> Minn -107 @P
>> KC -144 @P
>>
>> 4 chalks, 0 dogs
>>
>> Sep 15:
>> Minn -157@P
>> KC -162 @P
>> NYY -175 @5d
>> Bos -240 @CAS
>> SF -145 @5d
>>
>> 5 chalks, no dogs.
>>
>> I could keep going on and on.
>
>
> You could and you would be doing so for EVERYONE, including yourself,
> as 100% of us here who regularly bet moneyline sports, BET CHALK!
> Chalk = moneyline fav; fav
>
>
>
>>>>> If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>>>> advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>>>> OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>>>> In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>>>> and resulting poor value...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've shown where the vig is HIGHER, you TWIT!
>>
>>
>>
>> Not in the examples I showed.
>
>
> In the examples I showed.
>
>>
>>>>> No HONOURABLE person here posts moneyline plays on DOUBLE-DIGIT pt spreads,
>>>>> which begins typically in the upper 500's or more, *because* THAT would
>>>>> amount to nothing more than what I've coined "a shameless grab for
>>>>> documentation units" and essentially be NO reflection of handicapping
>>>>> skill whatsoever...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why? By your argument, since the vig is actually lower, there's MORE
>>>> VALUE in the heavy favorites!
>>>
>>>
> NOPE, by my argument (above) the *VALUE* is reduced.
>
>
>>>
>>> OBVIOUSLY beetmoron understands little.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just like I didn't understand why your martingale-esque parlay method
>>>> was flawed,
>>>
>>>
>>> Well I don't HAVE a parlay method, let alone a martingale-esque
>>> parlay method - so your argument is already flawed because you
>>> begin with a false premise!
>>
>>
>>
>> You argued that parlay method for years and years.
>
>
> Well I don't HAVE a "parlay method," let alone a "martingale-esque
> parlay method" - so your argument is already flawed because you
> begin with a false premise
> In fact, I've never posted a parlay, but beetmoron has!
>
>
>>> And her mentor, the great Abdul Abdul, whom she has persistently
>>> asserted is the be all and end all of handciapping -
>>> actually ADVOCATES PARLAYS!
>>
>>
>>
>> Who is "Abdul Abdul?" If you're talking about Abdul Jalib, he
>> specifically mentioned 3 team parlays at "vegas odds" once, which can
>> in fact be more profitable. As can correlated parlays. (I bet
>> correlated parlays as often as I can.)
>>
>> I specified that parlays on non-correlated events at "true odds" don't
>> increase expectation. You're the idiot who got hung up on "events
>> that start at different times."
>
>
> And I specified that the issue always was and for me still *IS*
> a comparison to "straight wagering" - when the exact SAME amounts
> are being put at risk (to be removed and not returned to one's BR)
> ***AND INCLUDING*** my oft repeated/archived caveats, which includes
> but is not limited to "whenever practical" .... if it ain't practical/
> feasible, DON'T BET PARLAYS!!! If it is, then do it as often as
> practical/fereasible.
> In fact, here's some excerpts from the PARLAY-boy, Abdul:
>
> whereas betting parlays *WHENEVER PRACTICAL* is always possible
> and logical.
>
>
>> or using a martingale system!
>
>
> Now beetmoron is advocating Martingale!
>
>
>>>> just like I don't understand why the vig on heavy
>>>> favorites is actually lower.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just like you don't understand that the *VALUE* on betting
>>> pt spread favs on the ML is actually lower.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then why do you bet so many pt spread favs on the ML?
>
>
> 1/ What the phuck is it to you WHAT I choose to wager on?
> WHY does Brian bet so many quarter bets in NBA?
> WHY does Brian bet so many 1-AA football games?
> WHY does Brian bet on women's college basketball?
> WHY does Brian bet on props in every sport?
> WHY does Brian, why does Brian, why does Brian....
> WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY???????
>
> 2/ "so many pt spread favs on the ML????"
> Geezuzz what a PHUCKIN MORON!
> I've posted about 4,200 college hoops wagers, and
> from all those, less than 1% were moneyline favs!
> Less than 1% - THEY ARE LOSERS - and beetMORON is WHINING!
> When my picks are winning, beetMORON is WHINING!
> When my picks are LOSING beetMORON is STILL WHINING!
> UN-freakin-BELIEVABLE!
> Some change her gawdamn diapers!
>
> "I guess for "some of us" that wear adult diapers
> that's rather important."
> - the diaper-wearing BeetMORON, July 11
>
>
>> Are you trying
>> to post losing picks? We know you have contempt for the people who
>> play your picks (you call them leeches). Are you trying to make them
>> lose?
>
>
> How can they LOSE if they can't get down on them, MORON!
>
> And the only "leeches" are the turds who show contempt for me
> on one hand but gladly grab the results of my hard work with the other.
>
>
>
>>> Certainly, if the VALUE on them was HIGHER, virtually
>>> everyone and the family pet would be betting them!!!
>>> They aren't for a reason...
>>
>>
>>
>> So if there's no value,
>
>
> ho can beetmoron keep WHINING when Brian posts ML picks
> in hoops - just like she has and now voodoo?
>
>>
>>>>>> In 2003 you bet chalk
>>>>>> after chalk after chalk after chalk in August and September,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No "chalk" on my totals and props, and I bet a *LOT* of each,
>>>>> as well as dogs! My so called "chalk" rarely exceeded -210
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's fairly rare that any favorite in baseball exceeds -210, YA MORON!
>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>> My average MLB FAV bets were in the -130 to -170 range,
>>> numbers which are barely equivalent to a 3 pt home fav in hoops!
>>> And THOSE amounted to LESS than 20% of my baseball wagers!
>>
>>
>>
>> They were the vast majority at the end of the season.
>
>
> I'll cap and choose whether I want to bet on dogs
> or favs as I deem relevant....If you wnat to bet
> ONLY dogs (despite the fact you certainly posted
> "chalk" last summer) then YOU can go right ahead
> and post all dogs if you wish...
>
> Good thing I revamped a certain portion of my capping
> and opened myself up to betting more "chalk" last summer
> as that change slowed the losing considerably in the
> second half, going 33-10, +11.19 with favs of 200+
> after July 01...and I'll be doing the same again this
> year as that is my choice on how and what to bet on.
>
>
>>> BIG FREAKIN DEAL!!!
>>> WHAT THE PHUCKs IT TO *YOU* WHAT I BET MY MONEY ON???
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, we all know you don't actually bet real money,
>
>
> Well, since that is a faulty premise, your argument fails.
>
>
>> That
>> aside, your LEGITIMATE DOCUMENTED RECORD is certainly my business as
>> an rgs reader, and you refuse to quote one.
>
>
> And you're welcome to go look it up yourself and have the
> info YOU want...THAT is YOUR business....
> What I choose to bet on is NONE of your business.
>
> And YOU are the one who claims usenet documentation is
> invalid anyway so the whole thing is moot (in your case)
>
>
>>> It's already long ago acknowledged that FAV betting offers
>>> generally poor value. You're trying to allege some BIG CONSPIRACY
>>> theory when none exists,
>>
>>
>>
>> The "CONSPIRACY" is the fact that you REFUSE to quote your 2003 MLB
>> record.
>
>
> LIE, I **WELCOME** quoting my 2003 MLB record --
> to any HONOURABLE, discreet, non-troll, non-asshole,
> non-flamer/jerk, who e-mails me with sincere and
> honourable intentions. NO PROBLEM!
> And several good folks here have availed themselves already!
>
> Let alone the fact, that I am not obliged to "quote my
> 2003 MLB record" BECAUSE IT IS ALL ARCHIVED FOR ANYONE
> WHO WANTS TO KNOW TO GO LOOK IT UP FOR THEMSELVES!
>
> My reasons for NOT stating it here are valid and have
> already been posted a few times, and I will adhere to them.
>
>
>> Your record was poor,
>
>
> Yep, bad season, but still UP significantly for 2003
> due to 2003 NBA, CFL, NFL, CBK, and CFB, so not worried...
>
>
>> and you bet a lot of correlated bets
>
>
> A lot? Nope. Some, though irrelevant.
>
>
>> to try to catch up, in addition to betting a lot of big chalk.
>
>
> Nope, lie. I post only what I actually handicap for profit.
> I do this for a full-time occupation. If betting the second
> half of a given game looks like a winning pick based on my
> capping stats, the situation, and my experience, then I
> make the wager and post it for documentation - BECAUSE it is
> a reflection of my TRUE handicapping skills.
> Some win, some lose.
> Posting occasional bets on a second half which I also happen
> to have a bet on for the game, or (heaven forbid) betting on a
> fav, despite your delusions to the contrary, troll,
> are NOT "playing catch-up" - a phrase I coined here years ago.
>
> Although even if by some bizarro world irrational process of logic
> one thought that posting occasional bets on a second half which
> one also happens to have a bet on for the game, or (heaven forbid)
> actually betting on a fav - was considered "playing catch-up" -
> it's not illegal, immoral, nor unethical to study the board, employ
> actual handicapping skills and bet on a fav or a second half play,
> and EVERYONE can avail themselves of the SAME opportunity.
>
> Legit, ernest, hard work via REAL handicapping goes into each play
> *SEPARATELY* - and I accept the results win or lose.
> However, last September 19 we saw the perfect example of
> documentation FRAUD --- by beetmoron --- where the same can
> NOT be said of each and every one of those *EIGHTY* (80) MLB picks.
>
>
>
>> attempts predictably failed, so you decided to mysteriously remove
>> that year from your record.
>
>
> Non-sequitor. A YTD was NEVER reported right from the start
> of the year so it's impossible that anything
> was removed from what is a non-existant public record.
> Every pick posted is still there, nothing has been removed.
> Check the archives.
>
> A PRIVATE accounting, which honourable folks are entitled to see
> without having to do all the work themselves, was kept and
> several have been privy to it, and NOTHING has been removed
> from it either.
>
> Privately (via e-mail) I have nothing to hide from
> other HONOURABLE cappers who are interested.
>
>
>> It was a win-win situation, either you'd
>> end up ahead for the year, or remove it from your record.
>
>
> Non-sequitor.
> Can't remove something from a record that was never there.
>
> Now, if you weren't so STUPID, different wording
> would bring new and logical meaning...
> Rather than the non-sequitor: "remove it from your record"
> ..."withhold it from your listed All-time records"
> would be a functionally logical statment.
>
> And *because* of the assholes, this is what I choose to do.
> However, I list my all-time records while NOBODY else does.
> If, in some people's minds, it is "allegedly" wrong to
> refuse to post *some* results for picks which are archived
> for anyone to check themselves, then by that logic, it is
> just as wrong or even MORE wrong for anyone to REFUSE to
> post and itemize each and all of THEIR ALL-TIME records.
> Concealing one's ALL-TIME records is actually WORSE, IMO,
> and none of THEM have the same valid reasons I do.
>
> But moreover, the ONE person *NOBODY* has to answer to
> let alone show an ounce of respect, is the asshole-flamer-troll
> who herself has stated that usenet documentation is invalid
> anyway, and therefore the whole thing is moot.
>
>
> That there is LOWERED VALUE on *most* moneyline plays in baseball
> and basketball is certainly no secret!
> We all knew this before YOU ever slithered in here!
> Insinuating, as beetmoron *IS*, that playing moneyline favs is
> (allegedly) documentation fraud, when it is CLEAR such plays
> actually have LESS VALUE IN THEM (thus resulting in a worse
> net unit payoff) is an allegation beyond ridiculous.
>
>>>>
>>>> Stick to pretend betting
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, Ill leave that to YOU...I'll stick with this:
>>>
>>> Brian's ALL-TIME usenet-posted/archived/witnessed results, FEB 1997 thru JAN 25, 2004:
>>>
>>> CFB: 1368-1076, +183.86~` CBK: 2235-1908, +140.30~` thru Jan 25
>>> NBA: 1668-1428, +102.07~ thru Jan 25 MLB: 1452-1286, +110.78 *(before '03) NHL: (ML/dogs) +57.93~ thru Jan 25
>>> NFL: 682-599, +32.22~ thru Jan 25
>>> CFL: 274-239, +11.64 Cbb: 19-12, + 0.40 WNBA: 143-135, -21.29 XFL: 8-12, - 5.20
>>> = 8 winning sports for +639.20~*
>>> = 2 losing sports for - 26.49~
>>>
>>> (all per the common "one unit per play" documentation standard)
>>
>>
>
>> Looks like pretend betting to me.
>
>
> "Looks like?"
>
> It "looks like?????"
>
> Let's see how things have "looked like" to beetMORON before...
>
> A year ago I was FALSELY accused of past-posting a bet
> on the "AirForce/V.Tech Bowl game," because it "looked like"
> that to beetMORON - despite the fact the RETARD *OBVIOUSLY* didn't
> actually bother to *READ* my posted picks that day TO BE CERTAIN!
> Here's what *REALLY* looks like pretend-betting, and it INCLUDES
> more than one pick of each "wager type", mulitple correlated plays,
> plenty of chalk, and OBVIOUSLY no handcapping realistically involved
> in at least 50% of the 80 posted pretend-bets....
> EIGHTY!
> From one day of 16 baseball games.
>
> I've had a couple Saturday's in college hoops where,
> from among 145+ games, I managed to handicap, wager,
> and post 45 SEPARATELY HANDICAPPED GAMES...very rare,
> mind you....But EIGHTY *REAL WAGERS* from only 16 games?
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>> Hint: if you have a losing year,
>> you can't tell your bookie "Oh these bets don't count."
>
>
The Beet Man
>
>
>The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to troll some more:
>
>
>
>> You've said before that I'm black.
>
>I got this far.
>It appears you spent considerable time typing the rest
>and I'm glad because I didn't read it, and WON'T waste
>my time with a liar of such dishonour as yourself.
On Usenet, this is called a SPANK. hence, I win the argument. You
spent the time posting almost NINE HUNDRED lines of nonsense which I
clearly refuted, and your reply is "Oh I won't waste time with a
dishonourable person." Well, why did you reply in the first place, ya
moron! You're BEATEN in this argument, so failing to reply is
probably the best thing for you to do. I suggest you leave the
gambling content to me and stick to pretend betting.
>BLATANT LIES
Well, you're right, you've said that I'm either black or Hispanic, so
I guess I could be a HIspanic prejudiced against blacks. YOU GOT ME
THERE.
I'll leave it to the reader why Brian makes such a big deal out of the
fact that he thinks I'm a woman of a minority ethnic group. Why would
that matter?
obai...@work.coms
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
> Scott Brady <sbra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Failure to discourage all homosexual relationships
> is a serious error as public policy.
"I feel the same way about the government's failure
to DISCOURAGE all JEWISH relationships!
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*********************************************************
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN BLACK ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
>>
>>>You've said before that I'm black.
>>
>>I got this far.
>>It appears you spent considerable time typing the rest
>>and I'm glad because I didn't read it, and WON'T waste
>>my time with a liar of such dishonour as yourself.
>
>
> On Usenet, this is called a SPANK. hence, I win the argument.
On usenet, in fact anywhere on this planet, the false statement
"You've said before that I'm black."
is called LYING, hence you LOST the argument by default.
> You
> spent the time posting almost NINE HUNDRED lines of nonsense which I
> clearly refuted,
No, you never, since you began the whole thing with a LIE.
If LIES is what you are ordained to, and it's apparent
that you are, then by default your version of "alleging"
to have refuted *anything* is already circumspect.
> Well, why did you reply in the first place,
A quick reply is NOT always a waste of my time.
> You're BEATEN in this argument,
I've seen nothing (which doesn't begin with BLATANT LYING
on your part) to refute anything I've said...in fact I'm
still waiting for a NON-lying refutation....this won't
come however because you know nothing else than to LIE
and this has been proven here NUMEROUS times.
> I suggest you leave the
> gambling content to me and stick to pretend betting.
Nah, I'll leave the pretend-betting and LYING to YOU
and I'll stick with this:
Brian's ALL-TIME usenet-posted/archived/witnessed results,
FEB 1997 thru JAN 25, 2004:
CFB: 1368-1076, +183.86~`
CBK: 2235-1908, +140.30~` thru Jan 25
NBA: 1668-1428, +102.07~ thru Jan 25
MLB: 1452-1286, +110.78 *(before '03)
NHL: (ML/dogs) +57.93~ thru Jan 25
NFL: 682-599, +32.22~ thru Jan 25
CFL: 274-239, +11.64
Cbb: 19-12, + 0.40
WNBA: 143-135, -21.29
XFL: 8-12, - 5.20
= 8 winning sports for +639.20~*
= 2 losing sports for - 26.49~
(all per the common "one unit per play" documentation standard)
[ NOTE: nobody else with a track record of at least 2 years
on rgs similarly lists *ALL* their ALL-TIME records ]
>>BLATANT LIES
>
>
> Well, you're right, you've said that I'm either black or Hispanic,
Another LIE, as I've said no such thing, nor can you
prove otherwise....until you PROVE it, you've defaulted
on the arguments and Brian wins again!
The Beet Man
<garyc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>The Beet Man wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:48:07 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>
>> >Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
>> >that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>>
>> No fallacy, and you're the one betting the chalk. You're the one
>> claiming that -330 is fine but -575 isn't.
>
>Huh? That makes no sense.
I think he's gone off the deep end even more than usual this time. He
just spent hours composing a NINE HUNDRED LINE REPLY about the
moneyline thing, which I spent about 20 minutes replying to because it
contained a lot of misleading information that could confuse a newbie,
and he replied with "Well I didn't even read this, I'm not wasting my
time because you're racist." The ironic thing, of course, is that
he's been insisting for over a year that I'm a black or Hispanic woman
(and why would that be relevant, unless he's a racist or sexist?)
Obviously he realizes he's beaten and can't really reply, but pulling
the race card there is a bit much even for him when he's the one with
the issues with women, gays, minorities, and god knows who else.
>If one is legit, the other clearly is legit.
>The only thing some have complained about in here before is really really
>big faves, like a -3000ish college football game. But that is really
>disingenuous, since the mythical standard has been if a book offers it, it
>is legit.
Right, and he's being even more hypocritical than usual because his
standard has always been that "you can't inflate a record with losing
picks" and "it's none of your business what I do or don't bet," and
yet he whines about "pretend betting displays that show no
handicapping skill." Uh, Brian, does it matter if someone bets them,
or doesn't it?
And I've known skilled handicappers who've done well picking every
game on the board. Two of the hanidcappers I follow in the NFL tried
picking every game for a season. Abdul picked every side the year he
did extremely well in RGS, and hit about 54 or 55%, and another
handicapper I follow, Scott Kellen, picked every side and total this
year and hit 55%. Both guys did pretty well with their best bets too,
Abdul hit somethign ridiculous in the high 60%s and Kellen hit 56%.
>I imagine the reason it drew complaints at the time was who
>posted the play, not the play itself. The only real issue with posting big
>moneyline faves at a full unit is the same as with posting some props at a
>full unit - running into bet limits.
And of course Brian is the one who says betting limits don't matter.
The Beet Man
You have, many times. You've also said that I'm a woman, and that I
live in North Philly. All of these statements are lies.
>is called LYING, hence you LOST the argument by default.
I guess I also LOST the argument that I'm a white man who doesn't live
in North Philly? LOL.
>> You
>> spent the time posting almost NINE HUNDRED lines of nonsense which I
>> clearly refuted,
>
>No, you never, since you began the whole thing with a LIE.
Nope. You began the whole thing with a LIE that I'm a minority woman
from North Philly. These statements are demonstrably false. (And
also say a lot about you, that you think any of these statements are
remotely relevant to the content of my posts.
>If LIES is what you are ordained to, and it's apparent
>that you are, then by default your version of "alleging"
>to have refuted *anything* is already circumspect.
So I have to prove I'm a white man who doesn't live in Philly? LOL.
>> You're BEATEN in this argument,
>
>I've seen nothing (which doesn't begin with BLATANT LYING
>on your part) to refute anything I've said...in fact I'm
>still waiting for a NON-lying refutation....this won't
>come however because you know nothing else than to LIE
>and this has been proven here NUMEROUS times.
So how exactly did you prove I'm a non-white woman who lives in North
Philly?
>> I suggest you leave the
>> gambling content to me and stick to pretend betting.
>
>Nah, I'll leave the pretend-betting and LYING to YOU
>and I'll stick with this:
That's still pretend betting, Brian. There's no money wagered in RGS.
And it's your fault, and HC's fault, that RGS is a toilet, cesspool,
etc.
obai...@work.coms
beetMORON, for those who don't know, is the BIGGEST PROVEN LIAR
ever known on rgs history! I have most of the bigger whoopers
archived on file...here's just one episode:
"you (Brian) had ALREADY made 261 picks (on Bigguy) **BEFORE**
you made this supposed "UP FRONT DECLARATION" (Feb 16, 1998)
and **WERE ALREADY DOWN** -3380 units!!!"
"Wow, you've sunk to a new low. I've providing the
goddamn URL where someone can filter it (on Bigguy) and see
for themselves **YOU WERE ALREADY DOWN** -3380 units,
(before the declaration Feb 16, 1998) and you're claiming
that it's a "lie" when anyone can go see THAT for themselves!
Exactly how **STUPID** do you think your readers are?
"When the Bigguy.com SQL is working again, use the filter feature
and it will let you break down (Brian's) record BEFORE (Feb 16, 1998).
After you do that, please do me the favor of posting a correction!!!
...Where did you think I got the 261 picks & -3380 units figure from??
-----> DID YOU THINK I JUST PULLED IT OUT OF MY ASS????
Check it for yourself and verify it for yourself, **I assure you**
that I wouldn't just make up a number out of thin air."
- beetMORON, proven LIAR/FRAUD, 03/16/2003
And the PROOF that beetMORON is a verifiable LIAR:
http://new.bigguy.com/main/peekpast.html?peekid=BRIAN+ANTHONY&cd=1&d1=1995-01-01&d2=1998-02-15&sp=
>>>>>The RACIST BeetMoron slithers out to *LIE*:
>>>>> You've said before that I'm black.
>>>>
>>>>I got this far.
>>>>It appears you spent considerable time typing the rest
>>>>and I'm glad because I didn't read it, and WON'T waste
>>>>my time with a liar of such dishonour as yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Usenet, this is called a SPANK. hence, I win the argument.
>>
>>On usenet, in fact anywhere on this planet, the false statement
>>
>> "You've said before that I'm black."
>
>
> You have, many times.
LIAR!
I've stated no such thing.
>>>You
>>>spent the time posting almost NINE HUNDRED lines of nonsense which I
>>>clearly refuted,
>>
>> No, you never, since you began the whole thing with a LIE.
>> If LIES is what you are ordained to, and it's apparent
>> that you are, then by default your version of "alleging"
>> to have refuted *anything* is already circumspect.
>
> Nope.
Yep, you LIED! It's your MO. You're a sociopathic LIAR.
Lose an argument and then LIE to hide your shame
and try to deflect the issue.
If LIES is what you are ordained to, and it's apparent
that you are, then by default your version of "alleging"
to have refuted *anything* is already circumspect and we
can safely conclude *anything* you have to say contains
further falsehoods, half-truths, misleading facts, and
malicious innuendo, therefore unworthy of being taken
seriously by any intelligent person...
>>>You're BEATEN in this argument,
>>
>>I've seen nothing (which doesn't begin with BLATANT LYING
>>on your part) to refute anything I've said...in fact I'm
>>still waiting for a NON-lying refutation....this won't
>>come however because you know nothing else than to LIE
>>and this has been proven here NUMEROUS times.
>>>I suggest you leave the
>>>gambling content to me and stick to pretend betting.
>>
>>Nah, I'll leave the pretend-betting and LYING to YOU
>>and I'll stick with this:
>>
>> Brian's ALL-TIME usenet-posted/archived/witnessed results,
>> FEB 1997 thru JAN 25, 2004:
>>
>> CFB: 1368-1076, +183.86~`
>> CBK: 2235-1908, +140.30~` thru Jan 25
>> NBA: 1668-1428, +102.07~ thru Jan 25
>> MLB: 1452-1286, +110.78 *(before '03)
>> NHL: (ML/dogs) +57.93~ thru Jan 25
>> NFL: 682-599, +32.22~ thru Jan 25
>> CFL: 274-239, +11.64
>> Cbb: 19-12, + 0.40
>> WNBA: 143-135, -21.29
>> XFL: 8-12, - 5.20
>>
>> = 8 winning sports for +639.20~*
>> = 2 losing sports for - 26.49~
>>
>> (all per the common "one unit per play" documentation standard)
>>
>> [ NOTE: nobody else with a track record of at least 2 years
>> on rgs similarly lists *ALL* their ALL-TIME records ]
>
> That's still pretend betting, Brian.
It's amazing beetmoron has lsipped down so quickly
to full-blown dementia!
Such as the above simply underscores WHY
beetmoron is nothing more than a LYING TROLL, a racist
one at that, unworthy of any believability due to these
constant LIES and intent toward stalking and deliberately
disrupting the newsgroup she has claimed is "a toilet,"
"a sewer," and "useless" It was GREAT here from around
the end of October through around January 5th...It's apparent why...
obai...@work.coms
gary "the documentation fraud" coward wrote:
> The Beet MORON wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:48:07 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
>>>that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>>
>>No fallacy, and you're the one betting the chalk. You're the one
>>claiming that -330 is fine but -575 isn't.
>
>
> Huh? That makes no sense. If one is legit, the other clearly is legit.
> The only thing some have complained about in here before is really really
> big faves, like a -3000ish college football game.
As *USUAL* coward has his facts WRONG...it was a -30,000 prohibitive fav
highly-rated V.Tech football team playing at HOME in the typical first game
of the season tune-up game with a bottom dwelling patsy, Ark.State -
and the line was a whopping -42.5! That is NOT a -3000ish college game!
Trust collard to phuck up the facts, despite the fact he could've
easily looked them up in Google...
This has been the source of much of coward's problems.
He won't engage his brain before operating his mouth.
> But that is really
> disingenuous, since the mythical standard has been if a book offers it, it
> is legit.
Uh, no, the standard includes that "shameless grab for documentation units"
where true handicapping is obviously not involved, amounts to
documentation fraud, and such picks don't count.
But of course, I'm explaining this to a guy who is currently
CHEATING on his NBA documentation - DELIBERATELY!
> I imagine the reason it drew complaints at the time was who
> posted the play, not the play itself.
FALSE. It was the play itself.
> The only real issue with posting big
> moneyline faves at a full unit is the same as with posting some props at a
> full unit - running into bet limits.
>
False, as betting limits are IRRELEVANT to documentation.
"...you are just once again trying to *LIE*
your way out of a mistake. Hey, when caught
with your pants down...redefine words and phrases
to try to weasel out of it.
In the rest of the world, "career minor leaguer"
means a guy who has spent his **ENTIRE** career
in the minor leagues."
- gary "100 units" collard, July 8, 2002
just prior to being *PROVEN* dead wrong!
obai...@work.coms
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:20:17 GMT, Gary Collard
> <garyc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The Beet Man wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:48:07 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now *YOU* are commiting the same "short-term/small sample size fallacy"
>>>>that collard barked about, ya stupid TWIT!
>>>
>>>No fallacy, and you're the one betting the chalk. You're the one
>>>claiming that -330 is fine but -575 isn't.
>>
>>Huh? That makes no sense.
>
>
> I think he's gone off the deep end even more than usual this time.
lie
> he just spent hours composing a NINE HUNDRED LINE REPLY
lie
> about the
> moneyline thing, which I spent about 20 minutes replying to
lie....obviously beetmoron spent considerable time
but she's a sociopathic LIAR so consider the source...
> because it
> contained a lot of misleading information
LIE
> and he replied with "Well I didn't even read this, I'm not wasting my
> time because you're racist."
LIE
> The ironic thing, of course, is that
> he's been insisting for over a year that I'm a black or Hispanic
PERSISTENT LIE!
And if true where's the verifiable proof (url to precise passage)?
> Obviously he realizes he's beaten and can't really reply,
Can't debate intelliegently with one who starts with a LIE
and whose MO is that of a sociopathic LIAR - demonstrated
numerous times, including but not limited to the opening
paragraphs above!
*PROVEN*
> but pulling
> the race card there is a bit much
Beetmoron is a racist. Naturally we expect the racist-phuck
to to LIE about this too:
From: The Beet Man (i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Fund Compensates Lesbian Partner
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries, alt.edgar
Date: 2003-01-28 12:56:23 PST
> Scott Brady <sbra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Failure to discourage all homosexual relationships
> is a serious error as public policy.
"I feel the same way about the government's failure
to DISCOURAGE all JEWISH relationships!
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
*********************************************************
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker,alt.edgar
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:23:10 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.d6.ca.ca
X-Server-Date: 16 Jun 2002 07:23:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
"Exactly what have your contributions been,
aside from giving us a lot of entertainment
from laughing at your DRUNKEN BLACK ASS?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!"
But telling it all to gary coward who has demonstrated he is
a freakin BIGOT himself, is quite hilarious...
>
>>If one is legit, the other clearly is legit.
>>The only thing some have complained about in here before is really really
>>big faves, like a -3000ish college football game. But that is really
>>disingenuous, since the mythical standard has been if a book offers it, it
>>is legit.
>
>
> Right, and he's being even more hypocritical than usual
Coming from the newsgroups BIGGEST HYPOCRITE that's
simply a breath-taking assertion! OTOH, that it was
authored by a sociopathic LIAR who continues to LIE
in these posts just provides more evidence to prove
my point!
> Two of the hanidcappers I follow in the NFL tried
> picking every game for a season. Abdul picked every side the year he
> did extremely well in RGS, and hit about 54 or 55%,
Parlay-boy abdul???
The guy that got his ass kicked at a card table in Vegas??
The guy who measures home field advantage by guaging
"crowd noise" on television???
The same guy who advocates *EVERYONE* bet parlays REGULARLY!
That MORON???
ONE season, big deal.
He also posted 36-36 NFL numbers in '98, and 37-36 in CFB,
while many of them were MULTI-UNIT designated (weighted 20 units
or 1 unit picks) and included props, plus several "correlated bets" -
which I mention BECAUSE that is supposedly UNETHICAL, according
to one MORON here despite the fact she does it herself too!!!
No need here to be impressed with that guy and his
BAD ADVICE that *EVERYONE* should bet parlays REGULARLY!
And beetmoron supports and endorses him and these idiotic preachings.
All available in the archives for proof.
>>I imagine the reason it drew complaints at the time was who
>>posted the play, not the play itself. The only real issue with posting big
>>moneyline faves at a full unit is the same as with posting some props at a
>>full unit - running into bet limits.
>
>
> And of course Brian is the one who says betting limits don't matter.
>
Betting limits are IRRELEVANT to documentation.
But aside from documentation, on a different issue,
betting limits at sportsbooks are NOT a concern
for about 95% of the folks here and likely never
will be a concern for them either.
obai...@work.coms
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:22:06 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>
>
>>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>and resulting poor value...
>
>
> The vig is LOWER, you twit.
From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Last Post to RGS
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
Date: 2001-01-13 15:50:04 PST
"I would definitely advise against betting the
moneyline when it's in the +300 range. The VIG
is just WAY TOO HIGH at that amount, usually at
least 80 cents difference and sometimes 120 cents."
- Sean Duffy, beetMORON's mentor, Jan 13, 2001
************************************************************************
From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Picasso NG Challenge #71 - Tuesday 16 January
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
Date: 2001-01-16 11:04:08 PST
"I like:
NBA 1.5u HOU +4 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
NBA 1.5u CLE +603 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
(Disclaimer: I don't suggest that you actually play that +603
moneyline for real dough. 300 cents of VIG, yuck!)"
- Sean Duffy, beetMORON's mentor, Jan 16, 2001
**********************************************************************
Subject: Re: To the guy who took the Grizz on the ML last night...
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
Date: 2001-01-16 15:28:09 PST
>"dogs19" <sepe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Certainly not enough of a chance to justify a measly +450.
"The bigger reason WHY betting dogs on the moneyline
IS A *BAD* PLAY is because of the **HUGE** vig,
but if you took a bet on the Grizzlies at a more
normal vig, say 20 cents, it would almost surely
have some degree of positive expectation.
- Sean Duffy, beetMORON's mentor, Jan 16, 2001
The Beet Man
>The BeetMORON wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:22:06 GMT, obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>
>>
>>>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>>>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>>>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>>>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>>>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>>>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>>and resulting poor value...
>>
>>
>> The vig is LOWER, you twit.
Exactly what relevance to posts from 3 years ago have today? Aside
from the fact that Sean isn't here to defend himself, the online
sports betting world is much different now that it was 3 years ago,
and more reasonable moneylines are available today. These days, you
have books like Pinnacle who charge a relatively flat hold at higher
moneylines. Pinnacle's hold on straight bets in CBB is 2.38%.
Tomorrow on NM/Utah, they are offering +420/-500, and on Elon/GaSo,
they are offering +740 -1000. The hold on these are 2.5% and 2.74%
respectively, which is certainly reasonable, and even better than
betting at -107 odds.
>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>Subject: Re: Last Post to RGS
>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>Date: 2001-01-13 15:50:04 PST
>
> "I would definitely advise against betting the
> moneyline when it's in the +300 range. The VIG
> is just WAY TOO HIGH at that amount, usually at
> least 80 cents difference and sometimes 120 cents."
Correct. An 80 cent vig at +300/-380 is a 4% hold. By comparison, a
-107 line is 3.27% vig.
>************************************************************************
>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>Subject: Re: Picasso NG Challenge #71 - Tuesday 16 January
>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>Date: 2001-01-16 11:04:08 PST
>
> "I like:
> NBA 1.5u HOU +4 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
> NBA 1.5u CLE +603 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
> (Disclaimer: I don't suggest that you actually play that +603
> moneyline for real dough. 300 cents of VIG, yuck!)"
Correct again. 300 cents of vig would be +603/-903, or a 4.08% hold,
again, more vig than the 3.27% vig on CLE on the spread on Canbet.
>**********************************************************************
>Subject: Re: To the guy who took the Grizz on the ML last night...
>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>Date: 2001-01-16 15:28:09 PST
>
> >"dogs19" <sepe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Certainly not enough of a chance to justify a measly +450.
>
> "The bigger reason WHY betting dogs on the moneyline
> IS A *BAD* PLAY is because of the **HUGE** vig,
> but if you took a bet on the Grizzlies at a more
> normal vig, say 20 cents, it would almost surely
> have some degree of positive expectation.
>
> - Sean Duffy, beetMORON's mentor, Jan 16, 2001
We would have to know the buyback on the +450 play to know whether or
not it was better.
I don't agree with Sean's advice to never play moneylines, but even
Sean wouldn't agree with it, because I remember him alerting me to an
Abdul post which advised playing moneylines in specific circumstances
about 2 years ago. People are allowed to change their minds, you
know.
obai...@work.coms
The contradictory, BeetMORON wrote:
>>The BeetMORON wrote:
>>
>>
>>>obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>>>>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>>>>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>>>>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>>>>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>>>>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>>>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>>>and resulting poor value...
>>>
>>>
>>>The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>
>
> Exactly what relevance to posts from 3 years ago have today?
Same "in context" relevance as a similar post would
be if only made last month...fool!
>>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>>Subject: Re: Last Post to RGS
>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>Date: 2001-01-13 15:50:04 PST
>>
>> "I would definitely advise against betting the
>> moneyline when it's in the +300 range. The VIG
>> is just WAY TOO HIGH at that amount, usually at
>> least 80 cents difference and sometimes 120 cents."
>
>
> Correct.
Duffy speaks of VIGS being "higher" in absolute terms,
ie. that an 80cent vig is higher than a 75 cent vig
or a 40 cent vig or a 20 cent vig, etc.
Which seemingly contradicts beetMORON ***DIRECTLY***
And not just those particular stated numbers, but
rather Sean's clearly implied context that larger numbers
mean HIGHER VIGS!!!!!! (which is what I was also saying)
Clearly, in his three IN CONTEXT passages I quoted,
this is implied throughout!
>An 80 cent vig at +300/-380 is a 4% hold.
And the hold on the STANDARD -110 line is 4.5%
but like beetMORON ***INSISTS***
the higher numbers ("chalk") actually have LOWER VIGS, not HIGHER!!!
But...but...but...beetMORON's mentor, Sean Duffy
says differently (among the 3 passages here)
How can this be?
>>************************************************************************
>>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>>Subject: Re: Picasso NG Challenge #71 - Tuesday 16 January
>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>Date: 2001-01-16 11:04:08 PST
>>
>> "I like:
>> NBA 1.5u HOU +4 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
>> NBA 1.5u CLE +603 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
>> (Disclaimer: I don't suggest that you actually play that +603
>> moneyline for real dough. 300 cents of VIG, yuck!)"
>
>
> Correct again. 300 cents of vig would be +603/-903, or a 4.08% hold,
> again, more vig than the 3.27% vig on CLE on the spread on Canbet.
But...but...but...beetmoron ATTACKED BRIAN'S generalized statment
about higher moneylines means higher vigs, and in that generalized
reference FLAMED BRIAN and claimed that among higher moneylines,
and I quote:
"The vig is LOWER, you twit."
>>**********************************************************************
>>Subject: Re: To the guy who took the Grizz on the ML last night...
>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>Date: 2001-01-16 15:28:09 PST
>>
>>
>>>"dogs19" <sepe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Certainly not enough of a chance to justify a measly +450.
>>
>> "The bigger reason WHY betting dogs on the moneyline
>> IS A *BAD* PLAY is because of the **HUGE** vig,
>> but if you took a bet on the Grizzlies at a more
>> normal vig, say 20 cents, it would almost surely
>> have some degree of positive expectation.
>>
>> - Sean Duffy, beetMORON's mentor, Jan 16, 2001
>
>
> We would have to know the buyback on the +450 play to know whether or
> not it was better.
No we don't. He's clearly speaking in terms of "absolutes"
regarding the difference between the ML fav and the ML dog
and states that the +450 dog line is "a bad play" **BECAUSE**
of the *HUGE* VIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But by direct comparison he would advise the moneyline play
on a much smaller "normal vig, say 20 cents" *BECAUSE* the
value is MUCH BETTER at those lower moneyline values!!!!!!
The same thing BRIAN said when attacked by beetmoron!
> I don't agree with Sean's advice to never play moneylines, but even
> Sean wouldn't agree with it,
Sean didn't state that advice....sheesh now you're even lying
about what *HE* said, ya DUMPHUCK!!!
The Beet Man
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The contradictory, BeetMORON wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>The BeetMORON wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>obai...@work.coms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>there's no question whatsoever we would see MANY MORE people playing them...
>>>>>But, for one, there's typically a HIGHER VIG on moneyline plays!
>>>>>Olympic, like most books offer the standard 20 cent vig on pt spreads,
>>>>>but on the moneyline, it's only a 20 cent vig for spreads of 1-4 pts,
>>>>>after that you pay 40 cent vig AND MUCH HIGHER AS THE SPREAD INCREASES!
>>>>>VALUE IS LOST IN A HURRY, and it's certainly no picnic!
>>>>>If it was, EVERYONE would be getting rich off the "supposed"
>>>>>advantage of playing (single-digit) moneylines - as beetmoron is insinuiating.
>>>>>OBVIOUSLY, no such advantage exists!
>>>>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>>>>and resulting poor value...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>>
>>
>> Exactly what relevance to posts from 3 years ago have today?
>
>Same "in context" relevance as a similar post would
>be if only made last month...fool!
The sports betting world today is much different with reduced vig.
Pinnacle's moneylines are always lower vig than -110 lines. More
importantly, the authors may have changed their minds. None of these
guys claim to be experts, and they may have changed their minds about
some things. That's allowed, you know. Normal adults don't feel
extreme embarassment when they make simple errors like arithmetic
ones, or change their mind on a position. That's how people learn,
you know, and that's why you don't learn. Your severe personality
disorder will always cause you to be a self-appointed know-it-all,
which is why you'll always be a loser, and why I learn new things
every day.
>>>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>>>Subject: Re: Last Post to RGS
>>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>>Date: 2001-01-13 15:50:04 PST
>>>
>>> "I would definitely advise against betting the
>>> moneyline when it's in the +300 range. The VIG
>>> is just WAY TOO HIGH at that amount, usually at
>>> least 80 cents difference and sometimes 120 cents."
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>
>Duffy speaks of VIGS being "higher" in absolute terms,
>ie. that an 80cent vig is higher than a 75 cent vig
>or a 40 cent vig or a 20 cent vig, etc.
In a specific range of bets, that's essentially true, yes. 80 cents
at +300 / -380 vs +320 / -400 is only a difference of .2%
>Which seemingly contradicts beetMORON ***DIRECTLY***
>And not just those particular stated numbers, but
>rather Sean's clearly implied context that larger numbers
>mean HIGHER VIGS!!!!!! (which is what I was also saying)
With reduced vig being prevalent, that's not a big deal. On Pinnacle,
the vig does go up as the moneyline goes up (this isn't true on Oly,
though), but the vig is still lower than a spread at -110.
>Clearly, in his three IN CONTEXT passages I quoted,
>this is implied throughout!
>
>
>>An 80 cent vig at +300/-380 is a 4% hold.
>
>And the hold on the STANDARD -110 line is 4.5%
Duffy was playing sides at -107 in the plays you quoted. Duffy was
always an advocate of reduced vig.
>but like beetMORON ***INSISTS***
>the higher numbers ("chalk") actually have LOWER VIGS, not HIGHER!!!
On Olympic, they sometimes do. Was Sean Duffy talking about Olympic
in 2004?
>But...but...but...beetMORON's mentor, Sean Duffy
>says differently (among the 3 passages here)
>
>How can this be?
>
>
>>>************************************************************************
>>>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>>>Subject: Re: Picasso NG Challenge #71 - Tuesday 16 January
>>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>>Date: 2001-01-16 11:04:08 PST
>>>
>>> "I like:
>>> NBA 1.5u HOU +4 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
>>> NBA 1.5u CLE +603 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
>>> (Disclaimer: I don't suggest that you actually play that +603
>>> moneyline for real dough. 300 cents of VIG, yuck!)"
>>
>>
>> Correct again. 300 cents of vig would be +603/-903, or a 4.08% hold,
>> again, more vig than the 3.27% vig on CLE on the spread on Canbet.
>
>
>But...but...but...beetmoron ATTACKED BRIAN'S generalized statment
>about higher moneylines means higher vigs, and in that generalized
>reference FLAMED BRIAN and claimed that among higher moneylines,
>and I quote:
> "The vig is LOWER, you twit."
The vig is not always higher at higher moneylines. I quoted 3
examples of how it wasn't, and how the -1000 line had a lower vig than
a -110 line. Also, Pinnacle's moneylines are now lower than any -110
bet.
>>>**********************************************************************
>>>Subject: Re: To the guy who took the Grizz on the ML last night...
>>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>>Date: 2001-01-16 15:28:09 PST
>>>
>>>
>>>>"dogs19" <sepe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Certainly not enough of a chance to justify a measly +450.
>>>
>>> "The bigger reason WHY betting dogs on the moneyline
>>> IS A *BAD* PLAY is because of the **HUGE** vig,
>>> but if you took a bet on the Grizzlies at a more
>>> normal vig, say 20 cents, it would almost surely
>>> have some degree of positive expectation.
>>>
>>> - Sean Duffy, beetMORON's mentor, Jan 16, 2001
>>
>>
>> We would have to know the buyback on the +450 play to know whether or
>> not it was better.
>
>No we don't. He's clearly speaking in terms of "absolutes"
>regarding the difference between the ML fav and the ML dog
>and states that the +450 dog line is "a bad play" **BECAUSE**
>of the *HUGE* VIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>But by direct comparison he would advise the moneyline play
>on a much smaller "normal vig, say 20 cents" *BECAUSE* the
>value is MUCH BETTER at those lower moneyline values!!!!!!
No. He was talking about +450 moneylines, not lower moneyline values.
>The same thing BRIAN said when attacked by beetmoron!
>
>
>> I don't agree with Sean's advice to never play moneylines, but even
>> Sean wouldn't agree with it,
>
>Sean didn't state that advice....sheesh now you're even lying
>about what *HE* said, ya DUMPHUCK!!!
He said he wouldn't play moneylines in that range.
obai...@work.coms
The contradictory, BeetMORON wrote:
>>>>>>In fact, if anything, it is a distinct DISADVANTAGE due to the vigs
>>>>>>and resulting poor value...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The vig is LOWER, you twit.
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly what relevance to posts from 3 years ago have today?
>>
>>Same "in context" relevance as a similar post would
>>be if only made last month...fool!
>>
>>>>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>>>>Subject: Re: Last Post to RGS
>>>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>>>Date: 2001-01-13 15:50:04 PST
>>>>
>>>> "I would definitely advise against betting the
>>>> moneyline when it's in the +300 range. The VIG
>>>> is just WAY TOO HIGH at that amount, usually at
>>>> least 80 cents difference and sometimes 120 cents."
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>
>>Duffy speaks of VIGS being "higher" in absolute terms,
>>ie. that an 80cent vig is higher than a 75 cent vig
>>or a 40 cent vig or a 20 cent vig, etc.
>>Which seemingly contradicts beetMORON ***DIRECTLY***
>>And not just those particular stated numbers, but
>>rather Sean's clearly implied context that larger numbers
>>mean HIGHER VIGS!!!!!! (which is what I was also saying)
>
>
> With reduced vig being prevalent, that's not a big deal.
IRRELEVANT to my point.
You lose!
>
>
>>Clearly, in his three IN CONTEXT passages I quoted,
>>this is implied throughout!
>>
>>
>>
>>>An 80 cent vig at +300/-380 is a 4% hold.
>>
>>And the hold on the STANDARD -110 line is 4.5%
>>but like beetMORON ***INSISTS***
>>the higher numbers ("chalk") actually have LOWER VIGS, not HIGHER!!!
>
>
> On Olympic, they sometimes do.
IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT!
beetMORON loses AGAIN!
>>But...but...but...beetMORON's mentor, Sean Duffy
>>says differently (among the 3 passages here)
>>
>>How can this be?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>************************************************************************
>>>>From: Sean Duffy (sean_...@my-deja.com)
>>>>Subject: Re: Picasso NG Challenge #71 - Tuesday 16 January
>>>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>>>Date: 2001-01-16 11:04:08 PST
>>>>
>>>> "I like:
>>>> NBA 1.5u HOU +4 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
>>>> NBA 1.5u CLE +603 (Canbet, 12:30PM EST)
>>>> (Disclaimer: I don't suggest that you actually play that +603
>>>> moneyline for real dough. 300 cents of VIG, yuck!)"
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct again. 300 cents of vig would be +603/-903, or a 4.08% hold,
>>>again, more vig than the 3.27% vig on CLE on the spread on Canbet.
>>
>>
>>But...but...but...beetmoron ATTACKED BRIAN'S generalized statment
>>about higher moneylines means higher vigs, and in that generalized
>>reference FLAMED BRIAN and claimed that among higher moneylines,
>>and I quote:
>> "The vig is LOWER, you twit."
>
>
> The vig is not always higher at higher moneylines. I quoted 3
> examples of how it wasn't,
And I quoted three that were!
Nevertheless, the point is that SEAN DUFFY's
statements in this specific regard are similar
in context to mine but INCONGRUENT with beetmoron's.
THAT is the point.
>
>>>>**********************************************************************
>>>>Subject: Re: To the guy who took the Grizz on the ML last night...
>>>>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports
>>>>Date: 2001-01-16 15:28:09 PST
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"dogs19" <sepe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Certainly not enough of a chance to justify a measly +450.
>>>>
>>>> "The bigger reason WHY betting dogs on the moneyline
>>>> IS A *BAD* PLAY is because of the **HUGE** vig,
>>>> but if you took a bet on the Grizzlies at a more
>>>> normal vig, say 20 cents, it would almost surely
>>>> have some degree of positive expectation.
>>>>
>>>> - Sean Duffy, beetMORON's mentor, Jan 16, 2001
>>>
>>>
>>>We would have to know the buyback on the +450 play to know whether or
>>>not it was better.
>>
>>No we don't. He's clearly speaking in terms of "absolutes"
>>regarding the difference between the ML fav and the ML dog
>>and states that the +450 dog line is "a bad play" **BECAUSE**
>>of the *HUGE* VIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>But by direct comparison he would advise the moneyline play
>>on a much smaller "normal vig, say 20 cents" *BECAUSE* the
>>value is MUCH BETTER at those lower moneyline values!!!!!!
>>The same thing BRIAN said when attacked by beetmoron!
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't agree with Sean's advice to never play moneylines, but even
>>>Sean wouldn't agree with it,
>>
>>Sean didn't state that advice....sheesh now you're even lying
>>about what *HE* said, ya DUMPHUCK!!!
And beetMORON *FAILS* to refute the evidence provided,
meaning either Sean "the alleged professional" is wrong,
OR beetmoron is wrong.