[LT Profits]

3 MLB Plays Thursday

Twins +180 (DSI)
Mets / Pirates UNDER 8 -110 (Bookmaker)
Nationals -129 (Heritage)


YTD: 230-260-7, -2.18

[44 Mag]

You thinking Minn. avoids the sweep??? I notice you seem to lean that way, sometimes. Isn't Weaver the better pitcher??? And LA more power?

[Nitronett]

You thinking Minn. avoids the sweep??? I notice you seem to lean that way, sometimes. Isn't Weaver the better pitcher??? And LA more power?

Ya I think LA RL is the pick. But u get good odds , I don't rly use that tho in my thinking unless you have a big bxnkroll

[LT Profits]

You thinking Minn. avoids the sweep??? I notice you seem to lean that way, sometimes. Isn't Weaver the better pitcher??? And LA more power?

I usually don't care about sweeps and what-not because I look at each game individually. I think this is a good value pop at the price because Weaver is not what he used to be, his strikeout rate keeps getting worse every year as he very rarely hits 90 MPH any more with his fastball averaging closer to 86 MPH so far this year. I get that Nolasco is nothing special but he is half-decent and all I ask at this price is for a close game late because Minnesota has had the better bullpen.

[Nitronett]

I usually don't care about sweeps and what-not because I look at each game individually. I think this is a good value pop at the price because Weaver is not what he used to be, his strikeout rate keeps getting worse every year as he very rarely hits 90 MPH any more with his fastball averaging closer to 86 MPH so far this year. I get that Nolasco is nothing special but he is half-decent and all I ask at this price is for a close game late because Minnesota has had the better bullpen.

Good reasoning tho. Makes sense.

[LT Profits]

Incidentally, Twins are currently all the way down to +149 at DSI, where I placed this bet at +180. Best price available at my books now would be +158 at Heritage.

[44 Mag]

Incidentally, Twins are currently all the way down to +149 at DSI, where I placed this bet at +180. Best price available at my books now would be +158 at Heritage.

SO? What are telling us $ are pouring in on MINN. ?? It's still early.

[LT Profits]

SO? What are telling us $ are pouring in on MINN. ?? It's still early.

Means there is sharp action on Minny as majority of bets is on Angels. Although No Coincidences will be the first to mention that that sort of thing does not mean as much as it used to.

[44 Mag]

Means there is sharp action on Minny as majority of bets is on Angels. Although No Coincidences will be the first to mention that that sort of thing does not mean as much as it used to.

Means nothing to me. Didn't even look at this game. But thanks for the heads up. I try to only look at a few games a day, when there is a full slate, like 15 games, can't possibly study them all, well I can't. BOL in your wager, and I am always learning from you guys daily.

[agendaman]

weaver is 7-0 alltime vs. twins but as you say he is not the pitcher he once was-i like cosart vs. mike minor and def. hamels

[No coincidences]

Means there is sharp action on Minny as majority of bets is on Angels. Although No Coincidences will be the first to mention that that sort of thing does not mean as much as it used to.

Already 2-0 LAA.

I am on Minnesota as well, but you really need to stop thinking this way. Free yourself from it. There is no way of telling that was truly "sharp action" that drove the number down -- especially given the late money that came in on LAA.

You've been around this game long enough to know that it isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Come on, LT.

[LT Profits]

Already 2-0 LAA.

I am on Minnesota as well, but you really need to stop thinking this way. Free yourself from it. There is no way of telling that was truly "sharp action" that drove the number down -- especially given the late money that came in on LAA.

You've been around this game long enough to know that it isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Come on, LT.

But the only reason RLM exists is because of sharp action. The late money was some LAA buy-back. Yes sometimes sharps will bet the "wrong" team early to try and drive the price down and then come back over the top on the side they want, but it was still sharp money moving the market all along. Some would argue that someone say "non-sharp" but with lots of money to burn could cause RLM, but the problem with that logic is non-sharps won't have all that money for long, so I think it is still fair to say RLM is caused by PRIMARILY sharp money. (All of this is barring new info of course).

[No coincidences]

But the only reason RLM exists is because of sharp action. The late money was some LAA buy-back. Yes sometimes sharps will bet the "wrong" team early to try and drive the price down and then come back over the top on the side they want, but it was still sharp money moving the market all along. Some would argue that someone say "non-sharp" but with lots of money to burn could cause RLM, but the problem with that logic is non-sharps won't have all that money for long, so I think it is still fair to say RLM is caused by PRIMARILY sharp money. (All of this is barring new info of course).

I really can't help you anymore.

I've tried. Just isn't working.

[LT Profits]

I really can't help you anymore.

I've tried. Just isn't working.

Because I am right. The concept itself IS simple. Unfortunately the interpretation or even the meaningfulness of it all is not.

[No coincidences]

Because I am right. The concept itself IS simple. Unfortunately the interpretation or even the meaningfulness of it all is not.

If you were right, you would be a much better gambler than what you have become. Period.

No offense, but your results speak for themselves. Getting a "good number" and "beating the closer" with your Twins bet today was Exhibit A. I can't change the way you think, so all I can say is good luck moving forward. You are going to need it.

[RavensFan2k3]

Already 2-0 LAA.

I am on Minnesota as well, but you really need to stop thinking this way. Free yourself from it. There is no way of telling that was truly "sharp action" that drove the number down -- especially given the late money that came in on LAA.

You've been around this game long enough to know that it isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Come on, LT.

I agree 110%. Probably not the smartest thing.

[LT Profits]

If you were right, you would be a much better gambler than what you have become. Period.

No offense, but your results speak for themselves. Getting a "good number" and "beating the closer" with your Twins bet today was Exhibit A. I can't change the way you think, so all I can say is good luck moving forward. You are going to need it.

No true at all because we are talking about two different things, i.e., my record has nothing to do with RLM theory. And how is it EVER not better to get a better number than what a number closes at if you are going to make a play anyway? I guess I am not sure what your theory is exactly.

[No coincidences]

No true at all because we are talking about two different things, i.e., my record has nothing to do with RLM theory. And how is it EVER not better to get a better number than what a number closes at if you are going to make a play anyway? I guess I am not sure what your theory is exactly.

My "theory" is that if you think sports gambling in 2014 -- with all of the resources and information at everyone's disposal -- is still as antiquated as using terminology like RLM, beating the closer, and true line movements without book manipulation (i.e., money coming in is always what moves lines on the level), then there's nothing more to say here. Good luck.

[LT Profits]

My "theory" is that if you think sports gambling in 2014 -- with all of the resources and information at everyone's disposal -- is still as antiquated as using terminology like RLM, beating the closer, and true line movements without book manipulation (i.e., money coming in is always what moves lines on the level), then there's nothing more to say here. Good luck.

In other words, you have no response. The ONLY two things that move lines are money and new info. How is that antiquated?

[No coincidences]

In other words, you have no response. The ONLY two things that move lines are money and new info. How is that antiquated?

My "response" is the fact that I am murdering every sport and you are in the red in every sport.

I used to think like you, believing that betting a good number is right at the top of the list, that RLM still exists, and that every line move you see is because of actual money coming in vs. book manipulation. Then I freed myself of such nonsense, because this isn't 2006 anymore. And I've been killing it ever since.

Think outside the box and accept the fact that in the day and age of Twitter, Rotoworld and the like, books have had to make adjustments and counter the flooding of information to the public.

[LT Profits]

My "response" is the fact that I am murdering every sport and you are in the red in every sport.

I used to think like you, believing that betting a good number is right at the top of the list, that RLM still exists, and that every line move you see is because of actual money coming in vs. book manipulation. Then I freed myself of such nonsense, because this isn't 2006 anymore. And I've been killing it ever since.

Think outside the box and accept the fact that in the day and age of Twitter, Rotoworld and the like, books have had to make adjustments and counter the flooding of information to the public.

But NOTHING in this post refutes what I am saying. RLM happens when the smaller percentage of bets actually has more money wagered than the larger percentage of bets. That will never change nor should it. And since losers with big money won't have big money for long, a very high majority of RLM is caused by sharps. That will NEVER change because it is all based on basic math.

And again, none of what I just said has anything to do with my record. The Twins are a perfect example, I made the play early this morning before the big line drop, so it is not as if the drop influenced my selection, which it sounds like you are implying.

[No coincidences]

But NOTHING in this post refutes what I am saying. RLM happens when the smaller percentage of bets actually has more money wagered than the larger percentage of bets. That will never change nor should it. And since losers with big money won't have big money for long, a very high majority of RLM is caused by sharps. That will NEVER change because it is all based on basic math.

And again, none of what I just said has anything to do with my record. The Twins are a perfect example, I made the play early this morning before the big line drop, so it is not as if the drop influenced my selection, which it sounds like you are implying.

You are completely missing the point.

Let me ask you this, LT: how do you know both the quantity and quality of bets from "sharps" or the "public" or whatever? Are you walking around Vegas and calling up off-shore books, tallying it up? Seeing "sharps" or "squares" make bets in person? Trusting the numbers you see at on-line sites?

You are trying to quantify something that cannot be proven. Of course there are instances of RLM. But to just assume that RLM was in play this morning on a random MIN/LAA weekday game because the line movement told you so is an incredibly narrow and simplistic way of looking at things. You are WAY too trustworthy when it comes to these lines to be gambling on sports in this day and age.

You honestly believe that you went from a winning to a losing gambler because the market is more efficient than it used to be, don't you? I've seen you post that before. The fact of the matter is, you aren't adjusting. You still see things in black and white; that everything can be number crunched and taken at face value.

I'm rooting for you. I think you're a good guy. I just think that you need to open your eyes a little and start to dig deep re: why you've struggled so much in recent seasons, instead of just assuming the same rules that used to apply to gambling 5 or 10 years ago still do.

[RavensFan2k3]

In other words, you have no response. The ONLY two things that move lines are money and new info. How is that antiquated?

I dont agree. The books move lines to make people think theres smart money on that side, and you fell into the trap.

[No coincidences]

I dont agree. The books move lines to make people think theres smart money on that side, and you fell into the trap.

To say they always do would be foolish.

But to say they never do is just as foolish.

In actuality, it's smart to do so. Very smart.

[LT Profits]

You are completely missing the point.

Let me ask you this, LT: how do you know both the quantity and quality of bets from "sharps" or the "public" or whatever? Are you walking around Vegas and calling up off-shore books, tallying it up? Seeing "sharps" or "squares" make bets in person? Trusting the numbers you see at on-line sites?

You are trying to quantify something that cannot be proven. Of course there are instances of RLM. But to just assume that RLM was in play this morning on a random MIN/LAA weekday game because the line movement told you so is an incredibly narrow and simplistic way of looking at things. You are WAY too trustworthy when it comes to these lines to be gambling on sports in this day and age.

You honestly believe that you went from a winning to a losing gambler because the market is more efficient than it used to be, don't you? I've seen you post that before. The fact of the matter is, you aren't adjusting. You still see things in black and white; that everything can be number crunched and taken at face value.

I'm rooting for you. I think you're a good guy. I just think that you need to open your eyes a little and start to dig deep re: why you've struggled so much in recent seasons, instead of just assuming the same rules that used to apply to gambling 5 or 10 years ago still do.

I guess I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. It is not my job to tally "sharps" and "JQP", that comes out in the movement. When I made my comment this morning, over 60% of the bets were on Angels and Twins had gone down 30 cents. Furthermore, there were no major announcements regarding the game that I saw. So to what do attribute the line drop if not sharp money?

[LT Profits]

To say they always do would be foolish.

But to say they never do is just as foolish.

In actuality, it's smart to do so. Very smart.

I will say it, reputable books NEVER do. Mom and Pop books may take some shots but that's how they go out of business.

[RavensFan2k3]

To say they always do would be foolish.

But to say they never do is just as foolish.

In actuality, it's smart to do so. Very smart.

Exactly

[LT Profits]

I dont agree. The books move lines to make people think theres smart money on that side, and you fell into the trap.

How did I fall into ANY trap? My bet was in early in the morning, all the line movement happened afterwards.

[No coincidences]

I guess I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. It is not my job to tally "sharps" and "JQP", that comes out in the movement. When I made my comment this morning, over 60% of the bets were on Angels and Twins had gone down 30 cents. Furthermore, there were no major announcements regarding the game that I saw. So to what do attribute the line drop if not sharp money?

According to who? Can you actually prove this?

You are trusting numbers and line movement from books that are out to get everyone's money. I'm sorry, but that's just plain naive.

[No coincidences]

How did I fall into ANY trap? My bet was in early in the morning, all the line movement happened afterwards.

You fell into the false sense of security that because you got a "great" number, you did your job.

Do you track your results vs. when you do or don't beat the closing number?

[LT Profits]

According to who? Can you actually prove this?

You are trusting numbers and line movement from books that are out to get everyone's money. I'm sorry, but that's just plain naive.

I guess I trust sites that CHARGE for the info more than you do, but even putting that aside, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the Angels would get a high majority of plays in that game.

[No coincidences]

I guess I trust sites that CHARGE for the info more than you do, but even putting that aside, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the Angels would get a high majority of plays in that game.

So in other words, you are guessing.

What site are you talking about?

[LT Profits]

You fell into the false sense of security that because you got a "great" number, you did your job.

Do you track your results vs. when you do or don't beat the closing number?

Because it is always better to get a better number win or lose. How can it not be? To think otherwise simply makes no sense. It is hard enough to win anyway, why make things harder on yourself by taking bad numbers.

[No coincidences]

Because it is always better to get a better number win or lose. How can it not be? To think otherwise simply makes no sense. It is hard enough to win anyway, why make things harder on yourself by taking bad numbers.

You really need to start tracking your results vs. when you do and don't beat the closer.

How can it "not be"? Because sports betting isn't that simple anymore.

[LT Profits]

So in other words, you are guessing.

What site are you talking about?

I think the Big Three of Don Best, Sports Insights and Sports Options are all reputable. I switched from SI to SO because it is a lot cheaper for basically the same info