 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Think tank guidelines
Two different types of theads belong in here:
1. Anything related to mathematics and gambling
2. Anything related to quantitative handicapping
In short, if it doesn't have numbers in it (or apply to numbers), it doesn't belong here and will be moved.
|
|
|
This post was nominated 3
times
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: jscar3, kate55, and oversnow
|
"Handicapping Theories, Systems, Tips, Tricks and Math"
I believe that can include more than two specific types of posts/threads.
Maybe we should get rid of "tips". too many tips will cost players money.
This was long overdue, good ruling here.
FH
the reminder was for your ass fish, all that crap you been posting
LOL.
The classic battles of mankind resume.
1) Numbers vs. intutition.
2) Reason vs. gut feeling
It all works for me.
I just think Fishy is a sorry case trolling for a moderators job, having a hard time finding a following. Think tankers find him simplistic and boring, kids in the players find him out of touch and boring.
Life goes on.
I don't care about the direction of the Think Tank either way, if a topic doesn't interest me I just don't read it/click on it.
|
|
Don't think it just means, "Pssst! Hey buddy, I got a tip for the fourth at Belmont today." One can give a tip on a math problem, a strategy, general stuff.Originally Posted by Justin7
Agreed.
I think what I would like to restrict this forum to serious discussion on winning. Anything that doesn't achieve that (or might be intended as serious, but is just crap) should be flushed.
But someone's theory on 'winning' that is dead wrong might be a good thing to discuss and expose so others don't fall for the same mistake.
It is, as long as it's not fluff.
Thank you, Justin and Willie.
Perhaps the proper wording should be "nothing toolish."
A rule of thumb might be: if you are being a tool, don't post in the Think Tank.
To further amplify: toolish stuff should be taken elsewhere if not, indeed, kept entirely to yourself.
Adding:
toolish.
I believe this post is bias and narrow minded one sided or wait the more i think about this it sounds republican
I think this post is well written and is exact to the point of what i wanted to say
The classic battles of mankind resume.
1) Numbers vs. intutition.
2) Reason vs. gut feeling
It all works for me.
I just think Fishy is a sorry case trolling for a moderators job, having a hard time finding a following. Think tankers find him simplistic and boring, kids in the players find him out of touch and boring.
Life goes on.
I don't care about the direction of the Think Tank either way, if a topic doesn't interest me I just don't read it/click on it.
thank you Judge justin for rudely moving my post
PAULYPOKER
PS anybody that agrees with peeps post should go to the players talk forum and read my thread under who has the best set of rules they follow for sports betting? POST AND VOTE NOW.
i think you will find this to be useful information *NOTE ABOVE SHORTCUT DOES NOT WORK YOU WILL HAVE TO GO THERE MANUALLY
\
PAULYPOKER
Last edited by PAULYPOKER; 12-07-09 at 07:23 PM.
Yes, the "rules" post was a good example of a post that I didn't particularily like or find useful, but certainly didn't mind being here in the think tank.
I think good moderating is always less--don't make any changes unless you have to.
There was a post moved last year about buying up three points in college hoops and the value of this. That got moved to, donno why either.
I think the points you bring up about "rules" are interesting PAULYPOKER, even if they have very little to do with the way I personally gamble.
Thank you peep for your input I appreciate your feed back we need more open minded posters like yourself in the SBR FORUM. After all I post to help not hate
Again i thank you
PAULYPOKER
Last edited by PAULYPOKER; 12-07-09 at 07:55 PM.
Not only was the post completely useless, but it was pretty much illiterate too. Even though this forum doesn't get much traffic or volume, it's best not to have to sift through complete garbage.Yes, the "rules" post was a good example of a post that I didn't particularily like or find useful, but certainly didn't mind being here in the think tank.
I think good moderating is always less--don't make any changes unless you have to.
There was a post moved last year about buying up three points in college hoops and the value of this. That got moved to, donno why either.
I think the points you bring up about "rules" are interesting PAULYPOKER, even if they have very little to do with the way I personally gamble.
Can we post anything related to Qualitative Capping Theory?
Guys come on, let's use some common sense. There are 5+ sports going on right now and the lines for some 32 bowl games were just released. Our time would be much better spent handicapping/modeling/analyzing the games than bickering about the semantics about what "belongs" in the think tank. Justin et al. are clearly just trying to clean up what was quickly turning into a circus. If it's a serious post or question about handicapping theory, math, etc. than no one is going to complain about it. But there were a handful of people who were quite obviously trying to turn the think tank into their own playground and in my estimation, that was what Justin and the other mods are trying to prevent.
Completely agreed.
When I'm in "gambling mode", Handicappers Think Thank is where I come to. When I want to just shoot some shit, I go to Players Talk. This sub-forum has some top threads that have vastly improved my knowledge, and it is preferably if I didn't have to wade through hoardes of worthless threads to find/read them.
Looks like someone complained about fishy spewing garbage all over the think tank.
I contend that Fish has posted some items of interest.
Fish, I have no problem with. In fact, as you have stated, a couple of his threads have been of some interest.I contend that Fish has posted some items of interest.
We should look at the thread or even each post, not the poster. Good discussion here (btw, we eventually going to move this to PT right?).
It's inevitably going to end up there. lolWe should look at the thread or even each post, not the poster. Good discussion here (btw, we eventually going to move this to PT right?
It would probably be a good idea to make sure all of the moderators are on the same page because there's been some pretty non-mathematical stuff moved from PT into the Think Tank since things got cleaned up.
We need a FISH tank..... and a THINK tank...... end of story...... good luck everyone
What exactly is this?
oh getting a little protective and sensitive?
Pats, I'm asking a direct Q, what is 1st referring to here?
BTW, Players Talk is just around the corner, and they are talking about Tiger's Bimbos, a topic you'll do well in.
I think he meant quantitative rather than qualitative, Wreck.
You sure? I interpreted to ask about if "serious" qualitative handicapping (meaning looking at situational angles, injuries, etc.) questions are allowed in the tank?
Could have very well have meant quantitative, but not sure why he would be asking that as Justin said anything related to numbers is what the tank is for.
Both appropriate as approaches although quantitative tends to be favored when it comes to sports betting. I will share some of my thoughts in the upcoming weeks to gauge interest.
IrishTim gave Justin7 3 SBR Point(s) for this post.
Reply With Quote
