[Believe_EMT]

Well, I'm way smarter after reading that response....

ooh, you really got me there

although thinking it over you may have learned something. highly doubtful. no way in heck you are too stupid to understand that 16 games is a completely meaningless data set.

but not only do turnovers 'even out' from the 1st half to the 2nd half of a season, they do in games too! so if a team is -3 in turnovers in the first half, they will be +3 in the 2nd half and it will be reflected in the point spread.

[JacketFan81]

ooh, you really got me there

although thinking it over you may have learned something. highly doubtful. no way in heck you are too stupid to understand that 16 games is a completely meaningless data set.

but not only do turnovers 'even out' from the 1st half to the 2nd half of a season, they do in games too! so if a team is -3 in turnovers in the first half, they will be +3 in the 2nd half and it will be reflected in the point spread.

Yup, wow. That was super insightful. Once again.

[KVB]

so you are stating that during a 16 game sample turnovers will regress to the mean?

i know, i know.

you're +6,000 units in the nfl since 2001

No, that's not what I'm saying.

There are more than 16 games played in an NFL season.

Far more, there are nearly 16 every week.

It's not about predicting the turnovers, it's about whether or not you should use it in adjustments when creating a line.

I'm saying it's noise, over thousands of samples.

Times have changed since that reverse turnover ratio adjustment gold rush was alive and kicking.

Giving you a step up here so you don't waste time going down a fruitless path.

Some get, some don't.

[tsty]

read this sentence multiple times. it's still pure drivel.

humbly suggest you read Taleb.

stand by my original assertion. your claim that nothing is random is just plain dangerous. if you're not broke at this point in life, you will be soon enough. or you could just be an incredibly lucky idiot. the problem there is, the idiot does not realize he is lucky, benefiting from the role of randomness in his life. as such he will think success to this point was all his own doing. sets up for quite the fall.

i wish you luck.

You're acting condescending about a subject you seem to have no fundamental knowledge about.

There is no model about the universe that even argues total randomness.

It is much more deterministic in nature than anything else.

[coment]

[SportsbetTracker]

Allen Eastman of Doc's Sports had a thread in another forum which he called "Win Money$$$ Or Lose The Bankroll Thread" for a few years. Martingale betting systems are typically called a "chase" which usually contains a set amount of bets, or "legs," that double after each loss. Once a bet wins, the overall bet is won. Allen used seven legs in his chase system. Out of 554 separate chases, he won 553 of them. In other words, a top-notch handicapper using his best skills to identify the best play possible each time, still lost seven events in a row. NOTE: He also won 5 "7th leg" victories, which means 6 separate times he lost six games in a chase.

In short, while the chase made money over the years, his record was still substantial (about 56% aggregate) for each event. But there were a lot of nerve-wracking moments, way too many for me to endure in my opinion.

[G Anon Dropout]

The Martingale is death but there are other progressions that work long term.

[reallyhardtowin]

I have lost 15 hands in a row playing blackjack. Sh it can happen. I also was drunk in Vegas and told my friend how simple it was to win $20 by putting it on the wheel that spins around (just put it on the $1 spot). I was up to $800 to break even and got the hell outta there.

[G Anon Dropout]

I lost 9 in a row on Baccarat yesterday. If I was using the Martingale I would have needed to clean out my shorts.