The more "quotes", ALL CAPS, bolded, underlined, italicized words, and excessive punctuation !!!! ???? ...
the less credible the information.
the less credible the information.
-
Comment -
Alright, we're getting Monkey cranked up: this'll be good...
Comment -
I would also like to know how you think you have access to the amount of money being wagered per side. The ONLY metric that is publicly available is the NUMBER of bets on each side. Apparently, you're ignorant enough to believe that each wager is worth the same amount. I'd also love to hear your logic on RLM's.Comment -
Unfortunately not good for you or Monkey. Just that fact that you commented too soon - with response to Monkeys question - when I post whats next in this thread it will show you believed in his 40% idea...and thats another wrong response you will see, when I detail the next answer to a question that cant possibly be done.
Seriously now - anyone asking this illogical 40% question - couldnt be more misleading from the 60% Vegas winning edge, by asking to show the majority of posters with 40% win rates.
Beside Flyer.. you said you were done with this thread?
This is a mild crash landing for you.
Comment -
OK . I'll explain this for you.
Lets say there are 15,000 wagers made on 50 games for the week. How could you possibly retain each and every one of those 15,000 gamblers each week to repeatedly have each one only bet the games that Vegas has, that pulls in 60% or more of the losers on the wrong side?
Do you bet the same 50 teams each week? Do you bet the same 30 teams each week. Do you think that a gambler who doesnt have the capacity to spot each game, would just only bet those on his card?
Thats why this process works. Vegas doesnt pull the same group of players each week on the game that hits for Vegas, they instead, pull the uneven percentage of losing bets from different players each week only on the games that are to their advantage as explained in the process in window #127.
What you are asking here is that Vegas has a room full of 15,000 gamblers that never bet anything but the games that are set up this way by Vegas each week and all season! Thats a little ridiculous now isnt it?Last edited by The G-Man Wins; 07-10-10, 07:51 PM.Comment -
Maybe you think there is only one metric. That thought process will surely be destructive in capping any football game.
Maybe you assumed that Vegas, which had 79% of the wagers or so on the Monday Night game 2 years ago when the Browns beat the NY Giants straight up, that the large money was on the 19% that bet Cleveland - and that every wager made, was for 80 percent more than the wagers made on the Giants? One thing you must try to ignore when capping, is public beliefs and public opinions, which are all a component of 50 years of conditioning for generations.
Also - not every game by Vegas, that has this advantage for them, is bet at an 80/20 percent ratio on the losers. So dont say that thats all I said the difference in the unbalance is. It can be near 60% or more, give or take a percentage or so on the low side.
Did the phrase I left in of of the threads above here not make sense to you? Its Vegas' line. They never said it was fair or balanced.
GL.Last edited by The G-Man Wins; 07-10-10, 08:07 PM.Comment -
-
First off no, nothing you have said in any of your posts makes sense at all you are trying to preach your silly theory but you have absolutely nothing to support your theory. Your posts come across as a gambler who thinks he knows but does not, you are so far off you are not even hitting the dart board.
Secondly as monkey stated looking at the side %'s given by the books is useless because it does not reflect the dollar amount per side so on an 80/20 split is very likely that the money is split 50/50 which would give the book no reason to move the line. If these numbers had any significance or were an indicator to a winner than the books would not share this info.
Third 79% and 19% do not add up to 100%
Your posts sound nothing more than a wannabe tout who is getting ready to pitch his e-book on how to make a "easy money gambling on sports" or "how to make easy money playing roulette". Your theory is no different than what every slick talking tout has been trying to sell degenerate retards hoping to get rich for years so either you are a tout or you were silly enough to buy into this garbage.
Second offComment -
Thanks for the correction of the 19% (21%). That was important.First off no, nothing you have said in any of your posts makes sense at all you are trying to preach your silly theory but you have absolutely nothing to support your theory. Your posts come across as a gambler who thinks he knows but does not, you are so far off you are not even hitting the dart board.
Secondly as monkey stated looking at the side %'s given by the books is useless because it does not reflect the dollar amount per side so on an 80/20 split is very likely that the money is split 50/50 which would give the book no reason to move the line. If these numbers had any significance or were an indicator to a winner than the books would not share this info.
Third 79% and 19% do not add up to 100%
Your posts sound nothing more than a wannabe tout who is getting ready to pitch his e-book on how to make a "easy money gambling on sports" or "how to make easy money playing roulette". Your theory is no different than what every slick talking tout has been trying to sell degenerate retards hoping to get rich for years so either you are a tout or you were silly enough to buy into this garbage.
Second off
If you believe that an even dollar amount was bet on a 80/20 percentage of gamblers for a Monday Night game with no other contest to bet, then I cant reduce myself to to even argue with that statement.
Im just going to say you may be right. Because most people would believe that as well, who dont grasp the theory.
Since you say I have nothing to prove my theory, then ignore the posts and dont be influenced by me.
You will have to watch and see if I post here. Isnt that what always proves the facts? I hope youre one of the posters who keeps accurate won-lost records and units here on unedited posts. Id be curious to see what you can do in college and pro football.
I learned a long time ago, that you cant easily change the way a person thinks when the environment he grew up in, has conditioned him, because he has little eagerness to try and learn differently.
Best of luck regardless.Comment -
It seems like you're giving the bookmaker too much credit.
"Now to the other 20-30 remaining games that week. This is where there is lopsided action that is KNOWN to be coming in on the games. Again from Betting History.
Vegas uses their formula against the historical lopsided betting volume to their advantage because the public doesnt yet know the current potential abilty well enough of the teams, to win this type of game by the spread that Vegas puts on the game. Therefore Vegas is posting the wrong number on this game intentionally. "
If "Vegas" throws out a wrong number intentionally, then why doesn't every sharp pound that line into submission, knowing it's wrong. Are you saying the public's bankroll > sharps' bankroll? Are you saying "Vegas" has more information that the sharps?
Comment -
This tread has really gotten off the topic of the OP... lol...
Everyone here seems to be theorizing, guessing whatever. Sorry G-Man, but those long posts, I didn't even bother to read. I will say, from a book I read by a ex-bookie, he claimed that most people believe that bookie's are able to keep even money on both sides, however he claimed most of time they are on one side of the line.
I might add as an observation, if books could manage keeping money even, then they wouldn't care about "sharps". We could all be professionals and they wouldn't care. However, nearly all do, accept the really big books. Perhaps, the really big books have more of a market business model for line moments.
Also, what is interesting I find is, since we have limits per game and some places have really low limits, then obviously squares are putting down more money. I mean, even if I am a pro, the most I could put down is $250 at a particular book. Since, in theory, sharps only represent, what, 2% maybe. Whatever the percent, you can see, even if I bet $250 for the game and there are only 100 of us betting, that would mean 98 peeps were on the other side. Now of course, sometimes the squares would be on the sharps side and the sharps on the square side, but you get what I am saying.
Anyway, both sides of this argument seem to just be guessing and I am not sure which side I just backed
BoL,
Comment -
M0ney,
I think it was some random retard trying to "debate" with you that finally got me to actual read your posts. I feel like I've been missing something.Comment -
Quote:
Originally Posted by The G-Man Wins
True they dont stay in business long. The problem is they dont know the side any better than the gambler. They do win though when staying on the line Vegas posted or laying off one-sided money thats too large for them.
This original quote by me isnt even close to the quote you reconstructed it to be.?!?Comment -
There is an expression that escapes me...
Something about opinions and buttholes...
It seemed appropriate here, but i cant remember it... I could be wrong, I did just get finished watching some porn.Comment -
sharp players, by definition, are long term winners. they can't put vegas out of business not because they are worse than vegas, it is because they can't put on enough money on a line with good price before it moves against them.Comment -
Thats the wrong thing to ask.Comment -
DukeJohn, thanks for the feedback,This tread has really gotten off the topic of the OP... lol...
Everyone here seems to be theorizing, guessing whatever. Sorry G-Man, but those long posts, I didn't even bother to read. I will say, from a book I read by a ex-bookie, he claimed that most people believe that bookie's are able to keep even money on both sides, however he claimed most of time they are on one side of the line.
I might add as an observation, if books could manage keeping money even, then they wouldn't care about "sharps". We could all be professionals and they wouldn't care. However, nearly all do, accept the really big books. Perhaps, the really big books have more of a market business model for line moments.
Also, what is interesting I find is, since we have limits per game and some places have really low limits, then obviously squares are putting down more money. I mean, even if I am a pro, the most I could put down is $250 at a particular book. Since, in theory, sharps only represent, what, 2% maybe. Whatever the percent, you can see, even if I bet $250 for the game and there are only 100 of us betting, that would mean 98 peeps were on the other side. Now of course, sometimes the squares would be on the sharps side and the sharps on the square side, but you get what I am saying.
Anyway, both sides of this argument seem to just be guessing and I am not sure which side I just backed
BoL,
Small locals try to adjust to keep even action as much as possible, but too often they cant. Each week there are always a group of games which are different teams as well and they wont even try to balance the play. Thats because of public perception that has been generated for weeks or years in game day situations with teams that have this betting history. Some book imbalance is either because they have a low volume of players or just stay with the line because they piece some off to other bigger books. Some Casinos have limits to help control it.
The reason the example you posted about this ex-bookie wrote what he did is because its true that they can NOT guarantee a balance on every game. What he didnt tell you in his book I suppose, is that IF the main source isnt moving the line much, they will stay on the side of some games because that lack of movment has given them consistent winning results regardless over the long haul.
We could show many examples on the upcoming season for coll and pro games and you would never know why the line didnt move when there was heavy action on the losing side or the winning side. This is because that group of games each weekend dont all win for the house. They lose some just like you do from turnovers, sloppy performances that week and bad calls as well.
What Im explaining here in most of my posts is that they are visible when you have found a way to expose them. When you cap the whole card each week these game start to become visible. Some wiil lose, but week in and week out, if you bet them you will win at the same ratio that Vegas does on these games - less the juice that they dont pay but you and I do.
The hard part for anyone reading this, is that it isnt easy to spot in a few weeks of games. Thats because you dont have enough examples to be able to reveal what it is - that makes them show up and become plays. Whether the reader believes this or not doesnt matter. Thats because it took 17 years of capping games and losing seasons and searching through different scenarios to find an edge.
What did happen was that it was founded on 40 years of data that helped bring it to an idea that it may be true. What validated the end result, was uncovering a mechanism (by accident) in what the spread was built off of, that most dont dont see. Then- incorporating a "formula" to force you to bet one side of the two teams, regardless of it being the favorite or dog in each match up.
The remainder of what you posted on, I agree with except for one thing. I am not guessing.
There are other guys who win and they have something that works for them or they couldnt win over the long term. My Formula is what I believe mirrors that same components Vegas uses to pull more losers on the wrong side of a certain amount of games that are visible to them from betting history, long in advance of posting a line. I dont know what criteria they use to actually set the line, because they have the "privileged betting history" and data no one else has, from over 60 years of historical habits. But - thats the best part, because they've done all the work to post it, and this formula simply allows it to show which side to bet that day. It always a different amount of games each week and usually not the same teams each week. The formula works on both college and pro.
Comment -
this has to be the most ridciulous claim i have ever read. if you think that you can look at a board and pick the winner based on who people are betting on you are stupid. and if someones pays you for that theory they are stupid.
for a professional gambler it is all about price, nothing more nothing less.
books do not win because they get on one sided games they win because they charge vigourish, and becasue they have the line spread so that you are out side betting in.
the people on this forum are smarter than that theory go pitch it somewhere else.Comment -
You are simply reading what you want. You dont fade the opposite of the posted percentages at all. If that was the case, you would have to be every game. I pasted the portion from the earlier post. Try to better understand what it says.
"We could show many examples on the upcoming season for coll and pro games and you would never know why the line didnt move when there was heavy action on the losing side or the winning side. This is because that group of games each weekend dont all win for the house. They lose some just like you do from turnovers, sloppy performances that week and bad calls as well.
What Im explaining here in most of my posts is that they are visible when you have found a way to expose them. When you cap the whole card each week these game start to become visible. Some wiil lose, but week in and week out, if you bet them you will win at the same ratio that Vegas does on these games - less the juice that they dont pay but you and I do. "
As far as you saying its all about price? That shows how stupid and conditioned you are. We are talking Football here ONLY. And winning ATS at 58, 59, 60% or more has nothing to do with anything but the spread. Please bet any game you want because of the price. I'll just stick with beating the spread.Last edited by The G-Man Wins; 07-19-10, 09:33 AM.Comment -
thread is too long nowComment
