Isn't a Model a System?

**trixtrix** · 10-11-10, 08:10 PM

quickest explanation is that a model is applicable to the individual game, a system makes generalization on a subset of games

**jgilmartin** · 10-11-10, 08:30 PM

The definition I work under is that a system does not set a fair line on a game.

**skrtelfan** · 10-12-10, 03:29 AM

It's probably best to differentiate between systems on small markets and systems on large ones. Small markets can be inefficient enough it wouldn't surprise me if there are ones that can be profitable without setting a fair line, but I'd be very surprised if such things existed in large markets.

**arwar** · 10-12-10, 07:53 AM

i have seen plenty of models that would be disasters as systems

**roasthawg** · 10-12-10, 10:02 AM

I've had profitable models that don't take into account the spread. Even my models that do in fact account for the spread will often leave out or minimize the importance of other factors that are very significant to the outcome of the game. This is do to the historical tendencies of the market... if the market did in fact correct itself in a timely manner I wouldn't find very many profitable plays. The terms "model" and "system" represent the methods used to arrive at your betting technique imo... "modeling" involves more advanced techniques when it comes to deciding what factors are worth betting on.

**Dark Horse** · 10-12-10, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Firefox14

I've read to develop one's own model, but many frown upon systems. Isn't a model, however, some sort of system per say.....something that works for a particular player?

Don't be distracted by these type of semantics. It is perfectly acceptable to maintain that models have breasts.