Is this bet a +EV play?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 01:45 AM

Given your opinion, yes. Is your opinion anywhere near being correct? No. A well handicapped game MAY approach 65%. That is probably as high as humanly possible and it only comes around once in a while. Plus, given that you picked two heavy public favorites, your chances of winning each game are probably 48.5%.

**xyz** · 01-07-11, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by userpick

I think LSU and Auburn cover >75% of the time.

Before you do anymore betting, please figure out what is wrong with your statement above. If you can't figure it out, don't bet anymore.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by xyz

Before you do anymore betting, please figure out what is wrong with your statement above. If you can't figure it out, don't bet anymore.

Must be a fan of the pac-10 or big 12 or both?

The only one I'm worried about is LSU covering. If you think Oregon has a prayer to beat Auburn, you obviously didn't watch Auburn play this year.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by userpick

Must be a fan of the pac-10 or big 12 or both?

The only one I'm worried about is LSU covering. If you think Oregon has a prayer to beat Auburn, you obviously didn't watch Auburn play this year.

Buddy, go look in players talk in the "how did you do today" thread. I posted a screenshot in there of my $500 bets. I do this professionally and I'm telling you that you know nothing. Listen to us. We'll help you but you have to listen and understand that right now we are much smarter than you when it comes to this.

**dngf** · 01-07-11, 02:00 AM

Now I understand how you came up with this as as +EV bet. 50% for LSU, 100% for Auburn so 75%.
If you think Oregon does not have a prayer, you did not watch Oregon play, and obviously, with a couple of notable exceptions, when Auburn was on defense that must have been when you went for another beer or to the head.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

Given your opinion, yes. Is your opinion anywhere near being correct? No. A well handicapped game MAY approach 65%. That is probably as high as humanly possible and it only comes around once in a while. Plus, given that you picked two heavy public favorites, your chances of winning each game are probably 48.5%.

I admit I don't know much about how sports betting works. How do you get 48.5%? I guess you don't feel like Auburn and/or LSU will cover and I think 2 points isn't enough. My question is(and yes i'm being serious) where does math come in when deciding what's a good bet?

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

Buddy, go look in players talk in the "how did you do today" thread. I posted a screenshot in there of my $500 bets. I do this professionally and I'm telling you that you know nothing. Listen to us. We'll help you but you have to listen and understand that right now we are much smarter than you when it comes to this.

Look, I'm here to learn. So besides that fact that i'm a dumbass, what is wrong with my bet?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by userpick

Look, I'm here to learn. So besides that fact that i'm a dumbass, what is wrong with my bet?

Good luck big boy. If you weren't a tool you could've made hundreds of thousands off our knowledge. Bye.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

Good luck big boy. If you weren't a tool you could've made hundreds of thousands off our knowledge. Bye.

I'm sorry if you thought I was being sarcastic, but I wasn't. All I wanted to know is why it was a bad bet? I saw your 500 bets, you obviously know what you are doing, and I'm asking for your opinion:what is wrong with my bet?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:19 AM

You need to get the "these guys cover here" mentality out of your head. Understand that when it comes to stats the sportsbooks know everything you do and more. The reason the books are beatable is because they intentionally set bad lines because they know most of the money bet will be on the wrong side by the public. They increase their ev by doing this as opposed to setting a better(more accurate) line even though they are opening themselves up to smart(sharp) bettors who will bet the correct side. A lot of guys on here have statistical databases and let me tell you it's total garbage. They work, yes. But they only help those guys choose the correct sides of these games when all you have to do is look at how everyone else is betting.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:27 AM

i.e. you bet two teams that are getting 70% of public action. Betting on the opposite sides of these games is not automatically a +ev bet, but betting on the public side is usually bad. All I do to handicap is watch games(literally that's it). You know how when you watch your favorite team, you tend to see and notice extremely subtle minute details that actually affect games? I watch the Red Sox all the time during the MLB season and it really isn't very hard to win by capping your favorite team. You should try it out. After watching games, I look at the market(how and why lines are moving or not moving). Then I make my picks. If you feel like LSU, Auburn, or their opponents are your red Sox then I completely respect your reasoning to bet them. Otherwise it's almost definitely a bad play. Also, stay away from parlays. 2.6-1 odds are very hard to overcome since you're supposed to be getting 3-1.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

You need to get the "these guys cover here" mentality out of your head. Understand that when it comes to stats the sportsbooks know everything you do and more. The reason the books are beatable is because they intentionally set bad lines because they know most of the money bet will be on the wrong side by the public. They increase their ev by doing this as opposed to setting a better(more accurate) line even though they are opening themselves up to smart(sharp) bettors who will bet the correct side. A lot of guys on here have statistical databases and let me tell you it's total garbage. They work, yes. But they only help those guys choose the correct sides of these games when all you have to do is look at how everyone else is betting.

Well, I understand all of that. I just think both LSU and Auburn are better teams than their opponents and I may be completely wrong about it but it's ok. But please take my 75% out of the equation, did I make a bad bet, and if I did, why? Like I said, I am trying to learn, and i'm thrilled to have invaluable posters like yourself on here to help.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:35 AM

If "you just think it" then you have no reason to bet it. A lot of people make the mistake of looking at a -2.5 or -3 spread and thinking "well they're better so they have to cover." They obviously aren't that much better since they're such small favorites. That's the public in a nutshell. Look at betting percentages in small spread games. The public is almost always on the favorite. Your bet is bad because you have no solid reason for betting these teams.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:36 AM

btw I try to be helpful in the think tank but everybody hates me in players talk lol. I fuk around with those cocky idiots for the fun of it and they all think I suck at sports betting but trust me I'm in the top 10 here as far as smart go and probably in the top 15 in terms of money making.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

i.e. you bet two teams that are getting 70% of public action. Betting on the opposite sides of these games is not automatically a +ev bet, but betting on the public side is usually bad. All I do to handicap is watch games(literally that's it). You know how when you watch your favorite team, you tend to see and notice extremely subtle minute details that actually affect games? I watch the Red Sox all the time during the MLB season and it really isn't very hard to win by capping your favorite team. You should try it out. After watching games, I look at the market(how and why lines are moving or not moving). Then I make my picks. If you feel like LSU, Auburn, or their opponents are your red Sox then I completely respect your reasoning to bet them. Otherwise it's almost definitely a bad play. Also, stay away from parlays. 2.6-1 odds are very hard to overcome since you're supposed to be getting 3-1.

So you bet a lot on the Red Sox? I'm the same way with the Rangers, only I know better than to bet on them as they are the biggest choke artists to ever play the game with the exception of this past season...

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

btw I try to be helpful in the think tank but everybody hates me in players talk lol. I fuk around with those cocky idiots for the fun of it and they all think I suck at sports betting but trust me I'm in the top 10 here as far as smart go and probably in the top 15 in terms of money making.

So if you were to teach me the "strategy" of picking games, besides watching the games, what would be next? I sent you a pm too if it went through.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:47 AM

Go to sbrodds.com and look at the various games. As you may know, sportsbooks move their lines because either an overwhelming amount of money is going on one side and they want to get people to bet the other side...OR because a sharp bettor placed a wager on the game. The second situation is the one to focus on. Say there's a game between team A and team B. Team a has 70% action at -3 and team B, 30% at +3. You would expect the line to move to -4 so that more people bet team B since there's probably more $ on team A and the books want to balance. Instead, the line moves to + and - 2.5. That's because a sharp bet the underdog. It's called reverse line movement. There is a lot of argument about whether or not it's still a winning play at +2.5 as opposed to +3 but I'm 100% confident it's still a massive winner.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

Go to sbrodds.com and look at the various games. As you may know, sportsbooks move their lines because either an overwhelming amount of money is going on one side and they want to get people to bet the other side...OR because a sharp bettor placed a wager on the game. The second situation is the one to focus on. Say there's a game between team A and team B. Team a has 70% action at -3 and team B, 30% at +3. You would expect the line to move to -4 so that more people bet team B since there's probably more $ on team A and the books want to balance. Instead, the line moves to + and - 2.5. That's because a sharp bet the underdog. It's called reverse line movement. There is a lot of argument about whether or not it's still a winning play at +2.5 as opposed to +3 but I'm 100% confident it's still a massive winner.

That makes a lot of sense. This is the reason I came to this board. What about the LSU game, do you have any thoughts about that?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:52 AM

The best possible situation is one where there's a big public favorite yet the line doesn't move at all. At the beginning of the NBA season the lakers played Denver and the Lakers were -3 with 80% of bets being placed on them. The line DID NOT BUDGE. The books knew what they were doing. They knew that they would get about 80% action on the lakers if they were anywhere from +2 to -3 so they maximized their value by making the idiot public take -3 even though the Lakers were probably a slight dog to win that game. I made a thread where people went nuts on me saying how dumb I was and that the then 7-0 lakers would never in a million years not cover 3 points in a situation like that. But the nuggets won outright and I banked.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by userpick

That makes a lot of sense. This is the reason I came to this board. What about the LSU game, do you have any thoughts about that?

No I do not. Sorry.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 02:53 AM

Also, how much math do you use when handicapping/sizing your bet?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by userpick

Also, how much math do you use when handicapping/sizing your bet?

No math at all when handicapping other than obvious stuff. I bet 1-5 units with each unit being 1/100 of my bankroll.

**sharpcat** · 01-07-11, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

btw I try to be helpful in the think tank but everybody hates me in players talk lol. I fuk around with those cocky idiots for the fun of it and they all think I suck at sports betting but trust me I'm in the top 10 here as far as smart go and probably in the top 15 in terms of money making.

Please stay in the players talk forum you are not helping here

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Please stay in the players talk forum you are not helping here

how so?

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

how so?

I believe he was taking a shot at me. It was funny.

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 03:04 AM

And I was looking at some odds and Baltimore has 94% of the public betting on the spread(-3) and the line has not changed from when it opened. Does that go back to your Nuggets/Lakers example?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 03:05 AM

No this guy and I have a feud. But he won't accept handicapping challenges from me so what does that say about who's better?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by userpick

And I was looking at some odds and Baltimore has 94% of the public betting on the spread(-3) and the line has not changed from when it opened. Does that go back to your Nuggets/Lakers example?

Yes

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 03:08 AM

On a lighter note, Is Beltre going to help my Rangers or wait until his next contract year?

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 03:08 AM

^^^^that is literally how sports betting works. Sometimes there's just free money sitting out there. Taking the Chiefs +3 is probably like a 55-56% play with no knowledge beyond public perception. And that is called printing money.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by userpick

On a lighter note, Is Beltre going to help my Rangers or wait until his next contract year?

lol he won't be bad imo but not worth that contract.

**sharpcat** · 01-07-11, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by userpick

I believe he was taking a shot at me. It was funny.

No I was actually warning you to not follow the advice that you are getting from this clown

If each team in your parlay had a 75% chance of winning you would have 56.25% chance of them both winning and winning your parlay.

At +258 (you can find better odds than this) your wager needs to win 27.93% so your EV would be +101.37

Obviously your numbers are likely way off but if they were correct this would be a highly +EV wager.

**illfuuptn** · 01-07-11, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

No I was actually warning you to not follow the advice that you are getting from this clown

If each team in your parlay had a 75% chance of winning you would have 56.25% chance of them both winning and winning your parlay.

At +258 (you can find better odds than this) your wager needs to win 27.93% so your EV would be +101.37

Obviously your numbers are likely way off but if they were correct this would be a highly +EV wager.

Sharpcat, do you want to be in a handicapping challenge against me? Didn't think so...

**userpick** · 01-07-11, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by illfuuptn

lol he won't be bad imo but not worth that contract.

Well, we had "Cliff Lee" money to spend, we had to spend it on someone