Once again the sect would like to extend the warmest welcome it is capable of. The guy is kicked out by a couple of books for playing teasers, but the sect ridicules and accuses him anyway, for not complying with their picture of the world. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that BTC knows a lot more about teasers than these guys. But look who portray themselves as the 'experts' once again. We need some props somewhere on these guys. Easy money.
-
-
Tards of a feather. I'm the one who's actually posted usable teaser information ITF instead of his datamined, losing out of sample, garbage and your.. uh.. lack of contribution. It's not my fault that you and BTD evidently aren't capable if understanding that.Comment -
Sure. You're the man. The one and only. How many books kicked you out for playing teasers?
This could be a place for innovative discussion. I know you don't know the meaning of that, but others may. But the fact that you guys are so intent on shooting everything down from the start, if it's not up your alley, prevents that type of process, and chases creative thinkers away. Sect steps in. End of discussion, once again. Your arrogance many convince some. I think you're just full of sh*t.Comment -
They're not that innovative. But they're innovative enough for the two reputable books to kick him out for playing those teasers since the last thread. Isn't it strange that the sect either doesn't believe the results, or considers these teasers below them, and assigns profits to luck? I mean, how dense can people possibly get? Is this about making money or about perfect theories?Comment -
Yeah, I agree entirely. I mean, the sect isn't going to believe me, but listen up: In the opening round of the NCAA tournament, faves between 4 and 12pts who play an opponent coming off back-to-back straight-up wins as dogs are 41-15-1 ATS; and last 10 years it's an even stronger 30-7-1. (Tip of the hat to handicapper extraordinaire Marc Lawrence for this great trend.)
I guarantee THAT will get you kicked out of a book in no time.
Comment -
what the hell is darkhorse talking about when he says "sect"?Comment -
bztips: How do you explain that one? I'm not part of "the sect" but like to understand the logic behind stats like this, to convince myself that its *not* datamining.Yeah, I agree entirely. I mean, the sect isn't going to believe me, but listen up: In the opening round of the NCAA tournament, faves between 4 and 12pts who play an opponent coming off back-to-back straight-up wins as dogs are 41-15-1 ATS; and last 10 years it's an even stronger 30-7-1. (Tip of the hat to handicapper extraordinaire Marc Lawrence for this great trend.)
I guarantee THAT will get you kicked out of a book in no time.
Comment -
I was being sarcastic... it's datamining to the extremeComment -
bztips-- after your last post I thought you were joking about the Marc Lawrence datamined stat, but here it is, along with a few more nuggets:
NCAA TOURNEY – MOST RECENT TRENDS
• #1 Seeds are 80-0 SU (45-34-1 ATS) vs #16 Seeds
• #2 Seeds are 76-4 SU (31-41-4 ATS) vs #15 Seeds
• Only twice since 1988 has a #12 Seed failed to beat a #5 Seed (4-4 SU & 6-2 ATS L2Y)
• Favs of 7 > pts who are 3-0 SU & ATS in their last 3 games are 15-30-1 ATS vs a foe off a SU win
• Favs of 4 > & < 12 pts playing an opponent off BB SU dog wins are 41-15-1 ATS (30-7-1 ATS L10Y)
• Favs of 20 > pts are 3-12 ATS vs a foe off a SU win
• Favs of > 7 pts who scored 100 > pts in last Conference Tourney game are 11-2 ATS
• Dogs of 4 > pts playing off a SU Conference Tourney win as a dog of 6 > pts are 5-26-1 ATS last 11 years
• Dogs of 18 > pts off a DD ATS win are 5-1 ATS
FIRST ROUND NOTES
• #1 Seeds off BB SU wins & favs of < 25 pts are 14-2 ATS
• #2 Seeds are 7-21-4 ATS vs foes off a SU win
• #3 Seeds off a SU favorite loss are 30-1 SU & 22-8-1 ATS (6-1 L4Y)
• #4 Seeds are 26-13 ATS as favorites of < 9 pts (9-3 L5Y)
• #9 Seeds are 2-6 ATS as favorites of 3 > pts
• Favs of < 8 pts are 10-1 ATS vs a foe off BB SUATS wins (last as dog)
Conference Tournament Champs in this round
ACC: 2-5 ATS, Atlantic 10: 0-4 ATS, Big 10: 2-4 ATS, Big 12: 3-7 ATS, Big Eas4-13 ATS, Big West: 2-4 ATS, Colonial: 13-5 ATS, C-USA: 0-4 ATS, Horizon: 5-1 ATS, MAC: 4-1 ATS, Missouri Valley: 2-4 ATS, Mountain West: 3-7 ATS, Pac-10: 4-1 ATS, Sun Belt: 3-2 ATS, SEC: 3-2 ATS, WAC: 2-4 ATS, West Coast: 2-4 ATS.
This one actually makes sense to me: "#3 Seeds off a SU favorite loss are 30-1 SU & 22-8-1 ATS (6-1 L4Y)"
#3 seeds are often top 10 teams who slipped up in the conference tourney, get bumped down to a #3 seed, and get to play an inferior opponent. They've been stewing over a bad loss for a week, and come out fired-up and ready to prove that they're better than they looked the last time.
Three teams this year meet this criteria:
3rd seed BYU beat Wofford 74-66 yesterday as 8.5pt fave after being clocked by SDSU 72-54 last week at home. So that was a loser (though a couple of books had BYU -8, so you could have pushed the game if you shopped around).
3rd seed Syracuse (ranked #11 at the time) lost last Friday to Connecticut (#21) 76-71 in overtime. They are 12.5 pt favorites against Indiana State at 9:57pm tonight.
3rd seed Purdue (#9 at the time) was upset by MSU (UR) a week ago in Big Ten tourney; they're favored by 14.5 over St. Peters tonight at 7:20pm.
Purdue and Syracuse might be worth a hypothetical 10 unit bet tonight.
Comment -
A #9 or #11-ranked team is SUPPOSED to be about a 3-seed, they didn't get "bumped down". Even you think they did, how does getting bumped down to a 3-seed give you a more "inferior" opponent than if you were a 2-seed? In addition, what does any of that have to do with whether Syracuse at -12.5 or Purdue at -14.5 is a +EV bet or not?
Not to put it too harshly, but if your strategy for making picks is to cherry-pick one or more ultra-datamined trends from Marc Lawrence (or anyone else, for that matter), you're very unlikely to be successful in the long run.Last edited by bztips; 03-18-11, 08:36 PM.Comment
