[Thremp]

I'd say that Scientology is a more reasonable belief than what BtC and DH suggest. How exactly do you prove Zeno didn't organize a mass evac from a volcano in the sky that look a lot like buses with wings?

This teaser stuff is ezpz to show its bullshit.

[Dark Horse]

I'm always amused by the 'geniuses' who accuse others of data mining, while treating push frequencies as holy scripture. lol

And if it doesn't fit their religion, it must be 16 years of blind luck. lmao.

To anybody not on their arrogant train, always try to translate the numbers back to the field. That will give meaning and dimension to the numbers. Since most of these geeks don't have the first clue of how to do that, they will then throw the next accusation: you're making up a story to fit the numbers. Sure guys. lol Anything to keep your perfect little universe in tact.

[donjuan]

You really aren't this dumb in reality are you?

[Dark Horse]

I can assure you that my ignorance is of the kind that you could not possibly solve.

Good luck on your chess board. It so happens I have this bowling ball. And I'm all out of pins. Huh.

[donjuan]

Maybe you can tell us more about your amazing streak research. Lulz.

[Dark Horse]

You're a data cruncher, DJ. You wouldn't even recognize an original idea. The mathematical knowledge you use was discovered by others. What have you added? What have you added here? Except sarcasm, cynicism, and other vitriolic attributes. Amazingly, in spite our your assumed omniscience, that is what characterizes you and your small band of unhappy, utterly predictable math geeks.

[Pancho sanza]

You're a data cruncher, DJ. You wouldn't even recognize an original idea. The mathematical knowledge you use was discovered by others. What have you added? What have you added here? Except sarcasm, cynicism, and other vitriolic attributes. Amazingly, in spite our your assumed omniscience, that is what characterizes you and your small band of unhappy, utterly predictable math geeks.

People using math to beat sports, imagine that.

[thebestthereis]

math has nothing to do with it, none of the games in any sport involve numbers

[djiddish98]

You're a data cruncher, DJ. You wouldn't even recognize an original idea. The mathematical knowledge you use was discovered by others. What have you added? What have you added here? Except sarcasm, cynicism, and other vitriolic attributes. Amazingly, in spite our your assumed omniscience, that is what characterizes you and your small band of unhappy, utterly predictable math geeks.

I'll take a think tank dose of healthy skepticism over blindly betting on data-mined numbers any day.

[donjuan]

You're a data cruncher, DJ. You wouldn't even recognize an original idea. The mathematical knowledge you use was discovered by others. What have you added? What have you added here? Except sarcasm, cynicism, and other vitriolic attributes. Amazingly, in spite our your assumed omniscience, that is what characterizes you and your small band of unhappy, utterly predictable math geeks.

Adding nothing new >>> steering people in the wrong direction

[Dark Horse]

Your black-or-white either/or minds can't even grasp simple concepts, such as that I'm obviously not against the use of math, or that I don't bet the teaser set discussed here; but, unlike you, am interested in the underlying dynamic, should it exist.

This think tank, which could have been an interesting place to exchange ideas and, god forbid, brainstorm, instead is suffocated by the most boring, negative, arrogant, self-satisfied, closed-minded collection of people I have ever come across. Please tell the world that your mentality does not represent winning sports bettors, and that there is another way. All I see here is Scrooge 1, Scrooge 2, Scrooge 3, Scrooge 4, etc. Pathetic.

[u21c3f6]

Your black-or-white either/or minds can't even grasp simple concepts, such as that I'm obviously not against the use of math, or that I don't bet the teaser set discussed here; but, unlike you, am interested in the underlying dynamic, should it exist.

This think tank, which could have been an interesting place to exchange ideas and, god forbid, brainstorm, instead is suffocated by the most boring, negative, arrogant, self-satisfied, closed-minded collection of people I have ever come across. Please tell the world that your mentality does not represent winning sports bettors, and that there is another way. All I see here is Scrooge 1, Scrooge 2, Scrooge 3, Scrooge 4, etc. Pathetic.

+1

I actually looked at some of the more negative members previous posts thinking that I would probably find that only about 10% of their posts had IMO any actual value. Let me tell you I was a little shocked (maybe I wasn't) to find that it was well less than 10% and for 1 member, in their last 150 posts I could only find one post (and that was a stretch) that had any real value IMO. I stopped looking after that.

Why do some feel the need to belittle someone else? If the question is beneath you, just don't reply at all. Some act like they came out of the womb with all the info they have. Congrats if you obtained that knowledge on your own but if you don't like people asking for those answers on a message board, just don't respond. It is as simple as that.

I have seen ideas that I know for a fact are actually good get shot down because it didn't fit a certain group's view. In some cases it comes down to how to apply what the math is telling you and not using the math as an absolute (as I tried to show in a thread on last year's NCAA Basketball playoffs).

The funny thing is that based on what some of the members that pile on post, I find it very difficult to believe that these are profitable players. No, please don't respond that you are profitable. When we all lay our respective heads on our pillows tonight, we all know whether we are profitable or not.

Joe.

[donjuan]

Give me a break Joe. Dark Horse's posts are nothing remotely close to outside-the-box thinking. They are basically full of beginner's fallacies dressed up with obfuscating language. Feel free to show which post which had a good idea got shot down.

[wrongturn]

Dark Horse's posts are nothing remotely close to outside-the-box thinking. They are basically full of beginner's fallacies dressed up with obfuscating language.

This is just so wrong.

[Peregrine Stoop]

This is just so wrong.

nope... it's exactly correct. It's sloppy thinking dressed up in all the trappings that appeal to human irrationality. Instead of pulling back the layers of our natural irrationality and getting to objective truths, Dark Horse fills the forum with stuff of which the Amazing Kreskin would be proud.
With every post, he is helping players lose more money to the books.

[rfr3sh]

rookie question here..lets say pinny is offering a team at +1..but another book has the team +1.5
is it ok to use the pinny drop down menu to see the price at +1.5 to determine if it is teaseable

[Peregrine Stoop]

rookie question here..lets say pinny is offering a team at +1..but another book has the team +1.5 is it ok to use the pinny drop down menu to see the price at +1.5 to determine if it is teaseable

yes. This is a clue to how good these teasers are. Pinny shades their regular line so that people don't get the whole value of a tease. You want to look at the line that lines up closest to -/+100 no-vig. Obviously, every little bit you can gain from there should be added in using a push chart.

[Thremp]

Aren't SBR's core values aligned with player's losing money?

[Peregrine Stoop]

Aren't SBR's core values aligned with player's losing money?

you're somewhat right and I keep forgetting that.

[GELATINOUS CUBE]

that-seems-to-be-the-main-problem...
i-think-SBR's-core-values-is-advertising-or-at-least-players-losing-money-at-the-right-book.

[ForgetWallStreet]

that-seems-to-be-the-main-problem...
i-think-SBR's-core-values-is-advertising-or-at-least-players-losing-money-at-the-right-book.

They make exponentially more from commission than they do the banners at the top.

[donjuan]

Does BTC only post when these run like god or when they lose too?

[terpkeg]

Atrocious bet, data mining, better bet ATS, etc., etc.
I've heard it all before. But let's look at the facts and the history
of this teaser subset.
In 2004 I did research on how the RD+4.5 to +6 had done historically.
I was interested in back testing this subset because a capper I respected would



often reccomend a RD+4.5 to +6 teased up. The theory was that these small dogs
given the extra points and the dynamics of getting more than 10 points
would cover at a +EV rate.

The analysis of the in-sample was encouraging. From 1994 to 2004 the subset
went 235-83-1 for 73.9%. Although the sample size was only 319, I felt
it was sufficient to start betting them. I posted the results of my
research and my intentions of betting this non-basic strategy subset.
The naysayers came out in force (too small SS, datamining, bla, bla.).
Keep in mind I never encouraged anyone else to follow along, just that
I was betting them.

Fast forward to 2010 and the out-of-sample results for the last 5 years.
From 2005 to 2010 this subset has went 112-36-1 for 75.7%, or even better
than the in-sample study. It should be noted that this subset has
consistantly done better than the BS subsets, both for the entire 16
year study and the last 5 years.

Now let's look at the ATS results for this subset compared to the
teaser win rate. Keep in mind all dogs ATS have historically covered
at a 51.2% rate (2103-1988-137). So it's no surprise that this subset
also did well ATS. From 2005 to 2010 it has went 80-67-2 ATS for 54.4%.
A cover rate of 54.4% ATS at -110 is +EV 3.8%,at -105 it's +EV 6.2%.
Teasers covering at a 75.7% rate, at -110 are +EV 9.4%, at even money
14.6%. So clearly if you had to chose between winning straight bets
at 54.4% or teasers at 75.7% the teasers are better bets. However,
I've been a strong advocate of making straight bets AND teasers bets
if the data support it (I use this stategy often in NFLX games). Just as
a side note, last year (2009) the teaser subset went 20-4-0 for 83.3%
but the ATS was a loser at 11-13 for 45.8%.

So there you have it, people can make up their own minds on how to bet.
It's easy for people to make vague allegations on someone else's method-
ologies, but they don't, as they say, "show their work".

Anyone care to share numbers on teasing 4.5-6 up since 2010 if they have it available?