Attn Justin and other SBR $harps, I need your opinion.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • chunk
    SBR Wise Guy
    • 02-08-11
    • 808

    #106
    Ok, I'll play. My POV is that, yes one can be profitable for long periods of time ( avoiding stating long term for all of the stat guys). This may have even happened long enough that if one could "stay lucky" for a few more years then C'est la vie. I share your cynicism in many ways. What differentiates you and I is empirical evidence.
    Comment
    • hutennis
      SBR Wise Guy
      • 07-11-10
      • 847

      #107
      Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker
      WHY ARE YOU HERE?

      How many times do I have to ask that before you answer?
      I have a set of belives on a subject that is being discussed on this public forum,
      which seems to be an ideal place, b/c a prevailing philosophy here is totally contrarian to mine.

      it important for me to make sure that my believes are sound since I wager meaningful somes of money
      based on them.

      The best way I know how to how to check it out is to present them for review by others, in this case in a form
      of discussion, in hopes that they will be destroyed by thoughtful, substantiated, rational arguments.
      No matter how much I try to defend them.

      Why is it important?
      Because if my current believes will be proven to be a mistake by thoughtful, rational
      and substantiated arguments I'll be very happy and will certainly save a lot of money
      by not continuing wagering under false assumption.
      And if not, then my chances that I'm on a right track are that much better.

      I think it is wonderful, very rational approach.
      At least to my knowlage, that's how it works in science and I'm a big believer in science.


      i
      Comment
      • chunk
        SBR Wise Guy
        • 02-08-11
        • 808

        #108
        Originally posted by hutennis
        I have a set of belives on a subject that is being discussed on this public forum,
        which seems to be an ideal place, b/c a prevailing philosophy here is totally contrarian to mine.

        it important for me to make sure that my believes are sound since I wager meaningful somes of money
        based on them.

        The best way I know how to how to check it out is to present them for review by others, in this case in a form
        of discussion, in hopes that they will be destroyed by thoughtful, substantiated, rational arguments.
        No matter how much I try to defend them.

        Why is it important?
        Because if my current believes will be proven to be a mistake by thoughtful, rational
        and substantiated arguments I'll be very happy and will certainly save a lot of money
        by not continuing wagering under false assumption.
        And if not, then my chances that I'm on a right track are that much better.

        I think it is wonderful, very rational approach.
        At least to my knowlage, that's how it works in science and I'm a big believer in science.


        i
        Holy Balls! You need to proof read, edit, or sober up. BTW. many contradictory statements in terms of this and previous posts.
        Comment
        • hutennis
          SBR Wise Guy
          • 07-11-10
          • 847

          #109
          Originally posted by chunk
          Ok, I'll play. My POV is that, yes one can be profitable for long periods of time ( avoiding stating long term for all of the stat guys). This may have even happened long enough that if one could "stay lucky" for a few more years then C'est la vie. I share your cynicism in many ways. What differentiates you and I is empirical evidence.
          In this case I can't really say anything since discussing some one's wishful thinking has nothing to do with
          calculating chance of outperforming mature market.
          I think, though, that it is very possible that you are confusing your understanding of your personal experience and empirical evidence.
          interpritations of personal experience is very subjective and produced by brain which is prone to a massive mistakes.
          imperical evidence on another hand are by definition objective and usually produced in a controlled environment.
          Comment
          • hutennis
            SBR Wise Guy
            • 07-11-10
            • 847

            #110
            Originally posted by chunk
            Holy Balls! You need to proof read, edit, or sober up. BTW. many contradictory statements in terms of this and previous posts.
            Care to name a few?
            Comment
            • chunk
              SBR Wise Guy
              • 02-08-11
              • 808

              #111
              Originally posted by hutennis
              In this case I can't really say anything since discussing some one's wishful thinking has nothing to do with
              calculating chance of outperforming mature market.
              I think, though, that it is very possible that you are confusing your understanding of your personal experience and empirical evidence.
              interpritations of personal experience is very subjective and produced by brain which is prone to a massive mistakes.
              imperical evidence on another hand are by definition objective and usually produced in a controlled environment.
              Fair enough, but all I hear from you are personal theories and vague implications of studies that back up those theories. You and I both know that context, details, and validation would need to be presented or they are meaningless statements.

              Wishful thinking......hardly, I'm way to old to be a dreamer. I'm really not sure what "outperforming a mature market" really means, but I suspect it means that you are a true believer that the market is efficient. If so, does that mean one is doomed to failure?

              The empirical evidence that I alluded to would be considered objective by anyone.
              Comment
              • chunk
                SBR Wise Guy
                • 02-08-11
                • 808

                #112
                [QUOTE=hutennis;15154224]Care to name a few?[/QUOTE

                You stated previously that you risk meaningful sums of money based on your beliefs. I read that as large wagers being made by you in the context of sports wagering (I assume that you have positive expectations). Please enlighten me if I misinterpreted your statement. If not, it would be in direct conflict with many of your previous statements concerning randomness and the virtual impossibility of success in the market place.
                Comment
                • rm18
                  SBR Posting Legend
                  • 09-20-05
                  • 22291

                  #113
                  i think you can beat bodog props in the long run from that sample except they will ban you if you keep winning and other books are harder to beat.
                  Comment
                  • Cheme82
                    SBR Hall of Famer
                    • 09-03-08
                    • 7823

                    #114
                    Originally posted by rm18
                    i think you can beat bodog props in the long run from that sample except they will ban you if you keep winning and other books are harder to beat.
                    Just like Pinnacle or Greek are considered by some to have sharp game lines. Which books do you consider to have sharp prop lines? (which ones are hard to beat?)
                    Comment
                    • rm18
                      SBR Posting Legend
                      • 09-20-05
                      • 22291

                      #115
                      Originally posted by Cheme82
                      Just like Pinnacle or Greek are considered by some to have sharp game lines. Which books do you consider to have sharp prop lines? (which ones are hard to beat?)
                      I dont know really in this day most prop departments are copycat off of pinnacle and greek, but the thing that makes bodog easier to beat than most and is reflective in your average line of -106 is they move off of square action in props and other markets so someone will make a bet with real bad value and then you come back on the other side and the clients on 5 dimes or bookmaker are not going to make that bet. Overall I do not consider any book to be very efficient in props but bodog is real bad + juice is high making most other books tougher
                      Comment
                      • Cheme82
                        SBR Hall of Famer
                        • 09-03-08
                        • 7823

                        #116
                        Gotcha, thanks.
                        Comment
                        • Inkwell77
                          SBR MVP
                          • 02-03-11
                          • 3227

                          #117
                          Some of these responses from HUTENNIS have to be jokes....

                          I'm wondering if he/she just wants someone to prove him/her wrong thus revealing something they worked on.

                          HUTENNIS, How do you feel about Wong Teasers?
                          Comment
                          • HUY
                            SBR Sharp
                            • 04-29-09
                            • 253

                            #118
                            It's painfully obvious that hutennis is a troll and he has managed to get us all into his game. Congrats.
                            Comment
                            • hutennis
                              SBR Wise Guy
                              • 07-11-10
                              • 847

                              #119
                              Originally posted by Inkwell77
                              Some of these responses from HUTENNIS have to be jokes....

                              I'm wondering if he/she just wants someone to prove him/her wrong thus revealing something they worked on.

                              HUTENNIS, How do you feel about Wong Teasers?
                              IMO. Wong Teasers is +EV strategy. sort of like card counting in BJ.
                              It has worked in a past but since books have adjusted and applied countermeasures (sort like continues shuffle in BJ)
                              the whole strategy is pretty much a shadow of it former self.
                              That being said, if you deal with a book that has not adjusted, you have an edge with WT.
                              Comment
                              • hutennis
                                SBR Wise Guy
                                • 07-11-10
                                • 847

                                #120
                                Originally posted by HUY
                                It's painfully obvious that hutennis is a troll and he has managed to get us all into his game. Congrats.

                                OK, no trolling anymore. LOL
                                Let’s get to the point.
                                The point is handicapping .

                                This is how most people over here understand handicapping process.

                                1. Research. Collecting data.
                                Using whatever method available, from simple copy/paste to sophisticated scraping technics,
                                thousands of data points are collected let’s say in excel. Most people here can only do copy/paste,
                                So they constantly on a look out for tips on how to be more proficient in their data collecting.
                                Any good piece of VB code they can get their hands on considered to be a giant lip forward on the way
                                to become a true handicapper. Very naïve.

                                2. Modeling.
                                Now we have a data and it’s time to create a model.
                                Model seems to be some kind of macro with some sort of statistical analysis built in that will go over collected data points
                                looking for most profitable situations with highest statistical significance.
                                So if we were able to find parameters X,Y,Z delivering profit $$$ and z-score on this combination
                                Is 2.5 we got ourselves a pretty good model indeed.

                                Most people stop right there, call it handicapping and get really excited.
                                They post question about calculating edge so they can apply Kelly and get maximum growth out of their discovery.
                                I reply with a comment that they can’t get anything out of past results. As far as future profits are concerned past results are useless
                                and get slammed.
                                In fact, they have as much right to call themselves a handicappers as guy who sprayed side of the barn with machine gun and then painted a bullseye around largest random clusters has a right to call himself a sharpshooter.
                                If someone does not understand the analogy – think longer.
                                If you understand, but don’t agree – I’m sorry, you are wrong. Analogy is perfect.


                                So what is missing here?
                                What is missing is an understanding of a scientific method.
                                We don’t have working model here. We only have hypothesis to work with.

                                Now we need to make a prediction (parameters XYZ will continue to make $$$ with statistical significance) and test this prediction
                                using fair (controlled) experiment.

                                Now, this is long, slow and complicated process. At best, it is just one game per day, you know. In some sports it is one per week!
                                It may take just a couple of days to collect past data and come up with macro and it takes years to test it.
                                (not to complicate things farther I will give you an assumption that ordinal conditions never change.)
                                That is why it takes years for pharmaceutical companies to bring new drug on a market.

                                Lets say you got your conformation. Your prediction is tested and you like the results. Is that it?
                                Not at all. To complete process you must submit your experimental data for a peer review.
                                This is usually group of very qualified people who are very unfriendly to your whole idea and will do their best to pick it apart.
                                It is unpleasant but an absolute must to make sure that you did not make intentional or unintentional mistakes which would make your results look better than they otherwise should be.

                                Well, you can always say:”FU hutennis! FU you and your scientific BS! There are people on this forum who won millions using past data, excel and a few statistical tricks!” That’s what Matthy just said.
                                That would be a text book example of a conformation bias. Mathy is only using the evidence that confirm his believe that past data, excel and little bit of statistic is all it takes. Nothing is said about those who lost millions doing just that.
                                It’s like declaring dolphins a super smart, friendly animals with predisposition to help people who got in trouble in a ocean b/c there are numerous reports that dolphins help people to survive by pushing them to a shore.
                                Too bad, we can not interview those who drown when pushed away from the shore.
                                If we could, we would see that it’s about 50/50 and dolphins do not have a super natural urge to help man kind but simply an animals who like to play with objects struggling in the water.

                                So, “FU hutennis” is always an option. If you can not do it the right way, you can always settle for trying to get lucky and declare your lucky results to be a product of skilful handicapping. After all, skillful handicapping is possible. There is somebody out there (maybe even on this forum) who can do it. You can always say you are one of them and tell to fuk off to any one who would dare to doubt.
                                Last edited by hutennis; 06-23-12, 03:34 PM.
                                Comment
                                • chunk
                                  SBR Wise Guy
                                  • 02-08-11
                                  • 808

                                  #121
                                  I must say that I so like the analogy!
                                  Comment
                                  • MonkeyF0cker
                                    SBR Posting Legend
                                    • 06-12-07
                                    • 12144

                                    #122
                                    Originally posted by hutennis
                                    Well, you can always say:”FU hutennis! FU you and your scientific BS! There are people on this forum who won millions using past data, excel and a few statistical tricks!” That’s what Matthy just said.\
                                    LOL. Nothing you have ever said on here could be considered "scientific."

                                    P.S. - You have some serious shortcomings in understanding statistics as evidenced by the rest of your post. Although your analogy works for many who come in here asking if their method has any statistical significance, it certainly doesn't apply to many here who have never needed to ask the question.
                                    Comment
                                    • mathdotcom
                                      SBR Posting Legend
                                      • 03-24-08
                                      • 11689

                                      #123
                                      All in favor of banning hutennis?

                                      Aye.
                                      Comment
                                      • Justin7
                                        SBR Hall of Famer
                                        • 07-31-06
                                        • 8577

                                        #124
                                        Originally posted by mathdotcom
                                        All in favor of banning hutennis?

                                        Aye.
                                        I already tried, and was overruled.
                                        Comment
                                        • jerry
                                          SBR High Roller
                                          • 05-14-08
                                          • 111

                                          #125
                                          Aye.
                                          Comment
                                          • GunShard
                                            SBR Posting Legend
                                            • 03-05-10
                                            • 10031

                                            #126
                                            I prefer to spot bet and not do these daily betting like the stock market.
                                            I make a bet once a week or even once a month and get a higher win ratio by doing this.
                                            Comment
                                            • mathdotcom
                                              SBR Posting Legend
                                              • 03-24-08
                                              • 11689

                                              #127
                                              Originally posted by Justin7
                                              I already tried, and was overruled.
                                              yes he does draw traffic
                                              Comment
                                              • yisman
                                                SBR Aristocracy
                                                • 09-01-08
                                                • 75682

                                                #128
                                                Originally posted by Cheme82
                                                No worries bro, always nice to see smart people disagreeing so passionately on something. Good change from players talk in which you see average people disagreeing on stuff.
                                                What's the difference between this and players talk? The same thing wound up happening.

                                                Originally posted by hutennis
                                                I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.
                                                Have no fear, you will be neither nominated nor elected.

                                                Originally posted by Duff85
                                                Justin please ban hutennis and wantitall4moi from the think tank. They constantly troll posts and never back up any of their anecdotal crap that they post with hard evidence. Those that have been doing this for years can reasonably work out who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. All of the evidence that they have posted either suggests that they are lifetime losers or that they are intentionally hijacking the think tank. I'd lean to the former.

                                                I think it's a mixture of both.
                                                [quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
                                                [/quote]

                                                [quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]
                                                Comment
                                                • hutennis
                                                  SBR Wise Guy
                                                  • 07-11-10
                                                  • 847

                                                  #129
                                                  Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker
                                                  LOL. Nothing you have ever said on here could be considered "scientific."

                                                  P.S. - You have some serious shortcomings in understanding statistics as evidenced by the rest of your post..
                                                  I guess it must be a top secret.
                                                  If not, I have no idea why you can't just quote that post line by ridiculous line and beat the crap out of it.

                                                  You not authorized to talk about scientific method?
                                                  Or is it something about dolphins?
                                                  Dolphins. That's gotta be it.
                                                  Are they all transformed aliens?
                                                  Comment
                                                  • MonkeyF0cker
                                                    SBR Posting Legend
                                                    • 06-12-07
                                                    • 12144

                                                    #130
                                                    Because it's all garbage.
                                                    Comment
                                                    • Cheme82
                                                      SBR Hall of Famer
                                                      • 09-03-08
                                                      • 7823

                                                      #131
                                                      Originally posted by yisman
                                                      What's the difference between this and players talk? The same thing wound up happening.
                                                      Did you finish reading my post? I finished it with "In the end, we are all the same".
                                                      Comment
                                                      • yisman
                                                        SBR Aristocracy
                                                        • 09-01-08
                                                        • 75682

                                                        #132
                                                        oh, so you were being sarcastic with the beginning of it.
                                                        [quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
                                                        [/quote]

                                                        [quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]
                                                        Comment
                                                        • Cheme82
                                                          SBR Hall of Famer
                                                          • 09-03-08
                                                          • 7823

                                                          #133
                                                          Yes sir.
                                                          Comment
                                                          • Duff85
                                                            SBR MVP
                                                            • 06-15-10
                                                            • 2920

                                                            #134
                                                            I guess those of us with an edge should be happy that hutennis is around. His misinformation will throw some off the scent of becoming profitable (and cutting into some of our edges), while the money he donates to books keeps us all in business. Thanks hutennis for being a life long loser.
                                                            Comment
                                                            • hutennis
                                                              SBR Wise Guy
                                                              • 07-11-10
                                                              • 847

                                                              #135
                                                              Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker
                                                              Because it's all garbage.

                                                              This is the post I really like in this thread. From uva3021

                                                              A z-score comparing yourself to plays you have already made is merely trivial and tells you nothing. What you want to do is find x number of games that you didn't bet on in the past that fit a similar profile and see how well you would have done. Then you can compare
                                                              How is that different from mine

                                                              Now we need to make a prediction (parameters XYZ will continue to make $$$ with statistical significance) and test this prediction using fair (controlled) experiment.
                                                              Is his post garbage too?
                                                              Comment
                                                              • hutennis
                                                                SBR Wise Guy
                                                                • 07-11-10
                                                                • 847

                                                                #136
                                                                =Duff85;15173254His misinformation will throw some off the scent of becoming profitable (and cutting into some of our edges),
                                                                Please, point out misinformation. Please!!!!
                                                                Comment
                                                                • mathdotcom
                                                                  SBR Posting Legend
                                                                  • 03-24-08
                                                                  • 11689

                                                                  #137
                                                                  hutennis,

                                                                  gambling value expectation z-score not future know expected unpredictable don't unknown know anything why past future test random unpredictable uncertainty risk market million bankrupt efficiency gambling value expectation z-score not future know expected unpredictable don't unknown know anything why past future test random unpredictable uncertainty risk market million bankrupt efficiency gambling value expectation z-score not future know expected unpredictable don't unknown know anything why past future test random unpredictable uncertainty risk market million bankrupt efficiency

                                                                  Agree?
                                                                  Comment
                                                                  • yak merchant
                                                                    SBR High Roller
                                                                    • 11-04-10
                                                                    • 109

                                                                    #138
                                                                    Originally posted by hutennis
                                                                    OK, no trolling anymore. LOL
                                                                    Let’s get to the point.
                                                                    The point is handicapping .

                                                                    This is how most people over here understand handicapping process.

                                                                    1. Research. Collecting data.
                                                                    Using whatever method available, from simple copy/paste to sophisticated scraping technics,
                                                                    thousands of data points are collected let’s say in excel. Most people here can only do copy/paste,
                                                                    So they constantly on a look out for tips on how to be more proficient in their data collecting.
                                                                    Any good piece of VB code they can get their hands on considered to be a giant lip forward on the way
                                                                    to become a true handicapper. Very naïve.

                                                                    2. Modeling.
                                                                    Now we have a data and it’s time to create a model.
                                                                    Model seems to be some kind of macro with some sort of statistical analysis built in that will go over collected data points
                                                                    looking for most profitable situations with highest statistical significance.
                                                                    So if we were able to find parameters X,Y,Z delivering profit $$$ and z-score on this combination
                                                                    Is 2.5 we got ourselves a pretty good model indeed.

                                                                    Most people stop right there, call it handicapping and get really excited.
                                                                    They post question about calculating edge so they can apply Kelly and get maximum growth out of their discovery.
                                                                    I reply with a comment that they can’t get anything out of past results. As far as future profits are concerned past results are useless
                                                                    and get slammed.
                                                                    In fact, they have as much right to call themselves a handicappers as guy who sprayed side of the barn with machine gun and then painted a bullseye around largest random clusters has a right to call himself a sharpshooter.
                                                                    If someone does not understand the analogy – think longer.
                                                                    If you understand, but don’t agree – I’m sorry, you are wrong. Analogy is perfect.


                                                                    So what is missing here?
                                                                    What is missing is an understanding of a scientific method.
                                                                    We don’t have working model here. We only have hypothesis to work with.

                                                                    Now we need to make a prediction (parameters XYZ will continue to make $$$ with statistical significance) and test this prediction
                                                                    using fair (controlled) experiment.

                                                                    Now, this is long, slow and complicated process. At best, it is just one game per day, you know. In some sports it is one per week!
                                                                    It may take just a couple of days to collect past data and come up with macro and it takes years to test it.
                                                                    (not to complicate things farther I will give you an assumption that ordinal conditions never change.)
                                                                    That is why it takes years for pharmaceutical companies to bring new drug on a market.

                                                                    Lets say you got your conformation. Your prediction is tested and you like the results. Is that it?
                                                                    Not at all. To complete process you must submit your experimental data for a peer review.
                                                                    This is usually group of very qualified people who are very unfriendly to your whole idea and will do their best to pick it apart.
                                                                    It is unpleasant but an absolute must to make sure that you did not make intentional or unintentional mistakes which would make your results look better than they otherwise should be.

                                                                    Well, you can always say:”FU hutennis! FU you and your scientific BS! There are people on this forum who won millions using past data, excel and a few statistical tricks!” That’s what Matthy just said.
                                                                    That would be a text book example of a conformation bias. Mathy is only using the evidence that confirm his believe that past data, excel and little bit of statistic is all it takes. Nothing is said about those who lost millions doing just that.
                                                                    It’s like declaring dolphins a super smart, friendly animals with predisposition to help people who got in trouble in a ocean b/c there are numerous reports that dolphins help people to survive by pushing them to a shore.
                                                                    Too bad, we can not interview those who drown when pushed away from the shore.
                                                                    If we could, we would see that it’s about 50/50 and dolphins do not have a super natural urge to help man kind but simply an animals who like to play with objects struggling in the water.

                                                                    So, “FU hutennis” is always an option. If you can not do it the right way, you can always settle for trying to get lucky and declare your lucky results to be a product of skilful handicapping. After all, skillful handicapping is possible. There is somebody out there (maybe even on this forum) who can do it. You can always say you are one of them and tell to fuk off to any one who would dare to doubt.

                                                                    This is actually the first post that you've made that has any semblance of an answer to your "World is Flat" view of sports betting. And while yes 99.8% of people do exactly what you describe and have no real advantage, that doesn't mean the 0.2% don’t win.
                                                                    (Insert meaningless analogy here to offset all stupid dolphin analogies).

                                                                    So your whole argument revolves around the following?

                                                                    1. People are too stupid to do anything correctly.

                                                                    2. Dividing your data into Training Sets and Testing Sets has no value in building a model because they are both in the past. And we know that absolutely nothing that happens in the past can affect the future.

                                                                    3. If a model generates 3 picks a day, and makes money consistently for 20 years in a row that is not confirmation enough as I must submit my model to "peers" to confirm the obvious math before I can feel good about myself.

                                                                    4. Markets are so efficient that they pretty much can’t be beat and a model could only spit out one play a week, yet at the same time so inefficient that if you have an advantage it will be there for years while you confirm it with your scientific method? But the advantage (while not possible) is not enough because having your liberal d-bag professor friends inflate your self-esteem by confirming your hypothesis and eroding your advantage is much more important than making money.

                                                                    I digress, but I'll agree with you that most people can't make money no matter what they come up with, and most people that try to use statistics to handicap probably just fool themselves at first, but the idea that sports betting is unbeatable and that looking at past events to help predict future events is even more useless is quite a declaration. Sure people have different levels of understanding and training when it comes to statistics but people have to start someplace. Me f…ing up a regression in a spreadsheet 15 years ago is no worse than me really having no idea what I’m doing setting up a GARCH model in Matlab today, but in all cases I’m responsible for making sure what I’m betting makes money, statistics and the scientific method be damned.

                                                                    And speaking of people starting somewhere; the Think Tank is really a waste of space and talent. If anyone comes in here to try to learn something, they get one thing; belittled. Belittled for trying something stupid, belittled for trying to beat sports betting in the first place, belittled for not have a grasp of advanced statistics, etc, etc. You would think that a forum where some the smartest and best handicappers frequent would be alive with activity, but it’s pretty evident that isn’t the case, I wonder why?
                                                                    I get that nobody is going to line up to give away their advantage in here, and there will be disagreements, but I’ve been running around the internet gambling forums for a long time, and I’ve never seen a more hostile, unfriendly and unhelpful place.
                                                                    Comment
                                                                    • hutennis
                                                                      SBR Wise Guy
                                                                      • 07-11-10
                                                                      • 847

                                                                      #139
                                                                      Originally posted by yak merchant
                                                                      This is actually the first post that you've made that has any semblance of an answer to your "World is Flat" view of sports betting. And while yes 99.8% of people do exactly what you describe and have no real advantage, that doesn't mean the 0.2% don’t win.
                                                                      (Insert meaningless analogy here to offset all stupid dolphin analogies).

                                                                      So your whole argument revolves around the following?

                                                                      1. People are too stupid to do anything correctly.
                                                                      Never said all people are stupid. But stupid people have a very little chance. That's correct.

                                                                      2. Dividing your data into Training Sets and Testing Sets has no value in building a model because they are both in the past.
                                                                      It is not that big of a news really. It is very well established that backward - looking only models in speculative fields don't work that well.
                                                                      It seems that sport betting world is the last place to be in a dark about it. I wonder why.

                                                                      And we know that absolutely nothing that happens in the past can affect the future.
                                                                      You don't seem to pay attention to words you chose. Very, very superficial approach.
                                                                      "Affect" and "predict" is not the same thing.

                                                                      3. If a model generates 3 picks a day, and makes money consistently for 20 years in a row that is not confirmation enough as I must submit my model to "peers" to confirm the obvious math before I can feel good about myself.
                                                                      IF you already have "a model that generates 3 picks a day, and makes money consistently for 20 years in a row" you have to do nothing.
                                                                      except maybe laughing all the way to the bank. We would have to take your word for it, congratulate you and wish you all the best in a future. I was not even talking about something that has such a fabulous record, albeit only in your words.
                                                                      Again "if I say so, you must believe me" attitude is unique for sport betting forums world only. It would be very hard laughed at any where else.

                                                                      Otherwise. some form of peer review is essential if you are serious about being right.

                                                                      4. Markets are so efficient that they pretty much can’t be beat and a model could only spit out one play a week, yet at the same time so inefficient that if you have an advantage it will be there for years while you confirm it with your scientific method? But the advantage (while not possible) is not enough because having your liberal d-bag professor friends inflate your self-esteem by confirming your hypothesis and eroding your advantage is much more important than making money.
                                                                      Sorry, this passage is a bit to deep. But, I guess, if you find dolphin analogy stupid no wonder you consider what ever is above smart.

                                                                      Overall, it becomes painfully apparent that great jurist Oliver Holmes was so right when he said:
                                                                      "Trying to educate a bigot (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is like shining light into the pupil of an eye - it constricts."
                                                                      Comment
                                                                      • allin1
                                                                        SBR MVP
                                                                        • 11-07-11
                                                                        • 4555

                                                                        #140
                                                                        Originally posted by yak merchant
                                                                        And speaking of people starting somewhere; the Think Tank is really a waste of space and talent. If anyone comes in here to try to learn something, they get one thing; belittled. Belittled for trying something stupid, belittled for trying to beat sports betting in the first place, belittled for not have a grasp of advanced statistics, etc, etc. You would think that a forum where some the smartest and best handicappers frequent would be alive with activity, but it’s pretty evident that isn’t the case, I wonder why?
                                                                        I get that nobody is going to line up to give away their advantage in here, and there will be disagreements, but I’ve been running around the internet gambling forums for a long time, and I’ve never seen a more hostile, unfriendly and unhelpful place.
                                                                        I agree with the hostile and unfriendly part but I do think it could be helpful.
                                                                        Comment
                                                                        SBR Contests
                                                                        Collapse
                                                                        Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                                                                        Collapse
                                                                        Working...