-
Comment -
If your book is charging you 110 before the game is played, then only giving you back 100, then it is really time for a new book my friend, and I may have a few things to sell you as well. If you are betting like every one of the rest of us, we are betting 110 to win 100, no money taken out of our account unless we lose, and if for some reason it is taken out, 210 gets returned if it wins. I don't see any juice on those wins, that is just a silly comment.Comment -
-
According to your system rules you ALWAYS play ml on the favorites, why did you decide to alter your system and play the spread instead? Everybody seems to love rules here and god for bid you buy a .5 to match the spread of the picks stiffler posts so that everyone's on the same page.Comment -
As I said, I am done arguing with you in this thread. But that was a good point, and one which was already explained in JM thread.Comment -
Wallco99 - I thought I was agreeing with you - coming back to your side of the equation about canceling betsIf you are betting like every one of the rest of us, we are betting 110 to win 100, no money taken out of our account unless we lose
whenever I make a wager my account goes down by the amount I wager. What book do you use where you can play for free LOL this is getting silly - We need GAMES!!
mrk77 - Not everybody can buy points you know - plus buying points is silly just to be like everybody else. Negative Expectation and all that. The amount of times you buy a point and the number of times that point will be in play do not add up in the real world. Sure - you remember all the times it does, just like people that play teasers remember the times they win because of it but it's just another way books make money of people.
Nuff said on the subject.
Good Luck on the "D" game tonight guys!!! geez we ARE like a family - bickering and all that yet, we all love each other . . . in a manly way!Comment -
so getting back on track, does anyone see the Nuggets line moving to 9.5? I'm just wondering since I'll be heading out and I rather not have to try and check the lines/place bets once I head out.Comment -
I am not disagreeing with a lot of what you say, but this juice on wins is nonsense. I play with a private online book, nothing comes off my balance, just my available credit drops by 110. When the bet wins, that 110 is refunded, as well as the 100 for winning the bet. NO JUICE. Online books work the same way, except 110 comes out of your actual account, when you win, 210 will go back in. How is that juice on a win? You have really confused me here and I am hard to confuse. Is that confusing? LOL
If you are talking about the cancelling bets, one winning 100 and one losing 110, then that's not juice on a WIN, that is juice on a LOSS, both games didn't win, one of them lost.Last edited by Wallco99; 12-03-12, 05:07 PM.Comment -
What do you mean no juice - if there was no juice you would get 220 back not 210. Right?When the bet wins, that 110 is refunded, as well as the 100 for winning the bet. NO JUICE.
Bet 110 to win 110 = no juice
Bet 110 to win 100 = 9.1% Juice
With your way of thinking
IF you and me flip a coin for $110. IF you win I will give you $210 - no juice. If I win you give me your $110.Comment -
You know how to screw up an evening...i went back and checked some of these numbers again...
ok team by team:
Atlanta: debatable, still unbeaten though
Chicago: debatable, still winning on losing streaks + they will slow down this season while i think bookies will still give them credit.
Detroit: we both made a mistake here i think. I have them @ 2 losses, ur having Detroit @ 4 losses. They had 3 overall (just 1 on W-streaks). Still i do like the numbers overall, i will play them, maybe will make a change after the season.
Denver: i was on drugs here, had them on 2 losses while they are really sitting on 4. So far i will keep everything like listed, but maybe i will make situational decisions on Denver series bets.
Utah: debatable, still winning on losing streaks
Toronto: i do like them based on their numbers, i dont care about bosh leaving.
Sacramento: dont see a problem here.
extra teams:
Cleveland: looks ok, maybe next year
OKC + Portland: both had good numbers on S1, but as i said i didnt pick every team with a winning record. OKC had much D bets, Portland a bit too much D bets the last 3 years. Still this is also debatable and definitely not a bad move playing them aswell.
Washington: cant tell u exactly why i didnt pick them, numbers looking good. Definitely a playable team.
Like i said before, there is room 4 improvement. The overall winnings the years before also will leave some extra losing series to still end in the + area. Still i know everything can change, there is no guarantee. I currently started backtesting 2,3 new systems aswell, but this will take some time and will get added next year (if numbers look good ofc)Comment -
-Denver line updated.
03.12.2012
S2
(D Bet) Cle fade: Miami -14,5 1,10u | Memphis -12,5 2,31u | Atlanta -8,5 4,85u | Detroit -4,5 10,19u
S3
(A Bet) Tor fade: Denver -10 1,10uComment -
I'm pretty sure he did it exactly as I did it.
Back test S1-S4 on Covers closing lines, looked at the numbers and picked those who looked best.
Seems a reasonable approach.
That I don't agree on, you are making this to simple and it's not what the reality looks like.I don't think it matters WHO is on the team at all. I feel we are handicapping the town and organization, not the players.
I'm very comfortable following trends on teams, who are playing together for years. Some of them are very predictable and it's becoming really easy to pick value on them.
OKC, Miami, San Antonio, Boston, Indiana, Memphis, Clippers some other teams as well. I know exactly the spots when to pick and when to avoid them. They are predictable because they nearly stayed unchanged the last couple years and all have some profitable patterns.
It really gets tough when teams, go from contender to lottery, in between or newly formed, where you just don't have a clue
Chicago (no Rose), Dallas (no Dirk), Milwaukee, Orlando (no Howard), Cleveland (no LeBron), Toronto (no Bosh) etc.
You just don't have a clue where these teams end up and they become very unpredictable.
You are not betting on organisations you are betting on those teams and their patterns. Teams change, patterns change and bookies have no clue either how to adjust for newly formed teams (they don't have to, they get balanced action most of the time anyway). Take a team like Orlando who had Dwight for the last 6 years, they are completely different now, all those S1-S4 trends are useless here, no one knows how they will perform and how the bookies will judge them.Comment -
That's what I said. -110 on the placed bet out of the account, 210 back in on the win. They take the juice plus the bet right away so you can't bet more than what your account has. Juice is the COST of LOSING! If you win, you don't pay. During the course of a chase that goes past the A bet, yes you will pay the juice, but you are to include that loss in your next wager of the chase.Comment -
No more juice talk, starting now.Comment -
Yes, but I still agree with the original premise that any bets that go head to head, the monetary equivalent on both sides should be skipped for that bet. He just rambled on in confusion of what is and isn't juice in his mind, and frankly, it has mentally drained me for the evening. Good luck on the plays tonight everyone.Comment -
Yes thanks for the reply.
Sure a lot is debatable, always good to get other opinions.
My view differs a bit, I like it when teams don't change too much or there is a reasonable explanation for a system play on them.
I'm pretty confident this is dependant on the players and the system a team plays.
Orlando e.g. I would not touch for any system plays.
No clue how they will change now without Howard leaving and no clue how the bookies will adjust.
I've also tested some teams for S1 O/U streaks too and some look playable, I'll try it this season.Comment -
Comment -
It sounds like you are more comfortable with handicapping instead of system play. Well, this is system play in here and the handicapping gets checked at the door. Take the emotions and opinions out of the equation and play the series that follow the system criteria, regardless of what city they are in, what players left, or what color underwear everyone on the team is wearing.Comment -
Systems are totally different animals then handicapping and you gotta check your brain at the door and bet like a monkey. The more you use your brain the more trouble you will get into. The only time to use the brain is when you pull the plug and cut your losses.Well, this is system play in here and the handicapping gets checked at the door.
Otherwise - just ride the wave.
hmmmm - have not sold me on that one yet. But I totally understand the concept in the NFL, just not the NBA yet. Dumb people bet the NFL but the people that play the NBA are smarter. I don't think there is that much wiggle room in NBA Spreads. The bookies are REALLY good.nope, ur betting against the bookie.
Not arguing but my personal opinion is that I don't think there are enough numbers in 2 or 3 years. Not enough in the last 10 years actually.Still i agree system numbers the last 2-3 years are more important than those 10 years ago.
BUT - you don't see me not betting do ya? :-)Last edited by Grinder12000; 12-03-12, 06:50 PM.Comment -
I don't see any difference between a system and a single play.
You need some edge and that you gain looking at the numbers and either make subjective adjustments or not.
When I can't quantify my edge or can't know that I have one I stay away, simple as that. Nothing to do with emotions, just common sense.
I never saw this as betting against the bookie.nope, ur betting against the bookie. He tries to even the teams on the spread. Still i agree system numbers the last 2-3 years are more important than those 10 years ago.You are not betting on organisations you are betting on those teams and their patterns.
I always see it as betting against the market, sure the bookie opens with some line, which is usually accurate. The market will adjust based on what info is available.
Then you judge if there is some edge, you can take advantage of.
In the end you looked for a pattern, where the market got it wrong and now you try to exploit it. In my opinion it's still all based on the players/coach, who play on a team and not on how the team is called. Which is why I will look to avoid teams, which changed a lot of their personell.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong about this. I'm jut sharing my thoughts on this and how I'm going to approach it. Thanks a lot for your great idea.
I kind of agree on that.Not arguing but my personal opinion is that I don't think there are enough numbers in 2 or 3 years. Not enough in the last 10 years actually.
Selecting teams for system plays based on this approach can be flawed, the data sets are very small, or are just noise if they are to old.Comment -
Let's Go Pistons !!! Cover the -4.5 Tonight !!!Comment -
Sorry,guy.ok,just leave it to stifler.Comment -
Fooubar you're pretty much handicapping at that point, systems take handicapping and throw it out the window. If you try to incorporate it you're just going to miss out. Stifler is 100% correct that you bet against the bookie, team composition has nothing to do with it. If your bookie is good at his job or if you use any aggregate site like Covers they can easily adjust the spread when a team changes. There are methods, it's been done since the beginning of sports betting.
As Wallco said, you can really tell which people here are single play handicappers and which ones are used to systems.Last edited by thelimit0310; 12-03-12, 08:36 PM.Comment
, but then again your comments are so hilarious!! 
