..how would Einstein approach handicapping?

[Ratzz]

is this all just some massive equation? (i.e. the Matrix)

what happens when you combine traditional handicapping
with a little math, maybe some Calculus?

would it predict a low scoring outcome today?

March 15th

MIL/NYK__Under 51.5__1ST QTR

seems like a good possibility

as well, seems probable

March 15th

MIL/NYK__Under 206__GAME

[44 Mag]

is this all just some massive equation? (i.e. the Matrix)

what happens when you combine traditional handicapping
with a little math, maybe some Calculus?

would it predict a low scoring outcome today?

March 15th

MIL/NYK__Under 51.5__1ST QTR

seems like a good possibility

as well, seems probable

March 15th

MIL/NYK__Under 206__GAME

He wouldn't, to answer your question, he only dealt in mathematical theories. LOL By the way you did not win either wager. But, neither did I, I took Milwaukee +10.5. Good Luck tonight.

[Ratzz]

He wouldn't, to answer your question, he only dealt in mathematical theories. LOL By the way you did not win either wager. But, neither did I, I took Milwaukee +10.5. Good Luck tonight.

i agree,*i do not think for one instant that Einstein would ever waste his Time (had to cap it for Albert)..

but nevertheless...
i would love to know how he or other great mathematicians/physicists might approach these problems..

if he accurately predicted so many cosmological events..
and they all have to do with energy, force, inertia.. gravity.. time..

kinda sounds like a sporting event to me.. i was just curious..
the first two lost.. but i am still on board trying to mix capping and some mathematics..

[Ratzz]

March 15th

CHI__–2__1ST QTR

seems quite possible, let's see

[44 Mag]

March 15th

CHI__–2__1ST QTR

seems quite possible, let's see

I guess, in theory, that makes you and Albert, 0-3 . Try another sport pal, or go to MIT.

[NBACover]

44 Mag layin' the douche bag reply.




Ouch.

[y2kr1000]

[QUOTE=NBACover;21402788]44 Mag layin' the douche bag reply.

This "douche" doesn't know respect, hence the label.

[Ratzz]

March 16th

PHX__+2.5__1ST HALF

tried the equation from yesterday.. but switching to 1H's

(both would have won,*1H instead of 1Q)

[Ratzz]

March 16th

NOR__–3__1ST HALF vs. Boston

Phoenix equation worked... on the road..

let's see about New Orleans at home

[44 Mag]

March 16th

NOR__–3__1ST HALF vs. BostonPhoenix equation worked... on the road..

let's see about New Orleans at home

I would go with that. The Celtics are not good. Nice theory after the fact on the halves bet, but it still doesn't count. BOL tonight my man.

[No coincidences]

Pelicans with pretty much the worst defensive effort I've seen in a single half of NBA ball this season.

[El Sol]

Sporting events by and large have a random outcome, its the prime reason Sports betting even exists. You can only produce probabilities with many variables to consider. I realize the majority of SBR posters will disagree with me, but the following is true. Successful handicappers are not trying to pick winners exactly, they are looking for probable outcomes the books got wrong in relation to the betting lines. In a sentence, you are comparing payout odds vs probable odds on the outcome. Thats why you will hear people say they picked the right side with the wrong outcome. Pros are grinding away at the tiny mistakes books make in large betting markets, not picking winners.

Einstein would have no part in this, he dealt in absolutes.

[No coincidences]

Sporting events by and large have a random outcome, its the prime reason Sports betting even exists. You can only produce probabilities with many variables to consider. I realize the majority of SBR posters will disagree with me, but the following is true. Successful handicappers are not trying to pick winners exactly, they are looking for probable outcomes the books got wrong in relation to the betting lines. In a sentence, you are comparing payout odds vs probable odds on the outcome. Thats why you will hear people say they picked the right side with the wrong outcome. Pros are grinding away at the tiny mistakes books make in large betting markets, not picking winners.

Einstein would have no part in this, he dealt in absolutes.

Completely agree. Hell, there's a reason basically no one on the planet earth can get this shit right more than 60% of the time.

[Ratzz]

\ March 16th

GSW__–1__1ST HALF vs. Portand

missed with NOR, but i think i know why..
did a test on that and DAL worked

if that adjustment on DAL is correct.. then GSW looks good

[Ratzz]

Sporting events by and large have a random outcome, its the prime reason Sports betting even exists. You can only produce probabilities with many variables to consider. I realize the majority of SBR posters will disagree with me, but the following is true. Successful handicappers are not trying to pick winners exactly, they are looking for probable outcomes the books got wrong in relation to the betting lines. In a sentence, you are comparing payout odds vs probable odds on the outcome. Thats why you will hear people say they picked the right side with the wrong outcome. Pros are grinding away at the tiny mistakes books make in large betting markets, not picking winners.

Einstein would have no part in this, he dealt in absolutes.

i totally agree, nevertheless.. it's worth a look

he did die convinced he could make both Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity work together,
he did not..

Completely agree. Hell, there's a reason basically no one on the planet earth can get this shit right more than 60% of the time.

lol.. Dr. No nails it

[I am the one]

He'd whip his cawk out and spray loads of jizz