Are you guys taking Boston because you think it's the "sharp" thing to do?

[dynamite140]

I meant No Coin took Boston because too him, it looked like a trap b/c of how good OKC was and giving so little points on the road. Had it been OKC -5, then he would haven't touched the game.

No Coin always lies and says he didn't take a team b/c of the line and uses some hilarious excuse for it.

[Love The Action]

Sharp play exists. Only for the privileged 2% of the players that earned from betting. Those games u mentioned could be 60:40 or 65:35 of money in the boat because of that they are able to use sharp lines to hedge. The book will leave those games alone. However the books will definitely destroy those 80:20 90:10 heavy boats without even needing sharp lines, in fact the result is far from the line. You can observe from your years of betting. Not a coincidence even ML bets are destroyed.

Based on your logic of 50 50 for everything then don't even bet because u'll lose in the long run. 98% do.

I agree to some extent. Ofcourse there are winning "sharp" plays. However, my point is that you have to pick your spots. It's the same way with RLM, where you must use that in conjunction with other factors in order to make the winning play. If you just bet all RLM or all "fishy" lines, you will lose. There is more that goes into long term success.

In addition, people just assume that wagers with 75% or more of the bets lose at a greater rate than their opposites. However, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that with data. I used to track this and found that there was no correlation whatsoever in the amount of bets on one side and whether that side won. You can't just fade the public to profit.

I challenge anyone to track every play with 80% of the bets or more for the rest of the season. If those plays lose at 53% or better, I will paypal them $100.

That will prove once and for all that betting percentages, on their own, mean absolutely nothing. If you are going to fade the public, follow RLM or bet against "fishy" numbers, you have to pick your spots and do it when other winning quantitative and qualitative factors are present.

[YOUNGBUCK]

I agree to some extent. Ofcourse there are winning "sharp" plays. However, my point is that you have to pick your spots. It's the same way with RLM, where you must use that in conjunction with other factors in order to make the winning play. If you just bet all RLM or all "fishy" lines, you will lose. There is more that goes into long term success.

In addition, people just assume that wagers with 75% or more of the bets lose at a greater rate than their opposites. However, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that with data. I used to track this and found that there was no correlation whatsoever in the amount of bets on one side and whether that side won. You can't just fade the public to profit.

I challenge anyone to track every play with 80% of the bets or more for the rest of the season. If those plays lose at 53% or better, I will paypal them $100.

That will prove once and for all that betting percentages, on their own, mean absolutely nothing. If you are going to fade the public, follow RLM or bet against "fishy" numbers, you have to pick your spots and do it when other winning quantitative and qualitative factors are present.

Well said LTA

[YOUSENKO]

'I challenge anyone to track every play with 80% of the bets or more for the rest of the season. If those plays lose at 53% or better, I will paypal them $100.'

If those heavy bets u mentioned cross 50% of time the books already crashed. Public can't be as sharp as book and it takes only few of such games to down a book. You realise the industry is still healthy today. Makes sense to assume it crosses 20% of the time only which is 2 out of 10 games. We have no evidence to track the real heavy boat because books don't release heavy boat info. Books are working as a cartel of 8-20 companies and know the true bet info. Lastly statistics don't apply in rigged/manipulated matches. Most of the public don't have insider and wrongly perceived a rigged match just by looking at the lines. It'll end up a decent chunk of money on celtics like just now. They simply leave the match alone.

[Love The Action]

If those heavy bets u mentioned cross 50% of time the books already crashed. Public can't be as sharp as book and it takes only few of such games to down a book. You realise the industry is still healthy today. Makes sense to assume it crosses 20% of the time only which is 2 out of 10 games. We have no evidence to track the real heavy boat because books don't release heavy boat info. Books are working as a cartel of 8-20 companies and know the true bet info. Lastly statistics don't apply in rigged/manipulated matches. Most of the public don't have insider and wrongly perceived a rigged match just by looking at the lines. It'll end up a decent chunk of money on celtics like just now. They simply leave the match alone.

The amount of wagers on one side is inconsequential. Books look to balance money on each side, not the amount of wagers. You are assuming that just because one side has 80% of all wagers, that such side also has 80% of the money.

However, that assumption is wrong. The whole premise behind RLM is that the money coming in on the non-public play (i.e. the side with 20% of the wagers) outweighs the money on the public side (i.e the side with 80% of the wagers). Consequently, when the big money comes in on the non public play, that forces the books to adjust against the nonpublic play and in favor of the public play despite the disparity of number of wagers.

The only thing that matters is the amount of money coming in on one side and one would be foolish to assume that on every 80/20 split, that such a split also equates to the overall handle on that game.

[BigDofBA]

Finally. Someone that gets it.

Face it. Almost everyone loses here. Real sharps aren't going to be surfing SBR.

[No coincidences]

The amount of wagers on one side is inconsequential. Books look to balance money on each side, not the amount of wagers. You are assuming that just because one side has 80% of all wagers, that such side also has 80% of the money.

However, that assumption is wrong. The whole premise behind RLM is that the money coming in on the non-public play (i.e. the side with 20% of the wagers) outweighs the money on the public side (i.e the side with 80% of the wagers). Consequently, when the big money comes in on the non public play, that forces the books to adjust against the nonpublic play and in favor of the public play despite the disparity of number of wagers.

The only thing that matters is the amount of money coming in on one side and one would be foolish to assume that on every 80/20 split, that such a split also equates to the overall handle on that game.

The problem with RLM is the assumption that big money = some kind of guarantee, which it doesn't. No one in this game hits over 60%, so even if you're following RLM, it's not going to assure you of anything because you might be following the money on the wrong day or the wrong play with the wrong guy and the wrong deep pockets.

Like I said, sharp plays are winning plays. Sharp plays don't exist beforehand -- only in retrospect. There may be angles or weaknesses in a line that you spot, but that still doesn't mean anything until after the game is played.

[SaffaCappa]

I think its madness to back a side because "They are due a big game" like the C's last night. If thats how you bet on sports, then rather play the slot machine at a casino! I can understand the angle of betting against the public and effectively "Backing the house", but come on, man!

The C's dropped 4 in a row prior to last night and showed no signs that suggested they were the play!?!

My advice, cap the games before you read someone else's tips.

Good job Thunder, Blazers and 76ers backers

Hip to be square!

[YOUSENKO]

The fact that nobody hits over 60%(i say most 45-55%) here is the reason books need to handle heavy bets to one team with care. Public bettors more often like to rely on such big teams (for eg. chicago just now) to cross handicap to earn money. They end up always losing it. The sharps consists of small percentage took opposite, survive unscathed and won on gambling. Why the hell books are only satisfied with earning juice and losing on heavy bets? They rigged most of such games to maintain their profits because lopsided heavy bets can't be hedged. Imagine one game with $9M of bets on one side $1M on another side combined in the cartel. Sharps survive here because they know which game it is and hidden their money in the $1M. A+ books post 100-300M+ profit yearly. Figure out yourself.

[SHARP69]

Agree. Stop the headgames

i see this a lot on this forum. People go big on a side just because they think the other side is a trap. So since the thunder have the best record in the nba and boston is 4-7 looking like shit, boston must be the play because the line is so low???

I would like some boston backers to chime in here. Why are you taking boston? Do you guys have any other reason than "the line is telling me to"?

Personally, i'm not betting on the game because i'm a huge thunder fan. I don't like betting on teams i'm a fan of because of bias. With that said, i don't see how anyone could back boston here. I know the line is fishy, etc but give me a good reason to take the celtics besides the line.

If the thunder win, i don't want to hear crap like, "well, the squares won again". Is it really square if the an 11-2 team covers three against an old team that is 4-7 and struggling?

hey man i was all over the thunder, now today look at my post

[SHARP69]

Spank the wad

hey man i was all over the thunder, now today look at my post

nuggets the play

[chief42]

nuggets the play

^^hey everybody look at me! Look at me!

[chief42]

People here trying to have a good discussion, and you chime in here trying to boost up your ego because you won a game. Anyway, I appreciate the insight people have brought to the table. It can only help us all to become better sports investors.

[BigDofBA]

nuggets the play

You also had Denver -10 against Utah a few days ago and they lost by like 12 points