Originally posted on 04/23/2011:

I don't know whether it was said previously because i don't have time to go through every post in this thread, so if i repeat someone than please ignore this post.

I have great repsect for you SJ and think you are a great capper. don't always agree with your analysis because sometimes it feels like it is just 'too simple' if u know what i mean. but that's not the point since results should speak for themselves and they should.

I don't mean to criticize you and but you have not hit 60%, and to be honest i don't think this is some sign of greatness. By saying 'it is impossible to hit 60% over long term' one (and people saying this) means that you are not able to do this on the most efficient markets and with wiledely available lines.

Now i think that those conditions require playing only nba sides and totals (well ok, if you want you can add halves, team totals etc) and no points buying. because imagine these examples: what is the point of saying 'i hit 65% when i play nba moneylines' or 'i hit 65% on player props at some exotic books'? i guess a lot of skilled players can do this.

To not get me wrong... if you want to show your true record against this hypothesis then you should subtract all the games where you bought poits from the official record and then see what it is. now you have legitimate win % that you can for ex test using binomial distr. if you all know what i am talking about. otherwise, if you look at the games you bought points, you have a bunch of games where you buying points obv increases the juice (and i am sure everyone can figure what % of plays you have to hit to break even with, say -140 lines) and saved you quite a few times - recent example with OKC, i remember a reg season game LAL -3,5 ag PHO (or sth similar, i know because i happened to play LAL -4,5 i guess and lost) and so on. So either you extract those games and show 'true' win% ag. the hypothesis or you say 'i hit 60% on different lines and am up this many units'.

Again, this is not criticizing SJ, but the statement is evidently incorrent. i am not sure you can hit 60% within conditions that would be required, but who cares? guy is hitting probably 57-58% on games where he did not buy points and in an efficient market (which is NBA sides and totals) and is a long term winner. 60% shit in itself does not mean anything if you are able to hit 55% or more over some decent number of plays and everybody who knows this game knows what i am talking about. give the guy credit for what he's doing because he's giving out winners for free, but let the debate of 60% myth end because this has no sense.

To end this, i my own have an nba model which hits around 54% long term playing 700-800 a season on sided (which is thought to be the toughest nba market to beat). now, this is a lot of plays and record might not be extremely impressive, but if you narrow down the plays to 150 it hits over 56%. if you narrow it down futher to the strongest plays (that differ from market line the most) you can get this results: 56-37 in 2009-10 season (60,2%) and 53-29 (64,6%) this season. So, can you say it hits over 60%? i dont know and i dont care to honest with you. i do care it to hit consistently but if this is 59% then fine with me. i suppose this will make profit going forward but don't bother about a magical 60% threshold. another thing is i will also play some weaker plays, because i would be missing on some opportunities. if i were obsessed with the %, i would play the strongest ones only, which are this 20-9 (69%) and 14-4 (78%) for respective seasons. so i could play only those and say - oh look i hit 70% long term, but i would play only 20-30 games a season, which is not nearly enough. actually i might give up ome of the weakest plays since they cost me some money in the 2nd part of the season (that's when i started playing the system) but that's not thread for it.

sj keep doing what you do and others let him do the work and not bother about some 60% shit