Originally posted on 07/05/2014:

Well no, PSU should be favored and likely win, no argument there. It's just the logic behind it I disagreed with. I'm saying look at the game factors more than a streak that IMO has no real bearing on the outcome of the game. I do think Edsall is a good coach that took over a dead program, and we need a few more years to see how that whole thing hashes out. It could be Bill Belichek coaching PSU, that first game under a new coach and system is often not your best performance for obvious reasons. Is Edsall better? Who knows, but the coaching ADVANTAGE right now for week 1 is in Maryland's favor here IMO. PSU lost a coach who could not possibly have done a better job than he did, O'Brien was amazing. Franklin resurrected an SEC program, and Edsall took a program that almost got dropped back down to division II to the friggin Fiesta Bowl. Let's not start calling the guy mediocre just yet here.

The pros that I know don't purposely bet against streaks, they simply ignore them, and sometimes the side they take just happens to be on the other side of the streak. That's all.

For roulette, I couldn't quite understand what you were getting at, but just to clarify, previous outcomes of what numbers hit at the table have no influence whatsoever on what's coming next. None. None. Yes, streaks do happen, but you don't know when they are going to start and when they are going to end, so there is no advantage there. Unless you believe in voodoo, the chance of landing on red is still 47.37% on a 00 board. There are a lot of people that do believe in the fallacy of luck and streaks at the roulette table, and this is one of many reasons why Vegas will lose a battle here and there, but always win the war.

I make one wager like this every week. My jealous enemies out there often criticize it saying that one loss could wipe out all profits that I make in a season. This is correct, but the fact is that I have NOT lost a wager of this kind in 3 YEARS. That is 48-0. It certainly is a risk, but if you are not willing to take such a risk to make what is just about a guaranteed income every week, then you do not know the secrets to being a successful gambler.

And you've completely lost me here. So you're pretty much saying yourself it's just a matter of time, no? What goes up, just keeps going up? A real "enemy" would encourage you to keep doing that until it inevitably collapses and leaves you with nothing. A lot of people back in the day would do that with Mike Tyson fights. They would drop down 100K, and even if a win only netted them 5K, it was still a quick 5% return on their investment. They probably thought they had "unlocked the secrets to successful gambling" too. Then Buster Douglass happened.

Wayne Allen Root is nothing more than a huckster, and a very good one. Same as Steve Stevens and all of those other spaghetti clowns that advertise on the radio, he knows the real money is in subscription fees. All you have to do is pretend like you have secret "information" (though you never have to prove it. Your "information" can be the local newspaper for all anyone knows.), hire a few of life's leftovers to overly-aggressively sell the product, and count your money. You don't have to bet a dime, and they usually don't. "Fading streaks" was just one of many half-assed gimmicks he used. Home dogs was another one, as if he himself invented that strategy. He was bad because he was bad, not because of one particular angle.

So all I'm saying is that logic and probability always wins out when it's all said and done. What DOES come to an end eventually are things like streaks and luck. Where you'll be when it finally does come to an end depends on your ability to understand this and manage your money accordingly.

Whether we agree or disagree, we all need to stick together. There are only a handful of us in the NCAAF forum that know what they're talking about, have the passion for it, and don't troll. Looking forward to the banter ahead.