Beta consensus fading public $/Record to date

[PAULYPOKER]

Record According to fading the public or participating books profit/losses

Week 9

book losses
Den/Cin $17k
Ari/GB $32.5k
Mia/Ind $67k
Det/Jac $19.5k
Chi/Ten $73k
Car/Was $28k
Tam/Oak $190k
Min/Sea $40k
total losses $467k

games they made profit on

Bal/Clev $34k
Buf/Hou $32.5k
Pit/NYG $48k
Dal/ATL $166K

total profit $280.5k

Net total -186.5k

Record won 4 lost 9
________________________________________ _____________________________


Week 10

book losses

Ind/Jac $430K
Oak/Bal $11K
SD/TB $35K
Ten/Mia $81K
NYG/Cin $16K
Den/Car $106K
ATL/NO $70K
Dal/Phi $143K
total losses $892K

games they made profit on

Det/Min $115K
Buf/NE $47K
NYJ/Sea $65K
St.L/SF $35K
Hou/Chi $254K
KC/Pit $129K
total profit $645k

Net total -$247k

Record won 6 lost 8

Combined Record won 10 lost 17

Combined Net total -$433.5K

[No coincidences]

Wait what? How did the books lose money on CIN/NYG and DEN/CAR?

[PAULYPOKER]

look @ consensus.........

[PAULYPOKER]

Coin,

I suggest you pay no attention to this,

because it will just confuse you to point of no return.............

[Sledge187]

Sweet.

[No coincidences]

Coin,

I suggest you pay no attention to this,

because it will just confuse you to point of no return.............

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Link?

[No coincidences]

Anything that suggests the books lost more combined money on Denver than they won with Buffalo and St. Louis covering isn't a very accurate barometer....

[PAULYPOKER]

http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-odds/consensus/

[tto827]

Ya I find it very hard to believe that the books lost that much this week, would be nice to see if we can get where the numbers come from, and if Doc doesn't tell Loshak he got destroyed again, as cool of a feature as this is, we can pretty much call it useless.

[PAULYPOKER]

Anything that suggests the books lost more combined money on Denver than they won with Buffalo and St. Louis covering isn't a very accurate barometer....

Ya I find it very hard to believe that the books lost that much this week, would be nice to see if we can get where the numbers come from, and if Doc doesn't tell Loshak he got destroyed again, as cool of a feature as this is, we can pretty much call it useless.

If you guys don't see the usefulness in this info,I can't help you.....................

Combined Record won 9 lost 17

[No coincidences]

http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-odds/consensus/

****

[No coincidences]

If you guys don't see the usefulness in this info,I can't help you.....................

Combined Record won 9 lost 17

Where are these numbers coming from?

Are you suggesting there was only $115,000 total bet on the Buffalo/New England game yesterday?

[tto827]

If you guys don't see the usefulness in this info,I can't help you.....................

Combined Record won 9 lost 17

As I said there is potential here, its just that these numbers are completely unverified, for all you know Lou has a monkey hammering numbers into it. I find it hard to believe that the public was on Cincy and Denver, almost everyone was either on the favs in both of those, or on both dogs.

[No coincidences]

The idea that the books lost yesterday is borderline laughable.

Cincinnati covered
St. Louis covered
Buffalo covered
Seattle covered
Minnesota covered
Houston covered

Only games they got burned on were Denver and Dallas.

[PAULYPOKER]

So I ask the same question: how did the books lose with Denver again?

$263,472 on Denver
$157,225 on Carolina

I think you're the one who's confused here Pauly -- not me.

Did Denver cover ATS?

Was there more money on Denver?

did the books have to payout -106K on this game?

Holy Fukk

[No coincidences]

As I said there is potential here, its just that these numbers are completely unverified, for all you know Lou has a monkey hammering numbers into it. I find it hard to believe that the public was on Cincy and Denver, almost everyone was either on the favs in both of those, or on both dogs.

It's like going by SBROdds public %, which are based on 5Dimes only.

Agree that this would be very useful info. if verifiable and legitimate.

[PAULYPOKER]

As I said there is potential here, its just that these numbers are completely unverified, for all you know Lou has a monkey hammering numbers into it. I find it hard to believe that the public was on Cincy and Denver, almost everyone was either on the favs in both of those, or on both dogs.

Fukk verification............

We want consistency grasshopper

[No coincidences]

Did Denver cover ATS?

Was there more money on Denver?

did the books have to payout -106K on this game?

Holy Fukk

My bad -- I was reading it backwards for that Denver game.

Still, where are these numbers coming from? You're talking about a ridiculously small sample size.

[PAULYPOKER]

My bad -- I was reading it backwards for that Denver game.

Still, where are these numbers coming from? You're talking about a ridiculously small sample size.

The numbers don't matter,

Just the consistency and patterns,

this is why I'm keeping track..................

[tto827]

Its a good idea to keep track, again until Doc verifies that he got hit hard this week, I'm putting no value into this.

And if they are not reputable numbers, you cannot draw consistency and patterns out of a true random sample.

[No coincidences]

The numbers don't matter,

Just the consistency and patterns,

this is why I'm keeping track..................

But again, what are you keeping track of? Where are these numbers coming from? $119,000 total bet on New England/Buffalo? This would be great if you could get a larger, more accurate sample size.

[allabout the $$$]

The idea that the books lost yesterday is borderline laughable.

Cincinnati covered
St. Louis covered
Buffalo covered
Seattle covered
Minnesota covered
Houston covered

Only games they got burned on were Denver and Dallas.

take seattle off that list books took a beating in that game

[rfr3sh]

its pooled from 5 books which cannot be named as part of the agreement in sharing the info

[PAULYPOKER]

Anyone who is reading this thread,

I suggest,

if you want any useful info from it,

you should pay attention to my posts only or you will be...............

[tto827]

its pooled from 5 books which cannot be named as part of the agreement in sharing the info

They know SBR will bet the side with more money on it, but less total bets, so whose to say they are not feeding information to get more bets on that side.

[No coincidences]

Anyone who is reading this thread,

I suggest,

if you want any useful info from it,

you should pay attention to my posts only or you will be...............

So let's just say for the sake of argument you started this thread after last week's bloodbath with the books. You decided that hey, law of averages, it'll all even out so I'm going against the public this week. Where would that have gotten you? Losing more money reading a thread based on small sample sizes and two weeks only with undisclosed books? So how is this "useful"?

[No coincidences]

Anyone who is reading this thread,

I suggest,

if you want any useful info from it,

you should pay attention to my posts only or you will be...............

Not to mention PP half the time you're posting plays that are "reverse" locks and the other half you're posting plays that are actually locks. Which was the Carolina thread yesterday? Does it just depend on what happens in the game?

[PAULYPOKER]

They know SBR will bet the side with more money on it, but less total bets, so whose to say they are not feeding information to get more bets on that side.

It is nothing but a game between books and the betting public,

pay attention to the game and you will soon see the objective............


Public betting information is designed to be misleading,

this is the edge..............

[tto827]

It is nothing but a game between books and the betting public,

pay attention to the game and you will soon see the objective............


Public betting information is designed to be misleading,

this is the edge..............

So are the books trying to trick you, or are they tricking you just by making you think they are tricking you. Or are they tricking you into thinking they are tricking, but not really tricking you. Or are they tricking you into thinking they are trying to trick you by tricking you into thinking they tricked you...... Hope you get the point, you are not going to win that battle.

[PAULYPOKER]

All info,

accurate or not,

develops a pattern,

patterns are trustworthy...................

[No coincidences]

patterns are trustworthy...................

So we should "trust" you?

Dude, look at your threads. Half the time you're bullshitting. Half the time you aren't. Half the time you are reverse-jinxing a play. Half the time you aren't. Now we have you starting this thread with a bunch of cryptic posts where you're quoting small sample sizes of plays from undisclosed books based on what SBR is "tracking" and telling you.

Yeah, OK.

[PAULYPOKER]

Never trust me or anyone for that matter............

Trust yourself patterns ..........

[SBR_John]

I saw the Detroit Minny at a huge spread i want to say 300k.

BTP picks went 886-850-0 yesterday so a slight win for the players thanks to all the overs. The books probably made out big time on teasers and parlays.

[No coincidences]

Anyone who is reading this thread,

I suggest,

if you want any useful info from it,

you should pay attention to my posts only or you will be...............

Never trust me or anyone for that matter............

Trust yourself..........

Unreal.

[PAULYPOKER]

Unreal.

Coin, your problem is take everything literally instead of discerning fact from fiction.............