Needed: Cogent explanation why betting fav/chalk is Square

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

Yup... Value is Value regardless if it is a -300 fav or +130 dog

True, but there are no guarantees in gambling. I know you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't have to explain to you the difference between losing a -300 bet and a +130 bet.

**PAULYPOKER** · 10-31-13, 11:22 AM

**Sam Odom** · 10-31-13, 11:31 AM

Real life example:

Was laying R. FEDERER -300 (when he was -375 to -390 everywhere) and winning

1) Sharp
2) Square
3) Lucky

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

Real life example:

Was laying R. FEDERER -300 (when he was -375 to -390 everywhere) and winning

1) Sharp
2) Square
3) Lucky

The play won. The answer is 1.

Or option 4 (degenerate).

**billysink** · 10-31-13, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by No coincidences

True, but there are no guarantees in gambling. I know you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't have to explain to you the difference between losing a -300 bet and a +130 bet.

Winning and losing are merely a bi-product of an assessment of value.

Those whom folks have lovingly coined "squares" , bet to win or lose.

Those commonly referred to as "sharps", play on value with little or no regard for wins and loses, letting the chips fall where they may. That approach combined with stringent money management takes the worry of wins/losses out of the mix.

You never go broke if you make a profit.

**Sam Odom** · 10-31-13, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Or option 4 (degenerate).

Beating the market by 90c (adjusted to 35-40c) AND winning is degenerate?

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by billysink

Winning and losing are merely a bi-product of an assessment of value.

Those whom folks have lovingly coined "squares" , bet to win or lose.

Those commonly referred to as "sharps", play on value with little or no regard for wins and loses, letting the chips fall where they may. That approach combined with stringent money management takes the worry of wins/losses out of the mix.

You never go broke if you make a profit.

Sharps win at the end of the day. Squares lose at the end of the day. It's really as simple as that.

All of the "debates" I see here -- faves vs. dogs, public or not, RLM, BTCL, etc. -- is just mumbo jumbo. If the answer was as easy as blindly backing one side or fading the other, it'd be much easier to beat this game than it actually is.

Well that, or you can just fade Brandon Lang and call it a day.

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

Beating the market by 90c (adjusted to 35-40c) AND winning is degenerate?

Laying -300 on an early morning tennis match seems pretty degenerate to me, but of course I can't argue now because (once again) you post/brag about a winner after the fact to protect yourself.

Tell me, Skkkammy, have you ever posted about a losing bet after the fact?

**Sam Odom** · 10-31-13, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Laying -300 on an early morning tennis match seems pretty degenerate to me

Only because you have swallowed the 'Squares bet the heavy juice' Forumville mantra and 'Sharps play the dogs'

**leetreaper** · 10-31-13, 11:59 AM

I can sum it up what NoCoin is saying here: Betting -300 is RETARDED, if you don't get why, more power to ya...

**Sam Odom** · 10-31-13, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by leetreaper

Betting -300 is RETARDED

Even when a capper has it at -500 ?

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

Only because you have swallowed the 'Squares bet the heavy juice' Forumville mantra and 'Sharps play the dogs'

Dude, have you read one thing I've said in this thread?

Maybe I'm dealing with senility here. Or mental retardation. Not sure why I'm even responding to you anymore.

Read through the thread again. Slowly and out loud this time.

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

Even when a capper has it at -500 ?

The fact that you're bragging about this -- especially after the fact -- says it all.

Congrats on your win. Can't wait to find out tomorrow who you had big tonight.

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 12:08 PM

Hey Skkkammy, was beating the closing number by 90 cents this morning on a -300 fave a bigger accomplishment than your mythical -127 Verlander bet where you supposedly BTCL by 75-80 cents (and still lost despite the bald-faced lie)?

**Sam Odom** · 10-31-13, 12:11 PM

This thread is a discussion therefore hypotheticals are used for illustration

However , the R. FEDERER example happens to be real-life

Sammy never said he had R. FEDERER (can anyone show where he did?)

**Sam Odom** · 10-31-13, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

-127 Verlander

**No coincidences** · 10-31-13, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

This thread is a discussion therefore hypotheticals are used for illustration

However , the R. FEDERER example happens to be real-life

Sammy never said he had R. FEDERER (can anyone show where he did?)

OK, you bring up Federer as an example.

I have two more:

I bet the Pelicans on Monday at +2.5. They closed at -1.5. They lost.

I bet Memphis on Monday at +3. They closed at +1 or +1.5. They lost.

Was I "sharp" killing the closer last night and going 0-2? No. Were you "sharp" when you made your fabricated -127 bet on Verlander when it closed at -200 and still lost (even though it never happened, let's pretend for a second it did)? No.

You win or you lose. If you are in the black long term, you're sharp. If you are in the red, you're square. The path to that end result is up to you.

Everything else -- all the debates you see here daily -- is just nonsense.