[Dutch]

Okay but my problem is people here think that "good ol' handicapping" will never be succesful because Vegas doesn't give out inaccurate lines

Vegas lines are unbelievably accurate....If you look at the sides and o/u stats on any sport, you'll see that they hit at about 50%...But of course this is when talking about long term numbers and not a team covering the spread 8 games in a row or whatever.

[brahmabull117]

Vegas lines are unbelievably accurate....If you look at the sides and o/u stats on any sport, you'll see that they hit at about 50%...But of course this is when talking about long term numbers and not a team covering the spread 8 games in a row or whatever.

I agree that they're very accurate the overwhelming majority of the time - but it's also not impossible to find lines that are inaccurate on a weekly basis


Look at college football this week - USC Oregon total set at 66??? After Oregon USC played a game last year that had 85 points and after you just saw Stanford Oregon have 83 points, are you kidding me???



in the NFL, lines have been outrageously inaccurate on the eagles ALL year - which is why the team is 3-6 ATS

[Dutch]

I agree that there are suspect lines weekly. But the fact that they are very accurate goes to the argument that your average gambler will hit about 50% over the long term. An above average gambler might hit 54-56 percent. Which is enough to make some good money if they have excellent money mgmt.

[Full Time Hobo]

I can't name 4 people who play hockey and am hitting around 54% just following line moves this season (~150 plays)
I do this for fun and by no means a "pro" or "sharp".

Brah you have much to learn. Start roaming around the think tank and start reading. Don't start any threads there though because they will destroy you worse than Players Talk.

[brahmabull117]

I agree that there are suspect lines weekly. But the fact that they are very accurate goes to the argument that your average gambler will hit about 50% over the long term. An above average gambler might hit 54-56 percent. Which is enough to make some good money if they have excellent money mgmt.

well the average gambler is an idiot who bets wayyyy too many games



but if you're a smart sports fan who only bets on 3-4 football games a week that look to clearly have a very suspect line, you don't think it's possible to hit 55-60% ATS long term??

[FourLengthsClear]

well the average gambler is an idiot who bets wayyyy too many games

but if you're a smart sports fan who only bets on 3-4 football games a week that look to clearly have a very suspect line, you don't think it's possible to hit 55-60% ATS long term??

60% = absolute genius.

To put this into context, 60% at -110 represents a 16% edge over the market.
Put another way, starting with $1,000 and utilising Kelly, you would have over $125 million after just 1,000 plays.

So, no a "smart sports fan" isn't going to do that. Even 55% would be very tough (I would say close to impossible) if all you are using your eyes and stats that are readily available and commonly used.

[brahmabull117]

60% = absolute genius.

To put this into context, 60% at -110 represents a 16% edge over the market.
Put another way, starting with $1,000 and utilising Kelly, you would have over $125 million after just 1,000 plays.

it's silly looking at it this way - no book will allow you to make that sort of money off them


but you're basically telling me that there are no ordinary people in the sports gambling industry who make let's say 50 - 100 grand a year (who are not extreme stat geeks)???


for some reason I just don't buy it. I have 2 friends who made a 100 grand last year playing Poker just because they're good at it - why is that impossible to do with Sports betting???

[pattymayo]

why even ask these questions brahma?? you will never ever ever make a living doing this, you dont even post winners consistently here what makes you think you're stumbling upon a super secret lucrative trend that no one has ever thought of? you are the definition of a degenerate Joe Public gambler who thinks ATS trends dating back to 2004 have any relevance today.

[FourLengthsClear]

it's silly looking at it this way - no book will allow you to make that sort of money off them

but you're basically telling me that there are no ordinary people in the sports gambling industry who make let's say 50 - 100 grand a year (who are not extreme stat geeks)???

for some reason I just don't buy it. I have 2 friends who made a 100 grand last year playing Poker just because they're good at it - why is that impossible to do with Sports betting???

There are people who grind out decent results hitting at 52-53% and combining that with shopping around for lines and reduced juice. There is a huge difference between 52-53% (talking long term) and 55% though.

Likewise you don't have to be an extreme stat geek to identify an edge that lasts for a month or two (before markets inevitably adjust).

You are right though, there is a good-sized minority of losing gamblers who are decent handicappers but just don't have the discipline to make it pay.

[Sunde91]

long term to brahmbitch where he thinks he can hit 60% = 7 plays laying an average of -125 and then he starts over after a losing streak

why are people talking to this clown

[brahmabull117]

You are right though, there is a good-sized minority of losing gamblers who are decent handicappers but just don't have the discipline to make it pay.

I'm definately in that category



I've had just insane hot streaks in sports betting - I hit over 80% in NBA playoffs, around 75% in MLB season and then probably around 65% since start of the both football seasons



I just can't don't have the money management discipline to make a lot of money because I hit these small losing streaks, get super frustrated and end up losing all my money because of it (I'm the type of guy where I absolutely despise losing). I've improved a lot with my discipline the last 7 or 8 weeks or so - but I lost over $7,000 because of it during the baseball season

[pattymayo]

Just the simple fact that you say you hit "probably around 65%" means you have no clue. Any gambler who actually makes $ long-term doing this has every single play documented and accounted for. You can't even keep your picks in 1 thread

[brahmabull117]

Just the simple fact that you say you hit "probably around 65%" means you have no clue. Any gambler who actually makes $ long-term doing this has every single play documented and accounted for. You can't even keep your picks in 1 thread

I have shown pictures of my bankroll going from 300 dollars to $7,000 in about 6-7 weeks during the baseball season

[brahmabull117]

here - check out hawley's spreadsheet


http://hawley.mysbrforum.com/spreadsheet/


66% over 260 plays



I know Hawley doesn't rely on "inside information" or a bunch of extremely complicated stats to make his picks - yet there he is dominating over a pretty large sample size



your odds of hitting 66% on a 260 play sample size if you're just flipping coins is absolutely astronomical (2.05419133036955E-07 to be exact)

[pattymayo]

I have shown pictures of my bankroll going from 300 dollars to $7,000 in about 6-7 weeks during the baseball season

whats your fukkin point? Baseball season is over. Where are your documented plays of hitting "probably around 65%" on NFL/CFB this year???

Brahma please answer:
How old are you?
Do you still live at home with parents?

[ShogunRua]

whats your fukkin point? Baseball season is over. Where are your documented plays of hitting "probably around 65%" on NFL/CFB this year???

Brahma please answer:
How old are you?
Do you still live at home with parents?

He's been exposed several times already by numerous posters about his alleged 'records'. He's just doing it for attention. Same story every time. He'll post a few links to threads where he posted some winners, but anyone who spends a few minutes checking his history will see he has left out all the losing threads where losers were posted.

[brahmabull117]

He's been exposed several times already by numerous posters about his alleged 'records'. He's just doing it for attention. Same story every time. He'll post a few links to threads where he posted some winners, but anyone who spends a few minutes checking his history will see he has left out all the losing threads where losers were posted.

I've had threads with all my plays for the week in them for both CFB and NFL last 2 weeks and I've hit 78% (11 out of 14)



I agree with you that before that, it was very hard to determine which plays I was on because I made a bunch of different threads so I'll just have a thread every week now with all my plays to make it easy for everybody...



and I'm gonna do this cause I want to prove the people wrong who claim that you need insider information or some ridiculous statistical system to make money in sports betting - even though Hawley is perfect example of that with his 66% record on 260 play sample size

[ShogunRua]

I've had threads with all my plays for the week in them for both CFB and NFL last 2 weeks and I've hit 78% (11 out of 14)



I agree with you that before that, it was very hard to determine which plays I was on because I made a bunch of different threads so I'll just have a thread every week now with all my plays to make it easy for everybody...



and I'm gonna do this cause I want to prove the people wrong who claim that you need insider information or some ridiculous statistical system to make money in sports betting - even though Hawley is perfect example of that with his 66% record on 260 play sample size

I'm not going to go digging and prove you wrong, but you are full of sh it like always.

What about all those teasers that lost? You had several teasers posted with Stanford and Boise and they all lost...Did you forget about those?

[brahmabull117]

I'm not going to go digging and prove you wrong, but you are full of sh it like always. What about all those teasers that lost? You had several teasers posted with Stanford and Boise and they all lost...Did you forget about those?

I didn't post them in my weekly plays thread did I???


then that should tell you I decided against it - the only plays that matter are those inside my weekly list - everything else is merely for discussion purposes


http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...ays-today.html
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/college-fo...lays-week.html
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...ays-today.html

[ShogunRua]

I didn't post them in my weekly plays thread did I???


then that should tell you I decided against it - the only plays that matter are those inside my weekly list - everything else is merely for discussion purposes


http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...ays-today.html
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/college-fo...lays-week.html
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...ays-today.html

You're proving my point exactly. Of course they don't count! They all lost right? Only the 3 threads with winners in them count right? Give it up already would you?

[brahmabull117]

You're proving my point exactly. Of course they don't count! They all lost right? Only the 3 threads with winners in them count right? Give it up already would you?

are you fukkin retarded??



they're the official plays thread for the week - If I didn't post them in the official plays thread, then I didn't play it.



I could explain this to a monkey with down syndrome

[TheMoneyShot]

All I can say is "Sharp" sometimes isn't sharp. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

There is no fool proof system. You could of taken SF on Sunday and lost... hence the system, steam, sharps. etc.

There is a form of strategy involved... but I don't think it's defined as Sharp. It's whatever you believe is the outcome... could be your own version of sharp.

I think the word "sharp" is misused a lot.

[allabout the $$$]

are you fukkin retarded??



they're the official plays thread for the week - If I didn't post them in the official plays thread, then I didn't play it.



I could explain this to a monkey with down syndrome

but when you did have an official plays thread and the plays lost you came back with "i posted plays in this thread and they won so they count on my record" now since those other plays lost they dont count.

you are a FUKKIN FRAUD must be something about chicago with guys like you and priskilla (i believe you are the same) are terrible cappers and just plain jerk offs.

P.S. just for you i used punctuation and broke up the sentences so your illiterate ass can comprehend them

[big0mar]

here - check out hawley's spreadsheet


http://hawley.mysbrforum.com/spreadsheet/


66% over 260 plays



I know Hawley doesn't rely on "inside information" or a bunch of extremely complicated stats to make his picks - yet there he is dominating over a pretty large sample size



your odds of hitting 66% on a 260 play sample size if you're just flipping coins is absolutely astronomical (2.05419133036955E-07 to be exact)

A. How do you know the process through which Hawley makes his picks???

B. Finding one person who hits 66% does not disprove anything, considering how many people post here

C. Its clear where his advantages lie. Do you understand this? It all goes back to the fundamental principle of this thread

[cant call it]

brah can't keep his story straight.
he is always hitting (about 65%)

The kid can't keep a thread going, buried once again brah

[big0mar]

I was just reminded of something reading another thread...

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...abos-voulgaris

If people are wondering what type of database it is and I'd be happy to explain it a bit more.

Basically, it's five years of every single play that has occurred in every NBA game. I didn't invent the collection of data. All the data that I have is out there for anyone that wants to do the same. It took me about nine months and a few hundred thousand to perfect the collection and organization of the data such a way that it is valuable for predictive purposes. I use a program called "Stata" to help with analysis of the data, but you could also use a freeware program called "R" to do the same.

In addition, I'd like to add that I employ two very skilled programmers. They wrote much of the code that allows me to collect and organize the data in such a way that it's much easier to analyze. I credit them for the collection of the data.

People are questioning whether or not I am overstating how much data I have, as I mentioned anyone willing to spend the time or the money would be able to get the same data. The issue isn't the data, its what you do with it when you get it.

Good luck with your "good ol' fashioned capping" Brahma

[brahmabull117]

I was just reminded of something reading another thread... http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...abos-voulgaris Good luck with your "good ol' fashioned capping" Brahma

if hawley can hit 66% with "good ole fashioned capping" over 260 plays, then anybody can do it



end of story

[JR007]

data-mining, ie trends and angles are a reflection of the past