[cleaveland]

This occurred to me because of the public being all over the Lakers ATS. I think in some cases and possibly in this case the sharp play and the square play were the same. Do you think that's possible?

[Gee]

Firstly, its only half time.

Secondly, i think you misunderstand the concept of square and sharp plays.

[cleaveland]

I got a good answer in another thread:

short answer yes. the terms square and sharp are vastly overused on here.
taking the lakers at home would seem like a very square play but they are playing the worst team in the NBA, im sure the sharps were on the lakeshow tonight or didnt bother to hit this game at all.


< liking my score prediction so far

[cleaveland]

Firstly, its only half time.

Secondly, i think you misunderstand the concept of square and sharp plays.

I posted the question before the game started in another thread. Please give me more information about why my thinking is wrong?

[jeffdane]

what was the final % on LAL.

[cleaveland]

what was the final % on LAL.

I read it was big on LA but I don't trust the numbers personally anyways, there are no audits on this stuff and the books have reasons to lie.

[jeffdane]

looks like sbrodds has the close at 49%. if this is even close to true, then LAL were not the square side tonite. thats a very low number for LAL at home against a bad team.

[cleaveland]

looks like sbrodds has the close at 49%. if this is even close to true, then LAL were not the square side tonite. thats a very low number for LAL at home against a bad team.

But that's only the % of bets and it doesn't tell us about the amount of money bet. It takes 100 $100 bettors to equal one $10,000 bettor. If a few whales were on the Lakers then what do the percentages matter?

[RudyRuetigger]

yes, ofcourse

[Gee]

I posted the question before the game started in another thread. Please give me more information about why my thinking is wrong?

Yeah, sorry. I just hate half time posts that basically say the game is over.

Anyway, to actually answer your question, you need to look deeper at what numbers you get to determine whether the play was sharp or square.

I think you also need to realize that a square play is not an auto loss and a sharp play is not an auto win. Square plays win and sharp plays lose at about a 47% clip.

If you are going to play a public favourite, you have to be sharp enough to get the best line. Sharps got C's -2 this morning, even if they were a massive public play.

Have a read in the think tank about beating the closer - either side.

[cleaveland]

Yeah, sorry. I just hate half time posts that basically say the game is over.

Anyway, to actually answer your question, you need to look deeper at what numbers you get to determine whether the play was sharp or square.

I think you also need to realize that a square play is not an auto loss and a sharp play is not an auto win. Square plays win and sharp plays lose at about a 47% clip.

If you are going to play a public favourite, you have to be sharp enough to get the best line. Sharps got C's -2 this morning, even if they were a massive public play.

Have a read in the think tank about beating the closer - either side.

Thanks for that. I don't think sharpness has to do with what you're saying too much (a little bit). I think it involves things like exceptional analysis and inside information. Former players and coaches would have that kind of insight and therefore I'd expect them to be sharp.

I guess the archetypal example of sharpness is the Sam Rothstein character from the movie Casino, his sharpness came from inside information and exceptional insight. That's a good example of real sharpness imho. That character was based on a real person btw.

[d2bets]

yes, ofcourse

The exact same number at the exact same time can be both "sharp" and "square"? Alright, lemme hear it....

[RoadFavorites$$$]

There is no such thing as a square play or a sharp play.

[cleaveland]

The exact same number at the exact same time can be both "sharp" and "square"? Alright, lemme hear it....

Think of the movie "Casino". Sam Rothstein bets on Columbia -7 that coincidentally could have been a top square play for that day. There you have it.

[ChalkyDog]

There are sharps and there are squares... Sometime's the squares end up on the same side as the sharps, Vise Versa.

The distinction is only how they got there and was it a winner.

Sharp = Intelligent gambler. (analysis of info)
Square = Unsophisticated gambler. (dartboard or gut pick)

Their plays are not mutually exclusive.

[Reload]

Happens more often than you would think.

[d2bets]

There are sharps and there are squares... Sometime's the squares end up on the same side as the sharps, Vise Versa.

The distinction is only how they got there and was it a winner.

Sharp = Intelligent gambler. (analysis of info)
Square = Unsophisticated gambler. (dartboard or gut pick)

Their plays are not mutually exclusive.

But that isn;t the issue. The question is whether a particular play at the same number at the same time can be both sharp and square. I'm not sure how it can be. I get how a sqyare bettor could happen to make a sharp play now and then. But if the same bet comes in at the same time how can one be sharp and one be square? This seems philosophical.

[cleaveland]

But that isn;t the issue. The question is whether a particular play at the same number at the same time can be both sharp and square. I'm not sure how it can be. I get how a sqyare bettor could happen to make a sharp play now and then. But if the same bet comes in at the same time how can one be sharp and one be square? This seems philosophical.

If the sharps are hammering a line and the "square" public is hammering the same line, then it's a square play and a sharp play at the same time.

In this article you get it straight from the LVSC as to what they think squares are:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...9&sportCat=ncb

[d2bets]

If the sharps are hammering a line and the "square" public is hammering the same line, then it's a square play and a sharp play at the same time.

In this article you get it straight from the LVSC as to what they think squares are:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...9&sportCat=ncb

We just define differently. I define a sharp play as +EV and a square play as -EV. Team A -3-110 bet at the same time cannot be both +EV and -EV.

No reason a square bettor cannot happen upon a sharp play, or even vice versa.

[RudyRuetigger]

But that isn;t the issue. The question is whether a particular play at the same number at the same time can be both sharp and square. I'm not sure how it can be. I get how a sqyare bettor could happen to make a sharp play now and then. But if the same bet comes in at the same time how can one be sharp and one be square? This seems philosophical.

if a monkey is given a line of
+10.5 -110
-10.5 -110

and chooses +10.5 -110, would that not be a square bet?

If the worlds greatest capper has the same line on the same game
+10.5 -110
-10.5 -110

and sees tremendous value, max bet on +10.5 is it not a sharp bet?

but yes, its all philosophical on how you want to look at things.

[RudyRuetigger]

nvm just confusing stuff

[jeffdane]

we all have our own definition for sharp/square. some dont even buy into it.

to me its all a mindfuck anyway.

i believe that in some games, vegas knows who will cover(or at least they think they know), and if they can "trap" a large majority(the squares) into betting on the wrong side, then the vegas side is "sharp." whether this game wins or loses i believe there was a sharp and a square side.

the problem with this is we do not know when this happens. there are signs like RLM to maybe give us tips, but in actuality we dont really know, could be a false move to trick the heavy bettors.

so in conclusion, i do believe in the whole sharp/square concept but like i said i dont think we can really ever be sure. its easy to identify the square play but the squares win some too. its harder to identify the really sharp plays because they just dont exist, they do but we never really know for sure, and of course the sharp plays will lose as well.

this is all just my opinion and i have no idea if it actually means a damn thing. kinda like god and evolution. who the hell really knows? its all about what you been taught and what you believe.

only thing you know for sure is you cant be a square, how to get sharp is an a never ending argument.

[cleaveland]

we all have our own definition for sharp/square. some dont even buy into it.

to me its all a mindfuck anyway.

i believe that in some games, vegas knows who will cover(or at least they think they know), and if they can "trap" a large majority(the squares) into betting on the wrong side, then the vegas side is "sharp." whether this game wins or loses i believe there was a sharp and a square side.

the problem with this is we do not know when this happens. there are signs like RLM to maybe give us tips, but in actuality we dont really know, could be a false move to trick the heavy bettors.

so in conclusion, i do believe in the whole sharp/square concept but like i said i dont think we can really ever be sure. its easy to identify the square play but the squares win some too. its harder to identify the really sharp plays because they just dont exist, they do but we never really know for sure, and of course the sharp plays will lose as well.

this is all just my opinion and i have no idea if it actually means a damn thing. kinda like god and evolution. who the hell really knows? its all about what you been taught and what you believe.

only thing you know for sure is you cant be a square, how to get sharp is an a never ending argument.

I think the way to be sharp was given to us explicitly in the movie "Casino". It's just that, very very few people even attempt to do what Sam Rothstein did and also it takes a mix of talents and the ability to get information that most people don't have.

I'd guess that if you started with 1,000 people trying to be like Rothstein MAYBE one could achieve it, probably 0. I think it's a one in a million kind of thing. But, what you have to do to become sharp isn't a mystery to me, but it takes superior self control, superior analytical ability, superior research ability, superior intellect, superior sensitivity, and even superior ability in terms of relationships. Then, to achieve it you have to dedicate your whole life to it. It's definitely a one in a million thing to be really great imho.


NICKY (V.O.) Even back home, years ago, when we were first hangin' out together... NICKY (V.O.) ...he'd know if the quarterback was on coke. ACE I'll take Columbia for twenty. NICKY (V.O.) If his girlfriend was knocked up. LUCKY LARRY Twenty dimes on Columbia . . . NICKY (V.O.) He'd get the wind velocity so he could judge the field goals. He even figured out the different bounce you got off the different kinds of wood they used on college basketball courts, you know? NICKY (V.O.) He'd be workin' on this shit day and night. There was nothin' about a game he was gonna bet that he didn't know. GAMBLER #1 (Into phone) Ace got down at six. GAMBLER #2 (Into phone) Charlie, hey. Rothstein got six. NICKY (V.O.) Season after season, the prick was the only guaranteed winner I ever knew. But he was so serious about it all that I don't think he ever enjoyed himself. But...