There is no such thing as a hot streak in sports

[mathdotcom]

It's called randomness.

See how long it takes you to flip a coin and get heads or tails 5 times in a row.

Could easily do it in less time than it takes jj to duke a hot dog vendor

[donjuan]

So are you planning on following through on the -700 women's tennis deal or was that just you talking a good game?

[mathdotcom]

Sure donjuan

Start saving now so you can bet big when the Slams roll around.

Hope I can find a bookie to lay off your $22 bets

[donjuan]

Sure donjuan

Start saving now so you can bet big when the Slams roll around.

Hope I can find a bookie to lay off your $22 bets

Why just the slams? Also, what are your limits and who will we be escrowing with?

[mathdotcom]

Absolutely, so long as it is not Serena Williams vs. BrentCrude. The difference in quality between the players would have to be huge to justify laying -700. Ivanovic was not even close to being that much better than whoever the hell it was she lost to. You don't get a few rounds into a slam by being horseshit, even by women's standards.

I'll take that on any women's matchup at a Slam after the first round.

.

[donjuan]

Ah, so you've backtracked from your initial "no women's tennis match should ever be -700" stance. That's fine. Now what are your limits and what are we going to do about escrowing the funds?

[mathdotcom]

There is a difference between willingness to book and actually booking. You seriously think I am willing to go to that much trouble to be able to take your bets?

Why don't you go after the guys saying they love a game so much they would bet their house on it if they could? I am sure such a sale could be arranged online.

[donjuan]

Backtrack complete. GG

[jjgold]

If only point spreads and totals are involved it is a pure guess and very random just like flipping a coin.

When you flip a coin you get streaks just like betting sports. If you flip a coin and make your plays compared to studying stats day and fukkin night and the results long term will come out to exactly the same thing.

[mathdotcom]

Congrats donnie - I hope one day you understand the concept of "transaction costs".

You would accept my offer to play a coin flipping game where you pay me $1.01 if you guess wrong and I pay you $1.00 if you guess it right, correct? Now how about if we had to escrow the funds?

[donjuan]

You essentially have negative transaction costs at matchbook. Regardless i'm willing to subsidize your transaction costs. What's your next excuse?

[Nicky Santoro]

There is no such thing as a hot streak in sports
It's called randomness


GREAT POST AND VERY ACCURATE.. HOW DO TEAMS KNOW WHO YOU HAVE.. GAMBLERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE HOT WHEN THEY WIN 5 IN A ROW.. LOL..

EACH GAME IS INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER..

[Chi_archie]

no human elements left in sports at all? unreal hoops is just 5 coins on the court for a team at a time anymore for each coin flip game....

[donjuan]

no human elements left in sports at all? unreal hoops is just 5 coins on the court for a team at a time anymore for each coin flip game....

Well not coins, but robots with certain expectations rather.

[donjuan]

You essentially have negative transaction costs at matchbook. Regardless i'm willing to subsidize your transaction costs. What's your next excuse?

Bump.

[mathdotcom]

My fees are 50% of what you wish to risk.

[donjuan]

LOL. I said transaction costs, not arbitrary fees. It'd be much easier for you to freely admit your criticism of CrazyL was moronic than try to weasel out of this.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Jeez. A guy with a name like mathdotcom should certainly not be making such absurd comments.

[mathdotcom]

CrazyL thought it was 'ridiculous to lay that kind of chalk on Nadal'.... and I reminded him how much chalk he laid on Ivanovic.

Tell me, would you bet any women at -700 unless the dog was at least +700?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Serena Williams vs. Barbara Walters? Yes. You do realize the absurdity of such a universal statement, right?

[mathdotcom]

Monkeyfukker,

You might want to actually read the thread before commenting.

Originally Posted by mathdotcom
Absolutely, so long as it is not Serena Williams vs. BrentCrude. The difference in quality between the players would have to be huge to justify laying -700. Ivanovic was not even close to being that much better than whoever the hell it was she lost to. You don't get a few rounds into a slam by being horseshit, even by women's standards.

I'll take that on any women's matchup at a Slam after the first round.

[donjuan]

CrazyL thought it was 'ridiculous to lay that kind of chalk on Nadal'.... and I reminded him how much chalk he laid on Ivanovic.

Tell me, would you bet any women at -700 unless the dog was at least +700?

CrazyL's reasoning was indeed quite bad. Yours was just as bad. Of course I was 99% sure you wouldn't follow through with such a bet but it was worth a shot.

You should really change your handle on here, though.

[mathdotcom]

Sorry, did I make an arithmetic error somewhere?

Of course there are going to be women dogs at at least +700, I was making the point that he was crazy to lay -700, especially given that women are so volatile.

Right, I'm going to start booking your exclusively arb plays to make a point. You are very clever.

[donjuan]

Of course there are going to be women dogs at at least +700, I was making the point that he was crazy to lay -700, especially given that women are so volatile.

You still don't get it, which is loltastic for someone whose handle is "mathdotcom".

Right, I'm going to start booking your exclusively arb plays to make a point. You are very clever.

That's what you said you'd do earlier.

[reno cool]

call it hot streaks or randomness, what's the difference?

[mathdotcom]

And I'm sure you've also volunteered a gun to anybody on the forum who's ever said "I'm going to kill myself if I don't win this bet".

I find it funny how you insult others' logic but never highlight the fault:

Me: "Man reading this again was classic. CrazyL saying laying -300 on Nadal isn't sharp, but laid -700 on a best of 3 sets women's match. Unbelievable - how can you have any respect for a guy's opinion after that?"

donjuan: Your reasoning is as spurious as his.

There's something spurious about mocking CrazyL for saying Nadal at -300 is too chalky (despite the fact he's won it 4 years in a row, has been practically unbeatable all year) but Ivanovic at -700 is reasonable (despite the fact that women only play best of 3 sets, and she has never shown herself to be consistent)?

[mathdotcom]

reno, so long as you don't expect the hot streak to have any effect on the next game, then you're right

but many assume it has an effect

[donjuan]

And I'm sure you've also volunteered a gun to anybody on the forum who's ever said "I'm going to kill myself if I don't win this bet".

Straw man much?

I find it funny how you insult others' logic but never highlight the fault:

Me: "Man reading this again was classic. CrazyL saying laying -300 on Nadal isn't sharp, but laid -700 on a best of 3 sets women's match. Unbelievable - how can you have any respect for a guy's opinion after that?"

donjuan: Your reasoning is as spurious as his.

There's something spurious about mocking CrazyL for saying Nadal at -300 is too chalky (despite the fact he's won it 4 years in a row, has been practically unbeatable all year) but Ivanovic at -700 is reasonable (despite the fact that women only play best of 3 sets, and she has never shown herself to be consistent)?

Personally I wouldn't find my own stupidity amusing, but I'm glad you are amused.

But again, for someone who calls himself mathdotcom, you sure do suck at basic math and logic.

[mathdotcom]

http://forum.sbrforum.com/baseball-handicapping/169807-donjuans-attention-thread.html

[donjuan]

How did I miss that before? That is hilarious. Even more hilarious is you stooping to Machine Choice's level of inanity.

[mathdotcom]

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/182253-why-do-donjuan-tacomax-durito-monkeyfocker-etc-post-here.html

[donjuan]

Pathetic.

[durito]

How did I miss that before? That is hilarious. Even more hilarious is you stooping to Machine Choice's level of inanity.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/baseball-handicapping/144271-machine-choice.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/baseball-handicapping/181769-ny-mets-millenium-lock.html

[donjuan]

Lol. Mathdotcom wasn't stupid enough to enter into an -EV wager like St Andrew was with you but he talked a good game.

[G's pks]

st andrew/machine choice equals barreled in... I think two smucks followed him all the way to the bitter end...very sad...