Settle This For Me ... PLEASE

[betplom]

As someone that doesn't make alot of plays per day I don't always get the best number, but I don't often get a bad number either, the examples used by others assume you are always getting the best number.

I am also a recreational player and tend to make "spot plays" for larger amounts on games I like, I do not bet the same amount on every event and will bet more when winning.

The "numbers" guys base their information on the fact they bet the same unit size and get the best number, I have waited days for a game and then pounded it.

[twister]

If you laid -340 when the fair line is -320, you're a chump for taking -340. Win or lose, you were the book's chump.

If you laid -520 when -600 was fair, you're sharp, win or lose. Even if you lost 10 -500 bets in a row.

The real question is: what is the fair number? If you're not asking this, you're not winning.

Are you in the gambling biz to make money, or stroke your ego that you "beat the books closing line"?

Having watched your videos, I'm well aware that you understand that the concept of "value" is when the probability of victory is more than the probability given by the bookies line, thus you have obtained value.

Now, as we are well aware of variance/norm-dis, "value" is worthless unless you are involved in the same/very similar situation a thousand, if not 10's of thousands of time. The whole point of "value" is that over that large period of games, when variance is pretty much overcome, you will win money because the probabilty of event 'x' occuring is more likely than suggested by the books.

Now problem is, most people that "bet for value" only play a handful of games a week. The less games you play, the more important it is to find winners. The more games you play, the more important it is finding value. That is, if you are looking to make money.
I'd go as far as to venture that to be "betting for value" in order to make money, you should be betting on at least - and I mean minimum - 2/3 of the games on the board. If you aren't coming close to 1000 plays a season, it is wise to spend more your time trying to find winners over trying to find value.

[reno cool]

If books say -500 and you say I know the bet should win 94% of the time and then it loses. Chances are you were wrong. HG basically said this too.
Value means the probability of winning vs the payout price. Closing #'s can have value. You don't need to beat the closing # to have value. Although getting the best # available increases your value.

[yisman]

I also had Nadal to lose at +270, which already hit, when mostly the entire board fancied Nadal at over -300 pre-tourney.

Once again, focusing on your one win and ignoring your myriad losses. I guess your only counterattack is to pretend all the awful losses never happened.

"when mostly the entire board fancied Nadal at over -300 pre-tourney."

What a huge exaggeration. Mostly the entire board? I didn't. How many people did? 5?

So yes, CrazyLou only bets favorites.

It's closer to being true than "mostly the entire board fancied Nadal." All your "lock" picks are huge chalk. You occasionally toss in an underdog or a "player x to win tournament" pick. By the way, betting a lot of those is not a good idea, but I wouldn't expect you to be aware of that.

Enjoy the finals, guys. I know I will.

You will? You'll be way behind on the French Open whether Federer wins or not.

You're mixing up what CrazyLou says about value and what, say, Justin7 knows about value. My guess is that Crazylou wouldn't know what value is if it pulled down his pants and fukked him in the arse screaming "I AM VALUE, I AM VALUE".

I have to agree with taco here.