 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
I was thinking the same thing.Originally Posted by Ghenghis Kahn
gunshard, you sure have a lot to say for a guy that bets -850 favorites...
He has a thread at Covers where he had New England ML versus Arizona, San Francisco ML versus Minnesota, and some other huge ML favorites that loss.
I just looked, this week he has Baltimore ML and Atlanta ML.
Yep, he's sharp.
anyone that bets $100 to win $10 is not sharp. that's for sure.
always thought the sharps bet the lines when they first opened and the squares bet them after the lines have already moved
Betting an opening line has zero to do with it. It's all about the closing number when dealing with just line analysis.
some people would say being 'sharp' would be to take -6 and +7 if the vig attached was less than 20 cent combined.
What I said was if you like a team they open +4.5, and you bet them +5 but they might get to +5.5 somewhere, and they may close 5. You got 'better' than the opener but didnt 'beat' the closer, and you didnt even get the best number. But if the team wins SU what does it matter?
Like I said I went back and ran the numbers where lines moved. in a vast majority of cases you were going to win or lose no matter what. But people think beating a closer means they were on a side that more 'smart' people bet which caused the line to move, and since they beat the steam (the old version of the same concept) they were better off. hich isnt the case.
I bet Tampa Bay Bucs +8 this past week, they got to 9.5 in a few places, not exactly sure what they closed at, but they lost by 6, so regardless they won at every number, so getting a number that 'beat' the closer may technically be true it really didnt matter since no number on them lost. Similar to the Patriots, that line was all over the place, but the Pats covered every single one of them. So it didnt matter if you beat or didnt beat the closer.
But by the wording of your statement I can tell you fall right into the trap and the dumb line of thinking., no offense. But sports betting IS random, it doesnt have anything to do with how the lines move, or that a linemoves increases your chances of winning or losing depending on what side of the line move youre on.
The only thing that increases your chances of being a 'successful' long term gambler is having enough winners to overcome the vig you pay on them. Its really that simple. Problem is most people could win if they didnt pay any vig. So the rest is immaterial.
I debunked that nonsense also, openers are actually a lot closer to the actual score than closers are, which in essence means books are better at posting lines than the gamblers who move them.
Its always that way. If the number goes against you the team that covers always covers the whole line move everywhere. That tells me it was a fake move.
If an opener beats the closing number....
How exactly is beating the closing number debunked? No defensiveness intended, more interested in your opinion.
This is most definitely true but what do you consider the "vast majority"? If it helps you win just 5 extra games out of 100 that's HUGE!
Semantics.
It goes along with what I said in the other post. If a game opens Browns +10 @ Bills and it moves all around going down to say +7.5 but then back up to +9 at close, it is obvious everyone is betting the Bills, but because it spread across a few numbers some guys who got +10 bought back to have a couple middle shots. But their initial play was Cle to cover. Bills win by 14, technically the opener did beat the closer but they all lost. So semantics at its best.
'Beating the closer' has a built in implication that you won, or should win.
What do they say if people get excited and all of a sudden it closes at +10.5. Bills win by the same 14. No one beat the closer, but if you bet the Bills -105 (the worst possible number considering all the chances you had to get better, then what? 10.5 was still a winner? Was it 'sharp' no, but it won. So that covers everything that this thread entails. You won but with a 'bad' number. Does the guy really care? No. Will it catch up to him? Maybe, but there are no definites. Like I said getting the WORST possible number gives you about a 5.5 % or so chance for a negative result against a BEST number. Well I did in that other post about it. So constantly getting the worst number is going to effect an average coin flip type player 5.5% of the time. That isnt enough of a percentage to out perform the 'luck' factor, which means the guy might get 'lucky' and play the worst number all the time but never get 'unlucky' and have it actually matter.
A lot of this is still theory to be sure. I am positive some guys have formulas and algorithms to try and explain it, but they arent based on anything concrete either.
Sports is sports and the NFL is the NFL, there is no way to assign any value to that happened in the GB/Sea game in any math equation or any sort of 'square' 'sharp' debate. Its sports shit like that happens. You can blame the refs but I have seen some very bad calls with real refs as well, maybe not that obvious but pretty damn close. Only reason it got the hype it did was because it was the replacements that did it. I am sure we will see a dozen or more horrible calls (even with replay) going forward. That is the stupidity of this, they had instant replay upstairs and it still didnt over turn it. So while the ref made the bad call the booth upstairs, supposedly filled with people more suited to that sort of stuff still upheld it. Refs were the scape goat there plain and simple. Fact remains it didnt matter who the refs were the call remains the same regardless. So trying to say a side is sharp or square when a call like that could influence every game every week is just plain nonsense.
You bet a game by going on known factors, which is a bad thing to do, but the opnly option. Most guys bet sides they think are good enough to overcome bad situations, thats why most people love favorites because even with mistakes most should' win. Its that whole 'insurance' mentality I talk about from time to time. Its like playing teasers or buying half point, when they arent really necessary at all. But they make peoplefeel better so they do it.
i think want it all and coop have pretty much covered this debate.
thats only on sides, so if you bet every game since 1996 4192 games (counting play offs) you would gain 147 games/wins. So if he were a coin flipper he would go from a record of 2100-2092 to 2247-1945. Thats if he bet every single game. He technically wouldnt be profitable then either because a lot of those 'best available' lines were around the 3 so some of the vigs were 130 or more.
I am a big believer in 'smart' bettors pick 'smarter' games. A good bettor isnt going to habitually have games close tot he spread, theyre going to be avoiding those game more or less. So a 'smart' bettor is going to be less effect by a line than someone who thinks theyre smart. Not sure if that makes sense or not.
But small example. New York Jets this past weekend. Sure they won and covered, but by a frigging miracle. was that a 'smart' play or a lucky one? Sure it won but it was an outright miracle. Now look at guys who plays the Arizona Cardinals or the Atlanta Falcons two undefeated teams, one at home getting points. Won in no doubt about it fashion. 'Smart' players play those types of teams. Or I like to think they do.
Sure everyone needs help once in awhile thats why I say you always want to get the best number you can at the best vig on the team you like, but it shouldnt determine whether you play a team or lay off the game.
There have been 48 games this year. NONE of them has the line mattered. The only push thus far has been Cinci and Cle and at no time was anything other than 7 available anywhere. So regardless that game is a push on either side. The only possible is one that would be 'worst' available and that would be TB/NYG. 7 was the worst available and it laned on 7, BUT there were a multitude of other numbers available other than 7. But even so it was still a push not a loss. But like I said if you bet it then then that is the definition of 'square'.
Basically whoever the majority of sbr is on bet the opposite you will win 70% of the time now it gets tricky because you have to swift through all of the nfl forum picks it takes time but its worth it
Giant, you hypocrite. You even said to not talk about other gambling forums because SBR is the best.
You're banned from Covers, why visit there?
You forgot about my Colts +140 ML bet. Don't edit me out of context you douchebag. http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...-week-2-a.html
Let's see if Baltimore and Atlanta wins. If it does, then shut the fk up.
My sharp bets:
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/nfl-bettin...leans-7-a.html
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/boxing-mma...jah-faber.html
Last edited by GunShard; 09-27-12 at 03:45 AM.
Buddy Bear, DJ Destroyer and even to a degree Wanti correct - lol at some of the other jokers in this thread. No wonder books make so much cash.
In certain games there will be a large percentage of the public on one side of the game. If that game proceeds to move against the public (reverse line movement) then the sharp side is very likely to be the opposite of the public at the original price.
That said both sides will always be a +ev wager at a certain price. Deciding what that price is separates the sharps from the squares who prefer to "pick winners".
Last edited by Duff85; 09-27-12 at 03:41 AM.
Settle down, Gunshard. I've never seen you so riled up, there is no reason for that kind of language.
First of all, I'm not banned at Covers.
Secondly, being the sharp that you are, do you consider a +140 win to cross cancel a -850 loss?
I just happened to stumble across your thread, and your plays are ridiculously square. You seem to take the biggest favorite on the board, take them on the ML, and pray for the best. It's just funny how you post, ad nauseam, what a sharp you are, with your copied and pasted message all over the place, and your idea of that consists of laying huge moneylines in the NFL.
Best of luck on Baltimore and Atlanta, laying -650 and -325, respectively. If they win, be sure and come back and tell me about your sharpness.
Well I don't like being insulted, I didn't expect that from you.Settle down, Gunshard. I've never seen you so riled up, there is no reason for that kind of language.
First of all, I'm not banned at Covers.
Secondly, being the sharp that you are, do you consider a +140 win to cross cancel a -850 loss?
I just happened to stumble across your thread, and your plays are ridiculously square. You seem to take the biggest favorite on the board, take them on the ML, and pray for the best. It's just funny how you post, ad nauseam, what a sharp you are, with your copied and pasted message all over the place, and your idea of that consists of laying huge moneylines in the NFL.
Best of luck on Baltimore and Atlanta, laying -650 and -325, respectively. If they win, be sure and come back and tell me about your sharpness.
Good gambing is about winning more and losing less in the long run, my bets you see from those links were profitable.
I don't blindly follow heavy favorites.
If a gambler blindly follows ML favorites, the gambler will lose.
If a gambler blindly follows ML underdogs, the gambler will lose.
We are all gamblers that wants to win.
None of you people have it figured out so enjoy a good tune compliments of apricotsports.
Reply With Quote
