Not to kill the golden goose here, but hopefully this will help a lot of schmucks on here. First game a big name player on a team is out (or even 2nd and third)...these are covering (and dogs winning outright) at an unbelievable clip. Sorry, I know some people don’t like when guys post things like this, but it’s almost annoying that it happens every time. All I ask in return is to give me a heads-up when the books flip the script on this...
-
-
U gotta provide specifics and data. Pro look on numbere ya know..Comment -
been happening for yearsComment -
Took the big # on Portland last night. Easy $$$Comment -
How exactly do you define this?
Durant out for Brooklyn last night? So was Brooklyn a play?
Is it a play on opener or closer?
What's a big name?
This is too loose. Seems like one of those that always and only "seems" to work.Comment -
Pat Ewing TheoryComment -
When in doubt, go with the shorthanded team…Comment -
A respected handicapper I know (who's still successful at age 77) taught me two great strategies many decades ago, and they still hold up:
1- Whenever a basketball team (I think he was mainly talking about college hoops, but probably applies to NBA, too) is missing its "best" player, always bet on that shorthanded team the FIRST game only. He said the guy who usually replaces the great player steps up to the challenge, and the team responds well. (And you'll get a great number)
After that first game, however, they are a "go against" for their next few games. The missing player gradually becomes too much for the team to overcome.
Obviously, no specific numbers to substantiate, or a clear definition of "best," but I would assume the leading scorer.
As I said, it's still an angle which I believe works more than it doesn't.
The other?
2- "Streak" a team in baseball. He started noticing this back in the 70s while looking in the standings, but, more specifically, listening to the scores on AM radio in the NYC area (1010 wins and CBS 880) when they gave scores every :15 and :45 past the hour. I'll never forget the example he gave me. He said "Dave, when you listen to the baseball scores on the radio, you'll always hear something like this: 'The Phillies, who had won eight straight, have now lost 12 of 13.'"
Now, they have every team's current "streak" in every newspaper (what's that?! LOL) and website standings.
What do I do with this? I choose TWO MLB teams who will NOT meet in the regular season that particular year. (Obviously one NL team and one AL team) If they won the night before, I play them to win the next day. If they lose the night before, I play against them the next day. So, I have 161 games on each team per year (no play opening day).
I've been doing this since the early 90's and have come out ahead most years. The key is discipline and price shopping.
I will be happy to answer any questions you might have with strategy #2. I find that there is really no predicting which teams will be very "streaky" that season. If anybody can handicap which teams will be "streaky," then you have a gift, because I certainly don't! LOL.
I seriously just pick choose random teams out of a hat, and make sure they are in different leagues and don't face-off in Interleague.
-David from Connecticut
I will later post my #1 strategy, but it has been less effective since the explosion of legalized sports gambling and gambling shows. Still a winner, but the cat is out of the bag on the money train it once was.
Anybody care to guess?
I think the bookmakers have caught on as the public has now been exposed to gambling websites/blogs/t.v. handicappers, etc.)Comment -
d2....
I am a new poster but have been lurking for a while and I really think you make great posts/points about things like the gaming industry (getting limited, etc) and other gambling related topics.
They only thing I don't agree with is your politics and your disbelief that the S&P keeps going up, but that's okay!
I agree with 97% of your posts, and I often learn new things from you.Comment -
The info one gets from websites, blogs and tv handicappers is absolute garbage and shouldn't hurt the books one bit, I think you're blowing smoke.Comment -
Off topic:
Not if you're UConn women and you just lost everyone's All American guard Paige Bueckers.
Paige goes down with a knee injury, UConn goes on to lose their first game to an unranked team in 239 games.
I'm a UConn lifetime homer, I never thought I'd live to see the day when I say UConn is a good fade right now.
Besides Beuckers, we're minus two other guards, and to quote Geno, the Coach who can walk on water "we're in a bad way right now as a team"
Huskies will be full strength come tourney time, we'll see just how great (and he's great) a Coach Geno is with this watered down group to then missing four (4) key pieces.Comment -
Johnny, found this excerpt. Bill Simmons spells out the "Ewing theory":
What's the Ewing Theory? Where did it come from?
The theory was created in the mid-'90s by Dave Cirilli, a friend of mine who was convinced that Patrick Ewing's teams (both at Georgetown and with New York) inexplicably played better when Ewing was either injured or missing extended stretches because of foul trouble. Curious to see if this phenomenon applied to other stars/teams, Dave noticed people were pencilling in the '94-'95 UConn Huskies for a .500 season because "superstar" Donyell Marshall had departed for the NBA. Dave knew better; a lifelong UConn fan, he thought the Huskies relied too much on Marshall the previous season and could survive without him. Like Ali predicting the first Liston knockout, Dave told friends the Huskies would thrive in Marshall's absence -- and that's exactly what happened. By midseason, UConn was ranked No. 1 in the country for the first time in school history; the Ewing Theory had been hatched. Dave introduced me to the Ewing Theory three years ago, and we've been tinkering with it like Voltaire and Thoreau ever since. Eventually, we decided that two crucial elements needed to be in place for any situation to qualify for "Ewing" status:- A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).
- That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.
When those elements collide, you have the Ewing Theory.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment - A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).
-
I'll list my own interpretation. Simmons is talking about over-reliance on a star player. He might get the stats but he also gets the most touches etc.
Some examples, where the Team played well in absence of star player:
1) 76ers, without Iverson. This showed over and over again. Iverson consumed the ball. When Iverson was out, the team became a better defensive team that was also more balanced.
2) Utah Utes basketball, without Van Horn. Year after Van Horn went to NBA, Utes made the Final Four. Future pros Andre Miller and Michael Doleac were on that team. Their skills were less obvious. Miller's abilities made him a much better pro than Van Horn. And Doleac could stretch the defense, such that he'd pull the opposing center out to an uncomfortable area.
3) 1998 Vols football, w/o Peyton Manning. This one is harder for my head to digest. But the Vols were much less of a one-man gang after Peyton left. Very much a complete team. They won the Natl title with Tee Martin, who notably had much lesser stats than Peyton.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment -
Nash...I admire your posts. I also live in Connecticut....not sure if you have heard of New Canaan.
UConn women missing a few players, so that gambling theory mentioned in this thread doesn't apply here. As you noted, Geno without multiple players. So, there would have been no play on UConn the other night,Comment -
The strategy I was referring to, which is still profitable, but not nearly as it was 30 years ago (heck, even five years ago) was "take the unranked home favorite over the ranked underdog" in college basketball and football.
It' still an auto-play for me, but it's not hitting at the 65-70% range it used to.
IMO the bookmakers adjusted to this. Now, we have guys like SVP saying things like "This line stinks. I'll be on the smelly side." Many people like him have caught on to this "why is this team favored?" thing and have also made it an auto-play.
I still LOL at media with headlines like "Dayton SHOCKS #23 Mississippi State". Do they not realize that in this hypothetical example that Dayton went off as a 4-point favorite??!! LOL.
They love terms like "shock" or "stuns" or "upsets" to draw in viewers. And people like me are laughing and cashing a ticket on that game.Comment -
I appreciate your words.
Thanks for that.
I know where you are coming from, that's why I started the post with *off topic*
New Canaan you say?
Hmm.
My wife is from New Canaan, born in in Rye moved there when she was four, her best friend and mine as well is from New Canaan as well.
We now have a condo in Fairfield where we've been the past 14 years.Comment -
Scan the board, men….Bucks, HeatComment
