Someone prove this method wrong

coldhardfacts · 11-19-09, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by AustinMeyer

Can someone prove this idiot wrong. He only seems to bet on moneylines and "claims" that he can avoid upsets. He told me to bet on the celtics last night (they won) but i have a feeling he is just going to end up losing sooner or later. Can betting for the favorite to win when the moneyline is so small (like 1.05) be a good idea. I was told yesterday that was crazy by someone on this website... and i'm starting to believe it myself now. The guy's website is "AndysInvestment" and i wanted to know if you guys have heard of it and/or think it is a sham?

I didnt see a better forum to ask this question, sorry if it is totally is off subject. Just looking for some advice.

I am a subscriber and he hasn't been wrong yet, but then he has only bet on some obvious plays. Can someone please explain to me why this method would be a bad idea, I gave this guy $5 for a month of his picks more out of curiosity to see if he was really making any money rather than using them. But now it's got me thinking what if he's on to something. Can someone bring me back to reality.

How can a favorite only be -105 in the money line?

EXhoosier10 · 11-19-09, 05:21 PM

The odds are supposed to be set so if you bet blindly you will lose eventually.

Without having previous years' data, I think if you followed basketball enough (I'm just saying enough, not a lot), then you'd be able to pick who wins enough to make some money. I'm not saying it's easy, but with a good team coming off rest, other team injured and whatnot, then I don't see why it would be terribly difficult. You're going to be putting up a lot of money though to win small amounts.

dimon · 11-19-09, 05:22 PM

with average odds of-2000 (I think Celtics was -3000) you need to win 20 games and then loose just one and be break even...so can you predict 20 games in a row...don't care what the line is really

durito · 11-19-09, 05:29 PM

It's a scam.

If you are betting US professional sports at widely available numbers you are going to lose.

That game closed at -3200/1700 at pinnacle. That suggest the celtics will win 94.6% of the time and you will lose money backing them at -3200.

AustinMeyer · 11-19-09, 05:44 PM

Ok thanks everyone for the replies.

Dimon, you bring up a good point. I wasn't comfortable with the math but your right that predicting the moneyline 20 times in a row would be very difficult and any single loss would be a big loss. So either this guy is really good or he is full of sh%$*t. Since I already bought the $5 subscription of picks I guess I'll just see how it goes for the rest of the month and post it here when the dude finally loses (probably before 20 wins).

michaeljordan · 11-19-09, 08:15 PM

Yep, it's legit.

michaeljordan · 11-19-09, 08:19 PM

Ya it's legit

CaptainPrice · 11-19-09, 08:30 PM

no money there

AustinMeyer · 11-19-09, 11:33 PM

Can anyone elaborate?

durito · 11-19-09, 11:38 PM

Can someone start moderating this forum.

michaeljordan · 11-19-09, 11:39 PM

dudes got a legitimate strategy that makes him money. Can't knock it til you try it. I've actually been a subscriber and I've always agreed with everything he's said. I'm not going to sit here and plug site, I just wouldnt call the man an idiot unless you knew what was really up.

dimon · 11-19-09, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by durito

Can someone start moderating this forum.

let's sell the "celtics against the GS" picks for $2.5 a month...and show 98% record

Rich Boy · 11-19-09, 11:58 PM

You would probably profit if you FADE huge favorites on the ML, while trying to find the best number. Many square books shade ML's and you could probably hit a soft line.

But most squares dont play like that because its psychologically tough to win only 5% of the time...

For must suckers out there 5% is like 0%... Too bad, because there is guaranteed profit there...

AustinMeyer · 11-20-09, 12:19 AM

Hey Rich Boy - What exactly is "fade" huge favorites?
What is "on the ML"?
Is that what the guy might be doing?

reno cool · 11-20-09, 02:39 AM

fade=bet against
ml=means to win game outright, as opposed to point spread.

and yeah, I tend to agree with Rich Boy. Such a system would have a better chance of winning than your guys.

20Four7 · 11-20-09, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by durito

Can someone start moderating this forum.

Sharp post......

Willie Bee · 11-20-09, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by michaeljordan

Yep, it's legit.

So let me get this straight, you sign in once as AustinMeyer and start a thread asking others to prove something is legit, then you create a second account under 'michaeljordan' and claim it is legit. Oh, let me guess, he's your roommate and the two of you wanted to have the debate on-line? Or better yet, the two of you just happened to sign up from the same public computer in the school library and have never met each other.

There are some sad, sad lives out there.

Willie Bee · 11-20-09, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by michaeljordan

I just wouldnt call the man an idiot unless you knew what was really up.

And yet you yourself did call him an idiot in the opening post of this thread when you were signed in as AustinMeyer.

Willie Bee · 11-20-09, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by durito

Can someone start moderating this forum.

I think the thread turned out to be a good exercise in exposing a scammer, durito.

LLXC · 11-20-09, 07:04 AM

Unfortunately been a ton of those lately.

AustinMeyer · 11-20-09, 01:06 PM

gee wiz, you guys sure know how to spot em.

All I'm asking about is the method he uses. Whether betting for the favorite is a good idea and if anyone has had success or experience with that. This is a forum called "handicapper think tank" isn't it? I have know idea who "michaeljordan" is but if he's trying to plug anything he's obviously not doing a good job.

I guess this is what happens when you leave a post over night and don't have the opportunity to say anything. I called the guy an "idiot" because I too doubt his skills. I did not mean to offend anyone.

Durito and Willie Bee: At first I was angry because you were ruining my thread for me to discuss a certain strategy, but I understand that you guys are just trying to watch out for scams and I can see how this thread does sound like one. So I am not that angry anymore. I could've opened a different thread without using anyone's name but I thought people would've heard of this guy and helped me identify him as a scammer.

This is like that time when everyone thought I was the one who farted

BubbleBobble · 11-20-09, 01:20 PM

To sum it up: another betting "system", zzZZZzzz....they have all been proven as fail, and everyone who says otherwise is a fool donating money to the books.

AustinMeyer · 11-20-09, 02:01 PM

So BubbleBobble, you don't bet on sports?
Because everyone who does has a 'system'. No one thinks they are just blindly throwing money at the books... but then again, may be we are.

Can someone "prove" this method is wrong... mathematically? From what I'm seeing, betting on the -2500 favorite means the experts out there in the bookie industry think the chances of winning are really high, around 96%. Shouldn't you take that bet? Especially if you did your homework and made sure all the players were playing, home field advantage, etc. What am I missing here?

Peeig · 11-20-09, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by durito

Can someone start moderating this forum.

I was pushing for an FAQ a couple weeks back and that was like

I am not sure if this forum has a moderate anymore, but it needs one.

u21c3f6 · 11-20-09, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by AustinMeyer

So BubbleBobble, you don't bet on sports?
Because everyone who does has a 'system'. No one thinks they are just blindly throwing money at the books... but then again, may be we are.

Can someone "prove" this method is wrong... mathematically? From what I'm seeing, betting on the -2500 favorite means the experts out there in the bookie industry think the chances of winning are really high, around 96%. Shouldn't you take that bet? Especially if you did your homework and made sure all the players were playing, home field advantage, etc. What am I missing here?

No, you should not make that bet.

You lay $2,500 to win $100
You win 96 times for a total gain of $9,600
You lose 4 times for a total loss of $10,000

for a net loss of $400 based on 96% win rate at -2500. However, I don't think you would get odds quite that good on a true 96% chance winner.

The only way that the above becomes profitable is if there is a reason that you believe that the win rate is greater than the breakeven of 96.154 winners at a line of -2500.

Joe.

BubbleBobble · 11-20-09, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by AustinMeyer

So BubbleBobble, you don't bet on sports?
Because everyone who does has a 'system'. No one thinks they are just blindly throwing money at the books... but then again, may be we are.

Can someone "prove" this method is wrong... mathematically? From what I'm seeing, betting on the -2500 favorite means the experts out there in the bookie industry think the chances of winning are really high, around 96%. Shouldn't you take that bet? Especially if you did your homework and made sure all the players were playing, home field advantage, etc. What am I missing here?

You should get some basic knowledge about sportsbetting first my friend.
If a line is -2500 the chance of winning is not 96% (unless you find a weak line ofc, and it is lets say -4000 at all other places....), because bookies are no charity organisations.
Huge MLs are sucker bets if you look at it this way, may i advice you to stay away from betting serious amounts. That way you will avoid the pain.

durito · 11-20-09, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Willie Bee

I think the thread turned out to be a good exercise in exposing a scammer, durito.

Good job willie. Could you move it out of the think tank then?

And several others too.

AustinMeyer · 11-20-09, 04:18 PM

Thanks for the explanation u21c3f6,

So I would assume if you bet on ALL -2500 favorites the law of averages would come back to haunt you sooner or later. But has anyone actually tried this method? Because let's say you win 96 times in a row... your odds to win that 97th in a row is still 96% because the odds of a single event don't change based on past successes.

BubbleBobble · 11-20-09, 04:20 PM

[quote=AustinMeyer;2599698 Because let's say you win 96 times in a row... your odds to win that 97th in a row is still 96% because the odds of a single event don't change based on past successes.[/quote]

For crists sake, you don't win 96 out of 100 bets on a -2500 line.
Why the hell do you think they offer those lines?

u21c3f6 · 11-20-09, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by AustinMeyer

Thanks for the explanation u21c3f6,

So I would assume if you bet on ALL -2500 favorites the law of averages would come back to haunt you sooner or later. But has anyone actually tried this method? Because let's say you win 96 times in a row... your odds to win that 97th in a row is still 96% because the odds of a single event don't change based on past successes.

Correct, but there is only about a 2% chance that you would hit 96 winners in a row.

This is not a "method". You want to find a way to determine wagers that have a greater expectation of winning than the odds imply.

Joe.