[Mr KLC]

I'm listening to an interview with Gill Alexander. He says he goes no higher than -145.

[Sam Odom]

-200 to -220 several times a season

[jjgold]

Sammy has balls

"JJ if you pick winners their is no juice so I would lay -360 if I new the game would win"

Sammy Odom

Me maybe 200 or so..better to use RL's as far as bases

Other sports I would lay -300

[BIGDAY]

Juice doesn't scare me off any winner.

[Sam Odom]

JJ , these kids use code words and phrases like 'Nickel or Dime' , 'Vig' , 'Bet only Dogs' , 'Nothing over -145'

Because they have heard it will make you sound Sharp

[Sam Odom]

Juice doesn't scare me off any winner.

[jjgold]

Sammy your a good looking guy

True sharps never let juice scare them away

[pavyracer]

If it's winner as low as -400. Remember..there is no juice when you pick winners.

[innovation]

Compared to MMA baseball seems like taking candy from a baby. I usually play dogs but when I am looking at some chalk I rationalize and say MMA has -800 lines.

[stevenash]

-133
4:3 is the most I'll go

[stevenash]

If it's winner as low as -400. Remember..there is no juice when you pick winners.

But if you lose -400, you need to win your next 4 straight 1* flat bets.

[pavyracer]

But if you lose -400, you need to win your next 4 straight 1* flat bets.

When you place a bet you don't think about losing. You have to have a winning mentality to win in gambling. Scared money doesn't win. There is a reason the line is -400. It's because the probability of losing is slim.

[stevenash]

When you place a bet you don't think about losing. You have to have a winning mentality to win in gambling. Scared money doesn't win. There is a reason the line is -400. It's because the probability of losing is slim.

I can name five games -240 or greater that shit the bed within the past three weeks.

Now don't get me wrong, there are some that make a living laying juice and winning, I'll dig up the documented Benjamin Lee Eckstein's YTD record so far, he's up ridiculous coin so far.

[The Kraken]

I'll go as low as there is value.

[pavyracer]

I can name five games -240 or greater that shit the bed within the past three weeks.

Now don't get me wrong, there are some that make a living laying juice and winning, I'll dig up the documented Benjamin Lee Eckstein's YTD record so far, he's up ridiculous coin so far.

Who said anything about betting all -240 or greater lines? If I have a -400 that I have a high confidence in it..like if it's a soccer game that I know the team opposing the -400 team are bums I will unload without caring about the juice. Remember juice doesn't lose games. Great teams ain't fear of juice.

[stevenash]

^
I hear you, I am just talking bases
Got ya

[allen0315]

today DET 255 not to high if you can stand the juice I will play it win or lose

[Charlie103]

Yeah over -200 your a sucker

[whtsox13]

But if you lose -400, you need to win your next 4 straight 1* flat bets.

Like the -1RL to avoid that on -200ish baseball games, though I'm sure I lead this forum in pushes this season.

[The Kraken]

Yeah over -200 your a sucker

you're a moran

[Jefferey13]

If EV > LINE then make the bet. Line makes no difference. It could be -100,000 in theory.

[HardCore]

in baseball there's no way in hell i'm laying -200+ because anythings possible and more times than not that anything happens. In NFL every week i'll probably be betting -300 favs on the ml and the spread because its football and the BETTER TEAM WILL WIN MORE TIMES THAN NOT same in the nba. MLB is like playing with fire on big favs just ask kershaw backers vs nyy or bmore backers vs the sto's earlier this week. I'll stick to my totals where i lay no more than -130. If i lose i get it back with 1 game. If i lay -200+ and lose i have to win like 2-3 straight to get it back and make profit, its just not worth to me IMO

[Charlie103]

you're a moran

-200 in baseball, fucken moron

[jayc88]

i would lay -1000 in bases if i knew the line would be off
but i'm having a hard time finding value in bases

[Jefferey13]

Please someone post some statistical proof that it is worse to lay -200 than it is to have even money. I don't think anyone can.

Once some of you start to understand EV and how statistics relates to the odds, I think you may understand betting quite a bit better.

[MagicDiceFlow]

Never fall into the square theory of "there is no juice if you win". That's a square as hell train of thought because all it takes is one loss on a -200 or more favorite and it will take you 2 to 3 wins to make that back.

I never ever lay more than -200 juice in baseball and rarely anything more than -160. There are plenty of other games on the board to find + value in. You'll get killed in the long run taking favorites of more than -150.

[CappinTerp]

I say -150 but that is very rare, in 4 baseball seasons @sbr I prob layed that much about 4-6 times.I don't like laying-135/140.! There is always better games to bet or pass. Think about it.!! One would love to get a 10 % return on their $. But risking ​- 150.!! ??

[The Kraken]

Never fall into the square theory of "there is no juice if you win". That's a square as hell train of thought because all it takes is one loss on a -200 or more favorite and it will take you 2 to 3 wins to make that back.

I never ever lay more than -200 juice in baseball and rarely anything more than -160. There are plenty of other games on the board to find + value in. You'll get killed in the long run taking favorites of more than -150.

So there can't be value worth taking at -200?

And why throw out vague statements with arbitrary numbers like "You'll get kiled in the long run taking favourites of more than -150"?

Does no one understand math anymore?

[Ryeskernatorr]

An win's a win in my book

[Jefferey13]

So there can't be value worth taking at -200?

And why throw out vague statements with arbitrary numbers like "You'll get kiled in the long run taking favourites of more than -150"?

Does no one understand math anymore?

Your post is saying basically identically what I said. No one wants to use stats to back their answer. They think saying when you lose -200 then you have to win 2 more to break even somehow shows -200 is somehow an argument. Heck if that were true then the argument of taking +200 bets would a solid one. You only have to win 1 out of 3 to be even!

[MagicDiceFlow]

So there can't be value worth taking at -200?

And why throw out vague statements with arbitrary numbers like "You'll get kiled in the long run taking favourites of more than -150"?

Does no one understand math anymore?

I didnt say that, what I'm saying is there are 14 other games going on daily that if you put in your due diligence and look hard enough, there will be better values than laying a -200 bet. Sure the -200 may have a higher probability but you have to understand, that's just a "probability".....doesn't mean its going to win.

The mind tends to only remember the wins and forget about the losses. That's why people that believe in the "there's no juice when you win" theory forget about the "there's major juice win you lose a -200".

[daddypoker23]

I once bet 35k to win 500 on women tennis.. she lost the first set and down 1-4 in the second. penetrating hating life.. luckily she came back and won..going to try to find ticket since it was about year and half ago.

[Jefferey13]

I didnt say that, what I'm saying is there are 14 other games going on daily that if you put in your due diligence and look hard enough, there will be better values than laying a -200 bet. Sure the -200 may have a higher probability but you have to understand, that's just a "probability".....doesn't mean its going to win.

The mind tends to only remember the wins and forget about the losses. That's why people that believe in the "there's no juice when you win" theory forget about the "there's major juice win you lose a -200".

Two things about your post. First of all by taking a -200 there is no argument it is because the probability of winning is higher because they are favorites. The argument is that there can be plenty of value in the bet. Lets say we cap a team at a certain matchup to win a 4 game series 3-1. If the game is -200, that means the line should be -250 to be appropriately priced for where we have the EV. So you can easily find 50 points of value. The line doesn't matter in and of itself. It only matters in the relation to EV.

Secondly, you said people "forget about the "there's major juice win you lose a -200"". Do you know what juice is? A -200 doesn't necessarily have any juice (we know all bets do), but by only knowing one side of the bet you have no idea if there is juice or how much there is.

Your post has so many things that are just wrong.

[The Kraken]

I didnt say that, what I'm saying is there are 14 other games going on daily that if you put in your due diligence and look hard enough, there will be better values than laying a -200 bet. Sure the -200 may have a higher probability but you have to understand, that's just a "probability".....doesn't mean its going to win.

The mind tends to only remember the wins and forget about the losses. That's why people that believe in the "there's no juice when you win" theory forget about the "there's major juice win you lose a -200".

There can be value at ANY line and you should be betting into any +EV line. Regardless of the price. If you're not, you're leaving money at the table. A price of -200 doesn't imply anything about value, there can be a ton of value of -200. But unless you have a way to quantify your edge, you can't calculate this.

[Artieaa]

Please someone post some statistical proof that it is worse to lay -200 than it is to have even money. I don't think anyone can.

Once some of you start to understand EV and how statistics relates to the odds, I think you may understand betting quite a bit better.

teams with -200 or higer 2013 season

SU:	75-45 (0.89, 62.5%)	avg line: -230.2 / 199.2	on / against: -$2,905 / +$1,515	ROI: -10.5% / +12.6%
RL:	51-69 (-0.61, 42.5%)	avg line: -106.8 / -102.0	on / against: -$2,313 / +$1,789	ROI: -17.6% / +13.9%
OU:	46-70-4 (-0.18, 39.7%)	avg total: 8.1	over / under: -$3,055 / +$1,860	ROI: -23.4% / +13.9%