[jjgold]

I don’t know if anyone’s intelligent enough here to do that we might have a few

[flyingillini]

I just pick a side JJ, no thought into anything.

[jjgold]

Illini the best waY

[Snowball]

I started a thread about the numbers strategy but everyone said it was stupid to even mention.

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...=number+theory

[d2bets]

I started a thread about the numbers strategy but everyone said it was stupid to even mention.

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...=number+theory

That's not what he's talking about at all.
This forum has jumped the shark when JJ has more of a clue than Snowball.

[Snowball]

That's not what he's talking about at all.
This forum has jumped the shark when JJ has more of a clue than Snowball.

you think he's talking about rotation numbers? not odds?

[Fishhead]

That's not what he's talking about at all.
This forum has jumped the shark when JJ has more of a clue than Snowball.

[d2bets]

you think he's talking about rotation numbers? not odds?

No of course not. But he's also not talking about your "numbers strategy".

[Snowball]

No of course not. But he's also not talking about your "numbers strategy".

ok, so if he's not talking about those two, what IS he talking about ?
you're reading JJ's mind ?

[d2bets]

ok, so if he's not talking about those two, what IS he talking about ?
you're reading JJ's mind ?

For example, if the spread is -7 everywhere but starts to tick up to -7.5 or -8 at certain books, you pick off the -7's left on the board at the slower moving books.

[KVB]

Mods please remove from Think Tank.

Or just delete every reply in the thread...

Or, and maybe this will help, please change thread title to one of two things...

"Does Anybody Pick Off Bad or Rogue Numbers?"

or

"Does Anybody line shop?"

Let's start there, and see where we get.

D2, you are right. Gold is not referring to some "numbers strategy"

Snowy, what you are addressing in your thread has roots in psychology but you've proven to me in past conversations that will not be able to make that jump. That's not an insult, that's not condescending, and that's not meant to reflect negatively on you. I think you are an excellent sportsbetting mind in nearly all cases, but that doesn't mean every type of betting consideratin is for you.

What it means is that,per your conversations with me, your view of the markets is not fluid or open to learning when it comes to this aspect of the markets, therefore your convictions about the markets will prevent you from making the jump. It's not a big deal, but it has prevented me from adding a detailed analysis to your thread, one that would help explain some of the observations posters are making in that thread.

But let's get back to this thread.

Once we get that thread title fixed, we can start talking concrete Think Tank type stuff.

Unless of course grab ass is all you guys you want to do. In that case, let's just get BigDaddyQH in here to teach everyone a lesson about moneylines and kicking arses.

[Snowball]

KVB I never advocated for spooky vs. safe omen lines on the ML
but I do think there are certain ranges of MLs that are good or bad to some degree.
It's not anywhere near a priority or a methodology, just like you said, a psychological alert.

Concerning spread lines of course but those vary by sport because the scoring patterns dictate them.
Although the scoring patterns have become looser in recent years for a number of reasons.

The line is a secondary contingency to my analysis. I don't even think about it until the lean is established.

That is unless I am arbing a live.

[louisvillekid]

The only undefeated way is to do lucky 7 game chase systems. Can take deep pockets, but lucky 7 chase systems are undefeated.

[jjgold]

You don’t see steam like you used it for some reason and I don’t know why

[KVB]

You don’t see steam like you used it for some reason and I don’t know why

Not true, I plan to address this in detail. I need to get to it. Thank you for the reminder.

[KVB]

KVB I never advocated for spooky vs. safe omen lines on the ML
but I do think there are certain ranges of MLs that are good or bad to some degree.
It's not anywhere near a priority or a methodology, just like you said, a psychological alert.

Concerning spread lines of course but those vary by sport because the scoring patterns dictate them.
Although the scoring patterns have become looser in recent years for a number of reasons.

The line is a secondary contingency to my analysis. I don't even think about it until the lean is established.

That is unless I am arbing a live.

All good snowy and thanks for not taking my post the wrong way. I really have respect for you.

There's a core here I've noticed posting a bit since I've "come back" and I like it.

We're gonna take this place up a notch.

[False Start]

All good snowy and thanks for not taking my post the wrong way. I really have respect for you.

There's a core here I've noticed posting a bit since I've "come back" and I like it.

We're gonna take this place up a notch.

I like it.
And one of the things that is not discussed enough is the TWO-POINT CONVERSION attempts when it comes to key numbers in football.
Final scores used to be more "common," and "rigid" however, with the advent of the two-point conversions in the NFL (many years ago now, I do understand!) has made key numbers a little bit "less key." That make sense?
It has also made "Stanford Wong" teasers less effective. Well, that, and the added juice the bookmakers have added to these teasers.
I love topics like this.
I know a very well respected handicapper that actually buys up to +5 (from +4.5) or down to -5 (from -5.5) in college hoops. Why? Not sure. He obviously feels "5" is a frequent final score in college hoops. I do NOT have any data on this.

[KVB]

When they moved the extra point back, I was posting things like this...

Exactly. Changing the distance for the extra point is an attempt to erode key numbers and that's why I stress a recent weighting, at least to some degree.

[False Start]

21-13 score in the 1990s and before, trailing team scores late, used to be 21-20 final.
Now at 21-19, could either end up there or go to OT.
Same with 14-6, etc.

At the same time, in the 90s and before, team up 13-7 late scores. Final 20-7. Now 19-7 or 21-7.

So many examples to list.

And, yes, so true about the missed PAT from the farther distance.

AND, with the increased scoring, more opportunities for missed PATS and two-point conversion attempts.
Gone are the days of standard 17-14 scores, for the most part.

"3" is still the gold-standard of NFL numbers, but even overtime rules have hurt this.

I don't have the data, but I keep hearing "7" is the most common final margin in college football.

[False Start]

By the way, I never buy numbers "to win." (Meaning from -6 to -5.5 or from +5 to +5.5)
I buy them only where a potential loss can lead to a push.

My feeling here is that buying too often over and over and over is not good for the bottom line.
I'm not greedy. I'll take a push and move onto the next game.

[KVB]

.."3" is still the gold-standard of NFL numbers, but even overtime rules have hurt this.

I don't have the data, but I keep hearing "7" is the most common final margin in college football.

For NFL I have 3 at about 15% of the time with 7 next at just over 9% and 6 and 10 next with upper 5% (over more the 5600 games over the last 20 years.

College is much closer with 3 and 7. We see 3 just under 9% and 7 about 7.5%. Margins of 10 and 14 come in just over 4% of the time. (that's over 12300 games over the last 16 years).

You're right, 3 dominates in NFL. It leads in college, but not by nearly as much.

[KVB]

By the way, I never buy numbers "to win." (Meaning from -6 to -5.5 or from +5 to +5.5)
I buy them only where a potential loss can lead to a push.

My feeling here is that buying too often over and over and over is not good for the bottom line.
I'm not greedy. I'll take a push and move onto the next game.

Overall I like this thinking.

[False Start]

KVB......thanks for the data!
I'd love for this Think Tank to be "next level" as well. One that bookmakers don't want to see!

Do you have access to a historical MLB moneyline database with units won/lost at different prices?
About 15 years ago I came across a forum post (don't remember where) and it was very interesting. (Not sure how accurate/truthful it was).
It was basically "the sweet spots" for betting underdogs and favorites in MLB, going back several years.

I'm not one who believes everything they read on the internet (LOL) but some guy pulled it from a database somewhere.
Basically, favorites from -150 to -170 or something were "positive" units.
And there were two sweet spots for underdogs which were positive units. I think it was over a 10-year period, which is enough sample size for me in MLB.

Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but would love to have access to that data.

[KVB]

Things like this ebb and flow, Falser, and in fact some of that can be predictable.

I have some videos in mind, need to get them down. But we will most definitely address what you're talking about.

Of course, it's nearly as easy as just get the +150, but it's a start. From there we can start narrowing things down and making those odds work for us.

Something I really do want to get into and want to get the going before we get to far along in this season's MLB.

I like to show by example and last season was such a great example, I can only hope we get it this season too.