[cp3434]

Guys new to the forum. I have read your posts and you guys can help me for sure.
One member responded to a post about fading people who post picks online. Well that’s exactly what I have been doing for over a year with stretches of great success.
And ther is the problem. I have struggled to apply a betting strategy to maximize profits. All the cappers will finish the year around 50% a couple will be above a couple will be below.
Ok here is your part
Over the course of the past year no capper has put together a win run longer than 8 plays and that was only once. The most common wins in a row are 3and 4. Wins in a row of 5-8 very few
The only way I believe u guys could help Is if I gave u a example of a say a 60 day run so below is of the last 60 days one guy has run I currently run a flat bet but I feel ther May be something more aggressive out ther.
L,w,w,w,w,l,w,l,l,l,l,w,w,w,l,l,w,l,w,w, w,l,w,l,w,w,l,w,w,l,w,w,l,w,l,l,l,w,l,w, w,l,l,l,w,w,w,l,w,w,l,w,l,w,l,w,w,w,l,l, l,l,l,l,l,w,w,w,l,w,l,w,l,l,w,l,l,w,l,l, w,l,w,l,w
Any suggestions would be appreciated
If ther something I haven’t explained please let me know

[Bsims]

Be careful here. Each pick is independent of the previous one. There isn't any betting system that would optimize your results. Check Wikipedia for "gamblers fallacy" or "Martingale (betting system)". Also here is a link to an entertaining video that touches on this area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgO1gpXSUzU

[JoeCool20]

Of course a 50 - 50 shot is always going to be 50 - 50 no matter what happened in the past. But if you never bet anything, and you only waited until some jerk-off handicapper had won 8 in a row, & then you started betting against him, he'd probably start losing a few of the next 8 he picked. But you'd never have a "better" than 50 - 50 shot no matter how many he had won or lost in a row. Because in ONE game, his pick would always have a 50 - 50 shot.
The odds don't change for one pick. Remember, games, or cards, or dice, don't know what they rolled the last 100 times! The odds are the same as they were no matter what happened the last 100 times.

[Larkman]

fading people who post picks online. Well that’s exactly what I have been doing for over a year with stretches of great success.

If by fading you mean betting the opposite of bad handicappers it can't possibly have a positive expected value in the long term if you take a moment to think about it.

[omedo]

It is possible to Handicapp a handicapper, but i find it harder than handicapping the game itself.

[ClippersSux]

It's damn difficult picking winners. You know what else is difficult? Picking losers.

[jjgold]

[daneblazer]

1. Select winner
2. Place bet

[KVB]

Of course a 50 - 50 shot is always going to be 50 - 50 no matter what happened in the past. But if you never bet anything, and you only waited until some jerk-off handicapper had won 8 in a row, & then you started betting against him, he'd probably start losing a few of the next 8 he picked. But you'd never have a "better" than 50 - 50 shot no matter how many he had won or lost in a row. Because in ONE game, his pick would always have a 50 - 50 shot.
The odds don't change for one pick. Remember, games, or cards, or dice, don't know what they rolled the last 100 times! The odds are the same as they were no matter what happened the last 100 times.

This, while on the face of it, seems like a good post, those who think that sports markets can be likened to cards and dice in the same way are outright wrong.

It can be shown mathematically that current results, how the market is shaped and what happens on the field, court, or ice, can and are dependent on previous results.

Some factors are well know point spread adjustments and are actually, at this point, public knowledge.

While I can show that recent previous games not only affect what we could consider true odds, they most certainly affect the publicly manipulated markets.

The idea of always having a 50-50 shot is dependant on the theory that the market is always efficient.

It's not.

These are not coins or cards, these are players, coaches, managers, teams, referees and and a league organization who, when combined, create in the game of play the statistics that many market movers use to make decisions.

There is a big difference.

While I can show pointspread adjustments based on previous games, even the last game played, you will not be able to show that each game is independant of another.

That's just an assumption that fails to take into account the relevant factors that lead to a final score of a given game.

It will be a shocker to the square math guys because many of their assumptions, even if they have led to profit, are still wrong.

[Sam Odom]

there are no secrets

it's pure math

[hubie69]

Where is Brock Landers when you need his rubberband plays....

[KVB]

there are no secrets

it's pure math

But the math won't get you very far if you are not using relevant factors to determine your plays.

[HurryUpAndDrink]

Be careful here. Each pick is independent of the previous one. There isn't any betting system that would optimize your results. Check Wikipedia for "gamblers fallacy" or "Martingale (betting system)". Also here is a link to an entertaining video that touches on this area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgO1gpXSUzU

good stuff sir

[jjgold]

Spot bet only

[KVB]

Spot bet only

Yeah, it's really tough to maintain constant betting through multiple seasons. I've had a strong successful model for the low limit CFL that has done really well against the spread (with 1/2 point discrepancy) and moneyline the last three years in a row. Like those years, I will post the same one again at SBR but I may be making a slight adjustment based on the recent market.

It will be interesting to see how that adjustment fares as it is difficult to hit the same markets with such success for more than a 3 year stretch anymore. I expect the return to be less this year, but it could still make a profit.

Without that kind of support though, it may be best to find your niche and spot bet. It becomes a bit riskier if you do have a winning approach because sometimes there is safety in numbers.

But yeah, anymore spot betting may be the best approach for most posters.

[A Quant]

Yeah, it's really tough to maintain constant betting through multiple seasons. I've had a strong successful model for the low limit CFL that has done really well against the spread (with 1/2 point discrepancy) and moneyline the last three years in a row. Like those years, I will post the same one again at SBR but I may be making a slight adjustment based on the recent market.

It will be interesting to see how that adjustment fares as it is difficult to hit the same markets with such success for more than a 3 year stretch anymore. I expect the return to be less this year, but it could still make a profit.

Without that kind of support though, it may be best to find your niche and spot bet. It becomes a bit riskier if you do have a winning approach because sometimes there is safety in numbers.

But yeah, anymore spot betting may be the best approach for most posters.

[JoeCool20]

This, while on the face of it, seems like a good post, those who think that sports markets can be likened to cards and dice in the same way are outright wrong.

It can be shown mathematically that current results, how the market is shaped and what happens on the field, court, or ice, can and are dependent on previous results.

Some factors are well know point spread adjustments and are actually, at this point, public knowledge.

While I can show that recent previous games not only affect what we could consider true odds, they most certainly affect the publicly manipulated markets.

The idea of always having a 50-50 shot is dependant on the theory that the market is always efficient.

It's not.

These are not coins or cards, these are players, coaches, managers, teams, referees and and a league organization who, when combined, create in the game of play the statistics that many market movers use to make decisions.

There is a big difference.

While I can show pointspread adjustments based on previous games, even the last game played, you will not be able to show that each game is independant of another.

That's just an assumption that fails to take into account the relevant factors that lead to a final score of a given game.

It will be a shocker to the square math guys because many of their assumptions, even if they have led to profit, are still wrong.

LOL I don't know where to start! You are correct in the aspect that sporting events played with human beings aren't cards or dice! But ANY game, whether casino or human played, which has a 50% chance of winning or losing (Or a 50 - 50 shot, meaning there are only 2 possible outcomes) then the odds are ALWAYS 50 - 50, that SOMEONE can pick the winner! They can't be anything else!!

You kind of went wild on me with your reply about refs & managers & leagues & pointspreads & line adjustments!!. But what does any of that have to do with me telling the guy not to fade a handicapper who has won 8 in a row because there is no advantage to be gained?
I was only talking about how someone picking one game is STILL a 50 -50 shot, NO MATTER what the previous results of his other picks were! You can't "fade" someone who has picked 5, or 10, or 50, or even 500 winners in a row and think that his odds are ANY different than 50% on his NEXT pick!! Because they CAN'T be anything but 50 -50 with only 2 outcomes!

But no matter how "wild" your reply got, or how you worded it, the chance of someone PICKING the winner in one game that the odds are 50-50 on IS ALWAYS 50 - 50!! No matter what!!

Go google the "Monte Carlo simulation" the roulette wheel spun 26 blacks in a row one time. And after about 15 blacks in a row, the whole damn casino was over there betting on RED to come up! But what were the odds that it would be Red (or black) on THE NEXT spin? The same as they were all the other spins!

And that is what I told the guy. The dice, or cards, or the roulette wheel doesn't know what came up the last 10 or 20 times it doesn't matter and the odds don't change for the next spin or roll!
So I told him the same thing about waiting until some handicapper has hit 8 picks in a row and then fading his NEXT pick.
The guys odds of picking another winner on his NEXT pick AREN'T any different than they were any of the other 8 picks! Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE!!
You went on a tangent about human beings and managers and referees.......But you never said anything about what I told him about somebody's NEXT pick on a game having the SAME chance to win as his other picks, regardless of previous results!! Read it! It is right here!

"But you'd never have a "better" than 50 - 50 shot no matter how many he had won or lost in a row. Because in ONE game, his pick would always have a 50 - 50 shot.
The odds don't change for one pick. Remember, games, or cards, or dice, don't know what they rolled the last 100 times! The odds are the same as they were no matter what happened the last 100 times."

That's ALL I was telling the guy. Is no matter how many picks somebody has won in a row, there is no advantage in fading his NEXT pick!
It is still a 50 - 50 shot no matter what has happened in the past! Same with cards or dice, or roulette!

[gauchojake]

Math guys check in

[Yee Area]

The lines tell everything. With the right knowledge you'll find some value around

[JoeCool20]

Buy hey KV, anytime you "think" that you have an "advantage" and the odds are NOT 50 -50 for someone to pick a winner in a game where there are only 2 outcomes (W or L) then there is a place out in the Desert that got built for guys like you!
LOL They'll take that bet!

Most all of us on this site like to gamble because we "think" we have figured out some way to change the odds into our favor with those... as you put it: "relevant factors that lead to a final score of a given game." LOL We study, we grind, we read articles, then we "think" we have found a game that will NOT be a 50% shot! But no matter what, once the money is down, then the odds of picking a winner are what they are! And that is ALWAYS 50 -50 if there aren't but 2 outcomes! (and it sure as hell don't matter what happened on our last 8 picks! That's all I told the guy! Is don't "fade" somebody based on past outcomes, because the odds of picking a winner are STILL the same! 50-50 regardless of past results!)
Like I said if you want to go against that, then they built a whole complex in the desert for you to go do it in! LOL

But damn man, haven't you ever had WAAAY too much money on a game and thought to yourself: "I may have lost 10 in a row to get in this mess, but this bet has no more chance of winning than any other bet I have ever made." LOL
It CAN'T have any different odds if there are only 2 things that can happen!!

[jjgold]

nobody can predict player performance on any given day therefore it is a random event

[KVB]

I can weight a coin, and when flipped, there are still only two possible outcomes.

The possible outcomes alone doesn't make the probability 50-50, it the probability won't be 50-50 on that coin.

I've been relying on that fact for decades.

[jtoler]

uh it wont be 50% here, lower. fade the ones who put lock in their thread and the ones who are super confident, its +ev.

[JoeCool20]

I can weight a coin, and when flipped, there are still only two possible outcomes.

The possible outcomes alone doesn't make the probability 50-50, it the probability won't be 50-50 on that coin.

I've been relying on that fact for decades.

LOL If you "weight a coin" then the odds won't be 50 - 50 will they? It might come up heads 100% of the time! Same with rigged dice or an uneven roulette wheel. The odds aren't 50 -50 on that!

BUT, as per my post to the guy, if he thinks he has better odds, or that there is an "advantage" to fading some handicapper's next pick after he has won 8 in a row, then he is wrong. Because the odds are the same (50 - 50) no matter what the past results were.

[JoeCool20]

nobody can predict player performance on any given day therefore it is a random event

And whoever is trying to pick the winner of that "random event" won't have a less chance of winning simply because he has picked 8 winners in a row. His odds of picking the winner on his NEXT pick are the same as they were no matter what his past 8, 80, or 800 picks did.

So waiting until some handicapper wins 8 picks in a row and then fading his next pick doesn't have any "advantage". Which is what I told the guy. Each pick has the same odds (50 -50) of winning as all his other picks did, regardless of the previous outcomes of his last picks.

[JoeCool20]

Just flip a coin and wait until it comes up heads 50 times in a row, and then bet tails on the next flip! What will your odds be? Any better? NOPE, the next flip has the same odds as all the other flips did regardless of past results.

SAME for the handicapper. Just wait until some handicapper wins 8 picks in a row and then fade his next pick! What will your odds be that he loses on his 9th pick? Any better than 50 - 50? NOPE, his next pick will have the same odds as all his other picks did, regardless of his past results!

I was simply telling the original poster about the fallacy of thinking "It's BOUND to come up tails THIS flip!" or "this guy has GOT to lose after he has picked 8 in a row" NOPE. The odds on his next pick, or the next dice roll, or coin flip, are the same as they were all the other times!
Past results don't make for better odds on the next bet! That's all I was telling the guy!

Try not to go out on tangents & try not to read anymore into it than that! And just post that he has no advantage on fading someone's 9th pick simply because his previous 8 picks were winners!

[lonegambler23]

if you faded otters heavy youd half half your savings for retirement

[wikkidinsane]

Dont fade me pal

[Headsterx]

If by fading you mean betting the opposite of bad handicappers it can't possibly have a positive expected value in the long term if you take a moment to think about it.

Yeah, gotta pick the right moment. I did it with LB and Weed for 12 games and lost twice. Then went on my own way and no complaints. I would check around on who's on that streak and roll with it. And then learn from it and then go on your own. It's working for me. BOL!

[jjgold]

The juice will kill you when you bet daily

Spot Bettors are feared

[Sato]

Less is more. Do not bet every game. Pick your spots.

[jjgold]

bookmakers love daily action guys the more bets the more they love you

math 101