Outside The Box

[donjuan]

The logic that lead you to your original analysis is so convoluted that I highly doubt any logical explanation will get through to you.

[BigCap]

The logic that lead you to your original analysis is so convoluted that I highly doubt any logical explanation will get through to you.

That's what I thought, you can't prove it because it's simply not true.

Please save your "intelligent" comments for another forum.

[donjuan]

Feel free to explain why the point spread for the Spurs/Hornets game today was inefficient to the tune of 15 points and why the spread for Game 2 wasn't Hornets -19.

[BigCap]

Feel free to explain why the point spread for the Spurs/Hornets game today was inefficient to the tune of 15 points and why the spread for Game 2 wasn't Hornets -19.

Is this supposed to be your proof?

[donjuan]

Is this supposed to be your proof?

Answer, por favor.

[BigCap]

Answer, por favor.

Again, just what I thought. You can't prove it because it simply is not true.

If you can't prove it's false, what's the point of you even discussing this further?

[donjuan]

Um, are you going to explain why that happened or are you just going to sit here saying it isn't true without proving it yourself and without disproving a thing I have said?

[BigCap]

Um, are you going to explain why that happened or are you just going to sit here saying it isn't true without proving it yourself and without disproving a thing I have said?

Are you just going to stray off, or you going to prove your point?

I know you can't prove it, so perhaps you should just move on.

[donjuan]

Are you just going to stray off, or you going to prove your point?

I know you can't prove it, so perhaps you should just move on.

You were using the result of a single game to say that was proof the closer was more efficient than the opener. This is the same exact thing so I fail to see how that is "straying off". Now please stop skating around and explain what I asked you to.

[BigCap]

You were using the result of a single game to say that was proof the closer was more efficient than the opener. This is the same exact thing so I fail to see how that is "straying off". Now please stop skating around and explain what I asked you to.

No, I indicated false logic. You need to prove me wrong.

But if you want to bring up unrelated issues, go ahead. It only exposes your "intelligence" regarding the matter.

[donjuan]

"I r drooler" would have saved you a lot of time in this thread. Good night.

[BigCap]

"I r drooler" would have saved you a lot of time in this thread. Good night.

Again, just as I thought. You can't prove it. Why did you waste your time, trollmaster?

[trixtrix]

Kat, As a Newbie to this Forum I have read more than posted in this Forum, but I feel that I want to discuss more of this theory of yours. I know you said you wanted to stay out of this thread, so could you PM me at your convenience?

For the rest:
I have been wrestling with the math involved with sports gambling for years. With a normal -110 book, why aren't the hold percentages of these places approaching 10% the farther out in time you go? The standard yearly hold percentage of any LV book is about 4% not 10%. I find it hard to believe that the last 6% is on all middled games the book gets stuck with. That started my orginal theory that someone (I don't mean one person here) is cashing those tickets for real hard earned cash each year. That would have to be the money wagered that moves the lines accordingly. But which of the money is the RIGHT money moves? I would be interested to see what Kats theory is on that. With this theory, baseball should also be included as a possible test case. The same theory applies. It's 6% aggregate all year!

?? theoretical hold on a -110 line set is 4.5%, think of it this way: if 2 people wager on opposite side of a game at 110 to win 100, the book is guranteed 10$ for ever 220$ wagered, hence 10/220 =4.5%. i'm not sure where your 10% comes from, if books are making 6% it's likely indicative that the book is taking a position and not seeking balanced action

[durito]

Whether or not you agree with this method, this is certainly a discussion of handicapping and belongs back in the Tank.

No, it's nonsense, and it belongs in the trash.

[turnip]

The SBR forum software is wise beyond its years:

Similar Threads:

JJ, check your PM box buztah Players Talk

[Peep]

If you would like to test your idea rather than just discuss it, Jim Feist.com has opening and closing for last three years in an easy to read format.

http://www.jimfeist.com/

[durito]

If you would like to test your idea rather than just discuss it, Jim Feist.com has opening and closing for last three years in an easy to read format.

http://www.jimfeist.com/

The line they use is not an opener that can be bet into, it's some touts line.