HTT tripe/diverted

[MonkeyF0cker]

Oh my god. You looked up N-S and you still called it calc 1? This and you're saying I'm retarded? This combined with the fact that you can't seem to comprehend that I want to use it AS A STARTING POINT makes me lose interest in you. Now I know why Justin7 said to not bother with you; you're a complete and utter moron. I'm done with you, I'm going to bed

I didn't look up N-S until later. I only looked at a few of them. I think you're confusing me for someone who cares about fluid dynamics.

It's a starting point. LOL. Not like gathering data and trying a few simple regressions wouldn't be a starting point for a FUKKING applied mathematics PhD student. Nah. That would actually make sense.

[durito]

Hmm, all my totals are higher than pinny, i think i will just multiply them by .9. That should fix my model.

[Justin7]

Hmm, all my totals are higher than pinny, i think i will just multiply them by .9. That should fix my model.

Respecting the market wins. Do you know anyone that wins who doesn't?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Hmm, all my totals are higher than pinny, i think i will just multiply them by .9. That should fix my model.

Are you serious? That can't be in there.

OMG. LOL.

[durito]

indeed it is

[MonkeyF0cker]

Respecting the market wins. Do you know anyone that wins who doesn't?

How exactly do you expect to beat the market if you're copying it?

[durito]

Respecting the market wins. Do you know anyone that wins who doesn't?

true, it certainly beats betting over on every game

[Justin7]

How exactly do you expect to beat the market if you're copying it?

Who is copying? I think just about every winning model out there will normalize to the market, unless you can explain why the whole market is wrong.

[rm18]

Respecting the market wins. Do you know anyone that wins who doesn't?

i turned 24 points to over 4k betting bad numbers since the book has been down

[pavyracer]

Justin7,

You and me. Capping contest in European Soccer. Use whatever math model you want. If I lose I will read your book. If I win I will split the winnings with you.

Deal?

[Extra Innings]

i turned 24 points to over 4k betting bad numbers since the book has been down

[Justin7]

Justin7,

You and me. Capping contest in European Soccer. Use whatever math model you want. If I lose I will read your book. If I win I will split the winnings with you.

Deal?

Pavy,

We already know you're hung like a horse. Why you gotta bust my chops here?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Who is copying? I think just about every wining model out there will normalize to the market, unless you can explain why the whole market is wrong.

Ahh. The circular EMF argument again. Normalize to the market because its efficient. Beat the market because its inefficient.

[Justin7]

Ahh. The circular EMF argument again. Normalize to the market because its efficient. Beat the market because its inefficient.

Monkey,

If you are going to attack an approach, you should at least read it. The market has consistently moved towards the line projected via this approach. Less significantly, this approach has won money every year.

The two are concepts are not incompatible.

[durito]

I don´t see anything about normalizing to the market. I see you multiplying every projection by .9, a number you just pulled out of your ass.

[durito]

If it´s so damn profitable why did you put it in a a book?

Does your NFL turnover model win? That shits straight out of dr bobs 1985 angles.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Monkey,

If you are going to attack an approach, you should at least read it. The market has consistently moved towards the line projected via this approach. Less significantly, this approach has won money every year.

The two are concepts are not incompatible.

I thought (in your words) it only worked for six weeks.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Let's talk some basic economic theory. Can you explain to me how a market in its infancy becomes efficient by people normalizing to it?

[Extra Innings]

A lot of people gunning for Justin because he is published and is a moderator.

[Justin7]

If it´s so damn profitable why did you put it in a a book?

Does your NFL turnover model win? That shits straight out of dr bobs 1985 angles.

You are unlikely to win in the NFL looking at turnovers alone. To be fair, I don't think the published NFL model is likely to win going forward (I think my past winning results were more due to luck than any insight I had). Of the 4 models, the MLB is the best, followed by the WNBA one.

The intellectual reward for conquering the puzzle is greater to me than the financial gains. Anyone that 1. is competent in math, 2. has a bank of 100k, and 3. is willing to spend the time can make low 6-figures annually from sports betting. So what? Do you think that makes anyone special? Beating sports is more like white-collar ditch digging than an intellectual endeavor. It is fun and sexy at first, until you hit the limits. Then, you look at the time you spend on it. You make good money, but you can do just as well in more social jobs. If you're smart enough to beat sports, you're smart enough to make money in whatever you do.

Why do winning players have this sense of entitlement? You do a little bit of work, pat yourself on the back, and think old approaches should be good forever.

If my purpose were to destroy sports betting for the typical pro, I'd write a different book:
"Wise Guy Action"
Ch I. Derivatives for every sport
II. Correlated parlays in every sport
III. Second-half conversion charts for every sport (I don't list this as a derivative, because it is more complex and has a higher return than most derivatives)
IV. Advanced fraud techniques

Most pros don't give a rat's ass about models, because they don't use them. It's too much work for most. I found the intellectual process of modeling as rewarding as the actual financial gains. If sports betting disappeared forever, I would be only mildly disappointed. If I decided to work again, I would practice law, run a business, or maybe write fictions. Or maybe I wouldn't bother working, and spend a ton of time with my 2 daughters. Money is only a tool that gives freedom. Once you have enough of it, it doesn't give you much more freedom.

[Extra Innings]

Justin's right

[durito]

Good post, but it doesnt answer any of our questions about your model. Glad you are so wealthy, wish I was.

[Justin7]

Good post, but it doesnt answer any of our questions about your model. Glad you are so wealthy, wish I was.

If you bother reading about them, I'll be happy to discuss them. Your comments suggest you haven't.

[Extra Innings]

Justin...let's cut out this nonsense...who we on in the WNBA for tomorrow?

[durito]

excuse me they are right here in this thread. i read the book. you are claiming to normalize to the market, when you are betting openers (overnights)? when really you are just multiplying by random numbers you pulled out of your ass? this is not a proper way to make a model, and i don´t know shit.

[MonkeyF0cker]

You are unlikely to win in the NFL looking at turnovers alone. To be fair, I don't think the published NFL model is likely to win going forward (I think my past winning results were more due to luck than any insight I had). Of the 4 models, the MLB is the best, followed by the WNBA one.

The intellectual reward for conquering the puzzle is greater to me than the financial gains. Anyone that 1. is competent in math, 2. has a bank of 100k, and 3. is willing to spend the time can make low 6-figures annually from sports betting. So what? Do you think that makes anyone special? Beating sports is more like white-collar ditch digging than an intellectual endeavor. It is fun and sexy at first, until you hit the limits. Then, you look at the time you spend on it. You make good money, but you can do just as well in more social jobs. If you're smart enough to beat sports, you're smart enough to make money in whatever you do.

Why do winning players have this sense of entitlement? You do a little bit of work, pat yourself on the back, and think old approaches should be good forever.

If my purpose were to destroy sports betting for the typical pro, I'd write a different book:
"Wise Guy Action"
Ch I. Derivatives for every sport
II. Correlated parlays in every sport
III. Second-half conversion charts for every sport (I don't list this as a derivative, because it is more complex and has a higher return than most derivatives)
IV. Advanced fraud techniques

Most pros don't give a rat's ass about models, because they don't use them. It's too much work for most. I found the intellectual process of modeling as rewarding as the actual financial gains. If sports betting disappeared forever, I would be only mildly disappointed. If I decided to work again, I would practice law, run a business, or maybe write fictions. Or maybe I wouldn't bother working, and spend a ton of time with my 2 daughters. Money is only a tool that gives freedom. Once you have enough of it, it doesn't give you much more freedom.

So, you wrote the book not because you wanted money or to pat yourself (or get patted) on the back.

Excuse me while I barf down my leg.

[rm18]

Advanced Fraud Techniques

[Justin7]

excuse me they are right here in this thread. i read the book. you are claiming to normalize to the market, when you are betting openers (overnights)? when really you are just multiplying by random numbers you pulled out of your ass? this is not a proper way to make a model, and i don´t know shit.

Assume that the closing number is efficient. If, on average, your early numbers are overshooting 10%... The fudge factor adjusts for that.

If you adjust your early numbers down 10%, there are now 3 cases. The new number is still much lower than the opener. You bet the over. The new number us much higher than the opener. You bet the over. The new number is near the opener (which happens most frequently). You pass.

As odd as it sounds, this approach is both predictive of line movement, and profitable. This fudge factor attempts to compensate for whatever errors or omissions I made in my analysis, and the end result is better. Mean vs median issue? Perhaps, but I didn't feel like spending any more time on it when I was winning on both measuring sticks.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Let's talk some basic economic theory. Can you explain to me how a market in its infancy becomes efficient by people normalizing to it?

I guess I'm not gonna get an answer to this. It should be simple to explain how a market matures to efficiency with every profitable model normalizing to it (since without normalizing to the market, it must be impossible to yield a profitable model). Shouldn't it, Justin?

[Justin7]

So, you wrote the book not because you wanted money or to pat yourself (or get patted) on the back.

Excuse me while I barf down my leg.

I had a list of things I wanted to do. These included publishing a book, having a couple kids, QBing for the Dallas Cowboys (I think I missed this one), and running a Marathon (still working on that). There's no chance in hell my book would be worth the effort from a financial perspective, although it has done better than anyone thought.

Would you like a burp-cloth for your leg?

[Emily_Haines]

There are people in this thread actually thinking that the NFL is beatable.

[Justin7]

There are people in this thread actually thinking that the NFL is beatable.

Emily,

Do you think NFL openers are unbeatable?

[Justin7]

I guess I'm not gonna get an answer to this. It should be simple to explain how a market matures to efficiency with every profitable model normalizing to it (since without normalizing to the market, it must be impossible to yield a profitable model). Shouldn't it, Justin?

See post #63.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Assume that the closing number is efficient. If, on average, your early numbers are overshooting 10%... The fudge factor adjusts for that.

If you adjust your early numbers down 10%, there are now 3 cases. The new number is still much lower than the opener. You bet the over. The new number us much higher than the opener. You bet the over. The new number is near the opener (which happens most frequently). You pass.

As odd as it sounds, this approach is both predictive of line movement, and profitable. This fudge factor attempts to compensate for whatever errors or omissions I made in my analysis, and the end result is better. Mean vs median issue? Perhaps, but I didn't feel like spending any more time on it when I was winning on both measuring sticks.

Wait. What?

Isn't this model tested against your "efficient" closer? So why are your early numbers different?

[Ra77er]

Most impressive thing thus far here is the fact that Justin has actually found a presumably willing? woman to have sex with (twice no less, 2 daughters). I don't know if he had a model to predict this occurrence but well done my man