A tennis play that I'd liquidate my possessions for...

[BatemanPatrickl]

Wow.

Once again Crazyl reminds everyone why he's the greatest tennis capper in history.

Seriously, Id love to know how much kickback he receives from books. Must be substantial since he keeps posting these heavy duty losers with sensationalized titles to get more suckers to pay his bonuses.

DK didn't you bet a ton on Nadal?

[valdosta]

Well Lou made a good pick against Nadal winning the French but **** he is hard headed on these chalky women favs.

[EaglesPhan36]

Yeah do the math. +270 on the Nadal prop, -560 here & -500 some odd on Wozniacki.

[daggerkobe]

DK didn't you bet a ton on Nadal?

Your point?

Yeah Nadal wiped me out but I had been winning consistently in tennis for over a year. And i dont tout myself as the greatest tennis capper like someone nor create sensationalized titles for attention.

I dont think Nadal was a bad pick though, he was 31-0 at Roland Garros and never dropped more than a set in a match. It took a monumental effort to beat him and unfortunately a shitty player played the match of his life. Even though I lost a shitload, no regret whatsoever.

[daggerkobe]

Yeah do the math. +270 on the Nadal prop, -560 here & -500 some odd on Wozniacki.

Didnt he say 7 units on this play?

[Irish Jet]

Your point?

Yeah Nadal wiped me out but I had been winning consistently in tennis for over a year. And i dont tout myself as the greatest tennis capper like someone nor create sensationalized titles for attention.

I dont think Nadal was a bad pick though, he was 31-0 at Roland Garros and never dropped more than a set in a match. It took a monumental effort to beat him and unfortunately a shitty player played the match of his life. Even though I lost a shitload, no regret whatsoever.

Any pick with that amount on the line is a bad pick IMO. Just too many things that could go wrong for such a small gain.

[BatemanPatrickl]

Your point?

Yeah Nadal wiped me out but I had been winning consistently in tennis for over a year. And i dont tout myself as the greatest tennis capper like someone nor create sensationalized titles for attention.

I dont think Nadal was a bad pick though, he was 31-0 at Roland Garros and never dropped more than a set in a match. It took a monumental effort to beat him and unfortunately a shitty player played the match of his life. Even though I lost a shitload, no regret whatsoever.

My point is simple...those in glass houses should not throw stones. Respect other people and it will come back to you.

Karma paid you back with Nadal losing

Do you like being made fun of after you lose a play?

[daggerkobe]

Why do u think so? Just because the line is high doesnt mean its a bad bet. I had built up my bankroll to nearly 50 units by taking big faves mixed with several dogs.

I mean -5000 on a 4 time champ and the greatest player in French Open history wasnt a big risk whatsoever. The odds on him reaching the quarters were probably -10000 so -5000 was a bargain to me.

If all you can say something was a bad bet cause it could lose then its not a valid reason IMO since any bet can lose.

[daggerkobe]

My point is simple...those in glass houses should not throw stones. Respect other people and it will come back to you.

Karma paid you back with Nadal losing

Do you like being made fun of after you lose a play?

Who died and made u the karma police? Arent u the one who bashes everyone left and right? So bad that u had to apologize for it. And no i dont accept ur apology because once an ahole always an ahole.

I dont care make fun of me. If i cared i wouldnt post plays. But anyone that annoints themselves "BEST" capper then proceeds to lose at 90% clip deserves to be made fun of. Esp someone that keeps posting sensationalized titles for attention and nothing more.

[Bread]

LOL. Classic.

[Irish Jet]

Why do u think so? Just because the line is high doesnt mean its a bad bet. I had built up my bankroll to nearly 50 units by taking big faves mixed with several dogs.

I mean -5000 on a 4 time champ and the greatest player in French Open history wasnt a big risk whatsoever. The odds on him reaching the quarters were probably -10000 so -5000 was a bargain to me.

If all you can say something was a bad bet cause it could lose then its not a valid reason IMO since any bet can lose.

Every bet can lose but not every bet can empty your account.

Sport is just too unpredictable IMO.

[ZXCVBNM]

wow I wish I'd seen this before the match..

[EaglesPhan36]

I mean -5000 on a 4 time champ and the greatest player in French Open history wasnt a big risk whatsoever. The odds on him reaching the quarters were probably -10000 so -5000 was a bargain to me.

Not that I disagree that Nadal wasn't a solid option to advance, but that logic sounds like Lou a little. I just don't see the need to lay that sort of wood on anyone, especially in tennis where things are very unpredictable more so than any other sport I think.

[SBR Lou]

Not that I disagree that Nadal wasn't a solid option to advance, but that logic sounds like Lou a little. I just don't see the need to lay that sort of wood on anyone, especially in tennis where things are very unpredictable more so than any other sport I think.

The outcome is irrelevant, the value (I'm not suggesting Nadal was a good bet) is what makes the wager equitable. Win or lose on that individual instance means nothing, unless one is not separating themselves from the dollar amount. Bankroll allocation is just that, bankroll, losing a -5000 shouldn't be crippling if betting within ones respective BR and in accordance to their edge.

[daggerkobe]

Some people bet $5 per game, others $1000. Some never bet favs others only bet favs. Different strokes for different folks.

Ive bet big before and won big before which is why Ive won 5 figures a year for the past several years. And also lost big before. I just try and pick my spots with a high edge but upsets happen which is why they play the game.

But i dont regret it. Ive gone bust betting $100 a game before and never big favorites... so theres really no right strategy as far as im concerned.

[Bread]

Attaboy Daggerkobe. I'm positive that you have 10 million dollars left in all your accounts. This loss was just small potatoes to you.

Don't mind the haters

[daggerkobe]

Puffy, what happened to your old thread with your record and picks?

Did you abandon it like i predicted you would once the losing kept piling on?

[Bread]

DK...please update your signature. I'm just DYING to see your new unit total for the French.

[daggerkobe]

The outcome is irrelevant, the value (I'm not suggesting Nadal was a good bet) is what makes the wager equitable. Win or lose on that individual instance means nothing, unless one is not separating themselves from the dollar amount. Bankroll allocation is just that, bankroll, losing a -5000 shouldn't be crippling if betting within ones respective BR and in accordance to their edge.

You keep trying to sound like Justin but end up sounding like Dac.

[cuteboy86hi]

Only way to avoid nadal loss was if u bet underdogs.Those who bet favs, had to loose on nadal.I lost a ton of money on tennis last year betting on favs in olympics n US open.Didn't learn my lesson came back this season lost more.But that Djokovic game made me realise that its better to bet the underdogs with varied units than to bet heavy on favs.Won on nadal then today on Jankovic.

Betting favs is very risky since its a one man team.It can be done in team sports but an individual can have an off day and there;s no team mate in tennis to pick you up.

[SBR Lou]

You keep trying to sound like Justin but end up sounding like Dac.

If Justin has any objections to what I posted, I'm all ears. However my position is clear, and actually the right one. Now you can disagree with me on the basis of an individual game not having equity, but that's an entirely different argument.

[daggerkobe]

Ive bet all dogs before and lost my ass before. Its not a good strategy. Sure you may not go broke like those $2 blackjack players but you also wont win anything worthwhile. I mean those MIT guys didnt become millionaires betting $2 a hand.

Sometimes you have to take risks if u want to make significant money. But of course the risk is that you can go on tilt. But dont assume that betting $10 wont end up with same results.

[Justin7]

It's easy to poo-poo on someone after a loss. Instead, focus on the methodology. There's nothing inherently wrong with betting -500 and losing (I bet "Will New England go 16-0: No -1400" a few years ago, and lost 5 figures on it). If you make enough value bets on big favs, you will lose one, two or even ten.

[daggerkobe]

The outcome is irrelevant, the value (I'm not suggesting Nadal was a good bet) is what makes the wager equitable. Win or lose on that individual instance means nothing, unless one is not separating themselves from the dollar amount. Bankroll allocation is just that, bankroll, losing a -5000 shouldn't be crippling if betting within ones respective BR and in accordance to their edge.

If Justin has any objections to what I posted, I'm all ears. However my position is clear, and actually the right one. Now you can disagree with me on the basis of an individual game not having equity, but that's an entirely different argument.

But u keep losing all your bets. If not for Nadal Id be up nearly 70 units this tournament.

[EaglesPhan36]

The outcome is irrelevant, the value (I'm not suggesting Nadal was a good bet) is what makes the wager equitable. .

Dumbest thing I have ever heard and you're not the first who has said it on this board. So I am not picking on you here Lou, I just don't understand people who think this way.


I've seen plenty of people on this board tout getting the best closing price, etc. in any play they make and that they'll come out a winner in the long run if they continue to get value for their plays. I've never understood this concept. You can get the best f-ing value in the world, if the bet loses, you lose. The outcome is the only thing that matters. There is no argument against that. If you win 10 out of 10 bets, you win money. If you win 2 out of 10, but you got the best lines on those 10 ... you still LOSE.

[bettilimbroke999]

I agree, who the fuk cares if a losing bet had value? If you take a bet at -560 that you think should be -700 and it loses who gives a fuk that you think it had value? Also in sports it is hard to guess a line perfectly by anyone (bettors or bookies), think about it the lines are just what divides the betting not some god established odds, if Nadal's gf told him she got assbanged by Gael Monfils the night before that will throw off his concentration and greatly reduce his odds, but how could anyone calculate that shit, the odds are in reality just a guess and the "value" posters find in bets 90% of the time cant be calculated mathematically it is just the value they feel exists

[BobHarvey]

Dumbest thing I have ever heard and you're not the first who has said it on this board. So I am not picking on you here Lou, I just don't understand people who think this way.


I've seen plenty of people on this board tout getting the best closing price, etc. in any play they make and that they'll come out a winner in the long run if they continue to get value for their plays. I've never understood this concept. You can get the best f-ing value in the world, if the bet loses, you lose. The outcome is the only thing that matters. There is no argument against that. If you win 10 out of 10 bets, you win money. If you win 2 out of 10, but you got the best lines on those 10 ... you still LOSE.

Absolutely agree. Well said.

[mathdotcom]

I agree, who the fuk cares if a losing bet had value? If you take a bet at -560 that you think should be -700 and it loses who gives a fuk that you think it had value?

1] No one will agree on whether a certain bet truly had value
2] But assuming everyone can agree a bet had value, and it loses, then you can be happy you made a +EV wager.

If I flip coins with someone and have to pay $1 for a loss and get $2 for a win, and lose $1000 in the course of an evening, I will be unhappy. But I will be less unhappy than if I had been on the other side of the wager and lost $1000.

All the people here who have a fukking clue what they're talking about attacked Lou before his wager lost. They would still have done so if Jankovic had won. But we can all be more confident that Lou is the worst tennis handicapper on SBR when he posts so many heavy chalk plays and still seems to lose so many. Even if, as Lou sobs, "a sample size of a 100 doesn't mean anything".

[BatemanPatrickl]

DK...please update your signature. I'm just DYING to see your new unit total for the French.

That would be the biggest negative number of all time. Not shocked that he has not changed it yet.

[Karayilan9]

It wasn't really a huge upset of the Nadal or Djokovic proportions, Cirstea is a rising talent, every tennis superstar today was once in her position, they were once unheard of, they were causing so-called upsets and were rising up the ranks. The key is finding these players while they rise through the ranks, thats were the value is in tennis. Once they become superstars their value diminishes.

Better luck 2morro Lou

[The HG]

My model had Jankovic priced at -4600

[bettilimbroke999]

My model had Jankovic priced at -4600

Mine 2, -4590 to be exact but I rounded up

[tacomax]

It's easy to poo-poo on someone after a loss. Instead, focus on the methodology.

OK, let's focus on the methodology. The market price was -560. CrazyLou used his "system" which gave him a real market price of -1850.

Based upon the differences in the lines, is that system an accurate system for capping games?

[EaglesPhan36]

My model said NEVER TAKE A PLAYER MORE THAN -200 IN WOMEN'S TENNIS. That should just be a rule of life for anyone who bets tennis. Value schmalue. I even say that for the most part in men's tennis. Parody is starting to become a bigger part of this sport than it has been in the last 5 years or so.

[yisman]

Jelena has the most dominant backhand on clay that I have ever seen, her defensive prowess is simply unmistakable and her court presence will be too much for the far inferior opponent to overcome.

Cirstea, coming off a victory against the badly injured Caroline Wozniacki, has absolutely no edge over the far superior opponent and IMHO should pretend to pull a hamstring and lose with a semblance of dignity.

The line should approach -1850

Jankovic in a romp, perhaps a 6-2 / 6-4 outing, a bagel (6-0) not out of the question...

The best players find ways to win, it ain't always pretty, but Jelena was far and away the better player today and her class & composure closing the match out showed.

Wow, so not only did you badly miss, you called it over DURING THE MATCH, when Jankovic was showing she was inferior.

Good luck but I'm still comfortable with Jelena.

Are you still comfortable with Jelena?

All your threads should come with a warning label. Skull & crossbones.