If this tennis bet loses, I'll never post a pick again

[Dark Horse]

It just sounds unsophisticated to suggest that a -231 is "supposed" to kick the shit out of their opponent. A tennis match, particularly a WTA tennis match, with a 2 to 1 favorite does not contain as much disparity in skill levels as other sports.

So while laying -231 on ping pong might mean you're sitting on someone that's expected to steamroll, in tennis it does not at all, it is more about, "does -231 have value", not "it's -231, so all things equal I "should win"..

Big breakthrough. CrazyL just got his first glimpse that the value is not with the big favorites.

Doesn't mean the trickle effect will reach the active part of the brain, but all is not yet lost.

[SBR Lou]

Big breakthrough. CrazyL just got his first glimpse that the value is not with the big favorites.

Doesn't mean the trickle effect will reach the active part of the brain, but all is not yet lost.

That's one way of looking at it.

The big favorites still obviously can have value, (the notion that one should avoid ALL big favorites which is perpetuated on this sub-forum is even worse than the general perception of my picks).

The point I was trying to make was that someone shouldn't act as if a 2 to 1 tennis favorite winning handily is in some way "expected". More often than not, those matches are tightly contested and come down to a couple of breaks.

[Dark Horse]

Yes, the point you were trying to make shows you didn't understand your point. Yet.

[lakerboy]

Waiting on you to post your plays rather than criticize those that do

the guy never posts plays too embarrassed of the consequences

[RogueScholar]

Thanks LOU, I nailed it for 5 units.

You were right, now they want to nit pick every word you said. UNREAL.

Fact is RS was WRONG AGAIN with his tennis pick.

Michael Tew, do you really want me to bump the threads where you admitted that your wife and son are figments of your imagination designed to bolster your image on an internet forum? Or how about the thread where you teach us all about verbal judo? That one has the website of your little sequeerity [sic] guard school in it with phone numbers and addresses, if you recall. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

If you want to see my record in tennis, log onto TennisInsight. You'll see that over 2,000 plays, I'm picking 68% winners for a 9% ROI. I'm the number two earner on that site, currently, widely regarded as the largest community of tennis sharps on the Internet. But of course you only want to remember the losers I share because of your little bro-mance with Lou. I didn't see you in the Wimbledon contest, either, where I logged 7 units up in two weeks.

Finally, please bring more than one shirt to the Bash this year. It's been mentioned many times over the last year that you wore the same shirt for all three days and that by the second evening you started to stink. If you can't afford one, use your verbal judo to get one for free while you're at your mall cop job. That is all.

[RogueScholar]

You're obviously not watching all his picks. I have been.

I honestly have no idea how you could possibly be 80% on betting his plays.

Yisman, this is more about Lou and PeeMike being BFF's than any real assessment of how Lou's picks have made money. I'm not sure if you were paying attention, but when Lou had a crush on Teela, it was PeeMike starting the rumours that they were an item and that a "Lou Jr." was on the way. It's just a sad story playing out ad nauseum.

He's just in this thread to back-up the only guy on SBR who likes him. He knows Lou is down units on tennis this year, and was down units on tennis last year. We've just gotta move on, tennis discussion around here has no substance, it's just a pissing match.

[yisman]

That's one way of looking at it.

The big favorites still obviously can have value, (the notion that one should avoid ALL big favorites which is perpetuated on this sub-forum is even worse than the general perception of my picks).

The point I was trying to make was that someone shouldn't act as if a 2 to 1 tennis favorite winning handily is in some way "expected". More often than not, those matches are tightly contested and come down to a couple of breaks.

Big favorites can certainly have value, but they should win handily. If your big favorites are not winning handily, then they're bad picks.

I personally don't take big favorites in tennis, but I would say to take them occasionally.

What you do is just terrible handicapping. You manage to find big chalk that either loses outright or wins in the maximum possible sets.

Also, you tell us just about every time that your pick will dominate and win in straight sets. That means your picks are just way off, if you believe they'll dominate and they squeak by with a tight win.

You're so sure about every pick that you tell anyone on the other side that they're flat out wrong, stupid, etc.

[BobHarvey]

Lou,

Props to you for another great call. I was sleeping on the job and missed it. Get me another one soon will 'ya?

[Fischnasty]

so just for the record, so i have the nomenclature down correctly:

-a "liquidate all of your assets" play is a mediocre lean that i shouldnt put too much money on and
-a "ill never post another play if this loses" play is a very strong lean?