<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mvbski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This might explain a bit of Pancho's concern. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>so what does have to do with calling me a dumbass<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You'll have to either ask him, or reread my post, to get your answer.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This might explain a bit of Pancho's concern. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>so what does have to do with calling me a dumbass<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You'll have to either ask him, or reread my post, to get your answer.
pancho, shouldn't you really be pissed at jackstraw for starting this thread in the first place?
i mean, isn't it correct to assume that anyone smart enough to know the statistical advantages of runline parlay betting would also intuitively know at which books these parlays are available?
i mean, isn't it correct to assume that anyone smart enough to know the statistical advantages of runline parlay betting would also intuitively know at which books these parlays are available?
Last year someone asked the same question on this forum. I said that GA took RL/total parlays. Within a week they were gone. Blindly parlaying -1.5/over and +1.5/under is not profitable, however - far from from it.
No one is giving away the store here, but sharing what books take what on a public board can only do harm.
No one is giving away the store here, but sharing what books take what on a public board can only do harm.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by docdekay:
Last year someone asked the same question on this forum. I said that GA took RL/total parlays. Within a week they were gone. Blindly parlaying -1.5/over and +1.5/under is not profitable, however - far from from it.
No one is giving away the store here, but sharing what books take what on a public board can only do harm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
can only do harm to you because you already know the info. greedy bastard.
Last year someone asked the same question on this forum. I said that GA took RL/total parlays. Within a week they were gone. Blindly parlaying -1.5/over and +1.5/under is not profitable, however - far from from it.
No one is giving away the store here, but sharing what books take what on a public board can only do harm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
can only do harm to you because you already know the info. greedy bastard.
I was one of the guys who replied with a place that I knew of (BET365). I just a few minutes ago bumped the thread from last Summer. One of their top guys came into the thread and said what their rules were. They also in all of the brochures I have received from them in the mail, mention that they offer this. There have been at least half a dozen other threads on this subject. Most of them had the smell of a player finding out that a certain book(s) software wasn't set up to prevent placing these online. I could be mistaken on that, and apologize if I'm wrong. In my original thread which I have bumped, I was seeking to find a Book to come into the thread and say 'yes my book does allow this, here are the rules'. And that is basically how I found out about BET365. I can't remember any other Books ever responding in any of the parlaying Baseball run-lines to total's threads. Most of those threads have been people naming a book, and other posters getting very upset. Would be nice to know of a list of Books that are like BET365 and say 'yes, we allow it, here are the rules'. I would guess that there might be only a couple others, if even that.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
Last year, after BeanTownJim (for the second time that season, I might add) gave out early info that Pedro Martinez was a scratch, there was some discussion about the fact that Intertops' baseball bets were "Action" as opposed to "Listed Pitchers". Not only that, their "Action" prices did not get adjusted after a pitching change.
Needless to say, although there were some knuckleheads who couldn't see the benefit of using Intertops, there were a number of people who did.
Fast forward to April, 2004 - Intertops has just changed the way they book baseball bets, and have went with the more traditional "Listed Pitchers" option.
Now I'm not going to say that they changed as a result of that discussion on the forum, but it's readily apparent that the more people who knew about this "angle", the more chance there would be of Intertops changing their rules.
This might explain a bit of Pancho's concern.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If memory serves me correctly, Boston won both games that Pedro was a late scratch from.
HTRC
Last year, after BeanTownJim (for the second time that season, I might add) gave out early info that Pedro Martinez was a scratch, there was some discussion about the fact that Intertops' baseball bets were "Action" as opposed to "Listed Pitchers". Not only that, their "Action" prices did not get adjusted after a pitching change.
Needless to say, although there were some knuckleheads who couldn't see the benefit of using Intertops, there were a number of people who did.
Fast forward to April, 2004 - Intertops has just changed the way they book baseball bets, and have went with the more traditional "Listed Pitchers" option.
Now I'm not going to say that they changed as a result of that discussion on the forum, but it's readily apparent that the more people who knew about this "angle", the more chance there would be of Intertops changing their rules.
This might explain a bit of Pancho's concern.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If memory serves me correctly, Boston won both games that Pedro was a late scratch from.
HTRC
