Fez winning percentage is secondary to money won. You cite the computer group as hitting 57%-59% as if that is an example of a big number. They could've hit 80% if they so chose. They realize that hitting 60% or whatever figure was your goal in that article is foolish, the idea is to get down as much money as possible when the expectation is in your favor. within reason. Hitting a big number just means too many opportunities missed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -=Scorpion=-:
Sodium Pentethol V
So, this is the fifth time you have registered the same stupid username and you still dont know how to spell it. DUMBASS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Scorpion!! I thought you QUIT!!!
Sodium Pentethol V
So, this is the fifth time you have registered the same stupid username and you still dont know how to spell it. DUMBASS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Scorpion!! I thought you QUIT!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sodium Pentethol V:
Fez winning percentage is secondary to money won. You cite the computer group as hitting 57%-59% as if that is an example of a big number. They could've hit 80% if they so chose. They realize that hitting 60% or whatever figure was your goal in that article is foolish, the idea is to get down as much money as possible when the expectation is in your favor. within reason. Hitting a big number just means too many opportunities missed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They could have hit 80% if they so chose? Are you on drugs? No effing way. Not on -110 type spread betting over a statistically significant number of plays.
...or did you mean they could have won 4 out of 5 bets?
Fez winning percentage is secondary to money won. You cite the computer group as hitting 57%-59% as if that is an example of a big number. They could've hit 80% if they so chose. They realize that hitting 60% or whatever figure was your goal in that article is foolish, the idea is to get down as much money as possible when the expectation is in your favor. within reason. Hitting a big number just means too many opportunities missed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They could have hit 80% if they so chose? Are you on drugs? No effing way. Not on -110 type spread betting over a statistically significant number of plays.
...or did you mean they could have won 4 out of 5 bets?
Agreed Fezzik. Maybe they could have hit a SLIGHTLY higher % (maybe 1-2%) of their plays if they limited them more but your point in the article stands. Obviously their #1 was to make money not hit a certain % but I don't think you ever said or implied otherwise. Sodium just likes to make statements that makes himself look like a jackazz. It was a good article. Keep up the good work.
Hey R2D2Don'tBet, ain't it a bitch there isn't topic one that you possess more knowledge, not one. Amazing ain't it.
They could've hit 80% if they chose too. But since you are a member of the clueless generation..........phucking moron could get three points just by betting on both coasts.
Thanks for displaying that blazing ignorance.
They could've hit 80% if they chose too. But since you are a member of the clueless generation..........phucking moron could get three points just by betting on both coasts.
Thanks for displaying that blazing ignorance.
SP, have Shrink call up Billy Walters and see if you hear the laughter coming out of his office when he asks "Come on now, tell us the truth. You really could have hit 80% right???"
No way in hell anyone hits 80% if they make 100 bets or more. Absolutely not a chance. Lines aren't off enough to make it possible. Even if a line is off say 5 points, that still isn't enough to overcome luck factors that are a part of every game to make you an 80% winner. In all the handicapping challenges I have seen for just about any sport imaginable, 64-67% is usually what the winner has. On rare occasions you might see a 70%. And remember the winners got lucky! 80% is just impossible over any length of time.
SP are you related to this EDG guy???
No way in hell anyone hits 80% if they make 100 bets or more. Absolutely not a chance. Lines aren't off enough to make it possible. Even if a line is off say 5 points, that still isn't enough to overcome luck factors that are a part of every game to make you an 80% winner. In all the handicapping challenges I have seen for just about any sport imaginable, 64-67% is usually what the winner has. On rare occasions you might see a 70%. And remember the winners got lucky! 80% is just impossible over any length of time.
SP are you related to this EDG guy???
Why I bother? Who the phuck knows.
ready simpletons?
ears opened and recently cleaned?
the computer group consistently produced a line with a lower average mean error than the betting lines. That is how they won, simple, consistently make a better line.
All they had to do to hit 80% was to only bet the games furthest from the line the machine spit out.
Instead he like a prudent man would do, chose to bet every game there was a 1.5pt difference, this translated to whatever number you care to ignorantly put out there.
Duh, amazing figure after a decade and half of following just an iota of clue one would enter your heads.
Besides the fact it was not uncommon to have large differences in lines depending who you called and when.
Who knows why I bother?
ready simpletons?
ears opened and recently cleaned?
the computer group consistently produced a line with a lower average mean error than the betting lines. That is how they won, simple, consistently make a better line.
All they had to do to hit 80% was to only bet the games furthest from the line the machine spit out.
Instead he like a prudent man would do, chose to bet every game there was a 1.5pt difference, this translated to whatever number you care to ignorantly put out there.
Duh, amazing figure after a decade and half of following just an iota of clue one would enter your heads.
Besides the fact it was not uncommon to have large differences in lines depending who you called and when.
Who knows why I bother?
SP,
Commonly accepted (at least among many strong numerical handicappers) is that 1 point is worth 5% edge. If you win 80% of your plays, your return is 58% on every dollar you bet. Divide 58%/5% and you get 11.6. That means if you had the absolute most perfect computer program in the world, and such thing really doesn't exist, then you would have to have an 11.6 point edge on your bets to win. And that would be if the games were decided purely on the basis of perfect outcomes. If the ref makes a couple bad calls, if the star player makes a couple more turnovers than he is supposed to, if one of the players is playing sick or hurt...it won't be a perfect outcome. In short, to offset these imperfect games, you would have to have an even higher edge to win 80% because you figure to go 50/50 when the games aren't truly handicappable. So maybe 15 point edge would do it.
So you tell me, how many times could a perfect computer spot a game that the line was 15 points off? Maybe once every two years?
Commonly accepted (at least among many strong numerical handicappers) is that 1 point is worth 5% edge. If you win 80% of your plays, your return is 58% on every dollar you bet. Divide 58%/5% and you get 11.6. That means if you had the absolute most perfect computer program in the world, and such thing really doesn't exist, then you would have to have an 11.6 point edge on your bets to win. And that would be if the games were decided purely on the basis of perfect outcomes. If the ref makes a couple bad calls, if the star player makes a couple more turnovers than he is supposed to, if one of the players is playing sick or hurt...it won't be a perfect outcome. In short, to offset these imperfect games, you would have to have an even higher edge to win 80% because you figure to go 50/50 when the games aren't truly handicappable. So maybe 15 point edge would do it.
So you tell me, how many times could a perfect computer spot a game that the line was 15 points off? Maybe once every two years?
