Wasn't really downplaying it.
It is all in the way people look at things. Perception I guess.
The new guys that are reletively clueless, or know just enough to get themselves in trouble are the ones I am aiming at. I remember when I started gambling a long time ago, and I sort of got sucked into the whole speel. Afterall they were on TV and they seemed credible enough. (not the typical shut and scream approaches) So what they said seemed to make sense.
But after years of gambling and trying every conceivable approach possible I think flat betting is best. Of course some creative approaches have to be made. So it isn't exactly a pure flat betting system Just like the U.S doesn't have a pure democracy.
But for guys just starting out, flat betting is the only way for them to figure out if they have any shot of winning. I mean if they can't make money with a conservative moneymanagement set up, how are they going to make money with an aggressive one? Plus it is hard to figure out if you have talent or just got lucky by hitting a couple big plays. It isn't a sprint it is a marathon. So one day a guy might hit for a couple grand, then the next week he drops five.
Obviously the more experience the looser the criteria. That "gut feeling" or perceived "value" probably is better for a guy that has been doing it longer. But those guys are more successful anyways since they have survived long enough to gain that experience.
So it is all relative.
I do agree that what works for one won't work for all. If there was a fool proof blueprint whomever invented it would be a billionaire.
It is all about mentality, psychology, and personal experiences.
All I know is that when I bet opinionated plays and make enough bets and get good enugh odds I don't have to worry about one or two big play games to make or break me. I always know what I am going to make.
A guy could theoretically be on a 13-1 streak, and lose it all when he gets that invulnerable feeling and goes balls out on a "lock" game. And on the flip side a guy could start out with a big time loser and not get in the game at all, so he will never know what he might have done.
And as mentioned above guys that get buried, their whole mind set changes. Unless they have some experiences and know they will get through it. And that is the Catch-22 to have the experience you have to survive.
I know I am different because I don't even watch games for the most part. Because it generally doesn't matter. Handicapping fotball is actually pretty overrated. I used to cap like a mother, and have a games down perfect and still lose.
Volume is key. And if a guy is good enough he is just as well off betting every game on the board for a flat amount and look to go 50 to 52%. Which is doable, but as mentioned above, looking for SU dog winners is the key. So picking 52 to 53% on faves and hitting 50% on dog plays will be very productiove, and the volume is there.
Picking and chosing games simply puts a higher criteria on winning. If you bet 5000 games a year and can pick games consistantly, you have a much better chance of making more money (relatively speaking)than a guy who is equal in "talent" who plays maybe 1000 games a year. Of couorse the odds of LOSING are increased, but like I have said a million times, if you can pick winners consistantly enough then you always know youe expectations.
LAst analogy. it is like the guys on the road that do a consistant 45. they stay in their lane and go along, they see a guy go by them at 75 only to hit the light. The guy doing 45 catches them at the light. They cruis along together until the speed guy gets his hole again, then bam, another light, the 45 guy catches him again. But this time the speed guy is at the frint of the pack. Green light, he peels out, only to be stopped by a cop. Which ineviteably happens to guys that speed. Just ask guys who thought the Lkaers were a "lock" that was a pretty costly "ticket" I am sure.
