agree Shiny,
just sick of dealing with BS in my threads. it gets to be a hassle trying to keep everything added up. I dont understand why Kodiak feels it is a necessity to continually lie or needs so much attention. This forum used to be about trying to beat the man not each other. To each his own, I guess.
ORL/NY under 186.5 for .6%
ATL/NO under 182 for .6%
just sick of dealing with BS in my threads. it gets to be a hassle trying to keep everything added up. I dont understand why Kodiak feels it is a necessity to continually lie or needs so much attention. This forum used to be about trying to beat the man not each other. To each his own, I guess.
ORL/NY under 186.5 for .6%
ATL/NO under 182 for .6%
I am just curious about something(and I may be wrong) on the 28th(Complete Game) you went 1-6 for what you say is -1.5%. My question to you is just say you started with $1000 given your numbers that day you did not lose 1.5% of your bankroll but in fact(with the vig) you lost 1.7%,do you agree with that figure ? if not please explain Like I said I may be wrong)
your games for that night were:
These numberes are based on a bankroll of $1000
MIA +6 for .5%______________-5.50
MIA ML +23 for .1%__________-1
over 176 for .5%____________-5.50
SA under 182 for .6%________+6
SA -6 for .3%_______________-3.3
DAL over 205 for .4%________-4.4
DAL +3 for .3%______________-3.3
total loss=-23
total win= +6
Net= -17
1000-17=983, this means you lost 1.7% of your bankroll. Do you agree with this?
Again not trying to be a wise ass ,I just don't see how you arrive at your numbers.
Thank You
your games for that night were:
These numberes are based on a bankroll of $1000
MIA +6 for .5%______________-5.50
MIA ML +23 for .1%__________-1
over 176 for .5%____________-5.50
SA under 182 for .6%________+6
SA -6 for .3%_______________-3.3
DAL over 205 for .4%________-4.4
DAL +3 for .3%______________-3.3
total loss=-23
total win= +6
Net= -17
1000-17=983, this means you lost 1.7% of your bankroll. Do you agree with this?
Again not trying to be a wise ass ,I just don't see how you arrive at your numbers.
Thank You
correct, if calc at -110, I think.
that is what I usually do, calculate everything at -110.
I have been rushed and simply copied what my assistant gave me from my accts.
the small discrepancy was b/c I didnt take all of them at -110. I rarely lay -110, and many times get the number at less than -105, and I didnt have time to calculate everything at -110 in this case, but I round down almost always so over time the figure ends up lower than actual.
I also take ML's at better than what I post in many situations. For instance the Denver ML I got at a better number (2h) but when I got through, I posted what was avail at the time. Sorry for any confusion, I usually do add up everything at -110 even though that isnt what I usually take, or is it always the number that I get. I dont post numbers from locals or books off the beaten path, and I usually round down and have the entire time, fwiw. I have used -110 simply b/c I dont have time to calculate the -103's, -106's, etc. etc. for the dozens of wagers I place each week, and I also like to stack the odds against me so-to-speak for posting's sake. Hope this makes sense, and I have no problem listing it as -1.7 lol. You do have a valid point, as the .1's do add up.
I got better numbers on the unders for today for instance, but what's the point of posting them when they are gone by the time I stop by?
that is what I usually do, calculate everything at -110.
I have been rushed and simply copied what my assistant gave me from my accts.
the small discrepancy was b/c I didnt take all of them at -110. I rarely lay -110, and many times get the number at less than -105, and I didnt have time to calculate everything at -110 in this case, but I round down almost always so over time the figure ends up lower than actual.
I also take ML's at better than what I post in many situations. For instance the Denver ML I got at a better number (2h) but when I got through, I posted what was avail at the time. Sorry for any confusion, I usually do add up everything at -110 even though that isnt what I usually take, or is it always the number that I get. I dont post numbers from locals or books off the beaten path, and I usually round down and have the entire time, fwiw. I have used -110 simply b/c I dont have time to calculate the -103's, -106's, etc. etc. for the dozens of wagers I place each week, and I also like to stack the odds against me so-to-speak for posting's sake. Hope this makes sense, and I have no problem listing it as -1.7 lol. You do have a valid point, as the .1's do add up.
I got better numbers on the unders for today for instance, but what's the point of posting them when they are gone by the time I stop by?
also that isnt how I calculate the figures, fwiw.
I divide each winning wager by 110 separately and then add up the wins afterward. It doesnt make a lot of difference except that I usually round down, and over time this adds up against me. That is what I mean by rounding down. I sometimes round a .1597 to .16 but almost always round a .15249 to .15
I divide each winning wager by 110 separately and then add up the wins afterward. It doesnt make a lot of difference except that I usually round down, and over time this adds up against me. That is what I mean by rounding down. I sometimes round a .1597 to .16 but almost always round a .15249 to .15
