![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Warren Buffet and Ben Graham always made lots of money doing Arb. In fact, Arbs kept Buffet's Partnerships profitable during the years his Long Term Holdings were negative.
Even Thorpe (Beat the Dealer) wrote a book on "workout" type investing. "Warrent Hedging". At the time he was claiming 25%APR.
If Arb is done right you can definately make money, but not much is written about it. So learning to do it right isn't easy, for me at least.
CV
rtybsfuy ndt yu s rtyt zg eryty5 ze
DFAT (decipher for a thousand)
I want to buy some stock and sell the long term (1 year) leaps. Or, would it be better to buy the stock and sell the near term one month options every month for the next 12 months?
My idea is to buy the stock and sell the options about five points out of the money. This way if the stock goes up I will get a little bit of stock appreciation along with my option premiums. If the stock goes down I will have downside protectin to the extent of what I took in on the options.
So, assuming I come up with the right plan; what is the best method of coming up with the proper stock to purchase, and should I use margin?
I am experienced doing this sort of thing. I would advise you to *not* mess with selling covered leaps, here is why:
Large drop in stock price will cause you to want to get rid of the stock. You cannot if you have the leap to cover....and buying it back can be expensive. The time premium will be costly.
I would (and have) sold 2 and 3 month out covered calls on primo stocks which I have owned, enough out of the money to feel very comfortable that if they rose to get called I wouldn't mind too much. And if you do this every few months, you can make a nice premium on a good stock. Furthermore you cannot get hurt too much if the stock drops...but picking well is so important.
Do not do this on high techs: Too volatile. e.g. msft might double in 6 months, you will get called right out of it. Or it might dump by 35% in one month.
I did a lot of this on blue chippers. I had a run of 5-6 3-month IBM covered call selling, never getting called out and seeing a nice small increase each quarter. This made a 50 to 100 percent gain possible with nice security. YOU WANT TO SLEEP AT NIGHT!
Just my 2 cents.
Mark
I'll give this a shot. Last January, with Dell at about 40 I bought 1000 shares for $40,000. I bought the stock on margin so my outlay was $20,000. I then sold 10 Jan 2000 45 leaps for $7 apiece netting me $7000 instantly into my account. Total outlay--$13,000.
Without going into the risk-reward of the play. Here is where I stand:
If Dell finishes at 45 or above come January I will make $7000 on the calls and $5000 profit on the stock for $12,000 total. Subract from this about ~$200 for commissions and another ~$2400 for interest on the margin. (Brokers call rate of about ~12%.) This brings a net profit of $9400. (This doesn't count any interest or investment return I may have received on the $7000.) A 47% return on my $20,000 investment. A 72% return on my actual net outlay of $13,000.
I'm not out of the woods yet. There is always risk. With Dell at ~44 it has a ways to go and what looked originally like a no brainer trade has turned into a nail biter.
If the stock finishes below 35 1/2 I lose money at $1000 per point. If it finishes between 35 1/2 and 45 I make something. The closer to 45, the more I make. If the stock closes at $40, exactly what I paid for it, I make $7000-$2600=$4400 for a 34% return. I do best if dell finishes at $45 or higher. (45 is my maximum profit point. I make no more if it finishes higher than 45.)
When making a play like this you must measure the risk reward especially when trading on margin (which I don't recommend.)
As for doing it this way versus just selling the monthly or every other month options, that is a play that has to be evaluated on a trade by trade basis and depends a great deal on the volatility and price of the options. I'm sure I would have made more money had I gone the month to month, or every two or three month route. If I would have stayed with the stock.
Being a novice at this sort of discussion, let me ask the obvious question: why would you want to go short when the downside is unlimited and the upside is limited? It follows then that if you did make such a play, couldn't you have a stop-loss on it?
Actually the upside is not limited as you can pyramid on the way down with a short by adding to your short position as your equity increases when the trade goes your way.
This info. is probably as useful as the dice. This Thanksgiving football game I will remember for life. Both teams are 9-0-0 coming into the game. Melrose scores and gets the 2 point conversion. 8-0. Melrose scores again and doesn't make the conversion. 14-0. Seven minutes to go Wakefield scores and converts 2. 14-8. Two minutes to go Wakefield scores 14-14. Goes for point after partially blocked.
FINAL SCORE 14-14.
Next day at 9am the principle of MHS flips a coin to determine the winner. It comes up TAILS. Wakefield wins the league and goes to the SUPER BOWL.
No game is allowed to play overtime in the Middlesex League.
Explain that result to your children or grandchildren??
Paul (MUI)
Who cares about Melrose or Wakefield? the best HS football team in Mass is Everett and has been for eons.
Be true to your school!
Boo Feeney!
Vince.
20 guys from Everett got off the bus and started chasing one kid from Dorchester High school. They raced after him, turning around the corner and were out of sight. After 30 minutes, the rest of the 50 man football team got off the bus and went looking for their teammates. Halfway to the corner, one of the original 20 guys turned the corner heading back to the bus. His clothes were all ripped up and he was bleeding profusely from many cuts on his face and arms. Seeing his teammates he began screaming at them to get back on the bus. "Get back, he screamed, "Run away, it's a trap!" The 30 teammates stopped in their tracks, uncertain whether to proceed or heed the poor guys desperate warning. "What do you mean by trap?" one of them yelled out to him. With tears flowing down his bloodstained cheeks, the Everett boy blurted out the agonizing news. "There were *TWO* of them!"
The Italian Stallion,
LG loves that kind a talk. Everett hasn't had a good football team since the Rossetti's played!!! I knew the whole family their dad Dick died about two years ago. Nicky and Ricky were excellent football players in Everett and Nicky went to Tufts and I went over to see him once.
According to Dale (my Z killer) ray is a BOOB!!! Love that kind a talk.
Melrose is a wimp town just look at the mayors we've had and that kind of sums it up.
Paul To AC Touchdown
From 1961-1963 Everett high was blessed with a football player named "Bobby Leo". Bobby was unquestionably the greatest high school half back New England ever produced thorugh the glorious 50-and sixties and probably ever. He played for Harvard from 64-68, where he earned the name "Leo the Lion" . He later played briefly in the AFL, for the Pats's, I believe. But he was a sight to see. Everett has won the Division One Football Superbowl for the last 3 or 4 years, I believe.
BTW, Paul, is Melrose a city?
vince.
Vince Z is after you now because you mentioned my name along with yours. Look OUT!!!
Of course it's a city. How else would they pu the garbage.
paul
Check out the following link. There is something about a billion people, pent up demand, instant access to information, etc. that gets the speculative juices flowing.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/991118/c3.html
Tom,
It's fairly clear what happened.
Reminds me of my sentiments from years back when I took my first hit in the market.
"Before you buy the stock there's all these reasons publisized about why it should go up."
"After you by it, it crashes for a reason no one thought of."
You know, what we all really need is investments that work reliably and pay really well(guess that rules out bonds, they don't pay to well), not this speculative stuff. Seems it blows up in peoples faces (meaning small investors) more often than not.
Frank,
The market humbles all. I have this very good friend who is always pointing out different stocks and that is how I found out about this one. I agree with your points. As they say don't confuse brains with a bull market. Stocks are going up I'm a genius, stocks going down why are those fools selling.
Tom Haley
I was just kidding. Harvard Business was the best 60k I ever spent in my life. And it was certainly positive EV as it opened the door to a profitable career change, not to mention the great people I met who will be friends for a lifetime.
The magazine is stilla rip-off, though. IMHO.
Hey Mike,
Well don't know if I should let my real opinion out, but here I go :
First a little background.
Years back I was at United Technologies as an aspiring systems programmer...who wanted to go to corporate some day. I was doing the "Working and going to College" bit.
A cute memo came out from Corporate about how young Exec's were being circulated through the divisions to get experience. Guys my age...say about 27 at the time.
I wrote Corporate back and asked, "How do I get into this?"
They didn't even answer.
Later research showed that the "Execs" were hand picked Ivy League MBA's
It would seem that Harvard/Yale/Wharton folks are a bunch of insiders getting flown in at the top, which is a slap in the face to all of us that had to work our way up.
Sorry, but it pisses me off since from my perspective, working + doing the college routine beats the hell out of a person, and for less of a return on the effort than someone who got to go to those elite places.
Turns out the same game applies to Wall Street too.
Call any brokerage house and ask,"How do I get to be a floor trader?"
Reply : "Ah well, ya gotta have an MBA from a "big name" school".
Sorry, but from the perspective of the 95%, these insider clubs are riding on all our backs.
In a local Vegas paper it was stated that in this so called time of prosperity 8 out of 10 were stuggling, this generation is doing worse than our parents, and 90% of the stock market gains have gone to the 10% at the top.
So since you're a Harvard business Graduate, In you literate business genius...how do you propose the rest of us get to the good life without having to grab our damn ankles for sake of share price?
Great people, sure, and old man Kennedy wasn't a rum runner.
Micheal,
Just wanted to point out that you have already tacitly agreed with the last post as you stated in another post that arbitrage is a game populated with world class players and that some of them cheat.
This means that not only are they playing a game with the world's assets as chips...but people as chips too.
You call these, "great people".
As one of the "chips" I have a different point of view.
But then it seems you folks in those circles have all kinds of rationalizations for what goes on.
Sorry you feel that way. I could get into a philosphic discussion with you, but this is probably not the time or place.
I'm just an honest capitalist (I'll bet you think that's an oxymoron) trying to make the most of my talents within the boundaries of our countries laws and my own, well thought out code of business and personal ethics.
I choose my friends and business colleagues wisely. I was once of the working stiffs who held various jobs including dishwasher, poker dealer, poker player, flyfishing guide, project engineer, etc. Unlike you, however, I never felt the deck was stacked against me. When I decided I wanted to work in mergers and acquisitions, I recognized (as you did) that an ivey leagure MBA was a prerequisite. So I got one.
I sleep well at night. I love my wife. I wish you the same success in life as that is what really matters.
Micheal,
Before I go on, I just want to say this probably is as good a place as any for a discussion of these things. It's no different than a discussion of the ethics of poker.
Also, one of my primary critiques of it all is the need for a Ivy Leaque MBA or any MBA. Colleges, and I've been to a few, are a third party to the workplace that represents an additional drain of my time, energy and life. I propose that all I need to know about business could be learned in the business, which ever one it is.
We all talk as though human life is top on the scale...but it appears from observation that capital is #1 as the system is called capitalism...not "lifeism".
But I point out that your life, my life and the next guys, will exist but once...we can print more money and make a new lathe...but we cannot replace each other.
That having been said, back to the reply.
No I don't think "Honest Capitalist" is an oxymoron. However, advertizing leads me to believe there is a lot of bull out there and that deception and other "mind games" are the primary tool of getting people to hand thier dollars over. The use of deception is a primary critique here, be it in business, politics, or any other endeavor where one is misleading someone else to profit from the act of misleading. This includes a lot of advertizing and tricks like using a certain product in a movie or claiming small traders can make big bucks in day trading without an honest discussion of the amount of failures.
After all, each dollar we acquire we have to convince someone else to give it over.
However, I am skeptical that all the goes on in "the market" is for the overall good.
Where is the value to the individuals a merger or acquisiton diplaces to the service industries?
From a holoistic perspective I feel the "Wall Street Mentality" is bad. It leads to a "faster, faster faster" conumdrum. However, the idea of making the best product and selling for a profit is not neccesarily so. It is the "Managing for Share Price" thing that gets me...as opposed to managing for highest quality output and competing for revenues. As may have pointed out...even a 10% per year gain is impossible to sustain in the long run.
Of course you'll probably say a merger is a move designed to make a more competitive organization. Well, maybe...but seems from what I read the big winners are the venture capitalists. That term I find confusing because I was under the impression capital was things like machinery. Venture "Moneyists" strikes me as more correct. Just a fine point. I've read this is also true where IPO etc. are concerned.
The overall point is that "What is good for the bottom line" may not be good for the whole. Strip mining comes to mind. It's cheap, but bad for the planet.
After thinking about these things a lifetime I sometimes conclude a new, as yet uncreated system needs to come about. One that does not measure things in this artifical thing called money.
However I'm not bright enough to figure out what it is.
But I will say that global capitalism doesn't get it for several reasons. 1) If everyone wants to burn 3 times thier "share" of the reasources as we do here in the USA, how long before we've used it all up? 2) If growth is the requirement, who do we sell things to when everyone is a manufacturer? Mars?
In the short term, as someone who's life has been affected by all the post '87 and post cold war changes in a bad way I can't be anything but skeptical.
Being a worker bee I'm told I have to be more productive every year to earn a raise equal to inflation. However the store up the corner just raises its prices...no improvement in quality. The doctor raises his rates...no change in service level. Those of us who are drones in the system bear the cost of everyone elses wealth. So what would you expect any of us to think about it. I for one don't want to be a mouse in the wheel of someone else's machinery nor a chip in an M&A guys stock market poker games..."a resourse" as big companies call an employee.
I believe you must have recognized this as you are no longer a dishwasher etc. You chose the "can't beat 'em join 'em" strategy.
For a non-elite that may be all that is possible.
I simply argue that rather than join it, we should change it, or at the very least openly call it what it is.
However I do applaud you success at getting into an Ivy Leaque MBA program, completing it and "getting the job". It's a big commitment of time, energy and money.
I don't know what age you did it at, but I have heard that the deal is get the BBA young, intern, then get the MBA on the company's tab. I'd be curious at to your route and, though it's none of my business, how you financed the degree.
Another point of interest is how you do sleep knowing your actions might put people out of work.
And lastly, how you couldn't have felt the deck was against you when you were a worker. Did you actually not mind someone pulling rank on you?
its people like him that make gambling fun to talk about. the guys that take a toothpick and turn it into a logjam, then find some dynamite and destroy the logjam then go back and start all over.
The most certain way to walk away from the craps table with a million dollars is to walk up to the table with ten million.
Seriously, there's a great article that talks about a guy betting a million dollars at the craps table at:
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Aficionado/Archives/199309/fg993.html
JAGS -10.5 vs Steelers Thursday Nite
I don't like this many points but the Jags still have to win. Tenn. is playing Balt. so you figure that the Jags will play there best for home field advantage and to stay in front of Tenn. Pitts is in trouble don't expect more than 10pts out of them. Predict 35-10 Jags.
good luck
paul
Pittsburg cost me last week. They really stink. I'd take Jacksonville and lay 5 touchdowns (not really). I expect Pittsburg to get shut out.
I'm staying away from this one, if only because it looks like a trap. Plus, 10 points is a lot to give a team-- even Pitt.
| Match Up | Wed AM | Mon AM | Opening | Abdul's | Comments |
| W. Mich | 54˝ | 54˝ | 56˝ | 52˝ | MAC Championship |
| Marshall | -20˝ | -20˝ | -20˝ | -18 | Huntington, WV |
| Navy | -6˝ | -6˝ | -5˝ | -4˝ | WR Spencer out |
| Army | 50 | 51 | 55 | 54˝ | Philadelphia, PA |
| Temple | 48 | ||||
| Miami Fl | -29 | -29 | -28 | -24 | QB Kelly out |
| SMU | 57 | ||||
| San Jose | -1 | ||||
| Texas | 53 | 53 | 53 | 48˝ | 2 WR's? |
| Nebraska | -8 | -8 | -8 | -8˝ | San Antonio, TX |
| Alabama | 52˝ | 52˝ | 53˝ | 53˝ | SEC Championship |
| Florida | -7 | -7 | -7˝ | -3 | Atlanta, GA |
Abdul,
As I said you can run but you can't hide!!! Thank you for posting the lines and your picks. I like Florida though.
Paul
Paul writes: "I like Florida though."
Final score: 7-34, Alabama victory.
Florida was a 7 point favorite at the sports books.
-Abdul
| Match Up | Wed AM | Mon AM | Opening | Abdul's | Comments |
| Steelers | 37 | 37˝ | 39˝ | 33˝ | QB Tomczak in |
| Jaguars | -10˝ | -10˝ | -10˝ | -12 | 2 WR's doubtful |
| Jets | -2˝ | -2˝ | -1 | -3˝ | |
| Giants | 34 | 34 | 34 | 30 | Graham? Wall out |
| Packers | -3 | -3 | -2˝ | ||
| Bears | 39˝ | 39˝ | 36˝ | ||
| Saints | 39˝ | 39˝ | 39˝ | 41˝ | RB Williams? |
| Falcons | -4 | -4 | -4 | -2˝ | |
| Colts | 43 | 43 | 43˝ | -4˝ | |
| Dolphins | -2˝ | -1˝ | -1˝ | 42˝ | WR McD? Barber out |
| 49ers | 39˝ | 39 | -1 | 2 CB's out | |
| Bengals | -3 | -1˝ | 42˝ | ||
| Redskins | 49 | 48 | 47 | 49˝ | |
| Lions | -3˝ | -3˝ | -2˝ | -1˝ | |
| Titans | -3˝ | -3˝ | -3˝ | PK | WR Thigpen? |
| Ravens | 36˝ | 37 | 37 | 36˝ | TE Pierce? |
| Rams | -7 | -7 | -7 | -12 | |
| Panthers | 49 | 48˝ | 48˝ | 49 | |
| Eagles | 37 | 37 | 36˝ | 34˝ | WR and FB out |
| Cardinals | -7 | -7 | -6˝ | -1 | RB Pittman? |
| Chiefs | 38˝ | 38˝ | 38˝ | 42 | RB Shehee? |
| Broncos | -3˝ | -3˝ | -3˝ | PK-120 | QB=Griese |
| Seahawks | 41 | 41 | -1 | -2˝ | |
| Raiders | -1 | -1 | 40 | 41˝ | QB Gannon? |
| Browns | 36 | 36 | 35˝ | 37 | |
| Chargers | -7˝ | -7˝ | -7 | -5˝ | RB Means? |
| Cowboys | 38 | 38 | 38 | -2 | |
| Patriots | -2˝ | -2˝ | -1 | 37 | |
| Vikings | -2˝ | -2˝ | -3 | -1 | |
| Buccs | 39˝ | 41˝ | 40˝ | 38˝ | QB=King, Dilfer out |
I haven't posted the ranking I was doing the past 2 weekends do to being on vacation. I'll start again next week and pick some games so you can use those and go the other way.
Are there people who make a living at this game? And if there are, is it more likely to be playing limit or no-limit,or both?
Thanks, Colt 46
its been discussed a few times so look around the forums and in the archives for more. then wait an maybe Big John Harkness will pipe in and give you some more wisdom as he seems to be our resident expert on the game even if he denies it.
Harkness? Harkness? Ray, you can't tell the difference between a Canadian movie critic and me? I know I can't write as well as he does, probably don't play poker as well either, since he won the highly prestigous BARGE NL Hold-em tourney this year.
Ray, my last name is Hartzell...I'm afraid you've hurt my feelings so badly that the only thing that might salvage this situation would be for you to write a book on the correct strategy for playing NL Mexican Stud.
This really hurts because for several years now, whenever I play poker, live games or tournaments, I always shout out your name in a pathetic attempt to lead people into thinking that I'm really you.
I grab a bunch of chips in my hand, push them into the center of the table and proudly proclaim: "I Ray-Zee". Unfortunately, I've run into many other imposters when doing this; These imposters grab even more chips than me and put them in the pot yelling: "I Ray-Zee too"!
You've cost me a lot of money over the years, Ray, the least you could do is get my damn name right. ;-)
so sorry John. i did know your name and did think it but i guess my fingers were thinking something else. i had just read a post on rpg by john harkness and i guess it carried over. but you must agree it is a much nicer sounding name than Hartzell. i suggest a name change. i was going to change my name to salvation army till i found out id get into trouble cashing the checks.
I had a good friend in high school whose name was Norman Krapp. As You might imagine, he was teased quite a bit by a lot of people. When he went into the army after high school he had the base legal officer petition the court on his behalf for a legal name change. It took about three months to get a hearing in front of the judge, but he finally was able to do it. He changed his name to William Krapp. Go figure.
Big John,
You and ray zee have been most helpful in answering Colt's question. How lucky he is to have found this poker-site.
Dale,
WTTA (Welcome To The Arena). Nice SLAM!!! Watch your back picking on these TWO!!
The Feeble Feen
i guess with a name like Dale you were teased also all your life. see John the fake lawyer for help.
WOW! I'm reeling from that one. Paul was right, your wrath is SEVERE!! I may not recover.
-Dale
Colt,
I can only speak for one particular venue, the Bicycle Club in Bell Gardens. They spread daily 2-4's and 4-8's there with at least one, but sometimes two or three NL Mexican Stud games on Weekends. (Friday nites after 7PM and Saturday evenings for sure. Sometimes the Friday game goes until Sunday.)
There are specialists who play only the Mexican Stud, both the 4-8 and the smaller NL games, and certainly appear to make some money doing so. I know three players who play 4-8, small NL and big NL, and I would guess they each net more than 40K per year. The best players are the ones who play recreationally there and only play the big NL. They are the best because they have the deepest pockets and don't seem to have some of the bad habits that the "Mexican Stud Pros" all seem to enjoy. (Primarily gambling in the Asian section)
I have played a fair amount in the small and big NL games and have managed to hold my head above water. There are disadvantages if you are an outsider; Spanish is the language of the game, and the regulars employ unethical tactics to aid each other to the detriment of the nonregulars. Once you have been in the game for several sessions, they have a tendency to curtail that somewhat.
My opinion is, with intelligent game selection, you can make a nice supplement to your poker income by learning and playing this game. If you get easily frustrated by floorpeople who choose to look the other way when players misbehave, or if you would really resent a big cardroom with no chip runners, then Mexican Stud at the Bicycle Club is not for you. I hope this helps answer your questions and am sorry that I didn't respond sooner.
Thank's John, you've been more than helpful.
-Colt 46
whatdaya mean, Paul, Dale and I added a lot more than John's one lousy post. if he is going to keep toping us he is off the payroll.
I don't need to be on your steeeeennnking payroll anymore Zee! Today I signed a very lucrative contract to be Gary Carson's literary agent. I'm sure I can talk Mason into proffering at least a six figure advance for the U.S. book rights alone. For the movie, I'm thinking of having Jason Alexander (with a toupee) play Mason, John Malkovich for David, and, of course, Steve Buscemi(sp) to play you.
thanks for nothing. now i have to spent my whole day trying to find out who this biscotti guy is and why you think he might represent something about me.
Ray,
Steve Buscemi is a talented actor. His most important trait is his willingness to accept parts where he isn't portraying a pretty boy or someone with a lot of intelligence. He also does independant films and works cheap. If you go to your local video store and rent some of his movies, I'm sure you will be as struck as I was at the uncanny facial resemblence the two of you have.
If you're going for accurate looks, Richard Kind from "Spin City' IS Malmuth.
Ray,
Big John wrote: "Steve Buscemi is a talented actor."
He is excellent. Try Fargo, Trees Lounge, Reservoir Dogs among others. He was especially good at the beginning of Desperado.
Here is a link to a web page which I think has a picture.
http://moviething.com/bios/stevebuscemi/
Regards,
Rick
Thanks a bunch Rick. Now Ray is going to be checking out the picture and will start lobbying me to find a taller actor to play him. Even Ray will have to admit that the facial resemblence is dead on though. I wonder if Steve will consider wearing lifts for this one picture?
i guess if you push it he may have some resemblence but he surely isnt as good looking. that ill bet on. if he is short then no way. John if you want everyone to be so short ill sit down for you. as it is you are too damn big. the only way to be sure who is better looking is to have Brenda be the judge.
I would guess that Brenda could judge impartially between you and Mr. Buscemi. I would have to make it clear to you that there can be no touching at any time between you and Brenda until after the contest is concluded. You and Steve, on the other hand, are free to do all the touching of each other that you both feel comfortable with.
This is the funniest stuff I've ever read on these forums.
In the beginning of the NFL season casinos post a over/under line for the number of win or loss for each team during the regular season (e.g., let's say the 49ers' over/under was 9.5 games). My question is: If I were to bet under and as it stands today that the 49ers couldn't possibly win 9 games this year, could I collect now or do I have to wait till the regular season is over?
TT,
You have to wait until the weekend after the regular season ends.
paul
The reason you have to wait untilt he end of the season is because teams must play 16 games for there to be action. If a game were to be cancelled for some reason (plane crash, riot, dome collapsing) and not made up, your bet would be considered no action and your money refunded. So, although you have a winner as of right now, it is not offical yet until the the 2 minute mark of the 16th 49er game this year.
Gambler
if you needed the money you could sell your ticket. take 100% less the small chance of no action on the winning part and the time cost of money that someone would have to wait for. that would be the fair price minus some for the aggravation.
TWIMC,
It is hard to read I know my formatting skills are more like doormatting. These are the odds from Sept. and some team are either UNDER OR OVER already and I will post more as they happen. If someone would like to post this in a better readable form plz do. Hopefully I didn't make too many mistakes
paul
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM -----------ODDS ----------UNDER-----OVER
JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130
MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----YES-----NO
DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----YES-----NO
GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130
SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----YES-----NO
NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----YES-----NO
ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----YES-----NO
MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115
TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120
PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150
DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115
BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140
ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160
NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135
DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----NO-----YES
BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125
WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----YES-----NO
ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----NO-----YES
OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----NO-----YES
SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130
CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115
CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160
CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145
CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160
| Match up | Wed PM | Tue PM | Opening | Abdul's | Comments |
| Fresno State | 55 | Las Vegas Bowl | |||
| Utah | -6˝ | -6˝ | -7 | -7 | WR Smith out |
| TCU | 49 | 49 | 48 | 47 | Alabama Bowl |
| East Carolina | -4˝ | -4˝ | -5˝ | -4 | Mobile, AL |
| Wake Forest | 50 | 50 | 49 | -3 | Aloha Bowl |
| Arizona State | -3 | -3 | -3˝ | 41˝ | QB Kealy out |
| Blue | Blue-Gray Classic | ||||
| Gray | Montgomery, AL | ||||
| Oregon State | -9 | -9 | -8˝ | -5 | Oahu Bowl |
| Hawaii | 56˝ | 56˝ | 53˝ | 55 | Honolulu, HI |
| BYU | 60 | 60 | 58 | 48˝ | Motor City Bowl |
| Marshall | -2˝ | -2˝ | -2˝ | -8 | Pontiac, MI |
| Penn State | -6 | -6 | -5˝ | -5˝ | Alamo Bowl |
| Texas A&M | 47˝ | 47˝ | 46˝ | 47˝ | San Antonio, TX |
| Syracuse | 55˝ | 55˝ | 53˝ | -1˝ | Music City Bowl |
| Kentucky | -2˝ | -2˝ | -2˝ | 54 | Nashville, TN |
| Kansas State | -12 | -12 | -11 | -15 | Holiday Bowl |
| Washington | 53 | 53 | 51 | 53˝ | San Diego, CA |
| Louisville | -4 | -4 | -4˝ | 67 | Human. Bowl |
| Boise State | 66˝ | 66˝ | 65˝ | -5 | Boise, ID |
| Illinois | 51 | 51 | 50 | -3˝ | Micron PC Bowl |
| Virginia | -2˝ | -2˝ | -3 | 58 | Miami, FL |
| Clemson | -2˝ | -2˝ | -2 | -5 | Peach Bowl |
| Mississippi St | 41 | 41 | 41 | 42 | Atlanta, GA |
| Boston College | 53 | 53 | 52 | 51 | Insight.com Bowl |
| Colorado | -8˝ | -8˝ | -7˝ | -3˝ | Tucson, AZ |
| Minnesota | -2 | -2 | -1 | -3 | Sun Bowl |
| Oregon | 52 | 52 | 51 | 54˝ | El Paso, TX |
| Colorado State | 44˝ | 44˝ | 44˝ | 44˝ | Liberty Bowl |
| Southern Miss | -4 | -4 | -4 | -4˝ | Memphis, TN |
| Mississippi | 55 | 55 | 55 | 46˝ | Indep. Bowl |
| Oklahoma | -4 | -4 | -3 | -8 | Shreveport, LA |
| Arkansas | 54˝ | 54˝ | 53˝ | 55 | Cotton Bowl |
| Texas | -7-120 | -7-120 | -6˝ | -6˝ | Dallas, TX |
| Georgia | 66 | 65 | 64 | 57˝ | Outback Bowl |
| Purdue | -5˝ | -5˝ | -4 | -6˝ | Tampa, FL |
| Georgia Tech | 69 | 69 | 65 | 65 | Gator Bowl |
| Miami-Florida | -5 | -5 | -4˝ | -6 | QB Kelly?? |
| Florida | -2˝ | -2˝ | -2˝ | 46˝ | Citrus Bowl |
| Michigan State | 50 | 50 | 50 | -3 | Orlando, FL |
| Stanford | 63 | 63 | 62 | 63˝ | Rose Bowl |
| Wisconsin | -11 | -11 | -10 | -8˝ | Pasadena, CA |
| Michigan | 46 | 46 | -1 | 49 | Orange Bowl |
| Alabama | -2 | -2 | 46 | -2 | Miami, FL |
| Nebraska | -4 | -2˝ | -2˝ | -10 | Fiesta Bowl |
| Tennessee | 46 | 45 | 45 | 51 | Tempe, AZ |
| Virginia Tech | 49˝ | 49˝ | 49˝ | -1 | Sugar Bowl |
| Florida State | -6˝ | -6˝ | -7˝ | 52˝ | New Orleans |
Now if these discrepancies continue to show a profit, I hope you start charging for these picks (and merely advertising on this site). Then Mason can post on rgp how greedy you are. If you need some lessons in greed I will be glad to give them to you. (For a price of course.)
His college picks might be reasonably good. I noticed that he had Va Tech the favorite to win it all.
Actually, I can be greedy and beneficial to my fellow gamblers at the same time, much as David Sklansky can be. Before posting the lines, I had already made my straight bets for the week (aside from possible weather plays and whatnot.) Now I'm hoping that informed bettors with big bankrolls will push the lines further, so that I can make informed plays on parlay cards using stale lines. I don't necessarily want people to follow my lines, mind you, and it certainly does me no good if people blindly follow my lines. I just want to provide information for wiseguys to make good decisions, thus I include more information than just my lines. Eventually I plan to add links to other information sites.
Mason comments that my NCAAF lines may be decent. Could be, but "strength of schedule" type concerns are humongous in NCAAF, and while my program is designed to implicitly take this into account, I have my doubts that it does a great job of it.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Hey man what's going on? And here I thought you hated posting here on 2+2 because of that Malmuth guy. Something about a fear of deletion. Well, I guess you must only be afraid of your poker posts being deleted. When your posts benefit you in some monetary manner you are willing to take a little risk. OK. I can see that. But please do not condescend to Mason. If you think an NCAA team is a real "penis" please don't pull any punches. Tell it like it is. A "penis" after all is still a "penis." Even if Mason thinks otherwise. And the only "penal(ty)" is post deletion. Yup Mason will "pull it" right there.
But it's good to see you have decided to post on the best forum on the net. I hope this leads to a return to the poker forums or are you just too good for us? Even mighty DS has acknowledged your prowess with the calculator. Extremely humbling for a guy like him. I can see why you wouldn't want your work scrutinized though. You and other poker prophets like Caro, Ciaafone et al must maintain that aura of eloofness. It sure would be nice for us less fortunate too see a good debate of the issues among you heavy weights. Maybe you and Caro, Ciaffone, Krieger, Cooke and the S&M boys could stage a debate here on 2+2. Gary Carson a frequent 2+2 poster would, I guess, be glad to join in. Badger could probably add some insight to any discussion.
Well, anyway, good to see you here.
Have a nice day.
Vince.
Vince:
The real test will be to see if Abdul has Va Tech at least a 50 point favorite over UVA next year. (His comment should be that the Hokies shouldn't be playing high school teams.)
| Match up | Wed PM | Mon AM | Opening | Abdul's | Comments |
| Raiders | 40 | 40 | 40 | -2 | TE Walker?? |
| Titans | -3 | -3 | -4 | 41 | WR Thigpen?? |
| Giants | 36˝ | 36˝ | 36˝ | 35˝ | 2 RB's & CB out |
| Bills | -8 | -8 | -7˝ | -14 | |
| Lions | 35 | 36 | 32˝ | Batch? 2 RB's? | |
| Buccs | -4 | -3˝ | -4 | -4 | QB Zeier? RB? |
| Eagles | 36 | 36 | 37 | 33 | |
| Cowboys | -9 | -9˝ | -9˝ | -13 | WR Mills?? |
| Panthers | 42 | 42 | 42 | 44˝ | |
| Packers | -8 | -7˝ | -8˝ | -6 | RB Levens?? |
| Ravens | 36 | 36 | 36 | -2 | RB Rhett? WR? |
| Steelers | -1˝ | -1˝ | PK | 35 | C? 2 WR's? |
| Patriots | 46˝ | 46˝ | 46˝ | 46 | |
| Colts | -7 | -7 | -7˝ | -9 | 1 WR doubtful |
| Cardinals | 46˝ | 46˝ | 46˝ | 46˝ | 2 RB's? |
| Redskins | -5˝ | -5˝ | -5˝ | -11 | |
| Rams | -10˝ | -10˝ | -10˝ | -21˝ | |
| Saints | 48˝ | 48˝ | 48˝ | 46˝ | Tolliver in, Williams? |
| Browns | 41˝ | 41 | 40 | 41˝ | WR out |
| Bengals | -7 | -7 | -7 | -1˝ | QB Smith out |
| Dolphins | -3 | -3 | -3 | 35˝ | WR McD? |
| Jets | 37 | 37 | 37 | -4˝ | 1 DT out, 1 DT? |
| Chargers | 41˝ | 42˝ | 42˝ | 38 | Means doubtful |
| Seahawks | -9˝ | -9˝ | -10 | -12˝ | RB Green?? |
| Falcons | -3-120 | -3-120 | -2˝ | -2 | TE Santiago? |
| 49ers | 41˝ | 41 | 41 | 42 | 2 CB's out |
| Vikings | 42 | 42 | 46 | ||
| Chiefs | -1 | PK | -6˝ | WR & RB? | |
| Broncos | 37˝ | 37˝ | 39 | 36˝ | Miller doubtful |
| Jaguars | -9 | -9 | -9 | -9 | TE & RB? |
I'm suprised at the number of games that show a significant variance between the book's line and your's.I assume you bet the games with variances,how are you doing?and how long have you done it for.
The lines are coming from a mathematics-based program I wrote. The program does not look at the book lines and does not take into account injuries and other transient factors. For example, it favors the Rams over the Saints by 21.5 points, and that might be reasonable normally, but not this week when the Rams may have a massive letdown after securing the division.
The large differences between my lines and the book lines suggest that my lines are inaccurate, but they may still hold valuable information. I have not yet evaluated the program on past data. I've been using it for just three weeks, and it's still a work in progress.
You can get a quick feel for how accurate it is by seeing if the early line changes are in the direction of the program's lines, assuming you have more faith in the wiseguys (who bet big and push the lines) than the bookies. For the NFL totals, this week 6 out of 6 of the line shifts were in the direction of the program's lines, and last week 9 out of 10 were. Hmmm.
-Abdul
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the work you're putting in, and I'm following along closely. Thanks a lot.
If someone wanted to act on this information what would be the thing to do. Is it something like:
Bet on the Bills, Redsins and Jets? ( not the Rams for the anomaly you mentioned )
I am not too familiar with sports betting so sorry if this is kind of trivial.
Thanks
D.
Right, the picks according to my program would be Raiders +3 (oops), Bills -8, Cowboys -9, Redskins -5.5, Browns +7, Jets +3, and Chiefs PICK (-1 most places, but I saw PICK at one casino yesterday.) I have more faith in its over/under suggestions: Rams/Saints UNDER 49 (48.5 most casinos, 49.5 at one point at one casino), Chargers/Seahawks UNDER 42.5 and Vikings/Chiefs OVER 42.
You can also look at the early line moves, which would suggest: Raiders (oops), Bills, Panthers, Steelers, Patriots, Chargers, Falcons, and Chiefs, and for over/unders: Lions/Buccs UNDER, Eagles/Cowboys UNDER, Browns/Bengals OVER, Falcons/49ers OVER, Broncos/Jaguars UNDER. As David Sklansky has pointed out, some or all of the value has already been drained out of these bets from the initial line moves. Indeed, my program would have identified a whole lot more over/under bets from the initial lines. However, I still find the information useful.
-Abdul
I find it interesting that you and S Wong seem to be moving into sports.Is this a commentary on the long term prospects of BJ or Poker or just a new frontier?
The game of blackjack is definitely in trouble. I expect profitable blackjack to be extinct in the U.S. in 10 years, though just about any casino card game has some vulnerabilities. I still play blackjack, however.
Poker offers limited exponential growth and death by second hand smoke outside California. I still play poker, however.
Sports is a new frontier for me. I've lost money in it so far, and it may just be a phase I'm going through. Sports offers the potential for exponential growth and working at home while avoiding smoke. However, it's extremely difficult to beat the juice, and just like in blackjack those few who can beat the house tend to get barred (along with a lot who cannot.)
Ultimately I hope to move into stocks, options, and other financial investments, as the exponential growth for sports betting is also somewhat limited.
-Abdul
How much value would you assign to a single point in the over/under in football? For instance, you suggest the Vikings/Chiefs over 42. Bowmans has the line at 41. The Rams/Saints you had picked at under 49, but it's currently under 48.5. Your other under is a half-point lower now.
Do you set your picks at an overall edge of 5%, or are you using a different method?
The value of a half point varies depending on how high the total is and whether it's a key number. (A key number in sports is one that frequently occurs, due to the lumpiness in the score distributions.) If the line should be 48 but you're getting 48.5, your win probability is about .52 so that half point is worth about 2% win probability or 4% edge. 48 is a big key number. For a nonkey number the value will be less, around .08% win probability or 1.6% edge. These numbers come from a mathematical model of mine.
I really cannot estimate edge without extensive historical testing, and I have not yet done that. You need a .524 win rate just to break even on the usual -110 bets. Certainly if there is just a half point difference between my line and the book line, there is no bet to recommend, because there is no way my program is that accurate, and because you need a 1 or 2 point difference between the book line and the proper line just to break even. I've just been winging it by requiring about a 3 point difference, plus or minus a bit for key numbers, before I nominate a bet for consideration.
The big problem with sports betting is that if you take a bet where the line was set properly, you're going to lose almost 5% of your bet on average. It takes only one wrong guess to wipe out a few marginal good bets.
Bottom line: my program's recommendations may be no better than the ones the touts and columnists give. Hell, they could even be worse than guessing at random, due to the possible extra information in the book lines. Caveat emptor, baby.
-Abdul
I have been playing some play money Omaha (high only) on Paradise Poker to try and learn the game. I have got a question re: runner-runner draws:
I am on the button with 5c6h8h9d and call (I don't know if this is a playable hand but what the hell..it's only play money) after the whole field had called. Blinds rap. We take the flop 10 handed.
Flop: As7h2c.
Small blind bets and gets 5 callers before it is my turn. Do I call?
p.s. I did call because it was play money but should I call in real games...why or why not?
If your answer is to call, would a raise be better because the texture of the board is such that no matter what card comes off on the turn, they will likely check to me on the turn and I can take the free card (of course, this assumes that I won't get 3 bet on the flop if I raise).
Thanks for any help. This Omaha puzzles me quite a bit. I have played it a couple of times with Dan Hanson and his fellow sharks in Edmonton but have always felt that I play way too tight after the flop because I perhaps don't properly take into account the value of backdoor draws.
x
What is the line in Vegas on the Rose Bowl -- UW v. Stanford?
Thanks.
You never would have guessed it, but the line on the Rose Bowl game is given in the message with the subject "NCAAF Bowl Lines"! If you want up to date lines, then go to www.nss.net, but as of now the Rose Bowl game line is unchanged from when I posted it two days ago.
-Abdul
In Sklansky's excellent bj book, he uses terms throughout to indicate count ranges, e.g. "slightly" positive indicates a count of about +2.
He uses the terms "slightly", "moderately" and "highly" for both positive and negative counts and defines them.
In his Betting Strategy chapter however, he describes a very effective betting scheme he used to use for a single deck game. He would switch from a green chip to a black chip when the deck gets "good". Switching back to green only after losing and if the count was "bad".
So I have 2 questions:
1) Can I get a more precise definition of the good and bad counts?
2) Would these good and bad counts differ for an unbalanced count like Knockout? Would the definitions of slight-moderate-heavy also change in any way for KO?
Thanks for any info, Otto
If you're playing a single deck game with hit soft 17 and double any first two, the optimal 1-2 spread involves a 2 unit bet at a true count of +1 for like High-Low or Wong Halves. If you're going to do a binary 1-4 spread, then perhaps wait until a true count of +2 for the 4 unit bet. If you're doing a normal 1-4 spread, then bet the true count in units (so bet 4 at +4.) This all assumes your bankroll is finite. If you have an oversized bankroll, then you can bet the max at any positive count.
-Abdul
Thanks the response. It is helpful.
Do you have any words of wisdom for someone using unbalanced counts? I use the KO count.
How would one adjust the count values going from HiLo to KO (or other unbalanced counts in general)?
Thanks again, Herf
If you're using a true count with KO, then it's very similar to the true count for High-Low, except of course KO tends to be higher unless you start with a negative number. Also, for single deck, the running count is pretty similar to the true count, so just increase your bet at a KO running count equal to the true counts I gave and you do fine (this is assuming you start your count at zero.)
-Abdul
Thanks!
I start a single deck at 0. I do not use a true count. So I'll start some simulations with the numbers you gave me.
For every deck above one, you add -4 to the intial count with KO (so a 6 deck game starts with a count of -20).
Thanks again, Herf
Here are ones I'm thinking about:
FSU -6. Line I'm getting started at 7.5. I guess this makes me a part of the sucker betting public. But this line moving thru the 7 makes it look good to me.
Purdue -5. UGA's pass defense is horrible. Their offense is sporadic. Auburn whooped up on em in Athens with a solid but not spectacular defense 1 good QB and 1 good reciever.
Oklahoma -4 Mississipi. Ok this is just a hunch. probably not a good bet. Ole miss just ain't that good though and Oklahoma seems like a team on the rise with (inconsistently) a pretty good offense.
Tennessee +170. Does it make sense to not like the point spread, but think the moneyline is a good bet? Thats how I feel about this game. Tennessee might well be a proper dog but I think they'll win this 38% of the time.
Also how bout these parlays. I just read about this kind of bet in one of Mr Sklansky's books and am embarrsed that I never thought of it before.
Kstate -11.5 and Over 53 Oregon -9 and Over 56.5 Colorado -8 and Over 53
I've never bet a parly before, and in the past if I bet the spread and the total on the same game I did it in a "hedging" manner. Thats seems pretty dumb now.
opinions?
For wiseguys' eyes only...
This is a service for wiseguys. If youse are not a wiseguy, go on 'n get outta here, or I'll fits ya for cement overshoes, kapeesh?
Now, wiseguy, I want youse to make informed decisions, because when youse moves the lines, I'll use that information to make better parlay card plays. So here ya go, here are opening lines, current lines, the lines from my improved mathematical program, and other useful information...
| Match Up | Opening | Current | Abdul's | Comments |
| Steelers | 37˝ | 36˝ | 37˝ | WR Hawkins hurt |
| Chiefs | -9˝ | -8˝ | -8˝ | RB's Morris, Bennet & Shehee?? |
| 49ers | 45˝ | 45˝ | 46 | QB Garcia probable |
| Panthers | -8˝ | -7˝ | -7˝ | K Kasay kaput, R. Cunningham in! |
| Falcons | 38˝ | QB Chandler? WR and TE? | ||
| Titans | -10 | -10 | -8 | QB McNair & WR Thigpen? |
| Chargers | 37˝ | 37 | 39 | |
| Dolphins | -8 | -7˝ | -6 | RB Collins & WR Green hurt |
| Lions | -3˝ | -3 | 39˝ | 2 RB's?? |
| Bears | 38 | 37 | PK-120 | QB Miller out |
| Patriots | -3˝ | -3˝ | -1˝ | RB Faulk kaput |
| Eagles | 37˝ | 37 | 36 | QB McNabb hurt |
| Jaguars | -15 | -14˝ | -8 | RB Stewart?? |
| Browns | 39 | 39 | 37˝ | WR Powell?? |
| Giants | 46˝ | 46˝ | 46 | |
| Rams | -11 | -10˝ | -14˝ | |
| Saints | 42 | 42 | 42˝ | Williams hurt, QB Tolliver starts |
| Ravens | -8˝ | -8˝ | -8 | RB Rhett? 2 WR's? |
| Redskins | 51˝ | 50 | 53˝ | |
| Colts | -7 | -6˝ | -7 | |
| Buccs | -1˝ | -1 | 35˝ | |
| Raiders | 36 | 36 | -1˝ | TE Walker?? |
| Jets | 36 | 36 | 36 | |
| Cowboys | -5˝ | -6 | -7 | RB Smith? |
| Seahawks | 39 | 39 | 39 | RB Green? WR Galloway? |
| Broncos | -1 | -1˝ | -4 | QB Miller hurt |
| Bills | -3 | -3 | -3 | TE & RB? |
| Cardinals | 38 | 37˝ | 32 | RB? 2 OL hurt, 3 LB? |
| Packers | 50 | 49 | 47 | RB Levens and WR? |
| Vikings | -4˝ | -4˝ | -4˝ | WR Carter out |
*** Browns +14.5 ... Last week the Jaguars had an emotionally draining game against the Broncos, and after this week's fait a complis against the Browns, they will face the division-contending Titans. The Jags have a play-off spot in the bag, and the Browns are easy to overlook. In the Jags-Jets game, the Jags coach showed how conservative he can be against a team that cannot score easily. Buy the Browns!
* Rams -10.5 ... With the line the way it is, it looks like the wiseguys like the Giants, but I will have to disagree. Despite the Rams not having much motivation this game, they didn't have much last game either and still trounced the Saints. At home, they will not want to disappoint their fans. Ride the Rams!
** Redskins/Colts OVER 50 ... The bookies had the chutzpah to set the line at 51.5 initially, but the wiseguys bet it down to 50, and they are mistaken, in my opinion. Both the Redskins and the Colts have very powerful offenses and bad defenses. Can you say "over?"
*** Bills/Cardinals UNDER 37.5 ... I guess this over/under is set relatively high for the second coming of Jake Plummer, but last week under his sure hand the Cardinals scored 3 points against the second worst defense in the NFL. The Cardinals have some good cornerbacks, and the Bills coach is conservative and will run the ball unless forced to do otherwise. There are plenty of offensive injuries on both sides as well, though the Cardinals also have 3 linebackers out. Under, under, under!* Vikings/Packers UNDER 49 ... Any total of 48 and up deserves a look to see if an under is in order. In this case, Chris Carter is out, and we saw how that handicapped the Vikings last week against the Chiefs. The Packers have several injuries on offense, most notably a questionable Dorsey Levens with bruised ribs. It's an under!
-Abdul
Abdul,
Your program has hated the Giants for at least the two years I've been privvy to your insight. They're not that bad. The wiseguyz are on NY here.
(begin daydreamy music)
About 10 years ago I used some rudimentary programs to pick stocks. No matter what search parameters I used, it always said, "buy GM." Finally, my father had to take me aside and say, "son, GM sucks." Sure enough, within six months they had slashed their dividend and frozen hiring(sadly while I was interviewing for a position with EDS). Sometimes the human has to step in and help the program.
Regards,
JG
This is actually a totally different program from last year. This one is only about a month old. It ranks the Giants as the 11th worst team, and more importantly it ranks the Rams as by far the best team. So, yeah, no matter how I tweak the parameters, it keeps saying "buy Rams" every week. They've won straight up and against the spread for the last four weeks, too. It did like the Giants over the Cardinals a couple weeks ago, just in time for the Cardinals to thump 'em.
Here are the program's rankings, from best to worst: stl, jac, kan, buf, sea, dal, min, tam, was, det, den, oak, bal, nwe, gnb, car, nyj, ten, mia, nyg, pit, chi, sdg, phi, ari, atl, sfo, nor, cin, cle.
By the way, there was a typo in my table - the Cowboys line opened at -6.5, not -5.5
-Abdul
You forget IND,should DAL has two power rating?one at home and one on the road(6-0 at home 1-6 away).
IND, the Indianapolis Colts, go at #3, as you might expect, just below JAC, the Jacksonville Jaguars.
You don't have to assign a team two power ratings. I think it's cleaner to assign it one power rating and then a home field advantage. I gave the Dallas Cowboys a 4 point home field advantage, which means 2 points are added to its power rating at home, and 2 points are subtracted from its power rating away. I should probably bump it up to 5 or more, or better yet have my program infer the proper value. Hmmm, bumping it up to 5 or 6 doesn't change their position in the rankings. It puts the line versus the Jets at -7, -7.5, and -8, for 4, 5, or 6 point home field advantage.
I've been forced to watch every single Cowboy game, and I can't see anything different with them at home and away. One possibility is that Coach Chan runs Emmit, then runs Emmit, and then for a change runs Emmit, even in situations where Emmit has failed 99 times out of 100, and perhaps at home Emmit has the extra adrenaline to make Chan's run-centric play-calling work. (I thought to myself, "Sheesh, where did this coach come from, Air Force?!?!" Then I looked up his history... Air Force!) Also, I think the team in general is demoralized by Chan's awful play-calling, and so only their home crowd makes them give 100%.
Of course, this season could just be a fluke. Sometimes we lose five times in a row with AA at the hold'em poker tables.
-Abdul
To be fair to Gailey, it should be mentioned that Kordell Stewart thrived under his direction when Chan was the Steeler's OC. Stewart's performance under 2 subsequent OCs has been something less than stellar.
Not to worry; Gailey is gone from Big D after the season, even if they do well in the playoffs. Count on Norv Turner taking over for him.
Which reminds me.
Didn't someone go out on a limb and publicly post that Minnesota's numbers would be down this year due in part to Ray Sherman taking over OC.
Archivists, who was that man?
JG
First is denial - "there must be something wrong with NFL.COM"
Next comes anger - "Mason, I can't delete my post!"
Then rationalization - "Wow if those two picks for TDs go the other way, it's the Giants in a rout."
Then acceptance - "I was almost wrong."
JG (happy he forgot to call Abdul to bet dinner on the game)
Why CHI pick -120 not 105,110 or 115?how you update your power rating just use final score or some stats. I don't like rams this week I think ny giants need this game more,they can keep the game close,rams also have easy schedule.
My program isn't smart enough to realize that setting a line of -0.5 doesn't make much sense due to the rarity of ties (though it has been done before by Vegas sports books.) I translated -0.5 to PICK-120. 0.0 would be PICK-110, so it has to be more negative than that. -1.0 would correspond to about PICK-125. So, the proper figure is somewhere in the middle. Anyway, the idea is simply to show which way the computer program leans for this near PICK'em match up.
-Abdul
What is your ranking of TB and OAK after this kind of score,do you just put final score into your program? Years ago I bought computer program name oddmaker written by mike orkin(Ph.D. he also wrote book name"can you win")all I have to do is put final score and program will calculate power ranking,home field advantage.If I just use number from program to pick winner I probably end up lose money.
Yes, my program currently only uses the final score to generate the lines. It seems to overreact to blow-outs.
As I said to my wife after the Raiders-Buccs game, "I think my program is going to be confused by this game." My wife replied, "I'm confused by this game." Before the blow-out, my program ranked the Raiders #14 and the Buccs #10. After the blow-out, the Raiders are ranked #6 and the Buccs are ranked #21. Before the blowouts, it ranked the Buccs as one point better on a neutral field, while afterwards it ranked the Raiders as almost three points better on a neutral field.
One way to improve the program might be to include first half scores (and other statistics) as part of the information it uses to generate the full game lines. The problem with full game scores is that in blow-out games, both sides start putting in their second and third string in the fourth quarter, and of course there are emotional and strategic factors that make the score get out of hand.
-Abdul
TWIMC,
As Of Today 12/16/99. Don't shoot the messenger if I made a mistake.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------UNDER-----OVER
JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----NO-----YES
MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----YES-----NO
DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----YES-----NO
GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130-----YES-----NO
SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----YES-----NO
NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----YES-----NO
ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----YES-----NO
MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115
TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----NO-----YES
PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----YES-----NO
DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115
BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140
ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160
NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135
DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----NO-----YES
BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125
WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----NO-----YES
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----YES-----NO
ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----NO-----YES
OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----NO-----YES
SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----NO-----YES
CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115
CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160
CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145
CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----YES-----NO
That's right! Bar Abdul! I want a vote! I want a petition! I want Abdul barred from this forum!
What does he think we are? Some dufusses! Does he think he can just put camoflauged comercial stuff in front of us and we'll read it merily and say thanks for the info? What's up with this NFL line bull dooky? I don't want to hear that crap: "If you don't want to read it don't open it!" Crap! Besides that's my line! And and I don't try to sell my wares here. Unlike Skalnsky and Malnuth. Of course if I'm not mistaken they are the forum's host and have the right to do that! Who needs Abdul? We asked even begged for months for him to come back and discuss poker theory. No more he said. I don't trust MALMUTH. He'll delete my posts. Well then why is he posting this NFL stuff? Not afraid of getting it deleted? He's a big baby! He would have us believe on one hand that he is an upstanding person more concerned with censorship than merely discussing poker. He proved it by boycotting this forum. Boycotting the forum that is until he found a way to exploit it!
I for one will never open an Abdul Jalib post again until he becomes a full fledged forum participant and or admits that he was wrong about Mason.
Boycott!
Vince.
Vince:
It should be obvious that Abdul is looking for a backer. Perhaps you might want to send him all of your money? (Keep a little so that you can buy our future books.)
Mr. Malmuth,
Until he apologizes to you, o forum ruler, and stops being a baby I will not utter his name again. Just who are we talking about anyway?
Vince.
What seems to be the problem Vince? Mason give you a bad beat?
CV
It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. Stanford Wong is doing much the same thing over on the Green Chip sports page, and somehow I don't think Stanford is looking for a backer.
Abdul may be doing it for lots of reasons. He may want to generate discussion of his methods. He may want to have a public record of his picks in case they are useful in the future. He may be simply offering up information out of the goodness of his heart. I have no idea.
But I don't presume to judge people's motives without evidence.
I believe Abdul is trying to stimulate the discussion on this forum and I think he is doing a great job towards that end.
Abdul himself admitted that at least part of the reason was mercenary. On the other hand, he is not selling anything. If it turns out he picks winners, there will be no doubt about it in case he wants to sell his picks at a later date. As a prospective customer, it is to both my and Abdul's advantage if he posts them for free for the time being. I and others want to see them. A charlatan would not take this risk. He is not hurting anyone so he should't be barred.
That being said, the fact is that Vince makes good points except for the barring part. Common courtesy (yes I know this is not my greatest field of expertise)would suggest that Abdul should post about poker once in a while. (He did recently post on blackjack, a fact that Vince may not have known.)
Keep in mind, Abdul that Vince is paying you a compliment. I doubt very much that he would insist that Tom McEvoy post on poker as well as football.
Mason and especially David made friendly noises encouraging me to post, so here I am.
Nobody seems to understand that I have very little free time during football season. It takes a lot of time to lose as much money as I do on football!
To see why I'm posting sports betting information, consider the over/under line on the Redskins/Colts game, which is now up to 52 (from 50 on Wednesday) at most casinos. Was the line move partially based on my information? Probably not, but I want informed moves like that, because now I can take Redskins/Colts OVER 49.5 on (some) parlay cards and feel reasonably certain that it's a profitable bet. (However, I only want to help wiseguys who can move the lines with big bets and only after Tuesday night, when the parlay cards are printed.)
I would also like to receive feedback on whether this is a reasonable thing to do in the first place. And if you want to talk further about which bets are good or bad this week, that would be great too, even if you are not a wiseguy.
Right now I couldn't participate much in the poker discussions even if I wanted to. I will post to the 2+2 poker sections in the future. Hopefully Mason and I will have a mutual understanding where I won't post anything that deserves to be deleted, and he will not delete my posts. The football posts were also a bit of a test in that regards.
-Abdul
I am not understanding your point about parlay cards.
Surely you must have done this sort of thing, David. The hypothesis is that the bookies move the lines in response to big bets (or sometimes in response to new information), and before the weekend it's the smart money doing the talking.
The Colts/Redskins line opened at 51.5, and dove down to 50 by the time the parlay cards were printed. I am now holding in my hand a half point parlay card from this week with "IND/WAS OVER 49 1/2" printed on it. If the line had remained at 50, I might not have touched the bet on the parlay card at all. However, now that other wiseguys with more money have spoken and pushed the line back up to 52, I feel pretty darn good about taking over 49.5. If God would set the real line at 52, then betting over 49.5 would win about 57% of the time. That is enough to beat the worst of parlay cards.
So, after the parlay cards are printed, it behooves me to help the wiseguys make good decisions. Perhaps they can take my lines and combine them with their lines and other information to make better plays, and push the lines accordingly.
-Abdul
I am still confused. If the wiseguys move the line because they read your stuff, what is the difference? Had you not published anything, the line might stay 50 but you would still lay 49.5 on the card.
It only helps me if the wiseguys use my information in conjunction with other information to wisely bet and in the process move the line. If they blindly follow my recommendations, then I'm worse off than if I hadn't said anything, but then why would big/smart money blindly follow me? So now that you understand, does this idea have merit or would I be better off keeping my lines to myself?
-Abdul
P.S. Let me clarify. Sklansky wrote "Had you not published anything, the line might stay 50 but you would still lay 49.5 on the card." Remember, I said I would not take the over 49.5 bet on the parlay card if the line had moved from an opening of 51.5 down to 50 and stayed there, because then I would assume the smart money knows better than I on this one and so I would assume betting over 49.5 was zero or negative EV. (The line fell because someone bet huge on under 51.5, and then someone bet huge on under 51, and then someone bet huge on under 50.5, and then someone bet huge on under 50.)
-Abdul
I follow it all. Except, how do you know that it is the smart money moving the lines after the cards get printed and that all those under bets on Monday weren't the smart money?
JG
One possibility is that the initial bets were to fake out the bookies into putting up a bad line. I've discussed this here before.
The other possibility is that a moderate bankroll wiseguy bet the under, but then a huge bankroll wiseguy bet the over to drive it back up. (It takes more and more action to move a line as time goes on and action accumulates on both sides.) I'd have to side with the bigger bankroll wiseguy.
In any case, it looks like the wiseguy consensus is that the over/under should be at least 51.5, maybe as high as 53.
-Abdul
Abdul wrote:
"Hopefully Mason and I will have a mutual understanding where I won't post anything that deserves to be deleted, and he will not delete my posts."
O.K. this temporarily satisfies me even if it doesn't satisfy Mason. I Welcome Abdul amd ask that when he find the time he pleasure us with some poker thoughts. Until then I won't be completely satisfied. I must admit, though, the converstion Abdul had with Sklansky makes me want to bet football. Thanks Abdul!
Vince.
To make your point clear Abdul, please do the following: First give an example of your published line whichis followed by a line movement which is followed by your bet on a parlay card. Then contrast this with the same movement had you not published your line that would NOT be followed by your bet.
I'm having trouble parsing your post. If I didn't publish my line, but the line moved in the direction of mine, I would of course take the stale line on the parlay card. Basically, I just go with what the board lines say and ignore my own lines, for the purpose of parlay cards.
For example, based on my line of Rams -14.5, I liked Rams -10.5. However, the line started at -11, went up to -11.5 and then down to -10.5 where it has remained. (This may be another example of intentionally deceptive initial bets.) I now see the wisdom of the wiseguy consensus; the Rams have to win only one of the next three games to lock up home field advantage in the playoffs! Regardless of whether I understand the reasons behind the current line, if the board is Giants +10.5 and I'm getting Giants +11.5 on the card, I'll go with the card.
Go Giants,
Abdul
I have the following NFL futures for possible sale:
Superbowl...
Lions ($520), Colts ($800), Chiefs ($1910), Bills ($580), Raiders ($700), Patriots ($230), Rams ($800), Panthers ($9500), Lions ($5860), Redskins ($230), Cowboys ($465), Giants ($760).
Conference...
Seahawks ($450), Colts ($500), Chiefs ($800), Raiders ($380), Jaguars ($800), Patriots ($110), Chargers ($510), Rams ($1500), Panthers ($10,000), Lions ($820), Bears ($405), Redskins ($55), Cowboys ($365), Giants ($360).
Division...
Raiders ($76), Jaguars ($400), Patriots ($525), Lions ($380).
I think I'll hang onto my Colts and Rams bets to win their divisions. :)
The numbers in parens are the amount that I'll get back if each team wins.
Here's the deal... you tell me what you want to buy, and I'll beat the best line offered by a casino (or else hang on to my share.) For division bets, I think Abdul's sports emporium is your only outlet at this point. :) Several of the tickets are likely nearly worthless now, and I will price them as such. (Do I hear 50 cents for the $76 Raiders division bet?) I haven't listed any tickets that are totally dead.
I think this is legal within Nevada. If not, please disregard this message. :-/
-Abdul
If making a bet is illegal but selling a ticket, which is logically equivalent, isn't, that is yet one more example of how practitioners of some subjects, in this case law, are basically logical morons.
In any case didn't I just say a few posts down in your defense that you weren't selling anything? Now Barbara Yoon will jump all over me. And reading your post is going to give Vince Lepore an aneurism while he tells everyone that he told us so.
I don't know if your post is against our written rules or not. And if it is, Mason will probably delete it. Hopefully if it is in fact in writing and if even Chuck wants it gone, you won't hold it against them and will continue to post. I might very well be wrong about our policy and I don't care personally what anyone posts within reason. But I thought I would say these things now while those guys are still sleeping.
It's not only legal but legally binding for two individuals within Nevada to make bets. However, only a casino may charge juice. For a bet where you're getting odds on a longshot proposition, I imagine the government officials would either consider all bets to have juice or no bets to have juice, but I don't know which. You probably understand Nevada gaming law better than I, though.
By the way, it would be a felony in Nevada if I were post on the Internet that I saw that "Really Something" is currently at 7-2 odds at Hollywood Park, if that were a real horse and real odds. The laws to protect the casinos regularly trample right over the rights of the citizens. There's even a Nevada law that says exactly that: protecting casino profits supersedes all other concerns.
-Abdul
"Abdul may be doing it for lots of reasons. He may want to generate discussion of his methods. He may want to have a public record of his picks in case they are useful in the future. He may be simply offering up information out of the goodness of his heart. I have no idea."
YEEAAAHHHH RIGGHHHTTTTT!!!
""""M-O-N-E-Y""""
Yeah, show me the money.
However, I'm just looking to reduce my risk. I'm willing to sell the NFL futures for a fair zero juice price, or even at a loss for me, with the only trouble being that no one knows the proper price.
For example, certainly if the Panthers win a couple of games and the fair value of my $10K Panthers ticket rises to $500, I'd prefer to sell it for a bit less than $500, rather than gamble $500 on a 20:1 proposition. Someone else with a larger bankroll might be happy to take that risk. I'm not looking to make money from anyone here. It's a win-win situation, at least in theory.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Tell me why I should take your NFL picks. What are your credentials in making these picks. "I like the Patriots" is not good enough for me to follow your advice. Sell yourself first. BTW - That's why I listen to Sklansky. As much as I hate to admit it he makes a good arguement for listening to his poker advice over that of others.
Vince.
He's not saying you should make any picks. He's not endorsing any of these as going to come in. Just that there is a fair price for these tickets, and in the interest of kelly b.r. management it could be mutually beneficial to two parties.
JG (still kicking myself at not availing the Ram's tickets offer 8 weeks ago)
Jim understands what I'm trying to do, because a few weeks ago I gave him a positive EV (for him) offer to buy shares in the Rams winning the division. How did we know it was positive EV for him? Well, because I showed him that he could buy my Ram belly futures and then go to a casino and buy shares in every other team in the division, and he would guarantee himself a profit. He didn't take me up on the offer, and says he is kicking himself now for it, now that the Rams have won their division. I made the offer simply to reduce my risk, since I had invested so heavily in the Rams. (In his book, Peter Griffin gives an example of taking insurance in blackjack, despite it being a very negative EV bet, in a contrived circumstance that was much like my situation with being heavily invested in Rams futures.)
Ideally, I'd prefer to trade futures rather than sell them, by the way, to balance my portfolio via diversification.
-Abdul
I'm going to leave this post up this time, but if a similar one appears in the future it will be deleted.
Mason,
A case can be made that Abdul's posts, on any of your forums, attract readers. Since you are selling advertising now, anything that attracts more readers should make you money. Now that Abdul is posting information on this forum, I stop by everyday. One of these days, just for the hell of it, I'm going to click on two or three of your banners. I'm thinking of organizing a "click on Mason's banners day". Keep up the forebearance, you wear it well.
The purpose of our forums is to exchange ideas, not for individuals to offer things to buy and sell.
Mason bends the rules plenty for most everybody. we have these rules(standards) for a reason. so if a person doesnt follow them he may have his post deleted. if a person gets his post deleted he shouldnt take it personally it just means he stepped out too far, even though someone else may slide by. why not submit a questionable post to Mason first if its an important one in your mind to be out there. i didnt mind his post so much but it leads to things that may not be good for the long run of the forums. Abdul likes to push the envelope as much as he can, so he must be willing to take his licks as well.
and John, i thought you stopped by just to read the ads or pick on poor defenseless Rounder.
Ray,
By now you probably got the bad news from your band of Mariachi/poker players. After I busted out of the limit hold-em tourney at the Bike, (53rd out of 270, 27 paid)I put my name on the NL Mexican Stud list. Fortunately, we were able to get a second game started at 11:30, and I sat down to play. When everyone else at the table bought in using $1.00 bills, I knew that they must be backed by Ray Zee. As you might imagine, facing a table full of Ray Zee trained and financed players isn't something recommended for the faint of heart.
Three hours later, I got up with my $1,915.00 win and left the game. (I was *very* tired and I had to play tennis at 6:30 this morning) I don't speak much Spanish, but these guys were muttering something about having to live on bear meat for the whole winter. You have to understand that this was a small NL game with a $100 buy-in and $1.00 antes. When I left the game, there was about $300 left on the table and the remaining players were glancing nervously at each other wondering if they should bother trying to continue against each other.
And Ray, Rounder will be back. I was upset yesterday when he wrote that he was feeling ill-used by all the personal attacks he was attracting. After giving the matter some thought though, I realized that anything we post will always be subject to this peer review process. I prefer to take my lumps here on the forum when I advocate some flawed strategy or belief; I know that in the process of discussion, ideas posted by others will alter my understanding of poker and impact favorably on the results I will achieve in the future. Those of us who take the time to read and participate on these forums are as much involved in a disciplined learning process as any of the university based "Young Turks" who recently got involved here. I take their involvement as a very positive sign that what is happening here is worthwhile.
Thank you Ray, for sending me your Mariachi boys. What a nice, thoughtful, Christmas present. If it isn't asking too much, can you get them restocked with those $1.00 bills by 7:00 P.M.? I'm playing the NL Hold-em at the Bike at 4:15 and I don't want to have to wait around for them in the unlikely event I happen to bust out early. Should tonight's effort turn out the same, if you want to get some of that money back, I think you're going to have to come by and play a little yourself. If you do come, please bring Mason. One of my few remaining poker fantasies involves winning a huge pot from him in a wide open big bet poker game.
i gave them the holiday season off with pay as we won so much from you. i guess you won back their end. oh by the way they pissed in your soup while you werent looking.
I believe the part about the soup, but I'm afraid that I sent it back. I'd ordered the albondigas soup, (meatballs) but when it got there it was so yellow I thought they'd given me chicken noodle by mistake. What I don't believe is that part about you giving those guys time off with pay for the holidays.
There were two NL Mex. Stud games going tonight, but I was unfortunate enough to spend 5 hours in the NL Hold-em tournament before busting out in 13th place. ($265.00) There were 127 entrants, 86 rebuys and the prize pool was a tad over $21,000 with $8,500 going to 1st.
I'm expecting to see Ray Zee at the Bike one of these Friday or Saturday nites. I really think you'd enjoy yourself in the game since these guys have got a whole lot of gamble in them. I'd sit in on the game and pay for my lesson in the usual way. If they mistakenly believe that I'm a player, I just have to wonder what they'd make of you after you got through with them. If you decide to come Ray, your first bowl of chicken noodle is on me!
Now I understand that the purpose of this site is not for individuals like myself to reduce our risks by cooperatively balancing our futures portfolios. Instead, the purpose of this site is for individuals like Mason to make a quick buck by accepting advertisements from online casinos, correct?
-Abdul
Abdul:
You are absolutely right this time Abdul. In fact, that reminds me; we would like to notify all perspective advertisers that we will be raising our rates in January.
Is there anything wrong with making money from this site? I don't think so. Given the fact that Yahoo is valued at about $2500 per regular visitor, it seems that only a moron or a communist would have a problem with 2+2 making money off of this site.
And Abdul is not a moron. Hmmm.
he likes to make fun of communists.
scott
Communists, huh? They putting up a new poker site? The abdul youth lenin-stalin-marx league? They'll fly their red flags and march on Las Vegas. They'll nationalize the cardrooms, burn 2+2 books, ship Sklansky, Malmuth, and Zee off to Mexico City to live with debacherous artists. Come to think of it, they'll probably leave Zee where he is.
i can imagine their attempt to ship him to mexico city
"hello, mr. zee? we're commies who have taken over American poker. we're hear to move you to mexico"
"is that a BEAR? let me get my shotgun."
"no, we're not a bear, we're comrades"
"get out of here you damn bears!, I'm sick of these bear attacks and bear taxes"
so, anyway. Poker communists are just as silly as communist communists. Did lennin play poker? NO! He played russian roulette! Try writing a book on that!
alex
Peanuts: $1.00
Popcorn: $1.00
Candy: $1.50
All proceeds go towards my entry fee to the Carnivale of Poker tournament. Please e-mail your order to me. Include your address. All goods are C.O.D. Early birds get half price. Not Mason though. I don't have enough Candy for him. Abdul for you I will trade Popcorn for NFL Futures. O.K.?
Popcorn, Peanuts, Candy! Come on guys it's for a good cause. Mason I'll wear a 2+2 Tee Shirt or Baseball Cap during the Tournament if you'll buy 50lbs of Candy. David don't let him delete this post. Please. Z hates me so he'll probably put a bug in Mason's ear. Help me! Help me! Please help me!
Vince.
At least your bartering with Abdul involves NFL Futures rather than other things he writes about.
your prices are out of wack
i dont hate you
i only hate Paul Feeney
there are no 2+2 tee shirts or caps
I get drunk so I can defeat you in drunk posting humour and find out that I'm drawing dead.
i'll go hang my head in shame.
alex "the sad" b.
You can learn poker You can learn probability (6th grade) You can learn respect (not you) You can learn manners (again, not you)
You can't learn funny.
Now, I am funny, very funny. Perhaps writing is not my best delivery, but I'm funny.
I am respectful, very respectful, and actually kind of shy. This forum is actually a great catharsis for me, because it is always scott who tells the opposing basketball team that their team-members look like members of the opposite sex.
as for you. I think you have attempted to be as cool as me with your name construction. I'm AlexB, and you're SammyB. Now, I must confess that rather than some secret gang affiliation the B in my name does refer to my last name. So, in the unlikely situation that the b in your name also refers to a last name you should eliminate it because you might be thought to be in the same gang as me.
SammyB is not in my pack nor in my Gang! Uh, oh, now that you're cut off everyone will take pot shots at you without having to worry about my retaliation. Well, maybe just me.
alex
AlexB,
None of my buisness. But, I believe that the first thing one must possess to be really funny is a love for others. Just an opinion.
Vince.
you don't really think i'm this antagonistic do you? i'm a blathering lunatic. i like everybody, and i guess am a little too blathering
alex
"i'm a blathering lunatic"
AlexB,
None of my buisness but the key to loving others is learning to love yourself first. Their are plenty of others that will berate you so you won't have to do it yourself. Unless of course you do it in jest.
Vince
No, You are right. I of course don't really think that I'm a blathering lunatic. I'm not. But, what I meant was that someone on the forum would likely think I was because of the stuff I posted. Of course it is all jokes, and some are hits and others misses. I feel bad when the misses are also offensive. It makes me doubt myself, so that is when I feel like a blathering idiot.
I don't really, and pretty much get along with everybody except David Rosembloom who stole my lab notebook in 10th grade and hid it in a desk on the day the lab was due. It was because I told him that he looked like a duck. Maybe it was offensive, but offensive humor really doesn't hurt anyone.
I know that you must think that i'm in life what I'm like on the forum, but i'm not really. I'll try to keep up my percentage.
alex
what kind of duck?
x.
b jsdn
][hnidv
if
"None of my buisness. But, I believe that the first thing one must possess to be really funny is a love for others. Just an opinion."
Vince.
That's why Zeeman Effect isn't funny he HATES me.
Check's in the mail.
From the other Feeney publisher of "AAU".
thats why i hate Feeney. what's the checks in the mail got to do with anything. and whats aau.
see you at apple blossom time.
I'm not sure about aau but it seems Mr. Feeney is tendering a check for the purchase of either peanuts, popcorn or candy from Mr. Lepore.
i don't hate being confused, but i definitely agree that paul is confusing. i almost never understand what he is saying.
scott
i told you n/t why are you so nosey?
n/t= noise transaction
aau= "Acronyms Are Us" published by the Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon 1853-1928, Dutch physicist. For his explanation of the Zeeman effect (a change in spectral lines in a magnetic field), which was based on his postulating the existence of ELECTRONS, he shared with Pieter Zeeman the 1902 Nobel Prize in physics. He extended the hypothesis of George Fitzgerald, an Irish physicist, that a body's length contracts as its speed increases (the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction) and formulated the Lorentz transformation, by which space and time coordinates of one moving system can be correlated with the known space and time coordinates of any other system. This work influenced, and was confirmed by, Albert EINSTEIN's special theory of RELATIVITY.
badger any of several related members of the WEASEL family. Most are large, nocturnal burrowers with broad, heavy bodies, long snouts, sharp claws, and long, grizzled fur. The Old World badger (Meles meles), found in Europe and N Asia, weighs about 30 lb (13.6 kg) and feeds on rodents, insects, and plants. The smaller American badger (Taxidea taxus) has short legs and a white stripe over the forehead and around each eye; a swift burrower, it will pursue prey into their holes and may construct its own living quarters 30 ft (9.1 m) below ground level.
Shouldn't this post be on The Discovery Channel??
and ray zee stole my joke. i have been doing this for weeks. it's ok, but i would appreciate a little credit.
scott
"The smaller American badger (Taxidea taxus) has short legs and a white stripe over the forehead and around each eye; a swift burrower, it will pursue prey into their holes and may construct its own living quarters 30 ft (9.1 m) below ground level. "
A real maniac huh!
Vince.
a few years ago out on the plains of montana i watched for a few hours a fight between a badger and a skunk. they both wanted possesion of a culvert under the road. both animals are very strong fighters and are fierce. eventially the badger won and the skunk wandered off. what has this do to with anything. nothing at all but must be food for Vince.
"a few years ago out on the plains of montana ...a ...skunk wandered off. "
What's a culvert?
Vince.
z
Education is a dangerous thing Zee look who your educating here the person you wanted to blow up a month ago and now he's going to make a "CULVERT BOMB" and blow you up.
cul·vert
Pronunciation: 'k&l-v&rt
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1773
1 : a transverse drain
2 : a conduit for a culvert
3 : a bridge over a culvert
cccc
Let's say that a person is playing Blackjack using only basic strategy for desicions on how to play the hand. And for betting decesions a simple progression of upping the bet and pulling back a profit on every win while regressing to the baseline bet of 2 units whenever there is a loss. Now the majority of you r betting is going to be in the 2 - 6 unit range and if you have a Blackjack you shouldn't take insurance.
What if you find yourself in the position of being on a long winning streak and you have a 25 unit bet up and you get Blackjack against the Dealer's Ace? Would it not make sense now to take 'even-money'? If you didn't and the dealer did have blackjack wouldn't the guarenteed loss of 25 units (so much bigger than your average 2-6 unit bet) be disastorous? Sort of like folding the best hand on the river for one more bet with a giant pot?
Remember, not-counting, only basic strategy play and regular progression betting in this situation.
The only possible reason to take insurance is when the gambler's ruin problem comes into play. However since you are not playing with the best of it anyway, you should not apply it here. You have an opportunity to lay 25 to 12.5 on a bet with a lot greater edge than your original bet, so why not do it.
In Theory of Blackjack, Peter Griffin writes:
We can even imagine an intemperate gambler who foolishly bets all of his fortune (f=1) on a hand of blackjack. Then, so frightened is he by the realization of what he has done, he repents and is converted to Kelly proportional betting just before he picks up his cards: "Lord, I won't do it again, I'll always try to maximize my expected logarithm from now on, if you'll only let me win this one hand." [He gets a blackjack versus an ace.] ... If it's a choice between all or nothing, the critical fraction of tens is, from our last formula, 1-log(1+1)/log(1+3/2)=.2435 or just less than one ten out of four cards.
Here, once the player has a blackjack, he can't lose his fortune, as a blackjack versus a blackjack is a push. Nevertheless, he should take even money (insurance when you have a blackjack), as the fraction of tens here is .3061.
In your scenario, you would then recant your vow and proceed merrily back into a foolish progression, but at least you would have made one good positive utility decision in the midst of your self-destruction.
By the way, there is a slight negative correlation between the results of hands from the same deck, so actually you would be slightly decreasing your expected value by increasing your bet after a win (assuming no other information.)
-Abdul
"By the way, there is a slight negative correlation between the results of hands from the same deck, so actually you would be slightly decreasing your expected value by increasing your bet after a win (assuming no other information.)"
In college, I ran a simulation that confirmed this. The reason is that if you've been winning, chances are that a disproportionate number of player-favorable cards are already out.
David,
Just like you, run a simulation, to determine the obviousus. Nerds of a feather.
Vince.
The best way to think about insurance is as a proposition bet totally unrelated to your current hand. At some point, the dealer offers you a proposition to bet if the card in the hole is a ten. It's just a coincidence that the payout on this bet happens to erase the loss on the hand you are playing, and in casinos that allow you to 'insure for less', not even that is true.
For the sake of this discussion, there is absolutely no difference between 'even money' and 'insurance'. The side bet is the same, the payout is the same, and the house edge is the same.
BTW, I hope you understand that your progression betting gains you no additional edge over the casino?
We are not talking however about betting your whole bankroll. In fact I assume you will increase your bet again if you win. Thus it is clear you should not take insurance.
I think you posted that under the wrong message again, David.
Anyway, I'm not sure a discussion of utility is appropriate when we're talking about someone betting large progressions in a negative expectation game. In this case, the utility of taking insurance is not much even if your whole bankroll is on the line, because the bankroll will be gone soon anyway.
"a negative expectation game."
Who says a "basic strategy" game is always a negative expectation game? Did Abdul say that? Sklansky? Hanson? Prove it!
Vince.
Vince,
I believe Stanford Wong said it. Playing Basic Strategy leaves the house with 1.5% advantage. I'm not sure about my math but I think that's pretty negative. Unless of course you're the house.
sammyB
Did wWong say that about single deck black jack?
Vince
He did not specify. But in his book, "Professional Blackjack" he is dealing with games in Reno and Las Vegas, single deck, 4 deck, and gives strategies based on available options, i.e. dbl any 2 cards, late or early surrender, dealer's hit on soft 17, etc. factored for whole counts or Wong halves.
If there was pos ev in a 1 deck game I'm sure he would have stipulated that.
I can't recall if Wong specifies these games but Arnold Snyder does in his books as did Uston. The problem is there is so much heat in these games with these rules you are forced to just about flat bet the whole time. Besides, if the game comes up it usually so crowded and/or they shuffle up so often that it just ain't worth it.
Yes the rules can be fiddled with to make perfect basic strategy give you an edge and a casino occasionaly spreads the game, but we'll probably never come across it. I know I wont on the EAst Coast.
Basic strategy is *usually a negative expectation game. Yes, there are some really good single-deck games around that have a slight positive expectation, but they are few and far between. Almost certainly the game has a perfect-play expectation of between -.2 and -.7%.
Given that the player is unclear about the nature of insurance and bets progressions, I'm guessing he makes other errors as well. Depending on how grievous those errors are, he could be playing against a house edge as high as 2-3%.
Dan,
I have studied dozens of books on blackjack and have played hundreds of hours (up until I "discovered" poker) I play perfect basic strategy for the games I have available in Ct (multi-deck,dbl down after split, late surrender, dlr stnds on soft 17 etc) I can count cards. I have understood from day one that unless I count cards while varying my bet with a substational bankroll I will never have the best of it. I understand that no betting "system" will overcome the house edge.
My question came about because a lot of people (whether they play basic Strategy or not) do in fact increase their bets win they are on a winning streak. And if I happen to go to the casino with my friends and our dates and we are playing blackjack (I cant understand why they dont think sitting 5 hours in the poker room isn't fun ;-) , I wanted to know what the best play was in the situation described.
All of my time is now devoted to poker and learning everything there is about it. I have been lurking for about a month now and just started posting last week. I have to say that this site has got to be one of the best resources bar none thanks to all of the posters that take time to answer our questions. The blackjack question popped into my head when I spotted the other games forum. I had hoped to get the expert anaylsis of David and the rest of you guys as I have never seen this outlook on insurance discussed before.
Thanx again!
Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
Given your experience with poker and ability to count, it seems unlikely that you would sit at a blackjack table and not keep count almost out of habit. Whether or not you structure your betting to reflect the count is a gambling or recreational choice you are making that even david Sklansky would have no problem with as long as you know you are playing "wrong" on purpose for a particular reason.
That being said, as long as you should have a count available to you you probably already know that an insurance bet, regardless of your holding or bet is profitable with a true count above +3.
That being said if I'm playing with my wife at a $10 table and have pressed to $50, I will take even money all the time. Since I no longer play blackjack to win, I am not concerned with positive or negative expectations.
Interestingly, the Kelly (risk averse) strategy adjustments threshold for insurance using Wong Halves on single deck (without a side count of aces) is different depending on the hand:
+2 for hands other than blackjack
0 for blackjack (even money)
(This is assuming a bet of 1 unit on a 300 unit bankroll, I think. Wong Halves is a third level count similar to the first level count High-Low. You'd see a similar disparity in thresholds for High-Low or other counts.)
-Abdul
I did a serious study of risk averse strategies a few years ago, and decided it just wasn't worth worrying about. Most people aren't betting a full Kelly bet anyway, but more like half-Kelly.
Do you use risk-averse indices when you play?
Yes, I use risk averse indices when I play blackjack. The boost to the bottom line return on investment is nontrivial: 10% or so as I recall, though this might be including other tricks to improve strategy adjustments. Not bad for just memorizing a different set of numbers to begin with. Another reason to use risk averse strategy is due to the Federal $10K CTR stuff. If you go over $10K buy-in in 24 hours, the casino has to card you and get your social security number, whereas if you are a card counter you may have been playing under a fake name and then it's "game over, man."
-Abdul
Are your bets full Kelly bets then? Or do you just increase your bet spread by X% because of the use of the risk-averse indices?
I use about double the bankroll the simulations suggest. My intent is not to use a double Kelly bankroll but rather to use a Kelly bankroll, after accounting for errors and other losses of expected value. Single/double deck is my speciality, so I use 400/600 units of bankroll and a 1-4/1-5 spread.
-Abdul
Thanks. I seem to recall when I looked at risk-averse strategies they'd allow me to use a bankroll about 10% smaller, or bet 10% more. I figured that wasn't worth giving up the EV. Don Schesinger mailed me a paper about 3 years ago on risk-averse strategies and I based my info on that. I can't find the paper now to save my soul. Incidentally, he also figured it wasn't worth it.
See John Patrick defend his play of splitting 5's versus 5 and 6 against the laws of mathematics and the advice of everyone else on rec.gambling.blackjack
-Abdul
i checked it out. i don't know anything about blackjack. well, i know the rules and how to count in theory and that it can be beaten. and that it is boring. so i don't want to learn.
but i had heard several times that this patrick character was a legendarily bad thinker. i had to see for myself.
obviously the posts got into blackjack pretty quickly, but in his first john patrick...theory, he wrote:
"the decisions I make are based on the fraction of an instant I am presented with such and such a hand. I do not consider the long range value of what has been handed down for years, but what I believe to be the move that will cost me the least amount of money.............. at that precise second (hand)."
i hear stuff like 'i am not concerned about the long term.' and i just don't understand their misunderstanding. i think the best way to correct mistakes like this is to understand how they are made. but i can't put my finger on it here. how does he concieve of the 'immediate value' of a random variable in a way that allows for this perception.
so, my question is: what does this mean? or, rather, since i know it means nothing, what does he think this means?
scott
." how does he concieve of the 'immediate value' of a random variable in a way that allows for this perception. "
Easy, He's John Patrick!
Vince.
i hear this from other people too. during the rounder debates. what do they think it means?
scott
Hey, thanks. I was going to rent a movie, but this should be far more entertaining.
Well, I thought that would be fun, but it was kind of sad. John Patrick seems to me to believe his stuff, and he either doesn't have the intelligence, education, or both to understand the opposing argument. Seeing him there trying to defend himself is kind of like watching a deer trying to defend itself when surrounded by wolves.
"Seeing him there trying to defend himself is kind of like watching a deer trying to defend itself when surrounded by wolves. "
That sad, huh!
Vince.
Well, a deer that has convinced many other deer to leap off a cliff. So it wasn't a *truly sad event.
What's really interesting is the fact that Abdul found 30 good bets out of 90 possible into lines that have monster (30-60%) holds. And that's not counting the in the money tickets he holds.
The casino hold on NFL futures is around 25%, but you can reduce that by shopping around for the best lines. The fact that I have the tickets doesn't imply they were actually good bets. And even if I found 30 good bets out of 90 possible bets, you have to remember that I had a whole season to do it, with different lines each week, so actually we are talking many hundreds of possible bets. One of my bets is even from January of last year (Colts for Superbowl at 125:1.)
-Abdul
when you play these futures bets, do you ever add in the time value of money?
I'm conscious of the time-value of money. That was one reason I was willing to sell my Ram belly futures for a loss. However, I think my estimate of edge has so much uncertainty that it rather swamps time-value concerns. There is also an advantage to taking bets early, as it allows you to come back the other way with bigger bets than you normally make if you later like the other side.
-Abdul
Just curious, how to you figure the casino hold or juice is 25 percent on future bets? I always see them as 11-10, which is actually a 20-cent line.
First take the following odds from my book on the NSC-2K:
Brian Cappelletto 2:1
Adam Logan 5:2
Trey Wright 4:1
David Boys 5:1
David Wiegand 5:1
Jim Geary 5:1
Joe Edley 6:1
Joel Sherman 7:1
Ron Tiekert 7:1
Joel Wapnick 7:1
Paul Epstein 10:1
etc...
and convert them to percentage chance to win and add them:
BC .33
AL .29
TW .20
DB .16
DW .16
JG .16
JE .14
JS .13
RT .12
JW .13
PE .09
--------
.... 1.91+
In a juice-free system, they would add up to 1.
The difference is the juice. (It's good to have a monopoly).
JG
The odds were worse than I recalled. 28% juice after shopping around for the best lines, for this set of odds towards the beginning of the season:
|
ODDS TO WIN SUPERBOWL | |||||||
|
Team | Mirage | Stardust | Caesars | DBC | Max | Prob | |
|
Arizona | 30 | 25 | 22 | 20 | 30 | 0.0322581 | |
|
Atlanta | 16 | 12 | 15 | 8 | 16 | 0.0588235 | |
|
Carolina | 125 | 70 | 250 | 100 | 250 | 0.0039841 | |
|
Chicago | 275 | 150 | 200 | 250 | 275 | 0.0036232 | |
|
Dallas | 30 | 20 | 18 | 25 | 30 | 0.0322581 | |
|
Detroit | 125 | 50 | 150 | 75 | 150 | 0.0066225 | |
|
Green Bay | 8 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 0.1111111 | |
|
Minnesota | 2 | 2.5 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 0.1666667 | |
|
New Orleans | 50 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 60 | 0.0163934 | |
|
New York Giants | 25 | 40 | 20 | 40 | 40 | 0.0243902 | |
|
Philadelphia | 200 | 200 | 400 | 250 | 400 | 0.0024938 | |
|
St. Louis | 150 | 160 | 75 | 100 | 160 | 0.0062112 | |
|
San Francisco | 13 | 5 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 0.0625000 | |
|
Tampa Bay | 22 | 17 | 10 | 15 | 22 | 0.0434783 | |
|
Washington | 40 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 0.0243902 | |
|
Baltimore | 100 | 90 | 175 | 75 | 175 | 0.0056818 | |
|
Buffalo | 28 | 30 | 28 | 22 | 30 | 0.0322581 | |
|
Cincinnati | 225 | 150 | 300 | 200 | 300 | 0.0033223 | |
|
Cleveland | 350 | 80 | 180 | 150 | 350 | 0.0028490 | |
|
Denver | 5.5 | 2.5 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 0.1428571 | |
|
Indianapolis | 120 | 70 | 80 | 75 | 120 | 0.0082645 | |
|
Jacksonville | 2.5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 0.1250000 | |
|
Kansas City | 22 | 35 | 40 | 35 | 40 | 0.0243902 | |
|
Miami | 7 | 8 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 0.0625000 | |
|
New England | 22 | 25 | 25 | 35 | 35 | 0.0277778 | |
|
New York Jets | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 0.1250000 | |
|
Oakland | 35 | 35 | 90 | 75 | 90 | 0.0109890 | |
|
Pittsburgh | 15 | 22 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 0.0322581 | |
|
San Diego | 50 | 80 | 150 | 75 | 150 | 0.0066225 | |
|
Seattle | 10 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 0.0476190 | |
|
Tennessee | 13 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 0.0277778 | |
|
--------------- | |||||||
|
Sum of Probs | 1.2803715 |
-Abdul
Future Abdul,
Now if the Colts make it to the Superbowl. Are you going to bet half on the other team so you will at least win 20K say for a #?? And how will you bet it in parlays, quarter parlays, etc. I've never been in this situation but I've thought about it.
Past Paul
If the Colts make it to the Superbowl, I'll only have $800 riding on their victory, but even then I'll consider hedging part of it, especially if they are the favorite so that I'm getting odds on the other team. If I actually like the other side, then I can bet bigger than normal on it, since the first $800 is risk-free. For first half bets and whatnot, there is some correlation between the first half and the game, so I would not be eager to put extra risk on the Colts in the first half. I also would not be eager to wager against the Colts in the first half since the Colts could win the first half and yet lose the game, in which case I would be out all my bets.
In general, the way to figure out how to manage your risk is to figure out which way will give you the largest average log(bankroll) in the end. In practice, I don't manage this risk very well for parlays and whatnot. For example, I might take a team at +6 -110, PICK +230, and -3.5 +350 (for side, money line, and pointspread proposition bets), and then I might take it for the first half for +3 -120, and then I might have it on a dozen parlay cards of 3 different types, not to mention having the team or its opponent in Superbowl futures. The question is: how much do I bet on these correlated bets? It's a difficult problem. Any suggestions?
-Abdul
Abdul,
Thanks for your answer. My friend bet $800 on the Pats winning the Superbowl. I said to him we'll have to fly out to find out the best bets we could make to win the maximum for the minimum. The odds were 50-1 so that would give him $40K. I said to him we have to at least make $20k on the game. I was thinking along the lines of parlaying the first quarter $5K on the opposing team with under or over. If I lose increase the bet on the next quarter to $10K. If you lose both your down 16.5K the way I figure. I could also lose the bet due to over or under picking wrong. Losing both quarters and say the Pats are winning by 14, I would stop betting. If they were winning by 7, then what do you do?? The reason I like betting by quarters rather than just betting 20K on the other team is I want to have a chance of making more for less. If I win the first bet then there are quite a few more options available then if I lose it. Abdul if you think this method is crazy plz let me know!!!
Paul
I think this method is crazy, if you do it as your only hedge. For one thing, a casino is not likely to allow you to do a $10K quarter bet where you parlay a side with a total. (Sometimes they turn me down for a $10 parlay on the half.) For another thing, football games are too unpredictable. For example, in last week's Cardinals-Bills game, they (combined) put 21 points in the board in 1.5 minutes at the end of the game. Your hedge is not really a hedge if it leaves you open to losing both your original bet and your intended hedge. A Kelly bettor abhors even a small chance of a huge loss.
-Abdul
do you mean if the Colts win, you'll win $800? so, if they play the Rams and you are indifferent between the Colts vs Rams, and the game is a pick'em, you'll bet $420 on the Rams at -110 just to hedge yourself?
no bet expectancy = $400 with $400 of risk bet expectancy = $380 either way, $0 risk
maybe i'm misinterperting something, but i would guess that anyone willing and able to play 30/60 wouldn't automatically choose to throw $20 away to save risking $400.
on my previous post, the line that looks like this :
no bet expectancy = $400 with $400 of risk bet expectancy = $380 either way, $0 risk
should have a separation, like this :
(no bet expectancy = $400 with $400 of risk)
(bet expectancy = $380 either way, $0 risk)
sorry for any confusion.
I just said I would consider a partial hedge. To make a $11 hedge on $800 worthwhile at -105 odds, the bankroll would have to be no bigger than $15,700, so you're probably right that I won't hedge, but then again I may decide that the hedge bet is near zero juice due to the line being set wrong. By the way, if it's a Rams-Colt superbowl, I'll have $800 on each from my futures bets, so I'll have zero risk and no reason to hedge!
-Abdul
By the way, if it's a Rams-Colt superbowl, I'll have $800 on each from my futures bets, so I'll have zero risk and no reason to hedge!
I can just hear the network execs cringing now.
ST. Louis vs Indianapolis????
If you do have a situation where you need to hedge, wouldn't it make the most sense just to bet the money line? Wouldn't that be the best hedge?
Yes I know you give up the chance for the middle if your team is the favorite, but the money odds and the spread are set so that they equate to the same thing.....Everyone is always looking for a free lunch and betting with the points when you already have the other side at even seems to good to pass up.
Danny S
Yes, you should normally bet the moneyline to hedge a futures bet.
-Abdul
This brings up something I'd thought about.
A local pro had bet $1k on Arizona at 40:1 a couple years ago to win NCAA. They get to the final game, and he lays none of it off because he doesn't like the money line, which I don't recall, but Abdul can probably derive given the point line was seven or so.
So for the final exam in intro to sports betting:
Given a bankroll of 40k to start.
Given a 40:1 ticket on 1k.
Given you think the game is a coin toss.
Given the money line(you have to derive) that you will have to take the worst of it.
How much do you lay off given Kelly br considerations?
And, if you shouldn't lay off anything, what does the line go to before you do?
JG
I'm a bit confused about whether Arizona is supposed to be the favorite or the dog. Since you say the bettor considers the game a coin toss and the moneyline is no good, this strongly implies Arizona is the favorite. Probably you refer to 1997, Arizona versus New Mexico, where Arizona is a 10 point favorite. The moneyline would be something like -500, i.e., you lay $500 to win $100 if Arizona wins.
In this case, your bankroll would have to be down around $1600 before you should consider hedging. However, it's very unlikely that the bookies blew the line this badly. I think what you mean instead of a coin toss is that Arizona has maybe a 80% chance of winning, in which case the -500 moneyline has a 20% house edge. In this case, huh, your bankroll would have to be down around $400. That surprises me.
You could also consider hedging on the pointspread here, taking New Mexico +10, since you'll never lose both bets. You could get -105 juice, too, at the Hilton on Thursday night.
-Abdul
Maybe I miswrote it.
Arizona was a 7 point dog or so to Kentucky in the final. My friend is on Arizona for $40k if they win. To hedge he has to bet _into_ the line as Kentucky is the favorite, so he has to lay something, something being the odds for a seven point fave in basketball. Given his br is on the order of 40k(I have no idea, but not unreasonable), there might be something to be said for locking up the sure 15k or whatever by betting the money line on Kentucky. But if he thinks the game should be a coin toss instead of Kentucky as a x:y fave, he might have a hard time parting with 5k equity for b.r. kelly hedging. Thus my question. If he thinks the game is a coin toss, should he bet into a bad line anyway to hedge.
JG
Sorry, I got confused. Right, if you have the dog, then you have to lay odds to hedge with the favorite. And I was talking football while you were talking basketball. Also, I made a math error. You should consider a costly hedge here if your bankroll were $10,000 or less.
The formula you need to maximize is:
(P*log(B+W-H)+(1-P)*log(B+(-100/M)*H)) - (P*log(B+W)+(1-P)*log(B))
i.e, your average log result if you hedge minus your average log result if you don't hedge, where P is the probability your dog wins (e.g., .5), B is your bankroll (e.g., 40000), W is the amount your futures bet will win if the dog wins (e.g., 41000), M is the moneyline on the favorite (e.g., -500), and H is the amount of your hedge bet (e.g., 100).
-Abdul
Hey, remember I said there is a line that one shouldn't cross, and John Patrick is on the other side of it.
He doesn't make a few small mistakes. He makes many, many, very large mistakes. The only stuff he gets right is the stuff that he repeats verbatim from better sources. Even the stuff he gets right is usually for the wrong reasons, because he has no math background, no understanding of statistics whatsoever, and furthermore he's proud of it.
So why put him on one side of the line and Mike Caro on the other? Because Mike Caro is *usually correct, and if a poker player read nothing but Mike Caro's material he would still be a winning player, although perhaps he would not win as much as he would if he read your stuff exclusively.
On the other hand, if you read John Patrick's material and follow it in a casino, you will lose everything you own. The man's books destroy lives.
David, there are very, very few people who have as solid a grasp on the mathematical foundations of poker as you do. But there are many who understand enough of it to be winning players, and who also have some very good advice to give on the 'soft skills' of being a poker player (reading players, not going on tilt, life management skills, etc). Advice every bit as important as the math. If the math is mostly correct, the material is well-written, and the errors induced by bad math are small, I'm willing to cut them some slack.
Lee Jones makes some pretty bad errors in his book, but I'm convinced that his book as a whole will make a person a winning player at low-limit poker, which is his target audience. And I have purchased four copies of that book to give to friends who are interested in poker. I don't give them your 'hold-em poker' book, because I know it won't do them as much good if they don't read it carefully. Lee's book is written in a conversational style, and structured to make it easy to read and logical in its flow of concepts. A person can read it through once and have a decent understanding of what's required to win at poker.
Your book has very few errors (I've only pointed out one to you in the past, and it's the only one I can think of), but it's a lot tougher to read, and applying the information in context during a game requires a person to have some good analytical skills that not all casual, low-limit players are capable of.
"if a poker player read nothing but Mike Caro's material he would still be a winning player"
I suggest you read and study the charts in Mike Caro's "Professional Hold 'em Report" and then come back with a report.
Uh, ok. I may have to retract that. I have two or three of Mike Caro's popular books, and there's nothing egregiously bad in them. But having seen excerpts of his 'professional holdem report' I may have to agree with you. Mind you, I'm sure I've only seen the bad parts. There may be a lot of stuff of value in there.
The problem with some of the 2+2 stuff is not in accuracy, but in presentation. You really have to work at it to extract some of the more important concepts, and if you read it casually you're more likely to get the wrong idea about some concepts because they just aren't presented very clearly.
For example, I know a lot of 'S&M' players who have the erroneous notion that it's virtually never correct to just call, and that they should always be raising or folding. I know you don't SAY that, but the way the material is presented can imply it. I also know some who will never call with a small pocket pair unless there are exactly five callers or more, and who play far too tight in many situations. You make a lot of statements in HPFAP which are simply vague, such as "If there are a lot of callers and you are on the button, it may be correct to call with hands as weak as Q5s". Without further explanation, this is bound to leave many players confused and apt to make mistakes.
David's error which I mentioned in the other message was his statement in "Hold-em Poker" that a player who is about to call one bet, but sees a raise and calls anyway MUST HAVE MADE A MISTAKE (his emphasis). This is simply not true, yet it is emphasized strongly. I've seen S&M players fold perfectly good hands in this circumstance because of that paragraph. Worse, they develop the mindset that they must raise instead of calling. How much has that cost them? Again, the principle he is trying to get across is correct, but the failure is one of presentation and writing clarity, making it sounds like a an absolute rule rather than an example of a principle that is usually correct and worth thinking about.
What are the sort of hands that you would call for one bet or two?? As a disciple of the S&M school, I would like to know when it is acceptable to deviate from the good book :)
M.
Any hand where you have a positive EV to call, and a smaller but still positive EV to call if the pot is raised. An example would be a flush draw where the pot is laying you enough odds to call a raise, yet there aren't enough opponents in the pot to warrant a raise for value, and you have no chance to steal. A situation just came up like on the Holdem Forum, where a player was confused because he had read S&M and didn't know if he should have folded or raised (the correct answer was to call).
Another example might be before the flop with a small pocket pair in late position and four callers. You probably don't want to raise here, but you can call a raise if you think one of the blinds will call.
Then there are the times where you COULD raise for value, but choose not to for deception or bankroll reasons. You might prefer to call one bet, but you're definitely calling a raise.
Dan can you be a litle more specific to the errors in Jones' book. Is it specific examples or a general direction he is coming from that is in error? You are right that the style of writing is easier to read.If I come home dead tired at three in the mornining and want to look up a questionable play I had at the tables that night I find myself more apt to pick it up first to review. It was my first hold'em book so I'm kinda used to it, and as it's title refers to the game I play, (LLHE ($3-6)). I am making a mistake refering to it? At first glance it seems to propose the same style of play as my 2+2 books (tight/aggresive). Where does Jones fail? I do want to move up in the limits as my experieance/bankroll allow.
Lee Jones and most of the other writers are entrepeneurs who realized there was a niche to be filled that was not being filled by those more qualified to fill it. I do not fault him for that. He sort of admits it himself. You won't hear that admission from Roy West or Tom McEvoy. My point was mainly to alert the people on this forum that unlike many other subjects, there is little incentive for the top practitioners to write about it. If that ever changed, even beginners would have little reason to buy their sometimes seriously flawed work.
As far as our works are concerned, some of your criticisms are correct. But we are lazy, greedy, have no competition, and thus little incentive for the time being to make them as perfect as you would like. But then again, that is to the advantage of a smart guy like you. Don't you think?
Was the Buffalo Bills' running back an ONSIDES kick late in the fourth quarter to get the ATS cover against Arizona. And I thought I had seen it all.
Don't want to start another massive thread about bad beats, but I lost a college game about twenty years ago the same way.
Just to balance, I had Minnesota, I believe, +2.5 against the LA Rams ( maybe the other way around) in the only OT game decided by a safety. (I'm getting a heads up start on my New Year's resolution to concentrate only on the good wins, as opposed to the bad beats!)
I had a friend who lost a $10000 box in the Super Bowl where the Dallas(?) defender was running back a fumble/int and dropped the ball. With noone near him.
Danny S
BTW, I find bad beat stories about sport far more entertaining than about poker
September 22 1997. Pittsburg v Jacksonville. I took Pittsburg +6. Jacksonville was leading 23-21, the Steelers in possession. With no time left Pittsburg attempt a field goal. I was already celebating, and why not?
What happens next is the FG is blocked and returned for a touchdown, to win 30-21. That was the imfamous shot of Cowher feinting an attempt to tackle the Jacksonville ball runner as he raced towards the end zone.
Why wouldn't the runner have gone down on one knee and not risk a fumble which could have been returned for a touchdown? One Sports betting house was offering odds of 99/1 that Jacksonville cover the 6 point spread before the field goal attempt.
The 99/1 offer ties this in with the previous thread of using derivatives to hedge b.r. growth and risk of ruin.
JG
Abdul,
I do not believe you. No siree bob. No way! I just read your post where you say you use "risk-averse strategies" in Black Jack. I don't know what risk-averse strategies are. I do know what BlackJack are! I don't believe you. There is no way that you would waste that fertile mind of yours sitting a silly table counting over and over and over +1,-1,+2,-2. Hit, pass your hands over the cards, double down and occaisionally yell BLACKJACK! I don't believe you. Y Baccarat is even more fun than BlackJack and you've already proven to Sklansky that you can beat it! No, No, No, I no believe!
Vince.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched sea beams glitter in the darkness at Tan Hauser Gate. I played blackjack in Slovakia, Aruba, and ten other countries... a year of my life has been spent overseas playing blackjack. I learned to count to 21 and say "hit, stand, double and split" in many languages. Played all over the U.S., including many Indian reservations. I've used an over/under count, three different over/under counts, in fact, at different times. I have played the best blackjack game the world has ever seen: single deck with over/under. I have even counted cards at casino games other than blackjack. I have played not only $2, $5, $10, $25, and $50 minimums, but also thousands of hours of $100, $200, $300, and higher minimums. I have played a double exposure game with 3:2 blackjacks, a couple games with early surrender, a game with a 0.7% player edge off the top due to jokers, a game with double any number of cards, and more. I have shuffle-tracked, card-located, done the big player thing with a team. I treated several dozen rec.gamblers to comped room service liquor and the use of a penthouse suite for a BARGE blackjack tournament. I have dined at hundreds of gourmet meals, such as fresh air-rushed Norwegian salmon topped with caviar and washed down with Dom Perignon (not to mention Crystal), courtesy of the casinos, some of which did eventually bar me, but many have not. Out of the blue, a casino manager even offered to deliver me a comped, um, "entertainer". I have doubled my bankroll over and over and over, and seen my share of rough times too.
I've also done much cutting edge mathematical and computer simulation research in blackjack. Much of the new material you see in recent blackjack books is spawned from posts I made almost 10 years ago on rec.gambling.blackjack.
-Abdul
You write pretty good too!
Vince.
I'll assume it wasn't and he required evidence... when/where did this conversation (about bacc) take place? It's trivial in the case of the tie bet, the real question being how much you can actually make for the time involved.
I don't know that Sklansky ever said he believed it. However, the conversation took place close to a year ago here, when there were only two groups and when baccarat and other games were discussed alongside poker. Jim Geary served as judge of the technique, since I did not wish to publish it.
-Abdul
A blocked punt is always live for everybody ('cept coaches + waterboy). Maybe the 'boys were just waiting to down it when it fell dead, and Leon got a little excited.
TWIMC,
As Of Today 12/21/99.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------UNDER-----OVER
JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----NO-----YES
MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----YES-----NO
DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----YES-----NO
GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130-----YES-----NO
SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----YES-----NO
NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----YES-----NO
ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----YES-----NO
MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115
TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----NO-----YES
PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----YES-----NO
DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115
BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140
ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----YES-----NO
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----NO-----YES
NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135
DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----NO-----YES
BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125
WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----NO-----YES
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----YES-----NO
ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----NO-----YES
OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----NO-----YES
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----NO-----YES
SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----NO-----YES
CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----NO-----YES
CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160
CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----NO-----YES
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145
CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----YES-----NO
SAN-8,this will be 4th game in five nights for PHO,they miss many staters but still win four in a row.SAN lost last game to DEN when they played 4th game in five nights, they alway bounce back after loss.
| Match Up | Opening | Current | Abdul's | Comments |
| Cowboys | -8˝ | -8˝ | -6 | WR Mills hurt |
| Saints | 40 | 39 | 42 | QB Toliver hurt - Delhomme starts |
| Broncos | 43˝ | 43 | 44 | FB Griffith probable |
| Lions | -4 | -4˝ | -3˝ | RB Olivo kaput, QB Batch starts |
| Vikings | -3 | -2˝ | PK | WR Carter?? |
| Giants | 43 | 43 | 45 | WR Patton?? |
| Bills | -3 | -3 | 36 | WR Reed? RB Smith? |
| Patriots | 38 | 37˝ | -1 | FB's Floyd & Shaw? |
| Cardinals | 38 | 38 | 40˝ | RB Pittman?? |
| Falcons | -2 | -2 | -4 | Chandler? QB Kanell kaput |
| Jaguars | -3 | -3EV | PK-120 | RB Stewart? TE Brady? |
| Titans | 39 | 39 | 38˝ | WR Thigpen probable |
| Panthers | -3˝ | -3˝ | -1 | RB Biakabutuka? |
| Steelers | 42˝ | 42˝ | 43 | 2 TE's, WR, & RB? |
| Bears | 46˝ | 46˝ | 46 | WR Conway? QB Miller out |
| Rams | -10 | -10 | -14˝ | Starters start at first |
| Bengals | 45˝ | 45 | 45 | |
| Ravens | -7 | -7 | -9 | |
| Colts | -14 | -13˝ | -6˝ | |
| Browns | 42˝ | 41˝ | 44˝ | QB Couch hurt |
| Chiefs | 42˝ | 43 | 46 | TE Jacoby? 2 RB's? |
| Seahawks | -3 | -3 | -4˝ | |
| Raiders | -3 | -3 | -3 | |
| Chargers | 38 | 38 | 40 | |
| Packers | 37˝ | 37 | 36 | |
| Buccs | -3˝ | -3˝ | -3 | |
| Redskins | -7 | -7 | -2 | RB Davis?? |
| 49ers | 46˝ | 47 | 48˝ | |
| Jets | 37 | 37 | 38˝ | |
| Dolphins | -4 | -4 | -4 | RB Johnson? WR Gadsden? |
** Patriots +3 ... The Bills are a fine team and all, but both the Bills and the Patriots have large home field advantages. Home dogs and especially divisional home dogs have a good record against the spread. Play is on the Patriots.
** Titans +3 ... Ditto, except only the Jaguars have a strong home field advantage. Take the Titans.
*** Bears +10 ... I have to go against my program, which doesn't take into account motivational factors. The Rams have literally nothing to play for, as they have home field advantage locked up, and although they will start their starters I don't expect them to be in there for the second half. I am tempted to make this a 100 star platinum clover lock of the year, but I'll leave it at 3 stars. Buy the bears.
* 49ers +7 ... Public sentiment is running so harshly against the 49ers that I have to believe there is finally some value on them. However, the Redskins have a good shot at winning the division, and this is a must-win game for them, especially since next week's game against the Dolphins won't be such a cake walk. Take a deep breath, bet the Niners, and hope you won't look like a total idiot.
-Abdul
Does anyone know a good site for current NFL Futures?
Thanks
Danny S
You've come to the right place. This is Crazy Abdul's Football Futures Emporium!
Roxy's lines are at Roxy's Football Lines page at DBC Sports.
-Abdul
Thanks
We would like to include our site to http://www.twoplustwo.com/ but we couldn't find the way to do it. Could you help us? Our data are:
Title: 1stCasino.com URL: http://www.1stCasino.com Category: Online casino Description: Play and Win Real Money or for Fun over the Internet!! Online Casino Games Include Baccarat, Blackjack, Roulette, Progressive Slots and “Classic” Video Poker!! No download required: AOL, Microsoft, Netscape and WebTV Compatible!! “Win and Tell a Friend!!
Address: PO Box 2372
NO. 6 Temple Street
St. John’s, Antigua y Barbuda
British West Indies
TEL/FAX: 1-888-406-2417
Contact Person: Bianca Waters e-mail: bianca_waters@1stCasino.com
Thank you very much.
.
x
Way to go Bianca! How's Mick? Bet the Stones wre fun to be with, baybee! OH! Behave!
Vince.
Abdul
You made an interesting statement in your previous post (Re:NFL Lines WEEK #14) "it's extremely difficult to beat the juice, and just like blackjack those few who can beat the house tend to get barred".
This is why I find it hard to believe there are professional sport bettors that make a living at it. Even if one could come up with a method that consistently shows a profit (hard enough), who would take your bets.
There is a guy in Vegas, Lem Barney, Banker, or something that I'm sure you Vegas guys know. Every sports betting documentary interviews him because he is a winning sports bettor. I often wondered, if he is as good as he claims, who the hell would be stupid enough to take his bets?
Am I wrong? Is it possible to to know something the line makers don't know, and overcome the vig? Is it possible to be a consistent winner and not get shut out?
Its possible but very difficult.You need a very large bankroll in order to bet large enough so that you can be selective and make enough money.Many big money bettors use runners to place their bets.That is the handicapper does'nt go to the window but has someone else do it.This helps but does'nt eliminate barring,the casinos will do anything they can to eliminate winners in any endeavor.You mentioned 'winning consistantly'don't think thats possible their are large swings.
Read Confessions of an Ivy League Bookie.
In it they mention getting action from "smart money". They agreed to take the action as long as they got the info early and could take advantage of it themselves.
Danny S
Unlike blackjack, a medium sized winning sports bettor ought not to get barred. An astute book will simply take his bet and lay it off plus more and /or move the line to gain from his expertise.
I'd like to hear more about this, in case I ever become successful at sports betting.
I have a wiseguy friend, and he seems to get booted from one or two sports books per year. At one casino, he went up asked, "How much can I bet?" (That's a tell!) The sports book manager said $500, he bet it, waited a socially acceptable 15 minutes, and they didn't move the line so he went up and tried to bet the maximum again and they booted him. That was when he was a small bettor at a small book, but now he can terrorize the biggest books. Some of the casinos don't boot him, but just move the line while he is trying to get approval on a bet. ("Colts -3 -110 for $10K." "Supe!" "Sure, you can have Colts -3 -120.")
I had a sports book impose a $100 maximum on parlay cards for me in a week. I'm sure the sports books will be booting me before I actually can beat them.
-Abdul
I don't know the details about how books deal with wiseguys, but your friends story makes no sense for three different reasons. 1 It would take a long time before the book was sure he could beat them. 2. If they barred him, he could send in an agent and now they take the same bet without the benefet of knowing it might be worth laying off elsewhere or moving the line. 3.While the first two reasons were theoretical, as a practical matter there are many far larger winning bettors not getting barred.
David Sklansky writes:
1 It would take a long time before the book was sure he could beat them.
People are stupid. Sports book managers are people. To make matters worse, he is in the Griffin Book for counting cards, so he could be booted from a sports book on that basis alone.
2. If they barred him, he could send in an agent and now they take the same bet without the benefet of knowing it might be worth laying off elsewhere or moving the line.What seems to get him booted most of the time is nailing them on parlay cards, where the lines cannot be changed based on his informative betting. And Nevada now has a law against paying others to place sports bets for you.
While the first two reasons were theoretical, as a practical matter there are many far larger winning bettors not getting barred.
There are not any far larger winning bettors not getting barred, because he bets as large as possible, with the only limiting factor being the amount the sports books will take. The $500 max story is a very old one.
-Abdul
That explains things. The point is that you have little to worry about if you avoid parlay cards, and don't bet real big.
Hey Math weenies,
What are the odds that the new Millenium will bring with it the long predicted "Armaggedon" (The end of the world as we know it)? Sklansky before you scoff at this question I want you to recall "Pascal's Wager". Do not treat this subject too litely my friend.
Vince
For the elimination of all human life on Earth, I'm offering 1,000,000,000,000:1 odds, and I will accept as big a bet as you wish to make. I hope Mason does not censor this message.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I'll take the bet if you let David hold David hold the money. I'll send him $100 as soon as you come up with your end.
Vince.
Mason better not delete this until after you send the dough! David when the money gets there I 'll meet you at Bellagio's. We need to discuss a few things. BTW - Thanks for the bet Abdul.
Vince.
Sorry, Abdul's Sports Futures Emporium does not accept markers or call bets on end-of-the-world futures... only cash up front.
-Abdul
And what are the odds that just Vince survives to collect?
TWIMC,
As Of Today 12/28/99.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------UNDER-----OVER
JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----NO-----YES
MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----YES-----NO
DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----YES-----NO
GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130-----YES-----NO
SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----YES-----NO
NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----YES-----NO
ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----YES-----NO
MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115
TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----NO-----YES
PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----YES-----NO
DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115-----YES-----NO
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140-----NO-----YES
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115
BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120-----NO-----YES
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140-----YES-----NO
ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----YES-----NO
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----NO-----YES
NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135
DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----NO-----YES
BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125-----NO-----YES
WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----NO-----YES
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----YES-----NO
ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----NO-----YES
OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----NO-----YES
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----NO-----YES
SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----NO-----YES
CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----NO-----YES
CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160
CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----NO-----YES
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145
CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----YES-----NO
Interesting that all but a few of these are resolved.
Everyone in AZ was all over the Cards not being good. The local books wouldn't offer the same o/u. The owner basically went into a pique over not getting a free stadium and decided to screw the team, making little effort to improve his team while the rest of the league aspired to do so. Their record doesn't really indicate how weak they are. If the number is as high as 8 next year and there are no significant changes, take the U.
JG
Jim,
When I was out to Vegas in early Sept. I was talking to the guy behind the counter at the Nugget asking him to put in a O/U total for the Patriots. He said that I would have to go to Caesars. I said what's up with that. He says that Vegas won't take these bets anymore because they get killed at them. I'm going to start keeping records starting with this years for the future. To see if there are any trends. If anyone knows how to access previous years it might help but I don't know. The trend so far is under on the top 8 and over on the bottom 8. Stay away from the middle.
Paul
Abdul, are you for real???? Do you really use terms like "3 star" and "get the rest of my picks free"?????
By the way, can I book your action?? You only like 15 games for the remaining bowl games, huh???? And that's not counting the NFL and hoops. Do you always bet a million games a week??
Also, since you are offering your picks "free" should your 74 star bets lose, does that mean you actually try and charge people for your picks????? Thats funny shit. very entertaining.
Gambler
Do you weight results by any measure of recency? For example, I see you have the Lions game as a departure from the book. But if you don't factor in recent results too strongly, this may account for it. The Lions of the last few weeks are definitely not the Lions of the aggregate.
JG
No, I have dropped out the first two weeks of the season entirely, but there is currently no weighting of the results by how recent they are. I plan to add something along these lines.
-Abdul
Last week, if you bet according to motivational factors (mostly who has a shot at the playoffs and who does not), you would have lost bets on:
Cowboys - lost outright to dog Saints
Lions - lost outright to dog Broncos
Cardinals - trounced by slight favorite Falcons
Panthers - lost outright to dog Steelers
Bears - trounced by Rams who risked everything for nothing
Packers - trounced by Buccs
Colts - almost lost to huge dog Browns
Jaguars - trounced by dog Titans
Raiders - lost to dog Chargers
Redskins - almost lost to dog 49ers, didn't cover
Dolphins - lost to dog Jets
You would have won bets on:
Ravens - shut out the Bengals
Seahawks - beat the Chiefs
Vikings - trounced the Giants
You would have pushed:
Bills - should have lost to dog Patriots, pushed spread
So, you would have gone 3-11-1, which is pretty bad, plus a lot of your bets would have lost by 14+ points. What's going on here? Is it a random fluke? Are the lines overadjusted for motivation? Is playing spoiler a bigger motivation than getting into the playoffs?
-Abdul
It just goes to show how the Holidays affect those big bad boys. Even feetsball players get a little emotional at this time of year. Besides in a season where Indianapolis and St Louis are serious superbowl contenders anything can happen!
Vince.
Actually it just means those teams arent that good. it means they lost a lot of "must win" games earlier in the season so why is it so surprising that they would conitnue to lose?? If they were good to begin with, they wouldnt be playing games in late december to determine if they get into the postseason. The good teams (Indy, Jax, Tenn, Rams) have long since clinched.
its a fluke, unless you can get more data to "prove" it from year after year after year. i know you know that 14 games is not statistically meaningful at all.
EXPANSION=TOO MANY MEDIOCRE PLAYERS IN PRO SPORTS=MONEY
Ahem. I do believe the Titans had just as much playoff-related motivation as the Jags did. Didn't the Bucs have playoff motivation? I think they did.
Yes, as a general rule the linemakers tend to overprice teams "with need". I can document it with my db as well as first-hand experience on the other side of the counter. The public does indeed heavily favor teams "with need".
I may not have perfectly assigned which team had more motivation, but I gave the motivational edge to the Jags because they should have wanted revenge on the Titans for beating them at home, and I gave the motivational edge to the Packers because a loss would all but eliminate them from the playoff race (they went from a 240:1 shot at the superbowl to a 2400:1 shot, and they went from a 15:1 shot at the division to no chance.) The Giants-Vikings was another tough one to call, but I gave the edge to the Vikings, since the Vikings were in a tight battle for the division against the Buccs. Even if we eliminate those three games, it's still pretty striking when you consider the near upset of the Colts by the Browns, the upset of the Dolphins by the Jets, the upset of the Cowboys by the Saints, and the rest.
-Abdul
There is precious little ATS value in NFL revenge. Now coming *off* revenge, and sometimes revenge *lookahead*.....you might just run into something.
What do you mean"beat sports"? if make some $$$$ do something you like there many who do( think of it as hobby).
Other Gambling Games
December 1999 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo