So he makes a few small mistakes in his books. Is that any reason to jump all over him?
DS, A small mistake is whether or not to double down against a dealer Ace when you have an eleven in a six deck shoe game. (BTW, it depends on whether or not dealer must stand on S17). Splitting fives vs. doubling down is such an obvious difference in expected value that "small mistake" can hardly be applied. Granted, it's not the worst play in the book, seeing as how it still enjoys a positive expectation, but he's not arguing aggressive short term strategies vs. long term. The point is that he is pretentious, and knows no more than 99% of the people who post here and on other sites. He stubbornly defends his body of knowledge and refers to others as "dopes." Someone like that is inviting ridicule. What is really sad is that Patrick is just one of many like him.
How about the 1994 Thanksgiving Dallas-Miami game? In the final seconds of the game several Cowboys stood around a blocked punt ball with their arms outstretched ("none shall pass"), the Cowboys' Leon Lett barged in and touched the ball making it live for Miami, and Miami recovered and kicked a field goal to win the game.
-Abdul
It was a blocked field goal attempt.
Here are my NCAAF bowl lines, updated for the results of the first games:
Match up | Open | Current | Abdul's | Comments |
Fresno State | 55 | 16 | ||
Utah | -7 | -6½ | -7 | 17 |
TCU | 48 | 49 | 47 | 28 |
East Carolina | -5½ | -4½ | -4 | 14 |
Wake Forest | 49 | 50 | -3 | 23 |
Arizona State | -3½ | -3 | 41½ | 3 |
Oregon State | -8½ | -9 | -5 | 17 |
Hawaii | 53½ | 56½ | 55 | 23 |
BYU | 58 | 60 | 48½ | 3 |
Marshall | -2½ | -2½ | -8 | 21 |
Penn State | -5½ | -6½ | -5½ | Alamo Bowl |
Texas A&M | 46½ | 46 | 47 | San Antonio, TX |
Syracuse | 53½ | 55½ | -1½ | Music City Bowl |
Kentucky | -2½ | -3 | 52½ | Nashville, TN |
Kansas State | -11 | -11½ | -15½ | Holiday Bowl |
Washington | 51 | 53½ | 53 | San Diego, CA |
Louisville | -4½ | -2½ | 67 | Humanitarian Bowl |
Boise State | 65½ | 67½ | -4 | Boise, ID |
Illinois | 50 | 52 | -3½ | Micron PC Bowl |
Virginia | -3 | -2½ | 58½ | Miami, FL |
Clemson | -2 | -3 | -5½ | Peach Bowl |
Mississippi St | 41 | 41 | 41½ | Atlanta, GA |
Boston College | 52 | 53 | 50 | Insight.com Bowl |
Colorado | -7½ | -8 | -3½ | Tucson, AZ |
Minnesota | -1 | -3 | -3½ | Sun Bowl |
Oregon | 51 | 53 | 53 | El Paso, TX |
Colorado State | 44½ | 44½ | 44 | Liberty Bowl |
Southern Miss | -4 | -4½ | -4½ | Memphis, TN |
Mississippi | 55 | 55 | 45½ | Independence Bowl |
Oklahoma | -3 | -4 | -8 | Shreveport, LA |
Arkansas | 53½ | 54½ | 54½ | Cotton Bowl |
Texas | -6½ | -7½ | -7 | Dallas, TX |
Georgia | 64 | 65 | 57½ | Outback Bowl |
Purdue | -4 | -5½ | -6½ | Tampa, FL |
Georgia Tech | 65 | 69 | 65½ | Gator Bowl, Jacksonville |
Miami-Florida | -4½ | -5 | -5½ | QB Kelly?? |
Florida | -2½ | -1½ | 46½ | Citrus Bowl |
Michigan State | 50 | 50 | -3 | Orlando, FL |
Stanford | 62 | 64 | 64 | Rose Bowl |
Wisconsin | -10 | -11½ | -9 | Pasadena, CA |
Michigan | -1 | 46½ | 48½ | Orange Bowl |
Alabama | 46 | -1½ | -2 | Miami, FL |
Nebraska | -2½ | -4½ | -10 | Fiesta Bowl |
Tennessee | 45 | 46 | 50½ | Tempe, AZ |
Virginia Tech | 49½ | 50 | -1 | Sugar Bowl |
Florida State | -7½ | -6 | 52½ | New Orleans |
I am on fire! My lines put Wake Forest as the favorite, and they won outright covering the spread by 23 points! My lines put that game way under, and it went under by 24 points! Similarly, Hawaii, Marshall, and BYU/Marshall UNDER all went my way big time!
This week I GUARANTEE you will win every 3 star bowl game pick, that's 5 out of 5, or else next week you will receive my NFL picks for FREE!
Here are my picks for the remaining bowl games:
    * Syracuse +3
    * Kansas State -11.5
*** Boise State +2.5
  ** Illinois +2.5
  ** Illinois/Virginia OVER 52
  ** Boston College +8
  ** Oklahoma -4
*** Mississippi/Oklahoma UNDER 55
*** Georgia/Purdue UNDER 65
    * Georgia Tech/Miami-Florida UNDER 69
  ** Michigan State +1.5
    * Stanford +11.5
*** Nebraska -4.5
    * Nebraska/Tennessee OVER 46
*** Virginia Tech +6
-Abdul
In case you haven't noticed, I ruled on the bowl picks: 11-3, with one game remaining. I'm 4 for 4 on three star picks, with the three star Virginia Tech bet still remaining, and remember, I GUARANTEED you would win 5 for 5 of my three star picks! (See post for details of guarantee.) I didn't post explicit picks for the first 5 games, but if you were to pick each bet where there was a 3+ point discrepency in my posted line and the book line, then you would have gone 5-0 for a total record of 16-3, soon to be 17-3.
-Abdul
GO HOKIE.
Abdul,
Payback is a b-t-h that isn't married. Final score well you know so I don't have to tell you Abdul.
(Paul writes: "I like Florida though."
Final score: 7-34, Alabama victory.
Florida was a 7 point favorite at the sports books.
-Abdul)
Paul
My wife was rooting for the Hokies last night just so Abdul's program would be right. Now, she still thinks that Abdul is that FBI guy from Abscam, and that I shouldn't be hanging around with him. Seriously. Last night didn't help any, even tho I protested loudly that he was 13-4 or whatever overall.
JG
I was watching your picks very closely and was impressed at how well you were doing. So, I decided to bet the farm on VA Tech.
If the price of fruits and vegtables go up next week, don't blame me. It's the fault of the new owners.
PS: You will have to accept my marker for your $1175 fee. My future ex-wife refused to co-sign the loan.
I still think it was a good bet, especially the 2.1:1 odds for VA Tech to win. Sometimes AA sucks out on AA.
-Abdul
Match Up | Opening | Current | Abdul's | Comments |
Lions | 48½ | 48½ | 48 | |
Vikings | -7 | -7 | -4½ | |
Cardinals | 39 | 38 | 39 | |
Packers | -7 | -7½ | -9 | RB Parker? |
Seahawks | -1½ | 38 | 41 | RB Watters?? |
Jets | 38 | -1 | -2½ | |
Raiders | 39 | 39 | 44 | |
Chiefs | -5 | -4½ | -4 | |
Ravens | -1 | -1 | PK | TE Collins out |
Patriots | 38 | 37 | 36½ | |
Colts | -2 | -1½ | 42 | |
Bills | 42 | 42 | -4 | RB Smith probable |
Buccs | -4½ | -3½ | 35½ | |
Bears | 36 | 34 | -1 | QB McNown? Miller out. RB & WR? |
Bengals | 39½ | 39½ | 43 | RB Dillon? |
Jaguars | -8½ | -9 | -13 | QB Brunell hurt, WR & RB? |
Saints | 46½ | 46½ | 48½ | QB Tolliver? |
Panthers | -8 | -8½ | -7 | RB Biakabutuka probable |
Rams | -8 | -8 | -8½ | WR Hakim?? |
Eagles | 43½ | 42 | 42½ | QB McNabb?? |
Giants | 38½ | 37½ | 40½ | TE Mitchell?? |
Cowboys | -6½ | -6½ | -7 | WR Mills? |
Chargers | 38½ | 37½ | 38½ | RB Means hurt |
Broncos | -7 | -7 | -9 | WR McCaffrey?? |
Dolphins | 44 | 44 | 47 | Will be off board @ 10 am Sun! |
Redskins | -3 | -3 | -6½ | WR Connell?? |
Titans | -5 | -4 | PK-120 | |
Steelers | 38 | 38 | 37½ | 2 TE's, WR, & RB Ma'afala? |
49ers | 46½ | 46½ | 45½ | RB Garner? |
Falcons | -6½ | -7EV | -6 | WR Callaway? |
I am on fire!!! Last week my pick of Titans +3 won by a mile with a Titan victory of 41-14 over the Jaguars!!! And then my pick of 49ers +7 was almost a moneyline winner, but they went into overtime for a guaranteed 49ers cover despite their defeat!
Because I am on fire, I GUARANTEE you will win every one of my 5 PLATINUM CLOVER picks this week, or the next NFL picks will be FREE! That's right, you get my picks for this week, a $1175 value, for FREE, plus you get my iron clad guarantee that you will win!
For entertainment purposes only. Offer open only to non-minors. Void in Hawaii and Utah. Estimated value does not include taxes or licensing fees. Dealer price may vary. Do not remove tag.
And the Platinum Clover picks are:
    * Lions +7 ... The Lions have been struggling and have looked bad for some time, but that's all the more reason to bet on them this week. Look for the Batchster to have a day that puts Air McNair's recent performance to shame!
*** Raiders/Chiefs OVER 39 ... This is almost a Platinum Clover Lock of the Millennium. Both teams have been scoring like crazy lately. Last time they met it was 34-37, Chiefs, so they each almost covered the over last time.
*** Bears +3.5 ... I do not care how much the Buccs want this game - it's bad enough laying 3.5 points on the Buccs at home, but it has to be a mistake away. The Bears want to make up for their embarassing trouncing at the hands of the Rams last week. Buy the Bears.
*** Giants/Cowboys OVER 37 ... I have only seen a line of 37 at one sports book. The line opened at 38.5, and the wiseguys bet it down, but I think I understand the mistake they are making here, and I trust my program's prediction of a total of 40.5. Go over!
*** Steelers +4 ... I switched to betting on the Steelers last week, with good effect. This week value remains on the Steelers, due to the Titans' spectacular stomping of the Jaguars last week. Take the Steelers.
-Abdul
My NFL picks went 2-2-1. The Steelers had many bad breaks, and the Lions lost the Batchster's thumb again. I may have blown the Bears game. At least the Raiders/Chiefs went over for the game in the first half. And for you, this week's NFL picks will be FREE!
-Abdul
Extrapolating to the playoffs from the regular season? That won't get the job done.
Too bad about the Lions; Batch was exceedingly sharp before re-injuring the thumb. In fact, he had converted 6 3rd downs of 8+ yards IN A ROW before going down. I hadn't seen him throw the ball quite that hard before either.
Do any of you losers over here actually think you can beat sports?
No, of course not. And for that matter, nobody makes money counting cards at blackjack, or playing positive expectation video poker, or playing live poker. Nobody makes money on any kind of gambling. Ever ever ever ever ever. Be sure to spread the word (lots of us "losers" will thank you).
David used flawed logic in his chapter "The Ultimate Play" in GETTING THE BEST OF IT. There, he described what was "probably my greatest triumph and one of my biggest scores. And there was no way I could lose." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 187.) While it is true David could not lose financially, this is only because he found a backer to put up the money. His backer, unfortunately, could have lost.
During a football "parlay card war," David discovered a casino sports book that offered a positive EV ten-team parlay bet:
"Bet $1 on every combination and you would get back $160 + (10)($60) +(45)($20) for a total of $1,660 on your $1,024 investment! Remember that you would get this return *no matter who won the games*. You got a 62 percent return on your money in three days with absolutely no risk." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 190, emphasis in the original.)
Unfortunately, there was a risk, as David--to his credit--acknowledged three paragraphs later:
"Only seven games had half point lines that couldn't tie. Betting both sides of other games meant taking the risk of the game falling on the number exactly, which would mean a loss for both sides. We didn't want to take that chance." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 191.)
David, therefore, devised a scheme whereby he and his backer would buy the 128 different ten-team parlay cards that covered every combination of the seven half-point games but only one side of three "key" games. Unfortunately, this scheme would lose money if two or three of the key teams lost (versus the point spread).
To (supposedly) eliminate any risk of losing money, David added "hedging" to the 128-card scheme. By picking three key games that were played on three different days, David could place a sizeable bet with a bookie AGAINST his first key team. The next day, depending on the result of that first key game, David could place an appropriate-sized bet with a bookie AGAINST his second key team. On the third day, depending on the results of the first two key games, David could place an appropriate-sized bet with a bookie AGAINST his third key team.
"By following this procedure we guaranteed ourselves an automatic profit of around five or six thousand dollars no matter what happened." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 192.)
Unfortunately, a risk remained, for ". . . we had to take care that we couldn't 'middle' ourselves. This meant finding three games that not only were at different times, but also had a different point spread from the one printed on the card. Well, we found three such games." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 192.)
Which, finally, brings me to the flaw in David's logic.
At the time David and his backer bought their 128 parlay cards, they had found three key games that were played on three different days and had point spreads that favorably differed from the parlay cards (by two points, two points, and two or three points, respectively).
The first key game didn't pose a problem. Before buying the parlay cards, David could visit the bookie and bet against his first key team. So, let's say David goes to the bookie on Saturday morning and bets $13,200 to win $12,000 against Key Team A, getting 5 points. He then immediately goes to the casino sports book and buys 128 ten-team parlay cards for $100 each. On the cards, he always picks Key Team A (giving 3 points), Key Team B (giving 7 points), and Key Team C (giving 3 points). The Saturday morning line has Key Team B at +9 and Key Team C at +5, so David is happy.
Unfortunately, the second and/or third key games could upset David's grand plan. He had to buy the 128 parlay cards hours before he could place the bookie bet against his second key team and at least a day before he could place the bookie bet against his third key team. He had to know the result of the earlier key games before he knew how much money to bet against the later key games.
If I am not mistaken, however, the point spread could change by at least two points, even in a single day. (For example, some key players could become ill.) And if the point spread did change sufficiently, David ran the risk of getting "middled." He could lose one key game on all his parlay cards and also lose his hedge bet against that key team.
Let's suppose Key Team A wins by 14 points, easily covering the spread on the parlay cards, but leaving David down $13,200 with the bookie (as planned). David quickly returns to the bookie, notes that the line is still +9 for Key Team B, and bets $24,200 to win $22,000 against Key Team B.
On Sunday, Key Team B wins by 10 points, again covering the spread on the parlay cards, and leaving David down $37,400 with the bookie (as planned). Unfortunately, on Sunday, disaster strikes as well. Key Team C's star quarterback and running back are injured in a car accident, the betting public over-reacts, and the Sunday afternoon line for Key Team C drops to +2 before the outcome of David's second key game is determined.
As Monday game time approaches, David finds himself in a bit of a pickle, for the line is still only +2 for Key Team C. To hedge his parlay card bets, David needs to bet $41,800 to win $38,000 against Key Team C. What should he do?
If David doesn't hedge and Key Team C fails to cover the point spread, then David (actually, his backer) will have won $7,200 from the casino but lost $37,400 to the bookie.
If David does hedge and Key Team C wins by 2 points, then the final bookie bet is a wash, and the backer again will win $7,200 from the casino and pay $37,400 to the bookie.
If David does hedge and Key Team C wins by 3 points, then the backer will win $7,200 from the casino and pay a whopping $89,200 to the bookie. Ouch.
Unfortunately, David's "risk-free" scheme conceivably could lose money.
Please do not misunderstand the point of my post. I am not arguing that David's "Ultimate Play" had serious risks associated with it. I realize football lines usually do not shift by at least two points over the course of one or two days. Furthermore, even if the point spread did change sufficiently, David and his partner probably would not find themselves "middled." Finally, only two of their ten selected games were exposed to this risk.
As trivial as this "middling" risk might be, David took into account risks that probably were even more trivial: ". . . was it conceivable that [the Stardust casino] wouldn't pay? It was this last concern (which I realize now was probably silly) that prompted me to get someone else to put up the money even though there was theoretically no risk." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 190.)
Again, please do not misunderstand the point of my post. I am not arguing that David mistakenly believed a negative EV situation had positive EV. Clearly, the scenario he described gave him a big edge. If I ever find myself in a similar situation, I hope to take advantage of it as well.
What I am arguing is that David used flawed logic and reached an erroneous conclusion. Apparently, he really believed "we guaranteed ourselves an automatic profit of around five or six thousand dollars no matter what happened."
He was careless and made a mistake. David is human. In this case, the error wasn't very costly in terms of expected value. Hopefully, we all can learn from his mistake and be less likely to make similar logical errors in the future--errors that could be quite expensive.
"In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
I believe the same could be said about most gambling situations.
It also might be worth looking at this error from the perspective of two individuals.
In "The Ultimate Play," David found a backer. He didn't reveal how the profit was divided, but let's assume they agreed to a 50-50 split. If the backer had recognized the logical flaw in David's plan, he would have realized that the parlay/hedge scheme was not completely risk-free. To compensate for that small, but non-zero, risk, the backer might have insisted upon a 60 percent share of the profits, and he might have received it. Would my post seem trivial to that backer?
Let's also look at this error from David's point of view.
"More recently David has been doing consulting work for casinos, Internet gaming sites, and gaming device companies.
"David attributes his standing in the gambling community to three things:
"1. . . .
"2. The fact that the things he says and writes can be counted on to be accurate.
"3. . . ."
(GTBOI, 1997, p. v.)
Mark,
I don't know if you are right or not but regardless please remind me to call you before I make any similar "sure thing bets" to those of Mr Sklansky.
BTW - Great Post!
Vince.
Where I listed the betting lines at +9, +5, and +2, I should have written them as -9, -5, and -2.
What can I say, except: "I'm not a sports handicapper."
I still couldn't lose even in the incredibly rare circumstance that the line moved two points. If I was willing to lay a little price with the bookie I could still get the points I wanted and guarantee myself only a sloghtly smaller profit. Of course there was always the chance that 8 team members would come down with the bubonic plague on Sunday night, thus moving the line ten points and rendering me vulnerable. I suppose I should have mentioned that.
Elsewhere in this thread, I wrote: "Please do not misunderstand the point of my post. I am not arguing that David's 'Ultimate Play' had serious risks associated with it."
Yes, David perhaps could buy his way out of the predicament I presented in my scenario without suffering a loss. But he somehow missed the point of my post.
"By following this procedure we guaranteed ourselves an automatic profit of around five or six thousand dollars no matter what happened." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 192.)
Not true.
"And there was no way I could lose." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 187.)
Misleading.
"You got a 62 percent return on your money in three days with absolutely no risk." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 190, emphasis in the original.)
False, as David later acknowleged.
". . . even though there was theoretically no risk." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 190.)
Wrong, again.
When something is 99.9% accurate or has a 99.9% probability of being true, it is not helpful to point out the 1000-1 shot or an extremely tiny inaccuracy if you want to get your point across without overwhelming the reader's minds. Thus when someone calls the joker in lowball "wild" you should not quibble ESPECIALLY if it is obvious that the writer understands the rare exception but simply does not want to add clutter. This stuff is hard enough for most people as it is. How bout I send you a copy of Mike Caro's Holdem Report, Lee Jones' book or anything by Tom McEvoy and let you work on them for awhile. (And yes, Mark, the 1000-1 odds above should have been 999-1.)
While he isn't explicit, David implies that, at the time he wrote the chapter, he knew the possibility of shifting point spreads meant his parlay/hedge scheme had a small risk. He seems to say that he deliberately chose to be inaccurate because he didn't want to add clutter to the chapter and overwhelm the readers' minds.
If this is true, then I apologize for stating, "David used flawed logic in his chapter 'The Ultimate Play' in GETTING THE BEST OF IT."
It now appears David made a judgment call about how to weigh readability against accuracy. While his decision certainly is debatable, one cannot say with certainty that he made the wrong call.
I will note, however, that there are many ways David could have improved the chapter's readability without sacrificing accuracy. And why did he clutter it with his speculation that the Stardust sports book might be unwilling to pay off the bet?
Furthermore, if David deliberately wrote multiple incorrect statements, then I believe he should refrain from making such claims as:
"Over the years my readers have, I hope, come to expect one thing from my writings, if nothing else. That is when I write something it is *correct* (save for a couple of minor errors.) I won't write something because I think it's true. I have to *know* it's true." (GTBOI, 1997, p. 243, emphasis in the original.)
Finally, according to Mason, the 1000-1 odds that David mentioned should have been written as 999-to-1 rather than 999-1. ;-)
The difference between mentioning possble line moves and the Stardust not paying (which in those days was much more likely than a two point line move) has to do with the comprehension abilities of someone with less ability than you. There is a limit to how much technical information the average reader can take before his eyes glaze over and he gives up. The Stardust comment has the opposite effect.
Frankly this whole post was your silliest yet. At least your 3/47 post brought up a interesting mathematical concept. Here you bring up an ommission that is both irrelevant because of its rareness and the fact that it is off the point of the article as well as something that is self evident to all sports bettors.
David,
If my point that possible line moves added an element of risk to your scheme was "something that is self evident to all sports bettors" (and I have my doubts about this assertion), then I have less concern with your ommitting it.
In any case, why did you (apparently) deliberately write multiple incorrect statements. How difficult would it have been to amend your claims:
"By following this procedure we virtually guaranteed ourselves a profit of at least five thousand dollars."
"And there was almost no way I could lose."
"You got a 62 percent return on your money in three days with little risk."
"There was, theoretically, nearly zero risk."
As it is, this chapter makes you sound like a snake-oil salesman, and your credibility suffers.
Mark:
You are right. We at Two Plus Two always write 999-to-1, not 999-1. My editor at the time wanted it written 999 to 1, but I insisted on the dashes. You see when you dominate this industry as we do you can make these type of decisions and make them stick.
Did you know that it is "hold 'em" and not "hold'em?" I bet you don't know the real name of the game, and I'm not going to tell you.
I thought the proper way was 999:1. Shame on you.
As David has repeatedly demonstrated, not everyone at Two Plus Two always writes it as 999-to-1. Perhaps you aren't the dominate force that you imagine.
You seem mad today Mark. Why do yo suppose that might be? :-)
Mason,
It might surprise you that I don't complain much about the poor grammer and punctuation I find in Two Plus Two publications. (No wonder HPFAP-1999 begins with a disclaimer about the book's English.)
As far as "hold 'em" is concerned, I'm reasonably sure your contraction is the proper form. But proper isn't always better. I believe "hold 'em" and "hold'em" are about equally meaningful to poker players, and I personally find "hold'em" easier to read.
I also will intentionally split infinitives (and verbs) when I feel it is appropriate to do so, even if it might not be proper. (The Oxford English Dictionary people finally seem to have come around to my point of view, however.)
I complain more about improper vocabulary, particularly when it conveys a wrong or misleading message. Wrongly applied logic often gets a response from me. Sometimes the distinctions between logic and vocabulary can blur.
Suppose David had said his parlay/hedge scheme had a 0.1 percent chance of losing money while I believed it had a 0.2 percent chance. I probably wouldn't quibble because our differences probably could be explained by some rather uninteresting differences in our assumptions.
Now suppose David had said his parlay/hedge scheme had a 0.0 percent chance of losing money while I believed it had a 0.1 percent chance. I would raise an objection because it would appear that he wrongly applied logic to reach his conclusion.
While David has not explicitly said he knew his scheme had some risk associated with it, he certainly implied this. If this is true, however, he is guilty of rather grave vocabulary errors. Apparently, not only did he use incorrect words, but he deliberately used incorrect words in a way that easily could lead some readers to reach wrong conclusions.
David suggested, "How bout I send you a copy of Mike Caro's Holdem Report, Lee Jones' book or anything by Tom McEvoy and let you work on them for awhile."
I will not sacrifice the independence of my analyses and critiques!
At least not for a mere $30 book. ;-)
David, your analysis was very incomplete. You forgot to account for the possibility that you would be robbed for the cash on the way to the sports book, that the sports book would burn down in a fire after you gave them your money, or that Roxy would have a delusional episode after eating a bad fish and move the line 20 points.
Please, in the future try to be more rigorous.
Boy that really makes my endorsement look great now doesn't it!
vince.
Mark,
WDYPOMAMAFAWALDS alone.
pef
Paule wrote: "WDYPOMAMAFAWALDS alone."
We dig your posts of meticulous analysis, mostly about fundamentals and wrongly argued logic, done spectacularly alone.
Thanks. ;-)
Mark,
You acknowledged my existance in your binary system thinking brain I appreciate it. yes. no.
fep
That will be $30, please. Oops, scratch that. Wrong sub-thread.
Completely off the subject.
Whenever I read your posts (and I read them all) I'm reminded of a scene in the movie 48 hours when Eddie Murphy goes into the redneck bar and hassles the locals, saying, "I'm your worst nightmare, a n***** with a badge!!" I would be surprised if when David writes stuff for this forum he didn't have the spectre of Mark Glover hovering above his keyboard.
Mark:
When I was in college we use to say YBYSAIAH. Can you figure that one out?
YBYSAIAH
Y BE YOU SUCH AN IRATE A-- H0LE
UKW
No. It means:
You bet your sweet a-- I'm a Hokie
Mason,
What is a Hokie?? Some stone wall or something to that effect.
pef
It's interesting you ask that question since ABC didn't know the answer.
At the end of the Civil War when Sherman was marching north out of Georgia into the Carolinas what was left of the Confederate "Army of Tennesse" was reorganized and sent to oppose him. Commander of this army was Joseph E. Johnston, second in command was a young general by the name of Robert Hoke. His name stuck to the common people who lived in that area of Southwestern Virgina where many recruits from this army game from. Thus the name hokie.
Thanks Mason,
"SWeet Virginia"= Hokie
paul
I enjoyed that chapter a lot! Also you seem to be mentally ill or something.
D.
I enjoyed the chapter, too. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better, though.
TWIMC,
As Of Today 1/4/00.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------OVER/UNDER
JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+1.5)
MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----UNDER--(-1.5)
DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----UNDER--(-5.0)
GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-6.5)
NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----UNDER--(-5.0)
MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115----UNDER--(-1.0)
TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----OVER--(+4.0)
PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-2.5)
DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115-----UNDER--(-0.5)
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.0)
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115----UNDER--(-0.5)
BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120-----OVER--(+2.0)
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-0.5)
ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----UNDER--(-2.5)
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+0.5)
NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135-----UNDER--(-1.0)
DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----OVER--(+1.0)
BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125-----OVER--(+1.0)
WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.5)
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-3.5)
ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+1.5)
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+2.5)
CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----OVER--(+2.0)
CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160----UNDER--(-1.0)
CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----OVER--(+1.0)
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145----PUSH---(0.0)
CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----UNDER--(-2.5)
So we now get the entire season of picks FREE?????? What a clown.
x
In anticipation of your charging for your services, I went ahead and sent you $500. I mailed it to "Abdul" at "Guaranteedpicks, USA". I know you must have received it, because my letter to Santa got through and I just put "North Pole" on it. I know that my letter to Santa got through because I got the Bassmaster I asked for. In pink, as specified.
I would like a refund, please.
I also have my old Red Bassmaster for sale if you want it. Pink is so much cooler.
whats a bassmaster, can you fly it?
How can I explain the transcendental beauty of a Pink Bassmaster, churning quietly away on a fresh Bass?
Perhaps I shouldn't try.
Congratulations! You have won a FREE week of Abdul's NFL lines!
Match Up | Opening | Current | Abdul's | Comments |
Bills | 39 | 38 | 40 | Flutie benched! 2 RB's? |
Titans | -4 | -5 | -2½ | TE Roan?? |
Lions | 45½ | 46 | 45 | QB Batch out, KR Howard? |
Redskins | -5 | -6 | -5½ | RB Davis & WR Connell prob |
Cowboys | 47 | 46½ | 47 | WR Mills out, 2 CB's?? |
Vikings | -7 | -7 | -5 | |
Dolphins | 39 | 39½ | 44 | 3 WR's and many others?? |
Seahawks | -3½ | -3½ | -7 | |
    * Bills +5 ... I would feel great about this bet were it not for the quarterback controversy effect of switching Rob Johnson for Doug Flutie.
*** Seahawks -3.5 ... Both teams have large home field advantages, so a line of -3.5 is saying that the Seahawks are a little worse than the Dolphins on a neutral field. The Dolphins are plagued by injuries and a faltering Marino, and even without those problems I think the Seahawks are the better team.
  ** Dolphins/Seahawks OVER 39 ... 39 is still available at Stardust, but don't delay, because this line is going up to 39.5 all over town. This would be a really strong bet, were it not for the crippled Dolphins, who cannot be expected to score. No matter, a few Marino interceptions into the hands of a fired up Seahawks team should put it over.
-Abdul
I have locked in the home teams, already. Love the home crowd in a wild card game. Just an opinion.
Abdul,
I'll take Miami, because of Marino. John Kitna's record speaks for itself. UNDER final score M 24-S 7.
Good Luck
Paul
I'll see your Dan Marino's quarterback rating of 67.4, and raise you 10.3 up to Kitna's quarterback rating of 77.7!
-Abdul
Abdul,
Even a Blind Squirrel finds an Acorn once in a while. Be careful Z is armed for animals.
paul
TWIMC,
As Of Today 1/6/00.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------OVER/UNDER
1)JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+1.5)
2)MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----UNDER--(-1.5)
3)DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----UNDER--(-5.0)
4)GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
5)SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-6.5)
6)NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
7)ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----UNDER--(-5.0)
8)MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115----UNDER--(-1.0)
9)TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----OVER--(+4.0)
10)PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-2.5)
11)DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115-----UNDER--(-0.5)
12)TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.0)
13)SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115----UNDER--(-0.5)
14)BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120-----OVER--(+2.0)
15)NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-0.5)
16)ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----UNDER--(-2.5)
17)KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+0.5)
18)NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135-----UNDER--(-1.0)
19)DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----OVER--(+1.0)
20)BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125-----OVER--(+1.0)
21)WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.5)
22)NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-3.5)
23)ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
24)OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+1.5)
25)INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
26)SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+2.5)
27)CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----OVER--(+2.0)
28)CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160----UNDER--(-1.0)
29)CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----OVER--(+1.0)
30)PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145----PUSH---(0.0)
31)CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----UNDER--(-2.5)
Sections------Over------Under------Push
1-8------------1---------7----------0
9-16-----------5---------3----------0
17-23----------5---------2----------0
24-31----------5---------2----------1
--------------------------------------------
Totals---------16---------14----------1
(+/-)====== 34.5 =====38.5=====0
Paul
TWIMC,
As Of Today 1/6/00.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------OVER/UNDER
1)JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+1.5)
2)MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----UNDER--(-1.5)
3)DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----UNDER--(-5.0)
4)GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
5)SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-6.5)
6)NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
7)ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----UNDER--(-5.0)
8)MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115----UNDER--(-1.0)
9)TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----OVER--(+4.0)
10)PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-2.5)
11)DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115-----UNDER--(-0.5)
12)TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.0)
13)SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115----UNDER--(-0.5)
14)BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120-----OVER--(+2.0)
15)NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-0.5)
16)ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----UNDER--(-2.5)
17)KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+0.5)
18)NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135-----UNDER--(-1.0)
19)DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----OVER--(+1.0)
20)BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125-----OVER--(+1.0)
21)WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.5)
22)NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-3.5)
23)ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
24)OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+1.5)
25)INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
26)SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+2.5)
27)CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----OVER--(+2.0)
28)CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160----UNDER--(-1.0)
29)CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----OVER--(+1.0)
30)PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145----PUSH---(0.0)
31)CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----UNDER--(-2.5)
Sections------Over------Under------Push
1-8------------1---------7----------0
9-16-----------3---------5----------0
17-23----------5---------2----------0
24-31----------5---------2----------1
--------------------------------------------
Totals---------14---------16----------1
(+/-)====== 34.5 =====38.5=====0
Paul
Just skimmed through the long and winding thread below about David's "No Risk" football parlay. Reminded me of a situation here in Canada a couple of years ago that was indeed the ultimate in no risk parlays.
I believe it occurred when the NHL was in a strike/lockout and the national sports lottery "Sports Select" was looking for product to fill out their roster of game selections that normally includes only the NHL, NFL, and NBA. They had added Premier Division Enlgish soccer games to the menu to replace the NHL. One slate of games on a Monday were originally schedule to be played in the evening in England, but because that date was a holiday in England, the games had been rescheduled to the afternoon, but no one bothered to inform the operators of Sports Select.
Someone in Toronto, I believe, called a relative in England to get the skinny on that "evening's" games, and found out the games had already been played, but you could still get a bet down on the results here in Canada! He and some buddies scraped together all the cash they possibly could, and ended up winning several hundred thousand dollars. The lottery people quickly figured out what went wrong, and at first they refused to pay up, but there was such an outcry from the public and the government threatened to intervene. I believe they paid up at the end of the day.
Now that is what I would call a true No Risk Play.
Sports Select also used to let you bet a parlay where the two choices were not independant. You could bet on the winner of the first half and the winner of the game, and parlay them together.
Unfortunately, other than those two long-gone mistakes, Sports Select is a real sucker bet.
Lem Banker has opinion on DAL-MIN game,read it here www.vegasinsider.com/v/others/colums/notebook0106.htm
One home team in, 3 to go. This game was an absolute lock, and easy, easy winner.
Are you sure you watched the game?
Just the last 3 seconds.
x
ACID FORUM RETURNS
Yes, the outcome was never in doubt. I would have liked to see the scene in a crowded sportsbook in Vegas. The screams of joy and anguish...the ringing out of pistol shots....
I was at the Stardust sports book during the game. There was a loud chorus of cheers and groans with each turn of events. When Buffalo made its field goal to take the lead, I was surprised that I had so much company apparently on Buffalo on the moneyline, since your average idiot only bets the favorite minus the points. Then when the Titans pulled out their touchdown with an illegal forward pass, there was even louder celebrating, while I waited calmly for the review that would overturn the play. When they saw that the play was under review, the cheers turned back to groans, and then back into cheers when the blind official, who can't tell heads from tails, ruled that the play would stand.
-Abdul
Abdul,
The call was correct. I thought it was a forward pass too until I saw it on split frame photography in the Boston Herald page B14.
Paul
If it was a forward pass, it was so by only a few inches. There were no good replays on TV. So I guess you really can't second guess the officials.
Abdul,
The reason I thought it was forward was because of the feet pos'n. I am used to looking at them for OOB plays but with a lateral with both players in bounds it's the ball that matters and that is all.
Why "THE COACH OF THE NEW MILLENIUM" didn't run the clock down before kicking a field goal, cost them the game in my estimation. If TCOTNM did that the game would of been over and no kick-off would of been necessary.
Paul
The official who made the original call was had a very good view of the play. I agree with Paul that the call was right. Also, if you noticed there were Titan fans surrounding the Ref while he was reviewing the play. I don't think he is going to reverse this call without a milatary escort. If you want to look for a bonehead to blame, look to Wade Phillips. Why is he starting Rob Johnson and why did he kick the ball short and low giving the Titans their best chance. And while I am on the subject, why didn't the Titans go fow 2 points after the touchdown?
Starting Rob Johnson looked smart. They outplayed them under his leadership. The big weak link was Fina who was hurt and matched against Kearse. One theory behind kicking the ball short, is that you give the coverage time to get to the ball. I'm sure tho that if their kicker was capable of kicking it out of the endzone he would have.
JG
The defensive team may return a PAT conversion(whether the offense is going for 1 or 2) to the endzone for 2 points. The likelihood of that happening when kicking for 1 pt is practically nil. OTOH, if the QB misreads a corner in an attempt to go for two, he could easily give the other side the deuce. That would have made the score 20-18. Tennessee must still kickoff and now the Bills theoretically need just a FG to win.
Why kick PAT or go for two,just snap the ball run around kill the clock with only 3 seconds left and run of the field so someone took BUF +5 or 5.5 can win.
In the NFL, the defensive team cannot score any points after a missed or blocked PAT. That rule only applies in college
Do the clock run for PAT or two points try?
Do the clock run for PAT or two points try?
i am 99% sure it doesn't 'run'
Do clocks have legs?
Danny S
And I'm selling them, plz write down the persons of choice from this forum, and I will come up with a Clock and that person of choice or choices for legs. Mix and match. FARE Price just for you.
Stirrup Enterprises Thanks You
I guess the big question is:
How many bettors got the Bills at 6?
I saw it briefly at 6 one day, but I forget where. Anyway, this is the textbook example on scouting out the best #, or being able to capture stale ones.
JG
I think TN is the AFC's best team, and I was surprised at how poor their offense was.
The most interesting gambling piece of the game was the Titans kicking the PAT to go up by 6 after their touchdown. Football coaches are typically awful at such decisions, but being up 5 should be a no brainer.
The only explanation is that the coach knew the line was in the 5-6 range and wanted to get the cover for the home town fans.
TWIMC,
As Of Today 1/9/00.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------OVER/UNDER
1)JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+1.5)
2)MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----UNDER--(-1.5)
3)DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----UNDER--(-5.0)
4)GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
5)SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-6.5)
6)NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)
7)ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----UNDER--(-5.0)
8)MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115----UNDER--(-1.0)
9)TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----OVER--(+4.0)
10)PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-2.5)
11)DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115-----UNDER--(-0.5)
12)TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.0)
13)SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115----UNDER--(-0.5)
14)BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120-----OVER--(+2.0)
15)NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-0.5)
16)ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----UNDER--(-2.5)
17)KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+0.5)
18)NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135-----UNDER--(-1.0)
19)DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----OVER--(+1.0)
20)BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125-----OVER--(+1.0)
21)WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.5)
22)NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-3.5)
23)ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
24)OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+1.5)
25)INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----OVER--(+6.5)
26)SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+2.5)
27)CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----OVER--(+2.0)
28)CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160----UNDER--(-1.0)
29)CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----OVER--(+1.0)
30)PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145----PUSH---(0.0)
31)CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----UNDER--(-2.5)
Sections------Over------Under------Push
1-8------------1---------7----------0
9-16-----------3---------5----------0
17-23----------5---------2----------0
24-31----------5---------2----------1
--------------------------------------------
Totals---------14---------16----------1
(+/-)======(+34.5) =====(-38.5)=====0
=============Money===============
OVER/OV or UNDER/UN vs OV/UN or UN/OV
People Right (14) vs People Wrong (16) Push (1)
Total OVER/OV (9)
(1(-130)-9(-120)-12(-140)-20(-125)-21(-140)-23(-140)-26(-130)-27(-115)-29(-145))
Total UNDER/UN (5)
(4(-130)-5(-140)-15(-140)-16(-120)-18(-135))
Total OV/UN (11)
(2(+121.5)-3(EVEN)-6(+117)-7(+108)-8(+103.5)-10(+135)-11(+103.5)-13(+103.5)-22(+135)-28(+144)-31(+144))
Total UN/OV (5)
(14(+108)-17(+144)-19(+126)-24(+144)-25(+126))
Paul
A key factor to remember about these is that the lines for them tend to be all over the map. Some books respond to action by changing the number of wins, other just the odds. Sometimes you can find some real beauties where the odds are jacked so much, it just makes sense to go against the move. The day before the season began I found one offshore book had this one : NY Giants 7.5 Ov -200/Un +170. Now in his numbers Paul has Giants 8 Ov +115/Un -135. Think about that, over a 2 dollar difference because of half a win. I couldn't resist taking the under and thanks to the Cowboys I cashed. I personally never can see a situation where one team can be a 2-1 favorite to cover any of these numbers in either direction unless the original number set is plain awful or major injuries have hit the team. In the bigger scheme of things, my best advice is to stick mostly to unders and only bet overs at 9.5 or less. Above that and you are asking for trouble as too many things can happen and your team has to do everything right to win those 10 games or more and as the Jets proved, avoid the injury bugs as well.
WB,
Thanks for your input. I wasn't planning on betting the ranch on this kind of bet. You prove the point of shopping around is the best way to do it. I just thought that all the high numbers were too high and all the low numbers were too low. I just broke them into sections. Playing the middle of this chart you can almost count on going down to the last weekend as you did with Giants. My friend bet the Pats and I placed the bet in for him and I got 8 Push. The guy at the Nugget said that places stopped taking these bets because they were getting killed by them. That sort of triggered me into doing these numbers. I'll do it for a couple of years to see if there are these trends. It's not like the books don't know this but it is like a horse race where your betting against the people and the books have to respond by raising the numbers to offset the betting.
paul
Well the ones they really get killed on is baseball. I even noticed that Reno stopped taking this bet for baseball. Football has too few games and too much interest to cut off most betting. There is certainly a much larger luck factor to this bet when you have 16 games against 162 games. Only thing I don't like about baseball totals is that its money locked away. I tend to turn my bankroll over at least once during a MLB season and so in theory would just be as easy for me to invest it in regular plays than to bet on season totals and have to actually win those. If anyone really wants advice from me, those I will give. I usually spot 5 or 6 that are just plain dumb and my history has been over 70% picking season totals. Just like in the NFL, stick to betting unders except for the bottom fishers. People don't seem to realize how hard it is for a team to lose 100 games. I played Florida really big last year thinking about how rare it is for a team to lose over 100 games two years in a row and I wasn't disappointed. See there is a terrible team that still didn't lose 100 games. Just keep that in mind, if you just bet the bottom five teams over, you probably will get 4 and maybe 5 winners. No matter how bad a team is, they have to have many breaks go against them and play just horrendously not to win 67-68 games or more.
Now in the NFL it isnt the same. Teams that win 2 or 3 games are an every year thing. Teams that start losing give up real fast and cant even beat bad teams. If only it were as easy as baseball...
One year ago, I took Minn. pre-season, at 35 to 1 to win it all. Let it ride verses Atlanta in the playoffs, as Minn. "couldn't lose" that game, was going to hedge the bet come Superbowl time. Just a little bad beat story. But why am I telling you all this?
I don't know. I made two even-money bets before this season that Minnesota wouldn't make the Super Bowl. Still seems like a great bet. But it's much closer with one playoff game under their belt. This will become a bad beat story if they get there. ;-)
You only have one problem now YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE MONEY!!!!!
paul
On Question #9 in DS's article "10 Tough Questions" in 1/24 issue of Poker Digest in which he wrote: "A 3-reel slot machine has a progressive jackpot of $3K. The smaller payoffs are set to return 75% of what is taken in. There are 20 symbols on each reel. If it costs $1 per pull, do you have the best of it playing this machine? What must the progressive jackpot be in order for you to have an even bet?"
He gave the following answer: "You have the best of it as long as the jackpot is more than $2K. With 20 symbolbs on each reel, you figure to hit the jackpot once out of 8K pulls. 8,000=20x20x20 During the 8K attempts, you should take in about $6K from the smaller payofffs. $6,000=$8,000x0.75 Therefore, a jackpot of more than $2K gives you the edge. (Unfortunately, not all machines are this simple.)"
Here is my comment:
While in theory and in math DS is correct, it is not true in real life. The symbols on the slots today, unlike "mechanical" machines in the previous era, are controlled by computers in which each symbol on each reel could be set to appear in its frequency. (Therefore, not truly random.) For example, the jackpot symbols, especially the one on the 3rd reel, could be set to appear less than 1 time out of 20. (Thus giving the illusion to the players that, darn, they just missed the jackpot, and keep them playing.) This is different than video poker machines where the cards are truly randomly dealt so you could figure out if a VP machine could be beat theoritically.
Also, regarding Question #8 pertaining to hold'em DS gave one example. Are there others scenarios in which the flush draws will be favorite over open-ended straight draws over a set? I'm sorry I didn't have the time to work it out.
I haven't read David's 1/24 PD column yet, but "tt" says the answer to Question #9 ends:
"(Unfortunately, not all machines are this simple.)"
The same question and answer appears in the chapter entitled "A Quiz" in David's GETTING THE BEST OF IT. On page 310 of the 1997 edition, the answer to Question #9 ends:
"(Unfortunately, not all machines are this simple. See the chapters on beating the progressive slots. Also beware of virtual reels.)"
--------------------------------
tt asks: "Also, regarding Question #8 pertaining to hold'em DS gave one example. Are there others scenarios in which the flush draws will be favorite over open-ended straight draws over a set?"
Indeed, there are such scenarios. But many people probably consider them trivial.
Assuming the PD column question is the same as the GTBOI question, then the question is: "Hold 'em poker. Which hand has a better chance against a set of trips on the flop: A flush draw or an open-ended straight draw?" (GTBOI, 1997, p. 306.)
For example, suppose one opponent call-raises from early position (which she never does except with AA) and another opponent has KhKd. If the flop comes KsQh2s, would you rather have JcTc or As6s?
I'll take As6s, thank you very much. And if the 9d was exposed during the deal, it makes the case for the flush draw even more obvious.
"8. Hold 'em poker. Which hand has a better chance against a set of trips on the flop: A flush draw or an open-ended straight draw?" (GTBOI, 1997, p. 306.)
Let's say the flop was 2h9sTs. Your opponent has 2d2c. As2s will win more often than QdJd.
Greetings,
Ive been playing poker for about a year and was thinking about learning more about BlackJack.
I was hoping some could answer some Q's.
How profitable it Blackjack? How much practice should one get before playing? What is considered recommended reading? What is essestial?
How prevalent is cheating in casinos?
I've practiced w/a "dr blackjack" and have done alright but i havne't learned to count yet. I was thinking to practice a bit more on the computer and then learn to count and should my results continue to maybe play at small stakes until i feel more confident.
Thanks alot!
You can make maybe 0.25% bankroll per hour with large fluctuations. For single or double deck, a bankroll in the 400-500 unit range is appropriate, while for shoes you will likely need 2000+ units. You will need to practice at least 100 hours before setting foot in a casino, and your first few attempts in the casino should just be considered practice. Read extensively: Wong, Snyder, Uston, Humble/Cooper, Anderson, Schlensinger, Fuchs/Ventura and others. If you're only going to read one book, then maybe KO Blackjack by Fuchs/Ventura.
Cheating exists, but it's rare and even rarer is it done with the blessings of the casino. The real thing to fear is the casinos outright stealing your money once they discover you are a card counter. This happens even at the major Las Vegas strip properties. Card counting is not difficult. Getting away with it is. If you stick to red chips at major Vegas properties, you will probably never be barred, cheated, or robbed.
-Abdul
For the average guy,BJ is marginally profitable. If your willing to commit a large bankroll it can be lucrative,generally for a short time.If you bet big sooner or later the Casinos will get you out of there.Depends on your goals,if you like it and want to pick up extra money its fine.The swings are huge,and once you start to play a lot it gets boring. Most players that stick with it enjoy the idea of beating the casinos.Reading material-anything by Wong and Snyder is mandatory.
Visit BJ21.com. Lots of good info. There is also a link on this sites links page.
BJ has a lot of advantages to poker. Comps is one of them. The big disdvantage is you may get "backed off" sometime.
With a $5000 BR playing single and double deck, you could easily make $20-30 an hour, and for bigger BRs the skys the limit.
Hedgehog
The sky's not the limit. The reason is that the more you bet, the more attention you bring to yourself. Based on my knowlede, the best players are able to make about $100 an hour. But it is tough to get in more than 500 hours a year. To get more, you will have to do a lot of traveling.
True... I think $100 an hour is about as good as it can be for sustained play. But that is pretty good. Also another good point, its hard to get in the many hours. I have managed to do 1500 hours over the last 2 years, but I don't play but a few hours a month now, and most of the time I was betting $80 max bets.
Hedgehog
In NFL, the home field advantage is generally considered to be 3 points. Actually, it's about 5, maybe even 6, for certain teams like Denver and Green Bay, and it's near zero for other teams like perhaps New Orleans this year. Home field advantage is underestimated in the lines, probably more a function of the bettors underestimating it than the line makers making a mistake.
In college football, home field advantage is even larger for four reasons. First, college fans are fanatic and loud. Second, there are restrictions on the number of players permitted to travel. Third, college games are higher scoring. Fourth, a college football player considers his home field sacred in a way that an NFL free agent cannot. I generally consider college football home field advantage to be 4.5 points, but it's likely 7 or more for the Swamp and other tough fields.
Now my question... what is the normal home advantage for other sports? NBA? College hoops? Hockey? Baseball?
-Abdul
Isn't there some way you can convert the overall % of home wins into a points/goals advantage ? I did this fairly easily for soccer. It was a long time ago mind you, and I have relegated sports betting to the "back burner", so I am struggling to remember exactly how ...
Andy.
A number of people have looked at this at found little hard statistical evidence to suggest that HA varies from team to team. I'd love to see some.
In the NBA, there a fairly large number of factors which influence the HA. Did the home/away team play last night? Does the home/away team play tomorrow? Was the home/away team's last game at home/away? Is the home/away team's next game at home/away? If travel is involved, how much?
As a general rule, playing at home ameliorates the magnitude of these influences. However, I have recently found a significant exception to this.
What has been stunning to me in my studies is how accurately the market has generally accounted for the intricate interplay of these factors.
One thing to say about the Cowboys' vagaries at home and away is that it's not a lot of data points. It almost strikes me as one of those example of correlation without causation in FFT. Is there some great Cowboys home advantage other teams don't have. When people talk about tough places to play, they say Tennessee or the Metrodome. Irving just doesn't get mentioned a lot. And speaking of the Metrodome, well, see below.
Road games:
at Wash 9/12 , they win a barnburner. Their D still needs work apparently.
at Phil 10/10 , they lose a shocker to a weak team not because of any road disadvantage but because their best player is almost paralyzed.
at NY 10/18, they lose but the only TD they gave up was a punt return. Even the game winning drive was spawned by just one missed tackle on Tiki Barber. They had more first downs, more total yards etc. I submit that the distribution of random things happening(in this case a punt return for TD was against them) Not exactly being outplayed on the road.
at Indy 10/31, they lose by 10 points to one of the best teams in the NFL.
at Minn 11/8 , the Boys were putting on a clinic in the "home advantage Metrodome" until Smith broke his hand.
at Ariz 11/21, lost 9-13 played badly. Without Aikman and Irvin.
at NEng 12/5 , lose 6-13 to a team that was once maybe good.
at NOrl 12/24, Obviously didn't play well at all to lose to these bums, but I don't think there's some massive home edge for New Orleans.
In summary, what I see in these 8 points are a couple of burps, but no evidence of something more sinister. I think the reading in of some large home/away coefficient is more a fudge factor to fit the data than anything justified by what happens on the field.
JG
One of the sports announcers for a Cowboys game was saying that he had seen this sort of thing before, where a formerly great team in decline starts sputtering on away games but can still give the extra effort to do well at home. It sounded good to me.
-Abdul
what does FFT mean?
Fighting Fuzzy Thinking. Ya gotta go click on the books page link at least once, or this is all for nought.
JG
With regards to College Football HFA how do you correct for the fact that good-team/bad-team matchups are much more likely to take place on the home field of the good team? I can't think of any way to do this without some kind of power rating deal that says how much a team "should" win by. It seem that relying on this is going to add a lot of noise to any estimate though, and using this HFA figure in conjunction with the power rating system that it was derived from _may_ get you into some serious circular-logic-problems that are difficult to detect.
This subject comes up all the time when I discuss sports with other highly talented individuals. My conclusion is that the factor is so highly overrated, that another approach is what works best. First of all, it is generally a function of the disparity in talent. However too much talent edge and the advantage goes down. Its almost like a bell curve of some sort. Generally the home advantage manifests itself in one common way. Either the home team gets the lead or stays in the game getting their crowd excited and that has the most affect on the game. Of course playing surface, travel, time zones, etc do play a role, but by far most important factor is when a crowd gets into the game and provides momentum. What chance does this crowd have if their team is a 27 point dog? Very little, they won't be cheering much after 5 minutes are gone. Therefore bad team against good at home is worth nothing, if anything its a negative advantage because travelling often brings out a slightly better effort from a good team. Now if you have say a 10 point favorite the edge can be huge. This is where the home team probably can be expected to have crowd support because their boys are unlikely to fall behind badly, yet are also not that likely to have the game won by halftime. The crowd is involved most of the time = more edge. So you see figuring out a true edge is really more subjective. Figure out who you think will break out on top and therefore "control" the crowd. How I generally look at it beyond this is to try to consider who over or under plays "average" home advantage in the pro sports. Every year a few baseball teams have similar or better road records against home records. The linemaker doesn't adjust for this much as he still will give the home team some extra odds even if they have a "home field disadvantage". Same for other sports. Hockey sees this happen to a few teams each year as well. Rarely does it happen in football or basketball since these are the sports where home edge is most important. However you will see some teams that are only slightly better at home than on the road. The value in all this is to play against them at home on them for road games as the linemaker will still give a standard home edge.
In sum, giving an arbitrary figure for home edge is dangerous. It varies greatly and much more than just about anyone thinks. I have seen games I considered a home college football team to have a 10-12 point edge. In each case it was a team that was around 7-9 point favorite. In these teams I saw a sold out stadium, a need to win the game for bowl purposes, a team that had been getting leads in games, and a team that had shown much better efforts at home than on the road. Mathematical studies will rarely provide you with any good insight, just maybe an idea of what the linemaker is going to consider the home edge and what will be built into the line.
Every year a few baseball teams have similar or better road records against home records. The linemaker doesn't adjust for this much as he still will give the home team some extra odds even if they have a "home field disadvantage".
Perhaps in the mudville coin-flipping league, every year a few teams have better road records than home just because of random distribution, despite using a coin at home that has an expected 55% win rate. For that reason, the oddsmakers would be correct not to pump in a coefficient of home-field disadvantage.
JG
Well if this was a random situation then that would be true, but we aren't talking about playing Hold'em here. Sports is much about emotion and momentum as anything else. Luck is evident in every game from a guy hitting a ball right where the center fielder happens to be to the slugger barely missing a hanging slider and fouling it off. The truth is though that baseball follows streaks and tendencies far more than any other sport. Teams tend to flow one way for quite some time and that can often feed on itself. The smart bettor doesn't get too caught up in streaks and realizes the linemaker is slowly pricing against him, but in a situation where the linemaker is still giving home advantage to a team that isnt earning it, well thats for you to take advantage of. After all, what is home advantage worth in baseball anyways? Most factors are long term factors such as familiarity with the wind and understanding the way the field plays. No matter what someone might think, a pitcher isn't going to throw a pitch any harder because the crowd is behind him and the hitter can't will a ball over the fence cause the crowd is on its feet. Every now and then you might see what appears to be an emotion driven win by a home team, but to me it seems almost all of them were situations where the pitcher chokes and he just as well could have done it at home with the crowd booing him all the way into the dugout. Baseball is certainly a different breed and valuing home edge is tough. To add that luck factor in I generally limit what I think a home team advantage or disadvantage is. Some years a team can have a very pronounced edge one way or the other, but you are right in that there is some luck factor to that and to go overboard in betting with that trend and ignoring others is not smart handicapping.
I remember hearing once of a statistician who did some test of field goals made consecutively and nonconsecutively in NBA basketball games to ascertain whether there really is such a thing as "being in the zone" or whether the streaks were just begotten from a normal distribution. (Personally, I think there is a zone, cuz I've been there.) I'm not as versed in stats as I was in college, but it would be interesting if someone(else) were to look at these trends in baseball, and see if they warrant notice or are just part of an expected distribution.
And to tie this (baseball trends) into the money line thread, it seems that books are way overpricing name pitchers and that the "average" money is falling on them anyway. I recall a game against the Marlins where Maddux was laying -360. He lost. Not a shock; it's baseball, not chess. But I think this phenomenon would be evidence contra the premise that the dumb money is reluctant to lay the line.
I think you can beat sports knowing little about the games, if you can figure out which way the dumb money is going. But I'm not yet convinced that it shuns small returns.
JG
He found no effect. No such thing as "a hot hand" could be discerned from the data.
If this is all just a matter of luck, why are we watching these games? Imagine if a team marketed itself this way, "come see us play, two standard deviations from normal means we will win!" The truth is that there is a huge amount of skill involved in discerning edges while acknowledging that luck does exist, thats why its wise not to go out and bet 50% of your BR on one game.
As far as being in the zone...well maybe that won't make the shot go down more often, but if he does make it, dont you think him and his teammates just might play a little harder on the defensive side of the ball? Maybe next time he will be guarded closer by the defender opening up his lane to the basket more or leaving a teammate more open for a shot. All these little things interconnect so maybe the very shot doesn't come as a matter of "zone", but the overall game can change and this study would seem to be too narrowly focused for the handicapper who wants to find edges.
I think you missed the point. People place way too much value on streaks, whether it's team wins, home runs, or free throws. In the studies, streaks have proven indistinguishable from those that would arise from normal statistical variation. Other research suggests that the lines are overinfluenced by recent performance and streaks, so you may be able to at least reduce the house vig by betting against the streaks.
-Abdul
It seems to me that the college hoops home advantage should be fairly straightforward (if tedious) to calculate. Most conferences play a double round-robin, so if you look at historical conference records, you will have lots of games where you had the same teams with the same players (minus injuries) playing with the home field advantage swapped a few weeks apart. You will probably want to take the median difference rather than the mean, in order to reduce the impact of blowouts.
That would only be a past home advantage and as I have said before, its very dynamic. This year's team can clearly react differently to home/road games than last 5 years teams have. True a general number could come out of it, but thats not necessarily the right number to use on a game now. The whole sports betting game is obviously an inexact science or else it wouldn't exist to the degree it does.
I suspect that "how this one particular team reacts to home vs. away courts" is one of the smaller parts of what we commonly think of as home field advantage. But even if it exists and is significant for some teams, I suspect that you are not likely to ever be able to measure it meaningfully, because of the small sample sizes involved.
To compare to another sport, when people compute park factors for baseball stadiums, the general rule of thumb is that one year's worth of data (162 games) usually isn't enough to determine how much a given park is a hitter's or pitcher's park. Generally, park factor computations are based on 3-5 year's worth of data (runs for and against the given team at both home and away parks) in order to give reasonably stable measurements. So that's something like 500-800 Red Sox games before you can conclude that Fenway is in fact a hitter's park that inflates run scoring by 8 percent or whatever (I don't have the actual number handy, but it's something along those lines). The major exception in recent years was Coors, which was such an extreme hitter's park that you could conclude it was an extreme hitter's park based on one year's worth of data alone (I think the first year run scoring for the Rockies and their opponents was up over 50% in Coors vs. the games in the opponent's parks.) In general, the smaller the effect you are looking for, the more data you need to conclude anything meaningful about it.
Now if it takes around 500-800 games worth of data in baseball to reliably measure an effect that modifies scoring by 5-10%, what are you going to do in basketball with at most 27 games worth of data when looking at just a part of home-field advantage, when the whole home field advantage is maybe 3-5 points per game (or in other words, around 2-5% of the total scoring)?
Answer: not a whole heck of a lot that is meaningful, particularly since you are going to want to use this prediction in the middle of the season, so you won't even have the full 27 games worth of data. In other words, I'm saying that you probably can't tell the difference (from the scores alone) between a team that has a real effect that increases their home field advantage by 2 points a game and a team that has a perfectly normal home field advantage, but just had a few shots from their last few road games take unlucky bounces. And this makes a big difference if you actually want to use this stuff to predict future games, because the first effect will presumably continue to affect future games, while the second effect won't.
So what can we do if we want real information and not just guesswork? Basically, we should proceed from the general to the particular - from more data to less. So first we should look at all the data from all NCAA conference games we can get our hands on, to estimate the "baseline" home field advantage, based on those factors that are generally common to all NCAA teams. I think that will come to around 3-5 points a game, but I'm just guessing there. Once you get that number, then you can start slicing the data in different ways based on large groups of schools with common characteristics, so that you are continuing to work with large numbers of games in each group. You can slice the data by years, to see if there is evidence that the general home field advantage is changing over time. You can look at large vs. small schools. You can divide it by conference. You can try to quantify out individual components of it: how much of this generic home field advantage is due to getting more calls (look at number of fouls called on home vs. away teams)? How much is due to shooting better at home (look at shooting percentages)? And so forth.
Now once you have determined the general rules about how home field advantage works, you might be able to render an educated guess about how they might apply to a particular team. For example, if you had previously discovered that the average home field advantage was 4 points a game and 3 points of that seemed to be due to getting close calls, you might then suspect that a team based on a bruising inside game would have a bigger home field advantage effect than one that was predominantly built around outside shooting. So if you had two teams that were known to be really extreme one way vs the other, you might guess that the bruisers really had a HFA of 5 points, while the shooters were more like 3. You might even be able to test that hypothesis if you could identify large enough groups of teams that were clearly extreme one way vs. the other. But you are very unlikely to ever be able to measure the HFA of a specific team directly in any meaningful way.
David, in the last paragraph on pg 118 of "STB" you tell of a betting strategy starting out with $500 ect.
I play this from time to time on my CV software with a fair amount of success. Do you think this betting stategy would produce using the Advanced Red Seven system in the real world? Has anyone run any sims with these strategies?
IMABETTOR,
The party is over for Minnesota. Nobody believed in the Rams all year, so I think people still don't. The line opened at 7 and stayed. The average win at home is 24 points and the smallest was 17. Every win was at least 10 points. Defense is also excellent. Sacks 57 and pickoffs 29.
Rams 32 Vikes 17
good luck paul
However, I believe that the Rams didn't play anybody that had a +500 record at home this year. They beat the bums, can they beat the good teams? I think so but 7 seems a little high to me.
True, the Rams played a lot of bad teams, but they beat those bad teams soundly like a good team should. Minnesota is a BAD team defensively. Keep in mind that the Vikings had the 30th ranked defense in the league, and their cornerbacks are dreadful.
I hope I'm wrong (I live in Minnesota) but:
Rams 34 Vikes 21
Rams 31 Vikes 22
I like the Vikings getting 7 vs. Rams.
I like under 53 1/2 in the Rams vs. Vikes game.
I like the Titans getting 5 1/2 vs the Colts.
The 53 1/2 points is a big number much higher than normal. I expect the coaches to be a little more conservative than in regular season games.
The Colts aren't a great defensive team and I think the Titans can do some damage against them, especially on the ground. The Colts have had two poor games in a row after they clinched the division. I expect a close game here.
In GETTING THE BEST OF IT (1997), David includes a chapter entitled "A Quiz."
Question 3 is: "If a certain play in backgammon will increase your chances of winning a gammon by 20 percent, you should make it as long as the play doesn't increase your chances of losing a 'single' game by more than X percent. What is X? (Disregard any effect of the doubling cube.)" (P. 305.)
David's answer is:
"X = 10 percent. The general rule is that it is only worth taking the risk of losing a 'single' game if your chances of scoring a gammon increase by more than twice that risk.
"As an example: Suppose you have a 60 percent chance of winning a single game, a 20 percent chance of losing and a 20 percent chance of scoring a gammon. If a risky move can increase your gammon chances to 30 percent (and a safe move will keep things the same), it's worth it if your chances of losing has not gone above 25 percent. This is because you only gain one unit when your gamble works, but lose double when it fails and you lose a 'single' game. (When you lose a unit that you would have won, that's a two-unit swing.)" (P. 307.)
It should be noted that David also wrote: "I have been careful to include only questions which are not a matter of opinion. If you disagree with the answer, you are simply wrong." (P. 305.)
There are at least three reasons why I disagree with David's answer, and I will present them as separate sub-threads. Before looking, however, you should pause for a moment and try to develop your own reasons why David's answer is flawed.
"In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
I believe Mason's point can be applied to other gambling situations as well as to poker.
First, I disagree with David's answer because his question is poorly worded. If you read that unemployment increased 10 percent, you don't assume unemployment jumped from 6.0 percent to 16.0 percent. Instead, you conclude unemployment rose from 6.0 percent to 6.6 percent (i.e., 6.0 * 1.10).
In the backgammon context, suppose you had a 60 percent chance of winning a "single" game, a 30 percent chance of scoring a gammon, and a 10 percent chance of losing a "single" game. "If a certain play in backgammon will increase your chances of winning a gammon by 20 percent," I don't assume the play gives me a 50 percent chance of scoring a gammon. I conclude it gives me a 36 percent chance (i.e., 30 * 1.20).
According to David's answer, you should risk making this play only if your chances of losing a "single" game do not reach 11 percent (i.e., 10 * 1.10). Let's see if that answer is correct.
If the safe move keeps things the same, then your expectation is 1.10 units: ( 0.60 * 1 ) + ( 0.30 * 2 ) + ( 0.10 * -1 ).
If David is correct, then your expectation after the risky move should remain 1.10 units. But your expectation actually jumps to 1.14 units: ( 0.53 * 1 ) + ( 0.36 * 2 ) + ( 0.11 * -1 ).
In this scenario, you should make the risky play as long as it doesn't increase your chances of losing a "single" game by more than 30 percent! At 30 percent, your expectation remains 1.10 units: ( 0.51 * 1 ) + ( 0.36 * 2 ) + ( 0.13 * -1 ).
Now let's ponder another scenario. Suppose you had a 70 percent chance of winning a "single" game, a 20 percent chance of scoring a gammon, and a 10 percent chance of losing a "single" game. Your expectation is 1.00 units: ( 0.70 * 1 ) + ( 0.20 * 2 ) + ( 0.10 * -1 ).
If a risky move increased your gammon chances by 20 percent, you could make that move as long as it didn't increase your chances of losing a "single" game by more than 20 percent. At 20 percent, your expectation remains 1.00 units: ( 0.64 * 1 ) + ( 0.24 * 2 ) + ( 0.12 * -1 ).
So, the correct answer to David's quiz question is: "It depends."
David could have improved both the readability and accuracy of his question if he had worded it something like: "If a certain play in backgammon would add 20 percentage points to your chances of winning a gammon, you should make it as long as the play doesn't add more than X percentage points to your chances of losing a 'single' game. What is X? (Disregard any effect of the doubling cube.)"
But even with this revised question, I would disagree if David answered, "X = 10." See if you can figure out why before you read my "Reason #2" sub-thread.
It has been a number of years since I played backgammon, so perhaps the rules have changed since then. Also, I never played the game for money, and there might be different rules for money games.
In the backgammon games I played, though, we scored triple points for a "backgammon." A "backgammon" occurred when the winner got all his men off, the opponent had not taken even a single man off, and the opponent had at least one man on the bar and/or on the winner's home section.
To correctly answer David's quiz question (or my revised version of it), you also need to determine the effect of your risky play on the chances of your achieving a "backgammon." In some cases, there will be absolutely no chance of a "backgammon." In other cases, however, your risky move could effect your "backgammon" chances.
Let's suppose that, if you made the safe move, you had an 80 percent chance of winning a "single" game, a 10 percent chance of scoring a "gammon," a 1 percent chance of scoring a "backgammon," and a 9 percent chance of losing a "single" game. Your expectation would be 0.94 units: ( 0.01 * 3 ) + ( 0.10 * 2 ) + ( 0.80 * 1 ) + ( 0.09 * -1 ).
Further suppose that, if you made the risky move, you added 20 percentage points to your chances of scoring a "gammon," bringing it up to 30 percent. If this move also added 5 percentage points to your "backgammon" chances (bringing it up to 6 percent), then you might make this risky move as long as it doesn't add more than 15 percentage points to your chances of losing a "single" game. For, if the risky move meant you had a 40 percent chance of winning a "single" game and a 24 percent chance of losing a "single" game, then your expectation would remain at 0.94 units: ( 0.06 * 3 ) + ( 0.30 * 2 ) + ( 0.40 * 1 ) + ( 0.24 * -1 ).
So, the correct answer to David's original quiz question and to my revised version of that question is: "It depends."
An improved revision would be: "If a certain play in backgammon would add 20 percentage points to your chances of winning a gammon, you should make it as long as the play doesn't add more than X percentage points to your chances of losing a 'single' game. What is X? (Disregard any effects of the doubling cube and of a possible 'backgammon.')"
But even with this improved revised question, I would disagree if David answered, "X = 10." See if you can figure out why before you read my "Reason #3" sub-thread.
Without commenting about the validity of your other points, I wish to note that in games between good players, the possibility of "backgammoning" one's opponent is almost never a factor in the decision making process.
AX,
Thanks for the note. I hope you also realize that how frequently "backgammons" factor into the decision-making process doesn't really effect the main point of my post. If "backgammons" happen at all, then David's logical argument is flawed. Or if you ever could be "gammoned," then David's logical argument again is flawed. That is the main point.
"In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
I believe Mason's point can be applied to other gambling situations as well as to poker.
To correctly answer David's quiz question (or my improved revised version of it), you also need to determine the effect of your risky play on the chances of your opponent scoring a "gammon."
In some cases, there will be absolutely no chance of your being "gammoned." (For instance, you already might have taken a man off the board.) In other cases, however, your risky move could effect your chances of being "gammoned."
Let's suppose that, if you made the safe move, you had an 50 percent chance of winning a "single" game, a 10 percent chance of scoring a "gammon," a 36 percent chance of losing a "single" game, and a 4 percent chance of being "gammoned." Your expectation would be 0.26 units: ( 0.10 * 2 ) + ( 0.50 * 1 ) + ( 0.36 * -1 ) + ( 0.04 * -2 ).
Further suppose that, if you made the risky move, you added 20 percentage points to your chances of scoring a "gammon," bringing it up to 30 percent. If this move also added 6 percentage points to your chances of being "gammoned" (bringing the total to 10 percent), then you might make this risky move as long as it doesn't add more than 1 percentage point to your chances of losing a "single" game. For, if the risky move meant you had a 23 percent chance of winning a "single" game and a 37 percent chance of losing a "single" game, then your expectation would remain at 0.26 units: ( 0.30 * 2 ) + ( 0.23 * 1 ) + ( 0.37 * -1 ) + ( 0.10 * -2 ).
So, the correct answer to David's original quiz question and to my improved revised version of that question is: "It depends."
A new, improved revision would be: "In backgammon, if you already have a man off the board and a certain play would add 20 percentage points to your chances of winning a gammon, you should make it as long as the play doesn't add more than X percentage points to your chances of losing a 'single' game. What is X? (Disregard any effects of the doubling cube and of a possible 'backgammon.')"
If David answered this new, improved, revised question, "X = 10," can you figure out any reason why he might be wrong?
SO AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW I DON'T JUST PLAY POKER... I'M ALSO A WORLD CHAMPION CHURCH BUILDER... CRAZY PANTS MCGEE WAS TRYING TO OUT BUILD ME IN THE FREESTYLE COMPETITION AT THE BAR LAST NIGHT SO I HAD TO THINK FAST BECAUSE HE WAS ALLREADY FINISHING THE STEEPLE ON HIS CHURCH AND I WAS STILL ON MY DOORS... SO I THOUGHT ...(DON'T WORRY GUYS I KEPT MY LEGO FACE ON)... BACK TO THE DAYS OF A CHURCH NUN AND REMEMBERED IF YOU PRESS THE SECOND LAST BRICK ON THE SECOND SIDE OF THE FRONT OF THE CHURCH THE WHOLE THING WILL EXPLODE LIKE A NUCLEAR BOMB KILLING EVEYONE INSIDE OF IT... SO WHEN CRAZY PANTS MCGEE STEPED IN SIDE I PRESSED THE SECOND LAST BRICK ON THE SECOND SIDE OF THE FRONT OF THE CHURCH... AND THE WHOLE THING EXPLODED BUT SINCINCE THE CHURCH WAS ONLY HALF THE EXPLOSTION WASN'T VERY BIG AND IT ONLY INJURED MCGEE BUT I WON... WEW!... CLOSE ONE HEY BOYS!
SURE WAS A CLOSE ONE... I HOPE MCGEE LEARNED HIS LESSON NOT TO CHEAT
Does anyone know what Vegas casinos offer single 0 roulette and what minimum bets are required on these tables?
Hedgehog
Roulette would probably make more money for Casinos if they were all Single Zero tables. In fact I think that a roulette wheel should be made that gives odds more like a craps table.
To answer your question: No I don't know any single zero roulette tables in Vegas.
CV
Most Vegas casinos that have single zero roulette just have one table in or near the baccarat pit, with the rest of the tables being the usual double zero. MGM used to have one, but took it out, but it could be back. You might also look at Paris, the Venetian, Mandalay Bay, Bellagio, and Mirage.
-Abdul
European tables with the en prison rule are close to craps. No surprise that roulette is much more popular in Europe.
those single zero tables are great. you get to last twice as long as the double zero tables before you most certainly go broke. play the candy machine it is much better. you put in 75 cents and get a candy bar plus a quarter back. unless you are in california then you get just a candy bar for a buck. in new york they jam the machine and you get nothing back.
Well, if you were clocking wheels for bias, it might be a big time saver to limit your search to single-0 wheels.
There may be some other physical prediction methods that are accurate enough to exploit a 1.3% edge (single 0, en prison), but which can't manage to overcome the standard 5.26% edge.
That's what I'm looking at. I have Laurence Scott's (Scot maybe?) $300 system, and am studying it. I'm thinking I could start on European Wheels first while my skills are getting up to speed, but maybe not, because the table mins might be too high.
Hedgehog
Could you describe the '$300 System'? Comments I made about clocking wheels notwithstanding, every roulette 'system' I've ever seen was a money loser. Perhaps we can save you some money.
It's the Laurence Scot system (I am not sure about the spelling of the name because I do not have the system here with me right now). How to Beat the Wheel. This was shown to me by someone who I trust a great deal both for his knowledge of gambling, and his ethics. He would not let me use it if it were not legitimate. In fact, you probably have heard of him, but that's as specific as I will be.
Hedgehog
Arnold Snyder advocated Lawrence's product/system/approach in Blackjack Forum many years ago. I suspect it works. However, given my experience with beating "unbeatable" casino games, and what Arnold wrote about the problems with applying this system, I can almost guarantee you that you'll be hit with countermeasures before you can do any real damage.
-Abdul
Is this a wheel clocking system? Or a system for doing physical prediction? Or what?
You heard about the Eudaemonic Pie book, where they used a computer to do wheel clocking and then placed a bet just before the ball dropped? Well, Lawrence's system is like that, only it uses the world's most advanced computing device. I might also note that in Europe they let you place your bet after the ball is already firmly entrenched in a slot, though that takes all the challenge out of it.
-Abdul
I'm all familiar with the Eudaemonic pie, and with Thorp and Shannon's original computer. Thorp was of the opinion that it would be impossible to beat the game using "The world's most sophisticated computer". The tolerances are just too high, according to him.
I think he might be wrong. Humans are actually capable of astounding precision. Just for yucks, calculate the angular allowable error for a pool player to shoot a cue ball down a 9 foot table and cut an object ball into a corner pocket from the spot. I've done it the calculation, and it's amazingly precise. More precise than you'd think is possible. But professional pool players can make that shot all day long, with perhaps a 90% hit rate.
I've also tried testing my reflexes with a stop watch to see how quicky I can respond to an event, and with about 5 minutes' practice I can hit a button within about 5/100 of a second. Should be enough precision for Roulette, I think.
I've heard some anecdotal stuff on eye players from pretty good sources. I think they at least did exist at one time. Without going into certain confidences I you should ponder long and hard before using any commercialy available eye technique.
And also realize, these plays are super-easy to defeat once they know what's up.
That's why I've never wasted any time with them. Small edge, lots of work, easy casino countermeasures. I suspect that's the same reason most pros would give.
A friend saw one at Paris just a week or two ago, but no idea on the minimum or the other rules. I also remember Stratosphere having one when I was there in August. For some reason it was empty while the double zero was packed.
Well its been awhile since I contributed to this group, I suppose the time is now as all the football hype is over. I really hate football sometimes as I don't handicap it much and play it very small. The end of the season hopefully will bring more inovolved handicapping conversation and less game selections, but hey this beats most message boards. My topic though is about money lines, specifically for the NBA. Seems like money lines are coming into vogue for the NBA, both here in Vegas and offshore so I thought I would ask some of you to give me your thoughts on this. How do you justify a 9 point favorite such as the Spurs were tonight over the Clippers being a -550 favorite? I found -450 at the Orleans and bet it, but to me as I watched the game, I kept thinking to myself, there must be something wrong with all this math. I have made a few ML bets this year on big favorites and fortunately all have won, including this one that won, but didnt cover the 9. Now my thoughts drifted to this. If I only could find -550, that would be a point where the Spurs would have to win 85% of the games to make this a slightly profitable bet (550/650). That would imply then that the Spurs would only win by 1-9 points 35% of the time.
When you have a clearly superior team as in this case, doesn't that seem a bit high? I mean if it was two evenly matched teams, then a final with the favorite winning by single digits might be around 35% but when you have a case where clearly the favorite is mostly likely to blow the other team out, doesn't it make more sense to usually lay the points? I know the odds in football fairly well and have used ML bets effectively there, but not sure about how the theory works and the margin of victory likelihood works out for the NBA.
I have played these because a trusted colleague of mine says that there is a lot more value in laying the ML for big favorites because of the public's tendency not to want to lay big numbers and their over willingness to accept a bad price just to get a potential dog odds payoff. He says just look for situations like this. Clearly it should be noted that the true odds might be something closer to 9-1 because most people would suspect the Spurs would only lose 1 out of 10 games here. Any thoughts on this?
I don't know squat about ML's but Abdul does. Nice to have you back WB.
paul
Do you think that the folks that make the money line are so stupid as to not have considered how often various point spd favs win the game outright?
For sure, it’s shaded as you said.
But not enough.
You’d be better off focusing on winning with point spds.
If you can’t paint the moon in China, you can’t paint the moon in Japan.
I agree with Erin, at least his first four sentences.
I wasn't here to say they were giving away the bank, just thinking that there is an opportunity to find an edge in it. I don't think its necessarily right just to concentrate on pointspreads because to be completely effective you should attack anything that the linesmaker has to offer and as long as he offers an ML for most NBA games it would be to your advantage to take your shot at it.
As far as what value exists, I think its quite good. I don't know of too many tourists that would EVER go up to the window and bet 100 to win 20 on a sporting event when he/she could bet 110 to win 100 with points. I know the same theory exists with lots of semi-pro type bettors that feel they can beat the line so why mess with the ML. The pro bettors I know will take shots at it, but many are leery of it because their biggest concern is often (as it should be) minimizing risk to their BR. On the other hand, all three groups would have no problem betting the dog getting odds if they thought they had a shot to win. Some games clearly won't attract action on the dog if the ML is big enough since who would think a bad team could win the game straight up? However with no action going either way, the books still can't post an accurate price because then that just might attract the bet 10 to win 100 crowd. The best value seems to lie in the middle of the road ML. Something like a 5 point NFL favorite or a 4 point NBA favorite. Here is a spot where the odds are going to be up around 2-1 or better so that will stop most people from betting the favorite when they can give points, yet attract a fair amount of money on the dog since when you are betting a team in this range you would almost have to think they were going to win the game outright or have a real close to 50/50 shot to do it. The best value might be a -3 NFL favorite. Most offshore books will post this as a -155 thru -165 ML although Vegas books generally put up a higher number around -170, presumably since they have to face a larger money percentage of sophisticated bettors that won't be afraid to lay odds in this spot. At -160, the true line (line without the books edge) is -150, which means 60% wins for the favorite. Therefore this is saying the favorite will win by 1,2 or 3 points about 10% of the time. Well seems to me that a 3 point game is fairly evenly matched so there should be far above average numbers of games that end on these small margins, above what you would expect for say games at -10 or higher. As it is, 3 points is about 14% of all games, so if the favorite finishes on that number 7% of the time in a normal expectation that includes all games, I would venture to think there is a very good edge in this spot due to this margin being much more likely in an even matchup. Add in times that the game ends at 1 or 2, somewhat common numbers with the 2 pt conversion now, and the edge grows. Further your inherent edge to the house is lower when a ML moves further away from -110. At -160/+140 the expectation for the house drops to 4% from 4.5% at -110. For all these reasons when I like an NFL favorite at -3 I almost always lay the ML instead and have long advocated it. I am just trying to see if this edge can translate over to the NBA.
I unfortunately don't know anything about NBA moneylines, but I know a lot about NFL and NCAAF moneylines. I disagree with David Sklansky and Erin. While the bookies generally put up moneylines where there is no edge, bookies are people, and that means bookies are stupid. I could point to examples, but I would be giving away too much.
Moneylines are sometimes better than pointspreads. For low pointspreads, the bookies put up a 20 cent spread on the moneylines (e.g., +135 and -155), so it's not like you're necessarily paying more vig than the normal bets (-110 and -110). Often I am able to find a bet like the dog for PICK +140 and the favorite for PICK -145 (5 cent spread) or sometimes PICK -140 (zero vig) or occasionally PICK -135 (middle!) You almost never find such nice differences in pointspreads nowadays.
For NFL and NCAAF, favorites on the moneyline are heavily penalized by most sports books, which further reduces the vig on the dog and makes the vig on the favorite fairly outrageous. I have two theories as to why the sports books penalize the favorites on the moneyline. First, they must have a lot of boneheads (like WildBill :) taking the favorite on the moneyline. Boneheads love the favorites, and although few understand moneylines, the ones that don't even understand pointspreads are likely to go up to the window and ask to bet on the favorite to win outright. I've overheard complete novices doing this, and even experienced boneheads do it. Second, I figured out a way to torture the sports books if they put up decent moneylines on the favorites, so they may have been burned by this in the past and are trying to protect themselves.
It rarely makes sense to lay big odds on sports bets. You have to be extremely sure of the bet to do so, and you are potentially eating a ton of vig. If the line is -6, but you know it should be -9, you are definitely much better off taking the team at -6 than on the moneyline (for any moneyline that could actually be set in the real world.) Likewise, it often makes sense to take the dog on the moneyline rather than taking the points. That being said, I've noticed some possible value at certain casinos for certain negative moneylines on certain low pointspreads on favorites in NFL, much like WildBill is saying.
-Abdul
Yesterday NBA games: MIA -12 at home against CHI final score CHI 92-85 POR -7.5 at HOU final score HOU 90-89 If you lay money line on MIA against CHI the worst team in NBA I think around -1000 how many games you have to win to get even.
I thought we were only talking about high lines where there is so much vig that books shading it downward still doesn'tean you can lay the price.
FYI, a 12 point line would correlate to maybe -800 or less, but the books won't let you play that. I was surprised I could bet the Spurs at -9 since most books in this town don't want exposure at 5-1 or more since they seem to find "investors" who just go out and bet such games. Much like in boxing where the last minute action comes in on big favorites often and the books have no chance to get action on the other side. I mean who is going to bet the Bulls to win that game at any price? Reality is that if you bet on every team at a huge number like that, you probably would show a profit because upsets of that magnitude are pretty rare. Thing is that you better have a huge BR since losing close to 10 units on a play would cut out a large portion of most sports bettor's BR.
For the Portland game, I did see a price on it, -360/+300. I avoided it because Houston has been winning quite a few games recently, albeit lackluster competition. When you lay a big price last thing you want to do is bet against a team that has been winning no matter who it is against because you know they will come out thinking they can win again and play with a good effort. When I bet against the Clippers, they had just been blown out two games in a row, usually a sell sign. Believe me, I don't do it often, usually 2 or 3 games a week will you find me laying a big price on a favorite. In most cases, I could equally make a good argument to bet the spread as well, but decide the ML just makes more sense.
I have recently posted a few things on another board similar to this, but more focused on football. I tried to post something similar to this using an online friend's password. Well wouldn't you know...people pay for the crap. I made a mention, purely as an example, of how a concept applied to the Vikings-Cowboys game a few weeks back. My points were very similar to some things I brought up about halftime betting in an earlier posting on here. The next time I checked, I had 20 replies! Well I got excited thinking maybe this board just happened to have some knowledgable people that wanted to discuss sports theory. Boy was I wrong! The first reply was wow, I bet the other way for the halftime line, the next was how this guy thought that theory applied to a bet he made a few weeks before that. Next thing you know I have a guy saying how could you bother with such, it was OBVIOUS the Vikes would cover the full game line. Next thing you know someone says its just like last week, the Vikes will cover this week. Then it became banter on who would cover the Rams-Vikes game. Come on now you idiots! See what I mean, do we all really need to discuss who we like? I didn't want my buddy to get punished but I really felt the urge to tell a bunch of people to go to hell, and oh yeah, thanks for noticing I did write something of value here and it wasn't who I liked in that week's game. Is it any wonder most people who bet on sports lose?
To most its just an ego thing, to be a winner when they told you so is like winning 4 games when they told no one but bet them anyways for the same amount as their one boasted winner. Lets face it most of the best sports bettors are either silent or would rather work on telling you how to come up with winners based on prior examples than just give you one winner for this weekend. Just think Mason and David (and yes Ray) would rather tell you the theory on hold'em so you can be a consistent winner instead of telling you how to win the third pot you play in this Sat night in the 30-60 Bellagio game.
This board seems to have some of it, but much better than the others. I counted (and stopped counting after awhile) 134 postings and threads on just one weeks action. Everyone of them I am sure thought all of us cared 100% why he liked the side and why he is a genius when it comes in...
I had a similar but much worse experience on the newsgroup rec.gambling.sports. I've never encountered a bigger bunch of idiots in my life. They grew very hostile when I tried to show them some mathematical misconceptions they have about sports betting. They just want to argue over who is going to win in whatever game (and not usually in any intelligent fashion.) I feel the same way about them as I do about idiots at the blackjack tables: Bless them all, for without them there would be no game for us to beat.
On the other hand, I'm much more willing to share my weekly picks than any bit of knowledge that is useful for not only this week but future weeks as well. I like the Buccs and Jaguars this week. :)
-Abdul
OK Abdul, I guess you are immune from prosecution since you do contribute useful things...
I personally don't care for either game and might not bet either sides or totals. However I have a huge vested interest in them as I have both the Bucs and Titans at 10-1 to win their conferences and have not done any hedging up until now. What do you think, is it worth it to even bother giving up 7-1 with the Rams to guarantee some win? I just say hell with it, that one is gonna just be something I pray for. I do admit the Rams are getting way overpriced here, but the playoffs are the one time the public doesn't get buried for paying too much on a favorite as they tend to cover big numbers or lose outright. The Titans? I probably will protect just my investment on both bets with that one and lay the 3-1 on the Jags. Quite frankly I pretty much ignore playoffs most of the time. I mean why bother. You all know you will find a better investment on hoops or hockey this weekend so why do so many people insist on going overboard on inflated lines and overhyped games?
I saw an article recently that made a great point. The writer said if you are finding you are betting more money on the Bowl games than you are on an average regular season weekend of NCAA, then you are going overboard. You could say the same for the NFL playoffs.
WB,
I agree I don't like either team/totals either. My only question is TB that bad 14pts. I'm not sure so that means I don't bet. Jag's 7 pts already lost twice if winning three in a row was easy there would be alot of Triple Crown winners.
Paul
Bob Martin used to say the "books" never balance. I agree. If this is the case, how do the "sports books" keep from getting "sided"?
They dont most of the time. They just rely on the percentages to hold out for them over time like any other gambling game. If you lived in Vegas you would see a bunch of these free newspaper type publications like Gaming Today and Players Choice talking about the prior week and how the bookmakers, and hence the bettors did in the prior weeks football. Every book has a big decision or two to deal with. In these cases they can be thousands of dollars at risk, but remember, if a books at risk, the players as a group are at a bigger risk.
Say a game has attracted this action: Team A had 44,000 bet on them (to win 40,000) and Team B had 22,000 bet on them (to win 20,000) and the book left the line where it opened. This is what might be a key decision for the book. If Team A covers, the book loses 40,000, but collects 22,000 for a net 18,000 loss. If Team B covers, they win 44,000, but have to pay out 20,000 for a net 24,000 win. So you see, the book has to like its odds. They are "betting" 18,000 to win 24,000 and no game ever has true odds like that when you include a pointspread. In this scenario Team A would have to win 58% of the time for the book to be in a negative expectation and that just doesn't happen much. The players generally win a little bit more than their expected 50% due to their advantageous situation of choosing who to bet and the books having to take the action, but its close to no more than 51% of the money being on the right side. Note where the money is has all the importance and the winning percentage of all bettors matters little. Over the course of a football weekend, the books will have many games just like this, but with the added factor of some line movement working against them. Still they have other games that are guaranteed profit where they have balanced or come very close to balancing the books and a few games with small inbalances that give them a huge mathematical edge. Just think if one game had 220,000 on Team A (to win 200) and 165,000 on Team B (to win 150). In this case, the book is risking 35,000 to win 70,000, but has grossly inbalanced books. However there isnt a smart gambler in the world that wouldn't gladly take these odds. Thats why most offshore books these days say they gladly will take some wiseguy action and take all size wagers. If you get enough volume even bad inbalances are fine as the odds are clearly on your side and when you do get balance you are getting a nice margin on risk free action. This was the mindset of old Vegas, now it seems if you dont make theoretically what you should, they come looking for your head in all games as stockholders want perfectly predictable and consistent returns while the gaming business just cant offer that over a short-term. Thats why Vegas is slowly giving up the sports betting business. Slots and low limit table games give that consistent win, sports and big action dont.
WildBill,
Thanks for responding to my guestion. I don't think anyone could have given me a better explanation. Once again, thanks for great reply!
I was in the Caesars sports book when the Caesars sports book manager refused a $3000 bet from what appeared to be a tourist for an over in football, saying he was "loaded on the over." This is Caesars? Even God could not bet enough to put Caesars at risk. Take the bet with a smile and then move the line if necessary, sheesh.
-Abdul
I heard about this happening last year and big bettors all over town started to avoid Caesars. No phone accounts so you have to make the effort to go in the joint and if you get turned down you wasted your time. Within a week, their action dropped fast and they decided it wasn't worth it as you say they have little overall risk, and they were losing thousands to save hundreds. Word was that in an effort to pretty themselves up for their imminent sale, Caesars was making an all out effort to keep the numbers profitable to avoid future objections being raised by potential buyers. Now that the whole issue is done, they shouldn't be doing things like that, especially when the bet is within house limits as 3 dimes on football totals should be.
i am planning a trip to puerto rico in april. anyone know the best places to play poker - holdem. i have searched on the internet and only came up with two places - and they do not answer the phone. any other advise/help/interesting things about the area is appriciated/vano
try the other topics forum. this forum talks about blackjack and sports betting. and, in any case, you do not have a theory or strategy question.
scott
I noticed a thread about getting booted and asking why would anyone take your action. Well lots of incomplete information so I hope I can fill it in. First of all, Lem Banker is a long time bettor and yes he is interviewed often. As Lem put it to me and also on many radio shows, the reason why he doesnt get barred is he is almost always doing the books a favor. He tends to bet only into "moved" lines as he finds personally that outside of college basketball, most lines are fairly accurate. He figures that out of every 10 bets on sports other than college hoops, his bread and butter, that 7 of them are going against what he considers are overagressive line moves or moves that make the other side playable from a value standpoint. Many of the working pros as you might call them are in this exact same business. They are hunting for value and often it only comes after the line is moved. Many of them have no real interest on sides except if they see what they feel is a mistake with the number. Whereas most of the betting public goes out and says: the Rams will cover, guys like Lem will say, a good line is 13, if it goes to 14.5 or more I play the dog; if it goes to 11.5 I play the favorite. Its all numbers and getting value with them.
About getting booted itself. Well guys like Lem aren't really a threat. He bets enough to make a good living for himself. The threat is the syndicates. These are pools of investors and talent as they call it picking games. Rich people will back this talent with up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to go out and make some money. Much of the time these guys are doing no more than trying to pick off a few bad numbers and then middle the books with the rest of their plays. They are really well funded and are trying to make a living for many people as well as earn a nice return for investors. These guys are a threat because they are trying to win 20 times what Lem is trying to win and most of it is exactly the action the books dont want. When you are out to middle a book, you are thought of as worthless action. Lem doesn't go out looking to take both sides and middle, he is just taking value as its presented and letting the percentages pay him off in the long run. He is often helping the book when they get bombarded by a side and taking off some of their risk. This is something the big syndicates are rarely in the position of doing. Thats why the books got the legislature to pass the law against runners and cell phones/pagers. The syndicates were just there to take their money as the books saw it and they weren't about to give it up that easily any more when the syndicates were taking all that much risk as it was with all the middles they played. Therefore most of the people that have been barred from the bigger books are just the guys that are thought to be part of a syndicate. Jim Feist wrote in his book that he saw a list of the people they don't take action from and nobody has heard of any of these guys. My opinion is that they are probably aliases or major bet runners.
All the talk of "wise guys" and "smart money" is overexaggerated. Sure they exist, but they are just a part of the scene. I don't know how or why Abdul or the others got barred for such small bets and from what I understand the only thing now days is that they wont let what they consider a smart player have a phone account. This is because smart players tend to shop for numbers very religiously and the books just detest the concept that they are getting smarter players action only when they have the weakest number. This one is a bit greedy on their part, but most smart players can still walk into a book and make a limit wager with few problems. I don't know where all these misconceptions came up, but the reality isn't half what I have read on here. Most books can only figure out who is really beating them if you have a phone account or if you are betting amounts that require you to provide ID due to currency regulations. Besides, say you win $80,000 in this town each year betting sports. Chances are no one book absorbed more than $20,000 of it. You are shopping and playing many outlets and no one book is going to get crushed by your action individually.
They bar BJ players because thats a one-sided affair, you win or the house wins. Sports isn't so one sided so they are very careful only to bar the people they are at risk to the most and who provide little shot at their bankrolls anyways.
I'm not barred from sports betting anywhere; one casino merely severely limits my parlay card action per week and changed the fine print rules on the back of their card because of me.
My wiseguy friend keeps saying "be careful," and he knows a lot more about this subject than anyone here, I think.
Keep in mind that Treasure Island and presumably the rest of the Mirage Resorts properties and probably other casinos do keep track of your overall net winnings and handle if you use a rating card for your sports bets. That's one way you can get the ax. My friend nails them pretty good on parlay cards sometimes, and his betting parlay cards only hurts the sports books since they can't use the information. Finally, while he is waiting to get approval for a bet on sides, when the manager hears what bet he wants, the manager often moves the line on him to -120, so the manager gets the benefit of his information without having to take his action.
Casino management is totally irrational and immoral in their quest to avoid losing. I've seen this over and over in other arenas. I do not expect more sanity in the sports books.
An example. At Golden Gate, the pit boss was sweating the $25 single deck blackjack table. The dealer was shuffling as I sat down. After the first round to 3 spots, the running count went to +2, no one changed their bets, and the pot boss said to the dealer "shuffle." She said, "huh?" He said, "shuffle." She proceeded to deal the first card to the first player. He screamed, "SHUFFLE! SHUFFLE! SHUFFLE! SHUFFLE!!!!" and grabbed back the card, which has got to be illegal, and made her shuffle. The Golden Gate also reportedly got in trouble (a slap on the wrist) for using loaded dice on their craps table.
-Abdul
Come on the Golden Gate doesn't count its a break in place where everyone is afraid for their jobs! Honestly though, you are crazy to try to get much of an edge in that joint. Action bigger than 2 nickels is big money there so if you are playing quarters, you will be remember for quite some time and scrutinized. I am far from a pro counting cards, but I do it on occasion as a minor hobby and I do know that is one place I would never go considering the lack of big bettor cover you will get there.
As for the barrings, Abdul I know some of the biggest bettors in town and they tell me that this is how it is. Don't be a middler and don't do things that make the book feel like they are just getting "used" by you and they don't care much about your action. By nature of limits and how things are done in this town...your buddy should NEVER have what you said happen to him. If you are the sharpest player in town, you should be able to walk up to a window and bet up to the house limit on a game, no questions asked. If you want to go over that limit, then they can move it on you. This coincidental action might happen very occasionally if you buddy is betting with a line move or is betting something that might have been moved elsewhere in town and the book is "moving on air" (moving the line cause it has moved elsewhere, but they still haven't gotten the action to justify a move). Solid players often bet up to the last minute before a game and line moves can be common then, but believe me, never should it occur that anyone that is allowed to place a bet in a book, have the line moved on him just because he is personally making a bet for house limit or less. Its just customary and bad manners for a book to do otherwise and I would have heard about it. The word would go around so fast if you were getting moved on before getting down a wager and big players would boycott that house until they got their act straight. Despite what most people think, most books wouldn't want just small time nickel and dime players because their handle wouldn't justify their costs and their risks would be huge. Imagine a day where say 12 out of 14 favorites cover and 13 out of 14 games go over. It happened a few years back and it was a bloodbath for the books, worst weekend ever they called it. Well if it was just nickel and dime players and no wise guys to temper the action, there would have been quite a few books put out of business by a weekend like that. The casino would just say forget it, we don't make enough money over the course of a year to justify a book if a weekend like that is always a possibility. I am sure lots of bettors have a paranoia about these things, but they are mostly unfounded. Maybe 100 people in this town have been probably barred from the books, but there are others that still might take their action. Further if they don't get down much here, the Caribbean and Costa Rica will gladly take some of their action too. As far as your experience with parlay cards, well if you ask me you are an idiot for betting there anymore. Any book that wants to limit action on big money making parlay cards from anyone is probably underfunded and I don't know if I want to take a chance of breaking them if I have a huge day. If you stick to the biggest shops in town, not one of them will ever even dream of doing that to you and I guarantee that. If you people don't believe me, go into a big book sometime during a quiet period, say early afternoon of a weekday and ask to talk to the manager. Most of the time the guy calling the shots on this type of matter is just doing nothing, looking over numbers and would be happy to talk to you about this. Ask him what his policy is on barring bettors. Put all these misconceptions in front of him and you will see, they really don't care. For the most part the winning bettors are just taking from the losers just like its supposed to be. Most of all, tell him you have been told your parlay action has been limited elsewhere and see if he laughs. He probably will tell you the same exact thing I did, avoid that book, they could be in trouble.
WildBill writes :
"Despite what most people think, most books wouldn't want just small time nickel and dime players..."
when you say small time nickel and dime players - are you referring to $5 and $10 or $500 and $1000?
In sports betting parlance nickels are $500, dimes are $1000, dollars are $100...dont ask me why it goes in reverse like that. A big dime is $10,000, a big nickel is $5,000.
Last summer I opened an account with the Hilton.My 1st call I asked what their limit was on baseball totals,I was told $500 on the phone $1000 at the window .I asked whats the difference my moneys up?They wouldn't give me a reason.After about 2 days evertime I played the clerk would yell out my name and play. After about a week I would be put on hold for1 1-3 minutes.I got pissed and asked for the manager,he told me(very belligerantly)you'll hang on as long as i say you will,you'll never beat me to another number again".I cashed out my account with a big 1250$ profit. Class act Hilton.Nice way to do buisness.
Well there's the modern Las Vegas for you. Guess what, you made a big mistake, but how could you have known. You see first thing to do when you open a phone account is give them some small shit. Kind of like avoiding heat in BJ. Play some real small limit parlays and don't touch the things they fear, baseball and NBA totals. Don't ask about limits, dont do anything for a week or two. You see they are so paranoid these days that you are either sharp or more likely, you are betting for someone else. Most books can spot smart action almost instantly during those first few days when they have their eye out for you. I have been making money at sports for 9 years straight and guess what people, I haven't had an account closed on me anywhere! I generally don't play that big, nickels is my usual unit, but still winning that consistently would make you think the cutoff call is coming soon. When I first opened my Mirage account, I was just making their day. I bet a $10 3 teamer! I followed that up by betting 3 big favorites in the NFL for $33 each. How long do you think it took for me to get on their A-list of good customers? Little did they know, I just used the phone for a current rundown and walked over and bet three games with them for a nickel each. Further I systematically added $500 every four or five days until I had over 2 dimes in there, then I started making real bets. Someone suggested to me I do this and hey I never heard a bad word about it. I did this for all the accounts I have and I can call up at 9:59 Sunday morning and I never go on hold! Give up a little, get a lot, was well worth the camoflauge.
With all due respect it's much easier to take your action elsewhere then to go through all that.Any real bookie will tell you when you have the volume of those casinos with all players putting money up front,you have no reason to limit action that's what the big island offices do,basically solicit wise guy buisness,put the line up bet what you want,see if you can win.If you want to bet 10,000 on a nba total(i'm not saying i do) fine, that's the proper way to do buisness.
Hey no arguments with you there. Thats why I also have 5 offshore accounts too. They solicit the business because they get a better assortment of amateurs into their books. Vegas gets the guy who is betting 20 bucks on a game and sitting in his book all night to cheer that game on, the offshore guys get people that were going through bookies and bet $500 a game, and they don't have to give him a place to watch it. The economic edges are huge and I personally don't think the Nevada books will be around much longer as they are now unless they can get the government to allow them to have out of state accounts. If not, they will start looking like Leroy's with one little window and two small boards, much like what NY NY has done from its previous situation of having a full size book to a keno sized book now.
ok. i don't know anything. my parents have their money in various mutual funds, money markets, whatever. my mom's dad crushed the market his whole life. he was real good. arbitrage, etc. he died a year before i was born and despite his best efforts to teach her, my mom never cared. that is until now. she is sure that, if she knew what she was doing, she could far outperform the mutual funds. i am the math guy. we decide it would be fun to do this together. but neither of us know anything. we are playing with $5000. if we lose it all that happens is that we don't get to play anymore. if we beat the mutual funds for a couple years we might be allowed to work with the real money. we don't know where to begin, so i am coming to you guys for help.
what are the things that you look for in companies? why? i would like any help that anyone here can offer.
scott
The market is efficient. Buy a no load mutual fund and go to sleep.
the index funds always beat the mutual funds in general. less fees and the mutual funds will do things with your money that would make you puck just to attract more investors. any decent stock picker can beat the mutual funds. i like to find a company i know alot about. then i wait until i see a change is on its way. then i buy it or short it depending on the change. i hold my position until things sort themselves out. once in a while i buy a stock that is highly recommended by someone that i value their opinion. then after awhile i sell it at a loss. for short term buys go with stocks that the dumb public is betting on. for long term go with what i said above. if you wont do the reasearch then buy an index fund from vangard and hold it forever. try not to sell for 18 months to pay small capital gains on stocks. tend to buy on rumors and sell when the news is confirmed. dont buy from full service brokers as the fees are terrible and their advice is suspect. read then read some more. i hold alot of stocks. i only bought one stock this year and bought alot of it. semitool at $8 a share. now its at 26. i was lucky, and smart. it will fluctuate alot and ill sell it when the reasons i bought it change.
I read that some studies have proven that both a blindfolded man throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal and a monkey pointing his pen at the Journal can outperform 90% of all experts (stockbrokers and fund managers). What do you think of the strategy of holding index funds long for the long term and occassionaly buying puts everytime the underlying market is wwwwaaaayyyyy overbought? In your opinion, would this allow you to beat a pure buy and hold the index fund approach?
in effect the argument you bring up is based on the rational expectations school of economics. The theory being that information about stocks is so perfect that all fluctuations are based on random (to the investor) instantaneous shocks to the system. So, purchasing based on underlying assumptions is a fallacious method of investing because it assumes that the market is in error. Alan Greenspan in 1997 said that the market was "in due course headed for a substantial adjustment". This scared down indexes for several monthes, but this was when the dow was in the low 9k's.
the buy and hold method assumes long-term growth. This should be uniform across securities.
alex.
throwing darts will not beat the experts, but will beat the experts minus the commissions and trading costs and trades they must make to bring in new customers. if you can truly identify when its overbought then buying puts will make money if you are right and it corrects fairly promptly. the problem is that for many years the market is not following logic. people have thrown out fundamentals on growth stocks. im not sure you can guess when things will fall into place. certainly not as long as the abundence of money continues. i would go for the strategy of holding index funds and selling out half every time the fed raises rates three times in a row. then buy back in at the first change down. better yet just hold them if you have a long term time frame. still nothing beats buying stock in only companies you know alot about and making your move when you see a change.
I think that that move would be at best ill-advised. Information about the federal reserve open operations is factored into the market values instantaneously, and even sooner. Selling after three raises in the rates is ill-advised because the market has already compensated for what that will mean in long-term earnings into the price. In fact, one might consider the current climate of worrying about inflation and the recent rake hike to be a good climate to buy.
You've mentioned "change" several times. Could you give me an example or two of what you're refering to?
anything that will affect the company one way or another. maybe a new ceo thats good. or their orders are picking up. maybe their products are starting to be in vogue. small companies are not followed by analysts too much and if you do some research you can get way ahead of the public.
Do you (really personally) get interest on the proceeds from your short sales?
The problem I have with your (abbreviated exposition of) advice is the failure to compare strategies with similar risk profiles. For example, an undiversified portfolio is risky. If you are comfortable with a high level of risk then you could alternatively leverage Vanguard's index fund and get more money in action. Similarly, instead of buying a put option you could short the stock and avoid the volatility risk. It is not enough to be right, you want to make the most money for your level of risk (just as you want to get the most value out of your poker hands).
As you noted, active strategies can cause tax problems.
What Ray said about Index funds. The "big boys" have a hard time overcoming the vig they induce so pretty much ignore managed funds.
www.fool.com has some intro tutorial pages that might be a good place to start if you need a basic starting place.
Good luck.
But this is not the type of post you'd be writing or reading if the market were about to go up a lot and make everyone a lot of money.
You are fighting a built-in "house percentage"--commissions. Even if you use online discount brokers the fees add up. The thing is, what you should do is take a position in a couple or three stocks and hang on to them, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't do that since this sounds like more of a lark and it's fun to buy and sell--and buy, and sell. Your mother is out of her tree when she says she can "outperform the mutual funds". The people who run the funds have access to info you and she will never see, plus years of expertise, plus the large resources needed to take advantage of favorable situations in the markets. If she really can outperform them I suggest she go straight to Dreyfus and have them hire her on as a fund manager, she'll earn more than your $10,000 ever could. But back to reality... Mutual funds are really the way to go with your $10,000 "bankroll". The best aggressive, "growth" funds are outperforming the market, which itself is moving right along. I own Fidelity OTC, which has appreciated 66% in 1999 and another 30% since the beginning of the year. Riskier than a "growth" fund, but offering a better potential return, would be a "developing markets" fund; one that invests in places like Vietnam, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc. You wouldn't think so, but for 1997-1999 these posted the highest returns of any type of mutual funds. 1. Don't over-trade, don't get arrogant, don't think you can "outsmart 'em". You can't. This doesn't rule out blind luck, of course. 2. Buy mutual funds. They have resources you don't--it's that simple. 3. If you feel you can comfortably lose the whole investment without too much pain---then choose the most aggressive fund you can---one that assumes substantial risk for the possibility of big gains. And don't panic at a cyclical downturn, even if it lasts for monthe. Stocks--and mutual funds--are investments for the long haul.
o.k. the biggest secret let out. I'm no longer a broker but I'll still adhere to the disclosure rules. I own Hutchison Tech. LEAPS. This company makes the heads that read hard disks. They have something like 65% market share. They're hightech but not sexy, i.e. not an internet business or Enterprise software firm. Mutual Funds only own about 20% of outstanding shares and there's only 6 million shares in the public float. The stock has been lazy lately and not nearly as volatile. Because of this decrease in volatility the premium on their LEAPS (longterm options - 3 years)is smaller in relation to the price of the leaps than it has been when they were first issued late last year. The company is not a new one and its future is anything but certain. But this is my favorite play currently. I'm positive that the stock will go through the strike price of 25 before the end of summer and if it doesn't these are 3 year options so dumping them with a little over 2 years on the option doesn't cost as much as a typical, 3 month option because the time premium adds value to the option.
Anyway not to specifically say buy HTCH LEAPS but LEAPS in general are good ways to play the market, get a little leverage and the time horizon, if this market keeps up, of 3 years is probably 3 to 6 times longer (maybe more) than what you're thinking. Another good thing about options(both regular and LEAPS) is that only heavily followed, liquid companies have options to trade, even fewer have LEAPS. So you at least automatically keep yourself away from 2 dollar stocks with company headquarters in Boca Raton where everybody on the board is related.
Another recommendation: TWA, at 3 bucks a share it's not going to get much cheaper and does anyone think this company's going to bankrupt itself. Nowhere to go but up. I Don't own any TWA.
Another recommendation: TWA, at 3 bucks a share it's not going to get much cheaper and does anyone think this company's going to bankrupt itself. Nowhere to go but up. I Don't own any TWA.
Thanks for the tip on TWA. I will be SHORTING this stock first thing tomorrow morning.
Short it all you want. I don't give a shit. I don't own it and I'm not short the stock. What do you care? I was responding to a the above posts with an honest opinion.
What the F*&^%* is your problem? Are you some kind of idiot? You have no reason to be confrontational with me. You must be just another cyber idiot that puffs out his chest in cyberspace but wouldn't have the balls or inclination to be so confrontational in person.
By the way moron. It'd be a little difficult to borrow the shares to short TWA. Besides the short interest to the float ratio is substantially above the general market, and even above the transportation sector as a whole, and specifically above the airline industry's average. Not that there is a short squeeze in the works but I tend to be cautious about what I buy in the market.
Sorry, I didn't know you were so sensitive. Excuse me for disagreeing. We'll see who's right a year from now.
1) what to look for in a company.
depends on whether you are looking to trade often, or not so often. A speculative investor will look for a u-shaped pricing curve that has started to pick up, or base purchasing on anticipated media exposure or the like. A long-term investor will examine things such as P-E ratio, market share, read strategy reports, asset analyses, and so on.
2) why?
Now, here's the thing. The stock market is efficient. But people are dumb. And dumb people own and now trade a lot of stocks. Don't beat the market, beat the dumb people. I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about it you play poker.
doc d
This is the second person that said the markets are efficient. Hogwash.
If it was easy everyone would be picking stocks and making a fortune. There is no exact formula but I like stocks that have a lot of growth potential. I also believe that you should shy away from reading books on trading and concentrate more on books with an academic bent such as A Random Walk Down Wall Street, books on Portfolio Theory, and fundamental analysis. I would recommend the Motley Fool site as well. Index funds aren't a bad way to go as the NASDAQ 100 was up about 85% I believe last year.
If I were you I would just start reading Investors Business Daily every day. In a while you will get the right ideas. (This is the best investment publication on the planet.)
Ok, hate to ruin everyone's party, but one thing you NEVER see in threads like this or anywhere in the financial press is that stocks and their prices is merely a case study in the principles of supply and demand.
Right now more money is being thrown into stocks than ever due to helpful regulations that encourage ownership of stock for retirement purposes. Add to that the consistently low interest rate environment (even now its very low on a historical basis) and stocks are bound to rise. As interest rates rise and new companies are constantly looking to make their founders and investors massive fortunes, things will someday turn. Not to say that there still won't be winners and losers in the market, its just that right now continual increases in money coming in can't keep up with the amazing number of businesses being spun off or going public. When almost all insurers, some of the largest businesses in this country, want to go public, thats a sign to me that the supply side is quickly catching up to the demand side.
The government isn't going to allow us to pump any more money into our retirement accounts as they are losing big tax dollars right now. People are already in mind-bending debt to invest in this market as stocks were generally meant to be invested in with savings, not borrowings and margin debt is outrageously high now. Further most of these investors are not trained in bear markets or even prolonged corrections. Buy on dips is all they know.
Once again, I am not about to offer advice, just point out that one should never forget the dynamics about the market itself. Does a company have a story and product line compelling enough to draw buyers of its shares? Is the opposite true? Thats the bottom line on if a stock will go up or down. Sure some analysis is doing this in a backward way, but never lose sight of this simple principle.
Hey Wild Bill it might interest you to know that 60+ percent of the NYSE traded stocks declined in price last year. Also over 50% of the NASDAQ stocks declined in price. I dare say that the demand for those 60% on the NYSE was a lot less than the supply. And yet liquidity is still very good partly due to retirement money. Of course this situation has been in existance for a long time. Another fact is that stocks have out performed investment vehicles like bonds by a wide margin for a long time. With that said I agree that reading IBD will not cut the mustard and if I followed every trading BS rule that I hear I wouldn't have the portfolio I have today not even close. When people espouse strategies for trading to me all I ever ask is, is to see the proof. I've tried day trading, tried intermediate term trading, tried investing. Like the latter the best.
Hmmm, let's get this straight. You are at an Ivy League university with a top business school. But instead of taking courses in finance or investments, you post on a gambling page for investment advice. Perhaps you go to your humanities professors for poker tips? You deserve the wretched advice you have requested.
i don't think that scott is interested in wasting his precious class time in a university on learning how to make money. he can still be interested in it as a hobby though, can't he?
after all, no one blames you for your hobby of selling atomic secrets to the PRC.
a.
Ok, that was a bit uncalled for on the PRC part, but hey most people going to Ivy League schools and such are going for one reason...MONEY! The stock market is where most of it is so they head there. Posting on a gambling site isn't unreasonable as most people treat the stock market like a casino. They are there to strike it rich and buy a new SUV or take a cruise. I don't know if this is the best place to ask for investment advice, but showing from the level of responses and lots of responses from usual non-posters, I guess he found a receptive forum.
Hey, I'm a humanities professor at scott's school, and we HAVE discussed poker with each other. Your post is ignorant on many fronts. For example, you don't understand the process of undergrad curriculum at all. College isn't like that Rodney Dangerfield movie, where you can run off and take whatever class you feel like. There's a strict major and core group of classes that declared majors have to take. scott is not a business major, therefore he may not be able to take any Finance sections. Second of all, the advice he's received hasn't all been 'wretched' (with the exception of those posts by Cisco). In fact, he's received one good bit of advice: Go to fool.com and start reading up on the basics.
To be honest, some posters here have just as little knowledge of poker as they do of the market. What's wrong with the free flow of ideas, even if it's sometimes lousy? If you really want bad advice on the stock market, try the AOL or Yahoo message boards. They're overrun by the ignorant.
shooter
I was a (visiting) finance professor there. Scott doesn't know the right questions to ask, and doesn't even seem to know that he doesn't know.
Would the internet provide an effective foundation of education in your discipline? In finance the answer is no.
"I was a (visiting) finance professor there. Scott doesn't know the right questions to ask, and doesn't even seem to know that he doesn't know."
But he has the most important step taken care of already: The desire to learn. Rather than point him in the right direction, your first post to him was condescending and not at all helpful. And let's face facts: with the current economy, it's not a fatal mistake to get your feet wet in the market while learning the ropes. I've only been investing for 2 years, and when I called my father (who spent 30 years as a trader on the floor of the NYSE) for initial advice he told me to jump in, have fun, take some chances, and I gained 25% in the first 3 months while learning the basics.
shooter
All of you sports experts,
What % of bets do you win/what edge do you have on your action? I am curious about these things, as betting $500 on a game seems like a lot of $, but it only translates to $5 per percent edge, so it's not really a lot of profit unless one can achieve a very high win rate. If one can achieve a very high win rate (like 10%), then lots of lesser skilled players can achieve a modestly high win rate and collectively be very dangerous to a sports book...
Any thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
much of the edge the best sports bettors get is from getting the best lines by betting all over the country and world. they(some) also manipulate the lines to their benefit to the detriment of others that may follow them. the win rate is only a couple of % for most over the juice. you have to bet alot and find many good spots. when they find a great situation they bet so much your eyes pop out of your head. most sports bettors get broke thru fluctuations short term and the vig gets them over time.
Nobody beats sports. OK, a few 80 hour a week professionals might grind out a few bucks but for the most part just forget about it.
Actually there is a way to beat sports. Start yourself a small book. Limit your customers wagers to X dollars and ENCOURAGE parlays. Budget enough money for a season. At the end of the year you will have a 90% chance of success and a lot of fun. Every week will be different because you will have no idea who you are going to be rooting for. Let your idiot customers (friends) decide for you.
Yeah, only a few thousand people beat sports! How silly, its not that hard to beat sports itself, its the game that beats most otherwise successful players. Just as Ray points out, the fluctuation wipes out many a good gambler in all games that offer a potential edge. How many of the poker players in the upstairs section of Bellagio can truly afford their stakes? I was thinking about this a week ago when they started up a 800-1600 game (stud if I remember correctly). If it was Stud, then figure the high limit games you are told you need much more than the common 300 big bet bankroll so say 500 BB necessary. So you are looking at needing $800,000 to play this game. How many of those winning players have that to drop on a game? Well its the same in sports. Keeping 50-100 units minimum BR and staying off tilt so to speak and you should be fine. If you see someone betting 5 dimes in a book though, think he better have at least $250,000 to safely bet that. Do you think he does? Probably not. So same concept. The math if you pick 56% winners, not easy, but not world beating either, is that for each bet you would expect to make about 7% over the long run. Say you need $2500 to live (and pay your taxes of course), then you need to make $35,000 in bets at that edge each month. If you bet 3 games a day on average, then that is about $1,200/play. Multiply it by 50 units and $60,000 is your necessary BR. Well the fact is that many of these sports bettors come to town with closer to $10,000 so they are just a bad fluctuation from being deposited back where they came from. Play too little and you can't make a game of it. Play with too small a BR and your fluctuation, plus what a bad streak does to your mind will put you out real fast. Yes few people beat sports to the point of living, but many of us are successful amateurs like me that win money each and every year, we just have other ways to earn a living.
OK. I'll concede that you MAY beat sports. Answer me this. How many hours a week do you spend doing this and what is your hourly rate. This includes of course all of the hours you spend WATCHING the games.
I think I make about 7 cents per hour. :)
-Abdul
Abdul. Is sports betting a serious pursuit for you or just a hobby? Why don't you try horseracing instead? Have you looked into it? I have tried both in the distant past and had much more success with the ponies.
I'm very serious about sports betting, but it's a new thing for me, and I haven't yet had any real success.
I can't make heads or tails of horse racing. Doesn't the 20+% vig make it a bit tough to beat? Also, it's hard to get down huge bets and still have an edge in horse racing, so the exponential growth in sports should be better.
-Abdul
There are mathematical discrepancies in horseracing which I'm sure you could figure out and perhaps exploit better than most. Also a plethora of pretty cool books. But both "hobbies" are super tough. Impossible compared to poker. Poker--you just sit down--play--take the money. With these two games you have to do a lot of homework. If you want to get big bets down though without taking any heat whatsover, then you should be looking into the stock market. A math experts paradise.
Abdul, are you not making any money cause they are barring your parlay card action? Haha...
About horse racing...one thing I have learned over the years is that math is not the way to beat the game. Many people have tried, but they come to realize that the house take, plus the pari-mutuel nature just eat up edges. After all, how much of an edge do you think you can find in math? Even if you found a 25% edge, with the track taking 20% plus your bets eating up some of your edge, well you aren't making anything. The few successful horse players I know of are more pyschological in their analysis. They are able to get into the minds of the trainers and the owners. They see opportunities as they are set up by the horsemen. Sure there is some mathematical type analysis, but much of the biggest edges they find is when they "read" the situation and figure out where a horse is primed for a breakout effort through his recent history and types of races he has run, and often they hit at very attractive odds.
I tried to bet $1000 on Rams (-7) and the over (22) in the first half of the Rams/Bucs game at Harrah's in Tahoe this weekend. They told me to get lost, and would not take my bet....and ignored me when I asked why.
So, my question to you is ... why?
Thanks to them, I saved myself $1000 !
the bet was a two team parlay (in case it wasn't clear from my first post)
They are stupid.
Well most places in Vegas will take that but Northern Nevada is known to be a bit tight on sports bets. Its easy to understand why they won't take a half to game parlay as they don't do that anywhere really, but when you are doing a half to half parlay they should allow it. The thinking could be that the two events are just too dependent on each other, but in this case you are going against the theory as someone would think that if the Rams cover the -7, with only an over of 22 that the odds are much in favor of it going over. If the Bucs just managed 7 points then for you to cover it would have to go over and I could understand the thinking in that, but since you were going against it, I guess its just that book was being tight about halftime bets period.
Most casinos do not allow parlays of the side and total on the same game for the first half. Bellagio/Mirage does not. Orleans did, but then put up a sign a few weeks ago saying they do not. Caesars won't do it for big bucks or if you are a known wiseguy. Harrahs (Vegas) does not. Stardust management has a total fit if you try and normally will not allow it.
The reason should be obvious.
-Abdul
why would they not allow side/total parlays in 1st half, but will allow it for the game?
For one thing, the first half can end at 0-0 or other ties.
-Abdul
i don't get it - please pardon my stupidity and explain in further detail, if you please.
Suppose the superbowl were Rams vs Dolphins, and Abdul's Sports Emporium offers a line for the first two minutes of the game: Rams -0.5, over/under 2. You think the lines are totally fair and there is no edge. But you want some action just for fun, so you go up to the window at Abdul's Sports Emporium and say, "Parlay of Dolphins first two minutes +0.5 and under 2 for $1000, please." The Arab sportsbook manager replies, "Get lost. We don't want your action. If you come back, you'll be arrested for trespassing. SECURITY! Show him to the door!" Now do you understand what has made this Arab's blood boil?
-Abdul
Come on Abdul do a better job than that of explaining things! There are a few reasons for a book not wanting to take the action. First is as I mentioned before, the two events are much more dependent in just a half's time. If the teams are not that far apart in number, then its not that big of an issue. Most books just put up a ML instead of a spread and that helps in this case too. However, when its Rams 7 and 22, well they have a problem. In this case you would have much greater than usual odds of covering a parlay. Think about it, if the Rams cover the 7 points, then possible combinations where they don't go over 22 aren't that numerous. Basically it would require the Rams to hold the Bucs to 2 FG's or less, while not scoring more than 14 themselves...its a narrow window where one side covers, but the total doesn't go in logical order with it. Basically you are getting 13-5 on something that is more like maybe 7-5 as you just really have to decide, when the game is a high spread, if the favorite will cover or if it will be a low scoring half and then take the dog and the under. This factor does apply somewhat for full games too and you will see some books not allow side to total parlays. Cleveland games earlier this year had that as their Jax game was +17/37, a situation where if the Jags covered they would be somewhat likely to go over and if you liked the under, those points would be very useful. However a half gives much less time and much more dependent situations.
A second reason, not obvious to a not so skilled or lesser player is that big favorites generally have a huge edge in first half bets. This is because when you lay points with a team you are always vulnerable to a backdoor cover. Well teams don't let up at the end of the first half but do at the end of a game. Usually a first half number would just be half the game number, but in the last two years, the books have caught on and make you pay a premium, sometimes pretty big, to compensate for this factor. I noticed some games this year where an 13 point favorite was -7.5 for the first half, an obvious overadjustment. So the books are afraid that you will be betting into a favorable situation and in this one you almost certainly will bet the over because even though you could lose the total part, if you like the favorite you almost have to parlay the total with it if you can due to value. Knowledgeable hockey bettors know that when there is a low total and they are betting a favorite giving up half goals, there often is value in taking the over and the opposite is true, taking the dog and the under.
The last factor is an obvious one these days. Anything that smacks of an edge for the player is disallowed. As I pointed out in my posting about ML for the NBA, the book only offers bets it thinks it has to or bets it has a big edge with. I will write a post later about some sucker future pools I saw this weekend to further highlight this fact. Yes Vegas and the sports betting world is much different than it was back in 94 when I left town. Back then places were jockeying for nickel baseball lines, limits of 6 figures for NFL were pretty standard at the big houses, and most of all, none of this pooled book crap was around. Leroys and the Mirage/TI/GN combo were the only pooled books, now it seems like Vegas will soon only have maybe 5 different places to get a bet down and of course none of them are going to offer you something that you might beat them at. Guess its like BJ or poker, the game is so good until it draws in too many solid players and then games become tighter with fewer profitable opportunities. Even offshore isn't so accomodating anymore...sad really.
Abdul and WildBill - thank you for your time and explanations.
You will never see a pro sports bettor walk up to a vegas window and place a bet today.All smart money now is going to the islands or illegal books,where the books are willing to gamble.It's pretty sick that a bartender will take more on a college basketball game then vegas books.
Thats not true, many of them come in now out of necessity. You didn't see it a couple of years ago, but they all got their phone accounts cut off. While many of them do put lots of money down offshore, there still are good numbers to be had in Nevada and with the internet posting them for us to compare, these guys are out betting them in person. What you don't see are syndicates out here. They have been barred from many books and besides, none of them really bet much anyways, they just used runners. And don't tell me you think that runners have really been stopped, I still see guys that were obvious runners a few years ago, they just don't make it so damn obvious anymore. I mean that law has to be as unconstitutional as can be, its just no one has bothered to challenge it. Go into the Stardust on a Sunday night and watch the lottery. Tell me you think all those guys in line with clipboards are just tourists gambling 5 dimes a game! These same guys you also see lined up at the Plaza on Tuesday night and the Hiltons on Thursday for nickel vig action. They certainly would be classified as pros by most people.
I was at the Orleans today and saw that all of a sudden, they widened the spread on the NBA money lines! Maybe they were getting beat or maybe they read this board and realized we were on the verge of discovering how to beat them...haha! Oh well, when last week the Spurs were -450/+375 and now today the Blazers are -460/+350 guess that should go to show that these are beatable or else Coast Resorts just figured out there are more gullible people out there willing to take a worse number. Once again, Vegas prolongs its drive into the ground and away from being a place for knowlegeable sports bettors.
'Or else Coast Resorts just figured out there are more gullible people out there willing to take a worse number' I believe you've got it.This is happenning all over Vegas in all areas of advantage play.The number of fools with money far out weighs the wise guys.The local places know that 5000 fools are moving here a month,why cater to the wise guy.They make more money with the fool without the headaches.The Orleans is a great example they have systematically cut value and the place is booming.
I personally found it pretty incredible that not too long ago, it was suspected that Orin Hatch the Utah Senator, was going to be a sponsor for the NCAA bill that would ban college sports betting and yet now he is supposedly the strongest opponent of the bill outside the obvious choices being the two Nevada Senators. A staunchly religious man opposed to gambling of any kind supporting legal gambling. Goes to show what money will buy I guess....
On another note, I came up with an idea that maybe people might discuss. I wrote it out to Buzz Daly and he said he would mention it in his paper. I was thinking back a few months ago about the riots in Seattle over the WTO. Everyone was getting upset that the laws of the US could be overturned. Well I got to thinking, if they can overturn our environmental laws, maybe they could overturn our anti-gambling laws too. I mean why shouldn't Costa Rica with their large offshore gambling industry sue the US government for interferring with legal (at least in Costa Rica) international trade? I admit to knowing little about the scope of what types of issues the WTO can cover and I have sent out a few unanswered E-mails to legal experts hoping to get some idea. Maybe someone on here knows more. Is this an issue that the WTO could possibly overturn?
How do these offshore books odds compare to the bookmakers odds in England? Especially for the Presidential race?
I have no idea, guess if I bothered I could find others, I hear lots of offshore places have them. Most just treat these like any other future book, they take a bet then move down the odds without moving up the odds on the others. Basically they want no real action on it, just lots of profit. I remember I was down in Ensenada a few years back for Final 4 weekend and they had some odds posted for the Oscars. Those were the most ridiculous things I had ever seen. For best film five nominees...one was 1-5, another was 4-5, another was 8-5, the other two that clearly had no shot in hell were 5-1 and 8-1. Someone figure out the house edge on that pool! I saw another sheet that had the opening odds, the favorite was 3-5, the second choice was 5-2, the third was 4-1, the last two still 5 and 8. So they got action on three and dropped the odds, didn't raise anything a bit though. Who bets on these things and gives the house incentive to do such things?
Oh well, all those Caliente books are known for being among the worst deals in all of the legal sports betting world. I know that there you WILL get the line moved on you when you even start to ruffle benjamins and to top it off, the nice government of Mexico will let you off with "only" paying a tax of 1.5% of your winnings. I mentioned how outrageous that was and a manager said, well its better than the betting tax in England! I can only imagine if sports books keep consolidating until there is no competition, then conditions like those offered by Caliente will be forced upon us. This is a book that made a big deal about lowering their baseball line to a 15 cent line...provided the favorite isn't over -150! I wanted to call my offshore books and get down a bet, but what do you know, I couldn't get through on Telmex to the Caribbean and they laughed at me when I inquired about a toll free line from Mexico (unfortunately this was before internet betting). I finally got some bets down as I watched in horror as the phone just ate up my pesos on my calling card when I did get through to Costa Rica (15 pesos a min, at the time about $2/min). Still though, that was a better deal than betting with Caliente and paying the tax after having to deal with laying an extra half point. Yes things aren't that great here in Nevada, but it could be worse and I use that weekend to remind myself of that!
they had some odds posted for the Oscars. Those were the most ridiculous things I had ever seen. For best film five nominees...one was 1-5, another was 4-5, another was 8-5, the other two that clearly had no shot in hell were 5-1 and 8-1. Someone figure out the house edge on that pool!
105%
Nice business if you can get it...one can only imagine how much the owners of Caliente paid off to the Mexican government to be basically the only sports book in Mexico. 105% obviously helps.
TWIMC,
I like the Rams plainly because I saw the Titans live in Miami on Nov. 7th 1999 and they stunk. Miami 17 Titans 0. Now I know this is only one game, but take away their breaks that they have gotten and what do you have a mediocre team. Everybody I talk to tells me about destiny and all this other BS. My reply to them if destiny was that important wouldn't Buffalo or Minnesota have won a Superbowl (SB) by now. Thigpen and other key injuries safety. I could go on but everyone has there own theory on who will win because it's the SB.
Rams 44 Titans 10.
Good Luck Paul
I just like to put it this way, if the Rams played in an AFC division, they do no better than 10-6. The NFC isn't even in the class of the AFC this year and the Rams only had to play 4 AFC teams this year, with Cleveland and Cincinnati among them. Tampa Bay would be at best the 4th or 5th best team in the AFC, and the Rams needed all the help in the world from a legally blind referee to help them out, yet people are willing to overlook all this and bet them up. Suckers I tell you. Not necessarily that the Rams are a bad team, but I just can't explain this line after the Titans went on the road and beat two of the best teams in tough stadiums after trailing at halftime, and yet now I see so much written about how this team can't hold the Rams jock. Silly stuff if you ask me, its not about destiny, its about pure and simple talent. They didn't get lucky to win their last two games and they won't need to get lucky to win this one.
WB,
Are you trying to tell me that the Titans schedule was that much tougher than the Rams schedule!!! YEAH RIGHT!!! The only thing the Titans did was beat the Jag's three times. Obviously they matched up well, other than that they beat St. Louis 24-21. They lost to SF, Miami, and Baltimore. They beat Cleveland (2) 2-14, Pitts (2) 6-10, Bengals (2) 4-12, Balt. (1:1). The leagues stink there is too much expansion and everybody has there hand out.
Both schedules were weak but St. Louis probably would of been close to 13-3 with the Titans schedule IMO.
I'll take that 10-6 vs the Titan schedule anytime!!!
paul
My program puts the line at -7 Rams. However, if I drop the games where O'Donnell filled in for McNair, it puts the line at -4.5 Rams, which would suggest a bet on McNair/Titans. The line setters and wiseguys may not have considered this. There may also be value in the moneyline, since it's a high total and the line setters are not too bright and often don't sufficiently adjust for that. (e.g., the appropriate moneyline for +7 with an over/under of 48 is much lower than the appropriate moneyline for +7 with an over/under of 38.) Anybody find a good moneyline on Titans?
-Abdul
I wandered over to the MGM last night and took home a prop sheet. I saw on it whenever it was written that the ML was -270/+235, but didn't check the board to see if that was still the case. However Abdul, they did take it into account although I suspect not for the reason you mention. Most people in town are going to bet on the team they think will win the game. These tourists don't bet on the Titans because they think the Rams will win by 4 points exactly. Some will take the points because they think it will be a close game, but most will just say I think Tennessee will win the game and they might be led to bet the ML if they know its out there. Therefore on a public dominated game, the books have to lower the number. In a regualar season game, a 7 point favorite is generally closer to -260 or -280 at most Vegas books so the prevalance of -250 and -240 tends to make me think some of the value is already gone. I personally will probably take the ML too but more for the fact that I much prefer the Titans if the game is close with the kicking edge with Wilkins clearly not 100% and the fact that they have won in many tight games this year. I suspect the ML won't change much if anything go down a little with the flood of tourist money, but the line just might make a late move up to 7.5 because no one is betting the Rams now since the line has trended down all week. I even heard calling in the Mirage phone system today that the Rams are -105 at -7 so all the action is on the Titans right now. However I know the public loves the Rams and they will dictate the line.
The successful former manager of Fidelity's Magellan fund espoused the philosophy "Buy what you know". Another successful fund manager responded "What if all you know is pizza and pornography?!".
(Lynch's philosophy didn't work for the conservative Beardstown ladies, but I digress.)
Although I believe there are many issues in technology let alone bio-technology that the vast majority of analysts don't fully grasp. For the most part I don't think that "Buy what you know" will make you a ton of money, however.
I have a buddy that lives for playing golf and getting laid. He goes to Mexico and gets hookers after playing 18, now thats his idea of a great weekend. This guy barely made it through school and that was for international business as it is. Now he is a key research writer covering the semi-conductor industry. You are going to tell me he is well schooled in this? Just proves that what he has is good writing skills that people in industry find interesting and easy to read. He knows nothing other than what he reads on the net or gets from talking to the players in the industry. So next time you think all these finance guys are gurus just remember that what they often are doing is no more than writing things that sell or make them money, not necessarily writing things that are great financial advice.
"Buy what you know."
Excellent advice!
Remember too one of the aspects of Excellence nailed in that best-seller? "Stick to what you know best", all the success-stories CEO's said. Now witness the disastrous course of those all-encompassing conglomerates.
"What if all you know is pizza and pornography?!"
Why, you should take advantage of that, for sure!
Either start a pizzeria/pizza delivery business, or get in any capacity into the "industry" - as insiders call the porn business! Actor, producer, director. You could even think up of a revolutionary pizza/porn combination!
If you're not cut out to be on the business side of things, you will surely be a very informed consumer. Enjoy your slices!
I think he really means "Buy what you know to be good"
I don't have your e-mail address so I'm posting this here.
Someone is impersonating you at Wong's Progressions Page and uses your name to claim progression betting can overcome the house edge in Blackjack! Thought you might want to know or intervene even.
http://www.bj21.com/progressions/
/
Can someone tell me what these things mean? -7 Rams, does this mean that the rams have to win by more than 7? What about a moneyline? over/under etc?
thanks,
james H.
Yes, -7 Rams means the Rams have to win by more than 7 for you to win. Equal to 7 pushes. The other side of it would be +7 Titans, so if you bet on the Titans, the Titans just have to get within 7 of the Rams for you to win. You usually have to bet $110 to win $100 (lay 11 to win 10), which is where the house edge comes in. This kind of bet is called a "side." "They won ATS" means they won against the spread, that is they covered the spread, but may or may not have won the game if they were the dog.
If you want to bet for the Rams to win outright, then you would take them on the "moneyline". The current moneyline on the Superbowl is Rams -250, Titans +210, at one sports book. -250 means you have to lay $250 to win $100. +210 means if you bet $100 then you win $210.
The standard side bets are at -110.
Sometimes books do combination lines. For example, you can take Titans -3.5 +325 or Rams +3.5 -450 at one casino. (Can you figure out what this means? If you bet $100 on the Titans at -3.5 +325, and the final score is Titans 27, Rams 24, how much do you win?) This is called a "propositional side" or "combination line" or "teaser."
Over/unders are bets that the total number of points scored by both teams will go over or under a certain figure. Again you usually have to lay 11 to win 10 for this bet. This kind of bet is often called a "total."
A parlay is a bet that several teams will all win. If the teams play at different times, you can do your own parlay by betting on the first team, and then if you win take your bet and profit and bet it all on the second team, etc. Be careful with parlays using the odds that the books give you, because if the lines are the standard -110, then they rarely pay you as much as they should. Parlay cards let you pick from stale lines from back when the cards were printed. If you do a parlay from the "board", then you'll be taking the current lines, which are usually sharper but not always.
You are now ready to lose lots of money sports betting.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Do sportsbooks sometime attach odds with the spread to encourage bets without having to move the line.
I seem to remember making a bet this way at the Mirage a number of years ago. I won the bet and was paid at odds, but it's possible I wasn't getting the points I thought I was (the dog won outright). I assume I would have noticed on the ticket if I wasn't getting the points. But it was my first time in Vegas and might have been confused.
Thanks.
Right, for example before game time you might see the line on the Rams move from -7 -110 to -7 -120 and then to -7.5 EVEN and then to -7.5 -110. In many cases I think it's foolish for a large book to move a -110/-110 line to -120/EVEN, but they do it anyway.
-Abdul
Here is one thing about the stock market that I believe offers some opportunity to make a lot of money. Say a company has "good" fundamentals and has what a lot of investors perceive as excellent competitive advantages (patents, brand names, etc.). For the sake of arguement say the company has a patent and it's validity comes into question. When this happens the price of the stock invaritbly plummets. Of course when the risk goes up, the price should go down but it often seems to me that prices reflect a risk premium that indicates that the company will certainly lose the competitive advantage. From my experiece something like a 50-50 chance of losing a patent case will eventually get priced as a 100% chance of losing. Of course buying these securities when the price is declining takes guts because the price of stocks can fall to levels that seem impossible. Personally I don't like to do a lot of bottom fishing but I have had some decent success buying companies with good fundamentals that get pummeled because of perceived increased risk. Of course the trick is to figure out where the valuation a 100% chance of failure would be. To be honest I haven't done a lot of research on this, I don't know of any research on this, but I believe it is something that would be worthwhile researching. Mostly my entry points are determined by the seat of my pants which of course isn't the greatest way.
The price of a stock used to be closely determined by its value, however, nowadays its the perceived future value of the stock that is closer to its current price. Its all about finding a stock that its actual future value is greater than the public perception, or at least has a strong possability of soon being perceived as more valuable. Pick well. -D
From Sklansky Talks Blackjack, page 57:
The play of hitting soft 18 against a ten is rather close and you should stop doing it when the deck becomes slightly positive. Not so against a nine. Against an ace, whether you should hit or stand is so close that the right strategy depends on the house rules. And you would definitely stand once the deck got even slightly positive."
Using the PBA simulator for 6 decks S17, I get the following EV's for A7vT:
HiLo Stand Hit
-2 -0.16 -0.12
-1 -0.17 -0.13
0 -0.18 -0.14
+1 -0.18 -0.15
+2 -0.19 -0.16
+3 -0.20 -0.17
+4 -0.21 -0.18
For A7vA, PBA gives the same EV (-0.10) from HiLo TC=0 upto TC=+2 for Standing and Hitting; only at +3 (the index number) does it differentiate, with Standing EV -0.09 and Hitting EV -0.11.
Why exactly do you call the play A7vT "close"? As to A7vA, it's a toss up until the index number alright. But, from an EV point of view, it costs some 3% to Stand when we should be Hitting A7vT.
A,7 vs. A is a toss up if the game is S17, but if the game is H17, hitting A,7 vs. A is clearly the correct play at any count.
Hedgehog
You're right; Sklansky is wrong. A7 vs 10 is not close. I don't have a strategy adjustment index listed for it in my table, which covers a very wide range, so it's not going to be a close decision in neutral counts. I've looked up the EV before and decided that it was too costly to intentionally misplay this hand by standing, except possibly when under extreme heat.
-Abdul
Sklansky's right - it's a fairly close decision, in terms of EV. A difference of 3% on that one play sounds about right, which would amount to maybe a couple hundreds of percentage points of overall advantage.
Have you read 'Burning the Tables in Las Vegas'? Ian Anderson does not hit a soft 18, because he figures it's great camouflage. He had Wong work out how much it costs him, and the amount was trivial. The total loss to him of that misplay, PLUS always standing on a 12 or 13 against a dealer's 2 or 3,, PLUS always standing on 16 vs a ten was around .07%
The reason your indices for it are so high is probably because the count you're using has a very poor playing efficiency for that particular play. If you're using Hi-Lo, which doesn't count 7,8 or 9, then that will be the case since these are pretty important cards for that situation.
Ridiculous.
At a (half deck) true count of +20, you would should still hit A7 vs 10 using Uston APC, which has a very high strategy efficiency.
It costs you 4.6% of your bet on single deck. If you think that's close, then perhaps you would like to play roulette.
Overall misplaying this doesn't cost much. Neither does John Patrick's advice to split 5-5 vs 5 or hit AA, even though these are like losses of 50% of your bet. That doesn't make it any less of an error when you get it, and if you make enough of these misplays you'll be playing at a disadvantage.
I don't have a problem with Ian Anderson misplaying it intentionally since it comes up so rarely, but Sklansky was mistaken when he said the decision was close. Also, I know people who have done Ian Anderson's cover misplays and still gotten quickly booted, so I'm not so sure it's worth it.
-Abdul
EV differences:
Single Deck, S17, Vs Ace: .008 Single Deck, H17 vs Ace: .04
Single Deck, Vs T: .046
As a comparison, standing on a 16 vs a T, the kind of 'close' play Sklansky's probably talking about, has an EV difference of .036. If you look at other close plays with borderline indices(12 vs a 3, etc), you'll find that most have EV differences right around the 2-4% range.
The decision of splitting 5-5 rather than doubling, on the other hand, has an EV difference of .668, which is about 14 times worse than the worst of the 'close' decisions above. Granted, the frequency of getting an A7 is higher, but they still aren't in the same class in terms of what they cost you. Not even close.
But Sklansky was still wrong when he said that the correct play would change at very low counts. It doesn't. In single deck, H17, I have tables that go up to +19, and the play of A7 doesn't change. A7 vs A has an index change at +17. The only one of these plays that is close to the BS index is A7 vs Ace in an S17 game. Even using Wong Halves there is no index below +19 for changing the BS play of A7 vs T, and it has a much higher playing efficiency.
I can't remember much about Uston's APC. As I recall, he counts sevens, but not 8's and 9's. So overall it would have a good playing efficiency (just the side count of Aces would make it pretty good), but not necessarily for that particular play.
If you kept a side count of 9's, I think you'd see the proper play of A7 swing pretty dramatically at very low changes in density.
Dan writes:
As a comparison, standing on a 16 vs a T, the kind of 'close' play Sklansky's probably talking about, has an EV difference of .036.
That's only for T-6 vs T in single deck. For 9-7 and 8-8, the difference is .006. For T-6 vs T on shoes the difference is also .006, and the difference for 9-7 and 8-8 drops to .002. 0.2% = close. 4.6% = huge house edge.
(It would be better to split the 8's, but why not take John Patrick's advice and just hit 'em? It will cost you only .049 per occurance, probably only .01% overall.)
-Abdul
I'm not suggesting that you vary from the 'book' plays in any way. I was merely suggesting that the decision of standing on an A7 vs a T is relatively close in EV terms, especially compared to some of the other common mistakes that players make, such as standing on a 16 vs a 7, or always taking insurance. And it's not even in the same ballpark as Patrick's advice of splitting 55 instead of doubling.
Yes, there's an EV difference between having a 16 made up of 88, T6, or 97. But that kind of makes my point, since every strategy chart I have for multi-deck games uses one number for 16. If the EV difference was that crucial, shouldn't we be memorizing different indices for the various compositions of 16? Especially for counts that don't factor in 7,8, and 9?
I'm not sure why Sklansky said that the index for standing on an A7 was very close, if in fact he did (I haven't read the book). That point is not really debatable.
I'm not sure why Sklansky said that the index for standing on an A7 was very close, if in fact he did (I haven't read the book). That point is not really debatable.
Sklansky did say these things.
Ian Andersen's Ultimate Gambit was a example. He played some variation of that and now he does something different. Those plays that he picked were more generally more correct on plus counts, so they were the correct plays when he had more money out there.
Having said that he admits that he played with a higher variance and a lower edge. In fact, he said he gave up half of his advantage just by making these plays.
If you ever want to play two hands of $3000 on the bj tables, you'll probably have to do something pretty similar to get away with it. Other than that, I would hit the A,7. Abdul is right a 4% difference on a play is significant, and when you give up 4% here and 4% there you give up your whole advantage.
I think Sklansky knows he f-ed up on this, but he hasn't said anything that I know of. I am sure if there is a revised edition he will make changes to this chapter.
Hedgehog
My words were that it is "rather close" (as opposed to "very" close) and the only reason I said that, was to distinguish it from A7 against a nine, which isn't close, and the only reason I mentioned either, is to illustrate the important risk versus reward concept which in this case is counterintuitive.
I enetered one of those super bowl box pools (EV=0).
I got the following numbers: St Louis 8, Ten 0.
Assuming I paid $1 for the box, what is it worth now?
The payoffs are, in percentages 16,28,16,40.
Danny S
I'd guess about 57c. It's better than 22 and the like, but the distribution of these values is highly skewed to the sixteen tickets with both digits 0,3,4 and 7. Your zero is nice, but your 8 sucks. Only one way to hit it. The uptick is that at least you have St. Louis on the side of the 8. Hmm, this gives me an idea for an online gambing venture....
JG
Yes, having St. Loo with the 8 is better than the other way around...they score alot. They actually won a game X8-X0 and had 2 or 3 other 8's this year. There were 6 games overall which ended on my score, the problem being it is very unlikely earlier on.
Someone was actually hawking these "box pools" on RGP a while back, but you better move to Costa Rica if you want to do it.
Danny
Imagine the next two+two book, professional box pool players...
MegaSports had a similar pool and my first thought was who are the idiots doing that? MegaSports if I remember right takes something like 14% out of pools. For those that don't live in Nevada, MegaSports is an attempt to make a pari-mutuel system for sports betting involving future type pools where there are at least 4 or more outcomes on events. In this case who is gonna take the 2,2 or 9,9 or the like for boxes? Seems to me that these box games are annoying as the few times you ever get real numbers to play with, they never show up. When you least expect it and aren't paying much attention is when you win. Just cheap gambling thrills I would say.
"Just cheap gambling thrills I would say. "
Agreed, but there was no vig being taken out, so why not play?
I went to the IP to place a few prop bets on the games and they took some, but two they didn't take just didn't make any sense to me. The IP, for those that don't know, offers by far more props than anyone in town. This year they had a two prop per parlay limit and as you would expect, they won't let you parlay many things. One I tried to get away with, but didn't for obvious reasons is bet Wilkins under 7.5 points and also Del Greco heads up against Wilkins (thank god they didn't let me get away with it).
One that got rejected that really baffled me was I tried to bet there would be a 4th down conversion and that the longest FG would be by the Titans. I mean where is the correlation in that? I bet it offshore after all but at slightly lesser odds and won. I can't see how making 4th down conversions would tie into who made the longest FG.
The second one was betting the Rams under 27.5 points and betting the first score would be by someone with a jersey under 28.5. This one with very conservative approach makes sense, but only if you thought the Rams would only kick FGs all day, which they did. Still it doesn't seem to be too directly correlated since Marshall Faulk and Robert Holcombe are the only real TD scoring threats under 28.5 for the Rams (Warner scored one TD all year, he didn't add much to the bet). Believe me I thought the Rams would get no points or maybe 3 off FGs so this didn't enter into my thinking.
Any thoughts on why these might be more correlated than I thought?
Perhaps Abdul has tilted all the LV books into parlay paranoia.
For your second premise perhaps they're correlated in that a team with an outstanding field-goal kicker would be less likely to attempt a 4th-down conversion when in the appropriate swath, AND the other team is going the more likely to be in a pressure situation where they need more than 3 points. In that case, I'd correlate the don't with Al DelGreco, but at least it's a possible flight of fancy.
JG
Other Gambling Games
January 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo