Ravens -2 (or -2.5) over the Steelers
The Steelers have zero offense, while the Ravens have a great defense. So that means the Ravens will have great field advantage over the Steelers, and that will allow their average offense to do some damage.
My Picks are:
Bears +4.5 vs. Vikings
Didn't the Bears beat the Vikings in Minneapolis last year. Dante Caulpepper in his first start for the Vikes. I like betting against the inexperienced QB.
Titans +1 vs. Bills
I think the Titans have improved while the Bills haven't.
Panthers +10.5 vs. Redskins
Although Redskins have improved on D so have the Panthers. This game was close last year in DC. I like getting this many in this game.
Can anyone direct me to a good guide to the rules and basic strategy of Los Angeles style blackjack? I am only aware of the most important strategy point: bet the minimum and bank the maximum (consistent with your bankroll and risk tolerance).
I used to work with a guy that was a prop for the smaller limit game. He said really there is no basic strategy, that it is really a mix of ideas. If you know your dealer well or his basic strategy, then you might have a better idea of how to play, but some players take more risk than others and some make more decisions on the apparent value of others hands. Add to that there are some tells as players don't do that good of a job of hiding their disgust or happiness at their hands. Just think if you had one player betting a lot more than others, you would probably watch him very closely and make any close play decisions based on what you thought he had. Its in this way that CA BJ is so different. I am not that well versed in each game offered as I know there are a few, but isn't the dealer free to play his hand any way he chooses in all varieties of the game? This differs to the traditional game where the dealer stands on 17 and hits anything lower.
You basic strategy though is rather obviously the best strategy. The prop I knew said the expected edge for the banker is around 1.5% and over his 10 years banking he was very close to that number when all was said and done.
I assumed it was illegal for cardrooms to hire props for player-banked games in LA (since the house would then be indirectly banking the game).
I was told that the LA major cardrooms offer the same basic blackjack game. According to a pamphlet I have on the game, it is played with jokers (I don't know how many jokers per deck); the best hand is two jokers, two aces, or an ace and a joker. The "player dealer" must hit soft 17 and below, and must stand on hard 17 or higher. I do not know whether the player-dealer can make any other choices such as surrender or split.
I know that isn't completely true for all forms because walk around and you will see the dealers making decisions on their hands. I know there is CA BJ and 21st Century which is supposedly much more like regular BJ. I have no idea what the exact rules are but there must be someone on here that could clear up the confusion. Where I used to work though, and its not in the LA area, the dealers would decide their hands after checking around the table trying to gauge where their opponents might stand.
As for the props, thats not the case as long as they are truly props. Props use their own money and the house has no financial interest in them winning or losing other than the obvious not wanting them to go broke. House players play with house money and in that case maybe an aggressive DA might try to make that assertion. Almost all bankers though are Corporation bankers. The few props are low limit game props that are not lucrative enough to have a Corporation on the game.
There was some talk a while back about an informal 2+2er competition. With everyone posting their selections to www.predictit.com. Is this still a plan? Abdul's idea I believe - just mentioned that to lend credibility to the post :) Oscar----- oscar mc on www.predictit.com
I am listed under wildbill702 and will list college and pro football picks. Hopefully we can get a lot of people involved as it will keep the board at least a little less cluttered with picks and maybe we will all make more than the one cent I did last year trying this out!
I'm under Pheno. I just do Pro's and occasionally a college football. So far I'm 100% in golf with Sergio beating Tiger HTH!!!
My ID on www.predictit.com is Abdul_Jalib, and I went 0-5 today on my NFL picks there, so you'll have a near lock if you go against my Monday night pick listed there.
On the contest note, I may try to put together a script that will automatically download and summarize everyone's picks/results from www.predictit.com, but I'm not even sure it's practical yet. It's a pity that they don't supply the ability to create groups of people so that their results could be displayed side-by-side on predictit.
That whole interface in there sucks! Its amazing anyone can find anyone's picks to use. The whole concept seems silly, but hey it keeps people from making this a pick board I guess.
So anyways, is it just 4 of us so far that have registered there?
One last thought, was it just my imagination or did it seem like everyone was dropping passes left and right today? I had a teaser go down when the KC receiver dropped an incredibly easy pass in the end zone that would have gotten a teaser cover for me. The other games I saw seemed to have the same thing happening way too much. I don't buy into the "these guys are just getting going" argument considering they ripped everyone off having 5 weeks of meaningless games, they damn well better be ready to play at full ability!
My pick was under on the Broncos/Rams game, so I do indeed feel like an idiot.
Regarding dropped passes first week, the total points scored goes up as the season progresses, so that has to mean some wide receiver drops and/or quarterback confusion early in the year.
As far as predictit goes, I didn't realize I had to make another confirmation so all I show is 1-0 this week, taking Denver. I was 4-3 in the other games, so no huge loss by not getting them in.
As far as QB confusion though, very few seemed to be all that confused. The poor offenses did mostly poor and the good offenses were humming along. The drops by the receivers I would guess is because the receivers are avoiding contact in preseason and probably not stretching to make catches, at least the starter caliber players. When things are full speed and contact they might tend to get a little gun shy, that would be my guess.
I'm looking for a reliable online sportsbook to use for the football season. Any suggestions? I think I used 7 seas casino and 00 casino last year. Are these ok? Any help is greatly appreciated.
The English based sportsbooks are very reliable.....
Try one of the following :
www.sportingodds.com or www.sportingbet.com or maybe www.willhill.com
I don't know if this trend means anything,KC are 17-1 ATS as home underdog and 20-2 ATS in home openers.
I bet the Chiefs for other reasons than this trend, but it showed its power today didn't it??? Grbac obviously didn't read the script with his lousy performance. Today it seemed almost as if most QBs did more harm than good for their teams, especially Grbac and Leaf. Or how about that stirring offensive performance by the Ravens and Steelers only topped by the Saints and Lions. Sometimes it seems like the third stringer would do better just handing it off.
This game was a good example of a meaningless trends. The Chiefs of the 90's are not the Chief's of the '00s. If you are are trend player, how do you balance the Colt's 4-0 ats v. afc west (last 4) v. the Chief's number (14-1 ats home openers)? Simple answer: you don't. Trends have a place, but they need to be meaniningful. The only bearing on reality here is that it was the same two teams. I would be interested to read what wildbill liked about the Chiefs in this game. Why would you consider them anything other than a medicore to poor offense and suspect defense facing a good offense and an improving defense? KC's modest success last year seems overtly turnover related and there did not appear any reason to expect improvement.
Your comment about qbs sounds like sour grapes. If you bet Indy, I dare say you liked Manning's numbers.
New topic: My online service put this game at a 2 dime line. Time to shop services?
You forgot ONE Jon Kitten who threw 4 interceptions and fumbled!!!! Made Miami look like the powerhouse of old!!! Yeah Right!!
And people wonder why I look for QB's to bet against.
Betting against QBs is not exactly a smart long term move. In football there are way too many factors out of his control to determine the spread winners of a game. If his linemen are not up to par, he is going to suck, can it be any clearer than that? You might look for a pitcher to bet against because he has quite a bit of control on the outcome, but QBs are mere cogs, albeit important ones, in a teams effort. You might spot something in a QBs tendencies or a defense's tendency to make you bet a particular game, but just betting against a team for one reason will never be a big winner long-term. Even when you spot something advantageous, you still have to run through the rest of the matchups and the game situation and find other reasons to side with a team.
As for KC, hey I badmouthed them all preseason. No offense is generally right, but I thought they would be a tougher matchup for the Colts. The Colts have been run over in the past couple of years and the Chiefs seemed just the team to do it. Add in the emotions of Derrick Thomas and the fact that the Chiefs secondary is pretty good and I thought getting over a FG was a good value. The pass drop killed my teaser, but the pass that was picked off and returned was what killed the bet. Everyone makes many mistakes each year, the bettors that win are generally the ones that learn the most from them.
Yes I know what you mean. However I believe that unfortunately for a lot of QB's the offensive potency is reflected through the QB stats. Show me a QB with a high rating that who's team doesn't have a decent offense. Likewise show me a QB that has a lot of talent with a crummy offensive line, poor running game, and mediocre receivers who has a high rating.
I bet CINCINNATI-12 in NCAAF now -15.5 in some books,should I buy back? When I bet them I like a little but experience tell me line will go up which is correct,if line go to 17 it's easy decision. 40% chance of rain.
I read your post too late. I took Army +16.5 EVEN, just because I got that elsewhere when the line was still +14.5 -110 at Stardust. My actual knowledge of the teams was very limited, though I thought highly of both.
In general, I would not be terribly eager to go back the other way on a bet to lock up a win. You're paying the juice to reduce your variance, and that's only worthwhile for bets that are a large fraction of your bankroll. Also, the line moved from -12 to -15.5, because somebody was betting big on Cincinnati, and if it's early action then it's probably wiseguys doing the big betting.
If it was late betting driving up the line on a Monday night NFL game, then that would be another story. Since this was a Monday day college game, there may have been some of this effect, where the idiots bet to try to get even for the week, and of course idiots love the favorites (uh, present company excluded.)
I personally never hedge. Hedging is plain stupid and the sign of a bad outlook on the game. Most people hedge because they hate risks or have a short bankroll, two things you must not have if you want to be a winner. A few years ago I had Colorado at 18/1 to win the Stanley Cup and they were up 3-2 in the conference championships. I had a very substantial bet going, $1000, so I was in line to make a nice score should it hit. My two friends though I was the biggest idiot in the world not hedging out even a little bit. I admit when I first bet at that number I was just figuring a hedge would be the order of business. The line was bad as I got it when the Avs had just won 10 straight games and clearly were going to be a playoff force. At this point in time though I thought I had the best team in the playoffs and didn't want to bet my money against my opinion. In the end they lost two games and didn't make the finals, but I didn't care. I had great odds with what I felt was a good edge. Had they won the series they almost certainly would have taken the Cup, but thats life. I took a risk betting it, took a risk not hedging, but betting on sports is risky. As long as you have an edge in the long run you come out ahead. The only time to hedge is when you have learned something or seen something that conclusively changes your mind about a situation. If I didn't think the Avs matched up well with the Stars in that case I would have hedged out, but I thought I had the better team and have no regrets on that situation.
This is really a reply to your last post on the BJ thread, but its kind of a change of subject, and I was afraid it would be buried (I was away for the weekend)
Two weeks ago, it had never crossed my mind to get into sports. I've never really followed any, and it never seemed like someplace I could make money. I did read the sports betting section of Getting The Best Of It...
Middling is clearly a way that even someone who doesn't know the teams and players could make a buck, but it seems like the opportunity doesn't come up too often. I have a friend who's a small time bookie, and uses lines from the newspaper. I don't know what day they come out, but it seems like they would often not match lines at an online book the day before the game. I haven't pursued it because he's more a friend than a bookie. I don't know anything about "sports betting ettiquete", but it seems like using him to middle would be pretty unfriendly. As for finding other middles, I get the impression the lines are about the same almost everywhere, and it could be a full time job just looking for one.
Then I spent this weekend with some football loving friends, and watched a couple of games. Normally, football on TV puts me to sleep, but I found myself watching the games with a bit more interest thinking "There must be some way that I can get paid here"
Perhaps I shouldn't be asking you for tips when I haven't done any homework on the subject yet, but you brought it up.... Any thoughts?
Middling is not really a way to make money on football. It would have potential in a different environment of the past, but today the technology makes it very hard to do. Whenever someone moves a number it can be an impetus for someone else to either move it in step or its the impetus for some bettor to hit the new number or the old one, whichever side he is looking for. There are values still out there as in shopping yields you a valuable hook or even a point, especially on Friday night and Sat morning as the action heats up, but this is not the stuff that makes a career. The truth is that sports betting requires a different mind than other forms of gambling. Blackjack is a pure form of science, but of course has some other skills in getting away with it. Poker is very much psychology, but in more of a battle sense where you are beating a set opponent or table. Sports is psychology and science, maybe more so than poker. Poker math is definitely important, but most of it is not all that complicated. Sure there are little edges that can be exploited, but they are minor in your skill set because a fair number of people employ them. In sports there are thousands of ways to come about winners. In fact its really not all that much of the game. Sports is won by understanding three things. First is understanding value and how those half points you get help, how picking up off public misperceptions help, how being very open minded about situations help, and so on. Second is understanding bankroll because sports betting is not that consistent of an activity. I might make 20 bets a week in basketball and hockey each, 30 in baseball, 10 in football, and so forth. The BJ player makes hundreds a session. The poker player makes close to the same. The fact that my edge is not allowed to be repeated over and over makes numbers follow much less to form than other legal gambling forms at least in the short to intermediate run. Third is the simple fact that you have to control yourself. Much like poker you need to set in on a winning gameplan and stick to it despite your current run of results. You cannot constantly change your strategy each time you hit a negative fluctuation. Over time you need to change your strategies and refine them, but wholesale changes 3 times a year will bust you. Have those three down and you will be a steady consistent winner year after year. Easier said than done true, but its something to think about.
Obviously I could go on and on, but I just say that sports is the best if you are going to gamble for a living. Even Malmuth/Sklansky admitted it. Poker just gets so tough after you get past 30/60 that you better be world class to make the money you can make in a year of sports once you have a decent bankroll with just above average skills.
how did that happen?
home field advantage is worth about 3 points...so the linesmakers are saying that these two teams are equal in talent (without F. Taylor for Jax).
Jax have won 8 straight games against Bal.
does this smell like a trap bet to anyone else?
Well I am going to go with the Jags I think, but Baltimore is definitely not the same team that played those last 8 games and without Taylor or even Mack, the Jags aren't either. Its not really a trap because the line was set at 3 and hasn't moved so obviously the big money has no particular thoughts about it being a bad line. If they like a side for technical reasons they will bet it hard late, but if they think its a bad line they will bet it earlier.
Stardust opening line is PICK.
Baltimore is one of the hype teams this year, so lines are skewed. Washington and Tampa are the others. Washington -10.5 last weekend was silly. Take Jacksonville, they are still a solid team. The under in this game is looking attractive also.
Before the lines came out, I set my line at Baltimore -4.5. Baltimore was about equal in talent to Jacksonville around June, and then Jacksonville took a lot of injuries. Additionally, Baltimore's home field advantage might be only 2 points, but Jacksonville's is more like 5 points, so that averages out to 3.5, which means the current line still says Jacksonville is the slightly better team. I hesitated on the line of a PICK and then on Baltimore -1, because I really thought the line would go to Jacksonville -1, drat!
Well the Stardust lottery is different from other line moves. I pretty much discount the lottery line there because its not really bet into much by syndicates, the limits are too low and it impossible to coordinate a big hit in one spot. The line moves there are generally moved by professional gamblers, not syndicate types, and by people looking to hedge. Nothing there is really indicative of where you should put your money later in the week in my opinion at least. When I look at the opening line I generally take what ends up on the board at the end of Sunday night because by then the number is bettable in many spots worldwide.
Please explain why you think the HFA for Jax is 5 and only 2 for Bal...I've never heard of something like that, and find it interesting.
Some people just add 3 points for home field advantage regardless of the teams, but this is too simplistic. You've heard of the massive home field advantages for Green Bay and Denver, right? These teams are 5, maybe even 6, points stronger at home than on the road.
Much of the home field advantage of Jacksonville is because they put their opponents' bench in the sun, while they get the shade, and the rest is due to crowd noise. I'm rating the home field advantage of Baltimore as rather low, because their fans had bags over the heads (literally) at the beginning of last season, but this could change quickly this year.
To determine the home field advantage for a game, I average the home field advantages of the two teams.
It seems to me that if the whole world is saying how underrated Baltimore is, then they're not that underrated. Also I sincerely believe Jax was the best team in the NFL last year. I don't see how they're THAT much worse this year. I'll probably be wrong, but I haven't written of Jax yet.
wow, what a game!
Well defense wins championships and so far Jags and Rams are living up to that end of business. Seattle goes from shutout to 34 points, there has to be something wrong with the Rams D and they don't have a chance in the playoffs if its still this porous. They probably will improve some, but I still have to think the Bucs are the better team. As for my pick out of the AFC, well Buffalo hasn't let me down so far. I just worry that they are so thin in many parts of the defense. If they hold together without many injuries on that side of the ball I may have picked the surprise winner out of the AFC for the second year in a row.
dont believe in predictit.com ronzoni?
I like sportingnews.com and vegasinsider.com,do anyone know good website?
Was wondering what anyone thought about the Broncos vs. Falcons game on Sunday. Current line is Denver minus 5. I live in Denver and am going to the game Sunday. Would like to bet the Broncos but dont like the fact we will be starting a 7th round draft choice rookie running back. I think the Broncos will be very fired up though as this is the home opener for them and they definately do not want to lose this one and be 0-2. I am thinking of betting them hard but was wondering what others thought. Thanks.
The Falcons are a very good team this year, as far as I can tell. So are the Broncos, apparently. I would expect a little more consistent performance out of the Falcons, in that Chandler and his backup, Kannell, are seasoned more than Griese. However, I would also expect the Broncos defensive line to slice through the Falcons' offensive line like a knife through butter. Gimpy Jamal, gimpy and possibly not playing Terrell... it sounds like the third string will be adequate. Basically I think the game line is about right: it should be somewhere in the -3.5 to -6.5 range. I'll probably stay away from it.
The running back situation means little in Denver. The line dictates everything and Shanahan doesn't change his gameplan based on his available players. Back a few years ago Elway would go down and the first play out Brister would throw a bomb. The biggest difference with Anderson is that he will not be respected as much. TD on the field usually means 8 men in the box. TD and his line are so good that they generally can rush effectively in that spot. Anderson will get 7 or even 6 up as the porous Falcon pass D that let journeyman level Jeff Garcia dice them up will be focused on stopping the pass. If you want to see the effect I think you will have to look more in the pass yardage allowed. Anderson will get a fair number of yards but Griese may not be quite as effective. In any case I think Denver should win comfortably because I think the Falcons play much better from ahead controlling the clock with Anderson and I don't see them getting to that spot against the type of defense Denver plays. Deliberate rush attacks don't work well against Denver, usually they get beat by shifty speed guys as their extremely aggressive style of defense gets them in trouble if they miss a tackle or two. Witness Faulk last week, he had a lot of short runs as the aggressive D got to him quickly, but when they missed or the Rams called the right play he broke big runs. Anderson isn't a home run hitter, he will just be deliberate and straight forward and that doesn't bode well in this spot. Another factor is the blitzing and aggressive hitting of Denver could knock Chandler out.
Thanks for the responses. I only put 200 on the game but it was sweet to have it won by halftime.
Luckily when I bet the game online I paid more attention than to the predictit screen...somehow I agreed to a bet on the under instead of a bet on the Broncos. Oh well, always good just to lose play money so to speak...
How much money are you making per hour betting sports so far this year?
or..what is your roe (return on equity) or roi (return on investment)? mine has always been negative on sports...but its an addiction :(
No offence intended......
But what business is it of yours what hourly rate Abdul makes on sports betting?
All I am interested in... is the fact he post some very interesting points..... and is obviously very knowledgeable on sports.
Well the point is hours is not really a good question to ask for sports because unless you are a professional sports bettor its really hard to quantify. Not to mention, think about this. Say I am watching the Broncos play the Falcons. Now I am watching it because I am a die hard Broncos fan. In the second half I pick up on something that I will utilize in a future bet. This was a purely recreational activity as I would watch the game regardless of if I had a bet on it or not. Do I count my 3 hours of watching as work time? Maybe just the minute I saw it. How about the 2 hours I think later in the night about how I will exploit it while I am eating dinner? Poker players tend to think away from the table, but I doubt its to the degree of the sports bettor. Poker players do think away from the table about their game and do read on it, but I think its far less an amount as sports bettors. Most sports bettors are nut cases spending countless hours in a losing effort. Most of it though is unfocused efforts, not really thinking in handicapping terms. How do you define it all?
Thus far this football season (college and NFL), I've won 8% of my action, and I am 0.7 standard deviations above break-even. If you were to take away my two biggest winning tickets, that would rob me of my profit. I'm expecting to do well this season, but time will tell.
I don't track hours for sports betting (and if I did, should I count my time right now?), but I am sinking tons of time into it. I consider a lot of that time to be research for future profits.
Don't get too excited about that prospect Abdul, unlike poker you generally have to overhaul your sports betting strategy on a pretty regular basis. The guys that think they have sports down now are the ones that are broke in 3 years. What works in sports is changing because the public's sophistication and infatuation with certain things changes. It used to be that in picking baseball games one paid attention to pitching mostly. I zagged and started paying attention to offense and did very well. As the runs kept coming in and the juiced ball ruled many switched to offensive considerations and I was forced to zag back to giving a lot more weight to pitching than I used to. Basically with tons of runs being scored people get caught up in trying to figure out who is going to generate 9 runs and thinks every pitcher is trash. Now a pitcher that goes 6 innings and gives up 3 runs is a saint, but thats where the value is to be found. Finding the pitcher than can give you something of quality, not necessarily a gem, is where many of my bets are coming from now. Two years ago that was definitely not the case. I am not a huge football bettor so I can't give you great examples of this, just believe me when I tell you its true. Especially football where so many bettors jump onto all kinds of bandwagons.
Can someone from Vegas post the current line on the Baltimore Ravens to win the Super Bowl and the AFC Championship?
Lewis is the champ and should be favored, but, on my recent foray to vegas, I noticed that Tua was anywhere from +280 to +350 depending on the book. I kinda like Tua at the +350, since i don't think Lewis can contend with Tua's bulk. Tua just will wear lewis down. anyone else agree?
I don't know much about boxing, but i have a question, how wide are these lines? if its +350, what's the other side?
sorry for the above reply. the numbers on Lewis that I saw ran from -340 to -410
-340? +350? How long until the fight?
If it's less than:
(F+D) x 365
(F-D) x annualized cost of capital
F= Price of fave
D= Price of dog
then we may have something with which to work here.
I believe the date of the fight is November 11 or somewhere around there.
The thinking from boxing experts is that Lewis does not like pressure from other fighters and has trouble when opponents come straight forward. On the other hand Tua has very little experience against fighters with Lewis' skill and power. (The exception is Ibabuchi (sp) who he lost too. He was also losing to Rakman until he hit him controversially after the bell.) I do agree however that the line is too high. However, if it is close Lewis should get the decision.
Under my ID "Abdul_Jalib", I went 9-2 this week on NFL www.predictit.com sides and totals, a welcome relief after going 0-6 last week. I'm 13-11 ATS there now total.
Like someone else suggested here, I think it's a good idea to pick against the Predictit community consensus, since most people are boneheads and they're giving you a read on the general public's bias. The community consensus has gone 12-15 thus far this weekend (no pick was shown for cowboys/cardinals over/under.) The Predictit community likes Jets -6.5 and over 39.5 for tonight. The line in Vegas is down to Patriots +5 and under 39. I've been waiting for Patriots +7, but it doesn't look like I'm going to get it, so I probably won't actually bet it. I originally set my line (before seeing the book line) at Jets -4, O/U 39.5. Jets' RB Curton Martin and WR Wayne Chrebet are a bit banged up.
Abdul, At what point do you pull the trigger on a game? On the Jets/Pats example, it looks like you wanted a diff of 3 points in order to bet. Is 3 an arbitrary number or have you seen from past experience that this is the cutoff point from where your results vs the books becomes positive?
If this is the case, this seems like an awful big margin to use to wager. Taking the next step, it would mean that you would have taken the Jets at -1. Or at least thought that is where the value was.
Thanks, John Gaspar
Let's say there's a 50% chance that I was right about the correct line being Jets -4, and a 50% chance that the (mid-week) book line of Jets -6 was correct. If I jumped on this difference of 2 points and bet Patriots +6, then my expected value would be slightly negative when laying 11 to when 10. Another problem is that I was just simply waiting for the idiots to bet up the favorite on Monday night. I was expecting the line to go to Patriots +7, but instead it went the other way, down to Patriots +5. Finally, I don't like to bet based on handicapping, so I really need a big difference of opinion to place a bet. I did take Patriots +6.5 on a few parlay cards, but as a "filler" bet, not one of my main picks.
Someone pointed out to me the other day that the Breeder's Cup would be at Churchill Downs this year. For anyone sitting on the fence about going to Louisville for the event, note that Caesar's Glory of Rome riverboat is just across the river and does offer a decent poker room -- the games are great on weekends.
I was at Gulfstream last year and it was awful as far as betting lines overcrowded etc. I was talking to a couple who said Churchill is great to go to for the Breeder's Cup!!! I wish I had waited until this year to do it. If anyone does go I wish they would report back so maybe in the future I may go there for it.
I'm going to sound like a tout, but in what's left of the world of horse-racing, Churchill Downs truly may be the only remaining jewel. Not only that, Kentucky has one of the lowest takeouts in the nation. I've never been for Breeder's Cup, but will definitely be there this year if I'm in town.
Have you been to Del Mar in the summer? How about Santa Anita on a clear winter day? For a grandeur of the track alone, Churchill is a beauty, but for location and setting nothing beats these two tracks. Churchill is actually pretty ugly most of the time. I went there on a day that 12,000 showed up and its a joke then. I was thinking of what a sight it would be to see this legend and it just felt like a bad joke. That must be how Indians fans used to feel going to see a game at Municipal Stadium. All this history yes, but like a masoleum when it isn't very full.
One thing to note is Louisville is known to pretty much gouge everyone Derby Week and I suppose they will do it again too for the Breeders Cup. I was in Detroit for 3 weeks on business when I went to Churchill and looked into going there Derby weekend. I called up a couple places and the going rates were ridiculous. A Holiday Inn EXPRESS wanted $159/night. I called a Red Roof Inn in Ohio about 30 miles from the track and they wanted $110. I then thought of how everyone tells you on Derby Day unless you pay outrageous money to a scalper for a seat its a zoo with no bathrooms to use and most of the race you see on the TV since you can't get near the rail so I decided to pass on it. Its outrageous, but I guess that is the way it goes travelling to any big event. I went about a week later and none of the prestige or excitement remained, it was just another boring day at the races.
As for the poker action, just about every riverboat in the midwest has good action on the weekends, but beware of the high drops at most places plus the stupid cruising requirements Indiana has. I saw it for myself, the boat goes what is it about 1 mile an hour about 100 feet from the shore with Kentucky State police watching them from boats on the River. They claim they will board the boat if it so much as crosses one inch into Kentucky territory. The River was somehow deemed at that spot to belong to Kentucky for about 3/4 of the way across so the captain actually has to be pretty skilled. Anti-gambling idiots are so out of control I tell you. Just think of all the crime in Louisville and they are wasting all this money on a patrol boat to make sure the casino boat doesn't get anywhere near their shore.
Some good points. As far as I can tell, all premier events in the U.S. will gouge you for hotel room rates. And if you don't already have tickets for the Derby, forget about getting them last-minute (I'd hate to see where you'll be sitting even if you got them). But Breeder's Cup should be more accessible.
The 2-hour boarding/cruising requirement is still in effect in Indiana. I don't think the Kentucky overzealousness has anything to do with an anti-gambling sentiment, rather it has to do with them not getting a cut. But you are correct, the largest casino riverboat in the world doesn't cruise far from shore -- the crusising requirement is a joke that will probably be eliminated during the next legislature.
Kentucky can't bitch about not getting a cut, they have forever turned down the boats thanks to Churchill Downs and the horse industry, plus a good ole dose of southern moralism doesn't hurt I suppose. Its amazing how many states talk about how they don't want gambling in their backyards and yet other states make most of their money off of them. Imagine if Tennessee had boats right there in downtown Nashville or if Memphis finally stopped bleeding dollars to rural Mississippi in Tunica. Even worse is the business down in Shreveport. Most people in Louisiana can't afford $20 to gamble with, but they make a killing off all the people with deep pockets in Dallas and Houston land of a million gamblers and not a whole lot of legal places to bet. We don't even need to go into what California has given us here in Nevada...
I guess the moral of the story is if you build it they will come, but if you don't build it they will go!
As for gouging, well the hotel operators here in Vegas never seem to learn. Every time they unreasonable jack up their rates the rooms don't fill and they don't make even their normal cut of money. This seemed to be true around Louisville because there were MANY open rooms there that Derby weekend, but they all wanted a ridiculous sum to stay two counties away from the track. One of my coworkers did go out there. He paid $85 from a scalper for a grandstand seat that wasn't that good, he was pretty much at the top of the stretch and about 5 rows from the top of the grandstand. Then again if you are only going to do something once and going to drive almost 6 hours to do it, thats not that much of a price to pay.
Yes, I've found it quite ironic in my travels around the country -- which always goes through Texas these days -- that for all the macho bluster about Texas, there is no legal poker in that state (sans the El Paso Indian casino). Of course, with an 8% state sales tax, I'd hate to see what the rake would be anyway. Did anyone say they wanted George W for president?
Well to be fair, its pretty amazing Texas can survive in its situation with so much poverty near the border and not have a state income tax. You could pay 8.25% sales tax in parts of CA and also fork over about 5% of your income if you make anything.
As for that little El Paso casino (Speaking Rock), isn't it funny that the state throughout its history has exploited slaves, native Americans, and Mexicans, yet in this case they can't shut down a casino run by a tiny tribe is standing up and thumbing their noses at the Governor? They are my companies competition in the El Paso market so we always like to tell people of how they are illegal and could be shut down at any moment, but reality is that nothing will change. If they thought they could get the state to negotiate a compact with them they would abide by any court judgement, but in their intransigent postion against gambling of almost any kind Texas is making its matters worse. The tribe has set themselves up well too because if they get shut down by force, bascially federal marshalls, then they will take their case to the public and state why do we get screwed when other tribes are making a fortune?
Hehehe ... I hear that the Indian tribe claims the land that El Paso is built on. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Was wondering what anyone thought about the Rams versus 49ers on Sunday. Even though SF is weak, 16 1/2 points sure is a lot. I am thinking of taking them and the points. I think the line tends to get inflated when a really bad team plays a really good team.
Don't take points take money line +++++,one of my smooth pick this week.
Finding a moneyline on this game will be difficult. A fair moneyline would be about +1500 (!). I would definitely take +1500 or higher, but I wouldn't expect to find it.
Take 49ers +17. 14+ point away dogs went 64-43-2 (wins-losses-pushes) against the spread in the period from 1983 to 1998, 1.8 standard deviations from breakeven for a -105 bet.
Take 49ers/Rams UNDER 56. Going under totals of 46+ went 201-149-5 against the spread in the same period, 2.3 standard deviations from breakeven for a -105 bet. There has never before been a total of 56! There have been statistical studies showing that in general the book lines are too extreme.
This game is going to feature tons of rushing by Faulk, once the Rams scoot out to a comfortable lead. Expect the backups to be in by the fourth quarter, which actually won't slow the Rams down significantly, with QB Trent Green and RB Trung Canidate, but hopefully they will just be running the ball. The 49ers have no pass defense, but can put up some resistance to the rush.
This is a "double-bounce" situation for the Rams defense; they have been humiliated twice in a row, and so I expect they will put up their best effort this game. The reason the Rams defense was so successful last year wasn't that they were good; it was because their offense jumped so far ahead that their opponents were forced to become one-dimensional passing teams, making it easy to blitz and pass coverage them to death. This year, teams realize that they need to go heavy on passing right away, with some rushes thrown in to keep them honest, in order to defeat the Rams. The 49ers offense is potent but brittle; their offensive line sucks, so if the Rams can blitz successfully, as should be the case, the 49ers will be in trouble offensively.
Predicted final score: Rams 31, 49ers 20.
I was joking,wsex.com has SF+1800 you can bet $2,000 to win 36,000.
You all are on crack. The Rams should be about a 100-1 favorite in this game. This is the absolute worst matchup I can imagine. The Niners have terrible corners that are slow and beaten almost every play, and well we all know about the Rams strengths. The Rams showed no mercy over the last year in running up the score and with a solid pass rush they will murder Garcia or Mirer. Right now I am calling this my third best bet of the week only because the Niners could pull a huge backdoor effort very late. I really don't have much concern though, it would take an outright miracle to see the Niners winning here. You can all talk about how the line is historic, but forget all that and look at the two teams on the field. Yes its a bit overstated from a value standpoint, but matchup wise its a slaughter. The Broncos and the Seahawks have decent defenses and they had nightmares stopping this team. The defense isn't quite championship, but the offense is incredible and it would surprise me if Warner did not break Marino's yardage records this year. Sure many things can go wrong when laying this many points but stop looking for the trap and look at the reality. The best pass offense by far in the league playing on their fast track at home playing a team that has been allowing almost 9 yards a pass over the last season or so...you tell me how they will hold them within 20? The over looks good to me too, even if its college like. I am predicting Rams 52, SF 20.
No, the line at wsex.com is SF+1100, STL-1800.
It was SF+1800,STL-2500 when I wrote last post.
I have seen the game at -1650/+1150 in one spot. Five of my friends and I are going to put in an "investment" of $500 and bet the Rams here through another friend who has an account with the book that has this line. After the game ends we are all going to get our money back and with the 30 bucks we each win we are going to go out and party! Why didn't I think of this idea sooner???
Frankly the line is so tempting to most, it probably will go down further until close to game time. My guess is that it will close something like -1300/+900 as few people will want to lay odds on the Niners.
At this same book, they have the line at SF +7.5 +450, St.L -7.5 -550. Abdul, do you think this adjusted price/line is correct considering the ML is -1650/+1150 and the pointspread is -16.5? I personally think the mixed line is not very good because this game all comes down to scenarios and one of those scenarios is a big backdoor effort by the Niners. I don't give it much chance, but generally teams when they are badly beaten either get many scores because they are going full steam and their opponent is not, or the scores get worse because the team that is down just completely lays down and even the backups score on them and just makes the blowout worse.
For a 16.5 pointspread and 55.5 o/u, my program sets the lines at:
SFO PICK +850 / STL PICK -850
SFO +7.5 +380 / STL -7.5 -380
(I made a mistake before when I said it should be SFO PICK +1500.)
Is this right? I don't know... it's an extreme case, and I know that my program tends to go bonkers on extreme cases. Anyway, points are not worth much in such a high total game, so if anything, take the odds for giving up the points, either SFO PICK +1100 or SFO +7.5 +450. I know it seems inconceivable that the 49ers could win, but expect the unexpected. I don't regard the Rams as a consistent team - their putting it in the air a lot means they will occasionally have a very bad game. You've got the right odds to go for a gutshot.
The first half line is up to 49ers +10 (-110) at some books, with a game line of +17. Now, the favorite is generally favored more in the first half than the second half, but I've never seen a lined skewed this far in favor of the first half. Furthermore, it should actually be skewed the other way for this game, like 49ers +6, in my opinion. The 49ers are capable of amazing feats of defense in the first half, before getting tired and falling apart in the second half. For a -110 bet, first half 49ers +10 has to be my pick of the week.
Well its a mixed bag really. That reflects most people figuring that the backups will be in. Theoretically you would have to agree that if the backups are playing the second half the line has to be smaller than the first half. Its possible that the Niners show up with some fire in really a no lose situation as the long season is already a reality. However I think the Rams nature is to get out fast and force the opponent play from behind. They haven't been in that spot this year yet and I would think they will try to do that. Never forget too this is by far their most hated rival although moving away changed the dynamic a bit. Fans in the Lou seem to recognize the rivalry though and this is payback time for getting flat out dominated for so many years. Even when the Rams had good teams in the 80s they rarely could beat the Niners, now the tables are turned and the team and fans want to wipe some 49er behind all over the TWA Dome carpet just to even the score up a bit. I still remember how loud and obnoxious they were last year when they were running up and down the field on the Niners and you could tell the tables had turned in the rivalry and in a big way. If it weren't for that angle though I would say the Rams might come out flat for a little while.
My research backs this up. To take it further, the skew towards faves in the 1st half is stronger for smaller "whole game" lines. Once you get a "whole game" fave up to -8 and up or so, the 1st half line can be more safely made to be 50% of the "whole game" line.
I agree with Absul.
Sometime in the seventies I wandered into the El Cortez [ and this is all from a faded memory ] and the man that owned the casino was working the sports book.
It was Seattle’s first year and they were a 19.5 dog to the Steelers.
He had a money line up on about ten games.
So I asked him could he make a line on it.
Within 30 seconds he said 20-15 and I took out a hundred.
Seattle was tied at the half.
And then lost.
Still, this was the classiest thing I’ve ever seen in Las Vegas.
For sure he knew I wasn’t going to lay no 20 to 1.
Ok this seems like a meaningless game but if the Dolphins beat the Ravens and the Browns win they will be no worse than tied for first (I know it won't stay that way for long). Browns are getting 2 at home against the Steelers. They beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh last year. Looks to me like the Browns are better this year. They got 6 last week and won outright on the road by 17. I definitely like the Browns this week.
ya the dog pound is going off precooked meat and loading up on the real thing ...blood time baby... come on you pansy assed, let me down, break my heart, shit faced, friggen god dam get a quarterback, moronic frig head loser stealers... ah feel better you friggen wimp assholes.next you`ll be having knitting sessions ya dick heads...18 years dedicated to drag queens....
Its a trap, simple as that. Steelers are not as bad as shown against the Ravens and teams in their situation are usually MUCH better off on the road. There is less pressure on them on the road and they usually come with a more complete game there. I like the Steelers matchup here as their secondary isn't that bad and the air is the only way the Browns move the ball effectively. Further the Steelers have been fuming for two weeks over the egg they laid to open the season up and will come out with fire. Browns only real strength is the pass rush, but Steelers use a rather uncomplicated passing attack that isn't affected too much by a strong rush. If Kordell gets in there this factor should be even more negated. All I know is I am not falling for the hype, the Steelers in their weakened state are still a more talented team and coming off their first REAL win (not a last play affair) the Browns probably will letdown.
If I am not mistaken, this is the lowest number of points the new Browns have ever gotten right?
I'm basically just waiting to get Browns +3 and PICK +135 just before game time. I feel pretty strongly about these first half bets, though:
FH Steelers -0.5 -105
FH Browns/Steelers OVER 17.5 -105
These are "bus bets." Jerome Bettis runs hard in the first half, and the bus tends to break down by the second half. The Steeler defense isn't as tough on the road, and the Steeler offense is much better on the road, at least before the second half when Kordell may rear his ugly head. I think Kent Graham has the potential to be a decent quarterback and could shock everyone this week.
Check out sportbook.com they have first half line you want,if you bet friday and sunday between some hours you lay 105, good books I have account with them never have problem.
Since you can't post on the internet poker board without getting flamed incessantly and since a lot more wiser math minds seem to exist on here, I thought I would pose this question here. I have been talking to a fellow bettor for a while and his main gig is actually Paradise Poker. I play there some, but not all that much. He pointed out to me that if you play fairly tight you can easily play two games at once and that has been what I have been doing.
My question is this, say my regular limit is 4-8. If I figure I make around $8/hour playing one game and I keep a bankroll of about 200 big bets, what would my bankroll requirement be should I play 2 games at 2-4 instead? Say my win rate is cut directly in half, in other words what does that do to my bankroll requirements? My friend that plays often is sure they go down, but by how much? Playing with an edge in twice the number of hands would seem to reduce your need for BR, but does anyone have an idea by how much? I know this concept is often talked about by BJ experts since they like to play 2 hands or more when they have a nice edge, but they really don't talk much about how much that cuts down your BR requirements.
Playing two games at once has no impact on your bankroll requirements, assuming your expected value remains the same. If your expected value is cut in half, then obviously you would be better off playing just one game, but if you were to play two games then in that case your bankroll requirements would double.
...why would BR requirements change? What's the difference between playing 2 games simultaneously, and playing one game twice as fast?
It seems to me that it is completely different from a BJ players concerns. A BJ player could be getting a greater percentage of hands played at higher TC's (assuming he is aware of "card eating") than he would by playing only one hand. Whereas in poker, you're simply playing the hands twice as fast, with no increase in the percentage of quality hands played, only a decrease in time spent waiting for those hands.
I could certainly be wrong, but a change in BR requirements isn't intuitive to me.
I guess that is why I asked. At first I didn't think there would be a difference but my friend insists there is. His theory is that you are spreading out your risk, but since the risk is not necessarily correlated maybe you are all right. I had no idea for sure about this, but for blackjack the hands are correlated because you are facing the same dealer whereas in poker you are not facing the same field.
Don't play poker IT IS A TRAP!
Gee there is some real deep reasoning behind that...
...I've heard it called "real deep", but I've never heard it called "reasoning" before.
I am interested in any information anyone might have about statistics for the first score in NFL games (TD vs FG+saftey),as well as any thoughts on how the total may impact the prop.
I realize weather and place kickers are important considerations and would like to know if you think there is value in these props?
Bills/Jets FG +135$
Bucs/Lions FG +105$
Chargers/Chiefs FG +110$
Broncos/Raiders FG +120$
49ers/Rams FG +155$ (total 56)
Any comments would be appreciated
My suggestion is just look at red zone stats and make them your first consideration. I have never seen these numbers up except for on MNF or playoff games before. There is usually a fat spread of 30 cents or more and only one or two places to bet them other than Super Bowl so I have generally ignored them. You probably can find an edge in any lines they put up on anything as long as you maintain discipline and don't have to pay too high an edge to the book.
For these I would have to make the guess that the Rams/49ers game is a pretty good bet on the TD since the Rams score many more TDs than FGs and the lack of defense for either side.
The lines I quoted are from olympic sports, and you are correct they are 30 cent lines. I like the FG in these props although the line clearly indicates that the TD is a signifigant favorite?
Do you have any ideas where I might find a breakdown of stats for the first score in an NFL game for say the last 5 years?
I was looking yesterday and found a free download that may be of interest to NFL handicappers called MrNFL2000. It allows you to input or download various statistics and run simulations, among other things. Let me know what you think...
Ok you guys don't like the Browns getting 2 against the Steelers (we'll see) how about these extremely low totals:
Bucs at Lions 34
Steelers at Browns 35
Chargers at 35 Chiefs
Ravens at Dolphins 34 ˝
And this high one.
49ers at Rams 55 ˝
Ok some more traps for me, on the low totals betting everyone to be over and on the high total betting under. I know what you guys are guessing on the high total but what about the low ones? BTW I hope I do not read any commentary about the Lions not scoring an offensive touchdown this year. They're due to score one and they will.
Buccs at Lions 34: I set my line at 34 before seeing the book line. Next, I scientifically simulated the game using Madden 2001. The Lions and Buccs will end regulation tied at 17-17 and go into overtime, when a fake punt by the Buccs moves them into field goal range for victory. Outstanding performances by Germaine Crowell and Warrick Dunn, but trouble in the red zone and turnovers keeps the score down. Charlie Batch is sacked 5 times, and throws for 1 TD and 2 interceptions. King has a low completion rate. No bet.
Steeler at Browns 35: I set my line at 37. The Browns offense is much improved, and Kent Graham has potential. Taking "over" on the Steelers away from home is almost always a good idea, as their offense is stronger without the booing from the home field crowd and their defense is weaker without the support from the home field crowd. OVER.
Chargers at Chiefs 35: I set my line at 35. Moses Moreno is the starting QB for the Chargers. Does this imply an over or an under? I don't know. He should be more accurate than Leaf, but I would imagine the Chargers coach will have a conservative game plan for him in his first game. No bet.
Ravens at Dolphins 34.5: I set my line at 35. Banks said he felt like Kurt Warner after his last game. He should feel like Ryan Leaf after this one. Look for red zone turnovers to make this a very boring game with lots of punting. No bet.
49ers at Rams 55.5: I set my line at 50. I've already explained my logic on this one. UNDER.
Tom or Anybody,
Has anyone done a parlay analysis on football (we'll just keep it on Pro) betting the favorite and over. The other side of the coin the dog and under. On most of my parlay's I usually bet this way and I was wondering if anyone else did. The SF superbowls and that era I think I bet the favorite and over 4 or 5 years and a row and collected. My question is does anyone keep these kind of stats???
This bet has a minimal correlation until you get favorable numbering pairs. When those pairs come up most books tend to limit your betting. I have seen some games in the range of 9 and 32 or in colleges 22 and 47. Obviously your edge is much much better in this situation to parlay the over with the favorite and the under and the dog. This is just like teasers though where the stats will be "polluted" if you look at all games because so many will be in meaningless situations such as a game with a line of 1 and 45. I am sure someone with a good database could do a screen of games in more favorable situations and almost certainly find that the percentage playing these situations is better than expected.
I have seen 57 in a couple places now so obviously not too many people are worried about the high total. As for the low totals, well its hard to argue with them. All these games feature at least one very poor offense. When bad offenses play your only hope for the over is to get some timely turnovers. Also don't forget that often a very successful strategy has been to bet the highest total over and the lowest total on a board under. It follows the thinking that totals are held down from their true level just to avoid getting overbet. Think if you had the two worst offenses playing each other you could justify a total of say 27, but everyone would be saying wow what a low total and the books would be way out of balance. To avoid such a situation they will put up say 32 or 31.5 and still garner some over action just on the historic low of the number.
please can someone explain the line..... Bears -2.5
When handicapping the game.... I made it Giants -5 and it it a VERY long time since I have been a TD difference with the Vegas line.
The only area where I can see the Bears having an advantage is their receivers vs the Giants secondary.. but Im sure the Giants will get enough pressure on McNown to make him hurry his throws and deliver the ball before the WRs have run their routes.
Enis is no threat to the strong run defense of NY.
On the other side of the ball look for Barber and Dayne to get the ball early and often with alot of success forcing the Chicago safteys up to the box to stop them dominating. Then watch a rejuvinated Collins strike them with the long ball..... In my view he is nearly back the form he showed when taking the Panthers to the NFC title game. And believe me.. he can throw a mean deep ball.
This is a mismatch.
I will be having my biggest ever bet on Football on the Giants.... and strongly advise you to follow me.
I don't understand this line either and I agree this line appears to way off. It looks like the Giants running game matches up great with the Bears poor run defense.
Another trap game if you ask me. Bears are the better team, the Giants beat fairly weak opposition while the Bears played two tough games. They are a hungry team at home and teams off embarassing losses are usually very solid bets. Obviously the line can't be that off or else the pros would have jumped all over this line earlier. I think this falls under a repeating theme each year, don't jump to conclusions or get swayed too easily after two games. For every team that lives up to its hype there are usually 2 or 3 that don't.
As you recall, I praised the Giants before the season started, and suggested they may make a superbowl run next year. I still set the line at Bears -1; this says that the Giants are about a 2.5 points better team on a neutral field, but after adding 3.5 points for home field, it's Bears by 1. You can't go far wrong taking the Giants on the moneyline. The best I've found is +130.
So last season......... when did you realise the Rams and the Colts were for real?????
Teams improve rapidly with free agency now.... and the key to being a winning bettor is to the spot these improving teams before the linesmakers do.
The Giants are for real. BELIEVE IT.
What did the Giants do to become so good? Are you going to tell me that Kerry Collins is suddenly a star? Like I said, out of the early surprises usually about 3 flop for every one that makes it. I don't really know, maybe I am underrating the Giants, but the Bears were highly regarding going into the season and have faced a very tough early two games. If they are to live up to potential, they have to do it here. Besides I don't think anyone is going to underrate teams like they used to. People are ever vigilant now looking for this years version of the Rams.
In the meantime, I think you are falling into the trap a lot of bettors are believing these days. Its a very big mistake to think or say free agency is making teams winners. No no no. Free agency is making good teams and championship teams mediocre and its making bad teams competitive. Almost every team that moves up to championship level has done it with their own players and an add in or two by free agency. If a team is near the top like Tampa was, well that might be enough to make them a winner. If a team is flat out bad, that might stem the tide and make them a .500 or even wild card contender. It wont make a 6-10 or even 8-8 team a champion. The Colts added Chad Bratzke, he surely wasn't the reason why they suddenly improved so much. The Rams traded for Marshall Faulk, but they gave up a very valuable draft pick for him. So don't make the mistake of thinking turnarounds are caused by free agents. Teams can turn it around more these days because free agency kills the top teams. The best teams at the top though plan for this and develop replacements and sign the guys they truly want to extensions before the players get to test the market. Just compare where Denver and Green Bay are now after meeting in the Super Bowl 3 years ago to see how good teams can survive free agency as well as how some teams can be ravaged by it. Just remember that teams that become winners have a plan and execute it. The Rams were developing a dominant team and got there really with the addition of one player in Faulk. The Colts did the same with Edgerrin James. However neither team would have gotten there if they didn't set it all up in acquiring talented players to go with those major additions and sticking with them in lean years.
Check out letitridesports.com under free svc plays.
Are 3-play football parlays a good deal? Or do they impose bad bankroll management?
A 3-play parly pays 6:1, which is slightly better than what you would get if you made a bet one one game, and then "let it ride" on the next 2. Laying 11:10 odds you would get 5.96:1 if you compounded your bet over 3 games. So if you had 3 games that you wanted to bet on, it would seem that you do better to bet them in a parlay.
However, by betting this way you are basically betting very different amounts on each game. Is it worth the tiny extra bit of EV?
This has been a long debated issue amongst many top gamblers. The general problem with it is very simple. Rarely will you be able to line up the best numbers at the same shop, provided you are using a sufficient number of shops. On occasion you can do it, but more time than not you can't do it and that alone causes too much trouble than to make it worth playing for the small edge. If you are stuck playing in one spot then maybe its to your advantage to do it, but no successful player will condone only using one shop and therefore probably won't endorse looking for 3 teamers.
I hate to say it........
I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!! :P :P :P :P
Yeah I got TRAPPED into this game as well. Lucky me.
Gee I could go on and on about the games I picked right, but come on the Giants were a wreck out there. They moved up and down the field and could only manage two scores. A good team maybe, but far from a juggernaut. After all this isn't the Rams of last year dominating all their opponents. Maybe if they win next week against the Skins then they can start getting a little more excited. Giants fans shouldn't be making plans for Tampa yet, no signs the Bucs are going to let anyone from the NFC play in their house on Super Bowl Sunday...
Bill, the point is to handicap the game right. Giants were obviously at this time of the year better than a 2 point dog on the road to the Bears. Browns vs. Steelers was closer to the right number than this one was IMO.
Come on now Tom, do you really believe that? Handicapping is not about pinpointing the correct final score to perfection. A lot of people believe that, but the reality is judging who has the better chance to win considering all the scenarios that are probable. Sure the Giants were the better team, but to come on here and boast I told you so when a team didn't exactly dominate a sub .500 team is a bit much. No one gave me credit for ignoring all the calls of the high total and the high spread on the Rams and they came through for my two best bets. No one gave credit to Abdul for perfectly calling the same game saying the Niners would give a big first half effort. Winning players don't come out to toot their own horn, they just move onto the next week and hopefully take something that they learned from this week. One thing is for sure I will not worry about making a mistake on this game, faced with similar circumstances a bunch of different things could have happened and the Bears could have won. My personal opinion is the Giants are still not destined for more than 10 wins, if they even reach that. I will stay off their games until they lose one and then play against them consistently because I can already see the overrated signs on this team.
The Giants didnt dominate the Bears???
Which game were you watching?
Rushing yards....... Giants 172 Bears 48
Passing yards.......... Giants 249 Bears 202
Sacks.......... Giants 4 Bears 2
This looks like total domination to me.
And if the Giants hadnt failed on 3 chip shot field goals..... the score would have better resembled how the match went.
I dont remember ever claiming the Giants were going to be this seasons Rams... all I claimed was this match with the Bears represented the best value bet I had seen for some time.
And as for over hyped teams....... have a look at the Redskins. If the Giants can get pressure on Johnson..... I think they will beat the Skins too.. and look a good bet to win the NFC East at this stage.
Yes this is the game I saw. Giants dominated and the stats back it up. Just for the record my totals bets were 3-2 and my two picks covered which leaves me at 7-3 for the season.
Well, the problem with the Giants is their field goal kicker, Daluiso, rated #32 in the league. They'll have at least a field goal handicap every game until they replace him. Look for the Giants to pick up Brett Conway this week. Unfortunately, the Redskins now have a field goal kicker who can't even make extra points, or else it would be a clear bet on the Redskins if the Giants don't get a new kicker. I'll be watching to see if the Giants pick up a kicker or if there are any other developments before I bet the game, but I'm leaning strongly towards Redskins +1 right now, and it looks like an easy under 42. I'm expecting to get +2 by game time.
I would like to know the players edge if he is able to ascertain the dealers hole cards when they have an Ace or a face card showing. In otherwords they have to look at their hole card to check for blackjack.
If I have perfect knowledge when the dealer has to look what is my advantage? I'll take a wild guess and say 8%.
That would be fairly hard to quantify for one thing and another is you pretty much would have to do things to keep it to yourself. Say you are dealt a 19. The dealer has a 10 exposed and peeks and it turns out he has a 10. Are you going to hit that 19??? Obviously a situation that will come in many cases where the dealer peeks and you know you are beat. Its very rare to even hit hard 17 so basically the decision for you won't make that much difference. Further these days very few places have peaking dealers anymore. Most seem to use the no peek devices.
For your edge situation though, I doubt its 8%. You would only have the edge in 5/13 possible times where the dealer had to look. Then narrow it down because many of those situations you might have a decent hand. Further narrow it down where you find out the dealer has a standing hand and you would have been hitting anyways. Lastly narrow it down by the situations I detailed above. In the end the only times you really have an edge is where you both have a stiff hand and you then would stand. Even if the dealer has say a 13, he still has a fair shot at making a standing hand so your edge is fairly small.
There have been some attempts at doing this for an edge in Vegas. I have heard they havent been so successful. Most times reportedly were with the dealer in on it as well. It would be fairly easy to pull off if you have the dealer working with you and I am not sure how the house avoids this problem. The dealer could have a real simple mannerism that would give away if he has a standing hand or not and if you developed it more he could even give you the signal through conversation. My thought though is that since its not really happening all around town, this can't be all that big of an edge. If you could get a huge edge doing this then the cheating would be much more widespread.
I believe it is more like 5 or 6% and that includes you doing things like hitting hard 18 and doubling down on a total of nine when he shows a ten.
If I have perfect knowledge when the dealer has to look what is my advantage?"
"I would like to know the player's edge if he is able to ascertain the dealers' hole cards when they have an Ace or a face card showing. In other words [when the dealers] have to look at their hole card to check for blackjack.
If I have perfect knowledge when the dealer has to look what is my advantage?"
This depends on a number of variables, among whom are the number of decks and the rules in the particular game. Are you able to get away with crazy things like hitting Hard 17? Most players who find themselves in a situation where they can spot the hole card, are correctly reluctant to jeopardize such a sweet deal, and resort to cover plays; such as standing with Hard 17 against a dealer's confirmed 18. Some pit crews get suspicious even when the player Insures a "poor hand", like a Hard 6...
A recently published text has a new calculation of the edge from perfect hole card play : this means knowing the dealer's hole card every time (and not just when she checks for a natural) and playing perfectly, without cover, with that knowledge. For a 6-deck S17 DOA DAS game the edge is +13%!
For the single-deck game, where most dealer flashings can be expected, the edge with (say) H17 D10 NoDAS, is +5.67%, when the player can spot the dealer's hole card as she checks under a Ten or an Ace. This, again, assumes perfect play, not caring about the consequences of Hitting Hard 18 and the like.
The cost of these cover plays has also been estimated. (For example, the cost of not Hitting Hard 17 against a dealer's confirmed 18, 19 or 20 is -1.21%.)
"The cost of these cover plays has also been estimated. (For example, the cost of not Hitting Hard 17 against a dealer's confirmed 18, 19 or 20 is -1.21%.)"
I looked through bjmath and Thorp, I couldn't find anything specifically about peeking dealers. Something else I looked for and couldn't find was how much improvement could be made to "perfect hole card play" with the use indices, any idea? Intuition tells me that it should be quite significant, though as you're aware, my intution isn't always the best. :-)
Well its not really anywhere because its such an impractical skill to practice. Just how often are you going to get this chance? Believe me any dealer would have to develop this weakness after s/he got hired because it would be spotted instantly during an audition for a job. Further don't forget that only a 5/13 times would a dealer be required to look. Some of these times the dealer would have 21 so you lose immediately. Other times you would have to "cover" your knowledge and accept a loss since only an idiot would hit anything higher than hard 16. Add to that the times where you know the card and you are tied or you have a sure winner, there is no edge to the strategy because you wouldn't have hit it anyways, and of course the times where you would hit the hand no matter what. The main times you might save yourself money would be situations where you would normally double down and find out the dealer has a 20 or even a 19. You would gain sometimes by standing, but unless the dealer has a 15 or 16, you still are not on solid ground as the dealer has a decent shot at drawing to beat you.
All in all, I think this thinking is very misleading. Yes it definitely would seem on the surface to be a big edge, but edge is determined by how much you can apply it at any given time.
"Well its not really anywhere because its such an impractical skill to practice."
Or so I too thought, but I'm rather familiar with Cyrus' postings, and thus when he posted such exact numbers, I had no doubt that his numbers were accurate and came from a reliable source. Even if that "reliable source" would have turned out to be his own calculations.
I agree, this would certainly be a rare opportunity. Though I think it would be far more exploitable, once it were found, than you seem to believe it to be. This is the sort of opportunity that could make a BJ players career. An opportunity to play BS (Beer Strategy), I believe is how Cyrus would say it.
Cyrus is very excited about this book at the moment.
Mike, do you mean indices calculated for hole-card play with a commercial count system?, or the indices generally supplied with a commercial count system?, or the indices calculated for a count system designed specifically for hole-card play? Each has a different answer.
A few words of warning here generally about hole-card play. Less than 1 in a 1000 dealers is vulnerable to the traditional forms of hole-card play. If you do find one, another factor, time, becomes very important. You should not make marginal splits, because that may reduce the total number of hands you can get in before this very temporary opportunity vanishes altogether. Mathematical expectation be damned.
Also, as a practical matter, advantage players use a generic hole-card strategy rather than one optimized for a specific game, so the perfect hole-card play figures should be trimmed a little. This is because its almost impossible to use an optimized hole-card strategy for a specific game that you've never played before without error, hesitation and mental fatigue wiping out the extra gain.
Finally, I'd recommend counting, preferably using opposition betting or a small spread, if this does not slow you down. One thing not generally alluded to in the texts is the fantastic effect this has on compound bankroll growth, which is more important than the increased risk of detection.
"Cyrus is very excited about this book at the moment."
In that case it must be an excellent book, I'll have to get a copy.
"Mike, do you mean indices calculated for hole-card play with a commercial count system?, or the indices generally supplied with a commercial count system?, or the indices calculated for a count system designed specifically for hole-card play? Each has a different answer."
I meant the first, indices calculated for hole card play with a commercial count system. But you've peaked my curiousity once again, in this case, given that the hole card is exposed only during the peek, would a count system designed specifically for this occasion be completely different from a commercial count system?
As always, thanks for information/advice.
Its not an excellent book, because Morgan/Grosjean does not give us any means of knowing hole-cards beyond those presented in the classic texts. His next book, now that will be a classic...
The problem with commercial systems is that they are not optimized for this type of situation. Also, only Uston has presented strategy numbers for hole-card play. He does not specify the extra gain from indices and probably just as well too, I remember simulating a typical 2-decker with 65% pen., exposed hole-card and no other special rules or spread, using UAPC indices and getting .2% over basic strategy. Scarcely worthwhile considering your overall advantage.
A count system designed for a game where the hole-card is exposed during the peek would be different from a system which was designed for a 100% front-loader, and both would be different from the existing commercial systems. The effects of removal are stronger when the hole-card is exposed 100% of the time, between 25-50% stronger depending on other rules. I have no idea what the difference is with hole-cards only exposed during the peek, but because of the relative importance of the cards associated with peek exposure the increased EOR's may still be significant.
My research did not get much further because the limited opportunities suggested to me noone would be that interested.
I know this is not much help if you can only see hole-cards exposed during the peek, but perfect insurance (worth 2.4% by itself) is also worth an extra .12% per TC, an increase of 25% over the standard EOR's. Must be a significant reduction in risk also. Surprisingly, the removal of an ace is almost twice as important as with a normal game. This may be of interest to warp players (traditional style or induced by card-readers)or card-locators.
Front-loading would seem to be the only real application much longer because its pretty rare here in Vegas anymore to see peeking dealers as the no peek devices are pretty much standard at most tables. With the advent of digital 21 probably taking up a portion of the market as well your opportunities will be less and less.
"It's not an excellent book, because Morgan/Grosjean does not give us any means of knowing hole-cards beyond those presented in the classic texts."
Personally, I would not like to see anything more "advanced" than what is already there - either in the Grosjean book or what you call the "classics". The food becomes so much chewed, it's not even funny. Come on, those really interested will get the info. Why should the casual player (along with other interested parties) be privy to all that?
I mean, what next? A book with flashing dealers' names?!
"His next book, now that will be a classic."
IMHO, it's already a classic. I hope sales discourage a 2nd edition. Just like I hope to see the usual volume for BJA 2, i.e. strictly for the CC's and the Z-man enlightened crews.
Call me an enemy of entropy.
Personally, I would not like to see anything more "advanced" than what is already there - either in the Grosjean book or what you call the "classics".
I should make it clear I wasn't suggesting Grosjean do anything, its a prediction. I have my sources. I'm not going to argue with you about the excellence of the best book on gambling for twenty years or so, but I'd advise you not to use up all your adjectives now in case you have nothing left for later.
The food becomes so much chewed, it's not even funny. Come on, those really interested will get the info. Why should the casual player (along with other interested parties) be privy to all that?
A number of good reasons exist for bringing information into the public domain. A select number of elite players are not going to develop a strategy properly, and if they do the work will be later lost if they operate in isolation. We would not have the advances in optimal betting theory if the bj21 particpants had been working alone, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Particulary, and this is very important, the crucial innovations in the last few years have come almost exclusively from the casino side. Peek readers, continuous shuffle machines, facial recognition devices etc. The complete lack of effective response from the advantage play community is testament to the inability of players who might form an effective response to discuss sensitive information and create a solution. How valuable will your "secret" information on say, ace location be, if every game is continuously or digitially shuffled?
Also, it is sometimes desireable to burn out a specific opportunity by releasing the information publicly, because the casino countermeasures may actualy create other, better, possibilities for advantage play. To give an example, many casinos in Europe and Australia began cutting off 3 decks out of 8 at mini-baccarat, apparently in response to a (probably imaginary) fear of card-counting players. To compensate for the lost play time they began using much simpler shuffles and the situation was temporarily paradise for a card locator. I could provide numerous other examples.
Finally, I don't want to write or read about weak and anachronistic methods of play written for a cadre of bourgeois playboys. Certainly counting the modern shoe game falls into that category. Its dishonest to recommend a play-all style with 6 or 8-deck games, the fluctuations can last years and the time and bankroll is much better spent of almost anything else if you use any kind of return on investment/quality of life measure.
"I'm not going to argue with you about the excellence of the best book on gambling for twenty years or so, ... "
I never said that it was the best book - but I would not argue too much with your assessment. There have been many "classical" texts in the last "twenty years or so" and, as I said, strictly IMHO, that one is right up there.
" ... but I'd advise you not to use up all your adjectives now in case you have nothing left for later."
I take that as a promise.
From what I read both teams want to run,my guess is UNDER.
I say under and take Dallas and the points. Their only road win last season was at Washington and they have beat the Skins 5 straight times. This is Big Al's shoe in of the week.
Alright Big Al's,I parlay COWBOYS and UNDER
Gee it looked so good going into the 4th quarter. In the end I felt very fortunate only taking the Cowboys and the points. I have to say that the Redskins are just befuddling to me. I thought they were overrated, but really they seem so lost out there. They don't throw it downfield and few teams can win not doing that. How can they possibly explain that they got the final drive started with about 1:45 left and made about 30 yards of progress when time ran out. That is flat out terrible. How do they figure they can win a game moving the ball 7 yards at a time??? I wonder if Norv Turner has already got his bags packed and ready to go at any moment...
I think this game was a trap.
If you were trapped, why weren't most of us as well?
Anyone else having problems with them? I have posted picks three times now that for whatever reason did not go through. I haven't missed any stellar days, but the whole idea of it is to post my picks so everyone can see them yet their stupid website is a mess and doesn't seem to work. Not to mention you would think they could have real time lines from their big advertiser Sportsbook.com instead of some of the silly numbers they leave up there.
Not much to say except it stinks to be very kind which isn't my nature just ask Vince.
I'm 10-5 against the spread on predictit.com, toot-toot! :)
My predictit.com choices this week are:
Falcons +6.5 - 6.5 point home dog? The Falcons on a good day can outscore the Rams. Jamal Anderson is back on track. Unfortunately, 6.5 points is nothing in such a high scoring game. Give me 2:1 on the moneyline instead.
Rams/Falcons UNDER 55 - I'm going to keep betting under on these big totals until I go broke. The Falcons defense has promise. Both teams' offenses are capable of sputtering at times.
Steelers +7 - 7 point home dog? The Steelers might be that bad, but the Titans are not that good. The Titans are a conservative team and do not run up the score unnecessarily. Kent Graham impresses me, except I think he may be mentally retarded after the two minute warning. I don't think there is much threat of Kordell being put in at home.
Browns +10.5 - This is a great match-up for the Browns: powerful deep strike pass offense of the Browns versus weak cornerbacks of the Raiders. Pity the Browns have been doing well, or we might be seeing +14 here.
San Diego Chargers +2.5 - No one in their right mind is going to bet on Leaf. Therefore, it is a good bet. Go Leaf! I prefer any kind of moneyline, perhaps +130, to the points. The Chargers have been burned on deep passes, but I can't see Kitna doing any long bombs in the wake of 5 interceptions versus the Dolphins. He's a short pass kind of guy anyway.
Rams/Falcons UNDER 55 - I'm going to keep betting under on these big totals until I go broke. The Falcons defense has promise. Both teams' offenses are capable of sputtering at times.
your not talking about SF last week now are you????
ps:I agree on totals. but stay away from Seatle and Kitten you don't know if the pussy is going to show or the lion.
OH NO!!! I like every bet Abdul has and my special this week was the Browns and the Falcons on the money line. Now I am scared, or maybe Abdul should be!
So how much in earnings you have now Abdul from predicit?
Falcons are a trap. Stay away from them.
I'm getting nervous about the Browns. Their receivers are banged up, and Oakland does have one good cornerback (Woodson) who will be covering the Browns' one good receiver (Johnson.)
Its the simplest rule in betting and I have followed it for over a year now. Bet the Raiders on the road, bet against them at home. People see those fans and think it must be a good home field advantage but its not. I can't even fully explain it myself, but to any halfway decent analyst its obvious this team doesn't perform as both a favorite and as a home team. Road dogs they are very tough to beat. Betting on it is 3-0 so far and I don't see an end to it this weekend. Couch has become good enough to be a backdoor threat every week and Raiders tend to make things exciting at the end of every game. An outright upset wouldn't terribly surprise me given the Raiders tendency to choke and Cleveland's enthusiasm at being 2-1, even if its wins were against maybe the two worst teams.
As for predictit, I am really getting pissed. The page is slow to load and for some reason it doesn't accept my picks and I don't really know it. Basically it skips the confirmation page that is supposed to come up. The old predicit worked great before they tried to make it standalone and all. Why is it that everything on the net works great when its plain and functional and everything trying to have bells and whistles sucks? You would think most webmasters would realize this fact.
Monday I was playing in aBlack Jack tournment at the Montreal CAsino . I was at the semi-final . At this point , there are 7 tables with 7 players on each table . so we are 49 .There are 21 games on each table and the deck is shuffle every 7 games . The best of each table goes in the final the others keep take back the 300$ they pay for the participation .Everyone atart with 5000chips . The max bet is 2000chips . We are at the hand 18th and I have 4500 , there are 2 guys out , 2 with a very small stake and 2 with a stake of 7000 . I try a move and bet the max : 2000 . Men with 7000 are position 1 and 2 . #1 bets 1000 , #2 bets 1500 ....I have soft 13 , #1 : 15 , #2 soft 19 . The book says to hit A2 against a 3 . Situation is not the same now , I have to think of it ...hit or doubledown ....If I hit : I could decrease the difference between me and #2 of 500 . I could improve it of 3500 if I have 21 and the dealers has 20 ....but the odd are not so big .
....If I doubleDown : I have 5/13 to have between 17 and 21 .The dealer will bust 40% of the time with a 3 (dealer hit with soft 17 in CasMtl ). I would take the lead even with #2 if the dealer bust and take a lead of 3000 if I have 21 , and the dealer 20 .
Result : I doubleDown and receive a jack ...The dealer has 3 and turn a 9 , a 3 and a 6 = 21 .....
The next hand I bet my last 500 and I receive 17 , the dealer has 10-9 . I was gone . #2 win at our table and goes in final . He wons the tournment with a check of 25 000$
Any comments ?
Last night I had my normal weekly get together with two longtime pro sports betting friends. Offhand I talked about the issue of bankroll requirements for playing two games. One of my friends is one of the strongest technical handicappers I know, a person I often discuss bankroll issues with. He most definitely disagrees with the conclusions we came up with. Here is his thinking:
First it only applies if you are both a winning player and have a sufficient bankroll. If you try to make it with a 50 bet bankroll it will never work. He says if you cut your bet in half and play two games though you will need a much smaller bankroll. When you are playing games with an edge, we all know you have good and bad days. The bankroll is to protect you when the bad days come in a series. Well playing two independent events when you have the edge works as a buffer. You will definitely not be in the same risk position as playing one game because the two events will cancel each other out some. In other words to lose your bankroll you would have to have both games going badly against you at the same time. Whats more likely to happen is you have some good and bad games at the same time, while slowly going up. Of course the huge potential upside you could experience over a short time frame is reduced too, but most pro level gamblers don't care much as long as they are reaching their expectation. He says in theory you probably need somewhere between 60-75% of the bankroll you would need in the bigger game, but you can't really figure it out unless you have good accurate samples to work with. In any event he says think about it for a minute and it should be very clear. It would be very very hard to have bad negative fluctuations in both games for a long period of time. Its possible, anything is possible, but theoretically you should have a lot less risk with some reduction in upside reward.
Any thoughts on that?
You asked us about the bankroll requirement for playing one game at $X stakes versus two games simultaneously at $X stakes apiece. The bankroll requirement is the same (unless the bets are a large fraction of your bankroll.) If you're going to play two laps around the poker table, why do you think it should make a difference for bankroll whether you play one lap and then the other compared to doing both laps at the same time on two on-line tables? Think about it a minute and it should be very clear. :)
The difference is that you are playing independent trials simultaneously at half the stakes. I said if you were say a 4-8 player stepping down to 2-4 and playing two games. In this case you might get slightly easier games (not much different). The theory is that you would have to duplicate two bad efforts back to back which is not very likely. In practice you have good games and bad games luck wise. If you play two at once you are more likely to have the two even out and be closer to your expectation.
Oh, I misread you before. The bankroll for playing two games of 2-4 is the same as the bankroll for playing one game of 2-4 (unless your bets are a significant fraction of your bankroll, which is not the case for limit poker.) This bankroll is half the bankroll required for 4-8, assuming you have the same expected value in units for both 2-4 and 4-8.
So, let me get this straight.
B(x/2) = B(x)/2 if there is no correlation of variance to stakes? And you guys solved this in only 4 posts?
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
"The difference is that you are playing independent trials simultaneously at half the stakes."
Actually, other things being equal:
The difference is that you are playing at half the stakes.
If the games aren't significantly softer at the 2-4 level, and your BR is sufficient for the 4-8 level, it's not very productive to play 2 tables of 2-4, at least not in terms of "the amount of work for an amount of money". Simultaneously playing two 2-4 tables is doing twice the work for the same $/hr as one 4-8 table. While simultaneously playing 2 tables of 4-8 would double your $/hr, with the exact same risk and BR requirements as one 4-8 table.
"The theory is that you would have to duplicate two bad efforts back to back which is not very likely."
It is just as likely to simultaneously duplicate two bad efforts on seperate tables as it is to duplicate two bad efforts in a row on one table.
Think of it in terms of rounds, rather tham in terms of hours. Other things being equal, playing for half the stakes is less risky, half the stakes means half the risk. But playing 2 tables simultaneously does nothing to alter risk. Playing 2 tables simultaneously may "feel" less risky simply because you're getting into the long run twice as fast and getting through the fluctuations twice as fast. But this "twice as fast" stuff is misleading because it's actually identical in terms of rounds played. Your chances of being behind after X number of rounds are exactly the same, whether you play one table, or you play two tables simultaneously. What you've done to make it "feel" less risky is decrease your chances of being behind after X number of hours, but you've done this simply by doubling your rounds per hour.
Its amazing how differing the opinions are on this from all that I have asked. Everyone seems to put it in similar terms with a different conclusion. As for what you conclude, first of all this is for Omaha/8, a very technical game especially online. Very rarely does psychology enter the play of a low limit O/8 hand. Players don't have to vary their play because of the H/L nature of the game and the fact that you have 4 cards that can make a lot of combinations you would not play in hold'em. There are no tells and very few players tend to have any patterns beyond loose and solid players for the most part. Its mostly a matter of playing premium hands and drawing to the nuts. Therefore I think playing two games is minimal in "effort". In fact for some players it might be more ideal because it increases discipline as you will have shorter periods between playable hands.
In the end this is all experimental in nature for me. I play the game for entertainment, but really hate the thought of losing money so I play fairly well. I am sure I could play a higher limit but I am not into making this a serious endeavor so I keep it very low limit. The 2-4 games are a little better than 4-8 games in action, but the flat rate toke makes the percentage taken out of the game higher in the long run so I don't even know if the game is any more profitable.
As far as solving it in 5 posts, I don't think its ever to be solved. Its just to stimulate conversation as always...
"Its amazing how differing the opinions are on this from all that I have asked. Everyone seems to put it in similar terms with a different conclusion."
The only differing opinion I've seen is that of your handicapper friend. I'm in complete agreement with Abdul. But I don't think your friend understands this, otherwise he wouldn't have made an estimate like 60-75%.
Two simultaneous games at 2-4, other things equal, has half the risk of one game of 4-8.
Two games simultaneously at 2-4, other things equal, has half the risk of two games simultaneously at 4-8.
The "two games simultaneously" part of this is really immaterial, the part that lowered your BR requirements was the "half stakes" part.
"As far as solving it in 5 posts"
That wasn't me, but I think it was meant tongue in cheek.
"I don't think its ever to be solved."
Unless there are differences in the games, (i.e. the skill of the players, etc.) it is solved:
2 games simultaneously = exactly the same risk = exactly the same BR requirements
1/2 stakes = 1/2 the risk = 1/2 the BR requirements
I have had others agree with my friend, but I think there are lots of variables thrown in. Everyone on both sides make strong arguments so I am guessing that there are differences in assumptions leading to differing answers. I think I will leave it all at that since the whole point was just to do some thinking about bankroll and not to figure out how to make a living playing 2-4.
Take Miami and give the 4 1/2 points. Its Big Al's shoe in of the week.
Hmmmmm ... I would've thought that the Dolphins were due to bounce after the big Dan-fest last week.
The "shoe-in" got there, but that's one scary offense to be giving points to. Congrats.
Earl,FYI BigAl is on a major heater and is currently crushing his local MAN.As hard as this may be to beleive he has not lost a game all year in the nfl ats.
If the shoe fits wear it. Size 2 1/2.
When I see two games this week where a road fave is laying a TD, I shake my head. Factoring in the transfer of the home advantage, would this make St Louis and Tennessee 13-14 point faves at home for these games? I know Pittsburgh sucks but T hasn't been hitting on all cyllinders where they would be that kind of dominating favorite. And Atlanta doesn't suck at all, and there is definitely a chink in the St Louis armor -- when there offence is waiting to get back out on the field. It was quite the "comeback" for SL to cover the 17 v SF, and I don't make Atlanta just 3 points better than SF on a neutral field.
Anyway, I'm normalizing these numbers, and the derived opinions from my guesses of h.f. advantage. If they didn't exist to these degrees, then my opinions would be tempered so. Still, if you're laying a TD on the road, it's close to laying 2 at home. That seems like a lot to me, at least for these two particular matchups.
Teams don't translate that way, don't make the mistake of getting into that thinking. Its never really true that on a neutral field if team A is 4 points better than team B and team B is 7 points better than team C, then team A should be an 11 point favorite over team C.
To dissect this one, albeit after the result, the thinking is of course the Rams are the public team for now and get probably 3 points there. When a team is a noticeable favorite over their opponent then the home edge is much less, often only one or two points at most. Then add the Rams having a big big home edge with a loud dome crowd and their preferred track and you are probably looking at a bigger swing in home edge than you think. Lastly the Falcons are a very easy team to figure out and this week fit perfectly into their pattern. If they stay close in the game, they are competitive with anyone. They have a balanced attack that is effective. When behind they don't run Anderson much and they fall apart because their pass blocking is terrible and the opponents just tee it up and go after Chandler. This game fit it perfectly. Had they scored in the 3rd and taken the lead the end result would have been much different, that much I am sure of. However a turnover and a return for TD turns around any game drastically when its close and the nature of these teams just magnified it. It made it even worse that Anderson got hurt and they didn't show much faith in Rivers running the ball after that play and became even more pass oriented. The way the game turned out was exactly what I thought, either the Falcons would have a great shot at winning if they stayed near the lead or they would get blown out if they fell behind by more than 10 points. Therefore I thought betting the money line was by far the best option.
On the Titans win, the opposite was very much true. The Titans are clearly not the type of team you want to lay big points on. They aren't a prolific scoring team and just run the ball conservatively with a lead leaving the backdoor wide open. I can't remember how many times as a big favorite last year they lost against the spread when they had the game well in hand.
When laying the big points obviously you want a higher scoring team. In that alone you could see the Rams were a fair bet if you liked them to cover and the Titans were not such a solid bet even if you thought them far superior to the Steelers.
There are all kinds of factors but basically I agree with your analysis about laying 7 on the road being the same as laying almost 2 touchdowns at home. One thing that I think will bear some fruit for Abdul is that the points the home team gets is not the same for every team. His handicapping system apparently calculates a home field advantage for each team. Intuitively calculating a home field advantage for each team would seem to adjusting for seasonal factors as well. I have no idea if this is actually born out by statistics but it would seem that the Packers would have a bigger home field advantage in December than in September.
I think Abdul would garner a bigger edge if he utilized it for the NBA or NCAA hoops. Home edge is definitely a factor in the NFL, but its changing and your info in determining it will not be so useful much of the time as you will be looking at stats from previous years.
Abdul probably gains a point or two in accuracy in his best situations over just using a guess. An easy enough method is to figure out that there are 4 or 5 stadiums that give a huge advantage and equally important 4 or 5 that are a disadvantage. Add those factors in with this scale: Home team is - +7.5 or more...no edge +3.5 - +7...1 point -3 - +3...2 points -3.5 - -7...3 points -7.5 - -10...4 points -10.5 or more...5 points
Add to that edges as I mentioned before for the teams with a definite edge or disadvantage. Generally this works well because teams not expected to win don't get much support except in the few stadiums with good support. If a team is a good sized dog at home their fans are likely to either be on them hard or to have their opponents fans filling the seats too. The bigger favorites are likely to have a bigger edge because they will have a good crowd usually and add to that the crowd makes more noise and causes more trouble when the team is leading as they ruin audibles.
This home field stuff is one big TRAP.
Again, home edge is something I assign by hand, because I think I can infer it by watching the games. For example, I had the home edge for the Cowboys cranked up high to 5 points, because they seemed to be playing so much better at home last year. But, after hearing the fans booing Troy Aikman this week, I'm going to slash the Cowboys home field advantage down to 2, and I would do so even if the Cowboys had beaten the 49ers by a wide margin. The Cowboys fans are a nasty group when their team is playing poorly.
However, I plan to let my program adjust the home field advantages using my guesses as a starting point.
Here are the home field advantages after being adjusted by my program based on the first four weeks of this season:
Arizona 2.2, Atlanta 4.4, Baltimore 3.1, Buffalo 4.6, Carolina 3.3, Chicago 3.9, Cincinnati 2.0, Cleveland 3.0, Dallas 1.9, Denver 5.8, Detroit 4.3, Green Bay 4.8, Indianapolis 4.0, Jacksonville 5.3, Kansas City 5.2, Miami 5.3, Minnesota 3.9, New Orleans 1.4, New England 3.8, New York Giants 3.8, New York Jets 3.9, Oakland 2.4, Philadelphia 0.8, Pittsburgh 1.0, San Diego 2.9, Seattle 4.0, San Francisco 3.3, St. Louis 4.6, Tampa Bay 5.2, Tennessee 4.2, Washington 3.2
So you don't adjust based on the divergence in talent between the two teams? I mean take this week, the Chargers at the Rams I would say the home edge would be much closer to 7 points. Whenever a team is a big favorite the home edge goes up more. The psychology of playing a big favorite in their house translates into more momentum for the home team and less confidence for the road team, not to mention much more likely that the home team's fans will be into the game and making more noise since they are more likely to be leading.
I suspect home field advantage is highest for closely matched teams, and for divisional rivals, though my program doesn't do any such adjustment. Home field advantage is easiest to observe in a game where the home team is up by 0-2 points in the fourth quarter, the away team has the ball, and the crowd noise forces the away team to take a time out or jump offsides or have the game clock run out or have a bad snap etc.
You think the Rams fans will be going nuts when they're up 27-10 over the Chargers with two minutes to go? Are you imagining a hissy cry of "CHRISSSSS" as Rams quarterback Joe Germaine hands off the ball to Chris Thomas for a loss of two yards as the third stringers simply try to chew up the clock? I think the Rams fans will be sneaking out to their cars. However, it's also true that the Rams players would be more inclined to rub the Chargers' noses into it in St. Louis than San Diego.
I may try to investigate it statistically.
In both the NFL & NBA, the HA is highest in games involving closely matched *good* teams. I'm somewhat doubtful that the NFL will give a big enough sample size to show the kind of meaningful results obtainable in the NBA.
The HA for NFL divisional games is a tad higher(roughly 0.75 pts) than for non-divisional matches.
Its a well documented fact actually. The mistake you are making is putting too much on the very end of the game. No that makes no difference then, but the crowd determines blowouts early on in the first half. Fans will always show enthusiasm in the first half, its after that they can tend to tone it down. I have seen quite a few statistical studies make the argument in favor of the big favorite getting more home field advantage. Its biggest effect though is when a home team is a big underdog. Very occasionally the dog can make some noise and get an edge, but usually fans show up either to root on the road team and the home team fans show up quiet just waiting to get waxed. In this scenario obviously the only advantage for the road team is that the home team isn't getting much of an edge either.
Yes, my previous studies had shown a higher home field advantage for first half than second half. It's just usually easier to see when it is a close game in the second half.
The reason you don't see much of 2nd half HA is because most games have been decided in the first half.
Regarding the notion of differing values of the HA based on team ability:
1) Treat each sport/league as a separate entity until data shows otherwise. This is especially true for college vs pro leagues. My own work has shown that the NBA & NFL are indeed very much alike in the vagaries of HA.
2) Do not assume that HA for a given sport is a constant for all games involving equally matched teams. For both the NBA & NFL, Ev(HA)is greatest when both teams are good(> 0.500 SU) but not amongst the circuit's elite ranks.
OTOH, my work so far in MLB suggests that HA is relatively insensitive to the talent levels of the opposing teams.
Thats not terribly surprising, baseball lacks almost any home field edge. Teams get credit for it almost always but every season there are teams that clearly are better suited to play on the road than at home. You will almost never see that in football or basketball and probably half as much in hockey. Really the only time home field seems to really matter is the playoffs. Then you get a full house for almost every game. The fans are into every pitch. Its such a different atmosphere. I remember a few years back going to my first playoff game and it was a totally different experience. The idle chat you see at a regular season game is gone. People are all focused on every pitch. Every two strike count gets the fans into the game. For anyone that regularly attends baseball games you know this is certainly not the way the crowd is during the regular season. So as the playoffs begin, be careful to readjust those home edges. Road teams still do win quite a bit, but if you assume a similar home edge in the playoffs as regular season you are probably making a mistake.
OAK OVER 41
I have a problem with some of the Strategy changes in the Book namely Hard 16 vs. dealer's Ten. David says to stop hitting when the count is slightly positive (+2), but shouldn't it be at all positive (0)? I noticed that he does state "at all Positive" once in the text but then it is contradicted.
Also, the editor should be fired since there were many other strategy contradictions that I found in the first issue. I hope you guys have addressed these. I also would have liked to hear some "War Stories" from David while he was still playing BJ.
The current Vegas line is Colts -3.5, with an over/under of 47.
My program doesn't think much of the Colts. What it seems to take offense to is the Colts' 6-31 defeat at the hands of the Bills last year. The Colts defense is awful and falls apart by the second half, while the Colts offense can be stopped by a top notch defense. My program puts the line at PICK, with an over/under of 44.5.
My intuition is the opposite, and I would put the line at somewhere between -3.5 and -6.5 Colts. The Colts offense looks even more impressive this year, and the Jaguar offense has been less than impressive. But there is no question that the Jaguars defense is much better than the Colts defense.
I trust my program more than my intuition, so I'll probably go for Jaguars on the moneyline. I'll also be looking for a halftime bet on the Jaguars.
Although not Big Al's shoe in of the week, I like Indy and giving the points.
BEWARE! NFL 2nd halves do not behave the same way on Monday night that they do on Sunday!
If you believe that Indy has an excellent shot at being ahead at the half tonight, then stay away from the Jags in the 2nd half. My research shows a very strong divergence from the norm concerning leauge-wide 2nd half behavior in what I call "spotlight" games(Mon. night, Thursday night, etc).
My own handicapping shows this to be generally a pretty good spot for the Colts, although not unequivocally so.
Abdul-Colts stink? I think you need to get a new program.
Monday Night Football is a different animal. The psychological factors at work here make handicapping this game very different from your ordinary, run-of-the-mill Sunday afternoon affair. I just wonder if Abdul's program knows the difference.
And that goes double for handicapping 2nd halves on MNF.
It is easy to ridicule after the game.
I still do not rate the Colts in the class of TB or the rams.
They are easy to run against.
They have a huge weakness apart from Harrison at WR.
Manning is a great passer... but he still has alot to prove in the big game.
They are one of the most enjoyable teams in the league to watch. But they not a powerhouse. YET.
check above threads pal, I called this game before it came in. When you make a strong statement that a team stinks, then they come and whup ass, you open yourself up to ridicule. BTW, where were you on this game, Mr. High and Mighty? Why dont you make your selections/comments BEFORE a game...
Remember, it was my program that said the Colts stink. I'm inclined to think it's my program that stinks, but we'll see if my program has the last laugh after this week, when the Colts take on the Bills, who beat them 31-6 in the playoffs in Buffalo.
Abdul-I meant my comments about your program more as a joke than anything else. Hope you are not taking it personally. I have a lot of respect for your comments whenever I see them in any forum on 2plus2. I just get tired of guys who post comments after a game like they know it all or brag that they have been killing the games yet you never see their picks before game time.
For what it's worth, my program puts the Colts/Bills line at -2.5 Bills, over/under of 43. The Vegas line is -1.5 Bills, 44.5, which is pretty close. On a different game, my program found a ten star platinum clover lock of the year, one which I agree with. Stay tuned.
Glad to see you are learning how to talk like a tout Abdul! :)
I wonder does your program say the Bucs really stink since they lost to the lesser Raiders last year by over 40 points. My guess about your program Abdul is you need to do what most programs of that nature do and throw out a worst and best game out of each sample to give a more accurate picture. If you did that your program would probably grade every team more accurately. Besides doesn't your program grade for form too? I don't know anyone who is this deep in the season and still putting anything more than very minor weighting on what happened last year.
We discussed this problem last year, when my program overreacted to the blow-out of the Buccs by the Raiders, 45-0. At the end of last year, its top ranked teams were, in order, Rams, Jaguars, Redskins, Colts, Titans, Raiders, and then the Buccs. I have not yet figured out a disciplined way to address this problem.
I don't know what you mean by "doesn't your program grade for form too?", but the answer is no. The program only considers final scores.
You say, "I don't know anyone who is this deep in the season and still putting anything more than very minor weighting on what happened last year." Three games is not very much to go on! (This thread started in the context of predicting the Jaguars-Colts game.) Last year's power ratings are the starting point for this year's.
Abdul I told you how to solve that problem real easily. If you look at most commercial predictor programs they have an option or sometimes its part of the formula to throw out the teams best and worst game rating wise. This is really something you should always do provided you have a big enough statistical sample. Unless you really think one team is going to play their best game of the year or their worst, there is certainly no reason to grade their previous efforts on these games. Do this and your ratings should be a lot better. Either that or teach your system to "collapse" blowouts. This works well for colleges, but generally in the pros if a team blows another one out they deserve credit for it since its not that easy to do. This is more for how to grade Nebraska and Kansas State games than Ramas games.
Actually I had a smll bet on the Colts.
And I am quite prepared to display my selections.
I just didnt think anyone would be interested.
Put them on predictit.com, if you can get it to work. I am trying yet again, hoping to have them up in an hour or so for all to laugh at. Last week was terrible for me, I am sure glad they didn't take the picks.
I was thinking about this one for awhile. What do you think the Rams record would be this year if they played in the AFC East and if New England was in the NFC West. I know its not logistically correct, but just to consider the importance of scheduling and all. I posed this question to my discussion group and we had divergig opinions. We actually looked at last year and didn't talk about this year. For last year I said I think the Rams would have been 11-5 and finished second to the Colts at 12-4. For whats its worth, I said New England would have gone 10-6 and won the division. A further consideration is do you think it will be helpful come playoff time to have played the tougher division with more big games or is it easier to have lots of routs and get many chances to rest the starters?
For 2000 my guess is the Rams would go 12-4 and that it would definitely help them emerge from the AFC and they would play Tampa in the Super Bowl...
I think that is pretty reasonable. I agree with you on the Patriots finishing around 10-6 in the NFC West. I think the AFC east defenses are much better than the NFC west defenses allowing Bledsoe and even their weak running game more success. St. Louis would have to deal with tougher defenses, resulting in closer games which they struggled with last season. I would imagine the optimum schedule would be tough games in the beginning of the season, easier games in the middle and later part of the season for starters to rest and recover, and then maybe 1 or 2 big games at the end of the schedule to prepare for the playoffs. I think that whether a schedule is good or bad obviously depends on when key injuries occur.
Look good to me,any baseball picks today.
I meant the side of -17, of course, not the over/under.
One potential problem with going under 54 is that the Rams may not have any brakes this week. They don't have the option of relying on a running game, because Marshall Faulk is slightly dinged up and Trung Canidate is too seriously dinged up to play. I know it sounds funny to talk about brakes and a running game for the Rams, but remember they did let Faulk do the bulk of the work one game last year. There is also the slight problem of Trent Green, who will be eager to strut his stuff if he gets a shot in a 35-0 blow-out.
Even Jim Harbaugh presents a threat to the under, as he has moments of brilliance, like in one of the games against KC last year. However, Jim should spend most of the day on his back. The Rams don't have and never did have a great defense, but once they get way ahead and their opponents become one-dimensional passing teams, the Rams defense blitzes the snot out of their opponents and has good pass coverage. Unlike many of the Rams' other opponents this year, the Chargers don't have the ability to keep the game close. Moses Moreno is expected to be healthy enough to serve as a backup once Jim Harbaugh is carted off on a stretcher, but he won't be healthy enough to be effective.
Turnovers without points, special teams have a bad day, and I will agree. All kidding aside I agree with you on this one.
When these touts like Feist say ther 5-0 did you ever notice they dont say if its 5 losses and 0 wins.its just 5-0.His buddy Gary Austin had a sports book in Las Vegas and rumor has it that someone absconded with all the funds in accounts by the local players.Austin disappeared shortly thereafter and hasnt surfaced until recently.Feister the Shiester and his cronies.
>>I think it's funny how Jim Feist and the other touts will say something like, "My blue ribbon picks went 5-0 last week!" Well, yeah, and his "gold star picks" and "platinum picks" both went 1-4. So, I give you my platinum clover lock of the week/decade with a grain of salt. I'm not making any other picks this week, but don't place much faith in it.
There was a scheister named Mike Warren who had a TV show. One week he went 1 and 5 against the spread and the next week his show started out, "And last week Mike Warren gave you this winner." There are so many scam artists in the sports betting business it almost defies belief.
The Chargers D is good so maybe the under will come in. You'd think one week Warner would throw for less than 20 yards a pass.
How about how this defense made Elvis Grbac look a few weeks ago? Its kinda scary, but I am thinking Rams and the Under, even though the percentages are against it. I just don't see how the Chargers get to double digits.
As for the brakes...well thats funny in itself. Faulk and Candidate aren't going to get many rushes anyways because both are not the types you want to expose to needless pounding. If they get way ahead I wouldn't be surprised to see the Rams just go to a 2 or 3 TE formation and have Holcomb be the lone back and carry the ball. However in light of all the records Warner looks likely to set, I don't know if the Rams slow down until maybe 5 minutes left in the game.
I was wondering about the records. I did a dejanews search for "warner record rams" or something like that and found nothing, so I relaxed. Are there any interviews with Warner or the Rams staff suggesting they are paying any attention to whatever records they might be about to break? I hate when I make a bet and only then find out during the game that I should have bet the other way because some silly player wanted to break some silly record.
QB Kurt Warner has passed for four consecutive 300-yard games, tying career high (1999). Needs another to tie Joe Montana (five) for second longest streak all-time (Steve Young, six, 1998). Has eight 300-yard games in past nine.
I couldnt get predictit.com to work.... so here are my week 5 plays.....
I dont usually have this many selections on a Sunday.... but this weeks action looks too good to miss.
Carolina -6 Minnesota +1 San Francisco -3 Chicago +5.5 Atlanta +3 (or money line)
Dont come looking me if I go 0-5 :P
PS none of this selections are as strong as the Giants getting points from the Bears 2 weeks ago ;)
What no Giants bet?
MDManiac, our old friend wrote me an email today asking about NHL futures. He told me they are up at olympic sports and gave me the numbers. Like an idiot I forgot to bring home the numbers with me, but I did some analysis at work to go with previous analysis I have done. If you need the numbers maybe he will post them up here again or you can go look at the Olympic Sports website. Here is my report:
First of all hockey futures require a lot more research and number crunching than other sports. The fact that you can have 3 points awarded in a game just makes it more complicated. It is important however to do the math to determine where the line biases are and allow yourself to make some wagering conclusions accordingly. You must remember the lines are a reflection of expected betting action and the public tends to be wrong more than right, especially considering the lack of bettors and syndicates that involve themselves in hockey.
Here are last years numbers:
Teams Pts Games Pts/Game Eastern 15 1240 1230 1.008 Western 13 1170 1066 1.098
This basically comes to the conclusion most anyone would have, that the West was better last year on average than the East
This years number (Columbus and Minnesota are new teams in the Western Conference):
Teams Games Expected Pts Line Pts Eastern 15 1240 1240 1290.5 Western 15 1240 1350 1295
First note if you add the expected points and compare to the line points (points that the lines say should occur), you only have a 4.5 difference, meaning they did a decent job in putting up balanced numbers. However this shows that they consider the two leagues almost equal. The addition of two expansion teams might make this seem correct, but really I don't agree with it. First off the West is going to benefit more because they will play more games against the expansion teams whereas the East will just play a game or two against them. The only way for the East to improve this balance is to win more interconference games and with the expansion games being such a small part of the schedule I don't think its going to happen. Therefore I draw these conclusions:
1. Tend to bet the West over and the East under. Its not a solid rule, but your first thought should be this or passing and only go against it if you feel very strongly about the number.
2. Look to bet over on teams in the divisions with the new squads. There is a little bit of this built in, but not much. Other divisions without the expansion see as much or more improvement built in, which obviously seems unreasonable. Also remember division teams play the most games against these teams. In these games they are likely to be able to play their number 2 goalies without much loss of effectiveness. That alone will give them more rest and help them later in the season.
3. Looking into the East, there are some teams that are expected to improve greatly. This is most likely a mistake. Teams can only improve so much in the "off" conference. They won't get a shot at all those easier points provided by two bad teams so they have to do it the hard way. This leads into point 4...
4. Free agents are generally vastly overrated in their potential. In the NHL, most free agents are 31 or older and 10 year veterans. This means they are on the downhill portion of their career in almost all cases and have been through a few systems of play and many players. This leads to adaption problems with a team and they often can see slow starts unless its just one or two role players that were added. Further these guys usually come with fat contracts and the press and fans expect them to produce right away in unfamiliar territory. Its often the case this leads them to press too much and play even less effectively.
With this in mind my plays are: Washington Over 93.5 Toronto Under 101.5 New Jersey Under 103.5 NY Rangers Under 85 Boston Under 83 NY Islanders Under 73 St. Louis Over 107 Edmonton Over 89 Anaheim Under 87 Dallas Under 103.5
In best bet order: Edmonton, Washington, St. Louis, Dallas, New Jersey, Toronto, NY Islanders, Anaheim, Boston, NY Rangers
Edmonton - A team that should easily surpass last year's totals. The division is slightly improved in Vancouver and Calgary, but adds Minnesota. This number only asks a one point increase which is very reasonable. Colorado is a playoff team, often struggling regular season. Oilers should be near 100 points and the 4th team in the West.
Washington - Pundits are all over this team and I don't know why. Kolzig is out for a week or two of the season, but he was aided by a stellar defense. Caps should hold together fine this year. This number is a 8.5 point drop from last year and I just don't see it. They have Atlanta and Tampa in this division and mediocre Carolina to beat out. Unless they start giving players away this number should be easy to reach.
St. Louis - Looks very promising for maybe another title contender in this city. Clearly had the best team last year, just learned a tough playoff lesson. Should keep them fired up and focused. Wings figure to start going down a bit as their age is bound to catch up with them. Even more they add Columbus and a bunch of easy points. Stay healthy and there is no doubt they should be the team lifting the Cup in June. This number is 7 points less than last year which admittedly was a huge season, but no reason they cant match it or beat that number.
Dallas - Is this the year this team starts heading down? In any case its asking a lot to have them improve this year. Phoenix and San Jose should be improved and the Kings and Ducks round it out to make this without a doubt the toughest division. They got rid of a lot of "chemistry" through retirements and added new blood, a good move long term, but its bound to cost them some points this year. I just can't see them keeping up to the same total and wouldn't be surprised to see Sharks or Coyotes even pass them.
New Jersey - World of difference being the champs. If we are to take the lines seriously and see big improvement in the bottom three of this division this is an impossible task. They will take everyone's best shot and their lack of depth on defense and in the net could show if they get injured. They will still be a tough team, but matching the point total will be hard.
Toronto - Another leader in an improving division. I think the Leafs went to about the limits of their abilities last year and even a one point increase will be a challenge. If Sabres improve and Ottawa plays better in the regular season with the scorer they needed so bad in Yashin, being within 5 points of last years total will be an accomplishment.
New York Islanders - A team relying on a bunch of new players to get it done. They might improve, but 15 points in the "wrong" conference is too much in my opinion. They are acquiring one goalie after another, but that wasn't so much the problem. They lack defense and thats usually the last thing a team trying to improve does.
Boston - Another case where asking too much of a team. They lost their catalyst Borque and didn't really replace him. Now asking them to improve 10 points? No I don't see it. Once again a tough division as even Montreal seems ready to be a .500 team, this is basically the bottom team.
NY Rangers - Same theme, 10 point improvement with no reason to expect it. Everything went wrong last year because they went the free agent route. Those players may emerge a bit, but when you have to beat out Philly and New Jersey, a solid Pens team, and the improving Isles...its a tall task.
Thanks a lot, I am going to play these. They make good sense, despite my lack of knowledge about hockey. Anybody who wants the numbers can get them at www.thegreek.com. If you don't have an account, you can type in guest as the log in and go to the hockey page. It's a good book that offers a lot of props that others don't offer. They pay too.
Other Gambling Games
September 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo