![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
No,but if I bet I look for team that don't have good back up QB like JETS they have top schedule too( under 10.5 ).
Well, that didn't take long, Testaverde went down for the season in the first half in the first game
i didnt say it was the correct figure, i meant it to be their perception of the exact figure. it used to be what they thought would give balanced action. now with computers to aid in bet selection they must give what they think it the correct line and go from there.
My theory, and it's just a theory, is that Roxy and the big sportsbook managers shave the line by half a point or a point in the direction that the public will be betting. For example, if their best estimate is 49ers -8, they might put up 49ers -9, because the 49ers get bet heavily in Reno and Vegas. Although this might balance the action, this is not really their intent. If they're smart, the big books would prefer that all the action goes on 49ers -9, since they know that's a bad deal and they're getting an extra, oh, 1.5% or so juice effectively. The wiseguys are not interested in betting against the 49ers for +9, since they too know the line should be +8, and they need at least 2 points to make up for the vig.
On the other hand, my experience with casinos in the blackjack arena suggests that they are insanely risk-averse. A sportsbook manager might very well wish to give up millions of dollars per year in income just to make sure his book never has a losing year, even if his casino could easily afford the risk. It's not even necessarily irrational of him, since he would likely lose his job if his book lost money for the year, though it is irrational of the casinos to allow this to happen.
-Abdul
When watching a game at the sportsbook, I have often come a cross a situation where there is an opportunity to hedge my bet, and obtain a possible middle, by betting on the second half of games. For example, I have bet 10 units on team A as a 7 point favorite over team B. At halftime, team A leads by 10 points. The second half line favors team A by 5 points. If I now bet 5 units on team B at +5.5, there are three possibilities: 1) Team A covers second half and therefore covers for game (original bet wins); 2) Team B wins second half and destroys original bet (halftime bet wins); or 3) Team B wins second half, but does not cover for game (both bets win).
A practical example of this occurred Saturday, wherein Texas was a 9.5 favorite and led by 8 at the half. The second half line was Texas -4. NC ST came back in the second half, and won the game.
It is clear to me that doing this cuts down on the profit of the original bet when it wins and the halftime bet loses. It is also seems to me that the possibility of a middle is profitable.
Question: What are your opinions about such betting strategies? Am I giving up too much when I hedge my bet(as an aside, I won't hedge if there is not a chance for a middle)? Comments are appreciated.
you just good three expert opinions worth their weight in gold for nothing. listen and learn. i do.
Hi! I've had this argument with my family over and over, so I prepared a mathematical proof that the "hedge" is no worse or better than any other bet. Here it is:
Forget the English arguments, let's do the math.
We have 2 choices of payoff schedules:
Hedged: A covers game, B covers second half - probabilty w, result +$20. A covers both game and 2nd half - probability x, result -$1. B covers both game and 2nd half - probability z, result -$1.
Original: A covers game probability y = x+w, result +$10. A fails to cover game -probability z= 1 - y = 1 - w - x, result -$11
We know that w+x=y. z=1-w-x.
so, this "hedge" is a good bet if 20*w-1*x-1*z > 10*(w+x)-11*z. 20w - x - (1 -w -x) > 10w + 10x - 11z 20w - x - 1 + w + x > 10w + 10x - 11 (1 -w -x) 20w - x - 1 + w + x > 10w + 10x - 11 + 11w + 11x 21w - 1 > 21w + 21x -11 -1 > 21x - 11 or 0 > 21x - 10. let's call team B's chances of covering the second half alone 1-x, as it happens if and only if A fails to cover (pushes are unimportant - I can do that math also if you care to see it).
10 -21x < 0 yields a profitable hedge bet. 10 - 10x - 11x < 0 (1-x)10 -11x < 0 10 (1-x) > 11x
10 (B covers 2nd half) > 11 (A covers second half)
This should look familiar, it is the same criteria for betting team B on the second half when you don't have a bet on the first half. Therefore, the bets are independent.
This is kind of a long post because I had to do it in English, gamblers English.
You didnt assign values to the likelihood of each team covering each bet, just the result of it. I personally only made it to calculus and hated math proofs so I wont try to do one, but if I am reading this right, you are not taking into consideration that a team might have a better or worse than 50% chance to cover a certain number. A good example would be this. Say its Super Bowl XXXIV and team AFC is favored by 7. The score at halftime is NFC 21 AFC 17. Also suppose that up until Sat night, AFC was a 8 or 7.5 point favorite and the public started to bet Sunday and moved the number because they liked getting points with a marquee team (as most NFC powers are). One thing to note is that halftime lines are MUCH more tied to certain numbers than game lines. Think about it, the average bettor looks at this spot and could see AFC anywhere from 4.5 to a 6.5 favorite and the line wont matter much to him. If he thinks AFC is going to win he will bet into any of these numbers because he is not going to consider it that likely that AFC wins by 1 or 2 points although it could very well happen. In other words, perceived dead numbers are very common in halftime bets. This factor alone points to the fact that a 50/50 probability number is next to impossible to set for a halftime wager.
My second point is that in this case, the linemaker is in a real bad spot here. He is almost certain to be facing a loss if the NFC covers because he had to move his number over a significant barrier meaning he probably took a lot of one-sided action. So what he needs to do is to attract some one-sided AFC money and pray that he doesnt lose on both sides. Luckily he has a built in faction waiting. The hedgers! NFC bettors can pour in and bet the AFC at one of these numbers and pray they will the second half by a touchdown or slightly more and they cash both ways. His biggest ally is also his biggest enemy. He wants a little one sided move on the AFC, but he doesnt want all these people cashing two tickets on him. Well since its Super Bowl he also knows he will get more money bet in 20 minutes than a week of baseball action. What would you do in his spot? What most of them do is probably make AFC a 7.5 favorite just figuring that will still get quite a few hedgers since those with bets at +8 will still get a shot at a two way win, but he wont be encouraging everyone to bet AFC this way either since they will have to win by more than a field goal. Now think about this number. This team wasn't favored by this amount for the whole game and yet here they are giving this much up for a half! They are behind now so maybe they arent such the superior team. This is merely a defensive manuever, yet he just put up a clearly off number. This drastic a situation only happens on one game a year, but a modified situation with a clearly un-even number comes up every weekend day, and often up to 5 or 6 times a day. This is why halftimes can and will be profitable if you pick your spots and use some logic. Either you can bet with an eye to certain situations where you think one team (or both when totals are considered) is highly likely to outperform their expectations for the half, or you can just try to find spots where this kind of imbalance is forced due to action and the linemaker trying to protect himself from disaster.
Since this is a mostly poker site, just think this poker analogy. The linemaker is playing hold'em with say pocket tens or jacks every hand. He clearly has the edge because of the juice or in this case because he starts out with a solid hand each time. However there are a couple of strong pros in the game and when they come in they play very aggressively (bet big) and many times with better cards or at least overcards that can win if they catch. Also there are a bunch of fish in the game that come in with any two cards and the "horse-race" effect comes into play. This is the general betting public, the ones that occasionally get lucky and have a better hand or draw out, but usually are lesser talented and playing from behind. If all goes well they can win any given game but in the long run they are destined to lose. So in this game if 5 players come after the linemaker, 4 might be fish with junk, but the pro comes in for a big bet holding Kings and the linesmaker is in trouble. The pro has his numbers beat in the sports game and the linemaker has to hope that he can get lucky to beat the pro and his superior information, but in the long run the linemaker will win because he is getting odds from the poor players playing junk and just giving up some of that edge to the pro waiting to play his superior hands. I hope you all get the picture I am trying to give, I just explained sports betting like this to someone tonight in a cardroom and he thought it was very insightful. He still thinks all sports bettors are destined to lose despite it.
Thank you for the responses.
To take this even one step further, if you're on the "popular" money side and you're up, the line may be inflated against you because the books are trying to stack it against people with just your thinking. If that is so, then you'd want to re-bet your side.
The truth is that you are often heavily sided against when trying to hedge out, especially if there was a big move on the game and the line was moved a few points. This is one of the few times the books will shade their numbers away from what they think might get even action. The book couldnt get even action before the game so their hope is to reduce some risk by putting up a slightly attractive number just to get a shot at getting more balanced overall action. The best and really only way you should bet halftimes is to consider what Mason and David wrote about in Gambling for a Living. With the internet now its a great tool to check the halftime stats on any game with a number. Check to see if a team is truly dominating the game, if its an even game, or if one team is lucky so far. When one team is lucky, the chances of things regressing to the mean is a lot more likely. A team might be up by 3 scores, but if two of them were on short drives and one was on a turnover return and Team B actually has the yardage edge, then you very often have a great bet. The numbers are shaded a bit to reflect this, but not that much. Its hard for someone to see Team A winning 21-3 and not be tempted to take them plus some points. If one team is simply dominating, then quite often the best play is to bet the under as the two teams will pretty much go through the motions in the second half and very few points is usually the scenario. Another thing to look for is another variation on regression to the mean as far as totals go. Take a first half number for the game and compare it to the actual score. I usually consider a bet if the score is at least 15 points over or 11 points under the first half total. I have done pretty well betting on these simple situations, but you dont have much time to analyze and often around the two min warning of the first game I start looking at what I might play. The biggest problem is that shopping for lines is hard unless its the only game on. Best thing is to get at least two lines to play into because these numbers vary quite a bit at least for the first two or three minutes because its just a matter of luck as to where the number is hit hardest. This obviously is a big topic and needs lots of consideration, but simple situational betting and using common sense can add a decent amount to your bankroll. However I generally agree that you should avoid betting the halftimes just to take a shot at a two-way cover or to lock in a winner. Bet it for a better reason than that.
I was thinking of learning the Stanford Wong Hi-Lo system - keeping it very simple, and play every once in a while in Vegas, maybe one weekend every other month, with the plane trip (1.5 hours) as a refresher every time.
First question : using Stanford Wong's Hi-Lo, betting small at a big casino (say $5 minimum limit) at the Mirage, what can I expect to make per hour, if I was an expert (played everyday)? Let's assume using a 1-8 spread.
2nd question : if I would be an expert if I played everyday, but I only played once every other month (thus losing expert status), how much could I make per hour (at the same $5 mimium limit)?
Just wondering if its worth it to play part time like this at all. I don't mind playing small, because I can still enjoy it and have fun, but at the same time, I don't want to have fun at the expense of my wallet - cause I can do plenty of other more fun things with that money otherwise.
Thanks.
ill get blasted for this figure but if you are an expert id think about one average size bet an hour can be won. if you play too often you will get barred and it will follow you to other places as well. read and study and talk to players alot as bj has more to it than just playing well.
With a 1-to-8 spread I think that figure is abour right in the Mirage, especially if you stick to their double deck games. Part of the reason it isn't higher is that they watch their games closely and you won't always be able to make your big bets when you want to.
thanks Ray and Mason for your responses, but i'm not sure if you answered the most important part of my question (not sure if i phrased it correctly to begin with).
the gist of the question is this :
assuming i had the talent to be an expert if i played all the time....but i actually don't, i only play one weekend per month, and only for five or six hours between hold'em rounds (let's say). and i don't study or practice the game except on the airplane.
is it worth it to play, and how much less would i earn by playing only part time?
thank you
if you maintain your level of play which should be easy if you learned in the first place. you will average x dollars per hour played. it doesnt matter when you play the hours.
I know people who got barred spreading a 1-8 even using reds on single and double deck games. You will be lucky to regularly get down a 1-5 if you bet according to the proper edges. You might be able to get that short a time frame in once a month, but you will need to go to different places each month to improve your chances of not being recognized. Then again if this is all for small money it won't be that big of an issue if you just play weekends; the houses won't sweat too much over a guy betting nickels when the tables are packed anyways and the bosses have better things to do than watch a small player. Better work on your strategy changes because you will be hard pressed to make much on bet sizing alone. I always suggest playing either full games at the Horseshoe where you can use those strategy changes playing third base, or pray to find an empty table there or somewhere else downtown and hope you can keep it that way for a few minutes. Also the double deck games at the Mirage are usually higher limits on the weekends, often $25 or $50 minimum. Best of luck...
I have to disagree, Wild Bill. Most of your profit in blackjack comes from bet sizing, unless you're playing a deeply dealt single deck game with a low spread. Other than that situation, the key to card counting is getting the money out there when the count is high. If you're going to use strategy changes, certainly all you need is the Illustrious 18, especially if you're just going to be an occasional player like this guy.
I do agree that it'll be pretty hard to find $5 DD on much of the strip, especially Mirage. If you're playing poker at Mirage and want to play BJ on a red chip bankroll you're going to have to wong the shoes.
YJ
I can't say if they're good games (deck penetration, degree of heat over bet spreads etc.) but Excalibur on the Strip has been advertizing single deck blackjack.
Good luck avoiding scrutiny on a 1-8 spread though!
Seems most single deck games are going on down in the Fremont area.
Best of Luck!
I would suggest you read the book Knock Out BlacJack. It details a strong very simple count that does not recquire true count conversion. The # of strategy indices that depart from Basic is small. Pay particular attention to their early exit strategy,against shoes with excellent rules/penetration. 1-8 spread,5000 bankroll,1.2% edge,5%risk of ruin,10 dollar units,should produce around 15-18 per hr depending on hands per hr. There are presently about 24 playable places in LV,at this bet size against shoes you should'nt get any heat.
A good counter will make 1 or 2 units (minimum bets) per hour on a decent single or double deck. You need about a 500 unit bankroll, plus or minus 300 units, so you could make $25/hour playing quarters on a $10K bankroll, plus you'll get comps on the order of a free room and free buffets. It's not worthwhile on a $2K bankroll playing nickels, though you should start there anyway to get practice. On an even smaller bankroll, you would be forced to just backcount (count while standing behind the table) and jump into good counts.
The hard part of blackjack is getting away with it, not doing it, and that's where you should focus your energy. Using a simple count like KO will make it easier to put on a good act.
The swings are also pretty rough. You can lose for hundreds of hours despite playing with a healthy edge.
You can find more blackjack discussions at http://www.bj21.com, http://www.posev.com/rgbm/ and a few other places on the net.
-Abdul
Lose for hundreds of hours is unappealing. Win a few, lose a few: that's better.
If you came to see text you're wrong. That's the discipline you'll need at the tables
Betelgeuse wrote :
If you came to see text you're wrong. That's the discipline you'll need at the tables
I have no clue what this means. Please clarify.
anon,
(nt) means "No Text". Betelguese was pointing out that if you opened the link (and thus ignored, or in my case didn't notice the (nt)) you need to work on you're discipline.
:-)
First question : using Stanford Wong's Hi-Lo, betting small at a big casino (say $5 minimum limit) at the Mirage, what can I expect to make per hour, if I was an expert (played everyday)? Let's assume using a 1-8 spread.
Your expectation is probably less than $5/hour using a $5 minimum bet and spreading 1-8. The double deck games are $25 minimum ($10 on weekday mornings sometimes) so you are stuck playing shoes. The $5 minimum tables will always be full so you can expect only 60-70 hands per hour. Wonging will be difficult at these low limits and is no fun anyway. The upside is that at The Mirage using red chips you probably could play every day without any cover.
2nd question : if I would be an expert if I played everyday, but I only played once every other month (thus losing expert status), how much could I make per hour (at the same $5 mimium limit)?
Maybe a little more since you would need absolutely no cover in this situation.
As I understand it, the player has an option to surrender the bet or play for double if dealer and player cards are tied (war). The problem is that the house only pays the initial bet if the player subsequently wins, whereas the player will be paying two bets if the dealer prevails. So you would play for double rather than surrender, and thereby provide the house edge.
I was wondering about this also. So, Andrew, you are saying that, if the casino and you tie, you double, and you win, you only get paid 1 unit instead of 2?
And when you double, then lose, you lose 2 units.... or you can fold for one unit at every tie...
If all of this is true (please confirm) sounds like a game that those Carribean Stud addicts would love to play (they're always betting 3, or 3.2, units to win 1 against the dealer...)
You understand the explaination, the game, and the psychological attraction. Nothing else to it.
Never been to Reno. Is it really a superior SD game? Any condition reports? How about places to stay?
Betelgeuse,
Reno is a nice town once you get the feel of it. I lived there for quite a few years. Id hang out at the Peppermill casino and go from there if you have a car. A star like you should have no problems.
I saw the first part of a two part series in Poker Digest by Sklansky on sports betting. Is the second one out yet? (The cardroom I frequent does not carry it.) What did it say?
I wasn't impressed by the first one. He basically says, "I'm going to give away the keys to the candy store here. Shhh, don't tell anyone, but it's possible to handicap and beat the lines. It's incredibly difficult, but there are a few games each year when the line is off." No new information there. I have high hopes that the second part has the keys.
-Abdul
Abdul,
The second article is out. I believe that it is a re-print from previous years. Some good ideas and things to look for but it isn't enough to beat the bookie IMO.
Tom Haley
After reading a number of Mason's and Skalnsky's books on poker and bj I've finally decided to try my hand at 7 card stud (attention all players we have a live one!). I've read the "Fundamentals of Poker", "Gambling Topics", "Make a 100k ...". I realize I'll need to study these books on a constant basis and that's good, they're very thought provoking. Any ideas where I should go next? Other books to study? I'm going to score "Getting the Best of It" and the "Theory of Poker" as well as Mr. Zee's works but I'm afraid I might be going too quickly. Any idea on getting my "cherry" popped. I'm from the Chicago area and need to find games (hopefully I'll get on some with the guys from work, but they're really clueless about the game). Thanks for all your help.
btw - I've never read a 2+2 book I didn't like
no shit
Sorry guys, I just realized I could have posted this on the poker board. Hey, I just got off of a 12 hour night shift, give me a break!
Betelgeuse,
if you have done the reading and studied it, i would think you might win or break even right from the get go. try small stakes games in the casinos around chicago and i bet you will be pleasently surprised by how well you do if you keep your kool. good luck.
Thanks for your inspiring words. Anyone know of Chicagoland area casinos that offer poker. All that's usually around is Carib stud. I have no problem traveling to the Indian casinos within reason, say a few hundred miles. I'm particularly looking for 7 card stud.
You should get Turbo stud by Wilson Software, available from Conjelco (link at left.) I haven't seen that program, actually, but just the idea is that you're going to make some really stupid blunders for the first hundred hours or so of poker, and those might as well only cost you the ~$80 for the program, rather than the hundreds that it might cost you otherwise. You shouldn't care so much about learning to beat the program; rather concentrating on getting some experience with reading your own hand, remembering folded cards, and the other basics of playing.
-Abdul
B,
Several of the riverboats offer poker, though I've heard that some of the IL riverboats only offer it during slower times (ie not Saturday) do to IL limitations on number of gaming positions. Your best bet is Harrah's Showboat in E. Chicago, IN. You can get info on Harrah's website.
If you're willing to drive, there are good games in small rooms at Caesars Indiana (across from Louisville) and Grand Victoria (not Elgin, the one across from Cincinnati in IN).
-Flynn
If you're really interested in 7-stud then get 7-CARD STUD:42 LESSONS by Roy West.One excellent book
between a multi-action game and a single one?
some blackjack terms, can somebody help please?
BJE Bj pays even money DBX Double Exposure PB Palyer banked PK Peek under 10īs
You don't understand the blackjack abbreviations even after they are defined? This could be a challenge.
BJE Bj pays even money
A natural 21 normally pays 3:2 but pays 1:1 here.
DBX Double Exposure
Dealer's hole card is exposed. Some very bad rules more than make up for this assistance, though card counting is more effective on double exposure than regular blackjack.
PB Player banked
The casino does not bank the action. Players take turns pretending they are the house. You pay about a dollar per hand to play for modest sized bets.
PK Peek under 10īs
Dealers (outside Atlantic City) normally peek under aces to see if they have blackjack after offering insurance but before proceeding with playing out the round. Some places peek under 10's. Nowadays, most places have an autopeek device and peek under both aces and tens without the dealer knowing what the card is if it's not a card that gives them blackjack.
For more information and terms, click on the link below.
-Abdul
Before leaping into a double exposure game, thinking it will be much easier to exploit, seeing the dealers hole card, remember a whole new set of strategy indices must be learnt - BS for regular blackjack is not sufficient. FreddyBobs
In GFAL, the authors point out that Pai Gow can be a positive expection game (upon digging a little deeper, one finds out this can be true if you act as the banker every time you have the opportunity), especially in the California cardrooms. However, it is then mentioned that Pai Gow is not a game that the authors care very much for or something to that extent.
I have 2 questions...one, what makes Pai Gow a better game in California? Two, if the game can be 'beaten', why are S/M not interested in it? Is it the case where any positive expectation you can gain is simply not enough to derive any significant income from it? Thanks.
"I have 2 questions...one, what makes Pai Gow a better game in California?"
On the East Coast, Pai Gow usually has a 5% commission, which makes the game much harder to beat for much. In some casinos, there is a fixed commission (usually $1 per hand), which becomes insignificant when you are betting large amounts.
"Two, if the game can be 'beaten', why are S/M not interested in it? Is it the case where any positive expectation you can gain is simply not enough to derive any significant income from it?"
The positive expectation and stakes are likely too small to interest them. If David and Mason can win $60-100 an hour playing poker, and at similar rates in blackjack, tiny advantages of a few dollars per hour in games like pai gow and deuces wild video poker are not profitable enough to be worth their time.
What might be a generous comp situation for even a zero EV game is always worth seriously looking at. Poker players in general are the least comped per hour played of any casino gambler. Perfect play is easier to approach than with BJ. Always banking where possible, and knowing your opponents tendencies with the five percent of hands that require thought are critical. Plus I get to tell all the Asian players about a little game they call Texas Hold'em...
At Bay101, they call it Doublehand Poker, but as I wouldn't be looking for comps there, it would just be for money making opportunities. I guess the time is better spent at the poker tables
By the way, I have seen a percentage breakdown of wins for all the possible hand combinations list from Kenny Rogers online casino, and although I don't know of the soundness of the study, but I am betting something similar is in S. Wong's book. Even knowing the win percentages, if they can be relied upon, there are still hands that require thought?
If you're banking against unequal player wagers, it will sometimes take some thought. There are safety plays such as splitting aces with a mediocre kicker in the two card hand at the risk of having just ace high in the five card hand.
As I am currently boning up on all my 2+2 books in anticipation of hitting the tables very shortly, I find myself re-reading GFAL at this moment, and I am wondering if the opportunities still exist that S/M mentioned in the Sports Betting section of the book.
Specifically, the examples of note are the cases of the 'Magic $1,024=$1,660' and 'Superbowl 3-card Parlay, 1st half, 2nd half, and game winner', in both cases the casinos didn't bother to figure out the true odds and thus the payoff was extremely favorable to the bettor (much more true of the 1st example). Of course, if other types of miscalculations are still currently being made, I would be very interested to hear that as well.
Or, have the casinos finally caved in and hired mathematicians to close those 'pesky' loopholes and therefore leaving the occasional 'out-of-whack' line as the only way to earn money betting on sports???
Of course, I would also be interested to hear if some casinos are still doing weird promotions such as 2-1 BJ payoffs or 3:2 payoffs for 7-11 on the pass line. I don't live in Vegas so forgive my ignorance if these situations are in fact a much more normal occurance than I may think.
Uncle Jimbo writes:
Specifically, the examples of note are the cases of the 'Magic $1,024=$1,660' and 'Superbowl 3-card Parlay, 1st half, 2nd half, and game winner', in both cases the casinos didn't bother to figure out the true odds and thus the payoff was extremely favorable to the bettor (much more true of the 1st example). Of course, if other types of miscalculations are still currently being made, I would be very interested to hear that as well.
Those cards might no longer exist. Most superbowl cards allow certain correlated parlays, but the vig is pretty high. In general, the sports books are offering a gazillion bets each week, so you have a lot of opportunities to find pos ev plays.
Of course, I would also be interested to hear if some casinos are still doing weird promotions such as 2-1 BJ payoffs or 3:2 payoffs for 7-11 on the pass line.
Like I would tell you if I knew...
-Abdul
Excellent. Of course, you guys who live in Vegas have it nice! I would keep those sorta things under wraps myself.
He isn't worried about you in particular, he's worried about the other guys like himself who live in LV. If a casino opens up a game with a big edge (for the player) by mistake and he posts it here, many guys in LV will hear about it, and pretty soon the game will be swamped by other pros, the casino will notice, and close the game.
Since you're from out of town, it's less likely that you'll fly in just on the hope that the game is still available when you arrive. If you don't come right away, the game will almost certainly be gone before you get there.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A warning to neophyte craps players out there.
The September issue of "The Gambler News" contains a craps system billed as 100%.
Careful examination shows that the fact that 12 is barred on the Don't Pass line makes this system (and any do/don't method) still a -EV system.
There are no +EV systems for craps...period.
To the credit of the Publishers they saw the point when I e-mailed them. I doubt a retraction will be issued but they were nice enough to examine my rebuttal and agree to its merit.
Thier real goal at that publication is to build a large enough pool of people to get group comps. Since they seem to be reasonable people it might be worth finding the website and seeing if you think it has merit.
That I'll leave to your discretion. :-)
Sincerely, Frank
If I want to bet baseball game to go under which one is better 11.5 under -120 or 12.5 under -140?
Buying a run for the extra juice seems too expensive. I'm extremely selective in a buy situation, just up or down to a 4 or 7 in the NFL. I'd like to see some analysis from the mathematicians on this subject also.
Betting under on totals of 48 and up on non-neutral fields has had a historical advantage of 17% after the juice, with a record of 51-32-1 since 1983. There is a 1 in 18 chance of getting a result this good if under was in fact a breakeven bet after the juice. There is only a 1 in 166 chance of doing this poorly on the over bet if over was in fact a breakeven bet after the juice. I could quote many other statistics that support the same conclusion that going over big totals is likely often a bad idea.
This does not mean you should not go over this week's 49 totals, but it is some evidence to consider.
Statistically these seem to be good bets:
Cowboys/Redskins UNDER 42.5
Cardinals/Eagles UNDER 37
Bills/Colts UNDER 47
Vikings/Falcons UNDER 49
49ers/Jaguars UNDER 49
(These were the lines at Bellagio/Mirage as of last night.)
An interesting bet would be a 5 by 3 team round robin parlay using the above bets. This is every combination of 3 team parlays, making a total of 10 parlays.
This round robin parlay has two advantages over just making these bets individually. First, it has a little lower vig. It's the equivalent vig to -109.5 instead of -110 on each total. (However, you pay more vig when there is a push on one of the games and it drops down to the two team payoff, so I'm not sure 3-teams with whole numbers has a lower vig than the straight bets.) Second, the totals are probably all biased a bit too high or too low. In particular, probably both those 49's are too high, but if not, then probably they are both too low. With the round robin parlay, I don't do any worse if I get 0 right compared to 1 or 2 right, but if I nail them all, or 4 out of 5, then I'll win a ton.
-Abdul
I don't get it, you said betting under 49 is good, but then you recommended to bet under in two games with lines of 42.5 and 37, am i missing something?
I said, "Statistically these seem to be good bets." This means that it is my opinion, based on statistics, that those games will go under. For example, since 1996, the Eagles as a dog at home have gone under 8 out of 10 games.
If you have watched their games then you know that their fans hold up signs (big enough for the players to read) that say "End zone this way ---->" and also 99% of the crowd is gone by the fourth quarter if they are getting trounced. Given their hateful fans, the Eagles have less incentive to score at home than any other team, not that they score away from home either. It's possible that the line already takes this fully into account, but I don't think so.
-Abdul
Well, I got 3 out of 5 right, which is actually a small loss the way I set up the bet. (Fortunately, when I placed it I added in one more bet and got 4 out of 6 for a small win.) What was I thinking with going under on the Redskins/Cowboy game?!
-Abdul
Based on your tips, I placed small bets on the Bills/Colts, Vikings/Falcons, and 49ers/Jaguars. I guess I picked the right three.
I really had no basis for picking them, BTW. I just got lucky.
Another statistical bet: Broncos to win outright, i.e., on the moneyline (-220, $220 to win $100, is available at Stardust.) Sorry I couldn't get this to you in time to use (though it's still before kickoff now.)
-Abdul
I'm still not really clear by what "statistical bet" means. For all we know, you could be "data dredging". That is what your comment about the Eagles being such and such since '96 sounds like. Based on your many fine posts on other topics I doubt this is the case...maybe you don't want to give out too much methodology or something...but from here the evidence seems thin.
broncosauras (currently depressed over tonight's game)
Me too, I had it going under. C'est la vie. Seriously though, without knowing what the supporting statistics are, I would also be skeptical. Something like: 14 out of the last 15 times team X covered at night on grass away from home, is not meaningful.
"Data dredging" was brought up as a bad thing, but I did much of my graduate work in "database mining", a combination of statistics and artificial intelligence.
Since 1995, the Broncos when at home and favored vs anyone combined with the Dolphins when away and a dog vs anyone has resulted in a historical edge of 22.3% when taking the favorite on the money line, 4.2 standard deviations above breakeven. Even after adjusting for the biased sample, this is still an impressive statistic. The Broncos did actually win the game, on paper. However, they were probably not 2.2:1 favorites to win. The problem is that the teams have changed considerably since last year. And it's not so much the absence of Elway. The Broncos defense was horrible, and the Broncos offense provided no protection for the quarterback, who was doing a fine job getting the ball off quickly with big Dolphins in his face. Elway might have given them 7 more points, still not enough to win. However, it's possible that the Broncos would have played better with Elway behind them. I had expected the Broncos to be stronger on defense this year given the players they picked up, but it appears the opposite could be the case.
I did peg the over, and I also pegged Miami +3 EVEN and over 21.5 for the first half, though I didn't mention those.
-Abdul
The thing that stood out for me last monday night was the fact that bronco receivers dropped at least three crucial, catchable deep passes. I can't recall that ever happening with Elway. Griese's passes also seem to have better touch and poorer speed than Elway's, so perhaps it will take the offense a while to adjust to this. If this is the problem I'd guess it will fade and eventually die after a month or so of games and intensive practice with Griese at the helm.
Of course as I'm sure you are aware, it's easy to find 3 or even 4 SD results in any large base of information, if we look long enough, results that would merely be artifacts of random processes. Do you have specific numbers (5sd?) or methods you look for, or is there some prior judgement involved? The whole topic is fascinating to me but I don't know if I have time to get a graduate degree in the subject...
Inshallah,
broncosauras
I personally don't think any of these "The Broncos have covered....over the last 5 years" things mean anything. Teams, coaches, rules etc. change so quickly in Sports that you can look at a team, the Eagles say, and there coach has changed, and most of the players have turned over in the last 4 years...What possible significance can you attach to stats before Duce Staley (to pick just one) started full time?
Danny S
I don't think it is the Denver 'D' that is so much worse rather it is the Miami 'O' that is so much better. Miami has better depth and talent at wide receiver, the running back positions, and the offensive line than they did last year.
As we point out in our book "Gambling For a Living" the past data on a particular angle should be evaluated based on the plausibility of that angle. Implausible angles require much greater skewed results from the past to be taken seriously. Of course there is no precise way to define "plausibility", thus there is art as well as science to using past results to find good bets..
I was talking to my handicapper yesterday (the rarest of breeds, a man who's intelligent, honest AND a helluva 'capper) and he gave me these three for Sunday, so's I could jump on the early lines.
1) Redskins +2 1/2. The Giants are awful (they only should have scored a field goal against the 'buccs), and despite Sunday's meltdown the Redskins could be poised for a playoff run.
2) Raiders +11. The Vikings have some MAJOR kinks to sort out on offense (the preseason was not a fluke) and the Raiders should have won at Lambeau.
3) Seahawks -3 1/2. Despite Sunday's win the Bears are still starting Shane Matthews, and the 'hawks sould have things sorted out after losing to a vastly inferior Lions squad
GD,
Two of the three picks are trending towards your HC's picks. The one that is trending the other way I like the best which is #3 Seahawks going from 5.5 down to 3.5. I also like the Jets at 4 @Buffalo. Buffalo got smoked by Indy 31-14. I was at the Jets game and I believe Parcels will get Mirer into game readiness. It's also at 8:20pm so you have time to plan your attack. Jets & Over 42 A&R. Good Luck GD.
Keep Posting Win or Lose
Paul
I really, really like to take the points but I will lay the points and pick the Titans at -16 against the Browns. Browns had the worst offensive stats I have ever seen in an NFL game and the Steelers do not have a great defense. Air McNair put up some big numbers last week and got booed for a few turnovers. I believe that he will be very motivated to play a his best game this Sunday and he has some weapons. Maybe Couch will be a big improvement but I doubt it in this game.
Other games I like this week (I'm ready to make a fool out of myself):
Lions +6 against the Packers. I think the Lions came up big last week and get super up for these division games at their place. Favre is not 100% either and I believe that the Lions offense is better than people give them credit for although Herman Moore is out.
Bears +3 1/2 against the Seahawks. I don't know why everyone thinks the Seahawks are so great and the Bears I believe are an improved team.
NSFMF(Not So Fast My Friend)Under 42 is the way to go.
south, souther, SOUTHEST.
Maybe next time.
Good Luck Paul
Paul,
You still have Monday night to get out of the ditch. I don't know what the spread is or the totals are but plenty of opportunities left including parlays.
Tom Haley
Here's the real reason to bet the unders on the Vikings.
Sherman is the worst offensive coordinator in football.
He practically drove Kordell Stewart into retirement Now he is going to screw up the Vikings high-octane offense. An additional factor is that everytime there is some new great unstoppable offense, the next year the coaches of the conference rivals put a lot of energy into adjusting appropriately. (This doesn't apply for all the great SF teams as their divisional coaevals sucked.) I'll bet the under on the Vikes's games til I see an adjustment in the numbers (which I don't think I will by the end of this year).
JG
Since this forum tends to bury a lot of the real sports betting discussion, I propose a new idea. I say we have a meeting of people interested in serious sports handicapping discussion, and I do not mean talking about who you like this weekend, on a regular basis in Vegas. I listen regularly to some of the radio shows, but those dont offer everyone a chance to get involved and discuss issues and ideas. I know there is some interest considering how many people have attended handicapping seminars recently. The poker players can do this anytime, they seem to all run into each other at Bellagio, but us mainly sports bettors dont have the same gathering point, so I will try to drum up support here. If you are interested put up a post here, or if you want write me, but I think posting here would be better to show that there is support. I am open to any and all suggestions on format and meeting place, but I just want to get it started. If it works right we can all benefit from new ideas and sharpened thinking when it comes time to go to the window...
WildBill,
That's great if you live in LV, but what if you don't. I think you should do it, but share the results or discussions with the rest of the forum on this page weekly or whenever the group meets. That would mean assigning a secretary or note keeper for a month at a time or whatever amount of time you deem necessary. This way the forum could make comments, and voice their opinions on the topics discussed. JMO.
Paul
How about one of the instant messengers. I use Yahoo pager mostly. I don't think AOL will pass Yahoo pager messages. Perhaps AOL instant messenger. I have tried doing voice discussions with Yahoo Pager and it works pretty well. If you don't have a Yahoo id it is simple to get one and it is free. Go to the Yahoo site and it is pretty easy to figure out how do get an id. Then you have to install Yahoo pager.
Well I suppose that could work too, but I think to get things started we need a core of at least a few people to meet in person, then we can add an online version as well. I very well understand the logistical problems as I have just moved back to Vegas and felt far removed from the intelligent sports betting public living in CA. My thinking is that if we can get a regular set of people to do it, that we could then have occasional or even one time drop in guests and that would ensure that the meetings could go on regularly and that new blood could share new ideas. I do promise that if it ever gets started that notes and ideas will be passed along here and maybe on a webpage that could be set up for this purpose. I was hoping some of the Vegas people could get involved, but so far no luck...
"I listen regularly to some of the radio shows, but those dont offer everyone a chance to get involved and discuss issues and ideas."
This reminds me of an interview that I did on a Sports Talk show here in Las Vegas a couple of years ago. It had to do with promoting our book Gambling for a Living. I mentioned the words "power rating" and was immediately interrupted by one of the commentators who spent several minutes about the virtue of creating your own power ratings and various approaches. Since I didn't like being interrupted I told him I had a much better way of doing it. This got him excited and he couldn't wait to hear my method. I then announced that I just looked them up in one of the free sports newspapers you can pick up in any race book. I argued that these would be as good as any that I could create. For some reason they never invited me back.
I couldnt agree with you more Mason. I mean think about it, if you made your power ratings and you compared them to ones done by the Gold Sheet or Sagarin and you find that you are off by 7 points on one team, wouldnt you worry? The sucker says hey I found something, I am gonna bet this one hard. I personally have never made a power rating myself as I leave that to others to do. The line rarely is off much from these ratings and when it is, often its explained by obvious known factors. As far as your experience with the local shows...well what can you say. It seems like the most respected handicappers in town either run a service (meaning they dont make much betting, they make more selling) or are some old farts that tell you they started betting during the Series of 34. Neither of these necessarily makes you an expert, but if you are not like them they might not give you much respect. I am so far from their stereotype they won't even talk to me, therefore I came up with this idea. If we ever get a show out of it Mason, you as well as David and Ray will be welcome anytime and I won't even mention power ratings.
Over time, how many potential angles are there? Well millions I suppose if you went back far enough. You dredge up the 20 best ones and the chances of them being useful are generally zero. The problems are many. First as pointed out, the personnel are just so different from year to year. This MNF game seemed to pretty much turn on special teams. The Broncos changed up their kicking teams quite a bit, but I doubt there was a betting person in the country that paid a bit of interest in that, except maybe that Gordon isnt around to run punts back. Second and what I think is the biggest problem is that you are dealing with two not so interchangeable numbers here. You might be able to figure out a percentage of straight up wins for a team and you can figure out how many times they covered the spread, but the two really dont correlate. The spread is obviously very dynamic and a few points here or there can skew numbers greatly. A better consideration would be how often would the team win if it had to cover the spread used today. Of course this can be highly inaccurate too because of personnel changes and these are more reasons why I dont like using angles at all. If you found a spot where a team not only covered, but averaged covering by 10 points over a large sample and most of all the angle made handicapping sense, then you might have something. Problem is that almost none of them are this certain, and believe me most of the public will know about it if it happened. Then the public would bet up the number and the linesmaker would adjust it as well, and then covering by 10 becomes just that much harder.
The only angles I think really matter much are in colleges and they really are just guides, not necessarily reasons to bet a game. Colleges matter because coaches play such an important role at that level. When you are dealing with a team that is covering in certain situations and not in others, you have a good idea of the strengths of the coach and if its a good idea to lay big numbers with him or if he will get his team well prepared when they are the inferior side. You will figure out who does best with extra time and most of all, who is able to have his boys ready when the spotlight and pressure are on. Most big bettors do stay aware of these numbers though so you arent going to get much of an edge, but it certainly helps to know if a team that is -29 is likely to cover because their coach shows a history of running up the score.
Now from this point on I sure hope I dont have to see so many angles mentioned on here. When you bet a game, have at least 4 or 5 reasons why your side is going to cover with at most one of them being an angle and also figure out a few reasons why they might not cover. When the game is over assess what happened and if you reasoning was on target or way off. A top handicapper will rarely be surprised at the result, even if he loses. If you find that you are losing (or even winning) and your reasoning is way off, that should be a sign of work being needed in your skills. Just like in poker, making the right decisions is far more important than being a winner on any given day.
I have set up a forum for the discussion of blackjack advantage-play at Yahoo! It is non-profit making. So far we have had a very high standard of contribution. Please feel free to join us:-
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/blackjackcardcounterscafe
Anybody intersted in helping to start a poker players{and Mgrs.) trade association, please check on rgp for that posting, and also one headed attn. mike Caro. Chuck
TWIMC,
I'll go to golf since I can't pick football lately. I forgot to bet the Europeans in the Cup when I was out in LV. If anyone reply's to this and knows the latest line I would appreciate it.
Paul
The line I saw was Europe +1/2,+190;U.S. -1/2 -240
While the European team has been a very good bet in recent years I wouldn't be too keen this time. They have too many rookies.
Andy.
When your on a roll, your on a roll. Pretty soon I'll start playing roulette.
Paul
Does anyone have Kelso Sturgeon's new book "Theory of Performance Profile Correction"?
This one is pricy at $49.95 and I'd like some feedback before getting it.
Has anyone out there tried the Revere Plus Minus count system as described in "BlackJack as a Business"?
Does it live up to the author's claims...for example you will win 3 out of 4 sessions?
Also, does the author's advice on playing 1 hour sessions hold up?
Also what of his apparent statement that $150 is a sufficient session bankroll for a $5 game? He seems to be implying his method would be successful with $600 starting bankroll in this section of the book.
"Has anyone out there tried the Revere Plus Minus count system as described in "BlackJack as a Business"?"
It was the first system I used (8-10 years ago). It is still a valid system, however, there are many easier and more effective syatems around today (Hi-Lo, KO). If you are new to BJ and haven't already memorized all of Revere's strategy variations, I would suggest you check out Hi-Lo or KO and only use the top 18 strategy variations. It will be much easier and just as effective.
"Does it live up to the author's claims...for example you will win 3 out of 4 sessions?"
Not a chance. Maybe it could have 20 years ago when you could find a SD deck game dealt near the bottom, but in todays game it is just not possible.
"Also, does the author's advice on playing 1 hour sessions hold up?"
One hour sessions are a good rule of thumb. You don't want to play much longer, but you will often need to quit much sooner depending on the heat (real or imagined) you encounter.
"Also what of his apparent statement that $150 is a sufficient session bankroll for a $5 game? He seems to be implying his method would be successful with $600 starting bankroll in this section of the book."
You will almost certainly go broke with a $600 bankroll. Much has been published in the areas of risk of ruin and bankroll requirements since this book was published. I would suggest you read "Blackjack Attacck" by Don Schlesinger before you hit the tables.
Regards,
Zoso
Zoso,
Well you've pretty much confirmed my suspicions.
As an aside I gave the KO rookie system a try on the PC and found that it didn't do to well. I'm going to have to assume that the lack of strategy changes costs a bit. However it did stay pretty close to break even most of the time, leading me to conclude the author's claims for a .2 edge were probably true.
Any idea if I can apply the illustrious 18 to the KO rookie? Particularly with single deck games? Most copies of the 18 I've seen seem to be aimed at multiple decks. Some literature claims Slesinger later re-did them for 1,2,6, and 8 deck games.
Thanks for the input!
The KO preferred includes the illustrious 18 for 1, 2, and 6 deck. These 18 deviations account for about 80% of the entire gain you can expect from strategy variations (again read Blackjack Attack).
If you are playing shoes, memorizing the additional 50 or so is wasted effort. I use an additional 12 variations for SD/DD, but only ones that occur during very high counts (there is not much benefit IMHO to learning further indices for negative counts since your minimum bet is out).
Perhaps the following would be ignorant questions, but I'm a relative newbie to BlackJack so bear with me.
1. Would being able to increase your earn or decrease your losses on the negative counts be helpful? Even if it's a minimum bet? It seems to me that most counting systems can't average more than a bet or two an hour profit. To blow a bet would negate that effort. True?
However I can say simplicity is a virtue in this endeavor as just the charts are bad enough to remember.
2. How's the "BlackJack Attack" method simplicity-wise? The basic KO system seems fairly easy to do without error. I've yet to read the prefered (haven't found a copy at the local library yet). If I were to order the books would I be better off, from an ease of use perspective, to go KO or "Attack"?
3. Any comments on D. Sklansky's book, "Sklansky Talks Blackjack"? (He's kinda being a double agent here, seeing how he reccomends to casinos to pay even money on BlackJack to negate counting!)
1. Would being able to increase your earn or decrease your losses on the negative counts be helpful? Even if it's a minimum bet? It seems to me that most counting systems can't average more than a bet or two an hour profit. To blow a bet would negate that effort. True?
It can be helpful, but the advantage is negligible. In a shoe game, you will never use most of them because you won't be playing in the negative shoes where the indices occur. Since Don's work on the illustious 18, I believe that most players have concluded that the extra effort is not worth the miniscule gain from these extra indices. For me, 18 is fine for shoes and 30 works well for pitch games.
2. How's the "BlackJack Attack" method simplicity-wise? The basic KO system seems fairly easy to do without error. I've yet to read the prefered (haven't found a copy at the local library yet). If I were to order the books would I be better off, from an ease of use perspective, to go KO or "Attack"?
Blackjack Attack does not contain a counting system. It includes advanced topics that will help you once you have mastered a counting system. Topics include risk of return/bankroll requirements, camoflauge, game selection (desirability index), and many others. It is indespensible for the serious player. A BJ player who has not read and re-read this many times would be akin to a poker player who has not read "Theory of Poker".
My suggestion would be to order "Professional Blackjack" by Wong, KO, and "Blackjack Attack". You can compare the different systems and make the decision that works for you.
3. Any comments on D. Sklansky's book, "Sklansky Talks Blackjack"? (He's kinda being a double agent here, seeing how he reccomends to casinos to pay even money on BlackJack to negate counting!)
Haven't read it, not because it is not a great book (I have heard really good things about it) but because I have been playing for a number of years I don't think that it would benefit me much. I could be wrong, however, and would welcome any input that might change my mind.
Which count you use is of little consequence. I enjoy math puzzles, but have a lousy attention span, so I used (I no longer play) HiOpt 1 and side counted aces and sevens (only aces in shoe games).
If you have learned a count, and aren't a pro, switching will be a total waste, unless you find single deck games. It just can't be worth the effort, esp. for a small stakes player, or an occaisional one. It just doesn't mean much.
I will side with Mason on the index numbers (maybe it's a statistician thing, see bj essays). but I think it is silly to not learn all of them. It's just not that hard to do. It will also make you get less bored (at first), and feel like your knowledge is more complete and improve your confidence. You will also never have to sit there and think at the table if you run across a strange hand in a strange count that you might think is worth a switch... This will help keep heat away and make you play faster - adding to your profits.
"I will side with Mason on the index numbers (maybe it's a statistician thing, see bj essays). but I think it is silly to not learn all of them. It's just not that hard to do. It will also make you get less bored (at first), and feel like your knowledge is more complete and improve your confidence. You will also never have to sit there and think at the table if you run across a strange hand in a strange count that you might think is worth a switch... This will help keep heat away and make you play faster - adding to your profits."
From "Getting the Best of It":
"Let's see how this principle applies to other games. Blackjack gives the clearest example. In almost all cases, the best players are not the most successful. In most cases (one exception to be noted later), the ability to use advanced counts and the knowledge of obscure strategy variations is almost irrelevant. Not only is the opportunity to use this knowledge very infrequent, but the play is usually so close that making the wrong choice is not that bad."
Nobody is wrong here. It is just a matter of choice and what you feel comfortable with. The most important things are that you use whatever system you choose accurately, play only the best games, and bet with the appropriate amount of your bankroll.
This past weekend Tennessee scored a touchdown midway through the third quarter against Florida making the score 23-13 in favor of Florida. The Tennessee coach, Phillip Fulmer, decided to go for 1 pt instead of two points which meant he would probably not tie the game and have to win it in regulation. The announcers questioned this at the time. The alternative strategy was to go for 2 pts and if you made the conversion go for 2pts again to tie the score and send it to overtime. If you missed the first two point conversion and scored a second 1 point conversion, then a field goal would tie the score and send it to overtime. If you kick 2 extra points and a kick a field goal you win the game. Of course this assumes that Florida is shut out the rest of the way which they were. As it worked out Tennessee did score another touchdown and had the ball for a last chance drive to get in field goal position with plenty of time on the clock. On 3rd and 3 Tennessee ran the ball and had no gain and on 4th down Tennessee ran the ball again for no gain and the ball game is over. Apparently Fulmer had little confidence in his QB. My reaction at the time was that Fulmer should have tried for 2 pts when the score was 23-13 but I thought about Sklansky's essay last year and thought maybe Fulmer made the right decision. One big difference in situations was that in college football the overtime rule is quite a bit different than pro ball so the ability of the teams to play in the overtime situation would make quite a difference. For instance if one team had a poor kicker they might not want to get into an overtime situation because a lot of pressure can be placed on the kickers in overtime in college football. I assume that the chances of making a 2 pt conversion is slightly less than 50 percent, something like 45 percent. According to what I calculate you would have to have a very, very high percentage of overtime wins to employ the go for 2 pt conversion strategy so I believe that Fulmer made the right decision after I initially thought he was making a big mistake.
In order for it to be right to go for 2 he needs to believe he is a favorite to score the two twice and have an offense that is not likely to have to settle for a fg next time down. It seems clear cut to go for one.
There was too much time left in the game to make that decision. The bigger question is how can you run a sweep play on 4th and 3 when you have a running formation? I can't see why he wouldnt have confidence in his QB, he only won the national championship behind him last year. I couldnt watch the game since I was in Michigan and they were showing the Wolverines game, but I saw lots of highlights and was shocked at how Florida gave them the chance to get back in it and then how such a good coach could go out and lose it. As far as the 2 pt question goes, the coaches have little charts that tell them the proper strategy, but with a quarter left, I can't doubt Fulmer for kicking because with that much time left your chances of having only one more TD scored by your team and none by a pretty potent offense on the other side isnt good. Besides I think you hit it right, he doesn't like his chances of scoring back to back two point conversions on the road against a defense that had shut his team down most of the night. By the way I bet the Vols and got two because I waited until later in the day instead of betting it early and getting 2.5. Missed opportunities...
I too question the call on 4th down especially after getting stuffed on 3rd. Fulmer did say after the game that Tee Martin, his QB, was not having a good night. Seems like you still have to give him an opportunity to make a play.
Has anyone run into this game in Vegas?
I've read about this Carribean Stud look-alike, heard that it pays better odds on hands AND also pays the ante off at odds when dealer doesn't qualify...
Can any confirm those statements? Where can you find it in Vegas (I haven't seen it on East Coast yet...)
Time to regress to the mean after last week.
Redskins -1 vs Jets. Taking a road favorite in this game. I just feel that this a bargain. Mayber Mirer will play better than he has in the last 4 years but I'm betting on his continued ineptness.
Pats -6 vs. Giants. A little risky and I don't feel great about laying this many but again I feel it should be higher. I think Bledsoe is playing great, the Pats running game is improving with Terry Allen, and the Giants are having there share of problems on both sides of the ball especially running the ball.
Browns +12 vs Ravens. Stoney Case is starting his first game as an NFL QB and I am betting that he struggles. I'm betting also that Couch will continue to improve. I just think the Browns will keep it fairly close at least.
Packers even vs. Vikings. Well I guess under in the number might be better in this game but I think the Packers will win this division home game as the Vikings are obviously struggling.
I think this week is much tougher than last week.
For what it's worth, local sentiment regards this as a possible trap game for the Pats, (non-conference sandwitch).
TWIMC,
I.M.Bettor picks football in the Boston Herald and he has started out 4-0 this season. He only picks one or two games a week usually Pro. He has won 11 of 13 years. I've been following him for ~10 yrs. I wish I could say I had bet with him for those years but I haven't. He has a website that you can call up and read. It's just something you might want to look at before you make your picks. Good luck.
http://www.picktowin.com/
Paul
I've noticed that several online casinos offer cash bonuses of 10-20%, either on all deposits or on initial deposits only. At least one offers $20 just for opening an account with $20. Another (non-US players only) offers a refund of all losses (up to $200) on the first day.
The restrictions generally seem to be that all of the deposit + bonus must be wagered before withdrawing.
Not significant for those bigtime professional gamblers out there, but it's seems that someone could pick up a (few?) hundred dollars by exploiting several of these offers, and making very low variance bets (pass+don't pass, black+red, etc.) then cashing out.
The risk of course is in the honesty of the casino operation and how inconvenient they make it to actually take money out (e.g. service charges, delays, or...)
Any greedy money-grubbing individuals out there try this?
(I tried one-- theoretically I have an $18 profit in the mail-- $20 bonus - 2 $1 service charges.)
the gambling world is small and anything you do that gets interpeted badly tends to follow you your whole career.
These are just some thoughts I have coming into this weekends games.
So far I'm 6-1 with my picks. I've been a little lucky in a couple of games. It is getting much harder to find good games to bet on so I'm sure that my 6-1 is an aberration.
I lost on the Pats vs. Giants game last Sunday night. I really thought if the Pats scored 20 pts it would be enough to cover. A couple things where things didn't pan out as I thought. I was overrating the improvement in the Pats running game. They have some definite problems there. I have a lot of respect for Terry Allen as a running back even though he is a little long in the tooth. Also I did think that Jason Sehorn would have problems in that game but from what I could tell he played very well. I have never seen a player come off of that serious of a knee injury and play well right away but it was obvious that Sehorn's recovery is complete. His case is rare but my hat's off to him. I like to look for situations where there is a big mismatch at QB. I believed I had one with Bledsoe and Grahm although Grahm is ok. The Pats didn't do that well in the "red zone" and they played to old prevent defense in the last 3 minutes which was probably the right thing to do. The Pats strategy on offense and defense could be debated but they just want to win the game and don't care how much they win it by so laying a some points in the pros can be risky. BTW I almost lost in the Browns vs. Titans game when the Browns had the ball on the Titans 6 yard line in the final minute. The Browns fumbled the ball away so I got a little lucky there. Anyway I attribute my loss in the Pats game to mistakes in handicapping.
I am looking at all the pro games this weekend. I am reviewing the stats so far to evaluate each team and come up with the games where I don't think the line is right. I know it isn't exciting having a bet on a game like the Browns-Ravens but often those types of games provide good opportunities. I am wondering a lot about how good the Rams are. I never heard of Kurt Warner the QB for the Rams. I know Isaac Bruce is very good wide out and apparently #1 draft choice Tory Holt (I hope I spelled it right) is another very good wide receiver. They drafted Orlando Pace a mamouth offensive tackle a few years back and picked up Marshall Faulk as a free agent. So apparently the Rams have a lot of weapons. The Rams play the Bengals this week and are -3 on the road. Interesting game. I'll post tomorrow about QB's that are really struggling (a nice way to say playing awful).
Other interesting games off the top of my head.
Jaguars vs. Steelers (is Kordell Stuart that bad?) Broncos vs. Jets. 49ers vs. Titans. Cowboys vs. Cardinals. Pats vs. Browns. Saints vs. Bears. Seahawks vs. Raiders. Bucs vs. Vikings.
One last thing for today. Here is another mistake I made last week. I kind of liked the Under in the Browns vs. Ravens game. I believe it was something like 36 points. Now I agree with Abdul that when the totals get this low the over is favored. So I chickened out of that one. However, I should have realized that Browns are a special case team and that Stoney Case, the starting QB for the Ravens, would make the under much more attractive. You never know how turnovers will work out though. If teams start returning fumbles and/or interceptions for touchdowns it can hurt an under bet pretty bad.
Comments?
I'm off to my worst start ever at football this season, so I'm glad to see that someone other than the man is beating it. Anyway, since I can't pick and play against myself (I'll just shut it down for the season before I start second guessing - one more bad weekend should be enough to convince me), I offer the following selections without analysis to document just how consistently awful I'm running. Maybe this way I'll embarass myself on this forum by actually having a winning week.
Oklahoma over Notre Dame Oregon over Washington
Minnesota over Tampa Bay Oakland over Seattle
Over the total at Miami
TWIMC,
Do you overestimate your opponent in a HTH matchup or do you tend to underestimate your opponent. I bring this up because in most cases not all I tend to overestimate my opponent whether it be 7CS, HE, O8. Sometimes this may cause me to miss a bet or two and it ticks me off. My question which is to approach FTOP, is how do I change to attain better accuracy to not lose a bet or two. Is it just something that is intrinsic to my nature or do other players have this problem too.
Thanks Paul
Other Gambling Games
September 1999 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo