What poster has the best inside info?

[Roncuba65]

And stop mischaracterizing people.

Lol at you complaining about being "mischaracterized" after the nonsense you post...

 

[83Hawk]

Didn't claim the bet won.

But rather that I believed to have had a betting edge on the game.

Read better. And stop mischaracterizing people.

Go Hawks!

The exact words you used were "winning bet".

 

[Iron Doc]

I have considered briefly taking ol' Eyes off ignore, but am not sure I can return to dealing with a HypnoToad scenario again,

 

[rfgiowa]

Kilroy and his other handles.

Hahaha! That guy was something else. I remember how people called out his multiple names after getting banned every other week.

 

[eyesofhawk]

So what do you have to say about the bettors who put money on Kansas State and won that bet? Are they just stupid and lucky, unlike the brilliant, astute sports gambler that you are, who lost?

Well, clearly I wouldn't have agreed with making that bet.

And to me, the way the game played out presented even less justification in a projected betting edge on K St ml, prior to the game.

But actually, your logic isn't applicable here, as when using a booking agent, the same price isn't used to bet against K St, as would be to bet on them. Rather than -220, the K St ml was probably about -280.

So whereas, a Rutgers bet would have needed to perform at 31.25% to be a break even bet, 68.75% would not make K St a break even bet, but rather a 73.68% performance rate.

The reality is, Vegas projected K St to win at about 71%, and taxed each side, which is how Vegas got built.

In almost all games, betting either team on the moneyline is a losing bet (proposition). It's hard to find a projected edge. I projected Rutgers to have about a 33-38% chance of winning. Given the way the game played out, with Rutgers having led 33-17 at one point, I still believe the Rutgers ml to have had a betting edge.

Certainly, the result of a game that only needed less than a 32% chance of winning, isn't going to accurately represent how skillfully the bet was made. Again, the bet was made with the expectation of a Rutgers loss.

If someone gave you 3 to 2 odds that a coin would land on heads, would you evaluate it to have been a bad bet if it ended up landing on tails? Of course not. As a matter of fact, I would consider someone dumb to have not wagered a comfortable amount on heads, when receiving 3 to 2 odds.

The difference is the expectancy of a coin landing heads, is much more of a known commodity than is the expectancy of a Rutgers win.

So with moneyline bets, one is never exactly sure if his bet had an edge or not. This includes betting on moneyline favorites that win. Recreational bettors fall into the trap.all the time. They'll win on a -450 favorite and not realize that if they keep making -450 bets (assuming they don't have edges), they will end up a losing bettor over time. They might win 4 games for $100 a piece. But on the 5th game they bet, lose $450. If they aren't keeping good records, it can feel like they're winning over time, when in fact, they are losing.

So, a bettor who uses a lot of moneylines is only able to accurately evaluate the quality of his investments after a large sample size. I've been a profitable sports bettor for 9 straight years, so I know my bets have had long term betting edges. Furthermore, I know ml underdogs in the +200 to +250 range to have been some of my best performing bets.

Maybe people who don’t sports bet very often look at it differently. I don't know..

But I've bet sports nearly every day for over 30 years. So I'm much more interested in how the results of my bets impact each other, rather than the result of any individual bet.

And in the end, it's my money being risked, so I can evaluate my performance how ever I wish, and don't need to explain this anymore.

So, I say someone who bet on K St ml, made a bad bet that happened to win. Happens all the time. Welcome to sports betting

 

[eyesofhawk]

The exact words you used were "winning bet".

A winning bet, as in a winning proposition. Profitable over time. Having a betting edge.

As in, not a losing proposition.

Winning a hand of blackjack does not change that it was a losing proposition.

Certainly, you remember all of this being explained, if you're able to recall exact verbiage.

The boners you guys get for me over stuff like this is really strange

 

[FranklinHawk]

Hahaha! That guy was something else. I remember how people called out his multiple names after getting banned every other week.

He didn't get banned, the dog ate his password!

 

[83Hawk]

A winning bet, as in a winning proposition. Profitable over time. Having a betting edge.

As in, not a losing proposition.

Winning a hand of blackjack does not change that it was a losing proposition.

Certainly, you remember all of this being explained, if you're able to recall exact verbiage.

The boners you guys get for me over stuff like this is really strange

You were made fun of due to your incorrect usage of the term “winning bet” and the length you went to defend it. It was the same with your “plain manila” nonsense. That, and your steadfast resistance to ever admitting you are wrong about anything.

This has all been explained to you before.

 

[eyesofhawk]

You were made fun of due to your incorrect usage of the term “winning bet” and the length you went to defend it. It was the same with your “plain manila” nonsense. That, and your steadfast resistance to ever admitting you are wrong about anything.

This has all been explained to you before.

It's not incorrect usage. Completely standard parlance in sportsbetting. You'll notice I still use that terminology in this thread. Winning bet, break even bet, losing bet.

Not the game. The bet. Not the winning or losing hand of bkackjack. The losing bet (proposition) that was offered.

Thanks for affirming your boner

 

[83Hawk]

It's not incorrect usage. Completely standard parlance in sportsbetting. You'll notice I still use that terminology in this thread. Winning bet, break even bet, losing bet.

Not the game. The bet. Not the winning or losing hand of bkackjack. The losing bet (proposition) that was offered.

Thanks for affirming your boner

Stop.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

Well, clearly I wouldn't have agreed with making that bet.

And to me, the way the game played out presented even less justification in a projected betting edge on K St ml, prior to the game.

But actually, your logic isn't applicable here, as when using a booking agent, the same price isn't used to bet against K St, as would be to bet on them. Rather than -220, the K St ml was probably about -280.

So whereas, a Rutgers bet would have needed to perform at 31.25% to be a break even bet, 68.75% would not make K St a break even bet, but rather a 73.68% performance rate.

The reality is, Vegas projected K St to win at about 71%, and taxed each side, which is how Vegas got built.

In almost all games, betting either team on the moneyline is a losing bet (proposition). It's hard to find a projected edge. I projected Rutgers to have about a 33-38% chance of winning. Given the way the game played out, with Rutgers having led 33-17 at one point, I still believe the Rutgers ml to have had a betting edge.

Certainly, the result of a game that only needed less than a 32% chance of winning, isn't going to accurately represent how skillfully the bet was made. Again, the bet was made with the expectation of a Rutgers loss.

If someone gave you 3 to 2 odds that a coin would land on heads, would you evaluate it to have been a bad bet if it ended up landing on tails? Of course not. As a matter of fact, I would consider someone dumb to have not wagered a comfortable amount on heads, when receiving 3 to 2 odds.

The difference is the expectancy of a coin landing heads, is much more of a known commodity than is the expectancy of a Rutgers win.

So with moneyline bets, one is never exactly sure if his bet had an edge or not. This includes betting on moneyline favorites that win. Recreational bettors fall into the trap.all the time. They'll win on a -450 favorite and not realize that if they keep making -450 bets (assuming they don't have edges), they will end up a losing bettor over time. They might win 4 games for $100 a piece. But on the 5th game they bet, lose $450. If they aren't keeping good records, it can feel like they're winning over time, when in fact, they are losing.

So, a bettor who uses a lot of moneylines is only able to accurately evaluate the quality of his investments after a large sample size. I've been a profitable sports bettor for 9 straight years, so I know my bets have had long term betting edges. Furthermore, I know ml underdogs in the +200 to +250 range to have been some of my best performing bets.

Maybe people who don’t sports bet very often look at it differently. I don't know..

But I've bet sports nearly every day for over 30 years. So I'm much more interested in how the results of my bets impact each other, rather than the result of any individual bet.

And in the end, it's my money being risked, so I can evaluate my performance how ever I wish, and don't need to explain this anymore.

So, I say someone who bet on K St ml, made a bad bet that happened to win. Happens all the time. Welcome to sports betting

41-44
L
But whatever makes you feel better

 

[2D]

You were made fun of due to your incorrect usage of the term “winning bet” and the length you went to defend it. It was the same with your “plain manila” nonsense. That, and your steadfast resistance to ever admitting you are wrong about anything.

This has all been explained to you before.

41-44
L
But whatever makes you feel better

Keep kicking his ***, boys!

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

I am not an insider.

I did tell everyone not to sleep on Evan James back in April.

With that, I’ll take my cookie please.