okay well the links didnt post but thanks for your efforts
okay well the links didnt post but thanks for your efforts
Agree with PB. In my opinion you have too much positive info to share not to make a weekly thread.
In my opinion since the CFL season overlaps with NFL and and NCAAFB the NFL and NCAAFB forum is full of too much nonsense it would be nice to keep all "football related posts in this forum. Is anyone down for this?
Agree with PB. In my opinion you have too much positive info to share not to make a weekly thread.
In my opinion since the CFL season overlaps with NFL and and NCAAFB the NFL and NCAAFB forum is full of too much nonsense it would be nice to keep all "football related posts in this forum. Is anyone down for this?
since most of us use past history and past results maybe someone else whats to address your questions. Maybe you can sit back and take in our results as we put up wins and losses.
Like I said no disrespect to you but I do what I do and I dont need to explain. I also dont need permission from you.
since most of us use past history and past results maybe someone else whats to address your questions. Maybe you can sit back and take in our results as we put up wins and losses.
Like I said no disrespect to you but I do what I do and I dont need to explain. I also dont need permission from you.
Obviously the technically minded handicappers will see value in past history, and the match-up or fundamental handicappers won't. It is a matter of perception and everyone's perception will be different. Just as there are many ways to become a millionaire, so are there many ways to handicap football games. There is no right way to make a million, just as there is no right way to handicap.
I'd put the percentage of technical handicappers at about 10% of the betting population, so the majority are not going to perceive the value of it.
The CFL forum is by-and-large excellent at being cognizant of the differences and being open to both ways, so I am very much appreciative of that and the posters here.
The way I view this is, if the match-up/fundamental method is the superior way or at least better than technical bettors at this, why aren't all the ex-coaches and ex-players rich from betting on the game they know more about than anyone else?
You do have a negative expectation on your picks Dogbite, which permeates every thread you put out there, which can lead to self-fulfilling results. If the 70% picks aren't working on 30 games of history, find 60%+ results on 60+ games. It can happen, just as a 400+ games query result with a 62% historical winning percentage went 1-2 this past weekend.
I had a query about 15 years ago that was a perfect 30-0 ATS in the NFL going back >20 years...and I waited for a couple of years for it come up....and I bet a crapload of dollars on the indicated team in the indicated game, and it lost two straight weeks.
We can lose our minds when our hard earned handicapping work brings no or bad results...heartbreaking when the handicapping dog makes better picks than you or I.
Obviously the technically minded handicappers will see value in past history, and the match-up or fundamental handicappers won't. It is a matter of perception and everyone's perception will be different. Just as there are many ways to become a millionaire, so are there many ways to handicap football games. There is no right way to make a million, just as there is no right way to handicap.
I'd put the percentage of technical handicappers at about 10% of the betting population, so the majority are not going to perceive the value of it.
The CFL forum is by-and-large excellent at being cognizant of the differences and being open to both ways, so I am very much appreciative of that and the posters here.
The way I view this is, if the match-up/fundamental method is the superior way or at least better than technical bettors at this, why aren't all the ex-coaches and ex-players rich from betting on the game they know more about than anyone else?
You do have a negative expectation on your picks Dogbite, which permeates every thread you put out there, which can lead to self-fulfilling results. If the 70% picks aren't working on 30 games of history, find 60%+ results on 60+ games. It can happen, just as a 400+ games query result with a 62% historical winning percentage went 1-2 this past weekend.
I had a query about 15 years ago that was a perfect 30-0 ATS in the NFL going back >20 years...and I waited for a couple of years for it come up....and I bet a crapload of dollars on the indicated team in the indicated game, and it lost two straight weeks.
We can lose our minds when our hard earned handicapping work brings no or bad results...heartbreaking when the handicapping dog makes better picks than you or I.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.