Posted:
#26
Dr John what's your diagnosis for the Cavs raptors total
2 solid plays
Posted:
#27
Quote Originally Posted by emchu:
Hi drjohn3719. Been a big follow of yours this past 3 days. Dam boy! Thank you! Thank you for sharing your picks! Please ignore the haters. Just know, you got real appreciative following you. Thanks man.
Hi drjohn3719. Been a big follow of yours this past 3 days. Dam boy! Thank you! Thank you for sharing your picks! Please ignore the haters. Just know, you got real appreciative following you. Thanks man.
I just go ahead to speak up about this, I've been here on covers for long time. Before I use to support those who posted winner but for while they're turning to tout.
Here is how the tout do it; He/She comes to covers and be very nice, answer all questions folks may have, if one of the folk hammered on him/her, He/She's still very nice. What he/she does is trying to get all attention from people. And by the way, when those TOUTS get the winning straight they stop posting and ask for money if people want his/her pick.
These are happen many,many times in covers and TOUTS get banned, many folks don't know about this then blame on COVERS banning people who posted winner.
Many sport services (hot line) put the advertise on covers they have to pay and these TOUTS want to get it free in here. That's why he/she get banned.
I'm sorry Dr.John, I'm watching how it's develop, but don't turn into TOUTS too quick ok.
Folks are enjoying your winning streak as much as they can while you're still keep your winning straight. Don't let COVERS banned you. 
Craptors not tonight !!
Posted:
#37
Quote Originally Posted by PapaShango:
This is how I know you are a square. Explain how the odds should be -300. I'd love to hear this one.
This is how I know you're an absolute moron. It is EXTREMELY simple math. The odds should actually be closer to -400 now if we factor in the current ML.
But using yesterday's ML of -140, that implies a 58% chance of winning. If we conservatively estimate that OKC has a 45% chance of winning a game 7, the series odds for OKC should be at least -335.
How stupid are you, honestly? Hopefully your day job doesn't entail any functions math related. You just sealed your nomination for dunce of the year.
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by PapaShango:
This is how I know you are a square. Explain how the odds should be -300. I'd love to hear this one.
I'd love to hear your response. Anything other than an admission that you're a blithering idiot would be highly amusing to Dr. John.
Don't show your face in Dr. John's threads henceforth. You've lost your contribution privileges.
Posted:
#39
Quote Originally Posted by DrJohn3719:
This is how I know you're an absolute moron. It is EXTREMELY simple math. The odds should actually be closer to -400 now if we factor in the current ML.
But using yesterday's ML of -140, that implies a 58% chance of winning. If we conservatively estimate that OKC has a 45% chance of winning a game 7, the series odds for OKC should be at least -335.
How stupid are you, honestly? Hopefully your day job doesn't entail any functions math related. You just sealed your nomination for dunce of the year.
How can you "conservatively estimate OKC has a 45% chance of winning game 7?" The odds will have them less than 30% to win the game. Not really sure where you are getting 45%.
The odds will be around Warriors -350 for game 7. Therefore, Warriors being +145 tonight and -350 for game 7, means they shouldn't be more than a +220 underdog to win the series.
Posted:
#40
1) Dr. John will emphasize that a ML of +300 for OKC in game 7 is undoubtedly inflated (hence why it closed below that last game). Implying the Thunder actually have a GREATER than 33% chance to win the game.
2) If we assume that OKC has a ~61% chance to win tonights game (as per the current ML at one of the sharpest books), and a ~35% chance to win a game 7 (I'm virtually conceding you your strongest counter point), the math is as follows:
1-0.61 = 0.39, 1-0.35 = 0.65
0.39*0.65 = 0.25
1-0.25=0.75
x/x+100= 0.75
x = 300
OKC to win the series should be -300. You are a complete dolt. End of story. There is the explanation you were SO desperate to hear.
Posted:
#41
Dr. John confounded an assumption. An inflated +300 ML odds does not imply 33% chance to win the game. 33% was another assumption used.
However, if we accept that these odds are inflated, then Warriors should be < -300 ML. Let's use the number -280 for the sake of argument. (DRJ will argue that the warriors will not be so heavily favored to take game 7 or at least that in reality the odds are far better and closer to the 33-40% range that OKC wins a game 7 -- that was the confounding factor in the prior post).
In which case, OKC should STILL be -270 to win the series. Any way you slice it, there is value with -220. And you are WRONG.
Posted:
#42
Agree to disagree. You are implying things that are just not factual accurate. The line is what the line will be. For you to assume they have a greater chance than the actual odds are what you are implying. Warriors will be at least -300, most likely closer to -340 in game 7. There is no value at -220.
Posted:
#44
Quote Originally Posted by PapaShango:
Agree to disagree. You are implying things that are just not factual accurate. The line is what the line will be. For you to assume they have a greater chance than the actual odds are what you are implying. Warriors will be at least -300, most likely closer to -340 in game 7. There is no value at -220.
Agree to disagree. You are implying things that are just not factual accurate. The line is what the line will be. For you to assume they have a greater chance than the actual odds are what you are implying. Warriors will be at least -300, most likely closer to -340 in game 7. There is no value at -220.
No, you are wrong. There is no debate.
Let's take the average of the range you just specified, acknowledging that the Warriors ML for a game 7 would be slightly inflated. So -320.
Here is the math:
Hot Forum Topics
