HUGE MNF PLAY

@gambleforfood

@Flyguy1700

I would expect you to say this.

Who cares about a winning or losing record?

Once again - profit is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

This post says everything you need to know.  You pay extra so you can have a winning record.  Profit doesnt matter to you.  You want a record that you can boast about.

I care about $$.  Thats the difference between us.

Why are u guys such Dicks? He is posting winners. Can u accept that instead of bashing him? Damn!!!

*insert dr.dre- whats the difference*

Nobody is bashing winners.

He is bashing math.

@BigTonyC

 its an interesting topic regarding long-term profitability 

SI and VZ are on opposite sides of the spectrum....there is a middle ground

SI buys points a bit to often IMO...especially on random numbers like +4.5 to +5.0

VZ ignores the probability of a push when betting a flat number (especially if you can buy a 0.5 point for 10 cents...which is very rare in some cases)

there is a middle ground some where in between them.....the math gets complicated tho

@SportsIntuition

 like the under as well

GL si

@vanzack

 Here's my record and profit based on the worst case scenario assumptions.

25-14-1 NFL = +8.2 units

What's yours "Mr. Ego, I gotta be right"

What I have observed over the years is that most people who only post profit do so because their actual win percentage sucks and the only reason why they are in the green is because they won a few big plays that offset all the losses.

Let's be honest "Mr. Ego"...

Who's better and why?

Person A who is 20-10 and +10.9 units, or

Person B who is 10-20 and 10.9 units?

Now we are getting somewhere....

Like I said...  Win % means zero.  Literally - zero.  You think you are better because you post -125 favs and have a good record than someone who posts +125 dogs and has an inverse record?  WHAT?

"Let's be honest "Mr. Ego"... What's more impressive? Person A who is 20-10 and +10.9 units, or Person B who is 10-20 and 10.9 units?"

I think that statement speaks for itself.  Impressive???  I think cash is impressive.  You keep doing you, I will take the cash.

I'm not on either side of the spectrum.

Because there is no spectrum, only perspective, which is personal and only formed from direct experience.

And I've stated mine which is 100% valid based on my reasons and experiences.

The simple answer to this buying points thing that "Mr. Ego" so desperately wants to be "right" on is that it's only a losing proposition to those who lose consistently.

Those who win consistently, like myself, sacrifice a little upside for downside protection.

We consider this be a "premium" for "insurance".

And it's called smart investing, especially when large money is involved.

@vanzack

 you are missing his point in his example...imo

yes if the guy is 10-20 but + money cause he is betting dogs...great

but if they guy is 10-20 + money....normally bets 1 unit....but got down big and bet a 20 unit play and won it....is he good or just got lucky on the 20 unit bomb???

A sad, but beautiful, attempt to dodge the TRUTH.

Go back to your thread and do your own thing.

See you in a "month".

@SportsIntuition

 well no....you are wrong there

there are times when buying points get you "more bang for your buck" .....

if you are buying the giants from +15.5 to +16.0.....sure go ahead....but not many games land on 16....so you arent getting nearly as much "bang for ur buck" as opposed to buying from +2.5 to +3.0

this is just basic math....it gets complicated fast as you get into detail tho

if you made 100 bets at +15.5 but bought to +16.0....you might get a push in there

if you made 100 bets at +2.5 but bought to +3.0....you are pretty much guaranteed to push 2+ times over 100 plays just based on how many games end in the result of 3

Person A is consistently good.

Person B is consistently lucky.

This is the undeniable truth.

He has the same amount of cash in the end.

If you are saying that there was more implied risk for one or the other, then that is a different thing.  He didnt say that.  You said that.

It is all about risk / reward.  That is my whole point.  If you are saying that bettor A risked less to be at +10.9, and bettor B risked more to be at +10.9, then of course I would rather be bettor A.  But that is the whole point of this whole discussion!  He is paying too much for buying points.  He is bettor B in your example - which is quite ironic.

But all of that being said... I really dont think you are capturing what he was trying to say.  He was trying to say it is sexier to have a better record.  And that is in total alignment with buying points at inflated prices to have a good record at the expense of profit.

BOL tonight 

Anyone who uses the term "consistently lucky" is someone that clearly doesn't understand probability.

@dubz4dummyz

Again, there is no right or wrong, it's a matter of a person's comfort level.

If I get -120 to get to 16 with my local when the big books are charging -130 or -135, one could argue I am doing it because of the value I'm getting with my book.

Again, there is no "black and white" because there are so many moving parts to why a person might choose to do it.

@96chey

@vanzack

 i mean luck factors into almost every wager at the end of the day....whether u wanna admit it or not

pats backers got unlucky with a late safety yesterday

bal/ten under 42.0 backers got lucky with a goal-line stop at the end of the game 

almost every game comes down to a bit of luck, hence why most every capper doesnt hit over 58% lifetime

if your probability calcs were the be-all end-all you would hit 75%+ easy....but alas they are not

I 100% agree

i just meant to point out the massive advantage of getting to +3.0 as opposed to +16.0....which you kinda shrugged off.....there is a massive value difference there alone....

I disagree with this statement. Calculating risk is a macro calculation not a micro calculation. One Pat's game can be looked at as lucky, 500 Patriots games are a better example of accurate risk assessment.

I've been doing this a long time. I haven't had a losing season in the past 20 years or so. Not to say that this isn't the year for the next year won't be the year, but over a long spectrum of games I have accurately been able to assess risk and price it accordingly.

You pay for risk reduction. In his case, he is simply paying too much for that risk reduction. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.