You are a crazy degenerate....

Yeah right.

Pretty much went exactly as I said.

And as far as your comment - who is getting 3.5 +200 on either side of this at gametime?  In what world?

I predicted one thing:  high variance.

And a 3.5 point spread ended 32-7.

I guess second level betting concepts go way over the heads of most here.  No surprise.

But the good news is there are champions league games this week, and the bank of vanzack will be wide open.  The Obama money has rolled in and there are some crazy wrong way lines for the next 2 days.

Hope you all won.  Cant wait to bet against SF next week when they will be vastly overpriced.

Who are you?

Yeah.  I just dont get it.  Its me that doesnt get it.

OK.

A faux-sharp.  I like that.

I knew the concept of beating the closing line for the last 10 years here.  Here is one example from this thread in 2010 (post #8).

The only way to define sharp is someone who consistently beats the line (square would be the opposite).

So if sharps are on one side, by definition they have already beaten the line because the line has moved. So now in order to side with those sharps, you have to take a bad line, thus NOT beating the line, making you a square. So you are on the same side on the same game, but you are the square and they are the sharp because of line.

The only determinant in long term sports gambling winning or losing is beating the line. It is the only thing that books like Pinnacle use to profile players - they dont care if you win or lose - but they do care if you beat the line - because they know that someone who does that consistently will win consistently (a sharp).

https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=21&sub=100915404&page=1

Tell me Irish Tim, if I am such a fraud, what do you think I am?

Someone who has been on this site for 10 years, and someone who copies and pastes gambling theory?

Im curious.  Coming from a guy who creates an alias to track and troll me, if I am a faux-sharp, what is your theory?

What kind of faux sharp can write volumes about every gambling subject under the sun, for 10 years here? 

Lets hear the theory of an alias who is afraid to use their real username to stalk me.

Because I have addressed it for 10 years over and over and over.

Here.  Start in this thread.  https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=89&sub=100991258

Oh, and please add to my record - since you are my personal record keeper / stalker -

1-0 in elections, up 100 units.

Thanks

1.  Because I live in the real world.

2.  It is understood.

It you can get +3.5 _140 and cant figure out how to make money with that, you are beyond help.  Come on.  If you can go buy a new Honda Accord for 2k you should go do that too.

Jeesh.

I will be glad to ahve this conversation with you as long as you use your real username.

Not an alias set up to stalk / troll me.

I take it as a compliment, but come on.  Be big about it.  Calling me out while hiding this way is lame.

Go do some research on my posts here for 10 years, and come back to me.  Repeating this stuff gets old.  And I dont owe you anything.

Can you answer this Van?

Can anyone answer this question with pure stats?

Last night I took the Steelers. Had the option of +3 +105, or +3.5 -115. So, risk 100 for 105 first way, and risk 100 for 87 the 2nd way. I opted for the +3 +105, and of course I pushed.

My belief is that in the long run taking the +105 will be more profitable. To make up for the lost 87, I'd need to win 5 times with the same scenario(5x18=90, which makes up for the lost 87). So, 1/6 of the time(16.666%) a push instead of win would still be profitable for me in the long run, as the 5 wins would give me an extra $3. 

Does anyone have historical data for the outcomes on games where the closing line was between 2.5-3.5? How many of these games ended with the exact difference of 3?

Even if it's 25%(which seems high), taking the +105 would seem correct, as probability dictates that the team I wagered on would win half of the time, thus rendering only 12.5% of the time I would push instead of win.

If I was making a major, one time wager, then I'd definitely buy the extra half off the 3, But, grinding with a normal play, I think the +105 is the correct move.

Any help, backed by facts would be greatly appreciated.