So you are saying that no matter if you are the best capper in the world, you will eventually lose 7 in a row? Even though it technically happened, it hasnt happened to me yet. Even though I survived a critical error causing a 7th loss I am still up 50% over where I started. All I have to do is avoid it long enough and use money management and still grow the bankroll reguardless of what the stats say. I screwed myself by not being available when the winning plays were set to go, not by missing 7 in a row. So, with my methods of picking games, I think money can still be made. Thats the key, the methods. So you all can debate all you want, but until I have a REAL loss and not a unfortunate human error loss I am making money. I was making a lot before the great wilderness got me and I am STILL up a lot(percentage wise).
0
So you are saying that no matter if you are the best capper in the world, you will eventually lose 7 in a row? Even though it technically happened, it hasnt happened to me yet. Even though I survived a critical error causing a 7th loss I am still up 50% over where I started. All I have to do is avoid it long enough and use money management and still grow the bankroll reguardless of what the stats say. I screwed myself by not being available when the winning plays were set to go, not by missing 7 in a row. So, with my methods of picking games, I think money can still be made. Thats the key, the methods. So you all can debate all you want, but until I have a REAL loss and not a unfortunate human error loss I am making money. I was making a lot before the great wilderness got me and I am STILL up a lot(percentage wise).
Legitimate question for DJ here. If the numbers that you put out are true then what does that say for ACE-ACE who is closing in on 350-0?
It simply says that he is LUCKY. The more he plays, the more the odds begin to stack against him that he will eventually run into a loss of 7.
But remember, the fact that he's played 350 times before has no bearing on his new bets so the odds aren't actually worst, he still has the same chance of losing every time he bets (51.28%).
To simplify: Someone could get to 5000 plays without losing 7 in a row... The odds are VERY stacked against this happening but it's still feasible... if you're lucky.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SUPEREAGLE43:
Legitimate question for DJ here. If the numbers that you put out are true then what does that say for ACE-ACE who is closing in on 350-0?
It simply says that he is LUCKY. The more he plays, the more the odds begin to stack against him that he will eventually run into a loss of 7.
But remember, the fact that he's played 350 times before has no bearing on his new bets so the odds aren't actually worst, he still has the same chance of losing every time he bets (51.28%).
To simplify: Someone could get to 5000 plays without losing 7 in a row... The odds are VERY stacked against this happening but it's still feasible... if you're lucky.
dj_destroyer, I trust what you say is true but I'm having trouble following it. Not sure where you get q=20/39. It must be beyond my scope. I just finished an intro statistics class, I'm better at calculus. No need to explain though. What Scotth69 says makes more sense to me. You need to know the winning percentage. From there, I believe, you can use a simple formula, P(x) = nCx(p^x)(q^(n-x)). Where n= number of trials, p= probability of success, q= probability of failure, and x= number of successes in n trials. For example, if eagle is to have 0 wins in 7 attempts and is picking games at, say, 30% then P(x) = 7C0(.3^0)(.7^7) ~ 8% chance that he will bust if capping at 30%. Is this wrong?
1. I stated in a later post that q = 20/39 was wrong... The odds on a -105 play as a fraction is actually 20/21 (or 20/41) and then you just take the inverse of that percentage which is 51.22%. 2. You don't need to know personal winning percentages like michael550 said... we just need to know the chances of losing which is independent of past results. The chance of losing a -105 play is 51.28% so that's the number I used. 3. Not only do you NOT need to know personal winning percentages, to assume that someone will stay at that certain percentage for infinite is naive. The capper has no bearing on the probability of winning because we trust that the oddsmakers have set the line properly. 4. If anyone is such a good capper that they can trust their capping to create positive expected value (+EV) and therefore create edges, then they don't need a shitty martingale system. What I mean by this is that if you can consistently find weaknesses in the lines to the point where you're setting lines better than the books... then you can trust your capping to alter the odds in your favour. If a play is -105 but you know it should be -115, then you're getting a +EV edge and you are always going to WIN in the long run. I don't know too many people who can do this, and those that can are professional gamblers. But seriously, what I just said is the ONLY way to gamble. Any other way and you're going to lose in the long run, it's simple math.
0
Quote Originally Posted by trojanman55:
dj_destroyer, I trust what you say is true but I'm having trouble following it. Not sure where you get q=20/39. It must be beyond my scope. I just finished an intro statistics class, I'm better at calculus. No need to explain though. What Scotth69 says makes more sense to me. You need to know the winning percentage. From there, I believe, you can use a simple formula, P(x) = nCx(p^x)(q^(n-x)). Where n= number of trials, p= probability of success, q= probability of failure, and x= number of successes in n trials. For example, if eagle is to have 0 wins in 7 attempts and is picking games at, say, 30% then P(x) = 7C0(.3^0)(.7^7) ~ 8% chance that he will bust if capping at 30%. Is this wrong?
1. I stated in a later post that q = 20/39 was wrong... The odds on a -105 play as a fraction is actually 20/21 (or 20/41) and then you just take the inverse of that percentage which is 51.22%. 2. You don't need to know personal winning percentages like michael550 said... we just need to know the chances of losing which is independent of past results. The chance of losing a -105 play is 51.28% so that's the number I used. 3. Not only do you NOT need to know personal winning percentages, to assume that someone will stay at that certain percentage for infinite is naive. The capper has no bearing on the probability of winning because we trust that the oddsmakers have set the line properly. 4. If anyone is such a good capper that they can trust their capping to create positive expected value (+EV) and therefore create edges, then they don't need a shitty martingale system. What I mean by this is that if you can consistently find weaknesses in the lines to the point where you're setting lines better than the books... then you can trust your capping to alter the odds in your favour. If a play is -105 but you know it should be -115, then you're getting a +EV edge and you are always going to WIN in the long run. I don't know too many people who can do this, and those that can are professional gamblers. But seriously, what I just said is the ONLY way to gamble. Any other way and you're going to lose in the long run, it's simple math.
it is a mathematical certainty that when winning games at a 45% rate that you will eventually lose 7 in a row. that i know for sure.
this whole thread really isnt a strategy or a system or a chase anything like that whatsoever, all it is is picking games (and in this case winning about 4 or 5 out of every 10) and hoping not to string together 7 losses before getting a win. its mathematicaly and statistically guaranteed to fail at some point.
thats why i disagree with the idea of going tout and selling this as a winning system when the picks themsleves are only winning at a 45% rate. youre telling people, pay me 11 bucks for my picks because i wont lose 7 in a row, and that statement is 100% false. not losing 7 in a row up to that point while picking winners 45% just means that you hadnt lost 7 in a row despite your handicapping..not because of it.
You can't assume that because you've picked at a XX% clip, that you're magically going to stay at that clip. Whether you've picked 20%, 45% or 70% in the past... the odds remain the same for busting (losing one out of seven)... Your clip will certainly affect how long or short you go before busting, but it is not a constant and therefore cannot be used like one.
For example, if you're picking at 70% and you decide to start a 7-series chase... and suddenly you drop down to a 20% clip... well now all that math you did according to 70% is null and void. It's not constant!
0
Quote Originally Posted by michael550:
it is a mathematical certainty that when winning games at a 45% rate that you will eventually lose 7 in a row. that i know for sure.
this whole thread really isnt a strategy or a system or a chase anything like that whatsoever, all it is is picking games (and in this case winning about 4 or 5 out of every 10) and hoping not to string together 7 losses before getting a win. its mathematicaly and statistically guaranteed to fail at some point.
thats why i disagree with the idea of going tout and selling this as a winning system when the picks themsleves are only winning at a 45% rate. youre telling people, pay me 11 bucks for my picks because i wont lose 7 in a row, and that statement is 100% false. not losing 7 in a row up to that point while picking winners 45% just means that you hadnt lost 7 in a row despite your handicapping..not because of it.
You can't assume that because you've picked at a XX% clip, that you're magically going to stay at that clip. Whether you've picked 20%, 45% or 70% in the past... the odds remain the same for busting (losing one out of seven)... Your clip will certainly affect how long or short you go before busting, but it is not a constant and therefore cannot be used like one.
For example, if you're picking at 70% and you decide to start a 7-series chase... and suddenly you drop down to a 20% clip... well now all that math you did according to 70% is null and void. It's not constant!
So you are saying that no matter if you are the best capper in the world, you will eventually lose 7 in a row? Even though it technically happened, it hasnt happened to me yet. Even though I survived a critical error causing a 7th loss I am still up 50% over where I started. All I have to do is avoid it long enough and use money management and still grow the bankroll reguardless of what the stats say. I screwed myself by not being available when the winning plays were set to go, not by missing 7 in a row. So, with my methods of picking games, I think money can still be made. Thats the key, the methods. So you all can debate all you want, but until I have a REAL loss and not a unfortunate human error loss I am making money. I was making a lot before the great wilderness got me and I am STILL up a lot(percentage wise).
1. Yes, even the best cappers will eventually lose 7 in a row. That's why the best cappers don't use a martingale... they play straight because they know in the LONG RUN, they will win because they are taking plays where they find +EV... and if they're the best in the world then they can safely trust their capping abilities to create that +EV. 2. Blaming your loss on the 'wilderness' or 'human error' or what have you is the opposite of professionalism, which you claim as a trait. A professional would never charge money for a fatalistic system no matter how awesome they thought they were at capping. 3. You can say whatever you need to legitimize your little system here, but your 'methods' are flawed and I really think you need to stop charging people for your 'unbeaten' system until you understand just how flawed it really is. Like it was all fun and games until somebody started charging people, and then it got hilarious -- but I guess it's not so funny for the shmucks who just lost their roll.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SUPEREAGLE43:
So you are saying that no matter if you are the best capper in the world, you will eventually lose 7 in a row? Even though it technically happened, it hasnt happened to me yet. Even though I survived a critical error causing a 7th loss I am still up 50% over where I started. All I have to do is avoid it long enough and use money management and still grow the bankroll reguardless of what the stats say. I screwed myself by not being available when the winning plays were set to go, not by missing 7 in a row. So, with my methods of picking games, I think money can still be made. Thats the key, the methods. So you all can debate all you want, but until I have a REAL loss and not a unfortunate human error loss I am making money. I was making a lot before the great wilderness got me and I am STILL up a lot(percentage wise).
1. Yes, even the best cappers will eventually lose 7 in a row. That's why the best cappers don't use a martingale... they play straight because they know in the LONG RUN, they will win because they are taking plays where they find +EV... and if they're the best in the world then they can safely trust their capping abilities to create that +EV. 2. Blaming your loss on the 'wilderness' or 'human error' or what have you is the opposite of professionalism, which you claim as a trait. A professional would never charge money for a fatalistic system no matter how awesome they thought they were at capping. 3. You can say whatever you need to legitimize your little system here, but your 'methods' are flawed and I really think you need to stop charging people for your 'unbeaten' system until you understand just how flawed it really is. Like it was all fun and games until somebody started charging people, and then it got hilarious -- but I guess it's not so funny for the shmucks who just lost their roll.
And ACE still doesn't sell his picks... because he likely knows he'd be burned at the steak for doing so.
Nevertheless, he could easily go on an unlucky streak and lose it all back. Especially if he does like supereagle and re-calculates his bankroll after every win.
0
And ACE still doesn't sell his picks... because he likely knows he'd be burned at the steak for doing so.
Nevertheless, he could easily go on an unlucky streak and lose it all back. Especially if he does like supereagle and re-calculates his bankroll after every win.
dj_destroyer, thank you for the explanation. I see what you are saying. Do you know how to find the expected value of a 7 game series? If you don't have time for that, no problem.
Eagle, help me understand this... "Even though it technically happened, it hasn't happened to me yet". Did you lose 7 in a row? Are you making excuses? Valid or not.
0
dj_destroyer, thank you for the explanation. I see what you are saying. Do you know how to find the expected value of a 7 game series? If you don't have time for that, no problem.
Eagle, help me understand this... "Even though it technically happened, it hasn't happened to me yet". Did you lose 7 in a row? Are you making excuses? Valid or not.
Yes, technically 7 was lost. Not because of the picks, but because I was out of internet range when I needed to get the pick in that in turn won. So yes, 7 losses on the pocketbook. Call it an excuse or whatever you want too. It's just what happened. Had I been sitting at my house the strategy would still be undefeated and everyone would still be happy. I dont think I made an excuse because I stood up and told what happened and took responsibility for it even though it doesnt get anyones money back.
For DJ, your stats are correct in flipping a coin or playing roulette, but I dont think you are correct when talking about capping sports. ACE has proven this. You say he doesnt charge because he knows he will eventually lose is your opinion. The real reason is, he uses it to sell his other services. He success is not predicated on luck. Anyway, I hope I can prove you wrong, and get the last laugh.
0
Yes, technically 7 was lost. Not because of the picks, but because I was out of internet range when I needed to get the pick in that in turn won. So yes, 7 losses on the pocketbook. Call it an excuse or whatever you want too. It's just what happened. Had I been sitting at my house the strategy would still be undefeated and everyone would still be happy. I dont think I made an excuse because I stood up and told what happened and took responsibility for it even though it doesnt get anyones money back.
For DJ, your stats are correct in flipping a coin or playing roulette, but I dont think you are correct when talking about capping sports. ACE has proven this. You say he doesnt charge because he knows he will eventually lose is your opinion. The real reason is, he uses it to sell his other services. He success is not predicated on luck. Anyway, I hope I can prove you wrong, and get the last laugh.
You can not compare roulette to sports betting since each spin betting on the even chances on a single zero wheel you are 18/37. Nothing changes that. Hence the reason roulette is unbeatable in the long run.
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
If flat betting shows a profit in the long run, then a martingale will also.
0
You can not compare roulette to sports betting since each spin betting on the even chances on a single zero wheel you are 18/37. Nothing changes that. Hence the reason roulette is unbeatable in the long run.
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
If flat betting shows a profit in the long run, then a martingale will also.
[Quote: Originally Posted by Teorulte1] You can not compare roulette to sports betting since each spin betting on the even chances on a single zero wheel you are 18/37. Nothing changes that. Hence the reason roulette is unbeatable in the long run.
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
If flat betting shows a profit in the long run, then a martingale will also.
Excellent point I dont beleive for most of us flat betting can win either!
0
[Quote: Originally Posted by Teorulte1] You can not compare roulette to sports betting since each spin betting on the even chances on a single zero wheel you are 18/37. Nothing changes that. Hence the reason roulette is unbeatable in the long run.
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
If flat betting shows a profit in the long run, then a martingale will also.
Excellent point I dont beleive for most of us flat betting can win either!
You can not compare roulette to sports betting since each spin betting on the even chances on a single zero wheel you are 18/37. Nothing changes that. Hence the reason roulette is unbeatable in the long run.
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
If flat betting shows a profit in the long run, then a martingale will also.
If you flat bet and run into a streak of 7 wrong plays, it is only a blip on the radar because one knows in the long run that +EV plays will come out on top. So you could go 50-0 for your first fifty picks but then run into a bad streak of 7... if you flat bet, you're still up 43 units; if you martingale like supereagle does, you'd be broke.
This is the number one reason why we don't use linear expectations with value because you are only compounding the problem but never helping. Sure, the expected value won't somehow go down using a marty but it definitely compounds the problem of streaks.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Teorulte1:
You can not compare roulette to sports betting since each spin betting on the even chances on a single zero wheel you are 18/37. Nothing changes that. Hence the reason roulette is unbeatable in the long run.
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
If flat betting shows a profit in the long run, then a martingale will also.
If you flat bet and run into a streak of 7 wrong plays, it is only a blip on the radar because one knows in the long run that +EV plays will come out on top. So you could go 50-0 for your first fifty picks but then run into a bad streak of 7... if you flat bet, you're still up 43 units; if you martingale like supereagle does, you'd be broke.
This is the number one reason why we don't use linear expectations with value because you are only compounding the problem but never helping. Sure, the expected value won't somehow go down using a marty but it definitely compounds the problem of streaks.
So you are saying that no matter if you are the best capper in the world, you will eventually lose 7 in a row?
YES. unless you are picking 100% winners, its a mathematical certainty that you will eventually lose 7 in a row. You can pose that question to a statistics professor or you can pose it to the best capper in the world. They will both tell you that losing 7 in a row is guaranteed to occur in any method of chance where you fail any % of the time. And the 7 game losing streak is equally likely to occur on the first 7 picks you ever made as it is any any other point in the run.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SUPEREAGLE43:
So you are saying that no matter if you are the best capper in the world, you will eventually lose 7 in a row?
YES. unless you are picking 100% winners, its a mathematical certainty that you will eventually lose 7 in a row. You can pose that question to a statistics professor or you can pose it to the best capper in the world. They will both tell you that losing 7 in a row is guaranteed to occur in any method of chance where you fail any % of the time. And the 7 game losing streak is equally likely to occur on the first 7 picks you ever made as it is any any other point in the run.
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
This statement is false. Unless the "positive edge" means you're picking winners on 100% of your games, then a 7 game losing streak is statistically guaranteed to happen. And charging people money on the basis that the streak of 7 losses will occur later rather than sooner, when in reality one has no idea when it will happen, is ludicrous.
0
Quote Originally Posted by eyeball:
Quote Originally Posted by Teorulte1:
Now like you say if there is a way to get a positive edge in sports betting, then a martingale will work. If every play is 19/39 chance of winning then flat betting won't work either, now will it.
This statement is false. Unless the "positive edge" means you're picking winners on 100% of your games, then a 7 game losing streak is statistically guaranteed to happen. And charging people money on the basis that the streak of 7 losses will occur later rather than sooner, when in reality one has no idea when it will happen, is ludicrous.
No, that statement is NOT false. With a positive edge, flat betting and martingale will work. So will the D'alembert, reverse martingale, Labouchere, reverse Labouchere etc. None of these systems will work in roulette since flat betting won't work either, but if you have an edge, flat betting is not necessarily the best way to play.
0
No, that statement is NOT false. With a positive edge, flat betting and martingale will work. So will the D'alembert, reverse martingale, Labouchere, reverse Labouchere etc. None of these systems will work in roulette since flat betting won't work either, but if you have an edge, flat betting is not necessarily the best way to play.
As I numbers guy, and a neutral observer, I thought I'd briefly weigh in on this topic and try to help out a little. The fact of the matter is, you're both right. Yes, you will eventually lose 7 in a row...there is no doubt about that. It's a certainty. Eagle, for record purposes...what you post is what matters. What you "would have" posted means absolutely nothing. You lost 7 straight. Not much more to say there so quit trying to qualify it. But your point is still made as you are still in the black. That gets me to what you are missing DJ...losing 7 in a row does not necessarily equal going broke. It definitely means you profit slowly...and it might mean that the risk vs. reward doesn't make the whole thing worth it (for some), but it does not mean you will lose money. If people who follow eagle understand that and are comfortable with the slow long grind of profiting, that is their perogative. They could probably do the same on their own, but if they want to pay a few bucks for it, who cares. Eagle isn't cheating anyone or trying to fool anyone. He very well could profit in the long term, albeit slowly, even though you don't like his premise. I also think 6 or 7 game chases is too many to make it worth it (and almost inevitably people will chicken out before it gets that far), but I acknowledge that the strategy can work if you manage your bankroll right. You won't be buying any new houses anytime soon though.
Leprechaun
0
As I numbers guy, and a neutral observer, I thought I'd briefly weigh in on this topic and try to help out a little. The fact of the matter is, you're both right. Yes, you will eventually lose 7 in a row...there is no doubt about that. It's a certainty. Eagle, for record purposes...what you post is what matters. What you "would have" posted means absolutely nothing. You lost 7 straight. Not much more to say there so quit trying to qualify it. But your point is still made as you are still in the black. That gets me to what you are missing DJ...losing 7 in a row does not necessarily equal going broke. It definitely means you profit slowly...and it might mean that the risk vs. reward doesn't make the whole thing worth it (for some), but it does not mean you will lose money. If people who follow eagle understand that and are comfortable with the slow long grind of profiting, that is their perogative. They could probably do the same on their own, but if they want to pay a few bucks for it, who cares. Eagle isn't cheating anyone or trying to fool anyone. He very well could profit in the long term, albeit slowly, even though you don't like his premise. I also think 6 or 7 game chases is too many to make it worth it (and almost inevitably people will chicken out before it gets that far), but I acknowledge that the strategy can work if you manage your bankroll right. You won't be buying any new houses anytime soon though.
Although I agree that money management can make a martingale work (luckily eagle split his money up very recently or he would have lost it all on those 7 games) but the fact remains that a 7-game martingale chase is fatalistic... Post your plays for fun but don't charge money for it -- the only people that end up buying it are the ones that don't understand basic probability theory.
0
Although I agree that money management can make a martingale work (luckily eagle split his money up very recently or he would have lost it all on those 7 games) but the fact remains that a 7-game martingale chase is fatalistic... Post your plays for fun but don't charge money for it -- the only people that end up buying it are the ones that don't understand basic probability theory.
1. I'm not trying to qualify anything. I counted the loss and never once tried to skirt around that like the Morrison guy, so get off my back about that. The fact is that the system has not lost 7 in a row. Human error did. Facts are facts, the play was there and it hit. So yes, when talking about this, I can talk talk about would have and should have because it was there and did hit. So I let the system down, it didnt let me down. Understand? Other than that I guess I can agree with everything Leprechaun said. If or when the SYSTEM actually loses a 7th game and not ME, then I will be able to agree from experience. But as of right now, ACE is undefeated after winning just under 350 series and my method of picking "WITHOUT MY ERROR" is 84-0. Thats what I have to go by. So Im not able to sucumb so easily.
2.I put the plays up for free until I was 81-0. I then split my bankroll before charging for the plays. If someone wants to pay for the picks that had plainly made a lot of money over a 4 month period would be non of your business DJ. You come on here and call me a crook? The plays had proven themselves. Some people like to pay for convenience of not having to worry about handicapping. Furthermore, I plainly explained that the losses will come on a daily basis and to think outside the box and maybe let a loss or 2 or even 3 happen before jumping on board to buy themselves a couple of extra plays. So, with all that said, I still hope you break a book somewhere. Anyway, I will now move forward and win the lost money back while you sit here and talk about how it cant be done. If I dont make this happen then I will come back on here and eat crow, I wont run off and hide. Best of luck to ya.
0
1. I'm not trying to qualify anything. I counted the loss and never once tried to skirt around that like the Morrison guy, so get off my back about that. The fact is that the system has not lost 7 in a row. Human error did. Facts are facts, the play was there and it hit. So yes, when talking about this, I can talk talk about would have and should have because it was there and did hit. So I let the system down, it didnt let me down. Understand? Other than that I guess I can agree with everything Leprechaun said. If or when the SYSTEM actually loses a 7th game and not ME, then I will be able to agree from experience. But as of right now, ACE is undefeated after winning just under 350 series and my method of picking "WITHOUT MY ERROR" is 84-0. Thats what I have to go by. So Im not able to sucumb so easily.
2.I put the plays up for free until I was 81-0. I then split my bankroll before charging for the plays. If someone wants to pay for the picks that had plainly made a lot of money over a 4 month period would be non of your business DJ. You come on here and call me a crook? The plays had proven themselves. Some people like to pay for convenience of not having to worry about handicapping. Furthermore, I plainly explained that the losses will come on a daily basis and to think outside the box and maybe let a loss or 2 or even 3 happen before jumping on board to buy themselves a couple of extra plays. So, with all that said, I still hope you break a book somewhere. Anyway, I will now move forward and win the lost money back while you sit here and talk about how it cant be done. If I dont make this happen then I will come back on here and eat crow, I wont run off and hide. Best of luck to ya.
Oh, one other point for DJ. Since you are trying to be the wagering police I would figure that you would prefer that I charge for the plays. If they are free on covers, then many many more people can be hurt by following them.
0
Oh, one other point for DJ. Since you are trying to be the wagering police I would figure that you would prefer that I charge for the plays. If they are free on covers, then many many more people can be hurt by following them.
Haven't looked in here for awhile. Looks like a little drama happening. Sorry to here about your chase loss. How come I'm not seeing any game 7 picks, wagers, results, and bankroll balance? Better not be stealing any of my great systems. Maybe we should become partners and charge $22 per month.
0
Haven't looked in here for awhile. Looks like a little drama happening. Sorry to here about your chase loss. How come I'm not seeing any game 7 picks, wagers, results, and bankroll balance? Better not be stealing any of my great systems. Maybe we should become partners and charge $22 per month.
I only 'turned' on you because you took this 'experiment' of yours that was fun and games and you started charging people REAL money. It's a different story to post the picks and let people make up their own mind but when you charge a fee, there is a certain level of expectation that comes with the service. Considering you don't know and don't explain the fatalistic probability of your system, then yes, I'm certainly going to act like the wagering police.
I'm all for making money by any means necessary, including chase systems. It's not the way I would do it personally but some people cant pick consistently enough to NOT chase... so I understand why someone would but charging a fee is a whole other ballgame.
Anyways, I'm done bashing... I've done my part.
0
I only 'turned' on you because you took this 'experiment' of yours that was fun and games and you started charging people REAL money. It's a different story to post the picks and let people make up their own mind but when you charge a fee, there is a certain level of expectation that comes with the service. Considering you don't know and don't explain the fatalistic probability of your system, then yes, I'm certainly going to act like the wagering police.
I'm all for making money by any means necessary, including chase systems. It's not the way I would do it personally but some people cant pick consistently enough to NOT chase... so I understand why someone would but charging a fee is a whole other ballgame.
I only 'turned' on you because you took this 'experiment' of yours that was fun and games and you started charging people REAL money. It's a different story to post the picks and let people make up their own mind but when you charge a fee, there is a certain level of expectation that comes with the service. Considering you don't know and don't explain the fatalistic probability of your system, then yes, I'm certainly going to act like the wagering police.
I'm all for making money by any means necessary, including chase systems. It's not the way I would do it personally but some people cant pick consistently enough to NOT chase... so I understand why someone would but charging a fee is a whole other ballgame.
Anyways, I'm done bashing... I've done my part.
Your bashing is ignorance. I didn't like that Eagle started charging either, but it makes perfect sense. When you are bashing Eagle, you are bashing every single casino and tout in the world. All these are people trying to make money by offering a service. It doesn't matter what they are offering. If people are willing to pay money for what they offering then more power to the tout or casino. If these people don't want to pay for his service, then don't pay the money! Besides the fee is 11 measly $, which is lower than any tout i've ever heard of. Yeah, his system may be faulty, and you know what? That really doesn't matter. If people are dumb enough to give him the money, then they should have to live with their dumb results. That's life. I wouldn't have wrote anything here if you had said what you are saying about Eagle AND included every casino, tout, scam, or whatever scheme for making money there is out there.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dj_destroyer:
I only 'turned' on you because you took this 'experiment' of yours that was fun and games and you started charging people REAL money. It's a different story to post the picks and let people make up their own mind but when you charge a fee, there is a certain level of expectation that comes with the service. Considering you don't know and don't explain the fatalistic probability of your system, then yes, I'm certainly going to act like the wagering police.
I'm all for making money by any means necessary, including chase systems. It's not the way I would do it personally but some people cant pick consistently enough to NOT chase... so I understand why someone would but charging a fee is a whole other ballgame.
Anyways, I'm done bashing... I've done my part.
Your bashing is ignorance. I didn't like that Eagle started charging either, but it makes perfect sense. When you are bashing Eagle, you are bashing every single casino and tout in the world. All these are people trying to make money by offering a service. It doesn't matter what they are offering. If people are willing to pay money for what they offering then more power to the tout or casino. If these people don't want to pay for his service, then don't pay the money! Besides the fee is 11 measly $, which is lower than any tout i've ever heard of. Yeah, his system may be faulty, and you know what? That really doesn't matter. If people are dumb enough to give him the money, then they should have to live with their dumb results. That's life. I wouldn't have wrote anything here if you had said what you are saying about Eagle AND included every casino, tout, scam, or whatever scheme for making money there is out there.
Your bashing is ignorance. I didn't like that Eagle started charging either, but it makes perfect sense. When you are bashing Eagle, you are bashing every single casino and tout in the world. All these are people trying to make money by offering a service. It doesn't matter what they are offering. If people are willing to pay money for what they offering then more power to the tout or casino. If these people don't want to pay for his service, then don't pay the money! Besides the fee is 11 measly $, which is lower than any tout i've ever heard of. Yeah, his system may be faulty, and you know what? That really doesn't matter. If people are dumb enough to give him the money, then they should have to live with their dumb results. That's life. I wouldn't have wrote anything here if you had said what you are saying about Eagle AND included every casino, tout, scam, or whatever scheme for making money there is out there.
It's not ignorance you knob... go read the definition of that word. I never said he doesn't have the right to sell his system... he has all the freedom in the world to do whatever he wants. You agree with that part; but the second I use my freedom of speech, you call me ignorant? Seriously, hit up a dictionary.
Just like casinos, touts, and even supereagle himself are all allowed to rip off whoever they please; I equally have the right to inform the blind sheep out there NOT to follow/be ripped off.
If you or he don't like it, you can fuck right off. I look out for the best interest of the gambler, not the books or the touts or anyone else trying to take away profits from said gambler.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sloc:
Your bashing is ignorance. I didn't like that Eagle started charging either, but it makes perfect sense. When you are bashing Eagle, you are bashing every single casino and tout in the world. All these are people trying to make money by offering a service. It doesn't matter what they are offering. If people are willing to pay money for what they offering then more power to the tout or casino. If these people don't want to pay for his service, then don't pay the money! Besides the fee is 11 measly $, which is lower than any tout i've ever heard of. Yeah, his system may be faulty, and you know what? That really doesn't matter. If people are dumb enough to give him the money, then they should have to live with their dumb results. That's life. I wouldn't have wrote anything here if you had said what you are saying about Eagle AND included every casino, tout, scam, or whatever scheme for making money there is out there.
It's not ignorance you knob... go read the definition of that word. I never said he doesn't have the right to sell his system... he has all the freedom in the world to do whatever he wants. You agree with that part; but the second I use my freedom of speech, you call me ignorant? Seriously, hit up a dictionary.
Just like casinos, touts, and even supereagle himself are all allowed to rip off whoever they please; I equally have the right to inform the blind sheep out there NOT to follow/be ripped off.
If you or he don't like it, you can fuck right off. I look out for the best interest of the gambler, not the books or the touts or anyone else trying to take away profits from said gambler.
Hot Forum Topics
