This thread is about Cokin's record, and he uses closed casinos. When I checked his record last Sunday, he'd just released a closed casino pick.
That they accept advertising from a book with a long history of defrauding winners is evidence of their lack of credibility. "sportsbook.ag is a sponsor" is not an excuse.
"Some delays" is an absurd understatement. There are tons of complains on SBR's page about them. I have been waiting for my money since 2007 and they've flat out told me I'm not getting paid. A book that will arbitrarily decide not to pay winners is one that shouldn't be used for grading.
The point of an accurately graded record is "what can a customer reasonably be expected to duplicate in his betting?"
Again, this is about Cokin, not you. All of Cokin's supposed profit on VI is baseball and he's a net loser in all other sports combined, so if we're going to be results oriented here, obviously the ML chosen will matter every time.
But in your record, I only had to go back 6 sportsbook.ag plays to find one where it affected the grading. On May 6, you played ATL +3 -105 vs CLE from sportsbook.ag, which lost, so it goes into your record as a -105 loss, but no other book on VI's feed had +3 -105, so a legitimate accounting would have it as a -110 loss. Even if the spread itself happened not to matter in any of those games, I'm sure the associated juice mattered plenty of times.
The point is whether the line is indicative of a market consensus line.
As I said, the convo is about Cokin who releases a ton of MLB picks, so the W/L record is irrelevant, and so many books shade juice these days that the W/L records should always be normalized for -110. Just looking at the CLE/ATL game since I had that page open, at various points, these books on the VI feed dealt a shaded line -- offshores 5D/SportBet, BetPhoenix, BetGrande, BetOnline, Bookmaker, Bovada, CarbonSports/Sportsbook.ag, Catalina, Heritage, sportsbetting.com, SIA, Greek, and Topbet, and Vegas books Cantor and MGM. And that was just an NBA game with the side lined at 3 and the 3 isn't a key number or anything, so there would obviously be more shaded lines on a football game lined around a key number.
But they are likely to have their limits reduced if they follow the betting pattern of the VI grading, betting at 5D when 5D has the best line out of however many books VI currently uses for grading.
As I said, the point is whether a customer can realistically duplicate the tout's claimed record. Being able to consistently bet at 5D when they have the best price in the world is not reasonable.
Simple example, your most recent play was an NBA under 207 when Bookmaker had 205.5, the consensus line was 205.5/206 with some stray 206.5s, and then Golden Nugget had 207. Is it realistic to expect all your customers to be able to get 207? Of course not. Even if they are all hard working bettors and willing to get to the GN when you release, the line could move before they get there (obv they cant all be in every Vegas casino simultaneously), and one limit bet will move that line. And that assumes the GN will honor the 207. There are plenty of Vegas books, who if you try to bet a line of X and they look at the screen and see every book has a worse line, will just reject the bet and air move. That's why using a widely avaialble line is better, as it's more reasonable a bettor can get it.
We had that long thread a few years back where VI gave you a line 1.5 pts better than you got yourself on a game that had been taken OTB at a lot of shops overnight bc their current game had gone to 3 OTs. Had you gotten to the particular Vegas book displaying that line on a line feed, would they really accept a bet on that line looking at the screen and seeing everyone else 1.5 pts worse? It's unlikely.
Cherry picking the very best line will never be a fair grading system. As I said, Sharp Sports Betting had a far more reasonable standard, as they required a line be available at multiple books. They defined that "widely available" standard back in 2001, but few tout sites follow such a standard because most touts don't win. It's a hilarious indictment of the tout business that a book that allows touts to use lines that you literally cannot bet, casinos that are closed for the night, gets labeled "far more transparent than any other site."
Hilariously, VI's James Manos insisted on Fezzik's old board that I was a shill for SSB because I kept citing their grading system as legitimate. SSB shut down 5 or 6 years ago I guess that claim is now moot.
Fantastic, but this thread is about Cokin.