Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

[Money Man]

Astounding that ANYONE would consider paying :hung any one of these "handicappers" for their plays. I guess P.T. Barnum's thoughts still apply.:doh1

Below you will find the results for the Sports Memo handicappers for February 18, 2007.

<TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>CBB
</TD><TD width=325>Dayton Pk (914)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>1.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-1.10​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-1.10​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>CBB
</TD><TD width=325>15* Superplay: Dayton Pk (914)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>1.5
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-1.65​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-1.65​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>CBB
</TD><TD width=325>Blue Chip: Duke Over 134 -110 (906)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>1.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-1.10​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-1.10​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>CBB
</TD><TD width=325>20* Black Magic: Dayton Pk (914)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>2.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-2.20​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-2.20​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>CBB
</TD><TD width=325>20* Big Drive: Fordham Under 160 -110 (904)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>2.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-2.20​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-2.20​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>CBB
</TD><TD width=325>Heavy Hitter: Clemson -3.5 (920)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>1.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-1.10​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-1.10​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>NBA
</TD><TD width=325>NBA All Star Game Under 255.5
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>1.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-1.10​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-1.10​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>NHL
</TD><TD width=325>Power Play: San Jose +100 (51)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>1.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-1.00​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-1.00​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=60>CBB
</TD><TD width=325>Dayton Pk (914)
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>Loss
</TD><TD align=middle width=50>1.0
</TD><TD align=right width=125>

-1.10​

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD align=right colSpan=2> </TD><TD class=border_left_claw_black style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=2>Net Daily Units
</TD><TD class=border_right_claw_black style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" align=right>

-1.10​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=610 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=200></TD><TD width=5></TD><TD vAlign=top width=200></TD><TD width=5></TD><TD vAlign=top width=200></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=5></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[The General]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

I do not suggest anyone to pay for plays either, but with the above do we have longterm data? Surely there have been days where we would see a lot of wins also.

 

[Money Man]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

BTW, to be fair if you were to look at the day before's results, they are so poor that if I posted those, you all would accuse me of making this stuff up.

If it weren't for hard working people paying these types for what they think are a better chance to win games than not it would be:+textinb3 :+textinb3 :+textinb3 :+textinb3 funny. It is not funny, it is :finger004 :finger004 :finger004 :finger004 F'ed UP!

 

[Money Man]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

General, I check the results almost daily. Both college and pro football were a complete disaster (to be fair, one of the 10 or so was ok). Honestly, if it was a restaurant, it would have closed LONG ago. Serving the public rotten food will have a poor affect on your customers.

 

[UofM2003]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

If its THAT bad, then maybe a system of fading would work?

 

[The General]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Good advice UofM. If one knows a service is pitiful and really cares about their money or others we would all be rich by utilizing these selections. Also, people will learn for themselves. I mean, we can share these facts with some members here and it may help a couple guys save money but in the big picture, not really helping many. People will learn on their own as they go just like MANY of us have. Again, I am not a proponent of paying for picks but at the same time, these guys who make good money selling are just living their American Dream making money.

 

[RES]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Have effectively employed the fade strategy all year. Lang and others are prime fade material. Keep posting their plays ahead of time and will and these guys to the fade list.

 

[Culver]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Have effectively employed the fade strategy all year. Lang and others are prime fade material. Keep posting their plays ahead of time and will and these guys to the fade list.

Anytime I read one of these "I've made a lot of money fading this guy" posts I know we're dealing with a goofball phony. You're just showing your ignorance of math. To make money fading ANYBODY you would have to find someone who CONSISTANTLY wins less than 47% of the time because you still have to overcome the juice no matter which side you bet. And you're going to tell me there are people who CONSISTANTLY hit less than 47%? Only the most naive of sports bettors would believe that is any more likely than hitting over 53%.

More internet bullshit.

 

[tool21]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

I agree. And why do you only show 1 day of games? They could have went 15-0 previously and all your showing is one day of betting. Everyone loses time to time. It might take someone a hole year just to turn profit but it only matters in the end.

 

[mofome]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

someone is making up crap and is a completely incompetent capper who also happens to be a lying idiot?

:+clueless

shocking.

 

[RES]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Anytime I read one of these "I've made a lot of money fading this guy" posts I know we're dealing with a goofball phony. You're just showing your ignorance of math. To make money fading ANYBODY you would have to find someone who CONSISTANTLY wins less than 47% of the time because you still have to overcome the juice no matter which side you bet. And you're going to tell me there are people who CONSISTANTLY hit less than 47%? Only the most naive of sports bettors would believe that is any more likely than hitting over 53%.

More internet bullshit.

Knee jerk reaction that puts words in my mouth. I Didnt say I fade one scamdicapper only, I said I would add him to my list. In fact, the strategy which has paid off is one of fading a consensus of scamdicappers who lose more than they win. And, that changes sport by sport as some preform better in one sport vs the others. Dozens of services are considered in this approach and records are keep for all.

The results are even better when you have the better services ( the Malinskys, Burns, Colemans, and others who consistently have good years) on the opposite sides of those who cahse and consistently have poor years ( the Langs, et al of the of the world).

Do some homework....last nights game is the perfect example. See who was on USC and see who was on ASU, its easy to find When you follow them long enough, you can almost predict which service will be on which side.

Whether you believe this approach works or not is irrelevant.

 

[Cannon]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

I got a service I have used for years and they smoke.

 

[the magic man]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

good stuff

where do you get these touts picks hours before gametime?

 

[Culver]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Typical isolated logic. Pick one game from yesterday and that "proves" you are right?

Better yet, list any and all handicappers you know of that LONG TERM win less than 47%. No long winded dissertations, just list them right here.

And while you're at it, list the DOCUMENTED LONG TERM results for "Burns and Coleman". (And then assure us you are completely objective when it comes to discussing sports services and not associated with a service in any way.)

 

[tc1134]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

There are sites out there where you can find many of the services/handicappers- Root/Feist/lang etc. picks.

 

[mariah]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Be advised Kodiak7 is one of these pay for his picks guy, do not get sucked into it!

 

[Money Man]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Culver - As an expert at this stuff I have a question for you: How do you determine LONG TERM. Is it a month, a season, several? My point to the thread it is surprising to me how lousy some of these services actually do. Are there some very good ones? I imagine there are, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. I have followed some whom I will continue to follow because I KNOW they are better at handicapping than me. (For the record, I SUCK at capping, to be honest, but I don't bullshit people about that.)

Fellas, no need to get all shitty here. C'mon now!:houra :houra :houra

 

[Culver]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Paying a sports service is all about finding a good opinion. The few good ones are usually small outfits that love to handicap but aren't looking to run a hustle. They are content to make some money off of their hard work but they aren't greedy.

Services that are high-powered marketing machines become self-defeating. Because their main goal is to make a lot of money, they abandon some of the main tenants of successful sports betting. They push the TV games. They pump plays every day regardless how unattractive the card may be. They spend much of their time designing marketing plans rather than handicapping.

I have lots of friends in the sports service industry. I can verify that at one time or another all of them were very good handicappers. Some still are. You have every right to claim bias when I say this but I will say it anyway. That group includes Rotunda, Fields, Bagwell, Malinsky and Lang. And yes, I was instrumental in bringing all of them but Dave to EOG (Dave has too sweet a deal at Covers right now). Alf Musketa? Very good. He has a sweet deal with Vegas Insider. Brent Crow? I have told friends for years that more than any other handicapper, Brent reminds me of me (that may not be a compliment). But I think Brent could really kick some ass before he is done. There are others that I won't mention by name because they probably don't want to be drawn into this discussion. They all are more interested in handicapping than they are in getting rich hustling small players.

And then there are the ones who spend most of their time marketing and have seen their handicapping suffer. I won't mention them by name either.

So how do you know who will win? You don't. A great handicapper can go south. A lousy handicapper can all of a sudden have the light bulb click on and tear it up for years. I have seen handicappers have an uncharacteristically bad run and it turns out he was going through a divorce or some other personal issue. I have seen a marginal handicapper go on a sensational run and it turns out he was going through a divorce or some other personal issue. They're all human.

So what to do? Try to find handicappers who take their craft seriously and have not yet burned out or sold their soul. Assume that they are better at some sports than others and don't be afraid to talk to them personally and ask them what their best sport is. Follow them in their best sport.

And don't try to get rich quick. My goal has always been to get rich slowly and that's all I'm capable of.

 

[mofome]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Paying a sports service is all about finding a good opinion. The few good ones are usually small outfits that love to handicap but aren't looking to run a hustle. They are content to make some money off of their hard work but they aren't greedy.

Services that are high-powered marketing machines become self-defeating. Because their main goal is to make a lot of money, they abandon some of the main tenants of successful sports betting. They push the TV games. They pump plays every day regardless how unattractive the card may be. They spend much of their time designing marketing plans rather than handicapping.

I have lots of friends in the sports service industry. I can verify that at one time or another all of them were very good handicappers. Some still are. You have every right to claim bias when I say this but I will say it anyway. That group includes Rotunda, Fields, Bagwell, Malinsky and Lang. And yes, I was instrumental in bringing all of them but Dave to EOG (Dave has too sweet a deal at Covers right now). Alf Musketa? Very good. He has a sweet deal with Vegas Insider. Brent Crow? I have told friends for years that more than any other handicapper, Brent reminds me of me (that may not be a compliment). But I think Brent could really kick some ass before he is done. There are others that I won't mention by name because they probably don't want to be drawn into this discussion. They all are more interested in handicapping than they are in getting rich hustling small players.

And then there are the ones who spend most of their time marketing and have seen their handicapping suffer. I won't mention them by name either.

So how do you know who will win? You don't. A great handicapper can go south. A lousy handicapper can all of a sudden have the light bulb click on and tear it up for years. I have seen handicappers have an uncharacteristically bad run and it turns out he was going through a divorce or some other personal issue. I have seen a marginal handicapper go on a sensational run and it turns out he was going through a divorce or some other personal issue. They're all human.

So what to do? Try to find handicappers who take their craft seriously and have not yet burned out or sold their soul. Assume that they are better at some sports than others and don't be afraid to talk to them personally and ask them what their best sport is. Follow them in their best sport.

And don't try to get rich quick. My goal has always been to get rich slow and that's all I'm capable of.

:nono

slowly.

 

[Culver]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

OK then. (Post edited to reflect Miss Brooks' red pen.)

 

[mofome]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

OK then. (Post edited to reflect Miss Brooks' red pen.)

:LMAO :LMAO :LMAO


sorry, it was a good post. im just an ass.


:+excited-

 

[RES]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Yesterday:

On USC: Gator, PPP, Lang, Fiest, Dr Bob, Young Guns, Feiner, WTS, 300 Club, NSA, Sturgeon, Malinsky

Services in red are some of the ones we look to fade when on opposite sides of others we follow

On ASU: Burns, Root millionaire club pick (which are doing ok this year)

I could list more for last night's game, it was over 10-1 for the complete list of services on USC last night. When the ratio is that high, when a large # of the poor services are on one side, when that is the same side the public is all over, and when the line for the game drops instead of goes up it is a no brainer play for me. I used to consistently lose and I have blown money with scamdicappers along time ago. Criticize if you want, going against the losers has been profitable for me.

As for documenting the Good services, go to the Sports Monitor. You will see Coleman is hitting 60% documented in the NBA and 54 % in the college. Special K, another I follow is documented 60% as well. Last years documented records for them are there as well.


Here are good cappers I follow not monitored by a documenting service. These are records tracked sice Jan 1st.

Burns 69-44 61%
Malinsky 59% 56-38 +79 units
Eastman 67-44 college 60% +49 units
N Hitz 140-107 57%
and there are others, many cant be listed or I run the risk of losing access to their plays if it is discovered that they are being posted.


Cappers who qualify as good fades, none of them choose to be monitored by independent service and they fudge their own records. (since jan 1) Many cant be listed as we would lose access to their plays.

300 club 60-70 -6181 units as they play ridiculous 200, 300 unit plays
FTS 32-51 39% -61 units
WSP 52-65 44%
SGB 46-70 39% -98 units
Mensa 38-46 45% -30 units
Hudson 35-58 37%

Lang 60-70 last 130 plays 46% % drops down even more on the big plays
Lang 28-35 last 14 days
Saturday -68 dimes (he lists them as # dimes per play)
Friday +9.8 dimes
Thursday -38.5 dimes
Wednesday +16.5
Tuesday -34 dimes
Monday +8.5 dimes
Sunday -22.5 dimes
Saturday -5.5 dimes
Friday -11.5 dimes
Thursday -2 dimes

These records are very easily documented as the plays are posted at various sites.

As for proving my association with a service, that is your job. I had a history at the RX while under the Shrink's control. Have anyone there document my existence and posting records. Will they find me touting any service??? No. Spent most of my time in the soccer forum there.

I lurk here and follow some folks I respect from my days at the RX. Now I have a new home at another forum. As this is time consuming, I will leave it as it stands and wish you well.


Money Man, my apologies for the clutter in your thread. I, for one, would appreciate you posting their plays. But, please dont continue throwing your money away with them. Ask for a free month, they will usually bite in hopes of keeping you on.

 

[Culver]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

RES-I do not doubt the sincerity of your posts. But to justify a bet by pointing out that Wayne Root gave out the underdog (go figure!) and Dr. Bob liked the favorite so we should play the dog is going to stretch your credibility, not enhance it. And you seemed to gloss over the fact that Malinsky was on USC. Do you just ignore facts that don't fit your "system"?

So if Dr. Bob likes the game more than normal and Wayne Root gives out the other side as his "Lock of the Millenium" (which he will do if it is Saturday) do you increase your wager amount on Root's side? Your system would seem to demand that, by your logic.

This is all backfill handicapping. The whole premise of following hot handicappers and fading cold ones may seem logical on the surface, but you are ignoring the big picture--most of the handicappers on your list are going to hit right at 50% going forward, regardless of their short-term recent performance because they are 50% handicappers.

I appreciate the time you took to post. But I won't be following this short term, "market-timing" approach.

Also, how is it my job to prove what sports service you might be associated with? You don't post under your real name so we must assume you have something to hide.

 

[husker]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

great posts culver. i agree with everything you posted. i posted this at another forum as a response to someone wanting to fade a service before i saw your posts here:

it's tough to fade most services. they are all about marketing, the games don't really matter. it's easier to market if they win, but not necessary. most are about 50% over time. most of the time a hot service cools off after you start to follow and the cold service goes on a hot streak after you start to fade.

 

[husker]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

i have seen people try and fade services and it doesn't work over time and they gave up (ripple).

someone tracked malinsky for about 2-3 months at another site and he was a 50% capper. i don't think that record RES posted for him is accurate.

eastman is ace-ace and the record RES posted for him is for the year not since jan 1.

these two facts question the reliability of the records that RES posted.

 

[RES]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

i have seen people try and fade services and it doesn't work over time and they gave up (ripple).

someone tracked malinsky for about 2-3 months at another site and he was a 50% capper. i don't think that record RES posted for him is accurate.

eastman is ace-ace and the record RES posted for him is for the year not since jan 1.

these two facts question the reliability of the records that RES posted.

Husker, the malinsky picks are bought and paid for. Keep in mind one fact, I do not have the time to track every single play every single day. I only keep records for the plays I record as others post plays from services which are not "real" plays or are comps. Comps are included and days when I am obligated to work or family matters which are not included.

As for Eastman, yes those are his plays for the year.

 

[RES]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

RES-I do not doubt the sincerity of your posts. But to justify a bet by pointing out that Wayne Root gave out the underdog (go figure!) and Dr. Bob liked the favorite so we should play the dog is going to stretch your credibility, not enhance it. And you seemed to gloss over the fact that Malinsky was on USC. Do you just ignore facts that don't fit your "system"?

So if Dr. Bob likes the game more than normal and Wayne Root gives out the other side as his "Lock of the Millenium" (which he will do if it is Saturday) do you increase your wager amount on Root's side? Your system would seem to demand that, by your logic.

This is all backfill handicapping. The whole premise of following hot handicappers and fading cold ones may seem logical on the surface, but you are ignoring the big picture--most of the handicappers on your list are going to hit right at 50% going forward, regardless of their short-term recent performance because they are 50% handicappers.

I appreciate the time you took to post. But I won't be following this short term, "market-timing" approach.

Also, how is it my job to prove what sports service you might be associated with? You don't post under your real name so we must assume you have something to hide.

I only pointed out a sample of the services on last nights game, the ones who would not jeopardize thos who are playing for the plays. The sample was chosen to provide recognizable names. As for using Root on one side and Malinsky and Dr Bob on another to justify a pick, you missed the point. Your over simplification of what I referenced just that, an oversimplification. It would be a sign of ignorance to assume all the "marketing driven" services will be on the opposite side of all the "sharp" services on a given game. So yes, youu are often put into a position where you are weighing one sharp against another. Current streaks, their success in the given conference, and so on are all considered.

As I stated, when the services are 10-1 on a side which matches large public %ages and the line moves in the opposite direction, it is a no brainer play for me.

Why you are hung up on the regression to the 50% mean is confusing. You are operating from the false premise that I would fade the "poor" service on every play. Without that premise your conclusion is moot. ITS THE SHARP service vs THE MARKETING DRIVEN services which I look at in addition to other factors. You are assuming they all regress to the mean which violates your own premise that sharp services will consistently hit above the 53% mark. Based on your own premise, no service is worth paying.

As for my name, it is short for my last name. Like 99% of the posters on these forums, I choose to use something other than my name. Guess that makes me a boogieman.

 

[Trace Fields]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

RES: I prefer to find more people than just a couple of handfuls of cappers to consider a consensus. If I had just 20 cappers I would throw out the ones I respect and just evaluate the square cappers. You know who they are... Most cappers can't win, I understand what you are doing, letting a group lead you to the gold. Some times of the year fading the consensus is good, other times it is bad. A consensus will often give you insight into a team's pysche. The sportsmemo folks catch alot of flak. GL!

 

[Culver]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Why you are hung up on the regression to the 50% mean is confusing. You are operating from the false premise that I would fade the "poor" service on every play. Without that premise your conclusion is moot. ITS THE SHARP service vs THE MARKETING DRIVEN services which I look at in addition to other factors. You are assuming they all regress to the mean which violates your own premise that sharp services will consistently hit above the 53% mark. Based on your own premise, no service is worth paying.

I don't think you understand the difference between coinflipping (which I contend is what you are dealing with with the large majority of the handicappers you follow) and regression to the mean, which I never suggested for the games to be handicapped in the near future. Regression to the mean is a concept that only has validity over extremely large samples, say a thousand games. It is a phenomena that is unlikely to occur over the next 100 games just as a streak is unlikely to continue over the next 100 games. If I contend that most of your handicappers are going to hit around 50% going forward, that is NOT saying they will regress to the mean for any time frame less than several hundred games.

I don't see where I specifically contended that some sharp services consistantly hit over 53%, but even if I did, how can you assume that your list includes any of the handicappers that I am referring to? Of all the services you list I see only one that I have mentioned as being better than 50%.

And you are right when you say that I don't think there are many services worth paying for, especially among those you list.

 

[Cannon]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

I'm as square as they come. I must be as good a fade as you can find.

 

[Trace Fields]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Cannon: You play 85% dogs, squares play 85% favorites.

 

[Cannon]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Then does that make me a sharp?:+clueless

 

[RES]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

I don't think you understand the difference between coinflipping (which I contend is what you are dealing with with the large majority of the handicappers you follow) and regression to the mean, which I never suggested for the games to be handicapped in the near future. Regression to the mean is a concept that only has validity over extremely large samples, say a thousand games. It is a phenomena that is unlikely to occur over the next 100 games just as a streak is unlikely to continue over the next 100 games. If I contend that most of your handicappers are going to hit around 50% going forward, that is NOT saying they will regress to the mean for any time frame less than several hundred games.

I don't see where I specifically contended that some sharp services consistantly hit over 53%, but even if I did, how can you assume that your list includes any of the handicappers that I am referring to? Of all the services you list I see only one that I have mentioned as being better than 50%.

And you are right when you say that I don't think there are many services worth paying for, especially among those you list.

I appreciate having the dialog. That can never hurt, it always helps.

Just dont want to be lumped together with others who employ a simplistic Fade Lang or fade Quinn approach. It is not that basic.

My approach will usually only yield 7-10 games a week. Tonight is a perfect example. You can guess which services are on the obvious/public side of a game and which ones are on the sharp side. Shorter cards tend to yield more plays than the huge saturday cards.

Anyways, there are indeed services I use which I cannot mention here. I am sure you understand why I cant make them public.

My only goal is to win. Nice thing with this hobby is, like being a .300 hitter in baseball, there are many ways to accomplish that end.

 

[Ags Win]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

I appreciate everyone posting their hard work on here. I am one of those suckers that got ripped off when I first got interested in sports betting. Not going to mention names, but I got a few calls, several hits in a row and figured there must be something to it. Oops. :doh1 That really sucked.

It was long before I saw the light and the light led me here where everyone is happy! Except Chuck...he always seems pissed. Oh well. I'm glad to be here following along and not dumping extra money. Now when I dump money it is losing bets, and that's at least less terrible. :cheers

 

[UofM2003]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

RES, is there anyway you could post the plays that derive from your fade system?

 

[mofome]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Then does that make me a sharp?:+clueless

makes u a homo

 

[husker]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

RES, is there anyway you could post the plays that derive from your fade system?

i would like to see them also. you don't have to say what services you are fading or playing on. that way there is no risk of you loosing the info.

 

[The General]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

I do believe in what RES is saying to an extent. I use a system for NBA plays and people USED to tell me no way it can work. Well winning seasons in 7 straight years has been the result. You must understand the person may be losing on one team, but the misunderstanding is that you are not playing on only one team at all. You are playing on multiple teams ongoing daily. Each day presents another winning opportunity. My annual goal is 5 units. So far so good. I think I have a very good understanding of what RES has said and I think he is doing something right. In RES's case I think he is tracking multiple cappers and using the theory of capping the capper which I firmly believe in.

Thanks for sharing everyone.

 

[RES]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

In RES's case I think he is tracking multiple cappers and using the theory of capping the capper which I firmly believe in.

General, that is it in a nutshell with a rather large # of cappers in the evaluation pool. You even have to evaluate some of these services differently when it comes to the NBA vs the college games.

As for posting the plays, I can make no guarantees about posting them here for 2 reasons:

1. Because this process is quite labor intensive and time consuming, many times final decisions on plays are made at the last minute. This is a function of the data collection process and the fact that many of the sharp services release some of their plays close to tip. Release a play 5 mins before tip and all you get is bashed win or lose.

2. Making my plays takes priority over posting them. This is a difficult choice I have had to make as I like to share as much as I can. But, I cant do so at the risk of not being to make the plays in time for myself. Some will call it selfish but I am just trying to be honest.

As I said earlier, I only get 7-10 plays out of this approach per week. As the schedule winds down, it will be fewer. In the instance where a play is decided early like Sunday's USC ASU game, I will make a point of posting them here. I hope you understand that's the most I can offer.

 

[jimmy mac]

Re: Update on the "paying for picks" horse doo-doo,,

Another thing that one must keep in mind with most touts is that they don't bet. The aren't wagering their own money on the plays they are giving out. Phil Steele does not play his games, Joe Gavazzi does not bet his games, Pointwise(can't think of his name) does not play his games, etc. The list goes on and on and on. Then you take a guy like Brandon Lang,(don't believe his story either) you put out 100 dime plays, 300 dime plays??? come on. If you're going to be serious about this rate your games 1-5 units, period. You only get to those silly ratings when you start chasing. Bankrolls and Money management are not part of most services vocabulary. The other thing they love to do is create 10 different services so that one or more will be winning and they can always hang their hat on that one. It is all a giant scam. If the touts of the world were forced to put their money on their plays you would see very few of them left.