Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
- Thread starter focker
- Start date
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I've stated repeatedly and quite openly I haven't beat NFL sides in a long time. I have stated quite clearly when on the radio with JK I had a losing year in the NFL. I also stated I had a tremendous year trading all things global macro. I have nothing to hide or anything to sell. So everyone can relax and hopefully view me as any other poster. I am humbled by the compliments JK and others have afforded me and appreciate those kind words.
I never declared to be a guru at NFL sides or anything that happens pre-game. I'm in the camp which believes over the long run it's very tough to beat the NFL sides, and if they are beatable the edge is only modestly incremental it's not worth the time or stress.
That being said, in-game wagering is a completely different battle. And that was the one shining light on the season as it was once again on the Super Bowl. I did a number of in-game bets on the SB and it was the reason my super bowl was profitable. Having been busted on the safety and losing Pats Moneyline -130, my Giants +160 play along with a lot of scalping I did worked out nicely. I have NO reason to misrepresent this stuff. I HAVE NOTHING TO SELL ANY OF YOU!!! I make and lose more money trading in a week than I do for an entire year of sports betting. JK asks me to appear on the radio and I do at 1 AM Eastern Time which cuts into my sleep during a trading week b/c I have a lot of respect for him and what he is trying to do here at EOG.
I made more on the Non Farm Payrolls number on Friday, Feb 3 than I could hope to make in 5 Super Bowls.
My main goal is to hopefully educate a lot of the public who looks at us as a group of gambling misfits who squander money and ruin lives. This is far from the case as a number of very sharp people make a living in this industry as sports betting is a vibrant part of American culture across a broad demographic...
I've stated repeatedly and quite openly I haven't beat NFL sides in a long time. I have stated quite clearly when on the radio with JK I had a losing year in the NFL. I also stated I had a tremendous year trading all things global macro. I have nothing to hide or anything to sell. So everyone can relax and hopefully view me as any other poster. I am humbled by the compliments JK and others have afforded me and appreciate those kind words.
I never declared to be a guru at NFL sides or anything that happens pre-game. I'm in the camp which believes over the long run it's very tough to beat the NFL sides, and if they are beatable the edge is only modestly incremental it's not worth the time or stress.
That being said, in-game wagering is a completely different battle. And that was the one shining light on the season as it was once again on the Super Bowl. I did a number of in-game bets on the SB and it was the reason my super bowl was profitable. Having been busted on the safety and losing Pats Moneyline -130, my Giants +160 play along with a lot of scalping I did worked out nicely. I have NO reason to misrepresent this stuff. I HAVE NOTHING TO SELL ANY OF YOU!!! I make and lose more money trading in a week than I do for an entire year of sports betting. JK asks me to appear on the radio and I do at 1 AM Eastern Time which cuts into my sleep during a trading week b/c I have a lot of respect for him and what he is trying to do here at EOG.
I made more on the Non Farm Payrolls number on Friday, Feb 3 than I could hope to make in 5 Super Bowls.
My main goal is to hopefully educate a lot of the public who looks at us as a group of gambling misfits who squander money and ruin lives. This is far from the case as a number of very sharp people make a living in this industry as sports betting is a vibrant part of American culture across a broad demographic...
Viejo Dinosaur
EOG Master
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
You are sadly misinformed Big Daddy...
There are countless sharps here giving free info and advice...starting with most of the guys in this thread...
You are sadly misinformed Big Daddy...
There are countless sharps here giving free info and advice...starting with most of the guys in this thread...
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Is this post from a year ago still accurate?
01-16-11 08:15 PM#24
JohnNetto
EOG Senior
Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join
Date: May 27, 2007Location: Las Vegas and New York CityPosts:
466
Re: Question for John Netto..........Jets Future at
28-1..........
"...Believe me, I'm aware that I could have
maximized this in a more efficient manner, but as a guy that routinely moves
lines in the NFL, NCAAF, Champions League Soccer and English Soccer..."
Is this post from a year ago still accurate?
01-16-11 08:15 PM#24
JohnNetto
EOG Senior
Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join
Date: May 27, 2007Location: Las Vegas and New York CityPosts:
466
Re: Question for John Netto..........Jets Future at
28-1..........
"...Believe me, I'm aware that I could have
maximized this in a more efficient manner, but as a guy that routinely moves
lines in the NFL, NCAAF, Champions League Soccer and English Soccer..."
SlipperyPete
EOG Dedicated
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Some of us remember seeing this movie before (time and time again):LMAO
Some of us remember seeing this movie before (time and time again):LMAO
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Unless the great Wilhelm disagrees, then rather than give the person the benefit of the doubt even after Wilhelm's been caught in a bunch of lies, you'll call the person "a scumbag." GTFO.
Even funnier is that it's the Netto types that "think they have all the answers." Over on RTP, PC et al frequently are persuaded to change their thinking on various topics, whereas you tell a Netto type that he made a horrible future bet and he still doesn't get it. The guy once repeatedly posted a soccer future after being told it was a horrible bet when he didn't even know the format of the competition! Could you imagine someone posting a future fading the Steelers because "they may play all three of the Saints, Packers, and Giants and they don't match up well against any of the three"?
Unless the great Wilhelm disagrees, then rather than give the person the benefit of the doubt even after Wilhelm's been caught in a bunch of lies, you'll call the person "a scumbag." GTFO.
Even funnier is that it's the Netto types that "think they have all the answers." Over on RTP, PC et al frequently are persuaded to change their thinking on various topics, whereas you tell a Netto type that he made a horrible future bet and he still doesn't get it. The guy once repeatedly posted a soccer future after being told it was a horrible bet when he didn't even know the format of the competition! Could you imagine someone posting a future fading the Steelers because "they may play all three of the Saints, Packers, and Giants and they don't match up well against any of the three"?
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Strictly a hype/ self-promo effort to get Netto more media exposure.
Of those in attendance the only one that was out there actively building a Super Bowl portfolio
was Leonard. Teddy, Netto etc - never saw them once in the sports books during the two week Super Bowl period and I'm out there everyday in all the books that matter for Super Bowl.
Strictly a hype/ self-promo effort to get Netto more media exposure.
Of those in attendance the only one that was out there actively building a Super Bowl portfolio
was Leonard. Teddy, Netto etc - never saw them once in the sports books during the two week Super Bowl period and I'm out there everyday in all the books that matter for Super Bowl.
Heim
EOG Master
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Leonard building a portfolio....lol
He's come a long way. Did FrankB have everything circled
for him? I heard Jim Kruger the other day on the radio
bitching about having the right side in the SB until Leonard
talked him onto the Pats....Leonard building a portfolio!?
He can't even get the side right. Classic
Leonard building a portfolio....lol
He's come a long way. Did FrankB have everything circled
for him? I heard Jim Kruger the other day on the radio
bitching about having the right side in the SB until Leonard
talked him onto the Pats....Leonard building a portfolio!?
He can't even get the side right. Classic
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
"“Lots of testosterone running through this place,” said a futures trader named John Netto. The first buttons of his shirt were undone, showing chest hair and a stone necklace. “It represents abundance and a sense of spirituality and strength. It came from a group of Tibetan monks, and I wear it every day. And wear it very close to me. I believe it brings me powers and good fortune.”
http://www.observer.com/2010/wall-street/high-frequency-talker
Where can I get one?
"“Lots of testosterone running through this place,” said a futures trader named John Netto. The first buttons of his shirt were undone, showing chest hair and a stone necklace. “It represents abundance and a sense of spirituality and strength. It came from a group of Tibetan monks, and I wear it every day. And wear it very close to me. I believe it brings me powers and good fortune.”
http://www.observer.com/2010/wall-street/high-frequency-talker
Where can I get one?
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Comments:
We see from PC's work how relatively simple these EV calculations are. In the spirit of showing our work, let me show the result I obtained.
I go along with 4.0% for the fav by 1 and 2 combination "landing" rate. I use 9.0% fo the fav by 3 rate, I'll discuss my adjustments for playoff games below. Implicit in PC's equation is the assumption that the Pats will lose the game 45% of the time or they win 55% of the time. I use 55.5% win rate to estimate the true win rate since Netto had a small bias toward the NE side. The breakeven rate for a -130 ML is a 56.5% win rate so my assumpton still has the Pats ML -130 bet as -EV by itself. The weightings of a Pats 1.3u bet and a Giants 1.1u bet make the arithmetic easy, but are arbitrary, so a different relative weighing will result in a slightly different ROI.
44.5%*-30+4.0%*200+9.0%*100+42.5%*-10 = -0.60 or -0.25% ROI
Again, showing that the combination bet is not a good bet.
Adjustments to the value of the fav by 3 result:
Generally, in the regular season, about 9.5% of small favorites (between 1 and 7 pts) win by exactly 3. Rather surprisingly, anywhere between 27 and 30% of these games are decided in OT.We can also look at high totalled games, but we start to get very small sample sizes since usually SB games with opening totals of 55 or so are not common in the regular season.
We know that in the playoffs no ties are possible so that the regular season results of a tie have to be split between the other possible results. This is a very small factor, but not non-zero since there have been 4 NFL ties since 1994.
We also know that movng the kickoffs up to the 35 yard line decreases the field position advantage of the coin toss winner (since they almost always receive the ball). And the new OT rule that the first possession ending in a FG no longers ends the game means teams have more incentive to keep moving the ball and try to score a TD on the first possession. With the old kickoff rules, about 35% of OT games ended in the first possession, the new kickoff rules reduce that significantly.
So let's assume 30% of the "fav by 3" games end in OT. That means 6.9% of the 9.5% remains the same for the playoffs. We add a small amount, 0.02% to adjust for no ties and deduct maybe 0.50% from the OT % of 2.6% to account for shifting a first possession 3 pt FG win to a first possession 6 pt TD win. This leaves us with 2.1% contribution from OT games to the fav by 3 dataset. We also know that other oddball OT results like 3-2, 5-3, 9-0 are possible, but I will ignore these probabilities as they are too small to matter.
So bottom line I use 9.0% as the "playoff" fav by 3 landing rate. Obviously this is just a rough estimate, but I do think PC's estimate of 7.5% is really way too low.
Comments:
We see from PC's work how relatively simple these EV calculations are. In the spirit of showing our work, let me show the result I obtained.
I go along with 4.0% for the fav by 1 and 2 combination "landing" rate. I use 9.0% fo the fav by 3 rate, I'll discuss my adjustments for playoff games below. Implicit in PC's equation is the assumption that the Pats will lose the game 45% of the time or they win 55% of the time. I use 55.5% win rate to estimate the true win rate since Netto had a small bias toward the NE side. The breakeven rate for a -130 ML is a 56.5% win rate so my assumpton still has the Pats ML -130 bet as -EV by itself. The weightings of a Pats 1.3u bet and a Giants 1.1u bet make the arithmetic easy, but are arbitrary, so a different relative weighing will result in a slightly different ROI.
44.5%*-30+4.0%*200+9.0%*100+42.5%*-10 = -0.60 or -0.25% ROI
Again, showing that the combination bet is not a good bet.
Adjustments to the value of the fav by 3 result:
Generally, in the regular season, about 9.5% of small favorites (between 1 and 7 pts) win by exactly 3. Rather surprisingly, anywhere between 27 and 30% of these games are decided in OT.We can also look at high totalled games, but we start to get very small sample sizes since usually SB games with opening totals of 55 or so are not common in the regular season.
We know that in the playoffs no ties are possible so that the regular season results of a tie have to be split between the other possible results. This is a very small factor, but not non-zero since there have been 4 NFL ties since 1994.
We also know that movng the kickoffs up to the 35 yard line decreases the field position advantage of the coin toss winner (since they almost always receive the ball). And the new OT rule that the first possession ending in a FG no longers ends the game means teams have more incentive to keep moving the ball and try to score a TD on the first possession. With the old kickoff rules, about 35% of OT games ended in the first possession, the new kickoff rules reduce that significantly.
So let's assume 30% of the "fav by 3" games end in OT. That means 6.9% of the 9.5% remains the same for the playoffs. We add a small amount, 0.02% to adjust for no ties and deduct maybe 0.50% from the OT % of 2.6% to account for shifting a first possession 3 pt FG win to a first possession 6 pt TD win. This leaves us with 2.1% contribution from OT games to the fav by 3 dataset. We also know that other oddball OT results like 3-2, 5-3, 9-0 are possible, but I will ignore these probabilities as they are too small to matter.
So bottom line I use 9.0% as the "playoff" fav by 3 landing rate. Obviously this is just a rough estimate, but I do think PC's estimate of 7.5% is really way too low.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Thanks for your insights, Bob.
Thanks for your insights, Bob.
bill the cop
EOG Member
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
<!-- What's New?
--><!--
--><!-- Advanced Search
-->
<!-- closing div for above_body --><!--
--><!---->
<!-- SevenSkins.com Side Column --><!-- / SevenSkins.com Side Column --><!--+ Reply to Thread--><!-- next / previous links --><!-- / next / previous links -->
[h=1][/h][h=1]
<!-- What's New?
--><!--
--><!-- Advanced Search
-->
<!-- closing div for above_body --><!--
- FORUM
- BettingTalk Forum
- Superbowl line/analysis
--><!---->
<!-- SevenSkins.com Side Column --><!-- / SevenSkins.com Side Column --><!--+ Reply to Thread--><!-- next / previous links --><!-- / next / previous links -->
[h=1][/h][h=1]
- [h=6][/h]
- [/h]
- <FORM id=showthread_threadrate_form method=post action=threadrate.php><LABEL for=r4><INPUT id=r4 tabIndex=21 value=4 type=radio name=vote></LABEL>
<LABEL for=r3><INPUT id=r3 tabIndex=22 value=3 type=radio name=vote></LABEL>
<LABEL for=r1><INPUT id=r1 tabIndex=24 value=1 type=radio name=vote></LABEL>
<INPUT value=1 type=hidden name=page> </FORM>
- <!-- see bottom of postbit.css for .userinfo .popupmenu styles -->
<DL class=userinfo_extra><DD>3</DD><DD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #cccccc 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; WIDTH: 96%; DISPLAY: inline; WHITE-SPACE: nowrap; FLOAT: left"></DD></DL>
[h=2]
Superbowl line/analysis[/h]Using todays Pinny line, here's what we've got to work with:
NE-3 +108...ML-140
NYG+3-117..ML+127
Based on the last 18 years of data, current up to last weeks games, for all games lined at -3, both Home and Road, SS 849, all totals, we get the following:
ATS, 370-396-83 for 48.3%
Push ATS, 9.8%
SU (ML) 493-356 for 58.1%
MOV for the -3
By 3....9.8%
By 2....2%
By 1....2.7%
But with totals >42 the data changes (current Superbowl total 55), so the following information is based on a SS of 352, which is the data set of all Favs-3, totals >42
ATS 154-170-28 for 47.5%
Push ATS, 7.9%
SU (ML) 202-150 for 57.4%
MOV for the -3
By3....7.9%
By2....2.6%
By1....3.1%
Now let's look at the NE ML -140
At a 57.4% cover rate the -140 is -EV 1.6%
BE ML would be -135
The NYG ML of +127
At a 42.6% cover rate the +127 is -EV 3.3%
BE ML would be +135
Now lets look at betting both teams ATS
NE-3, at a cover rate of 47.5, (154-170-28) at +108, the EV is -1% (need +110 to BE)
NYG+3, at a cover rate of 52.5 (170-154-28) at -117, the EV is -2.5% (need -110 to BE)
Could you make money betting the potential middle?
NYG+3 -117
NE ML -140
See for yourself, the information to figure it out is all in the above!
Hint, you'll hit the middle 5.7% of the time, and push the Dog+3 side 7.9% of the time. Do a litle more work and figure out what lines you'd need to make money with this middle shot. I know some were able to lock in NYG at +3.5 earlier, but that's long gone.
I copied the above from a post I made at the Bettingtalk forum, sorry if there's some "pasting" issue.
I decided to use all NFL games for my analysis instead of just playoff games. IMO, the sample size would suffer too much just using playoff data. That said, let's look at just playoff games.
Just playoff games, all totals, all lines, SS 198
MOV, by 3 (16) or 8.1%
MOV, by 2 (2) or 1%
MOV, by 1 (5) or 2.5%
If we just use totals >42, all lines, SS 113
MOV, by 3 (9) or 8%
MOV, by 2 (1) or .9%
MOV, by 1 (2) or 1.8%
It'd be pretty meaningless to just look at playoff games lined at "3", totals >42 as there were just 13 over the last 18 years.
We don't really know what impact the new OT rules will have on future playoff games, just not enough historical data. But here's data relating to OT over the last 18 years (SS 4686):
289 games went into OT, or 6.2% of all games
212 were decided by 3 (73.3%)
72 were decided by 6 (24.9%)
4 were 0-0 (1.4%)
1 by 2 (.3%)
The above data reflects the closing lines and results as depicted by Don Best line service.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Classic gambler stuff..
Gambler/tout/genius "releases" a pick. It loses.
Now the gambler/tout/genius tapdances with , "yeah, I had a small profit after all, because I had this and that middled." All of a sudden the hip bone is connected to the shin bone connected to the ankle bone. The losing straight pick is gone, and success is now the product of some arcane bet that the gambler/tout/genius failed to mention when he came up with the original straight bet.
I'm certainly not against middling, which can provide long-term happiness as Computer Bob says.
But you can't claim middling the next day after your airhead straight bet crashes.
Classic gambler stuff..
Gambler/tout/genius "releases" a pick. It loses.
Now the gambler/tout/genius tapdances with , "yeah, I had a small profit after all, because I had this and that middled." All of a sudden the hip bone is connected to the shin bone connected to the ankle bone. The losing straight pick is gone, and success is now the product of some arcane bet that the gambler/tout/genius failed to mention when he came up with the original straight bet.
I'm certainly not against middling, which can provide long-term happiness as Computer Bob says.
But you can't claim middling the next day after your airhead straight bet crashes.
PerpetualCzech
EOG Addicted
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I know that this is the result you get when you use data all the way back to 1994. I think there's good reason to believe the value of the Three has gone down in recent years and it has to do with 2-point conversions. I once posted the number of conversion attempts year-by-year over at RTP (which is down atm so I can't link) and it has fallen drastically over time to about half the rates of the mid 90s. Faves of between 0.5 and 6.5 have landed on the Three 8.8% of the time since 2003 (from 1994-2002 it was 9.9%). For this reason I like to use a "base rate" for the Three of 9.0%.
The effect starts to show itself in the high 40s. I get all games since 1994 land on a specific team by Three 7.9% of the time. Using totals of >45 that drops to 6.8% (this is with a sample of over 2000). Total > 45 AND fave of 0.5-6.5 gives 7.9% although the sample of 585 sucks.
I confess I don't even have a confident explanation for the drop. I suspect part of the reason will have to do with a higher TD:FG ratio for scoring plays. Higher totaled games are also less likely to go into OT. Whatever the case there definitely appears to me something that's going on. For this effect I am happy to drop my base rate for the Three by a full percentage point for a game in the low-to-mid 50s.
The other 0.5% drop was for the OT playoff rule effect which we agree on. So 9.0%-1.0%-0.5% = 7.5%, that's how I arrived at my result.
I know that this is the result you get when you use data all the way back to 1994. I think there's good reason to believe the value of the Three has gone down in recent years and it has to do with 2-point conversions. I once posted the number of conversion attempts year-by-year over at RTP (which is down atm so I can't link) and it has fallen drastically over time to about half the rates of the mid 90s. Faves of between 0.5 and 6.5 have landed on the Three 8.8% of the time since 2003 (from 1994-2002 it was 9.9%). For this reason I like to use a "base rate" for the Three of 9.0%.
The effect starts to show itself in the high 40s. I get all games since 1994 land on a specific team by Three 7.9% of the time. Using totals of >45 that drops to 6.8% (this is with a sample of over 2000). Total > 45 AND fave of 0.5-6.5 gives 7.9% although the sample of 585 sucks.
I confess I don't even have a confident explanation for the drop. I suspect part of the reason will have to do with a higher TD:FG ratio for scoring plays. Higher totaled games are also less likely to go into OT. Whatever the case there definitely appears to me something that's going on. For this effect I am happy to drop my base rate for the Three by a full percentage point for a game in the low-to-mid 50s.
The other 0.5% drop was for the OT playoff rule effect which we agree on. So 9.0%-1.0%-0.5% = 7.5%, that's how I arrived at my result.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
JohnNetto - "I've stated repeatedly and quite openly I haven't beat NFL sides in a long time. I have stated quite clearly when on the radio with JK I had a losing year in the NFL."
I.e. - "I'm not a winning sportsbettor - I only play one on TV".
The fact that you're not winning is not stopping you from self promotion using sportsbetting on whatever TV show you can find to take you seriously.
You may be stating this now after a few years of fail, but prior to that you were assertively posting plays, such as:
01-10-11 01:28 AM#21
JohnNetto
EOG Senior Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: May 27, 2007Location: Las Vegas and New York CityPosts: 468
Re: Question for John Netto..........Jets Future at 28-1..........
If the NY Jets beat New England, in the AFC Championship game the CLOSING LINE at Pitt will be under 3 probably 1.5-2, and at Baltimore will be close to pick'em...I guarantee it..."
which even disturbed Fezzik, who posted in the same thread:
"01-16-11 11:50 PM#25
Fezzik
EOG Addicted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join
Date: Aug 29, 2005Posts: 865
Re: Question for John
Netto..........Jets Future at 28-1..........
I keep telling John
he is WAY too inexperienced to be passing himself off as an 'expert' at sports
betting.
http://forums.eog.com/showthread.php?t=308169 "
______________________________________________________________
"I also stated I had a tremendous year trading all things global macro. I have nothing to hide or anything to sell."
Only you know how well or poorly you did trading non-sports. There is no way to track your activities.
Just as there's no way to track your now claimed expertise in live sportsbetting.
But you certainly do have something to sell - yourself - and you do it relentlessly.
You've used whatever you can for self promotion - military service, sportsbetting, poker (I've never seen your name in any poker related activity, outside of your own statements), a necklace which bestows powers, and its clear that the grand scheme is to sell your books, seminars, software, etc.
JohnNetto - "I've stated repeatedly and quite openly I haven't beat NFL sides in a long time. I have stated quite clearly when on the radio with JK I had a losing year in the NFL."
I.e. - "I'm not a winning sportsbettor - I only play one on TV".
The fact that you're not winning is not stopping you from self promotion using sportsbetting on whatever TV show you can find to take you seriously.
You may be stating this now after a few years of fail, but prior to that you were assertively posting plays, such as:
01-10-11 01:28 AM#21
JohnNetto
EOG Senior Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: May 27, 2007Location: Las Vegas and New York CityPosts: 468
Re: Question for John Netto..........Jets Future at 28-1..........
If the NY Jets beat New England, in the AFC Championship game the CLOSING LINE at Pitt will be under 3 probably 1.5-2, and at Baltimore will be close to pick'em...I guarantee it..."
which even disturbed Fezzik, who posted in the same thread:
"01-16-11 11:50 PM#25
Fezzik
EOG Addicted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join
Date: Aug 29, 2005Posts: 865
Re: Question for John
Netto..........Jets Future at 28-1..........
I keep telling John
he is WAY too inexperienced to be passing himself off as an 'expert' at sports
betting.
http://forums.eog.com/showthread.php?t=308169 "
______________________________________________________________
"I also stated I had a tremendous year trading all things global macro. I have nothing to hide or anything to sell."
Only you know how well or poorly you did trading non-sports. There is no way to track your activities.
Just as there's no way to track your now claimed expertise in live sportsbetting.
But you certainly do have something to sell - yourself - and you do it relentlessly.
You've used whatever you can for self promotion - military service, sportsbetting, poker (I've never seen your name in any poker related activity, outside of your own statements), a necklace which bestows powers, and its clear that the grand scheme is to sell your books, seminars, software, etc.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Ray Luca - I've missed the sort of contributions you are appreciating Netto for.
Can you link me to at least one of them?
People were congratulating Netto on his great Superbowl middle post, which has now been shown to be slightly negative EV.
Perhaps some of these other contributions could use closer scrutiny.
Ray Luca - I've missed the sort of contributions you are appreciating Netto for.
Can you link me to at least one of them?
People were congratulating Netto on his great Superbowl middle post, which has now been shown to be slightly negative EV.
Perhaps some of these other contributions could use closer scrutiny.
J
joeybagadonuts
Guest
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I love guys like ComptrBob, Scooter, PerputalCzech, groovinmahoovin who keep the big mouth clowns and touts around the gambling forums honest.
Good work men.
I actually thought Netto was a pretty sharp guy who applied interesting strategies to gambling and knew what he was talking about.
This really makes me scratch my head and wonder what he was thinking....
I love guys like ComptrBob, Scooter, PerputalCzech, groovinmahoovin who keep the big mouth clowns and touts around the gambling forums honest.
Good work men.
I actually thought Netto was a pretty sharp guy who applied interesting strategies to gambling and knew what he was talking about.
This really makes me scratch my head and wonder what he was thinking....
SlipperyPete
EOG Dedicated
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I've seen of Netto maybe twice. But the red lights were flashing immediately
I have seen these type of characters come and then GO repeatedly in my time in Forumville
But the funny thing is now matter how many times these characters have publicly failed in the past, when the next one comes along, many many posters would be willing to sign over their first born in a jiffy--- before they even proved themselves even a little
I've seen of Netto maybe twice. But the red lights were flashing immediately
I have seen these type of characters come and then GO repeatedly in my time in Forumville
But the funny thing is now matter how many times these characters have publicly failed in the past, when the next one comes along, many many posters would be willing to sign over their first born in a jiffy--- before they even proved themselves even a little
Viejo Dinosaur
EOG Master
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I still enjoy Netto's ideas and thoughts about gambling as well as the contributions of the 4 other posters you mentioned....doesn't mean you have to agree with everything said....
I still enjoy Netto's ideas and thoughts about gambling as well as the contributions of the 4 other posters you mentioned....doesn't mean you have to agree with everything said....
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
JohnNetto - " ...as a guy that routinely moves
lines in the NFL, NCAAF, Champions League Soccer and English Soccer..."
I don't find this credible.
Unless you mean that you make a $330 bet at a Boyd casino on an NCAA total, which will or can move the Boyd totals line 1/2 point, or something like that.
But if you are stating that the NFL line is -2.5, and you bet it and it moves to -3 across the board - nonsense.
But that's what your statement implies.
I'll let the soccer experts comment, if they wish to, on your statement that you routinely move Champions League Soccer and English Soccer lines.
JohnNetto - " ...as a guy that routinely moves
lines in the NFL, NCAAF, Champions League Soccer and English Soccer..."
I don't find this credible.
Unless you mean that you make a $330 bet at a Boyd casino on an NCAA total, which will or can move the Boyd totals line 1/2 point, or something like that.
But if you are stating that the NFL line is -2.5, and you bet it and it moves to -3 across the board - nonsense.
But that's what your statement implies.
I'll let the soccer experts comment, if they wish to, on your statement that you routinely move Champions League Soccer and English Soccer lines.
Viejo Dinosaur
EOG Master
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
That's the hype of the media that has to say something when featuring guests on the TV or radio....he might move a line or two, but not everyday and with consistentcy...
That's the hype of the media that has to say something when featuring guests on the TV or radio....he might move a line or two, but not everyday and with consistentcy...
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
Except I wasn't quoting a media intro to Netto - I was quoting one of his posts.
That was Netto hyping himself.
Except I wasn't quoting a media intro to Netto - I was quoting one of his posts.
That was Netto hyping himself.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
"02-23-11 03:44 PM#1
JohnNetto
EOG Senior Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: May 27, 2007Location: Las Vegas and New York CityPosts: 466
I'm beat from trading oil today so it's time for a power nap..."
"02-23-11 03:44 PM#1
JohnNetto
EOG Senior Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: May 27, 2007Location: Las Vegas and New York CityPosts: 466
I'm beat from trading oil today so it's time for a power nap..."
PerpetualCzech
EOG Addicted
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I think it's natural to look askance at anyone who is capable of writing a 400-word post about themselves.
I think it's natural to look askance at anyone who is capable of writing a 400-word post about themselves.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
In this age of self-promotion, you'll be looking sideways at a lot of high-profile people, Czech.
In this age of self-promotion, you'll be looking sideways at a lot of high-profile people, Czech.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
A few closing comments:
1. One of the first dialogs I had with PC on the old Fezzik's Place concerned my assertion that the NFL point "values" were dynamic and changing. Static values shouldn't be used blindly. Well, he learned well and now turned the tables on me .... LOL It is, of course, necessary to keep updating models for the NFL especially because of constantly changing rules and strategies. I used a model probably most favorable to Netto's middle which needs a very high value of the 3. PC's derivation of the value of the 3 is well done and the reader should understand the process.
2. Bill the Cop has posted about his datamined datasets on SSB, Fezzik's Place, RTP, here at EOG and elsewhere. I don't think he has ever understood the simple calculation of EV. His post is jumbled, doesn't even apply to the numbers Netto used, and really is comical, leaving the EV calculation to the reader!
3. As far as Netto self-proclaimed prowess with in-progress betting, I can only raise the issue that if he can't compute this simple, static EV, how can he be an expert at the very quick, dynamic lines of in-progress betting?
4. Hopefully, this thread and analysis by PC and myself provides a better example than some of Netto's ramblings to the public that not all gamblers are degenerates shooting off their mouths, but rather some can rationally and understandably apply math to sports betting.
A few closing comments:
1. One of the first dialogs I had with PC on the old Fezzik's Place concerned my assertion that the NFL point "values" were dynamic and changing. Static values shouldn't be used blindly. Well, he learned well and now turned the tables on me .... LOL It is, of course, necessary to keep updating models for the NFL especially because of constantly changing rules and strategies. I used a model probably most favorable to Netto's middle which needs a very high value of the 3. PC's derivation of the value of the 3 is well done and the reader should understand the process.
2. Bill the Cop has posted about his datamined datasets on SSB, Fezzik's Place, RTP, here at EOG and elsewhere. I don't think he has ever understood the simple calculation of EV. His post is jumbled, doesn't even apply to the numbers Netto used, and really is comical, leaving the EV calculation to the reader!
3. As far as Netto self-proclaimed prowess with in-progress betting, I can only raise the issue that if he can't compute this simple, static EV, how can he be an expert at the very quick, dynamic lines of in-progress betting?
4. Hopefully, this thread and analysis by PC and myself provides a better example than some of Netto's ramblings to the public that not all gamblers are degenerates shooting off their mouths, but rather some can rationally and understandably apply math to sports betting.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I think we over-intellectualize sports gambling way more than we should.
I think we over-intellectualize sports gambling way more than we should.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I will call ComptrBob this weekend to invite him on the radio program.
In the past, he's been generous with his time and helpful with his commentary.
Bob was one of three contestants (Buskie and Alan Dinkenson were the other two) who earmarked his entire winnings to charity in The $10,000 EOG Invitational.
I will call ComptrBob this weekend to invite him on the radio program.
In the past, he's been generous with his time and helpful with his commentary.
Bob was one of three contestants (Buskie and Alan Dinkenson were the other two) who earmarked his entire winnings to charity in The $10,000 EOG Invitational.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
We loves our Computer Bob. We take his work as gospel. For almost a decade, he has been the steadiest, most reliable source I've read.
What he adds just doesn't translate on the radio.
We loves our Computer Bob. We take his work as gospel. For almost a decade, he has been the steadiest, most reliable source I've read.
What he adds just doesn't translate on the radio.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
I respectfully disagree, Jeff.
Nobody has the combination of English and math skills quite like Bob.
I thought his presentation in the football contest against Micelli was excellent.
I respectfully disagree, Jeff.
Nobody has the combination of English and math skills quite like Bob.
I thought his presentation in the football contest against Micelli was excellent.
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
No.
Gambling radio listeners tune in full of hope. They really think they are going to beat the game.
And that by listerning to a radio show they will have an advantage.
But the advantage never appears.
Computer Bob has documented this for years.
I guess we can kid ourselves that the average guy comes to EOG and wins money at this sports gambling thang. Of course, that's not true, or you wouldn't have offshore books sponsoring this site.
No.
Gambling radio listeners tune in full of hope. They really think they are going to beat the game.
And that by listerning to a radio show they will have an advantage.
But the advantage never appears.
Computer Bob has documented this for years.
I guess we can kid ourselves that the average guy comes to EOG and wins money at this sports gambling thang. Of course, that's not true, or you wouldn't have offshore books sponsoring this site.
Moses The Moses
EOG Member
Re: Young John Netto on CNBC today (video)
If you weren't paying attention (and I'm sure you weren't), PC and Computer Bob just exposed John Netto as a fraud and took him apart piece by piece ... calmly, methodically and unequivocally, without any name calling or message board-sewer BS.Not a word from JK on this.One of many devastating lines from C. Bob: "As far as Netto self-proclaimed prowess with in-progress betting, I can only raise the issue that if he can't compute this simple, static EV, how can he be an expert at the very quick, dynamic lines of in-progress betting?"
If you weren't paying attention (and I'm sure you weren't), PC and Computer Bob just exposed John Netto as a fraud and took him apart piece by piece ... calmly, methodically and unequivocally, without any name calling or message board-sewer BS.Not a word from JK on this.One of many devastating lines from C. Bob: "As far as Netto self-proclaimed prowess with in-progress betting, I can only raise the issue that if he can't compute this simple, static EV, how can he be an expert at the very quick, dynamic lines of in-progress betting?"