Then let's not discuss it because you clearly have no idea. And somehow coming to the conclusion that I'm a progression bettor is just straight ignorance...but you clearly are an ignorant person if you think the over bet on the NBA all star game is not a positive ev bet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, I'll bite. I just can't resist the temptation to make you look like an idiot.
You first show your ignorance on the matter when you say: "Profitable gamblers take bets on things that will happen more than 50%."
As a generalization, that is wrong.
You dont have to take my word for it, all you have to do is educate yourself and read a little bit from people that know more than us (a LOT more than you specifically).
Second, you say: "If you look at the history of NBA all star games the over hits around 75% of the time. I'd take the over in every NBA all star game if I have 75% chance of winning that bet."
That's square (ploppy) logic at its best.
According to your logic, if I enter a casino and I see that in the last X number of spins in a roulette wheel 75% of the results were black numbers, then betting black in the next spin is a +EV bet.
Very smart.
Professional gamblers analyze statistics and past information, but not like this.
Saying that a bet will hit just because it has in the past is plain stupid.
This is a simplification, but if you are going to look at the past for analizing the over bet in this particular all-star game, what you should consider are the points total that were scored in previous years.
If you did that, you would then see that in the past 64 games the total averaged 250 points.
Now, one could reasonably argue that all star games in the past were not what they are now (competition wise), so maybe you would want to take the average for more recent years to factor in that.
If you take the 2000-2015 period the total averaged 274.
You say: "If you look at the history of NBA all star games the over hits around 75% of the time"
A smart bettor says: "If you look at the history of NBA all star games, the total has been under 311 98% of the time."
A + EV bet?
Think again.
I hope things go well for you in squareville.
Last edited by nasha; 02-18-2016 at 09:04 AM.
Wow, while I tip my hat to nasha, as I fully agree with him;
and I empathize as to how arduous it is to refrain from
upbraiding someone who publicly displays his innumeracy
RE: gambling; but I myself have taken the sharper edges off
of my criticism, while crowning nasha, a prince of Snark'iness.*
*Combination of "snide" and "remark". Sarcastic comment(s).
This assumption is wrong.Originally Posted by moses
Sometimes they will adjust and sometimes they wont.
The notion that oddsmakers are sports gurus that will always assess games in a correct manner is false.
Even if they did, when you bet on sports you are not playing against the books, you are playing against the market, which is a more than imperfect one (if you have any doubts about it just take a look at this tjr character posts above).
The above is only true on betting lines where the Sports Book
manager has no strong opinion or his a pure "novelty bet"
Sports Books in the late 20th Century completely stopped
promulgating the ancient "Balanced Books" mythology.
It is absolutely not less than 100% certain, that at least for
some betting e.g. NFL, the books "Take a position"
What is a noteworthy example is that when a lot of favored
NFL teams win, they show losses in the tens of millions
of dollars; but when the converse holds true and the 'dogs
dominate -- they win huge amounts !
Exactly. The fact that casinos regularly experience heavy wins and losses points to the fact that they take positions based on analysis. Whether that analysis is right or wrong is another matter.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
oddsmakers, or gurus, lol, do not set lines on what they feel the outcome will be, rather they set them based on what they think the public thinks the outcome will be.....BIG difference....they will, however, lay off bets, even to other books, as their guru's seem fit
moses, you are a wise man...lol
Not to mention each year in professional basketball there is less and less defense being played, and injuries are occurring more frequently .
So let's use a little logic with that said; You get a paid weekend to go out and shoot some hoops with the other bests of the league... why the hell would you risk an injury or any energy playing defense? While watching the game I thought to myself, holy shit, these guys must've took the over too, lmao.
My opinion may be wrong (as I am not a sports handicapper) however, I feel as if the over was an educated wager, even for the biggest of ploppies
There is no glory in practice, but without practice there is no glory . -Unknown
'Back in the day' it was illegal not to play man to man lockdown defense the entire game...... Now days most of your big name stars (Lebron for example) simply don't play defense until the post season. I guess it's never safe to ASS-u-ME, but I was almost certain when my popcorn was popping and my soda was getting ice cold on the rocks that it would be a 3 point contest and a dunk contest, like all of the allstar games that I can remember .
You say yours was an educated wager.My opinion may be wrong (as I am not a sports handicapper) however, I feel as if the over was an educated wager, even for the biggest of ploppies
If it indeed was, you surely wont have any problems sharing with us what was your strike point and why.
Please, enlighten me with your analysis of the bet.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks