To quote Armageddon, "I don't wanna be the materialistic weasel of the group, but ya think we'll get hazard pay outta this?".
Granted: I am new to this board.
Granted: I don't really know much about anyone here.
I read the "Rules of the Road" and am sure I am not breaking any rules.
So, to the meat... Is anyone betting the picks made on this board? We seem to have an extremely knowledgeable, current event educated, encyclopedia of college football here. Is anyone betting it?
For starters: GreginPG, MrT, King Crimson, Degenerate, Cornhusker, At Large, Bucmonkey, and OUMO have not lost a single week 4 weeks into the CFB season. I don't know if any of the above are goofs, but I'm guessing most are serious fans of the game. HOW ARE WE PASSING UP ON THIS RESOURCE?!?
Bet $25/game on an average of the above winners... Add 88, BlindRef, and IndyFrisco as being Top 10 even though they lost a week into the mix and WOW, you have a *G R E A T*
chance of winning. If it works, bet $100/game, $250/game, etc.
I am 5.5/10 and 7/10 since coming to this board...So I wouldn't bet what I completely disagree with, but heck, hell yeah, bring it on, fuckin' A......maybe there is something here.
Materialistic Weasel am I?
Materialistic Weasel?
Moderators: 88BuckeyeGrad, Left Seater, buckeye_in_sc
-
StrandedTexan
- Jake
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:28 pm
- Location: Napa, CA
-
War Wagon
- 2010 CFB Pickem Champ
- Posts: 21127
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
- Location: Tiger country
Just bet in your head. That way, the only thing you can lose is your mind.
Most folks probably don't want to lose their lunch money, or their mortgage payment. Wive's are funny about that.
Or to put it another way, for every succesful sports bettor, there are probably 10 losers. Other than bets with friends, I've never wagered on games with sports books. Guess I just don't want to get sucked into that sort of thing.
Good luck to those that do.
Most folks probably don't want to lose their lunch money, or their mortgage payment. Wive's are funny about that.
Or to put it another way, for every succesful sports bettor, there are probably 10 losers. Other than bets with friends, I've never wagered on games with sports books. Guess I just don't want to get sucked into that sort of thing.
Good luck to those that do.
88, allow me to play Devil's Advocate here, since having talked at great length with ST about this subject I know where he's coming from and I know what he omitted in the scenario he's trying to describe.
He's not suggesting anybody take ten games, like the traditional football cards I've always played for fun.
Here's his theory...
Take a look at five or six consistently successful pickers here. He defines this as guys who've never come up with a loser week. Maybe a 5 or a 5.5 or whatever as their lowest week, that's all that matters.
Include your own picks too, if you're consistently doing well and you're certain you know your shit fairly well. You gotta at least factor in your own pics, just for sanity's sake.
Now, take a look at those winning pickers and their chosen picks. Compare 'em with yours.
The object here is to find a large and uniform consensus on at least a few games.
Example: If you and all six of the consistently successful pickers singled out Virginia to wax Duke and Tennessee to wax Memphis then goddammit, those are two dead lock safe picks.
Just find three or four of those situations per week.
Of course you're still not going to win 'em all, but it's not necessary to win 'em all.
Merely win three out of four of those consensus safe picks while betting each game individually and equally in terms of $$ and there's no way you won't build up a nice little pot. As time goes by begin using the "house's money" to increase the $$ amount of each bet.
Never go into the red. Strictly bet the money you're ahead, equally on each game, and only on a game by game basis, but keep increasing the amount you bet. Slow and steady, week by week, just keep winning 66% or 75% with the occasional 3 For 3 or 4 For 4 to really bloat the pot. You'll be able to withstand the occasional bad week and really, looking at the true consensus picks among the consistent winners here, there aren't going to be any train wreck weeks. Very few, if any.
He's just looking at the knowledge of the people here and their track records. He then looked up their picks and discovered that yep, all the guys who are consistently winning agreed with him on the few games he felt were locks...and yep, those games were comfortable winners.
It's happening quite a bit, if you really look into everybody's picks.
I can't say that I entirely disagree with his premise. The problem with betting and pick 'em pools is the notion of having to pick too many winners and/or having to get all the picks correct in a multiple team parlay. Confine it though to those few games where the line simply seems wrong and everybody who's winning agrees it's wrong and yeah, I'd say the odds of your at least coming out ahead are well above 50%.
If you can afford to risk the initial money and you're able to control yourself then using this place as a resource in combination with your own insights does seem like it would net you fairly consistent results. Fairly consistent results (say, even just winning two out of three each week) combined with a consistent $$ betting strategy will result in a fuckuva lotta money over not all that much time.
He's not suggesting anybody take ten games, like the traditional football cards I've always played for fun.
Here's his theory...
Take a look at five or six consistently successful pickers here. He defines this as guys who've never come up with a loser week. Maybe a 5 or a 5.5 or whatever as their lowest week, that's all that matters.
Include your own picks too, if you're consistently doing well and you're certain you know your shit fairly well. You gotta at least factor in your own pics, just for sanity's sake.
Now, take a look at those winning pickers and their chosen picks. Compare 'em with yours.
The object here is to find a large and uniform consensus on at least a few games.
Example: If you and all six of the consistently successful pickers singled out Virginia to wax Duke and Tennessee to wax Memphis then goddammit, those are two dead lock safe picks.
Just find three or four of those situations per week.
Of course you're still not going to win 'em all, but it's not necessary to win 'em all.
Merely win three out of four of those consensus safe picks while betting each game individually and equally in terms of $$ and there's no way you won't build up a nice little pot. As time goes by begin using the "house's money" to increase the $$ amount of each bet.
Never go into the red. Strictly bet the money you're ahead, equally on each game, and only on a game by game basis, but keep increasing the amount you bet. Slow and steady, week by week, just keep winning 66% or 75% with the occasional 3 For 3 or 4 For 4 to really bloat the pot. You'll be able to withstand the occasional bad week and really, looking at the true consensus picks among the consistent winners here, there aren't going to be any train wreck weeks. Very few, if any.
He's just looking at the knowledge of the people here and their track records. He then looked up their picks and discovered that yep, all the guys who are consistently winning agreed with him on the few games he felt were locks...and yep, those games were comfortable winners.
It's happening quite a bit, if you really look into everybody's picks.
I can't say that I entirely disagree with his premise. The problem with betting and pick 'em pools is the notion of having to pick too many winners and/or having to get all the picks correct in a multiple team parlay. Confine it though to those few games where the line simply seems wrong and everybody who's winning agrees it's wrong and yeah, I'd say the odds of your at least coming out ahead are well above 50%.
If you can afford to risk the initial money and you're able to control yourself then using this place as a resource in combination with your own insights does seem like it would net you fairly consistent results. Fairly consistent results (say, even just winning two out of three each week) combined with a consistent $$ betting strategy will result in a fuckuva lotta money over not all that much time.
Last edited by Van on Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Satriani is a mime, right? - 88
Show me your dicks. - trev
Show me your dicks. - trev
-
MgoBlue-LightSpecial
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
I've been betting on games since late August.
I do it just for fun...no serious money or anything. I started with an existing balance of $20. Right now it's up to $150. Self control is pretty easy, actually. Just don't place any bets with anything other than your head. I stay away from betting on teams I like just for the sake of it, and betting against teams I hate just for the sake of it.
Picking at that 55-60% rate isn't real difficult to do most of the time. You'll have a bad weekend here and there, but more often than not, if you have any idea what you're doing, you'll pick above the .500 mark, thus, you'll turn a slow profit every weekend.
And since I'm only putting $10-$20 on each game, my profit buildup indeed will be slow. However, the higher the pot increase, the higher the amount I'll be able to lay on games, so that buildup will soon progress at a faster rate.
I do it just for fun...no serious money or anything. I started with an existing balance of $20. Right now it's up to $150. Self control is pretty easy, actually. Just don't place any bets with anything other than your head. I stay away from betting on teams I like just for the sake of it, and betting against teams I hate just for the sake of it.
Picking at that 55-60% rate isn't real difficult to do most of the time. You'll have a bad weekend here and there, but more often than not, if you have any idea what you're doing, you'll pick above the .500 mark, thus, you'll turn a slow profit every weekend.
And since I'm only putting $10-$20 on each game, my profit buildup indeed will be slow. However, the higher the pot increase, the higher the amount I'll be able to lay on games, so that buildup will soon progress at a faster rate.
-
Terry in Crapchester
- 2012 March Madness Champ
- Posts: 8995
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Back in the 'burbs
Damn if you didn't have me looking up your picks, as well as the total points on the aTm/Taco game. Props, you're correct. I got 9/10 as well (thank you Syracuse, for coming through in overtime, and Kentucky, for getting a late TD to cover).88 wrote:I got 9/10 this week. That was a fluke.
I beat you on the over/under for the aTm/Taco game, though. :P :wink:
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
-
Terry in Crapchester
- 2012 March Madness Champ
- Posts: 8995
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Back in the 'burbs
Van, in fairness, just for shits and giggles I do a comparison of the entire board each week when Indy Frisco's results thread comes out. I take the top 10 picks of each week, with the exception of the team picked less frequently in the pick game (since everyone has to pick the pick game, it follows that both teams in that game will be in the Top 10, so it's only fair to take the team with more picks from that game). Granted, this involves the entire board, rather than only the top pickers, but the results aren't quite as impressive as you might think. Here are the results for last week, fwiw:Van wrote:88, allow me to play Devil's Advocate here, since having talked at great length with ST about this subject I know where he's coming from and I know what he omitted in the scenario he's trying to describe.
He's not suggesting anybody take ten games, like the traditional football cards I've always played for fun.
Here's his theory...
Take a look at five or six consistently successful pickers here. He defines this as guys who've never come up with a loser week. Maybe a 5 or a 5.5 or whatever as their lowest week, that's all that matters.
Include your own picks too, if you're consistently doing well and you're certain you know your shit fairly well. You gotta at least factor in your own pics, just for sanity's sake.
Now, take a look at those winning pickers and their chosen picks. Compare 'em with yours.
The object here is to find a large and uniform consensus on at least a few games.
Example: If you and all six of the consistently successful pickers singled out Virginia to wax Duke and Tennessee to wax Memphis then goddammit, those are two dead lock safe picks.
Just find three or four of those situations per week.
Of course you're still not going to win 'em all, but it's not necessary to win 'em all.
1. Rice +28 @ FSU (pick game) (25 picks) -- lost
2. Louisville -15 @ Kansas State (24 picks) -- won
3. Texas -17 vs. Iowa State (20 picks) -- won
4. Georgia -27 vs. Colorado (18 picks) -- lost
5t. USC -17 @ Arizona (17 picks) -- push
5t. Notre Dame -3.5 @ Michigan State (17 picks) -- lost
7t. Michigan -14 vs. Wisconsin (15 picks) -- push
7t. UCLA -3.5 @ Washington (15 picks) -- lost
7t. Washington State -10 @ Stanford (15 picks) -- won
10t. Nebraska -18 vs. Troy (14 picks) -- won
10t. Ohio State -15.5 vs. Penn State (14 picks) -- won
10t. West Virginia -19 @ East Carolina (14 picks) -- lost
So the board consensus last week was 5-5 with 2 pushes -- not terribly impressive.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Terry, as long you're including the entire board's picks you're obviating the entire premise here.
Only use those few pickers who never show a losing week. Look for the few games in which there's a straight consensus among just those few pickers.
Add your own picks into that mix. Limit the number of picks to those small, definite groups of games in which the line is obviously wrong and the "smart guys" are in agreement about it being wrong.
That's it. You can't add anything else to the equation without fucking it up.
Only use those few pickers who never show a losing week. Look for the few games in which there's a straight consensus among just those few pickers.
Add your own picks into that mix. Limit the number of picks to those small, definite groups of games in which the line is obviously wrong and the "smart guys" are in agreement about it being wrong.
That's it. You can't add anything else to the equation without fucking it up.
Joe Satriani is a mime, right? - 88
Show me your dicks. - trev
Show me your dicks. - trev
-
King Crimson
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 8978
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:44 pm
- Location: La Choza, Tacos al Pastor
i almost made a similar post as TinC, but minus the actual stats. i would have guessed due to geographic distribution, conference loyalties/local knowledge, or simply riding teams that win for you (LSU, TEN, VTK, against ILL for me).....there would NOT be much consensus picks. some, but not enough for a "scientific" sample.
i know i tend to bet here based on the Big XII, teams that can cover a big spread in OOC (and have done so), and teams i think i might have a feel for.
it gets much harder once conference play starts. the OOC schedule has gimmies here and there %-wise with all the weakass scheduling these days. bet Auburn, LSU, Texas against patsies and lay the big number you are going to win 2/3 in September.
i'm no expert or "playa"....i just use what Hunter Thompson calls "rhythym logic" and a lifetime of CFB fandom. I'll cop to being a goof.
i know i tend to bet here based on the Big XII, teams that can cover a big spread in OOC (and have done so), and teams i think i might have a feel for.
it gets much harder once conference play starts. the OOC schedule has gimmies here and there %-wise with all the weakass scheduling these days. bet Auburn, LSU, Texas against patsies and lay the big number you are going to win 2/3 in September.
i'm no expert or "playa"....i just use what Hunter Thompson calls "rhythym logic" and a lifetime of CFB fandom. I'll cop to being a goof.
-
buckeye_in_sc
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 3257
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:25 pm
-
MgoBlue-LightSpecial
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Yeah, I guess it's kind of a cool concept. And would probably even be successful, too. To the degree in which it would be, is in doubt.
I guess for me, I'm in this shit for the fun of it. Since I'm not looking to pay off bills and debts with my profits, I'd rather win or lose with my own picks. If I go 7-3, or 8-2 one Saturday, there's quite a bit of satisfation in knowing I earned every last penny through the strength of my own picks.
I guess for me, I'm in this shit for the fun of it. Since I'm not looking to pay off bills and debts with my profits, I'd rather win or lose with my own picks. If I go 7-3, or 8-2 one Saturday, there's quite a bit of satisfation in knowing I earned every last penny through the strength of my own picks.
-
Terry in Crapchester
- 2012 March Madness Champ
- Posts: 8995
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Back in the 'burbs
Thanks, you too. You were actually closer than I was, since the game I missed was UConn -2 (essentially a pick game) vs. Navy. UConn got steamrolled.88 wrote:Nice work, Terry. Vanderbilt was the game I missed. I gave 34 and they only won by 29. I am clueless when it comes to O/U.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Damn if you didn't have me looking up your picks, as well as the total points on the aTm/Taco game. Props, you're correct. I got 9/10 as well (thank you Syracuse, for coming through in overtime, and Kentucky, for getting a late TD to cover).88 wrote:I got 9/10 this week. That was a fluke.
I beat you on the over/under for the aTm/Taco game, though. :P :wink:
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
-
indyfrisco
- Pro Bonfire
- Posts: 11683
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
