This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Seriously, do you guys really think it was a good or bad bet solely upon the result when that result is determined in one single play? I'm constantly amazed that people can use such poor logic, but then again I guess thats why bookmakers can constantly make a profit despite offering as low as 4 cent juice on some sites. Sorry to be so harsh, but I'm in a bad mood due to the Skins losing right now.
I'm pretty sure the "WCO" was designed long before **** LeBeau's fire zone concept.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Shoulda bet on the Steelers. Everyone knows they were due for a win. :whoosh:
Its not the bump that makes me hate it so much. Its the "You lost so you must've been wrong" type of bump that it was.I post primarily on two forums: here and twoplustwo. Twoplustwo, I'm sad to say, has much much smarter sports fans than here. Threads there are regularly bumped afterwards- however, instead of these stupid type of "you lost and were therefore wrong" posts, you get actual discussions about how looking back do you think it was a +EV bet or not and how we can use it to improve our performance in the future.I made a thread because I thought a line might be off. Quite a few people made solid arguments against me, some made solid arguments for me. In the end I decided to bet 1/2 of a unit(obviously I didn't feel that strongly). The bet is going to lose, probably by the narrowest of margins. Forgive me if I don't see the reason for that to call for bumps with a bunch of smilies insinuating that I was wrong or made a horrible bet or sarcastically thanking me for the tip.Again let me say that I think this type of thinking is why so many people are longterm losers in sports betting.
Dude, sorry your team is losing and all, but give it a rest.You've been here long enough. Get some thick skin and develop the ability to laugh at yourself and this place will be more fun.
Hm, that's weird.If the people at Two Plus Two are so smart, why do you so regularly disregard most of the suggestions? And I can't remember exactly... but didn't someone over there do a whole entire test in which they faded someone else because they thought it would be profitable for a couple reasons?I can't say for sure, but I think I remember seeing something eerily similar to your name in a reply about who the test was actually fading..
When I was new to sports betting, I didn't line shop very well. A good poster over there wanted to prove a point to me, so he bet the exact opposite of me each week only he heavily line shopped.I ended up having a winning record and winning a little bit of money...yet he won even more than me.He totally proved his point to me, and it was a great learning experience. I now have SBR lines and Vegas Odds up 24 hours per day/7 days per week on the corner of my computer, so I can see each and every line move and help myself find the best prices.Not really sure why you think this is me "disregarding their suggestions."
For the record I wasn't sarcastically thanking you for the tip, I was genuinely thanking you for the tip. I didn't see the prop listed until after you posted this. ..and to your last point, the reason people are long term losers in sports betting, IMO it's because most people don't understand that the line always gives the side away. Whether it comes in or not is a different story but all the info you needed was in the number listed by the book, not some mathematical formula based on Campbell's season long tenancies. Then again we're not as smart as those statistical geniuses and gambling gods over at 2+2.
Sorry, but I just find it stupid.
I'd find it stupid even if the Skins were winning and even if I won this bet, which is why I mentioned it before the game even started. I've been spending much more time on sports betting than poker these past few weeks, and I'm thinking/hoping to derive more income from sports betting than poker in the next few months/years. So I take things seriously and try to learn whenever I can. If I had posted a poker thread in FFA and made a play that I thought was correct but ended up being wrong, I would similarly be annoyed if a bunch of people showed up and insisted that I was wrong solely due to results oriented thinking.Anyway, whatever. Thank you to the posters who did help me analyze this bet...always appriciated.
sorry if I misunderstood you. Clearly I think you could see how I could interpret it that way though.I have no clue what you man by "most people don't understand that the line always gives the side away".
So after going through something like that, you're going to go and lay into people because their not as savvy as you? Can you please explain how this makes sense?
I'm not sure what you want from me here. If anyone comes to me for sports betting advice, I give it. When I ask for advice, I make sure to thank those who help me out. Hell if you think I'm "laying into people" then you should check out twoplustwo. Hell I've probably been outright called an idiot a hundred times there while I was learning about sports betting. Its harsh, but if people are going to make stupid posts then I'm going to tell them that they are stupid posts. Sorry if this isn't nice in your opinion.edited to add: And I'm not "laying into" anyone who has come to me with an honest question. I've always tried to give my best advice to those who ask for it.
Assani, but really you were looking at a coinflip at best prop and looking for hidden value.
Not to mention Hail Marys at the end of the half or game.Okay, sorry for theAssani, but really you were looking at a coinflip at best prop and looking for hidden value.I didn't buy it (literally), simply due to probability.Every time a QB drops back to pass, there's a chance for a pick. Always. Even on a highly probable completion, over time the numbers all go to the NFL average - which is 3.1%. That means if a QB throws on average 31-32 times a game, he will throw a pick.To make matters worse, it gets progressively worse as a QB is "due" to regress to that average even if he is not throwing picks. Tipped balls happen. Slips out of the hand. Errors by receivers. It happens.Just using the 3.1% figure, There is a >50% chance of an interception if a QB has gone 22 or more passes between interceptions. At 1%, a QB is >50% due after 68 consecutive non-intercepted throws.The point is that there's nothing to say that it will happen or not, but there's a pretty strong case for the "he is due" camp.
I was actually on the "pick" side of the argument, a little further up the thread, & was just playing Devil's advocate but the WCO has been evolving for about 30 years. LeBeau has been around the NFL for 50+, so... what are you getting at?
You've got that backwards.
You don't seriously believe that nonsense do you? I'm trying to find irony in your post, but...Did you bench your team defense if it faced Ryan Leaf as he had thrown more than his fair share of ints the previous few weeks and wasn't "due"?Sorry, but anyone putting their faith in the "due" concept is just showing complete ignorance about how statistical variation works. Regression to the mean is NOT the same as being "due". Heads and tails will eventually regress to the mean given a fair coin, but that doesn't mean heads is better than a 50-50 chance if we've just had ten tails in a row.Jeff Pasquino said:
Isn't there a difference between the expected values of N events and the expected value of the Nth event (the "due" / fallacy argument)?
This thread has probably gone in other directions (I haven't read the whole thing), but I thought this was an interesting question.The answer is 42%.
You don't seriously believe that Ryan Leaf helps your argument, do you?
Here's the difference between Leaf and Campbell: Leaf could continue to throw INTs to infinity. We know from the history of the NFL that there are a DOZENS of QBs who threw lots of INTs, and continued to throw INTs throughout their career. But there's never been a quarterback who never threw INTs.
Frenchy's post immediately after yours is a good summation of what I was getting at. Fire zones came after the West Coast offense.LeBeau didn't design the fire zone scheme until the mid 1980s, when he was looking for ways to generate effective pressure without compromising the number of players he had in coverage. There's a little more history in this post from early this year. The WCO was in its formative stages much, much earlier when Bill Walsh began modifying his downfield passing game in Cincinnati for Virgil Carter in the 70s. The WCO was in full swing long before LeBeau first started drawing fire zone schemes.Cookiemonster said:
Had to re-think this after this post.....My intention was to explain the likelihood of getting a string of passes that aren't interceptions. The odds are lower than 50% of having any 22 passes in a row that don't include an interception.
I don't believe that the next roll of the dice is comparable to the next pass thrown by a QB. With a dice roll - every dice roll in fact - you have the exact same set of odds, and you know exactly what they are. The odds for a QB to throw an INT change from game to game and pass to pass based upon game situation, injury, the play of other players, weather, etc. There are dozens if not hundreds of variables affecting the odds from pass to pass.
That's true as long as we don't yet know the results of any of those 22 passes. As soon as we know the results of any pass within that string of 22, the overall odds of getting an INT within that string will go either up or down (depending on whether the known results include any INTs).Let's say that the chance that a particular QB will throw 22 passes in a row without an interception is 50%.Once he's thrown a pass, if it's an INT the chance goes down to 0% for that particular string of 22, while if it's not an INT, the chance goes up slightly above 50%. Each time he throws a pass that isn't intercepted, the chance he'll get to 22 without one increases.If he throws 22 without an INT, the chance that he'll have done so goes all the way up to 100%.So after zero throws, the chance is 50%. After 22 throws, the chance is either 0% or 100%. After any number of throws in between, the chance is either 0% or something between 50% and 100%.It doesn't just stay at 50% the whole time for that same string of 22 throws even after he's made 21 throws without an INT.
I'm pretty sure you guys are right. I'm absolutely positive that I was drunk.
