| Re: A poll for RGS |
Beets, Inc. |
| The Beet Man (beetman@splot.org) |
2004/01/29 07:57 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: The Beet Man <beetman@splot.org>
Newsgroups: alt
Subject: Re: A poll for RGS
Organization: Beets, Inc.
Message-ID: <bb7i10ddhhmkqh71tq66ur6dsa6aldulhm@4ax.com>
References: <ULGdnX8zx8RSBIjdRVn-uA@fidnet.com> <4016B6BE.F3D8F9FD@netscape.net> <cGCRb.25154$A7.15391@edtnps84> <p0be10prjtbak8l3f1m2k47djpaqarbv8t@4ax.com> <FhIRb.28034$A7.869@edtnps84> <d7eb150a.0401280941.33a76b06@posting.google.com> <RoXRb.38438$oj2.15502@edtnps89> <d7eb150a.0401281933.4e62dd5@posting.google.com> <gu5h109k1vljfk2dq8lcf6t1qr0cmp1p7c@4ax.com> <YU0Sb.38538$oj2.17262@edtnps89> <k57h1016ltv73gdvsql11au54blbcu42pt@4ax.com> <Eb2Sb.38560$oj2.37710@edtnps89>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 99
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:57:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.35.164.6
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1075388263 4.35.164.6 (Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:57:43 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:57:43 PST
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt:84
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:59:48 GMT, obaivasc@work.coms wrote:
>What one could or could not earn theoretically
>is alos IRRELEVANT to documentation.
>It may be important in some other aspect however.
Then what's the point of documentation? This is rec.GAMBLING.sports.
The point of betting sports is to MAKE MONEY, so any method which
removes itself from the bottom line, i.e. to MAKE MONEY, is invalid.
>> after
>> having won 600 units you'd have exceeded the limits of many of the
>> props you bet and the books from which you get lines.
>
>FALSE.
If you've won 600 units and your unit is still $250, you're doing
something wrong with your bankroll management. Perhaps I can help.
>> On the other hand, you quote ESB as a line source, when ESB is known
>> to be a scam book. Sportsbookreview gives it a grade of F- (which is
>> reserved for scam books), and here are a few threads on The
>> Prescription.
>> I guess all of the people in that thread are lying.
>>
>
>I've been a member since 1997, but this too is IRRELEVANT to
>documentation.
It's not IRRELEVANT. Quoting lines from a book that doesn't even pay
is a bit ridiculous.
>And FTR, I quote consistently from the same 7 sources.
>VERY OFTEN two or several books have the SAME LINE and vig,
>the faact that I choose to take one of those several
>in order to spread around my risk (acct management)
>is also ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO DDOCUMENTATION
>and absolutely no business of YOURS or anyone else.
It's no concern of mine where you place bets, but it's certainly
invalid to quote lines from a scam book. If I start a website for
BetBeet.com and put up lines today like FSU +28 and Maryland +12. Are
those valid for documentation.
>>>>>But like you said, documentation is merely a
>>>>>measure of skill and the ability to actually place a full unit
>>>>>(whatever the size of one's unit is) is not relevant to determining a
>>>>>handicapper's skill at picking games.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course it's relevant.
>>>
>>>IRRELEVANT, since documentation is
>>>
>>> "merely a measure of skill, and the ability to
>>> actually place a full unit (whatever the size of
>>> one's unit is) IS NOT relevant to determining a
>>> handicapper's skill at picking games."
>>
>>
>> What exactly is "skillful" about betting the coin flip of heads at
>> +160 or +180 for a $25 limit.
>
>Category 3/ type props already discussed.
So it's skillful to bet those?
>>>TOUT FRAUDS who DON'T actually bet and/or
>>>rookies who are WISELY advised to document
>>>their piucks FIRST before ever betting a
>>>single penny, are examples of documentation
>>>whereby "actual betting" is IRRELEVANT.
>>
>>
>> Sure, but they should still be grading against widely available lines,
>
>IRRELEVANT. 1-AA is only offered at 5dimes and so there
>are no "widely available lines" yet it would be totally
>absurd for any MORON to declare them invalid.
They are not invalid, but they should be kept seperately. The limit
on those is $250 and lots of people have been lowered to $100 on
those, so it's invalid to lump them in with lines where one could
easily get several thousand dollars down.
>> It takes a lot
>> more skill to beat widely available lines.
>
>It takes as much or more skill to beat props with higher vigs,
>time considerations, and very limited availablity for line shopping!
Then why are books so quick to cut off winning props players, but not
as quick to cut off players who win with regular bets? Why do so many
books demand that you give them a certain % of non-prop action? If
it's equally tough, or tougher, to beat props, wouldn't the books be
urging that action?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
|
|
|