The one good thing about this thread is fubster's avatar. Such a sexy stare down.
And I hereby claim first entitlement to it if and when fubster lets it go!

Ok. Maybe instead of arbitrarily using a quantitative comparison model going (i) ok based on the last decent sample of games where team A have averaged 'x' amount of goals per game over the last 'y' amount of games where they have vsed teams B,C,D who also average "x amount of goals" against certain opponents (this would be a poor, sample lacking/outdated way of making profitable bets but simple to use as an example) and comparing data and averages in future games where Team A vs' Team B,C,D etc., to make a decision, you're going (ii) this is the few bits of criteria we are using, it only has to satisfy just these few conditions and because there are some unexplained qualitative changes to the game such as changes in goalie play or overall game dynamics when teams play each other that's resulting in less goals being scored, that's going to give the betting model longevity as long as the minimum price and whatever other simple criteria is satisfied. You'd already know that one can apply quantitative and/or qualitative assessment to most betting markets and be +EV. Since the sample size of this is small, it's likely more qualitative>quantitative. I'm guessing a lot of the skepticism ITT coes from the fact that the qualitative part isn't validated thoroughly although I'd have to re-read the whole thread to make sure.

In no way am I justifying that the model is validated profitably long term, that (ii) is just my assumption on what the model is based on in a little more detail, although because I know jack s**t about the model, I could be completely wrong also

Nightmare scenario. Ugh.

my thoughts arguably (probably?) don't mean not much. seems like the model is kinda like darts where a pro is aiming for the 180 spot (or whatever spot yields the highest +EV) for your given turn...

EXCEPT in this case the thrower isn't a pro, it's actually an amateur who has studied the pro and thinks they should also take that route even though they don't have the necessary skills to make those shots.

as a result, going for the 180 spots off the bat for ex likely isn't the most +EV move for them given its difficulty.

iirc ProfEd isn't even the one who created said system/model, someone else did and he's just carrying on with it without likely actually knowing what it involves besides u5.5 when -200 fav.

I'm way too lazy but I'd love to know the success of a model that uses -180 favs or more. or perhaps -220 favs or more. is it possible there's an even better model out there?!?

more likely this is mostly just a buncha bull**** that some rec always bet on and all of a sudden it ran hot but in due time I'm quite convident it will revert back to the way it should which is unprofitable because I'm pretty sure that I see right thru this crap.

Kinda reminds me of sharkey or whatever his name was who 'started' out on that sick ass streak, went 'tout' and dumped a bunch if not all of it back. in b4 that likely happens w this unless we can stop it.


CLIFFS: I just wanted way too much time responding to an obvious troll thread cuz this 'system' as the title calls it is most likely a joke

end rant/

lol... guys

Member back in 2008 when rjp went 49-2 on pucklines, then found a bug in his model and realized he was just donking -EV?

lolol

fair enough. gonna try and not be ignorant here and say too early to tell tbh

Serious question: how big a sample size are we looking for, before we can sign off on something like this? Does it exist? Because if it did, the oddsmakers would adjust, no?

lol

u know whats a real 'system' that's legit and crushing lately, won teasers. if anyone in this thread who just tails this nonsense hockey sytem focused on wongs instead, they'd have made more in the past month than this 'NHL profitable system' has made in the 3 years of this 'insane' run.

Are you traveling forward in time from 2010?

uh no wongs have been absolutely crushing the past month, guess u don't have proper outs to place them

proper outs to place them don't exist unless you are betting $50

plz tell me more about my locals that you clearly don't have access to

and even if this were the case (which it isn't I can get down 100x that), round robining every combo at just $50 still adds up

congrats. reason to talk about lines that no else can bet?

it's really not hard to find locals that have 3 teamers at +180 and PPH lines. some people just don't change the defaults. they usually have the lifespan of a housefly but whatever

I wouldn't say no one as Fubster said.

I thought I'd get cut/banned from the 2 that I have that do this a couple weeks ago but nope still going strong

Sorry for the absence, I'm back and ready to crush again.

You've confirmed there is just too much going on here for you to get it, but I'll entertain.

I cross-checked the query in just the last 30 days from post-date and found a half-dozen if not more games that the query didn't produce. I then cited the days/games/scores of two said games for the original query provider or any defender (that's you!) to explain. They've yet to be addressed. I'll be waiting.

System lost last night, looks like one going in Detroit tonight. I'll be at the window.

BOL

Are you referring to the penguins game losing?

Yes. AZ/DET refunded me tonight!

missed out on that one. i've picked 4 losers in a row out of god knows how many there are. time to increase unit size? :P

Still waiting for the haters and fake faders to respond..meanwhile the system produces yet ANOTHER winner tonight!

Wahoo~!

Congrats, what's that make it 1-4 the last 2 weeks?