The MO around here is to throw around lots of LOLs without actually having to show your own work. Showing your work means opening it up to scrutiny and and that's no good because people then find out you're not as good as you say you are. Sort of like what's going to happen to Ben and his chart later today.

QFT

You made 1/2/4 exactly equal, and rounded off every number like we're in bizzaro whole number world, and you have the gall to mock someone else's calcs?

screw the 1/2/4 calcs, i want to hear more about who has more net worths online..

I get 386 times covered, 13 pushes on 5, 549 total games. The road team subset performs markedly worse though...

That's kinda the point. Same as the Celtics bet, all it takes is a back-of-the-envelope-pull-out-of-your-ass calculation to show his bet was -EV. Plus it ended up that it's a close call which one of our sets of numbers was more accurate. I will elaborate later. It's been a long day.

Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that even though for some reason you stopped posting, I know you are still following this thread and I thought your performance within was terrific reading. In case you felt like posting more, don't be shy! Cheers!

Okay. At first glance your numbers are 100% idiot. His... maybe not. That is good enough for me.

GL with your back of the envelope stuff BTW. More proof for my thesis.

your work should that you have no clue in that instance
it was abusing statistics

You mean "Showed"?

I live a very lonely existence.

More mudslinging with zero reasoning or evidence to back it up. You would absolutely floor me (and I suspect most reading this) by posting your own numbers. I'm not holding my breath.

My NYG by Four was definitely low. My NYG by Three was high, and a decent bit higher than my error on the Four (for useful reasons anyone paying attention would have learned). Of course I had a margin of error attached to my numbers but it was low enough that no further accuracy was going to get that teaser to be +EV, so I didn't bother. All I wanted to do was point out it was a crap bet.

Now let's take a look at his chart. LMFAO at the quotes to 7-8-9 significant digits. But whatever, the point is that any cursory 10-second glance and a bit of common sense will show major flaws in his program. The underdog has a greater chance to win by One or Five than the favourite does. Impossible. Look at the ratio of Dall by Four wins to Dall by Five wins and compare them to the counterparts for NYG. They are wildly off. These ratios should be very similar if not identical. Try it with a bunch of others and you will see similar discrepancies.

He's tipped his hand several times. Can't beat the most fundamental sportsbetting markets (matchbook). Can't remember simple approximations of Push Rates (the One and the Two). Posts -EV teasers (Note I was not the only one to catch this). And I'm supposed to be an underdog to this circus act. You'll have to excuse me for tilting a little.

To be honest, everyone's #s in this thread are awful, mine included.

my numbers are awesome
here they are at the beginning when these posts were made
efficient market had the spread Dal -2.5, but shaded toward 2 direction instead of 3
The total was shaded under 45.5 and over 45

NYG +9 2.10%
NYG +8 1.85%
NYG +7 3.28%
NYG +6 3.92%
NYG +5 1.80%
NYG +4 3.34%
NYG +3 5.00%
NYG +2 2.13%
NYG +1 2.36%
Tie 0.11%
NYG -1 2.93%
NYG -2 1.88%
NYG -3 4.18%
NYG -4 3.00%
NYG -5 1.58%

"+10000000" doesnt mean what you think it means.

These numbers make no senses.

You have the game ending on 3 (either team winning) at only 9.18% of the time?

besides, if those are your numbers, does that mean you agree with Czech that the teaser is a bad bet?

Good choice to go hundredths. Tenths is really all you need but given the performance of everyone else so far this is a vast improvement.

You really think 4.18 and 5.00% for each 3 is more accurate than Ben's numbers?

Cliff Notes if this thread were in HSNL:

-Jman28 posts a hand where he 4-bets 52s pre-flop.

-Tom McEvoy says 52s is a bad hand.

-Jman28 details his accompanying reads, assumptions and math showing the play to be correct, generally giving too much insight for a public forum.

-Tom McEvoy says 52s is a bad hand and Jman28 is bad at poker.

-Jman28 laughs and returns to crushing.

yeah... I've noticed this with the 3 before
my numbers are always lower than anyone I talk with for that particular spot
usually, if you're the only guy pissing in the wind, you're wrong
thus, I'm likely wrong on that
I just cannot figure out where

<head exploding pic>

I might be interested in discussing statistical analysis with someone that doesn't think a chi-square test is "High Level Stats", can define 'normal distribution' and knows what a standard deviation is!

(My apologies to Tom McEvoy and his family.)

ImBen with a distinct advantage.

Yes, we've already established in Post #35 that Ben > PC in stats. Trouble is stats don't do you a whole lot of good when just a little common sense a high schooler could understand exposes flaws in your models.

This is only about the hundredth poseur I've gone after on the boards in the last 9 years. Trust me, you do not want to be backing the guy who's first in with the net worth comparisons and the "I crush" boasts. Bigtime bettor who is still allowed to bet teasers and doesn't use MB. Good grief.

The bet was bad. The model he uses is nowhere near accurate enough to identify a -244 to -257 advantage. Now people know for the next time.