are they two separate people?

Both have similar levels of mental acuity.

What's so special about Thremp? You're all pretty much the same species.

PS Bet the 9ers tonight.

There's nothing 'special' about Thremp per se, but both you and NZ are preemptively on tilt because of his posting style. The abuse/ballerisms are irrelevant, but it bothers you guys and everyone can tell.

Obvious Thremp tilt tell: "How old are you Thremp I thought you were 14 (or whatever age)."

You probably aren't aware of how many belligerent posters I have interacted with over the years. I promise you an accepted push rate on the Nine of almost 3% tilts me way more than the posting style of any poster ever could.

Agreed, and not because I'm you.

I also like SF +195.

He has a clue on a few topics, but nothing that a random semi-educated person would not already possess. It's what he does not know that poses a danger.

He occasionally posts semi-humorous stuff, e.g. 70's era betting a pk line then walking across the street and get +7 on the other team, playing SF21 when the game wasn't even invented, stuff like that.

Actually I thought he was on tilt all this time.

To be honest, I'd rather be fingered as Ben's archnemesis wannabe ...

You would like getting fingered.


Freak.

@atrainpsu: A couple of options this week, no? Bills, Niners, Cowboys, maybe the Colts, maybe the Giants?

NO -1
GB +8
Cle +8
Phi -1.5

Are those all good legs?

Meh, not the best person to ask, but...

Historical data doesnt seem to like going from 7/8 to 14.5/15.5, so I'd have to wait those out a little and see.

Indy is okay.

Giants need to move closer to 3 for it to be where Ben liked the cowboys 2 weeks ago. I'm sure he is better at this me.

i only ask because my db has some pretty serious problems, but for me 7/8 to 14.5/15.5 works out well > 1994 (2pt conv). all it takes is digging a tiny bit deeper to see problems and all these #s in my DB covered just the spread at a rate > 50% so i was looking for a 2nd opinion

my #s:
-3.5 to -3 inclusive, covering 3.5 71.3%
-3.5, covers -3.5 45.6%
-3, covers -3 49%

7.5 to 8.5 inclusive, covering 14.5 72.3%
7.5, covers 14.5 75.2%
8, covers 14.5 73.1%
8.5, covers 14.5 67.5%
7.5, covers 7.5 54.3%
8, covers 8 52.3%
8.5, covers 8.5 48%

Should have teased Indy with Jax...

<3

Just for disclosure, my thoughts on teasers are very different to virtually all the sharp people who post online.

I posted some thoughts on the current teaser market back in October

http://www.sharpsportsbetting.com/fo...oframes/read/4

Bulk analysis (database closers) that is being used in this thread has some severe problems that would take a whole book to get into.

Assuming every +2.5 home dog is EXACTLY the same 1994-2009 is frankly stunning in an evolving market.

Does anyone NOT think that the market has not only caught up to home dogs post 2003 but has probably overvalued them as the subset became more public?

If you seriously believe a +2.5 HD in 2000 is the same as a +2.5 HD in 2009 then you might want to adjust your thinking.

My own opinion is that Wong/BS teasers played blindly will be (at best) marginal winners going forward with a ****load of variance.

D.

I'm going to say that this thread isn't about Wong teasers.

In addition, I also think that going from thinking X subset is undervalued to X subset is overvalued is lol. I would think that the general sharp (ie, big NFL mover) modus operandi is to eliminate inefficiency, not to introduce inefficiency in the opposite direction.

Dreamer, I give you credit for making a well organized post, but for some reason I was reminded of The Puppy Who Lost His Way

And my post wasnt really about Wong teasers either but its important to discuss in context.

My post (and the link to the post in OCT) suggests that to win with teasers going forward at a decent rate you need to think beyond just blind subsets.

IMHO you need superior analysis.

Just reading results from a Don Best closing line is something that anyone can do.

I know I am "out there" but thats OK. If I came to the same exact conclusions as the vast majority of the sharps in a market I would probably be not betting that market.

It was only a few short years ago that we were told that betting NFL home dogs blindly was the way to riches.

D.

The home dog type subsets and teaser subsets are apples and oranges. I don't really doubt that NFL lines have gotten more efficient and will always be getting more efficient. But teasers as fixed odds derivatives are a different beast altogether.

if home dogs +2.5 do well, that leads to teasers on home dogs +2.5 doing well too.

I don't disagree, I continue to bet a lot of teasers.

The problem is that a lot of the SSB teaser work was based on blind subsets.

It was not suprising that short home dogs +1.5-+2.5 were some of the best teasers subsets.

If we agree with your assertion that "NFL lines have gotten more efficient"
Then surely a year 2000 +1.5 HD would probably be closer in value to PK WA in 2009

It's not surprsing that without the extra subset line value WONG teasers have underperformed over the past several years.

If you agree that "NFL lines have gotten more efficient" then all we are left with is seeking to gain 20% covers vs the WA line.

Thats pretty tough blindly against WA lines.

Give me a WA HD +2 -110 which I have as a 52% play and I can turn that into a decent winner played via teasers.

Give me a WA HD +2 -110 which I have as a 48% play and even a teaser can't save it long term.

As I said. I know this is "out there" and I will probably never play enough teasers in my lifetime to have a statistically decent sample to show anything.

The uncertainties/variance of sportsbetting is what makes it beatable.

If we were so certain of everything we bet many more advantage players would be attacking sportsbetting.

D.

I'm not sure I follow your line here. If the lines are more efficient than 10-15 years ago, and we agree they are, then there must, be value in [Wong] teasers.

If your point is only that teams that were +2.5 before are now PK [an assumption] so we are missing a valuable subset, then that's fine as far as it goes, I suppose [and teams that were -1.5 may now be +1.5 also!].

But if the market is definitively more efficient, than teasers should work well [and perhaps better] and be less volatile than before, not necessarily moreso as you infer/state.

The mistake you are making is that an efficient market is equally applied to every line and subset.

Normally an efficient market tends to plug the holes first that are well known.

Holes are often plugged slowly. Short CBB home favs have been interesting.

Even better look at CBB double digit road favs.

The market has constantly underestimated the talent differential between the much better team and the home team.

Blind subsets can win but you have to look at why the market is overvaluing a spot.

If not, its musical chairs. You only know you don't have a chair until long after the music stops. (wins till it doesn't)

D.