[/QUOTE]

Do me a favor then and explain why I'm wrong.

without having to spoonfeed you, re read your statement until you realise what's wrong with it:

Exhibit A, quote by KaiserSose on 10/19/11:

As for all of this talk of market efficiency, keep in mind only a small percentage of the football betting pool is focused on teasers. Yes, the bookmakers have to account for them but I'm sure the action from the squares and even sharps on the spread grossly outweighs the action on the teasers so first and foremost the concern is making sure those lines are efficient. Also just because a line is efficient at -8.5, doesn't mean it will be equally efficient when teased -2.5.

debate is good keep it up, who knows someone here may learn something new

Yeah debate is great when there is nobody with a clue who cares to put everyone in their place anymore and it's the blind leading the blind.

Garbage Man,

That paragraph only serves to support my main point and relates little to what I was hoping you would disprove, but to indulge you: yes, obviously my wording was careless and the point of wong teasers is that their lines are statistically inefficient, hence their value. Who cares. How does that disprove some legs within the wong range may be better than others?

Boot: Please put me in my place, seriously.

This forum is way beneath 2p2 standards in terms of helpfulness, humor, content and intelligence. A few great guys here, but a lot of unneeded douchebaggery by people who think they are a lot funnier than they are

its pretty hilarious though how the simplest concept ever in the history of sports betting prolly has 10,000 posts on this forum

like what is so hard about this

@kasiser are you aware of books having to shade their lines to discourage basic strategy teasing?

Why should I help you when you say such hurtful things about my HOME FORUM?? Not to mention you couldn't be more wrong about the intelligence part.


Next thing you know it is going to get out that I don't text as often as other members do here and will be called a gigantic loser. But that's not even funny.

they say prozac works wonders

Should be somewhat irrelevant if you are a decent line shopper and can make picks between movements or on well priced books to fade the shading. Even if you are limited to one book, shading would be applied equally to potential legs to prevent against the strategy, no? Doesn't really touch on my question.

Boot: Enough said. We get it, you're worthless.

Alright, continue discussing nothing. I'm done

Boots sorry if I offended you, just tired of the generally dismissive attitude here.

the right way to settle this is a capping contest so why not take this to the weekly teaser picks thread

what day of the week do you bet your teasers?

Yeah, I'm sorry if i offended you as well. Especially with asking you for $5,000. Didn't know you were on such hard times.

I mean, even the idiots here buy a Dodge RAM with their sports betting winnings.

BOL in the future.

my gosh... did I read people that want to add personal handicapping to their basic strategy teasers???

WTF?

Boot: Real shady and kind of proves my point about this forum. For the record, I was in college then (2-3 yrs ago) and not yet into sportsbetting. In fact I'm just getting into it, which is why when I asked for you to put me in my place I was not being sarcastic. Just trying to flesh out some ideas.

Myturn: not personal handicapping, rather a statistical data analysis. All things being equal if you have two teams with very different variances in terms of score, wouldn't you expect one to fall outside of the wong cover more than the other? And if so, how could books protect against this while maintaining the integrity of their non-teased lines.

Here's a less stupid newb question, maybe even what he's trying to get at based on last post

If the over under on the game is high 55 points then the teased points are worth less, and if it's low like 40 points the teased points are worth more

So everything making it a good or bad Wong teaser should be already incorporated into the over/under right


Anyone got any pointers where to draw the line(example 40% for correlated spread/over under parlays)

Kaiser brings up some interesting points

As noted by tTHAKID and others previously, the total does represent the range in most cases and the effects are small.
Team-by-team variance in scores is usually just noise in the data, but there could be a small effect.

On top of that, I'd advise to look at expected FG/TD scoring ratios.

Those effects are small, but could be significant in how much one bets on the games.

seriously, can't be said any more clearly.

if u r playing wong or BS teasers they r blindly profitable. no work required except in finding the "true" handicap and sizing ur bets. take that to whatever level u want tho.

if u r looking for breakeven legs as well then there is a bunch more to do. many clues and suggestions r covered by the many excellent (and funny) posters in this excellent, brilliant, best-forum-around forum.

i kinda think tho who cares what was called what in an old book, it's all petty quibbling over semantics. what's wrong with including all +EV teasers and just calling them teasers. it stops all the pointless arguing which happens in every teaser season.

whatever... yawn

Yeah, pretty meh. Just 6 of the 13 games and Seattle on the cusp.

How profitable are blind Wong teasers anyway?


Anyone got a large data sample and ROI?

pretty profitable if you can avoid the bad legs

but you have to do your homework

I asked if u do it blindly

Teasing all the +1.5, 2, 2.5 games

No that's never been posted or discussed in any way on this forum or this thread. There have been no links and there are no FAQs about this topic.