First post here, mostly just gather info,

First post here, mostly just gather info, but it is very hard not to notice that many "reputable" football handicappers are being so far off with plays, and their numbers. I get an email of generally pretty solid (at least in the past) "Smart Guys" who are less than 30 to 40% in their "Packages" of one kind or another and since I am not a handicapper and don't pay for plays I really feel for some of those who do. Say you are too busy to spend 10-12 hours a day doing handicapping, so you pay an "expert" to do it for you. OUCH, week after week.

So far off? I'm confused. Fezzik has a winning record this year. Alf has a winning record this year in football and other sports. Shooter has a winning record in most sports. 53-54% against average lines is damn good. Fools come here looking for 70%

[QUOTE=sean1;32261]So far off? I'm confused. Fezzik has a winning record this year. Alf has a winning record this year in football and other sports. Shooter has a winning record in most sports. 53-54% against average lines is damn good. Fools come here looking for 70%[/QUOTE] How the hell is 53% damn good? That's barely beating juice, assuming you never, ever buy 1/2 point. It also assumes you spend zero to obtain information. Whether it's buying plays or paying to go on a forum such as this. These guys charge for info and to access the forum. I hope most people here don't pat them hard on the back and give an "atta boy" for hitting 53% like you seem to think is "damn good". Wow is all I can say. Did you attend Fez's seminar? Is that where he taught that 53% is damn good? I must have missed that lesson.

If you consider $25 paying, you should probably not gamble. $25 is a rounding error on a dinner. 53% against widely available lines is 54-55% vs best available lines. Throw in some -105 or better and you have a very very profitable subset. What percent would you like to see them hit? And if you buy half points, you will have a better record than the posted one.

I don't know what you're looking for. Although we all look to accomplish hitting higher than 53%, some years are just like that where you don't. I'm sure that Fezz had to have hit over 60% to win the Hilton contest the last two years. It's not like we are trying to lose. Stick around and win some money. Welcome to the board.

[QUOTE=TheRef;32260]but it is very hard not to notice that many "reputable" football handicappers are being so far off with plays, and their numbers. I get an email of generally pretty solid (at least in the past) "Smart Guys" who are less than 30 to 40% in their "Packages" of one kind or another and since I am not a handicapper and don't pay for plays I really feel for some of those who do. Say you are too busy to spend 10-12 hours a day doing handicapping, so you pay an "expert" to do it for you. OUCH, week after week.[/QUOTE] I would pay A LOT of money for any handicapper who could win only 30% to 40% of his plays in his packages against widely available lines anywhere close to -110. To become very good at something takes what, 10,000 hours, is that the rule? There's a book titled Outliers, written by Malcolm Gladwell, that says that success in any field takes 10,000 hours, or about 5 to 10 years (40 to 20 hours a week). [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29[/URL] IMO, it takes years, and some mentorship, in whatever form (forums, books [good luck finding more than one or two worth a darn in sports gambling], and some SUCCESSFUL people in the business who are willing to have you around) to help make you financially successful doing it the right way (not ripping people off).

Tradermac tip of the day for newbies. Ask yourself who you would have bet on in the upcoming game if you were betting before you knew much about sports. Then pick the other team.

[QUOTE=TheRef;32260]but it is very hard not to notice that many "reputable" football handicappers are being so far off with plays, and their numbers. I get an email of generally pretty solid (at least in the past) "Smart Guys" who are less than 30 to 40% in their "Packages" of one kind or another and since I am not a handicapper and don't pay for plays I really feel for some of those who do. Say you are too busy to spend 10-12 hours a day doing handicapping, so you pay an "expert" to do it for you. OUCH, week after week.[/QUOTE] Keep an eye on TheRef's posts. My guess is sooner rather than later he will slip in a reference to a service he has some connection with and can make some money from.

[QUOTE=sean1;32263]If you consider $25 paying, you should probably not gamble. $25 is a rounding error on a dinner. 53% against widely available lines is 54-55% vs best available lines. Throw in some -105 or better and you have a very very profitable subset. What percent would you like to see them hit? And if you buy half points, you will have a better record than the posted one.[/QUOTE] There are a lot of people out there who can hit in the 50% range. A lot. They lose a little each season. There is very little advantage for them to pay for plays that hit 53-54%. Now, if you were talking north of 55%, in the 55-57% range, then yes, that becomes of some value. Most people who pay for information should expect to see more than 53-54% or they should look elsewhere. And if you are trying to tell me that professional gamblers who throw down tens of thousands a week could make decent money on 54%, I'll tell you that there are way better sources of info that those people could buy than a 53% handicapper. So regardless of how big your bankroll, I think heeding/paying for advice from a 53% handicapper is not information worth having, regardless of the exact price. If you bet small, its not going to make you any profit. If you bet big, you can afford significantly better information.

Never thought of it that way Ice Tea. I CAN afford to buy the "better" information, but I guess I'm just too cheap to spend more than $25 per month. Gambling for me is more of a hobby, so I'd really hate to pay $500 (or more) a month unless I were going to step up my bets. With my business doing ok right now, I'd rather focus there - as I know I'll make a profit. Still, there's a lot of truth in your post.