Money Talks Plays

I think the side-bet was on line movement. Not sure how they're gonna quantify that, since there's more value on moves off key numbers. Packers are showing 3.5s, so I'd think Fezz would be well ahead there, too.

[QUOTE=JohnnyGun;11490]I took Fezz. It was a 2 weight! SHrink went 1-3 including best bet loser and Fezz 1-1, I think.[/QUOTE] I'm actually calling my own bad on this. Tournament strategy is always different from normal play and Fezzik is a tournament expert. My statement was based on the short seven-picks format. However, upon reflection, I'm sure that a superior tournament player has a genuine edge. No slight toward Shrink intended in this. He's very good. But Fezzik is a true tournament pro.

[QUOTE=anthony;11499]I'm actually calling my own bad on this. Tournament strategy is always different from normal play and Fezzik is a tournament expert. My statement was based on the short seven-picks format. However, upon reflection, I'm sure that a superior tournament player has a genuine edge. No slight toward Shrink intended in this. He's very good. But Fezzik is a true tournament pro.[/QUOTE] tournament pros dont make massive hedge bets i.e. 2008 lvh contest.

Wrong Tourney Pros chop ALL THE TIME, when they get a good chop deal that is in their favor. Protecting a contest with a +7.5 hedge bet on an NFL game I had no opinion on lined at 7.1 is hardly a questionable move. It's not like I fired a -110 bet into a market line when I liked the other side. Square sharp poker pros never chop. The true sharps say "I will take 2nd place, the rest of you chop" or something like it, they look to INCREASE their edge with a deal, and they will certainly make a deal that keeps their edge the same. Unless someone was a gambling action addict type, why wouldn't they? Mathematically, we want to REDUCE variance when we have an edge, it maximizes bankroll growth.

Of course. Tournament play incorporates inordinately high variance and the pros are always dealing and maneuvering to reduce that negative.

The Packers line was already a heavily shaded 3 at the time these plays were made, so the actual line move on the Packers has only been about 5 cents.

That's what I meant about hard to quantify. Fezzik's bet for the contest is, ostensibly, -3/-110. So a closing -3.5/-110 is a significant move. Are they factoring in that it was -3/-120 or so at the time of the pick? Who knows? We ran into this problem constantly when trying to grade picks in other efforts. That's why we don't do it here. It's a full-time job and even then there's controversy.

a little ridiculous that they be so called. I would never follow anyone special but these guys seemed to have accomplished a lot in the sports betting field alone, let alone the success of their websites.

[QUOTE=cowboys;11455]Ok, how about a basic question. Is it the 1)computer picking the games 2)his Math Skills 3)His inside information 4)or something else[/QUOTE] Cowboy, did you use to be with Bruce W. in Tarzana?

[QUOTE=anthony;11536]That's what I meant about hard to quantify. Fezzik's bet for the contest is, ostensibly, -3/-110. So a closing -3.5/-110 is a significant move. Are they factoring in that it was -3/-120 or so at the time of the pick? Who knows? We ran into this problem constantly when trying to grade picks in other efforts. That's why we don't do it here. It's a full-time job and even then there's controversy.[/QUOTE] Gotcha. GB -3 -110 is a great bet for contest purposes but one very difficult to make for significant money unless one bets with Dan Gordon's "Sloppy Strawberry Duck Breath" who had the outlaw -2.5 line. For line movement purposes, it's probably easiest to use Pinnacle's line at the time of the bet and the Pinnacle closing line, which would eliminate a lot of controversy, as it's trivially easy to find a Pinnacle line feed.