NFL Week 4 Jets +7

Sorry Anthony. But when you post a pick, you grade it at the number that was WA at the time of the post. But hey, I am all for Kimlee grading his NFL plays against the closing number. I will lay -1500 that he ends up with negative units (even using -102) with a minimum of 50 picks. And it would please me greatly to see ol' Kim with a losing record.

Kim, love you bro, but if everyone grades their own stuff like you. I mean come on, talk about confusing.

[QUOTE=Jackie Peanuts;4059]you grade at the number that was WA at the time of the post.[/QUOTE] No, not if you agree to grade it at close! That is the simple old-fashioned method. It works especially well when handicappers submit picks at different times in a forum or contest. Otherwise people need to check in real-time to see whether lines were truly available. Then handicappers who release at different times will have different records. People who don't appreciate this simply haven't monitored before, or haven't thought this through. Anthony already noted earlier controversy with monitoring Fezzik. My only exception to the closing line is using the same line as Fezzik if he releases before close. If that is hard to understand then you probably don't have a bright future in sports betting. Besides, this won't make a difference 98% of the time. I monitored Fezzik in his first season at SSB. Originally we came to an agreement about release times, because I wasn't going to look for his picks 24/7. As I recall there may have been a couple spontanteous picks that I didn't count because they were not released when I agreed to look. Since this was inconvenient, we agreed to switch to grading at the close. Either way is fine, but switching methods is confusing. Fezzik often releases real-time picks when lines are deteriorating. But he also releases anti-public games where the lines are improving. In these cases he recommends betting late, at close or an hour before close. By using the same line as Fezzik, I get the advantage of his shopping with no incremental work. We also get the advantage of consistency, and an external judge of lines. It is important to be simple and lazy on stuff that doesn't matter. The purpose of this exercise is to illustrate these issues and provide a role model for handicappers who aren't yet tracking their own records.

Any monitoring service I've ever seen is: You must submit your play on a certain line that is available at the time of submission, and your play is graded on that line. Same with any number of contests such as wagerline or other. So if the Jets line moves to 7.5, you'll take that. But if it moved to 6.5, you'd take that? Much easier would be to say: "I like the Jets at +7 now, but I will wait to see if I can get a better line closer to gameday." The only thing "confusing" about monitoring is your scheme here. For anyone else, like OS for example: we know what the line is now, we know if he's getting a line that is available or making something up. And he is graded on the line he took at the time of posting, assuming it was available at the time. When everyone in the forum grades that way and then you come up with this "alternative plan", I hope you realize everyone will likely not "buy in" to your strategy. If you happen to go 55% while picking games like this, it would likely not impress most here as much as it would if you just posted your play at the time you actually bet the game, and at the line you bet it at. Again, no problem with saying now that you like the Jets but want a better number. But making your "official" play now, and then grading it on a TBD line in several days is unconventional and causes confusion, despite what you think or believe.