Sharp Snobbery Woof Woof

Sharp Snobbery Woof Woof It seems to me that alot of you guys are really snobs when it comes to winning on dogs. Like, that's what makes a "sharp" vs a "square"...????...who gives a shit whether it takes a bet on a favorite or a dog, isn't the point to all of this to just make some $$$$$$$ ???? Maybe someone can give a good definition of what defines a sharp and what defines a square. There's got to be more to it than a sharp going for dogs week after week....yes that can give you a greater range of greater value, but it seems to me that a sharp is also someone who is willing to go with change, with what is currently happening in the market, even if it is against everything they know. Just cause a guy wins a maverick bet that seems to be totally out in left field, and maybe does that week after week with winning percentages, does that make him a sharp? Yeah, you look like a genius with a win and a lame ass with a loss. No one is immune from that. Anyone who gets tunnel vision and gets in a rut in their handicapping methods is going to get stung sooner or later. It seems to me that the sharpest of the sharp are those who remain open to all possibilities.....even double digit favs covering every weekend! Perish the thought....

I don't know. I think this opinion is as stereotypical as what people consider squares to be. Here is a concise version as I see it: Sharps use logic to make selections. ("Less parity in the NFL this year means that, all else being equal, DD favorites are more likely to cover.") Squares use emotion. ("They're due!")

Sharps don't have preferences for dogs or faves. But they end up on dogs a little bit more because squares DO have some preference for faves, and that preference tends to nudge the line a little, creating value on the other side. It isn't about "snobbery." It's about value. But if you think double-digit faves are going to cover every weekend--or double-digit dogs, or home teams getting 3 to 6 points, or jockeys in blue silks, or diamond flush draws--then you are a square. OBV you've bet a lot of big faves lately and are proud of yourself, and then you come here and feel, what, disrespected? You know what? I've been on the Colts every weekend and am already on them against SF. But what I'm NOT doing is betting on them because they're the fave. Or feeling proud for being on them. Or feeling disrespected because maybe most sharps weren't. It isn't about that.

Sharps get the best lines, its not about faves vs dogs. If your portfolio last week consisted of NE -15, Indy -14.5, NO -7, Pitt -6, Dall -6 you are a square who got lucky and will lose long run. Hope that helps.

Sharp football analysis was on all of the above (except NO) and he is 67% over the last 3 years. I have made serious bank off him. I should tell him to change his name to Square Football Analysis. Oh he has AZ-9 this week already. Square

[QUOTE=tribecalledjeff;7468]Sharp football analysis was on all of the above (except NO) and he is 67% over the last 3 years. I have made serious bank off him. I should tell him to change his name to Square Football Analysis. Oh he has AZ-9 this week already. Square[/QUOTE] I think what Calsport was saying is that if you had those lines, you waited too long to get them. Sharp Football Analysis released all of those games you mentioned at a time to get lines that were better than those which Calsport posted (as the closing, I presume). I agree w/ Calsport to an extent, in that the "sharpest" guy will hit the lines before they move and will have the best numbers. But Calsport, are you pretending to say that Ind-15 was "square"? I completely disagree. While Ind was clearly the right side (sharp?) getting them when they were -13 instead of -15 was certainly the "sharper" move. But when you know that a team will dominate the game completely, getting them at -13 and again at -14 and again at -15 is "sharp" in my book. When books raise their limits by the weekend, and the line is Ind -14.5, laying max wagers on Ind at that point, in hindsight, was certainly not "square". I've shared my opinion on this before. Sharp is getting good lines that have value and winning a solid rate. I'm all for getting the very best number possible, it's a huge part of sportsbetting. But just because Ind moves from -13 to -15 did not mean that siding with Indy, regardless of the line movement, was "square". On the contrary...

[QUOTE=tribecalledjeff;7468]Sharp football analysis was on all of the above (except NO) and he is 67% over the last 3 years. I have made serious bank off him. I should tell him to change his name to Square Football Analysis. Oh he has AZ-9 this week already. Square[/QUOTE] You're still not getting it. Sharp does not mean dog. Sharp means right side, fave OR dog. That's it. Because faves tend to average being a little bit overpriced, sharps tend to be a little more often on dogs. But it's only because of the overpricing, NOT because they're dogs. The public does tend to overbet big faves (for emotional, psychological reasons). IF you studied the ATS history of, say, double-digit football faves, and you found out that they only covered at a 48% rate, would you then understand why sharps have a 52% tendency to be on the other side?

And explain to us why AZ -9 is square. Because unless there are -8.5s out there, none of us get it. Are you saying it's the square side just because it's a fave? Then you aren't understanding any of this. If a bettor is just going "oh, well, gee whiz, AZ is better, so, uh, I'll bet them, what are they? -9, okay, fine, whatever," then they're square. If a better has made an analysis that AZ should be -12, and so bets them -9, but backs off at -10, then he's at least trying to be sharp. Here's what's going on: people who don't know how to win at this game in the long run, have had a good short run. So they're happy and proud and do NOT want to hear anything other than "you're so smart!" I had Indy, Pitt, Phil and N.O. this past weekend. You know how I feel? Lucky.

Anybody at 67% over a three year span is clearly not correct. Go check the math again Jeff. Maybe he played Pats -1000...

[QUOTE=Justin1820;7487]Anybody at 67% over a three year span is clearly not correct. Go check the math again Jeff. Maybe he played Pats -1000...[/QUOTE] It's been documented and it's been discussed on this site. I've been following him for 3 years. It's right. I've made the money and it's real. Believe it or not, I don't give 2 shits.