Week16 Fezzik Thread

[QUOTE=Happy John;36052]Excellent post Sean. I agree. Fezzik, is your new focus going to be primarily 2H betting?[/QUOTE] May not be a new focus, meaning he's been doing a lot with them already. Sean's points are excellent, and if you read between the lines, you'll be able to do quite well next year. I'd like it if someone could explain how this is "different" from a few years ago when favorites covered the whole season at, what, a 56% clip? How was that a fluke but this a genuine trend? Another key thing to extend the viability of this phenomenon: A lot of people bet on the whole game so during the game they have something to root for. If the successful sports gambler wins money from these people, then you need THESE people to bet on 2H, quarters etc. I don't see how you do that. But as I've harped on before, it we can get in-game betting to proliferate, we'll all be able to retire.

I think the internet has really changed things. For years, the public played good teams and dogs were inflated (even more so at home since away faves had lower lines enticing more people to play them). Well the internet has told everyone home dogs hit 52% or whatever. The public is dumb, but eventually if you keep telling them they change what they play, the lines move, and now faves do better. In terms of team totals and halves, we'd think we need the public to play them, but the truth is books just dont put a ton of time into them since limits are lower and they make up so little of the handle. Also, they are often automated so 49 lands at 24.5 with no thought... 49 may be no different than 48.5, but 24.5 is a lot different than 24.

FYI YTD ATS NFL Only Favorites - 110 - 46% Dogs - 119 - 50% Push - 9 - 4% Overs - 134 - 56% Unders - 100 - 42% Push - 4 - 2% This is thru yesterday, how many times each has covered ATS.

cue the 'ss fezzik'

Clearly a retrospective subset, but what is the record of New England, Indy, New Orleans, Atlanta, Pitt, Balt, Philly, etc or maybe another way to ask, what is the record of playoff teams as faves vs non playoff teams or what is the record of faves -7 or more? I could care less about STL being favored over SF, but when I see New England bet down from 9 to 7 vs Buffalo, I see it as a gift.

[QUOTE=sean1;36059]Clearly a retrospective subset, but what is the record of New England, Indy, New Orleans, Atlanta, Pitt, Balt, Philly, etc or maybe another way to ask, what is the record of playoff teams as faves vs non playoff teams or what is the record of faves -7 or more? I could care less about STL being favored over SF, but when I see New England bet down from 9 to 7 vs Buffalo, I see it as a gift.[/QUOTE] You can't ask this question in week 17. I'd be willing to wager every single year of the nfl that playoffs teams are very good ATS against non-playoff teams. There's a reason why they're playoff teams after all. We don't know who the playoff teams are starting the year, if we did then sure we would wager on them every week. Chances are they would cover more then not.

[QUOTE=sean1;36059]Clearly a retrospective subset, but what is the record of New England, Indy, New Orleans, Atlanta, Pitt, Balt, Philly, etc or maybe another way to ask, what is the record of playoff teams as faves vs non playoff teams?[/QUOTE] Agree with justin here. This is silly. You could do this any season and the playoff teams would have a good ATS record. What about teams like DAL, MIN and SD that everyone thought would be playoff teams at the beginning of the season. How did they do ATS?

[QUOTE=Rumpelstiltskin;36079]Agree with justin here. This is silly. You could do this any season and the playoff teams would have a good ATS record. What about teams like DAL, MIN and SD that everyone thought would be playoff teams at the beginning of the season. How did they do ATS?[/QUOTE] In case any guys are NOT familiar with Sean....lets just say buyer beware. And that is as kind as it can be put. Good luck men.

Seriously behind on LVA, or I'd be in here commenting. But after a quick look, it appears you're all reacting very well to a pretty lousy run. One of the greatest blackjack players and best pros I've ever known used to say, "you're never as good as you think you are when you win, or as bad as you think you are when you lose." I think that applies here. I'll be back when I get LVA to press.