TEXAS -4 1/2

[gman2]

If the Queen had a pair she'd be King.

The only reason I'm in this thread giving it back is because two weeks in a row I have to listen to people tell me my theory is BS. Consider it tough love more than anything else. People that don't realize the house makes lines/line moves in order to set up the average player need to know there is more to these games than "bad luck". Sure, they don't hit every time, nothing does, but don't tell us that picking games against the public/line move is BS and isn't handicapping. I used to read trend sheets and the sports section like they held the secret to winning each and every pick....and I lost every year. When I started looking for lines that seemed "wrong" I started winning.

Rant over.

No disrespect to Sun. I apologize, but I am passionate about this.

Good luck guys.

if you really think 86% were on texas, (as your thread indicates) then you dont have any grasp of math, sample sizes, and what it would conceivably take for 86% of bets to be on a given team. i know over a posting forum that comes across as calling you out or calling you stupid. thats not it at all. but its really not even mathematically possible for 86% to be on a given side. not to mention these utterly preposterous numbers youve posted for sunday. 93% new england? 88% denver. 89% pittsburgh. thats not even remotely possible if you grasp random sampling. thats why i think this anti-public thing is becoming a parody of itself. avoiding public sides is one thing. using completely preposterous, almost mathematically impossible, numbers to rationalize a play is quite another,

 

[LET'S EAT!!!]

gmroz22- let me start by saying congrats to u and everyone else who was on nebraska +pts:142hail: ....unfortunately i was on texas....not becuz it was a "public play" or whatever,but becuz i capped the game using a system i trust and i came up with texas by 11.5....it was wrong i was wrong....believe it or not that happens....that all being said,what i have a hard time with what u say is that u play a game based on line movements & public $ or %'s solely(if i understand u correctly)....simple contrarian methodology correct?....although i do agree with using contrarian elements as a tool in capping,to say or rant again and again that it is "the" way to cap a game is a little over the top imo....again i dont think ur theory is BS.....but to pick a game solely on that theory,if thats what u do,is ridiculous imo....i've been around here a few years and i can tell u that gman2 and myself have butted heads over this issue and he was on the contrarian side of the discussion....so make no mistake,he agrees with what ur saying more than u think with regards to the "value" of contrarian methodology....i think that he just knows that there are other elements to capping besides that that have to be considered....and although u dont appear to agree much but trends are one of them....i dont know how long u been coming around here and i know gman doesnt need me to defend him but u need to know that he is one of the more objective guys on here and does make an effort to give his input objectively....i dont agree with him many times but i do listen to what he has to say cuz of his objectivity....he has a knack for bringing up a point or angle that usually gets overlooked in some discussions around here....believe it or not i've learned a thing or two from him as well.....just try to keep an open mind and hey if ur contrarian theory is what works for u so be it....it doesnt for me "solely"....theres more to it for me....good luck and enuff of my shit spew

 

[Jayhawk_Thor]

I gotta take Mroz's side here, fellas.

Maybe the numbers posted are wrong, they probably are... but when you know (through posted numbers/common sense) that one side is a heavy public favorite, and the line moves against that... I think that is a valuable indication of value. When that happens with a side that I already have circled, that is going to be a play for me 7 days a week.

The games I can think of off the top of my head that fit that?
Texas at Nebraska (Winner)
Florida at Auburn (Winner)
Missouri at Texas A&M (Winner)
Akron at Central Michigan (Winner)

I have made good money using this system along with my regular handicapping (I believe both need to be present).

I agree that this cant be used all the time, and one needs a keen eye to spot where and when to use it... bit it sounds like some people on here want to negate it like it isnt a viable tool... I think that is a big mistake (i know you dont fall in that category, gman). It's just another tool that is very effective, IMO.

 

[blgstocks]

I had a thread about line movements and buddywright came in and offered a very interesting point of view that I am pretty sure many on this board had yet to consider, at least I hadnt considered all of it.

As for gmroz a guy that picks two plays over two weeks and then talks shit to another poster who has picked many more winners here than you have is ridiculous. And the two you picked to cite were the best, Auburn -2 (which I was on and honestly felt that it was beggin for Fla money, and I, like gman felt lucky to get the cover)
and Nebraska, (which I said I thought Texas would win but the line movement seemed funky and so i stayed off of it, and happy i did, even though I thought Texas was going to win by 10+)
So I am saying these things to you not to pat myself on the back but to say I to believe in reading into the line and movement, and agree with you on some points but 1. to base your whole betting strategy on fading publc lines on %'s that you cant be sure of and 2. talkin shit to another poster after you win just the one are both IMO ridiculous

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Gman: I don't get it. Are you telling me that the numbers put up by the sites are junk? Okay, if that's it, I'm listening. But if you are saying it's mathematically impossible for one side to receive 90% of the bets, I'm going to disagree. I use Sportsbook for most of my info and sometimes use SpotsInsights if I want back up. (SEE BELOW)

If the numbers are manufactured (I doubt it) and you have proof, fine. If you think the numbers are made up, fine. It is a tool I use, just like the guys here that use trends going back to 2003. Whatever makes you comfortable/money with a play is what works. I choose to use this. Let everyone else comb through the newsletters sent out by the books. Contradiction? Maybe. But this has been working and I keep winning with it.

Let's Eat: You obviously think that my methodolgy is wrong. That's fine. You claim that my strategy is "ridiculous" in the same post where you say that you believe in using contrarian elements. Seems hypocritical.

I'm talking about two games that have EXTREMELY suspect lines/movements. I don't fade the public on every play, but I love plays where the bets go one side and the line holds pat. I also love these college games that seem too easy (hello Auburn and Nebraska).

I post my plays for the Handicapping Contest I'm in every week, so I'm not afraid to put myself out there. If people want to criticize my plays, I'm all for it. I'm not posting for my health. I want people to bring something to the table that I've never thought of....that's why I post here. When people quote BS trends and defensive statistics, I ge bored/ill.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

As for gmroz a guy that picks two plays over two weeks and then talks shit to another poster who has picked many more winners here than you have is ridiculous. And the two you picked to cite were the best, Auburn -2 (which I was on and honestly felt that it was beggin for Fla money, and I, like gman felt lucky to get the cover)
and Nebraska, (which I said I thought Texas would win but the line movement seemed funky and so i stayed off of it, and happy i did, even though I thought Texas was going to win by 10+)
So I am saying these things to you not to pat myself on the back but to say I to believe in reading into the line and movement, and agree with you on some points but 1. to base your whole betting strategy on fading publc lines on %'s that you cant be sure of and 2. talkin shit to another poster after you win just the one are both IMO ridiculous

Okay blgstocks: Read through my posts (outside of this thread). I think you'll find that I look for certain things and I don't necessarily always fade the public. I look for opportunity.

The only reason I bring up these two games (Auburn and Nebraska) is because they were 1. the fishiest and 2. the ones that basically had other people calling me moronic for picking against. if people are going to define my reasoning as "laughable" and "ridiculous", I feel I have every right ot come back and say hello.

EDIT: Also, I don't know what the point is about saying that the other person has picked more winners here than I have. We're talking theory and you don't have a clue about my betting history and I've only been a member for 2 months. Since I joined, I have posted my plays here on a weekly basis and I think I am running well enough to throw my two cents in.

 

[LET'S EAT!!!]

gmroz22- let me clarify again....i'm not saying ur methodology is wrong....i just think that there is more involved in handicapping a game then just a contrarian theory that i've seen u banter about more than once recently as a sole stragedy....and just becuz i use it as one of many different elements that i use in selecting a play doesnt mean im being hypocritical.....if anything it says we agree on the importance of it....geez....im sorry but yes to base a play on this solely is ridiculous in my opinion.....but u seemed to clarify it for the first time in ur last post that u dont fade the public like this in every play but i got the impression by reading some of ur recent posts that it was.....whatever works for u man....maybe i misunderstood u....if so my bad