michael99000
michael99000
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2112
October 8th, 2017 at 12:10:01 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

So, ok. I'm apologizing for my credibility swipe. Not your fault the parlays you picked lost. As I said, honest mistake on the one mis-posted. Was a bit unhappy you didn't correct the error before game time, as I was going with your parlay picks, and the one that won was the one mis-posted. So you caught a few sour grapes you probably didn't deserve.

Yeah, also, I agree SM777 has been dogging you some, though imo it falls short of trolling. He's trying to be factual in his criticism of your methods. However, I think you and he may be losing things in translation, and I'm ignorant of the argot and implications of sports betting, so I've stopped short of adminning your threads and his criticisms. Mission, who does understand better than I do, has already stepped in once, so I've asked him to look at the threads again. On the face of it, I say again, SM777 has stopped short of trolling you, imo.

Your best course of action is to prove him wrong. 8-3 or 7-3 or whatever (saw both claimed) is pretty profitable. Nice job! Is it repeatable? Consistent? Are you perhaps a little sloppy on some of the details he's calling you out on? If you can use what's constructive and ignore the rest to show a better product, that only makes you look good.


What was the score of the Notre Dame game when he posted his revised parlay that included them ?
SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 762
October 8th, 2017 at 7:14:51 AM permalink
Quote: JoelDeze

My College Record is (BELOW):

Non-Wager Picks that Covered:

WON - Syracuse -170 ML

Wager Picks that Covered:

WON - Georgia -16.5 (+$100)
WON - Penn St. -13.5 (+$100)
WON - UL Monroe -6.5 (+$100)
WON - Miami FL -2.5 (+$100)
WON - Colorado St. (+$100)
WON - Wash St. -2.5 (+$250)
WON - UCF -16.5 (game is still considered final and they won by +28, covering) (nothing won nor lost as wager was terminated)
LOST - TCU -13.5 (-$110)
LOST - UTSA -12.5 (-$110)
LOST - Kentucky -9.5 (-$115)

Parlays

WON - Notre Dame -14.5, Texas Tech -16, Miami FL -2.5 (+$300)
LOST - Utah +3.5, Idaho -5.5, Texas Tech -16 (-$50)
LOST - Marshall -14, Fresno St. -17, Miami Fl -2.5 (-$50)

I went 7-3 on ATS wagered picks, 1-0 on ML picks not wagered on.

Overall 8-3 on picks, 1-2 on parlays.

Money won: $1,050
Money lost: $435

Net: +$615 (on all posted picks)

-----------

The parlays are clearly shown and the Notre Dame parlay is posted as of this morning.

THE JUICE IS LISTED IN THE ATS SPREADS!! READ BETTER!

If a line is -130/100 what do you think the juice is? Unbelievable......

Once again, I'm going to ask a Moderator to do something about SM777 for his trolling and genuine harassment on my threads. Everything I posted is visible and easy to read. If he can't read well that's not my fault. I'm really tired of the misinformation he provides and the constant false information he continues to post.

Finished the week +$906 and have screen shots of every wager, every outcome so if SM777 want's to go that route I'll disprove him yet again. I would have been $1,006 but the UCF as far as wagering goes did not reach mid 4th Q, even though it was final and the score is set with UCF winning by +28. So, annoying weather but I can't do anything about that.



I factually stated three things you did last year when posting picks. I didn't accuse you of doing it here in this thread today. I can't possibly imagine you'd post winners after the results again.

The damage was done in the Chiefs thread. I posted the link to prove your shortcomings when keeping an accurate record. Lying about juice, posting winners after the results, and throwing an NFL winner into your college record.

However, this whole parlay switcheroo is completely par for the course for you. I'm actually surprised it hadn't happened before.

Why is it trolling if I provided a link to the proof? I don't get it. You did all those things, own up to them. No bait/trolling here. Just factual information on what you did last season.
SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 762
October 8th, 2017 at 7:20:06 AM permalink
Link for those wondering if I actually have proof: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/sports/26907-college-football-picks-consolidated/6/#post562609

It's a free for all with JoelDeeze on pages 4, 5, and 6. Multiple members call him out for posting winners after the results, one member calls him out for adding Atlanta into his college record, another member has to calculate his losing week for him because he conveniently got busy during a week in which he got crushed and didn't have 45 seconds to calculate his losses, and another member calls him out for not posting about juice as he's just randomly buying points and posting lines not available to anyone.

This all comes full circle, because to begin that season Joel was touting his "free" advice or picks information website. In order to scam people into that, he had to appear better than he actually was. Hence the reason for adding NFL winners into a college record, posting lines with points bought but calling them -110, and posting winners after the results. For reference, one member even thanks him for his free login and password in the thread linked.

If I stopped one WoV member from getting scammed, then I did my job.

But, if you ask JoelDeeze, it is me who is trolling....
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 72
  • Posts: 6384
October 8th, 2017 at 7:36:00 AM permalink
Quote: JoelDeze



As for Troy they covered. At the time of the post they were at -21 and I bought to -19.5. Yes, I bought a full 1.5 points.



SM777, I think you are shorting him on his stupidest play. He bought 1.5 points in a college game.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
JoelDeze
JoelDeze
Joined: Apr 20, 2016
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 467
October 8th, 2017 at 7:37:52 AM permalink
SM777,

My explanation on that thread link was accurate. You and I will never agree.

This year I waited until week 6 to post in order to allow data to build.

Going forward, if I post a parlay, I will post the image as it contains all of the pertinent information to avoid mistakes.

As for this topic, you posted in it and instead of discussing the information and results in this thread you are trolling and discussing things related to last season and in my opinion are appearing to hijack the topic and turn it into something it is not.

Are you saying that the image I posted for parlays which shows all of the relevant information is fake or false? If so, please provide proof. Otherwise this is my picks thread. Talk about things pertaining to this thread only please.

Thanks.
Its a dog eat dog world out there and Im wearing milkbone underwear . Norm Peterson
SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 762
October 8th, 2017 at 7:48:48 AM permalink
Quote: JoelDeze

SM777,

My explanation on that thread link was accurate. You and I will never agree.

This year I waited until week 6 to post in order to allow data to build.

Going forward, if I post a parlay, I will post the image as it contains all of the pertinent information to avoid mistakes.

As for this topic, you posted in it and instead of discussing the information and results in this thread you are trolling and discussing things related to last season and in my opinion are appearing to hijack the topic and turn it into something it is not.

Are you saying that the image I posted for parlays which shows all of the relevant information is fake or false? If so, please provide proof. Otherwise this is my picks thread. Talk about things pertaining to this thread only please.

Thanks.



Honestly, I don't believe the posted parlays were fake. Would I be surprised if you were photoshopping and misguiding by changing parlays during the games, absolutely not. But again, I'm not going to sit here and accuse you of that, but the fact it happened raises a lot of eyebrows considering the many damaging things you've done during your record keeping.
SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 762
October 8th, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

SM777, I think you are shorting him on his stupidest play. He bought 1.5 points in a college game.



Wait, buying 1.5 points in a college football game with a total in the 60's isn't a sharp play?!? Haha!!! That's great.
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 72
  • Posts: 6384
Thanks for this post from:
SM777
October 8th, 2017 at 7:52:55 AM permalink
Quote: JoelDeze


Are you saying that the image I posted for parlays which shows all of the relevant information is fake or false? If so, please provide proof. Otherwise this is my picks thread. Talk about things pertaining to this thread only please.

Thanks.



I think what he is saying is that you didn't correct the parlay win until after the game started. How do we know that you would have corrected it if it was losing? I do believe that may have been an honest mistake but please don't bring up any results that were not posted or you will continue to lose credibility. to say things like "I went 6-0 in all of the other games I bet so I actually had a winning day" only makes you look bad. Keep your results to the games posted ahead of time and let the results speak for themselves.

BTW, good job on your college picks this week.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
JoelDeze
JoelDeze
Joined: Apr 20, 2016
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 467
October 8th, 2017 at 8:09:14 AM permalink
The past being the past, for any I offended, my sincerest apologies. For the mistake I made on the parlay yesterday, I apologize to anyone who took the 3 for 3 gambit to try and salvage the 1 parlay play I was personally looking for. I should have reviewed everything again but I did not.

Here is the final history from this week.






Last edited by: JoelDeze on Oct 8, 2017
Its a dog eat dog world out there and Im wearing milkbone underwear . Norm Peterson
gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 2605
October 8th, 2017 at 9:44:05 AM permalink
Your ATS ranking methodology seems to have an underlying assumption that nothing changes during the year to make a team have a different probability of beating the spread.

1. A team like Alabama almost never covers the spread when it is playing a cream puff team from a non-power-5 conference. The public expects Alabama to beat the creampuff by 40 pts -but 12 out of the last 12 times it has not happened. You can make a lot of money if you understand that.

Conversely, Alabama often beats the spread against an SEC team that is good but not great: the players get up for the game, or whatever.

Your ATS analysis will not pick up that pattern in Alabama's ATS performance.

2. The spread often underestimates the impact of injuries to players that occur in the last week or two -or the impact from the return of injured players.

3. The spread often overreacts to the previous week's performance -particularly when a team is surprisingly awful or surprisingly dominant. You might analyze how well teams do against the spread a week after they beat the spread by 14 points or a week after they failed to cover the spread by 14 points.

4. A new quarterback can improve greatly during a season (ditto for an offensive line or a defense with a new coordinator) -causing a team to underperform ATS early in the year and beat the spread later in the year.

I'm not saying that your ATS analysis is worthless -it will probably pick up some interesting trends. But "asking the right questions" is important to any mathematical analysis, and its not clear to me that you are asking the right questions.
So many better men, a few of them friends, were dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I.

  • Jump to: