A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

[TheShrimp]

Some of these thoughts came to me after reading Nick's & Nolan's columns, so that's why there's some of that flavor to them.

--Nick says the Rams are not done. They might not be out of the picture as far as the playoffs go, but all I care about is that they're still a good fade. I went against them weeks 2 and 3. They're not just "off" or out of sync. Losing Hakim and the decline of Bruce have been detrimental. Now that Faulk is dinged up, that's even worse. And whether its mental or physical with warner, he is not his old self. They're still getting TOO much respect. The cowboys were 8 pt dogs at Philly last week, and now they're a 12 pt dog at STL. Come on. What's it take? Yes, they will tear it up a couple of weeks this season, and the thought that they will eventually fall back into it is always there, but I think they're a great fade. If they whoop the boys this weekend, they'll be an even better fade next week because everyone will be saying, "they're back".

--NE's D was off last week. Guess what. Bruschi and Phifer were OUT (correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I saw). They're back this week, but listed as questionable right now. They're still nicked up.

--My sleeper teams were buff and det. I've played them both every week. Combined they're 3-3 ATS. Det might have been lucky to cover last week but buff was unlucky not to cover in week 1.

--announcers do not draw viewers. Boomer is great on the radio and I thought he was terrible on the TV. I don't think Michaels liked him at all. I suppose they thought the 80 million people who have Madden2003 would tune in to see him. They even have the video game replay on MNF!!! The people I know who play madden would rather play it on monday night than actually watch football.

--Lesser things than a big playoff loss and starting 0-2 have caused Kordell Stewart to fall into mental problems. The public hasn't caught up with this team yet. He's about 2 more losses from more tears.

--I think the Ravens are a good under for anything over 33 against ANYONE in the league. The D has played well and the O is totally anemic. Ray Lewis plays with a lot of pride and his "demise" in the 3-4 was overstated and has been offset by Boulware's improvement in that scheme. They're unlikely to score more than 13, and unlikely to give up more than 21. The 25 against TB involved NO offensive TD's for TB.

--I like Nolan's goldman angle. Mainly because that's a major part of how I cap games. Look for the line the public would LOVE and go against it. I bet this week goldman will recommend KC, SD, and probably CIN. Lupo said in that interview that they tend to split the squares and the sharps. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why the Goldman picks would be such a good angle. I'd worry that some of the members are "catching on" though. That Buff pick really surprised me last week. That didn't seem like a square play at all.

--I don't like some of Nolan's other angles. I agree with things like "bet against 2-0 teams." "bet against SB winners". That stuff makes sense -- a fade of an overreaction by bettors to past success. However, something like "bet UNDER in the second half when the 1H total is 17" or "bet OVER in the second half when the 1H total is 23" rub me the wrong way. That's the kind of stuff that just ARISES when flipping a coin. You have a sequence of OVERS come in, and you mine the data and find out that in a disproportionate amount of those overs, the total was 23 at the half. It has little logical foundation and may or may not continue. I'm not saying its a good fade, or criticizing Nolan for posting it. I'm just saying it seems like one is trying to tie a cause to an event that just arose from the nature of the random process.

What if I told you 6 point faves last season, a week BEFORE playing on astroturf were 10-2 ATS? (I made that up by the way). Is that something you'd bet on? There's a little more substance to some of those Nolan angles (like betting unders in blowouts) but some of them have this flavor to them.

--As to people e-mailing Nolan and criticizing him. Too funny. A guy does a ton of work, gives out FREE PLAYS, will be the first to tell you there are no guarantees and that winning at sports betting is difficult, and he's taking shit from chumps. The audacity to send something like that to him is off the chart. Besides, do your own friggin capping.

TheShrimp

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Re: A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

***First of all --- many good thoughts here, Shrimp. Thanks for posting. Let me explain a few things here with regards to your comments about the halftime plays:


--I don't like some of Nolan's other angles. I agree with things like "bet against 2-0 teams." "bet against SB winners". That stuff makes sense -- a fade of an overreaction by bettors to past success. However, something like "bet UNDER in the second half when the 1H total is 17" or "bet OVER in the second half when the 1H total is 23" rub me the wrong way. That's the kind of stuff that just ARISES when flipping a coin.

***With trends there are some that make perfect sense, and others that are totally useless. The vast majority fall SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN and may have validity, but it's still open to question. The thing I look for in trends is this -- IS THERE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR IT OCCURING? Example: Let's say the Colts are 4-16 ATS against the NFL West (I'm making this up). We can probably agree this is a totally useless trend. The Colts don't say to themselves, "oh no, we have to play the 49ers this week, we're dead!?" This is simply randomized variance -- where some numbers will be inflated out of proportion. However, lets take a trend that was interesting a few years ago -- where the Detroit Lions had no won in Washington in something like 50 years. Now, most of us would dismiss the results of the Greg Landdry-Sonny Jurgenson days, but the fact is -- there might be something about the travel sequence between these two cities, the difference in stadiums and field conditions, that makes Detroit have problems in Washington. Note that I am not CONVINCED this is so -- just saying that it's a possiblity. There are a lot of angles like this -- where there COULD be validity to them.

You have a sequence of OVERS come in, and you mine the data and find out that in a disproportionate amount of those overs, the total was 23 at the half. It has little logical foundation and may or may not continue.

***But if you read the full report on halftime betting, I think you will see that some numbers just jumped off the page. I poured over pages of data and looked for not just the small edges, but the angles where something was TOALLY INCONSISTENT with statistical norm. It could be that the OVERS on 23 is just a fluke, but I have a theory and wrote about it, and we'll see how it plays out. So far as the trend on 17 points in the 1H going UNDER in the 2H, I will stand by that trend as legitimate. Again, this means the game is probably 10-7, which means it's a one possession game. That means more conservative play calling in the 2H than if the game were 17-3 (where one team is behind and must throw on every donw). See the difference? These are my theories and I cannot say they are 100 percent to be taken to the bank, but look at the results going back 20 years for them (they are all winners) and this season which is 19-7. I will continue to fine tune these angles, but if anythign we may be seeing that they are not just theories (unproven hypothesis), but actuall bona fide angles that should be exploited. So, I am in strong disagreement with you here,

I'm not saying its a good fade, or criticizing Nolan for posting it. I'm just saying it seems like one is trying to tie a cause to an event that just arose from the nature of the random process.

***Again, I understand the difference between random occurrence versus statistical significance. The only way to determine which is the case is in the number of trials. As the number of trials goes UP, that means there is more wieght given to the trend. If we just have 10 trials, the trend carries almost no weight. But give it 100 trials and that trend is much more statistically significant. You will note that most of my haltime trends have well over 50 trials. I'm not saying that proves they ALL work (and there wil be some correction if they succeed and then the books start to react), but I stand by each one of them.


What if I told you 6 point faves last season, a week BEFORE playing on astroturf were 10-2 ATS? (I made that up by the way). Is that something you'd bet on? There's a little more substance to some of those Nolan angles (like betting unders in blowouts) but some of them have this flavor to them.

***I welcome your criticism. In fact, this allows us to try and come to a better understanding, so please Shrimp go ahead and discuss this issue: Tell me what trend you disagree with and refute the theory behind it. Again, I have never published a trend unless there is a plausible explanation for it (For instance, the Colts losing against the NFC West has no plausible basis). I think most of the trends stand up to scrutiny, although some are clearly stronger than others (the 23 factor is probably the weakest of the eight trends).


NOLAN DALLA

 

[THE KOD]

Re: Re: A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

Re: Re: A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

***I welcome your criticism. In fact, this allows us to try and come to a better understanding, so please Shrimp go ahead and discuss this issue: Tell me what trend you disagree with and refute the theory behind it. Again, I have never published a trend unless there is a plausible explanation for it (For instance, the Colts losing against the NFC West has no plausible basis). I think most of the trends stand up to scrutiny, although some are clearly stronger than others (the 23 factor is probably the weakest of the eight trends).


NOLAN DALLA

Nolan

I would like to come to a better understanding on a few things here.

First of all , trends smends. I just dont think trends is the way to make solid plays. If you use trends alot they should be the third or fourth reason you make a play, not the first.

The lesson I learned this past monday night was not to play a road favorite when the team is hyped the crowd is strong and its on monday night. Yeh well lesson learned.

In a future monday night game under the above conditions this could be the number #1 reason to make a play. And if you had a few trends to go along with it then bang the bucks.

As you are open to comments Nolan then I would strongly suggest that you cut down the number of NFL plays you are making. Way too many and of all types too. You say you play $200 bucks a game. On any given Sunday that would be about
2 grand. I think you were 3-6 this past sunday.

What I propose to you Nolan is this.

This coming week do all your regular capping. But then only play one game you like the most. Put the whole 2 large on the one game and write it up in here as to why you are playing it.

Its a new attitude we got around here in MJs and its called .

Throw it Down .........!!!!!!!!!

You can do it Nolan.


I doubt you respond to this. I dont blame you really.



Scott-Atlanta

 

[gardenweasel]

don`t jump the gun on the ravens defense

don`t jump the gun on the ravens defense

they have played carolina and tampa.....carolina`s offense is anything but dangerous....their defense has been solid and peete has kept the mistakes to a minimum...tampa`s offense is pedestrian at best...0 and 1 offensive td`s the last 2 weeks vs ravens and rams defenses(does anyone think the rams have a good defense?)...tampa and carolina cannot(or will not-i say cannot)stretch the field...now they get denver in here with a little payback on their minds and a monday night venue to get them goosed....this is the first legit offense that has the qb and wideouts(and tight end) to stretch the field...throw in portis and anderson running against raven defense playing a new 3-4 scheme(with a mini defensive line going against one of the most effective offensive lines in the game)....add the fact that the ravens start 3 guys that are basically rookies in their secondary(baxter at corner-a new position-played safety last year when he played,which was very little,ed reed whose name has barely been mentioned this year and will demps at safety`s)..... they are getting demps(has not played a regular season game in the nfl)and james trapp back off injuries(lester hayes and michael haynes they are not).you will be throwing ashley lelie,rod smith,ed mccaffrey and shannon sharp at this inexperienced secondary to go along with a strong running game....denver was 4-0 straight up last year revenging a s/u loss vs an opponent as a favorite.....they will stack the line vs jamal lewis and force redman to throw....he had 4 balls that should have been picked by tampa last week..and the ravens no longer have jermaine lewis to bail them out with a big return.....add to that another reshuffling of the offensive line.....i know this looks obvious,but,as i said before,the ravens are in big trouble vs good teams......they may be better later in the season(and that`s doubtful until jeff blake gets the nod)....if the broncos don`t throw 27-34 points up,i`ll be shocked(hell,tampa threw up 25 without scoring an offensive td)....and there`s no way the raven offense can keep that pace.....i think most people will have a very hard time getting over the ravens superbowl defense as long as ray lewis sits in the middle....no sam adams,no siragusa,no jamie sharper,no rod woodson,no rob burnett,no corey harris,no duane starks....no depth without larry webster and lionel dalton....mike mccrary is hobbled and basically ineffective...marvin lewis is gone.....this group is a shell of the former bunch....

 

[TheShrimp]

I've cut and pasted your angles, with the caveats removed.

Angle: Bet against 0-2 (SU) teams in their third game

**This make good sense

In Week 2, Angle #2 performed as follows (3-3 ATS)?.betting against previous year's playoff teams in first four games

**This makes good sense

In Week 2, Angle #3 performed as follows. (0-1 ATS)?..betting against previous Super Bowl winner in first four games

**This makes good sense

In Week 2, Angle #4 performed as follows.?.betting UNDER in hot/humid games

**This makes good sense, but its something that books would HAVE to catch onto if it was strong. With scoring up this year, it kind of got creamed in wk 1, but did the books adjust? Were posted totals lower on average than the year before? I don't know, just asking.

Bet the dog when the favored team is favored by more points in the second half than in the game itself.

**This one's good. It hasn't done well this year. But it kind of says to me that the original line was probably "right" in some sense, but now they're hanging a line to take in emotional bettors. I'm interested in following this.

When one team is ahead at halftime by 15 or more points, bet the UNDER in the second half.

**Makes sense.

When the road team is leading at halftime by 16+ points, bet the UNDER in the second-half.

**Makes sense.

When 17 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, the game is more likely to go UNDER in the second-half.

**I like your explanation in your response. It just seems so "mined", if you know what I mean. Why not 17-20 points, and the next one 21-23. If there's something STRONG about a '23' then it should also hold true (though maybe on a weaker scale) for a 22 or a 24, shouldn't it?. That's what bothers me.

When 23 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, the game is more likely to go OVER in the second-half.

**Comments above.

When 30 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, the game is more likely to go OVER in the second-half.

**Odd. I guess maybe its just a SCORE HAPPY day. I removed the "caveat" on all these, and I think its important in this one.

When 17 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, and the game totals is 38 or lower, the game is more likely to go UNDER in the second-half.

**piggybacks on the above 17-angle.

When 21 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, and the game total is 42.5 or higher, the game is more likely to go OVER in the second-half.

**See, I'd just like to see the 21 grouped with the 23. When you start putting these restrictions on, again it starts sounding "mined". If '22' and '24' totals go against the '21' and '23' plays, then I have to really consider the possibility that these are just fluctations and that there is nothing really solid behind them.

**I mean, I'd have to think a 23 is most likely a 13-10 game, maybe 14-9. Those would still have to fit into the same "logic" as your 10-7 example in the '17' angle. Yes, a 17-6 is out there too, but maybe one should be looking at point differences at half time, not point totals. That would make more sense to me.

**In general: Obviously I like more of your plays than I dislike. Maybe that didn't come across in the original post. When I say you "mined" the data, don't take that as a negative. Mining data is research. Sometimes it just sounds a bit klugey when I can't find the logic behind it, or the logic points the other way. I don't like a handicapping angle that I can't really get my head around, you know.

Thanks for responding.

 

[TexasBC6]

Re: Re: Re: A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

Re: Re: Re: A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

What I propose to you Nolan is this.

This coming week do all your regular capping. But then only play one game you like the most. Put the whole 2 large on the one game and write it up in here as to why you are playing it.

Its a new attitude we got around here in MJs and its called .

Throw it Down .........!!!!!!!!!


Scott-Atlanta

I respectfully, but very strongly, disagree with this. The ONE thing I have heard the most from any proven succesful handicapper is you have to practice sound money management. What if Nolan only likes one game marginally more than the rest of his plays? He's then obligated to put 10x as much on that one game instead of spreading it out over several games that he thinks he has an advantage in. What happens if he does this and loses his "big game" three weeks in a row? He's then down $6k - at which point there is basically NO chance of recovering. Not trying to be overly critical, but strongly disagree with your recommendation.

Good discussion all.

 

[yyz]

I really hope Scott was joshing about that move.........

 

[THE KOD]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

Re: Re: Re: Re: A few NFL comments & Nolan and Nick's columns

I respectfully, but very strongly, disagree with this. The ONE thing I have heard the most from any proven succesful handicapper is you have to practice sound money management. What if Nolan only likes one game marginally more than the rest of his plays?
Good discussion all.

Lets let Nolan decide what he will do. Playing 10 games last sunday didnt work out too well for him.

He has to like one game alot more than the rest . Thats the idea. He does it anyways with his best bets.


Scott-Atlanta

 

[Quantum leap]

scott atl/rams bet

scott atl/rams bet

Scott, Wasn't the reason you took the Rams on Mon night because of past trends. You certainly couldn't have bet the Rams on based their play in the first two weeks of the season. So when you say trends smends I think you are full of shit!!!

 

[Billy]

Scott Atl.....are you and hello there related???:shrug:

 

[THE KOD]

Re: scott atl/rams bet

Re: scott atl/rams bet

Scott, Wasn't the reason you took the Rams on Mon night because of past trends. You certainly couldn't have bet the Rams on based their play in the first two weeks of the season. So when you say trends smends I think you are full of shit!!!

nope I took it becaI believed strongly that they would win and cover.

Scott-Atlanta

 

[THE KOD]

Scott Atl.....are you and hello there related???:shrug:

nope

it amazes me at how many ppl are intimidated by any new ways to win money at sports wagering.

Good luck on your plays .

Scott-Atlanta

 

[jigs]

"A Handicapper not a gambler, there is a big difference"

Words from the wise.

 

[THE KOD]

"A Handicapper not a gambler, there is a big difference"

Words from the wise.

jigs

Ok lets start by your explantion of what that means. A Handicapper can never be a gambler ? a gambler is not a handicapper ?


Scott-Atlanta

 

[dr. freeze]

thanks for the write up Shrimp....very good and interesting analysis......

 

[Nolan Dalla]

NOLAN COMMENTS: Wow, there sure is a lot to respond to. I will cut and paste the comments above and reply with my thoughts below. Forgive me if I miss something, but I'll try to cover most of the important issues.


In Week 2, Angle #4 performed as follows.?.betting UNDER in hot/humid games

**This makes good sense, but its something that books would HAVE to catch onto if it was strong. With scoring up this year, it kind of got creamed in wk 1, but did the books adjust?

NOLAN COMMENTS: I guess I need to reiterate my concepts and goals about what my page is all about. I kinda of use it as a "think out loud" forum. Yes, I try to back up what I say with facts and research, but I also post material sometimes that is unproven and just a theory. Two years ago, I first posted the heat and humidity theory and it did fairly well for the years that I tracked it (data mining). Last year was break even, then this year they shot out the lights with the high scores in Week 1 and the theory got killed. This does not totally disprove the theory -- it only weakens it and requires that we give it closer scrutiny. Perhaps it will play out in years to come that there is nothing to this theory, but as I view handicapping as a "science" I like to post thoughts that might be somewhat on the cutting edge, although sometimes they will eventually be proven wrong. This is one that should be put on hold, in my opinion (Note: I still stand by the notion that very hot and humid (or any detrimental) weather affects offenses more than defenses).


When 17 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, the game is more likely to go UNDER in the second-half.

**I like your explanation in your response. It just seems so "mined", if you know what I mean. Why not 17-20 points, and the next one 21-23. If there's something STRONG about a '23' then it should also hold true (though maybe on a weaker scale) for a 22 or a 24, shouldn't it?. That's what bothers me.

NOLAN COMMENTS: The record for the trial period for the 17 point angle was 150-116 or nearly 57 percent! That's an astonishing 266 trials, way beyond just random chance. This year, the angle is 4-0. In terms of wanting AN EDGE, I'm not sure how much more we can ask for than this. Oddsmakers simply have not caught on to this very plausible explanation of why the 17 point 1Hs tend to go UNDER in the 2H (and all the squares like to be the REVERSE -- which helps us as contrarians). These numbers don't lie.



When 23 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, the game is more likely to go OVER in the second-half.

**Comments above.

NOLAN COMMENTS: I offered up an explanation as to why 23 and 30 were the only 1H numbers that produced more OVERS than UNDERS in the 2H over the 17 year trial period. Of all the angles, I think this is the weakest of all of them. In fact, while I give the 17 point angle a 100 percent vote of confidence (long run projected profitability) I presume this 23 and 30 point angle could reverse itself. I simply don't know. I did want to post it to the site with the other angles because it was a statsitical anomaly. You are right to be cymical about this one -- nevertheless, it hit 58 percent winners over the tiral period (higher than the 17 point angle!) and had 126 trials. Again, we are now in territory where it's not just lucky coin flips. There is something to this theory, and I offered a possible explanation as to what it might be (which I once again stress is open to scrutiny).


When 21 points (exactly) are scored in the first-half, and the game total is 42.5 or higher, the game is more likely to go OVER in the second-half.

**See, I'd just like to see the 21 grouped with the 23. When you start putting these restrictions on, again it starts sounding "mined". If '22' and '24' totals go against the '21' and '23' plays, then I have to really consider the possibility that these are just fluctations and that there is nothing really solid behind them.

NOLAN COMMENTS: No! No! No! You can't group the 21 with the 23. Those are two entirely DIFFERENT types of games! With 21 points in the 1H that almost always represents three touchdowns. So, there were either three long sustained drives, or perhaps a couple of drives and a turnover which made the difference (a 14-7 ballgame). That also means that each offense was basically shut down all except one drive. With 23 points in the 1H, there is a world of difference. This more often than not means THREE field goals and TWO touchdowns in the 1H (unless there was a missed extra point). THAT MEANS BOTH TEAMS RAN UP AND DOWN THE FIELD! THAT MEANS THEY SCORED ON FIVE POSSESSIONS. FIVE! Despite it being only two more points than the 21 game, this represents an entirely different type of game (lots more yardage and scoring -- although there was red zone trouble for the offenses). See the difference? Note also that the only other number which suggests the OVER is the play in the 2H is the number 30 -- a close link to the 23 (one more touchdown). I think this link between these two numbers (the only good OVER plays are on 23 and 30) by itself lends weight to BOTH angles.


**I mean, I'd have to think a 23 is most likely a 13-10 game, maybe 14-9. Those would still have to fit into the same "logic" as your 10-7 example in the '17' angle. Yes, a 17-6 is out there too, but maybe one should be looking at point differences at half time, not point totals. That would make more sense to me.

NOLAN COMMENTS: I can't refute this point because it is a valid one. However, I will again point to the numbers which suggest 58.7 percent OVERS on the 23. Everything else (except the 30) was 52 percent or less. That's quite a jump. Now, on to other points:


First of all , trends smends. I just dont think trends is the way to make solid plays. If you use trends alot they should be the third or fourth reason you make a play, not the first.

NOLAN COMMENTS: I NEVER use trends as the sole basis of making a play on a side or total. NEVER. Sides and totals are completely different when using trends. But so far as halftime trends, I do believe these trends can be played on their own. They take into account simple math and logic. Dismiss them if you want. The information is out there to take or leave.


The lesson I learned this past monday night was not to play a road favorite when the team is hyped the crowd is strong and its on monday night.

NOLAN COMMENTS: I'd like to point out the Monday Night home dog trend came through like a champ. But, you can no longer just play that trend blind and expect to make a profit. It is too well known now, and the lines have been adjusted. With the halftime plays the lines HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUSTED, because no one knows about them (except the people at MadJacks and some of the people who poured over Granowski's data and came to the same conclusions I did).


I would strongly suggest that you cut down the number of NFL plays you are making. Way too many and of all types too. You say you play $200 bucks a game. On any given Sunday that would be about
2 grand. I think you were 3-6 this past sunday.


NOLAN COMMENTS: First, I was 4-5 (not counting halftimes which went 3-0) because I got the Cardinals teased up to +9. While I appreciate the advice, don't worry about my well being. I'll be fine. What I try to do is release as many games as possible where I see an edge. Yeah, I could probably cut down on the plays and increase my percentages, but I'm not interested in winning a handicapping contest or trying to whittle out another percentage point. I'm trying to pour over ALL the games and give my thoughts about each one. If I start just releasing a couple of plays, my task sure would be a helluva lot easier, but I think most people want as much information about the games as they can get. I also want to point out I've made some nice money with those halftimes angles, and actually am up, despite the last two bad weeks. I regret I could not post the plays publicly (too much going on in the psortsbook on Sunday to leave to make a phone call) because the numbers would be better, but hell -- the angles are out there for people to follow of they want.


What I propose to you Nolan is this. This coming week do all your regular capping. But then only play one game you like the most. Put the whole 2 large on the one game and write it up in here as to why you are playing it.


NOLAN COMMENTS: This is actually not a bad strategy, assuming the $2K bet is supported by having a large bankroll. Hitting the strong plays hard is a valid strategy if you are sure you have an edge on a game. However, what I do with my bets is really up to me and what I post at the site is intended to be an opinion. Maybe one of these days I'll do a mimick pro sports gambler saga, with records of every bet I make and such -- but it's somewhat difficult to always keep in contact with the site when I'm runing around town. Like tonight, I was walking by the book and saw the pouring rain in Louisville. I looked up at the board and the total was 50! I hit that UNDER large and really didn't have to sweat it much as the game went UNDER (it got close at the end, but the UNDER was solid all the way). I would love to have released that to the site, but it's just impossible. Same thing with me hitting Tampa on BOTH halves +2.5 and +3 on Monday Night. I could not post it to the site, but it was two winners. THat's the way I work. Not just hitting one BEST BET large for $2K. I spread it around and bet when the information is good. I made two colege plays for Saturday with favorable lines, and I coattail plays here at the Forum. While I appreciate your advice, it's really crazy to follow that, because then I would be missing out on some very nice opportunities.


NOLAN DALLA

 

[TheShrimp]

Thanks again for the reply; you've put a lot of thinking into it. I hadn't really considered things like the differences between a 23 and a 21.

The funny thing is, I never bet halves, so the discussion is purely academic for me, but I do appreciate it.

As for betting 2K on one game instead of $400 on 5 games. Like Nolan said, for a guy with a 100K bankroll, that's probably a more useful thing to do.

For a guy with a 7K bankroll, like scott, its simply high risk. I enjoy betting on sports so much that always being in action is more important to me than getting to 10K, or whatever. That's a big consideration.

A major component of BR management is betting without having to worry about going broke, and while you might have a better chance of turning 2K into 10K by betting HUGE, you have a way higher chance of going broke.

Take it easy.

 

[THE KOD]

What I propose to you Nolan is this. This coming week do all your regular capping. But then only play one game you like the most. Put the whole 2 large on the one game and write it up in here as to why you are playing it.


NOLAN COMMENTS: This is actually not a bad strategy, assuming the $2K bet is supported by having a large bankroll. Hitting the strong plays hard is a valid strategy if you are sure you have an edge on a game.

** Reply - Throw it Down Nolan !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Like tonight, I was walking by the book and saw the pouring rain in Louisville. I looked up at the board and the total was 50! I hit that UNDER large and really didn't have to sweat it much as the game went UNDER (it got close at the end, but the UNDER was solid all the way). I would love to have released that to the site, but it's just impossible.

**Reply - Got to figure out a way.


I could not post it to the site, but it was two winners. THat's the way I work.

**Reply - Yeh but then we dont get the winners.


Not just hitting one BEST BET large for $2K. I spread it around and bet when the information is good. I made two colege plays for Saturday with favorable lines, and I coattail plays here at the Forum. While I appreciate your advice, it's really crazy to follow that, because then I would be missing out on some very nice opportunities.


**Reply - Sounds like a plan to me.



Scott-Atlanta

 

[THE HITMAN]

SHRIMP & NOLAN---alot of work went into your gentleman-like discussion.....GL to you both.....THE HITMAN

 

[Ice Picks]

Ice man cometh...

Ice man cometh...

This is a great thread...

I have been reading Nolan's stuff for 3 years...his thoughts are usuaslly most illuminating...BUT

He still makes plays and picks on BAD teams...i.e. Cincinati and Detriot...I have e-mailed my thoughts to him on this a few times before...bad teams will find a way to lose...

I have made some money playing Nolan's Over/Unders, on which he excels, and fading some of his sides picks...for 3 years...

And although I use Nolan's, and other's picks on this site for ideas and personal picks, I nave NEVER made a play without capping a game myself

ALL this BS about people dissing Nolan and his picks, is just that - totally BS...

Kepp up the great work, NOLAN...

IP