MONDAY

[GENO]

Thunder, I have used a Percent of BR concept on the risk side for years, I don't handicap as good as you do, but I know it works. I caught flack on here for years about buying too many points, I still buy when I need to, if I catch a push that saves me 100% of my risk on that play. Enuff on that, ...

You pointed out a play last night on a half time side in the NCAA forum that the +1 Dog was the play. That caught my attention and I watched the results. You know what I am talking about, it was money. Some of us, alot of us obviously,... appreciate your insight and experience. Thanks!

 

[pt101]

But that it just plain silly...it obviously depends on how much a "unit" you bet.
A 5% 'unit' at the $10k figure that seems to be thrown around a lot lately...is $500.
Therefore a mere 1 unit win a week for the year = an extra $26k.
Hardly trouble for nothing.

again misleading....matter of fact the statement couldn't be more vague.

what would the actual win/loss record be to get to 26K? state the actual record and ascertain the winning % to get there. 52-0? winning at 100% clip? let's go 156-94 per say at 500 per unit. which is over 62%. avg=50% (125-125 record = -6250).

btw:
per say= for example
~ = approx. or i'm lazy

people shouldn't be mislead by a narrow perspective.

3 standard methods:

A - bet same amount per play. you need to hit ~55%+ to make it worth while. if you play -120 or greater odds (pt buys, teasers, halftime, etc...), then the threshold increases.

B - diff amount per play (e.g. 1 to 5 units). w % not as important as hitting your bigger plays more often.

C - diff amount per play using % of current bank roll. w % not as important as hitting your bigger plays more often.

there's really more to it (like not having a certain % of your bank roll riding), but it's a solid foundation to how it works in reality if you use these 3 methods.

my point is, you can't call out method C by using a more statistically sound method A to refute it when everyone is using either B or C - in which case you should then be in "everyone's" thread trying to convince them A is really the only mathematically sound method. and if you want to go around preaching the gospel, there's nothing wrong with that. but singling out a player/method when the majority population is basically doing the same thing is a display of irrationality.

 

[MrChristo]

again misleading....matter of fact the statement couldn't be more vague.

what would the actual win/loss record be to get to 26K? state the actual record and ascertain the winning % to get there. 52-0? winning at 100% clip? let's go 156-94 per say at 500 per unit. which is over 62%. avg=50% (125-125 record = -6250).

btw:
per say= for example
~ = approx. or i'm lazy

people shouldn't be mislead by a narrow perspective.

3 standard methods:

A - bet same amount per play. you need to hit ~55%+ to make it worth while. if you play -120 or greater odds (pt buys, teasers, halftime, etc...), then the threshold increases.

B - diff amount per play (e.g. 1 to 5 units). w % not as important as hitting your bigger plays more often.

C - diff amount per play using % of current bank roll. w % not as important as hitting your bigger plays more often.

there's really more to it (like not having a certain % of your bank roll riding), but it's a solid foundation to how it works in reality if you use these 3 methods.

my point is, you can't call out method C by using a more statistically sound method A to refute it when everyone is using either B or C - in which case you should then be in "everyone's" thread trying to convince them A is really the only mathematically sound method. and if you want to go around preaching the gospel, there's nothing wrong with that. but singling out a player/method when the majority population is basically doing the same thing is a display of irrationality.

Sorry again for the thread invasion... :nono:

BUT, WTF??!! Can you not read? (Or think at least?! :shrug: )

what would the actual win/loss record be to get to 26K? state the actual record and ascertain the winning % to get there. 52-0? winning at 100% clip? let's go 156-94 per say at 500 per unit. which is over 62%. avg=50% (125-125 record = -6250).

huh?? As I clearly stated...@ (a random, based on the $10k figure thrown about) one unit = $500...
...a win of 1 unit per week eqautes to the $26k for the year.
It hardly matters if someone goes 1-0, 2-1, 16-15 for the week, they get their one unit ($500) win per week. (Remembering we decided to drop the 'juice' argument earlier).
Pretty simple, and anything but vague.

A - bet same amount per play. you need to hit ~55%+ to make it worth while. if you play -120 or greater odds (pt buys, teasers, halftime, etc...), then the threshold increases

Again, you clearly didn't even read what I said...you definately didn't understand if you did.
...and I quote: one of the biggest misnomers in sports betting is that you need to win 55%...it's 52.63% @ a standard 1.90...and of course books like Pinnacle (and others) with 1.95 lines and very fluid lines with often greater prices available make it even less.

And, if you want to dispute "logic" let's go and revisit something you said earlier...
... the law of average says people go 50%. so what do you end up with? safe stats and no gain (slight loss on juice).

SO...given that self same 'logic', people will also go 50% on their 'big' plays...50% on their 'small' plays...etc...

As for B and C...you say yourself that 'A' is more statistically sound...and of course mathematically it is...
...but that's not what I started on in this thread.

The difference between B and C is again fairly obvious I would have thought.
You seem to be missing it completely.

A '5 unit' play in week 1 is the same as a 5 unit play in week 12, no matter what the record. [As will a 1, 2, 3, 10 unit play]

A '5%' play will vary each week, depending on the 'current bank'...hence bets will be bigger when times are good, smaller when times are bad.

Like I said way back at the start, perfectly perfect if you keep moving on up, but unfortunately no matter how good anyone is at this game, a losing 'streak' is inevitable...

...which is the entire point.

After a loss last week (which I am by NO MEANS rubbing in...simply using it to illustrate my point)...
...of, whatever, say 20% 'cause it's a nice, round number...
...the 'current bank' then becomes 20% less...
...therefore, each % point becomes worth less (20% less logically enough ) in real money terms. Yes?
So, conceivably THUNDER could win 20% this week in betting terms, but in real money terms it leaves him with less than at the end of week 8, depsite going -20% and then +20% in consecutive weeks.
That is ONLY ever an issue when using %'s.

I personally don't like the idea that one bad week will directly affect the (real money) amount I can win the next.
The entire point in a nut shell.

THUNDER is obviously happy with taking that risk. :mj06:
(I was merely pointing out the pitfuls of such an arrangement.)

End of...
I hope you can grasp the idea.


btw:
per say= for example
~ = approx. or i'm lazy

Clearly your dictation is spot on, but the math, well...

 

[pt101]

...a win of 1 unit per week eqautes to the $26k for the year.
It hardly matters if someone goes 1-0, 2-1, 16-15 for the week, they get their one unit ($500) win per week.

again misleading...

ok folks, all you have to do is go 2-1 every week. lmao.

what's not stated is the w/l record required to win 26k, which is a not probable over 60%.

you point out a flaw using % of br method that says a person can go 10-10 and end up with only 75% of their original bank roll. guess what? you can go 10-10 with a unit system and end up with 75% of your original bank roll.

thus, the analogy used is misleading. that's like saying "this" method is flawed instead of saying "all" methods are flawed. and if "all" methods are flawed, why point it out in this thread?

the unit system and % of br system is similar. you play 1-5 units per game. you start with 2-3 units usually, but you start winning and to take advantage of your hot streak you go with 4-5 units. you start losing again and you drop back to 2-3 units. you now hit a cold streak and decide to go with 1-2 until your luck changes. for those who don't understand, that's all it is really.

the difference in the % of br system is that you could go beyond 5 units but that's just like a unit player saying "i don't usually do this but i'm dropping 10 units on this play".

fact is using the unit system or % of br if you go 10-10, you may be up or down. there is no more disadvantage to using % of br system to a unit sytem and vice versa. the original analogy that states you go 10-10 and end up on the losing side is just another summation of what everyone and their mothers already know.

 

[big brown]

WILL YOU GUY LEAVE HIM ALONE ALREADY ME MYSELF DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW MUCH HE BETS. ALL i LOOK AT IS THE BIGGER THE % THE MORE HE LIKE IT. THAT ALL I CARE ABOUT IT LIKE SOME GUY DO 1** AND SO ON SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT STAY THE F----K OUT OF HIS THREAD. WE HAVE LOST A LOT OF GOOD CLAPPERS OVER THE YEARS CAUSE OF GUY LIKE YOU. SORRY THUNDER BUT HAD TO PUT MY 2 CENTS IN HERE SICK OF READING THERE SHIT WHEN LOOKING FOR YOUR PICK:toast: GOOD LUCK THUNDER


AND FOR ALL YOU OTHER GUY THIS IS THUNDERS THREAD SO :mfpost

 

[MrChristo]

again misleading...

ok folks, all you have to do is go 2-1 every week. lmao.

what's not stated is the w/l record required to win 26k, which is a not probable over 60%. .

Yeah, not sure you're being stupid for the hell of it, but I guess that's what you get for reading only the first few lines of a post.

Again, the numbers are irrelevant, but since you seem to have all sorts of problems with concepts alone, I'll make some up for you...
...A person goes 11-10 each week. [Again, we are ignoring 'juice' because it has exactly the same affect on each method]...
...he therefore wins 1 unit each week. Right? He wins 11, loses 10...= +1. Yeah?
At the end of the 52 weeks, the person's record stands at 572-520...or 52.38%...clearly nowhere near the 66% conclusion you jumped to when you stopped reading...

Obviously the numbers change, but the concept does not. I cannot possibly put it in simpler terms.

you point out a flaw using % of br method that says a person can go 10-10 and end up with only 75% of their original bank roll. guess what? you can go 10-10 with a unit system and end up with 75% of your original bank roll. .

Guess what? You can't at all!!!

A person loses 20 units one week. (For the sake of numbers again, we'll say $500 per unit = $10k)
It can be 1 x 20 unit bet, it can be 10 x 2 units, it can be 3 x 5's a 3 and a 2...etc...etc...
Next week they WIN 20 units (Again, in any combination.)
Guess what? They've just won their $10k back.
Why? Because a unit is a constant monetary value.
What happens one week has absolutely zero bearing on how much each bet is worth the following week...

...as I've already shown, and it's the one part you do actually seem to understand, this is NOT the case for a % based system, where the monetary value of each % point changes each week depending on the 'current bank'.

the unit system and % of br system is similar. you play 1-5 units per game. you start with 2-3 units usually, but you start winning and to take advantage of your hot streak you go with 4-5 units. you start losing again and you drop back to 2-3 units. you now hit a cold streak and decide to go with 1-2 until your luck changes. for those who don't understand, that's all it is really. .

It's not tho, is it...because you are betting more after a hot streak...ie. you are betting the most when the 'current bank' is high...making it more likely to lose big when the streak ends...
...conversely, betting smaller after a bad streak (again, due exclusively to the smaller 'current bank') so it takes more wins to get back to square 1.


As I said, I can't possibly explain it in more simple terms.
I'm sure if you actually read each thread fully, rather than just picking at the bits you think fit in...and then take a deep breath and have a genuine think about it, you'll start to see some logic.
Oh, and while you're here, grab the neareast calculator and put in 100/1.9...
...maybe now you'll see that even with standard juice you're 55% does not exist.


Wow, you people who type in capitals and spell badly sure do stick together! :0corn
(But I do understand )

 

[pt101]

Again, the numbers are irrelevant, but since you seem to have all sorts of problems with concepts alone, I'll make some up for you...
...A person goes 11-10 each week. [Again, we are ignoring 'juice' because it has exactly the same affect on each method]...
...he therefore wins 1 unit each week. Right? He wins 11, loses 10...= +1. Yeah?
At the end of the 52 weeks, the person's record stands at 572-520...or 52.38%...clearly nowhere near the 66% conclusion you jumped to when you stopped reading...

'misleading' is now beginning to sound like an understatement here. might just hold the most ridiculous claim title yet. people, a 10k bank with 500 a bet will net you +26k if you go ~52%? maybe it's just me but it's just a bit out of touch with reality for me. ok, let's just forgo, juice, numbers and all that. here's the proposition: "all" you have to do is be "up" a unit every week for 52 straight weeks and you'll be 26k richer, yay! lmao. doesn't matter how it's spun, it's still funny.

Guess what? You can't at all!!!

A person loses 20 units one week. (For the sake of numbers again, we'll say $500 per unit = $10k)
It can be 1 x 20 unit bet, it can be 10 x 2 units, it can be 3 x 5's a 3 and a 2...etc...etc...
Next week they WIN 20 units (Again, in any combination.)
Guess what? They've just won their $10k back.
Why? Because a unit is a constant monetary value.

no, that is not correct. not only that, but you seem to have a lack of comprehension in interpreting because your example is off topic. down 20 units and up 20 units using the same constant unit value is different than going 10 wins and 10 losses. again, lacking clarity and misrepresenting. so i need to explain to you that you can lose ten 2x bets, and win ten 1x bets and be down? so the unit value does not change but the amount of units "can" and does in fact change depending on the bettor's variety (but that's not the point). the point is you can and many here have won the same number of games they've lost (say 2-2) and have come out on the losing end $$ wise. that's 100% fact. not only is there no question you could go 10-10 using a unit system and be down, but the prevelancy probably exceeds that of those using a % of br system due to majority use of the unit system.

It's not tho, is it...because you are betting more after a hot streak...ie. you are betting the most when the 'current bank' is high...making it more likely to lose big when the streak ends...
...conversely, betting smaller after a bad streak (again, due exclusively to the smaller 'current bank') so it takes more wins to get back to square 1.

hilarious. you say "it's not tho" then proceed to explain what it is that makes it "effectively" similar to using a % of br system.

Oh, and while you're here, grab the neareast calculator and put in 100/1.9...
...maybe now you'll see that even with standard juice you're 55% does not exist.

and what do you see when you put in 1.8? maybe you missed the part when i discussed pt buys (e.g. -125), teasers (7 pt -120/ 7.5 pt -130), and such (my local charges 20 cent for ht bets)...you know, things people do in real life. ~55% is quite apt just to cya all the misc stuff and be on the safe side.

Wow, you people who type in capitals and spell badly sure do stick together! :0corn
(But I do understand )

careful. without stating details, just the "you people" phrase could give the notion of being a dick. that's imho.



i'll also add a perspective: how many of you have actually at one time or another from first bet ever to date have changed your amount per unit? say you started betting at $50 per unit 5 years ago, and now you're at $200. or perhaps you went 1-5 units per game last nfl season and decide this nfl season you are going 3-10 units per game? is this an abberation or a normality? my bet is on the latter. there, everyone has then essentially used a % of br system whether they knew it or not.

 

[djv]

Guys STOP. Someone start a new message to debate this issue.

 

[Dead Money]

Leave it alone...

Leave it alone...

Who gives a "rats ass" about anything other than he is a great capper and contributes mightily to this forum...

We all have our own methods of "money management"

If you don't like his picks or methods, move to your own sandbox and squabble over who has the biggest
shovel...:sadwave:


keep em coming Thunder...

 

[zig]

[



i'll also add a perspective: how many of you have actually at one time or another from first bet ever to date have changed your amount per unit? say you started betting at $50 per unit 5 years ago, and now you're at $200. or perhaps you went 1-5 units per game last nfl season and decide this nfl season you are going 3-10 units per game? is this an abberation or a normality? my bet is on the latter. there, everyone has then essentially used a % of br system whether they knew it or not.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree. I would guess that everyone lowers there wagers on a losing streak and raises it on a winnig streak. If you are keeping records with units won an lost, it is not the same as actual money won an lost.

 

[Wilson]

All you mofos have too much time on your hands.

How about this....go into Thunder's thread and see if he has any 7 or 8% plays and say to your self....he likes this game.

If he has some 3-4% plays....he kinda likes this play.

Then make decision if you want to bet these games and take care of your own fucking bankroll.

These posts just pollute the forum and are pointless.

:moon:

 

[nyraider]

I totally agree Wilson.. Use Thunders picks, as a guide!!! If it's a higher %, he likes it more. Who cares what he bets, it's none of bussiness anyway.. Play him or fade him?? AND STOP BASHING HIM, IF HE LOSES A GAME OR 2.. If you thing you can handicap better then him, then why look in his thread.. GO GET THEM THUNDER!! Thanks Dan!

 

[luvmy$$$]

All you mofos have too much time on your hands.

How about this....go into Thunder's thread and see if he has any 7 or 8% plays and say to your self....he likes this game.

If he has some 3-4% plays....he kinda likes this play.

Then make decision if you want to bet these games and take care of your own fucking bankroll.

These posts just pollute the forum and are pointless.

:moon:

I have wanted to say the same thing, but up until now I really did'nt give a rats ass. ANYBODY that just blindly bets or tails needs to at least do the fawkin homework and track the capper. If your expecting a free ride get the fawk off. I use multiple cappers here for leans, after I have spent 2 yrs tracking them and learning their own capping angles or styles. I can make spur of the moment wagers because I'm confident they have capped it the way I do. This whole clutter fawk in his threads slows me down when checking his 25 plays a day, lol.




oh yea, FAWK YOU PITT

 

[gsp]

Who gives a shit about his bankroll? You would be wise to pay more attention to yours. I've watched Thunder for a long time. His plays in all sports are winners year in and year out. Like me, he don't have to post here but is trying to help a few of you guys. I appreciate him.

 

[grandpa]

Anybody who goes into another's thread and busts balls over any aspect of their record is plain and simple : DOUCHEBAG.

WTF does it matter. Make your own plays or, better yet, FADE them, if you are so smart.

And get a life. Your time could probably be better spent doing community service, or working a soup kitchen, or delivering meals to the elderly, or cleaning bedpans at the retirement center. Or, here's an idea: CAP SOME GAMES YOURSELF!

Seriously, who cares how the total figures come out, unless you are his book, and need to collect some extra vig?

Every internet forum has losers that try to rile up the top cappers, and I guess MJs is no exception.

I for one, appreciate THUNDERs contribution, and if I lose a game that I was on same side of as he, I am not mad at HIM! Goddammit, grow the FUCK up!

 

[fletcher]

Who ever is watching site please close this thread, waste of space. some people are dicks, all i am going to say on this except stay out of others threads if you are going to jump the mans shit.

 

[leg1059]

Wilson

Wilson

Well said Wilson, Thunder wins and wins a lot people just have to much time. Hate WVU but you were right on with the comments.