*** Official Flying Stupidity Wagering thread ***

[Mintjewlips]

Although, the Lakers have a lot of young no names that are very good...

[Mintjewlips]

Spurs 2.0, playoffs are going to be interesting..........they are hungry wolves....

[Mintjewlips]

Lol at these niggas.......what ... the ....fuck....like why not run out the clock? You're only up 20 points.......

[Mintjewlips]

 

Also have them as single bets

[Dan Druff]

I think I'm batting .000 on badguy23 picks lifetime

He should be happy I didn't bet on the Eagles

[Sanlmar]

Yeah and also no Wrstbrook or Carmelo despite the appearance they'd play.

Druff, not being a dick but I could of told you neither was playing 4 hours ago.

WTF r u using for your info USA Today newspaper?

Invest in a line service I suggest Sports Options which is now Don Best you will thank me later!

This is about as close as anyone will ever get to being forthright about their process in this thread.

Picks are like assholes. The reasons, thoughts whatever get fewer and fewer.

So you use a service, Druff. Was that so hard. You’re still a genius in my book. All that counts is W’s.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if you somehow got the service as a sponsor. Little disclaimer that your picks are not solely theirs.

It would seem to me some tout’s opinions could never develop into fraud unlike the poker affiliate concern.

Getting your tout on the radio would be a darn good listen. You’d never let it degenerate into a pure advertisement. Couple callers and you might have some magic.

[Dan Druff]

Druff, not being a dick but I could of told you neither was playing 4 hours ago.

WTF r u using for your info USA Today newspaper?

Invest in a line service I suggest Sports Options which is now Don Best you will thank me later!

This is about as close as anyone will ever get to being forthright about their process in this thread.

Picks are like assholes. The reasons, thoughts whatever get fewer and fewer.

So you use a service, Druff. Was that so hard. You’re still a genius in my book. All that counts is W’s.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if you somehow got the service as a sponsor. Little disclaimer that your picks are not solely theirs.

It would seem to me some tout’s opinions could never develop into fraud unlike the poker affiliate concern.

Getting your tout on the radio would be a darn good listen. You’d never let it degenerate into a pure advertisement. Couple callers and you might have some magic.

I use a stats service, not a picks service.

They also sell picks but I don't subscribe to those.

A glitch allowed me to see a few of them, and I tried betting two. Both lost.

All the picks are my own.

I should have gone 3-1 today. Washington bet was pure robbery.

[Sanlmar]

The safe word is “Garappolo”.

Just type that and I’ll never bring this desire to talk about wagering with you again. You got your reasons and I’ll respect that.

Did the NBA paywall statistics?

Does your service provide some metrics you find useful? What are some of your favorites?

Are these less common stats typically only used by teams?

Am I’m violating some privacy code amongst gamblers that I am unaware of?

[Dan Druff]

The safe word is “Garappolo”.

Just type that and I’ll never bring this desire to talk about wagering with you again. You got your reasons and I’ll respect that.

Did the NBA paywall statistics?

Does your service provide some metrics you find useful? What are some of your favorites?

Are these less common stats typically only used by teams?

Am I’m violating some privacy code amongst gamblers that I am unaware of?

There are certain statistics which are more useful to bettors than others, including betting pattern statistics.

[Dan Druff]

152-119-4 is now my record, after today's 2-2.

This is now my 4th 2-2 day in the past 6 days of picks. The last 6 days:

2-2
2-2-1
2-2
1-3
0-2
2-2

But as I said earlier, the Washington under was a good pick (winning almost the whole way), and only lost because of OT, so I should have gone 3-1.

[dwai]

152-119-4 is now my record, after today's 2-2.

This is now my 4th 2-2 day in the past 6 days of picks. The last 6 days:

2-2
2-2-1
2-2
1-3
0-2
2-2

But as I said earlier, the Washington under was a good pick (winning almost the whole way), and only lost because of OT, so I should have gone 3-1.

But you didn't go 3-1, you went 2-2. Enough of your after thoughts on games, post bet, win/lose. Not "should have" won or lost.

[Dan Druff]

Indiana under 204

Starting 20 min

not seeing a lot I like today. Was on the fence about Clippers side, but didn't fire. So far it looks good but it's very early obv

[Dan Druff]

If only I fired on the Cilppers.... oh well...

Here's another:

Sacramento +5 -115 (4.5 -110 ok)

[Mintjewlips]

Portland -5....late edition..

[Dan Druff]

Portland -5....late edition..

Damn you

This one was correct.

Sacramento sucks. I need to just stop betting them as dogs, even when it seems like it's the right side. They're just awful.

For the second day in a row, my under involving Boston was great, but this time it didn't get fucked by OT, so at least that won.

1-1 day puts me at 153-120-4

[Dan Druff]

152-119-4 is now my record, after today's 2-2.

This is now my 4th 2-2 day in the past 6 days of picks. The last 6 days:

2-2
2-2-1
2-2
1-3
0-2
2-2

But as I said earlier, the Washington under was a good pick (winning almost the whole way), and only lost because of OT, so I should have gone 3-1.

But you didn't go 3-1, you went 2-2. Enough of your after thoughts on games, post bet, win/lose. Not "should have" won or lost.

An OT fucking an under is a unique case, as it indicates the pick was CORRECT, but arbitrary circumstance screwed it.

That's a lot different than picking something good in theory which just loses because the teams didn't perform the way you expected.

Here everything DOES go the way you expect, except the teams are tied at the end of regulation, thus arbitrarily screwing your pick.

If I made 4 under picks, and all 4 were under at the end of regulation, but all 4 went to OT and lost, I would be 0-4 for the day. However, they would have been great picks and I'd still be proud of making them.

If I made 4 over picks, and all 4 were under at the end of regulation, but all 4 went to OT and won, I would be 4-0 for the day. However, they would have been lousy picks, and while happy to take the money (and increase in my posted record), I would somewhat feel like a fraud, as I was actually wrong on all 4 games.

When assessing whether you're losing based upon poor picks or simply bad luck, it's important to distinguish the difference. Same thing with when you're winning. That's why I talk about the value of seeing a handicapper winning his games by a wide margin and suffering relatively few blowout losses.

I can compare it to raising in an NL game with QQ, facing a big all-in pre from an opponent, calling him because your read is that he has a lower pair, and indeed he turns over JJ. You just made a great play. If a J ends up flopping and you lose, you still don't regret calling him.

[Daly]

Had John Gibson under 30.5 shots on last night. Went to bed he had 29 on him with a 2 goal lead and 9 minutes left. Drawing to 1%.

Winner


Better to be lucky than good sometimes.

[ErickAA]

There are a lot of services (some pay and some free) geared towards DFS that give you very reliable up to the minute projections on whether a specific questionable player is likely to play or not. The only player they can’t figure out is Embiid. He has games where he is a late scratch with no notice and games where he goes from doubtful to playing at the last second.

FWIW none of the services I use had Westbrook as probable at any point the day Druff thought he was. Westbrook is probably tougher to tell than most players because if you ask him he will probably always tell you he is going to play (and he actually believes he will), even if he isn’t, because that is how he is wired.

[Dan Druff]

What I got with Westbrook at that time I made that pick was, "Questionable but trending toward probable", and then it went downhill from there.

[Dan Druff]

Brooklyn +2.5 (or moneyline +120 or better)
Lakers under 214 -115 (213.5 ok)

Looking at San Antonio under, but not posting yet