[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

General Forum

No new picks with old prices, please

Posted By: Stanford Wong
Date: 25 Aug 01, 7:14 am

In Response To: Just asking (Don Schlesinger)

You did not come right out and say it, but it sounds to me as if you are not going to share the list of 381 NFL bets you monitored for Dan Gordon over the last four years.

I can understand your reluctance to share that information. According to Gordon's Beat the Sports Books, a lot of his profit comes from betting weak lines early in the week, and then the numbers tend to move toward him. That process could result in his teams appearing to be not much better than guesses if evaluated against closing prices, but he still would be picking winners at the rate of 57%.

I do not understand why Gordon waited until the end of each week to send his football picks to you, instead of sending them as he was making them so that you could verify that the prices he quoted were available. And of course you should have done a spot check to be sure that the prices he quoted really were available. But he did not send you the picks early enough, and you did not do any checking as to availability of his prices. Therefore you can verify only that he selected his teams before the games were played. You cannot verify the outcomes of his bets because the outcomes depend on the prices he reported, and you did not verify those prices.

For each pick anyone posts here on SharpSportsBetting.com, I'm asking that the quoted price be available at the time the pick is posted. No posting old prices on new picks. If a team is +4 on Monday and you want your pick to count at +4, post it on Monday while the +4 is still available. If you wait until Friday to post your pick and by then the team has moved to +2, then take it at +2 or don't call it a pick. No fair using Monday's +4 in a Friday pick if the line on Friday is +2.

For my own college picks that I have posted on our college football Owners Box page, I'd rather use early-in-the-week prices instead of late-in-the-week prices. So for next weekend's games, I will use the earliest prices reported for Monday at the Stardust on Wagerline.com. If there is no Monday Stardust price listed for a particular game, I will use the first Monday price for next lower casino on the Wagerline.com list.

Stanford Wong

Password:

Messages In This Thread

a question -- Arthur -- 21 Aug 01, 5:11 pm
answers -- Stanford Wong -- 21 Aug 01, 7:05 pm
Virtually all attainable -- Don Schlesinger -- 21 Aug 01, 7:36 pm
More data is required -- John May -- 22 Aug 01, 11:03 am
More data will come -- Stanford Wong -- 22 Aug 01, 1:39 pm
Highly doubtful -- Don Schlesinger -- 22 Aug 01, 7:02 pm
Don, you are one lovable smartass! (nt) -- Compador -- 22 Aug 01, 8:01 pm
Chunk Bet -- Fezzik -- 22 Aug 01, 10:40 pm
Wong +500 looks resonable -- Math Boy -- 23 Aug 01, 8:22 am
I'm impressed -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 9:33 am
not that great an estimate -- Math Boy -- 23 Aug 01, 3:47 pm
Spoilsport -- John May -- 23 Aug 01, 4:09 pm
DonS is running the wrong way! -- fezzik's chunk bet -- 23 Aug 01, 11:15 pm
Eye of the beholder -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 8:36 am
you're not as smart as i thought you were -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 10:06 am
Strange thought processes -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 5:13 pm
you believe because you know him...but what about us? -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 5:28 pm
Honest answers -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 6:36 pm
Four years -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 5:30 pm
219/391 -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 6:40 pm
a little math question -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 6:43 pm
Math question -- Colin Caster -- 24 Aug 01, 8:06 pm
Suggestion: List those 391 picks -- Stanford Wong -- 24 Aug 01, 8:34 pm
Just asking -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 9:07 pm
Don, isn't this two-faced? -- Fezzik -- 25 Aug 01, 12:20 am
No new picks with old prices, please -- Stanford Wong -- 25 Aug 01, 7:14 am
Always boils down to the same thing -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Aug 01, 8:54 am
Classic DonS Deflection Post -- Fezzik -- 24 Aug 01, 8:56 pm
Too serious -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Aug 01, 8:45 am
I think you touched some nerves Don -- DowntownMan -- 25 Aug 01, 1:26 pm
I don't expect an answer . . . -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Aug 01, 5:56 pm
Good post! -- Fezzik -- 25 Aug 01, 9:01 pm
Question re: " correction to the Gordon sample". -- samo666 -- 23 Aug 01, 2:43 am
You need to look at the total number of touts tested -- John May -- 23 Aug 01, 3:07 am
Asinine analysis -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 9:36 am
Er...why? -- John May -- 23 Aug 01, 1:13 pm
Guess you can't read -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 4:34 pm
Corrections & Honest Touts -- Bob Fisher -- 23 Aug 01, 5:29 pm
Quite misguided analysis -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 8:53 pm
Baccarat vs touting -- John May -- 24 Aug 01, 12:24 pm
I thank God every day -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 5:28 pm
What makes Stanford Wong an authority on football wagering? -- Colin Caster -- 21 Aug 01, 11:10 pm
Wong has established -- John May -- 22 Aug 01, 4:39 am

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If you'd like to have the option of deleting your post later,
please provide a password (CASE SENSITIVE!):

Password:

If you'd like e-mail notification of responses, please check this box:

 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

General Forum is maintained by Pi Yee Press