Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

[Reload]

Hey Shrink - I got the latest Oddsmaker.com magazine yesterday. You talked in your article about having the strategy of betting ONLY underdogs. But I know you've still suggested over the years to bet favorites around 1/3 of the time and like last night's ODU game there are still times when favorites have good value to take.

So I'm just wondering more about how your comments were said in the article compared to how we know you've advised us before. The thoughts of shopping for the extra 1/2 point when available out there were well understood but the idea of taking ONLY underdogs did not seem to agree with how you've generally bet and advised us.

 

[THE SHRINK]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

Reload,

Thanks for taking the time to read my column. I wrote that for a very broad spectrum of people to read, the majority of whom are "recreational" players...

By suggesting that they "only" play Underdogs and Unders on ballgames, I was trying to teach them a new mindset of thinking...

I was challenging them to bet differently and compare their results to the ones when they hadn't even tried thinking differently...

On here, we have a much sharper audience, so my message is similar, but tailored to sharper players...

Hope this helps some,

THE SHRINK

 

[Bucky]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

Just read the article myself. Let's do it. Let's crunch the data bases for all college basketball dogs and grade them with a 1/2 point better than the marketplace at openers/2 hours to post/closers. When exactly is the average time frame the recreational player puts in his bet?

Let's not forget that all the UNC bettors either pushed or won if they got 16 1/2 and somebody must have got hit hard on UNC or they would not have moved to 17 1/2 unless it opened there and everybody moved down in which case you did get a great bet.

I don't disagree with what you have said and I think betting dogs and unders exclusively would probably help a recreational bettor but it is not enough to obtain them a positive expectation long term but just to lose less.

 

[Mr. Smith]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

Suggestion for oddsmaker when doing mailings

Including pictures of Ms. Montana = Would be good

Including pictures of the Shrink= Not so good


just trying to help :+waving-5

 

[THE SHRINK]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

Just read the article myself. Let's do it. Let's crunch the data bases for all college basketball dogs and grade them with a 1/2 point better than the marketplace at openers/2 hours to post/closers. When exactly is the average time frame the recreational player puts in his bet?

Let's not forget that all the UNC bettors either pushed or won if they got 16 1/2 and somebody must have got hit hard on UNC or they would not have moved to 17 1/2 unless it opened there and everybody moved down in which case you did get a great bet.

I don't disagree with what you have said and I think betting dogs and unders exclusively would probably help a recreational bettor but it is not enough to obtain them a positive expectation long term but just to lose less.

agreed...

But don't minimize the value of getting the best number and multiple outs...

There were 2 games that I WON last night due to having the best of it whereas a couple of my friends either LOST or pushed...

1-I had DREXEL -6 (game closed 7 1/2 and 7)-landed 7

2-I had NORTHEASTERN + 3 1/2 (game closed 2)-landed 2

P.S.

I totally agree about the picture!

 

[rainbow]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

agreed...

But don't minimize the value of getting the best number and multiple outs...

There were 2 games that I WON last night due to having the best of it whereas a couple of my friends either LOST or pushed...

1-I had DREXEL -6 (game closed 7 1/2 and 7)-landed 7

2-I had NORTHEASTERN + 3 1/2 (game closed 2)-landed 2

P.S.

I totally agree about the picture!

BW BET NORTHEASTERN AND DREXEL TOO.

 

[Reload]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

Reload,

Thanks for taking the time to read my column. I wrote that for a very broad spectrum of people to read, the majority of whom are "recreational" players...

By suggesting that they "only" play Underdogs and Unders on ballgames, I was trying to teach them a new mindset of thinking...

I was challenging them to bet differently and compare their results to the ones when they hadn't even tried thinking differently...

On here, we have a much sharper audience, so my message is similar, but tailored to sharper players...

Hope this helps some,

THE SHRINK

Thanks for explaining, Shrink. And I do think that mindset will help.

 

[Bucky]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

Nice going Shrink! At the upper levels of the food chain - timing is pretty important. A recreational guy doesn't have that going for him. He is going to get hung out to dry on the wrong side of a few moves - but maybe that is the first step for the recreational better - get 5 outs that have good dog lines.

 

[THE SHRINK]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

BW BET NORTHEASTERN AND DREXEL TOO.

:violent:

 

[trytrytry]

Re: Question for The Shrink on Oddsmaker.com magazine article

Just read the article myself. Let's do it. Let's crunch the data bases for all college basketball dogs and grade them with a 1/2 point better than the marketplace at openers/2 hours to post/closers. When exactly is the average time frame the recreational player puts in his bet?

Let's not forget that all the UNC bettors either pushed or won if they got 16 1/2 and somebody must have got hit hard on UNC or they would not have moved to 17 1/2 unless it opened there and everybody moved down in which case you did get a great bet.

I don't disagree with what you have said and I think betting dogs and unders exclusively would probably help a recreational bettor but it is not enough to obtain them a positive expectation long term but just to lose less.

your results will be even better if you combine that crunch with -105 pricing!