[Bill the cop]

http://www.bettingtalk.com/threads/1...r-Bill-the-Cop...

This thread should bring everyone up to date on how I did last year with this play.

[donjuan]

People have been asking me if they should follow Bill the Cop's advice on anything related to sports betting. If I actively disliked them I told them yes.

[Justin7]

While Bill the cop and I do not agree on everything, I have made a lot of money from his analyses of various sports betting problems. Spend the time to look at his ideas, and keep what you think will work.

[durito]

While Bill the cop and I do not agree on everything, I have made a lot of money from his analyses of various sports betting problems. Spend the time to look at his ideas, and keep what you think will work.

[donjuan]

While Bill the cop and I do not agree on everything, I have made a lot of money from his analyses of various sports betting problems. Spend the time to look at his ideas, and keep what you think will work.

You've become a parody of yourself at this point. I miss Ganchrow.

[skrtelfan]

Why would you post a link to a pay board?

[Bill the cop]

Why would you post a link to a pay board?

As far as I know the "betting talk" forums are free. There are options to buy RAS data, but it's not required. I've been posting there for over a year and have never been asked to pay for anything.

[wiffle]

While Bill the cop and I do not agree on everything, I have made a lot of money from his analyses of various sports betting problems. Spend the time to look at his ideas, and keep what you think will work.

btc4life

[Bill the cop]

I've taken great pains to present a cogent explanation of what I'm doing with this play. There are always going to be some, who, for what ever reason, either don't understand or don't agree, with the conclusions I reach. You would think that they could at least offer a detailed mathematical expanation of why this approach doesn't work (don't hold your breath).

I should know by now that you can't swing a dead cat by the tail without hitting a few "Richard Craniums" in these public forums. So be it...

[TomG]

They now charge a $10 registration fee.

I actually would like to read the discussion. If there is a way to copy/paste the relevant content, please do so.

[Pancho sanza]

While Bill the cop and I do not agree on everything, I have made a lot of money from his analyses of various sports betting problems. Spend the time to look at his ideas, and keep what you think will work.

Someone hijack Justins posting handle?

[Bill the cop]

They now charge a $10 registration fee.

I actually would like to read the discussion. If there is a way to copy/paste the relevant content, please do so.

Now that you mention it, I do recall something about a $10 registration fee when RAS bought out SSB. I can't remember if I paid the $10 or got grandfathered in as a former member of the boxseats at SSB (the more I think about it, I think I probably DID pay that registration fee).

As far as the content of the thread, it's pretty much what the link shows (I'm assuming everyone can open it). If not, it details what the play is as well as getting input form some who came to the same conclusions independently (one of these is longtime capper and overall good guy, StevieY).

Let me know if it doesn't open.

[TomG]

Now that you mention it, I do recall something about a $10 registration fee when RAS bought out SSB. I can't remember if I paid the $10 or got grandfathered in as a former member of the boxseats at SSB (the more I think about it, I think I probably DID pay that registration fee).

As far as the content of the thread, it's pretty much what the link shows (I'm assuming everyone can open it). If not, it details what the play is as well as getting input form some who came to the same conclusions independently (one of these is longtime capper and overall good guy, StevieY).

Let me know if it doesn't open.

I can confirm the link does not open and the content cannot be viewed without first paying a $10 registration fee.

Mods, I would suggest removing the link entirely as this thread is currently just an advertisement for a subscription service.

[Bill the cop]

I honestly thought it would just open, I've nothing whatsoever to do with the web site other than just posting in the forums. I'll see if I can cut/paste the relevant content in that thread here.

[Bill the cop]

FU 3, DO 9 (PO 1 and PU 1).
Last 10 years, SS 461, FO/DU 316, FU 43, DO 89 (FP 5, DP5, PO1, and PU 2)


Let me explain what the above means. In essence, I make two first half straight bets (Dog and Over) on college
games that meet certain criteria. These games are highly correlated and have a LTR (Line to Total Ratio) of at
least 2:1 for the full game. An example would be a game with a game line of 25 and a total of 50, that would
be a 2:1 ratio. It would be nice if books would just let you parlay these bets, but of course they won't because
of the high correlation. These highly correlated games (F/O or D/U) hit at a higher rate than the BE rate for
a parlay at 27.8%, the books know this, thus, no same game parlays allowed.

The outcomes of these highly correlated games are the basis of my theory. Games that have NO correlation,
say, a line of -3 and total of 60, have results fairly evenly divided (but still a slight bias toward the F/O or
D/U, but not enough to get an edge) between F/O, D/U, D/O, and F/U. Barring pushes, these are the only
outcomes of same game, line and total bets. As the games become more correlated (from a LTR perspective)
the outcomes changes. When you get to LTRs of 2:1 or better, the F/O and D/U come in at about a combined
rate of 70%. The remaining 30% are divided between the D/O and the F/U. The D/O comes in at about twice
the rate of the F/U (about a 20% to 10% ratio). So if you bet the D/O you can expect to lose the vig on
one bet about 70% of the time, lose both bets about 10% of the time, and win both bets about 20% of the
time (looks like you lose money 80% of the time and only win money 20% of the time, this is true, but do the
math and see how it turns out)!

Now, the question is WHY does the D/O hit at twice the rate of the F/U? Both are noncorrelated, shouldn't
they hit at about the same rate you ask? The answer is NO, because of the "window" of the two bets. The
window for the F/U is much smaller than the D/O. Here's an example for the first week this year, #156
Alabama-36.5 with a total of 45.5 (this is a LTR of 1.24). The 1st half line will be Alabama-21 and total
of about 24 (books use about 60% of game line and 50% of game total for 1st half lines). So in order to
lose both bets (F/U) Alabama would have to win by EXACTLY 22-0 or 23-0, (small window), any other score
and the outcome would be F/O, D/U, or D/O. So the possibilities for the D/O are significantly better than
the F/U (although, of course, the F/O or D/U will still come in at a combined rate of about 70%).

I hope the above explained what I'm doing, there are only about 50 candidates per year for this play, but
I've done quite well with it (the ROR is quite favorable and allows me to bet two or three times my usual
unit size).

The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Bill the Cop For This Useful Post:

BigFish (08-17-2011), cacheman (08-17-2011), cmh947s (Today), dtrain11 (08-17-2011), JB531 (08-17-2011), kass101 (08-17-2011), Raybolts (08-17-2011), Snakehead (08-17-2011), worm33 (08-17-2011)

08-17-2011 12:19 PM
StevieY
Senior Member

Join Date Aug 2010 Location Kentwood, MI Posts 1,598 Thanks 26 Thanked 1,551 Times in 671 Posts

[quote=Bill the Cop;703627]
Originally Posted by Bill the Cop
Last year was another good year. SS 47, FO/DU 33, FU 3, DO 9 (PO 1 and PU 1).
Last 10 years, SS 461, FO/DU 316, FU 43, DO 89 (FP 5, DP5, PO1, and PU 2)






I do something similar. Home fav 1st half lines that are 5-10 pts away from the 1st half totals are unique plays. I don't go below 5 because any 1st half lines that are something like -21 with a 25 total pretty much tell you the dog has no chance and offensively may really struggle. 5-10 pt differences tell you that the dog at least has a chance to do something and if they do, will probably be in the 1st half before they wear down and quit. I say they are unique because the F/O and D/U combo's happen the most but the best straight plays are Dog and Over. It's almost like a middle. You can lose both plays, but it's rare. When the difference is 5-7, you win both the dog and over 8 times for every time you lose both. For differences of 7.5-10, you win both 7.5 times for every time you lose both. It's pretty simple, the dog scores once in the first half, you are pretty safe, twice and you will probably win both. The dog is 138-100, over is 140-98, the dog/over happened 54 times and they both lost 7 times over the last 9 years. What I like about it is since they appear to be un-correlated, no one really thinks about it. One of them always thrives and it is really hard to lose both plays. You get lines like -23 total 29. For the most part, 24-0, 27-0 is the only "football" score that can beat you. Many times you see 28-7, 27-3. One dog score and it is hard to lose both. Fav goes crazy and leads 31-0 at half and you split. Fav struggles and you split or win both if the dog thrives. I was a little hesitant when I first discovered this but I have played them for the last 6 years and they continue to do fine.

The above is some of the thread, there were others who posted their experiences with this play (all positive) and some "atta Boys", but basically that's it.

[HedgeHog]

Very insightful. Thanks for sharing, Bill.

[TomG]

For reference, here is the link to this strategy's previous lively debate: College betting model.

[donjuan]

Such great analysis that it ignores times where you push one and lose one. Worth the $10 IMO.

[Bill the cop]

Such great analysis that it ignores times where you push one and lose one. Worth the $10 IMO.

Originally Posted by Bill the Cop
Last year was another good year. SS 47, FO/DU 33, FU 3, DO 9 (PO 1 and PU 1).
Last 10 years, SS 461, FO/DU 316, FU 43, DO 89 (FP 5, DP5, PO1, and PU 2)

Ahh, I wonder what those FP, DP, PO and PU stats mean if I ignored them?

F/P you lose money, D/P you win money, P/U you lose money, P/O you win money, those outcomes pretty much cancel each other out (but I'm sure you already figured that out).

[HedgeHog]

Worth the $10 IMO.

That's DJ's way of saying "Atta Boy, Bill".

[patswin]

i remember the thread last year at sfw. it was a good system.
thanks for posting

[Bill the cop]

For reference, here is the link to this strategy's previous lively debate: College betting model.

Yes, much handwringing by the local intelligentcia last year. Amazing, no comprehension of the logical "spread" between the D/O and F/U results in highly correlated games. Lets say a hypothetical game has a 1st half line of 25 and a total of 25, the F/U has NO chance of hitting, but the D/O still has a chance to come in. Now, just back that line off to 21 and leave the totaL alone at 25. The F/U CAN come in, but extremely unlikely, whereas the D/O still has about a 20% chance of hitting.

As I stated above, last year, F/O33, D/O 9, F/U 3. People can rant and rave all they want, I'll be cashing those tickets again this year!

[skrtelfan]

Yeah it wouldn't let me read the thread without paying $10. I ain't paying no tout service a dime, let alone $10.

[donjuan]

that's dj's way of saying "atta boy, bill".:d

lol wtf???

[Bill the cop]

"If I ever get shown up by BTC please kill me."

BAM!!!

[jolmscheid]

It seems like it should be a good strategy the way you have laid it out Bill....

[jolmscheid]

Any other teaser angles that are good for NCAAF?

What about NFL Wongs? Are they dried up by now?

[wiffle]

any other teaser angles that are good for ncaaf?

What about nfl wongs? Are they dried up by now?

TEASE ALL DOGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!l!!!!!!

[dogman]

Just like correlated parlays with the F/O and D/U are all gone because the books were losing money on them so to will these as more people know about them . Better to keep the good stuff under wraps. Like BTC mentioned last year try to bet these at different books and not the same one.

The correlation is there but just not as strong as "the other ones". Also if you just bet the OVER in the first half in these games you had a very profitable year.

[donjuan]

Originally Posted by Bill the Cop
Last year was another good year. SS 47, FO/DU 33, FU 3, DO 9 (PO 1 and PU 1).
Last 10 years, SS 461, FO/DU 316, FU 43, DO 89 (FP 5, DP5, PO1, and PU 2)

Ahh, I wonder what those FP, DP, PO and PU stats mean if I ignored them?

F/P you lose money, D/P you win money, P/U you lose money, P/O you win money, those outcomes pretty much cancel each other out (but I'm sure you already figured that out).

I should have made clear I was talking about your explanation for why you think it's a good spot. The rest is clearly just data-mined garbage.

[jolmscheid]

TEASE ALL DOGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!l!!!!!!

For pre season or regular season?

[wiffle]

lol, i was kidding

[wiffle]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!l!!!!!!! !!!!!

[tomcowley]

BtBD