[MonkeyF0cker]

I do not agree.

Great. You make a great counterpoint.

[big0mar]

Not following. You said it's time consuming. I'm saying that I can automate the vast majority of it. My time is apparently worth more than yours.

Yes, and I'm saying that it takes you time to automate it.

Can't afford a laptop? I'm confused. There are wireless Internet providers.

Certainly I can't pull out a laptop while I'm in a club in Vegas or sitting at the pool. The point here is that not everyone has the time to sit in their basement scraping data, interpreting data, or analyzing data. The same way Steve Jobs wasn't programming code for Apple.

And what do you do in the opposite situation after you've invested 6 months with your "partner's" data? Why are you assuming that the integrity of the data is any better? What's to say it's not worse with a partner?

Then you blame yourself for going in with a poor partner. Just like any business blames itself if it hires a bad CFO, etc. By all means I'm not saying someone should get in business with just anybody.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Just as an example of how brain power can help scale your operation, I knew a gentleman that would follow the PGA around. He would chart practice rounds and range balls for particular players. Over time as the data accumulated, it became very valuable. Now certainly anyone is capable of walking around a golf course and charting data, but it would not be cost-beneficial.

So, you're saying that you'd make him a partner because of PRACTICE round data? Weird.

How accurate is his data? Oh. You can't verify it anyway? Ok then.

[big0mar]

So, you're saying that you'd make him a partner because of PRACTICE round data? Weird.

How accurate is his data? Oh. You can't verify it anyway? Ok then.

There are varying degrees of "partner".

In regards to that example, I'm not sure how accurate his data was, because I never dealt with him directly.

I will say that I once partnered with someone that had a game charter for basketball. The accuracy of that data could be easily verified.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Yes, and I'm saying that it takes you time to automate it.

Uh. I think you're missing something here. It SAVES a ton of time over the long haul.

Certainly I can't pull out a laptop while I'm in a club in Vegas or sitting at the pool. The point here is that not everyone has the time to sit in their basement scraping data, interpreting data, or analyzing data. The same way Steve Jobs wasn't programming code for Apple.

What could you possibly be betting at a club here? I've brought my laptop to the pool. How are you doing ANYTHING quantitative with an iPhone to begin with? You're speaking nonsense.

Then you blame yourself for going in with a poor partner. Just like any business blames itself if it hires a bad CFO, etc. By all means I'm not saying someone should get in business with just anybody.

So that's it? You've wasted 6 months and you're just going to scrap the project because the data is poor? And you're questioning how much MY time is worth? Huh?

[MonkeyF0cker]

There are varying degrees of "partner".

In regards to that example, I'm not sure how accurate his data was, because I never dealt with him directly.

I will say that I once partnered with someone that had a game charter for basketball. The accuracy of that data could be easily verified.

How could it be easily verified unless it were easily obtained in the first place?

[big0mar]

Uh. I think you're missing something here. It SAVES a ton of time over the long haul.

Did I ever argue against automation? I simply suggested that its potentially more efficient for someone else to do it.

What could you possibly be betting at a club here? I've brought my laptop to the pool. How are you doing ANYTHING quantitative with an iPhone to begin with? You're speaking nonsense.

So you're saying that you never leave your laptop? If you're in the grocery store and have a chance to scalp a Croatian soccer match, do you pull out your laptop in aisle 5?

So that's it? You've wasted 6 months and you're just going to scrap the project because the data is poor? And you're questioning how much MY time is worth? Huh?

If one goes into business with someone that provides poor data, they are doomed.

[big0mar]

How could it be easily verified unless it were easily obtained in the first place?

Charting basketball is very easy. Look at where the player shot and write it down. Extremely time consuming when you consider how many games are played however.

[mathdotcom]

big0mar has the best avatar on sbr

i will say that

[MonkeyF0cker]

Did I ever argue against automation? I simply suggested that its potentially more efficient for someone else to do it.

How?

So you're saying that you never leave your laptop? If you're in the grocery store and have a chance to scalp a Croatian soccer match, do you pull out your laptop in aisle 5?

And you're CONSTANTLY monitoring lines on your iPhone in aisle 5? Please. Can you code a program to alert you to possible scalps on your iPhone? Didn't think so.

If one goes into business with someone that provides poor data, they are doomed.

Are you TRYING to help me make points here? You aren't going to know unless you verify it. If you can verify it, you can obtain it just as easily. Strange circle isn't it?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Charting basketball is very easy. Look at where the player shot and write it down. Extremely time consuming when you consider how many games are played however.

And you're verifying it how?

[big0mar]

How?

Because they can do it faster, and thus cheaper than me.

And you're CONSTANTLY monitoring lines on your iPhone in aisle 5? Please. Can you code a program to alert you to possible scalps on your iPhone? Didn't think so.

Absolutely. But there are people that can do it a hell of a lot more efficiently than me.

Are you TRYING to help me make points here? You aren't going to know unless you verify it. If you can verify it, you can obtain it just as easily. Strange circle isn't it?

No, because the sample size required to verify accuracy isn't the entire set of data. If someone is charting 150k plays, you don't need to look at 150k plays to verify their accuracy.

[big0mar]

And you're verifying it how?

In this case, they would have a random sample selected and graded.

[big0mar]

big0mar has the best avatar on sbr

i will say that

[mathdotcom]

Monkey write me a program that has a hot eastern European broad for a voice that talks dirty to me when I turn on my computer, and talks up my bets after I make them. Kind of like "Good evening big boy, wow, 10 grand on the Pirates... you are such a big timer..."

Gimme a quote and let's get this done

[MonkeyF0cker]

Because they can do it faster, and thus cheaper than me.

Who can? Can they do it faster than me? I know what needs to be done. I don't have to explain it to anyone. I don't have the fear of it not working like I want it to. I know how to quickly fix it if it doesn't. How is your way more efficient again?

Absolutely. But there are people that can do it a hell of a lot more efficiently than me.

People can scalp Croatian soccer more efficiently than you in aisle 5? Or people can more efficiently (are we talking about the efficiency of the code or the time taken to write it?) code a program to alert you to a possible scalp? It's not difficult. Just because YOU can't code doesn't mean that OTHERS can't. It does NOT necessitate a group. Why do you guys CONSISTENTLY project on other people?

No, because the sample size required to verify accuracy isn't the entire set of data. If someone is charting 150k plays, you don't need to look at 150k plays to verify their accuracy.

How are you verifying it? Writing it down off of a web page and looking it up? That's efficient? How many plays are you verifying in a 150k set?

[MonkeyF0cker]

In this case, they would have a random sample selected and graded.

And you have access to ALL of the tapes of the games, you randomly select the (plays, games, what?), load the game (VHS, DVD, video file?), scan to that particular play, write it down, and compare? How many times are you doing this?

Do you realize that there are shot charts on the web that I can pull within a second?

[big0mar]

Who can? Can they do it faster than me? I know what needs to be done. I don't have to explain it to anyone. I don't have the fear of it not working like I want it to. I know how to quickly fix it if it doesn't. How is your way more efficient again?

Because my time is better served doing other things.

People can scalp Croatian soccer more efficiently than you in aisle 5? Or people can more efficiently (are we talking about the efficiency of the code or the time taken to write it?) code a program to alert you to a possible scalp? It's not difficult. Just because YOU can't code doesn't mean that OTHERS can't. It does NOT necessitate a group. Why do you guys CONSISTENTLY project on other people?

I certainly can code. I can also clean a toilet. Surely its not worth my time though.

How are you verifying it? Writing it down off of a web page and looking it up? That's efficient? How many plays are you verifying in a 150k set?

It was verified by watching the tape and charting the shots. As I said before, it wasn't under my purview. But there were algorithms developed for determining accuracy of the charters.

[big0mar]

And you have access to ALL of the tapes of the games, you randomly select the (plays, games, what?), load the game (VHS, DVD, video file?), scan to that particular play, write it down, and compare? How many times are you doing this?

Every play from every game was cataloged. Not hard to pull up particular plays on demand.

Do you realize that there are shot charts on the web that I can pull within a second?

Please share those shot charts and I'd be glad to let you know what they are missing. I think everyone here would agree that anything that can be just pulled from the web isn't going to give you much of an edge.

[big0mar]

And to be clear, I'm not saying that if you're not part of a large group, you can't win. Anyone smart enough can win on their own. But there also is great value is being a part of a group that has division of labor.

Also, before getting involved in any type of partnership, one needs to evaluate the cost of capital and decide what is best for them.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Because my time is better served doing other things.

It is done once and it's over. Not sure what you fail to comprehend. I can code it faster than finding someone else to do it, explain to them exactly how I want it, and test it later.

I certainly can code. I can also clean a toilet. Surely its not worth my time though.

What IS worth your time? I'm sure you live quite the life.

It was verified by watching the tape and charting the shots. As I said before, it wasn't under my purview. But there were algorithms developed for determining accuracy of the charters.

Algorithms developed for video? Come on. Let's get real.

[big0mar]

It is done once and it's over. Not sure what you fail to comprehend. I can code it faster than finding someone else to do it, explain to them exactly how I want it, and test it later.

No, not in every case. There is always new information that can be gathered from new and different sources.

What IS worth your time? I'm sure you live quite the life.

Evaluating talent and putting that talent in place. Also, finance, programming, and sports.

Algorithms developed for video? Come on. Let's get real.

Algorithms developed for determining accuracy. A charter that historically has a 99% rate of accuracy wouldn't be graded the same way someone with a 95% rate of accuracy would be.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Every play from every game was cataloged. Not hard to pull up particular plays on demand.

LOL. Sure. How many gigs of data is that?

Please share those shot charts and I'd be glad to let you know what they are missing. I think everyone here would agree that anything that can be just pulled from the web isn't going to give you much of an edge.

LOL. What an absurd post. Didn't realize that I was speaking with one of THOSE guys. This conversation can't continue. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[big0mar]

LOL. Sure. How many gigs of data is that?

It was a lot. In the end maintenance of data became an issue.

LOL. What an absurd post. Didn't realize that I was speaking with one of THOSE guys. This conversation can't continue. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Not sure what this means??? I'm just curious as to what data you're referring to. I find a lot of basketball charting, but none that provides everything I would look for. What exactly was absurd?

[MonkeyF0cker]

No, not in every case. There is always new information that can be gathered from new and different sources.

Again. It's REALLY hard to setup a web scraper. It takes me ALMOST an hour to scrape data from new sources. You say you can code, but it's pretty obvious that you either can't or are extremely novice.

Evaluating talent and putting that talent in place. Also, finance, programming, and sports.

All I see is OVERHEAD.

Algorithms developed for determining accuracy. A charter that historically has a 99% rate of accuracy wouldn't be graded the same way someone with a 95% rate of accuracy would be.

And what is the accuracy of the charter verifier?

[big0mar]

Again. It's REALLY hard to setup a web scraper. It takes me ALMOST an hour to scrape data from new sources. You say you can code, but it's pretty obvious that you either can't or are extremely novice.

Right. And if you're scraping from 3 new sources per day, in addition to developing software, in addition to maintaining terabytes worth of data and video, its quite burdensome.

All I see is OVERHEAD.

Right. Just like any large scale operation.

And what is the accuracy of the charter verifier?

Not verified. Hence his position.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It was a lot. In the end maintenance of data became an issue.

Gee. Ya think?

Not sure what this means??? I'm just curious as to what data you're referring to. I find a lot of basketball charting, but none that provides everything I would look for. What exactly was absurd?

It means exactly what it says. Your statement implies that there is a great deal more information to obtain than that which is readily and publicly available. You think that by micromanaging a collective effort at data mining shot charts MANUALLY that YOU'RE the one that's more efficient? How much MORE of an edge do you actually think that garners? LOL. That says it all. There are far more efficient ways to accomplish the exact same thing. Your methods are nothing but archaic and cumbersome.

[big0mar]

Gee. Ya think?



It means exactly what it says. Your statement implies that there is a great deal more information to obtain than that which is readily and publicly available. You think that by micromanaging a collective effort at data mining shot charts MANUALLY that YOU'RE the one that's more efficient? How much MORE of an edge do you actually think that garners? LOL. That says it all. There are far more efficient ways to accomplish the exact same thing. Your methods are nothing but archaic and cumbersome.

It provided a huge edge for a very long time. More than worth it.

But, the right answer to my question would have been:

"here is the data: {citation of data**"

Why not just post the data you claimed could be easily found?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Right. And if you're scraping from 3 new sources per day, in addition to developing software, in addition to maintaining terabytes worth of data and video, its quite burdensome.

LOL. Three new sources per day? Such as? You're in outer space. Come back to planet Earth.

Right. Just like any large scale operation.

Just like any BLOATED operation you mean.

Not verified. Hence his position.

He obviously couldn't possibly make errors himself.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The right answer to this question would have been:

"here is the data: {citation of data**"

Why not just post the data you claimed could be easily found?

I'm not here to do other people's work.

[big0mar]

I'm not here to do other people's work.

Translation: My data is inferior.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Translation: My data is inferior.

Right. That's exactly what it means.

Nice baiting.

You lose.

[big0mar]

Right. That's exactly what it means.

Nice baiting.

You lose.

Lets recap:

-Monkey says he can easily find the data on the web

-Omar asks Monkey to prove his claim

-Monkey refuses

[MonkeyF0cker]

Lets recap:

-Monkey says he can easily find the data on the web

-Omar asks Monkey to prove his claim

-Monkey refuses

Let's recap:

You didn't ASK at all.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It provided a huge edge for a very long time. More than worth it.

Oh. Didn't see you add this either.

But, of course, it did. That goes without saying.

Obviously.

Oddly not anymore? PROVIDED. Keyword.