[onthewhat]

I think so if you know the personnel, etc.

What say you?

[IrishTim]

Absolutely not.

[tullamore]

Is sucking Fishhead rooster more important than picking winners.

[skrtelfan]

Why are there so many crap threads in the think tank all of a sudden?

[20Four7]

because this is the new players talk......

[MonkeyF0cker]

Thank Fishhead and his merry band of morons.

[Fishhead]

OTW, thanks for contributing to the Fish Tank.............

[Fishhead]

Fish-food, we used to have a shark named Ganchrow here... but I think he got tired of the same inane questions from the new fish.

Not here to answer any and all questions......just here to contribute on occassion.

[Wrecktangle]

Not only is watching poor time spent vs 'capping, you'll likely get into a funk (when losing) and believe the air-heads calling the game.

This past Summer, I hit 60% in a sport and did not watch 1 game.

[Fishhead]

Not only is watching poor time spent vs 'capping, you'll likely get into a funk (when losing) and believe the air-heads calling the game.

This past Summer, I hit 60% in a sport and did not watch 1 game.

[marcoforte]

If you're a math modeler, it's a waste of time.

[JohnAnthony]

If you're a math modeler, it's a waste of time.

This. I'm not a good capper by any means, but I watched at least 2 6 days a week since the NBA season started, and there's no need to tell you I've become much much better.

[roasthawg]

Depends on whether or not you're a good capper or modeler. If you're good at one or the other then that one is obviously more important for you. If you're not good at either then you're going to lose money in the long run either way. In my personal opinion I think a good handicapper can make stronger plays although he won't be able to come up with as many while a good modeler will be able to find far more games to play but they won't be quite as strong. To put it simply the good capper can go 58% over 100 plays while the good modeler can go 53% over 500 plays in the same amount of time.

[Ian]

It depends on the sport.

In a sport like baseball the modeler will do well and the guy watching tv will get annihilated. There's a ton of highly accurate data for the modeler to produce his own sharp lines. Baseball also has very high variance when it comes to daily performance, making it easy to fool the person scouting individual games into thinking he's seeing something that isn't there.

On the other hand, in a sport like boxing the modeler is in trouble and the scout can do quite for himself. Not only is there not enough data for the modeler, but a fighter's ability can change drastically over a short amount of time. The scout will be able to pick up on the fact that a boxer is shot, has a weak chin, etc. For the modeler these important factors will be drowned out by previous performances that did not demonstrate more recent strengths and weaknesses.

[u21c3f6]

There is no single method or single set of factors in finding an edge.

The factors that are important to me in finding an edge may not be important to you and vice versa. Some use stats of the players and I don't. This doesn't mean that one of us is right and the other wrong. We can both create profitable "systems" using different facors. What is important is that the factors that you are using actually produce an edge. If the factors that you are using do not produce an edge, then it is probably time to do something else (if your goal is to wager profitably).

Joe.