[The General]

Not without using a system of some kind. A bettor cannot handicap lazy players, turnovers, officials, coaching decisions, emotions and hot/cold shooting performances.

You need to use a system of some kind. You have to use an approach where you bet on the games no matter the circumstances whether injuries, odds, home, road, B2B games, rest or anything else. You have to have something on your side where you have an EDGE which fits into your system. Anything else is guessing.

In my life I have never met an NBA handicapper who wins without using a system.

Season records, Points for, points against, injury reports, 3 point %, free throw %, etc...All of the numbers we see on ESPN, CBS, Fox, NBA, Yahoo do us no good ATS. Incorporating some of these factors into a system seems to work for some.

What do you think? Agree or disagree?

If you disagree.... Prove me wrong over the next 5 years by sharing your handicapping analysis for every bet you make in the NBA in this thread and let the record speak for itself.

Thanks

[jcygts6]

thats why nba is by far the hardest sport to bet on

[texhooper]

is this a jm promotion in disguise?

[whatsgood5]

Very good points you bring up and pretty hard to argue with. I'm sure there are a couple of people out there who consistently make money betting basketball without a system though. However, I would certainly think that there's A LOT more people who make their money capping football, baseball or even hockey as compared to basketball...

[MilfDriller]

disagree completely

tho I agree totally with this .... 'lazy players'

I wouldn't have been so PC

[InTheHole]

Doc has hit about 55% over the last 5 years....year in...year out

[brooks85]

I definitely disagree, for now. It's easy to say "longterm" because how many people actually have 5 years worth of data?

Burden of proof is on you, how many people who use a system have profited for the past 5 years and have the records?

aside from the jm system of course.

[InTheHole]

And to pre-empt the debate

Doc's Sports's NBA Picks:

Period: 10/27/2004 to 11/3/2009
Pick Type: All Picks
Record: 634-518-15 ( 55.0% , +6548)

[brooks85]

that is impressive.

[suicidekings]

I think the big difference is that stats and systems allow you to see more of the game without watching it, whereas a bettor that follows teams and watches how well they're doing at any given time will be able to tell you when a line is off because he's seen how the team is playing. Maybe you're a Pistons fan and know that they have a way of slowing down the game, and a tendency towards unders despite playing high powered offenses like Orlando, and though the under was a solid play tonight.

I'm more of a numbers guy because it's hard to watch enough games to really get a good feel for enough teams to bet them. But that being said, most of the time when I hit something big, it's because I feel strongly about a side or a total based on watching them play, not because my spreadsheet told me to...

[MonkeyF0cker]

Ever heard of Billy Walters? Regression models? That statement is SO far from the truth, it's ludicrous. Stats mean EVERYTHING.

[Sekrah]

Agree with Monkey. The original post of this thread is absurd. The only way to beat the NBA (or just about any sport for that matter) is by creating a statistics based point spread sharper than the books. College Football is the only sport (IMO) that can be beat without 100% statistics based handicapping.

In the long run, NFL, MLB, NBA are all beatable by pure statistics based handicapping (especially MLB and NBA).

I've done this successfully the previous 2 NBA seasons at a 60% clip, and I'm on pace once again this season.

[texhooper]

the original post in this thread is a promotion for a service, i can't remember which one off the top of my head. probably docs sports or something. i'm pretty sure if someone tries hard enough they can find it somewhere. it's not worth debating.

[Justin7]

General,

I hope you aren't seriously saying this.

If you bet NBA overnights, do your handicapping with stats, and account for known injuries, you can win small (53-55%).

If you follow a system that doesn't account for stats or injuries, you will lose.

[Dexter]

You need to use a system of some kind. You have to use an approach where you bet on the games no matter the circumstances

autobets....create them

[The General]

A good Debate is what I was looking for.

[El Sol]

Agree with Monkey. The original post of this thread is absurd. The only way to beat the NBA (or just about any sport for that matter) is by creating a statistics based point spread sharper than the books. College Football is the only sport (IMO) that can be beat without 100% statistics based handicapping.

In the long run, NFL, MLB, NBA are all beatable by pure statistics based handicapping (especially MLB and NBA).

I've done this successfully the previous 2 NBA seasons at a 60% clip, and I'm on pace once again this season.

not all sports (beat w/o stats), i ignore tennis stats and base my bets purely on the players current form. Im not at concerned with past stats. But believe me when I say I have to watch a lot of tennis for this to work. But i still put in the work

[Sekrah]

not all sports (beat w/o stats), i ignore tennis stats and base my bets purely on the players current form. Im not at concerned with past stats. But believe me when I say I have to watch a lot of tennis for this to work. But i still put in the work

Didn't think of Tennis. I don't know anything about betting Tennis, so I believe ya.

[The General]

I am certainly not interested in promoting any JM ideas here. Not that I oppose the JM system if it works for people. I have no interest in promoting anything. Just a thought to discuss the idea of handicapping the NBA. Thanks for the feedback.

[texhooper]

sorry, i'm really not trying to be an asshole. i just know i've read that kind of stuff before in regards to a service, and if you were really looking for a debate on that, then i'm sorry for saying the things i've said.

you really seem like a cool dude general. come to memphis and drinks are on me. but like justin said, it just didn't sound like you in the original post, but i might have misinterpreted that.