[curious]

Hello,
Everyone knows I follow www dot sebastiansports dot com.

Week in and week out I watch NE, Indy, Dallas, NYG, GBay win easily over their opponents. Yet, this handicapper almost never picks these teams. I just don't get it. I know hindsight is 20/20 but I think if you bet just these teams every week you wouldn't be doing too bad.

Anyone have any idea why a handicapper would never pick top teams in the NFL? I know in other sports he won't pay juice over around -160/-170 but NFL doesn't have juice like that.

[SBR Lou]

because, one thing you will notice is, most guys feel sharp by fading popular picks. doesnt matter how good a team is, how obvious it is that a team is going to roll, particularly in new englands case, they look at public numbers and will try to get fancy with it. if it loses, they feel sharp anyway, and if it wins they call the public suckers.

[imgv94]

because, one thing you will notice is, most guys feel sharp by fading popular picks. doesnt matter how good a team is, how obvious it is that a team is going to roll, particularly in new englands case, they look at public numbers and will try to get fancy with it. if it loses, they feel sharp anyway, and if it wins they call the public suckers.

a lot of people on this forum. wannabe sharps but they ain't Shit.

[jrcaces]

because, one thing you will notice is, most guys feel sharp by fading popular picks. doesnt matter how good a team is, how obvious it is that a team is going to roll, particularly in new englands case, they look at public numbers and will try to get fancy with it. if it loses, they feel sharp anyway, and if it wins they call the public suckers.

nicely put lol

[louis]

The theory is that these popular winning teams have every bit of respect they deserve, in terms of their power ratings and thus public perception of the teams strength which shows up in the line. on the other hand unpopular losing teams, the public doesn't like to bet, so the line offers value in favor of these teams. Historically dogs cover more often than favs, but there are times when the fav should be bet and a real good handicapper will bet the fav even if the public is also on that side.

[curious]

because, one thing you will notice is, most guys feel sharp by fading popular picks. doesnt matter how good a team is, how obvious it is that a team is going to roll, particularly in new englands case, they look at public numbers and will try to get fancy with it. if it loses, they feel sharp anyway, and if it wins they call the public suckers.

This handicapper doesn't fade these top teams, he usually just ignores them. He has gone against them a few times this year, and always lost, but that was only maybe three or four games.

[ChuteBoxe]

If you don't mind me asking, I'm just curious as to how long you've been using him, and how much $ +/- you are so far? His prices look pretty damn expensive ($4500/yr), in order not to be taking obvious plays. I've never used a handicapper, always enjoyed doing my own picks, but isnt that a little much?

[VegasDave]

I'd say EGO.

I'm very proud of the fact that I had a nice chunk of change on Troy State -13 on Tuesday because I figured that game would be a Troy blowout, and it was. I also won on the Pats -17 @ Buffalo; but I don't really feel all that "special" about that one.

Not that it should or does matter at all; a win is a win. But I think picking games that everyone else isn't picking and nailing them is more of a "neener-neener I know something you don't know" type of thing.

Besides, I personally would be pretty put off if an expert picked New England as one of his, say, 3 locks of the week. It's like "No kidding, tell me something I WASN'T going to bet."

[Dark Horse]

Hello,
Everyone knows I follow www dot sebastiansports dot com.

Week in and week out I watch NE, Indy, Dallas, NYG, GBay win easily over their opponents. Yet, this handicapper almost never picks these teams. I just don't get it. I know hindsight is 20/20 but I think if you bet just these teams every week you wouldn't be doing too bad.

Anyone have any idea why a handicapper would never pick top teams in the NFL? I know in other sports he won't pay juice over around -160/-170 but NFL doesn't have juice like that.

Because if all you had to do was pick the top public teams, and those teams covered consistently (which they won't), the tout would be advertising that you don't need him.

[HedgeHog]

At what point in the season do you declare a team great? Certainly no one could've predicted GB's 10-1 start. So is it week eight or so that you finally decide to start betting them every week? If you start the season betting last year's great teams, Chicago for example, you'd be hurting.

To look at 10-1 teams now, and say I should have bet them all along is obvious. Ganch calls it data mining. Long story short, now that the cat is out of the bag, you'll be paying a premium for the top teams' lines the rest of the way.

[pokernut9999]

At what point in the season do you declare a team great? Certainly no one could've predicted GB's 10-1 start. So is it week eight or so that you finally decide to start betting them every week? If you start the season betting last year's great teams, Chicago for example, you'd be hurting.

To look at 10-1 teams now, and say I should have bet them all along is obvious. Ganch calls it data mining. Long story short, now that the cat is out of the bag, you'll be paying a premium for the top teams' lines the rest of the way.

For sure, GB was a dog their first 2 home games this year.

[copper]

I guess I am confused by the post from Curious. His 2 highly rated games won. He lost his 2 smaller plays so overall a winning day. Last time I checked, Arizona St was ranked higher than USC, one of his losses. I don't agree with all of his picks, but you have the choice not to follow them. He still look at the fact that he had turned $1000 into $14k in less then 5 months. If I wasn't playing a ton of other games to meet the rollover, I would probably be around $18k.

[durito]

Because historically big favorites aren't that great of bets in the NFL

[curious]

If you don't mind me asking, I'm just curious as to how long you've been using him, and how much $ +/- you are so far? His prices look pretty damn expensive ($4500/yr), in order not to be taking obvious plays. I've never used a handicapper, always enjoyed doing my own picks, but isnt that a little much?

My initial depost at bet royal was $1000, that doubled the next day. Two days later there was a card with several big plays so I had to put in another $1,000 and in order to bet that card I had to go all in. Most of those plays won. This was the first week after the all star break. By the end of Septemeber that initial $2,000 was $34,000. SBG Global stole my money so I didn't play again until a few weeks ago when BigJuicyOdds.com gave me a $30,000 account with 20X rollover. Sebastian's plays have been quite good the past few weeks, that $30,000 became $38,000.

I didn't start off paying the $4500 a year, I started off buying daily picks, then weeknd package, then weekly package, then bought all sports for one year.

If your bankroll is big enough that you can afford $4500 it is well worth it. If your bankroll isn't big enough, then I would say buy the longest term package you can afford and switch to the one year of all sports when you can pay for it with winnings, that is what I did.

[curious]

I guess I am confused by the post from Curious. His 2 highly rated games won. He lost his 2 smaller plays so overall a winning day. Last time I checked, Arizona St was ranked higher than USC, one of his losses. I don't agree with all of his picks, but you have the choice not to follow them. He still look at the fact that he had turned $1000 into $14k in less then 5 months. If I wasn't playing a ton of other games to meet the rollover, I would probably be around $18k.

I said top rated NFL teams, last time I checked Arizona St was not in the NFL.

Sebastian does not play New England. Rarely plays Indy or Green Bay, or Dallas, etc. When he does play them they are for small amounts. Didn't you just love watching Green Bay, Indy, and Dallas win and we sat there with chump change while we lost freakinng 30 stars on a hockey total?

I'm just curious why such an obviously good handicapper would ignore the top rated NFL teams, or only pick them for chump change. Not complaining, just wondering.

[curious]

I'd say EGO.

I'm very proud of the fact that I had a nice chunk of change on Troy State -13 on Tuesday because I figured that game would be a Troy blowout, and it was. I also won on the Pats -17 @ Buffalo; but I don't really feel all that "special" about that one.

Not that it should or does matter at all; a win is a win. But I think picking games that everyone else isn't picking and nailing them is more of a "neener-neener I know something you don't know" type of thing.

Besides, I personally would be pretty put off if an expert picked New England as one of his, say, 3 locks of the week. It's like "No kidding, tell me something I WASN'T going to bet."

I wouldn't care if we bet on women's golf if we win. It is just that week after week there are at least 5 games that were rocking chair winners that we are not on.

I wouldn't be put off at all if some of his 100 star plays were New England or Green Bay, etc, instead of St Louis or Baltimore...etc. I HATE those games where you look at the card and go HUH??? and then the game is decided in the last seconds of the fourth quarter after the refereers review the play that decides the game. While, New England had their game wrapped up in the first five minutes. LOL

Yes, I could bet these top NFL teams on my own, but by the time you bet Sebastian's card you already have 1/3 of your bank at risk. See what I mean?

[curious]

For sure, GB was a dog their first 2 home games this year.

Yes, I said hindsight is 20/20 but was there any doubt about New England by week 4? Or Indy? Or Dallas? Or Cleveland?

Oh, I know that good handicappers don't go by last year or the preseason. Sebastian kept the bet sizes small during both preseason and the first few weeks of the regular season.

But at some point you realize a team is a solid winner, right?

[durito]

NFL Favorites of -7+ are 837-930 (47.4%) since 1985. Backing the best teams in the league to cover has never been the way to win long term in the NFL and I doubt it ever will.

[slacker00]

It's anybody's guess why this tout service picks the way they pick.

My guess is that the more high profile a line is, the sharper it gets with action coming in on from so many angles. Steel sharpens steel. Obscure props & less high profile games is where the lines can be softer. High profile games get hit with such high scrutiny that any edge you might get is negated by such heavy public analysis. That's just my guess.

[imgv94]

One season doesn't speak for all or even most seasons. Somethings just don't have explananations.

[Arilou]

Conventional wisdom says, and long-term statistics confirm (if you go back far enough, and if you don't the data set is rather small) that taking large favorites in the NFL is a losing strategy. Thus it has become conventional wisdom amongst many gamblers that you should never lay more than (-7, -10, even -4.5 depending on the player) in the NFL. They won't play every dog, because juice is still harsh, but they won't pay for a team like New England. If there were no such people, no doubt the lines would be highly inflated and you could take Eagles +27.5 and similar lines as the public drove games up, up, up. As it is, the two sides balance each other: The 'square' guys lay the -24 because it's NE, the 'sharp' guys take the +24 even though it is NE, or if they would otherwise take NE they stay away. Which side of this is right? I'm pretty sure there was a period a few years ago when the sharps had so much power that these teams were bargains, but we're starting to see a lot of large spreads so perhaps the proper adjustment has been made.

The bottom line for the tout service is that he likely has one of four points of view: One is that his model isn't kind to the strongest teams, so he thinks they're overpriced due to late game dynamics or regression to the mean. Two is that he 'knows' that such teams are overvalued, and as such he won't play them. Three is that he feels his edge comes from his ability to cap those close games, and he has no special insight into these large spreads, so he stays away. Four is that he feels that picking public teams is bad for his image as a tout, and players who buy a pick from him don't want to be told to lay -14.5 let alone -24. He's afraid of being seen as a joke. I make no judgement on this man, I don't know him or him picks beyond this thread. He could be anything from great to random.

It could also be any combination of the above.

[jjgold]

Staying wit good teams is the way to success gambling, just not every game

[HedgeHog]

Hello,
Everyone knows I follow www dot sebastiansports dot com.

Week in and week out I watch NE, Indy, Dallas, NYG, GBay win easily over their opponents. Yet, this handicapper almost never picks these teams. I just don't get it. I know hindsight is 20/20 but I think if you bet just these teams every week you wouldn't be doing too bad.

Anyone have any idea why a handicapper would never pick top teams in the NFL? I know in other sports he won't pay juice over around -160/-170 but NFL doesn't have juice like that.

NY Giants still one of your 5 easy winners. Minnesota, a 7 point dog, is crushing them.

[curious]

Conventional wisdom says, and long-term statistics confirm (if you go back far enough, and if you don't the data set is rather small) that taking large favorites in the NFL is a losing strategy. Thus it has become conventional wisdom amongst many gamblers that you should never lay more than (-7, -10, even -4.5 depending on the player) in the NFL. They won't play every dog, because juice is still harsh, but they won't pay for a team like New England. If there were no such people, no doubt the lines would be highly inflated and you could take Eagles +27.5 and similar lines as the public drove games up, up, up. As it is, the two sides balance each other: The 'square' guys lay the -24 because it's NE, the 'sharp' guys take the +24 even though it is NE, or if they would otherwise take NE they stay away. Which side of this is right? I'm pretty sure there was a period a few years ago when the sharps had so much power that these teams were bargains, but we're starting to see a lot of large spreads so perhaps the proper adjustment has been made.

The bottom line for the tout service is that he likely has one of four points of view: One is that his model isn't kind to the strongest teams, so he thinks they're overpriced due to late game dynamics or regression to the mean. Two is that he 'knows' that such teams are overvalued, and as such he won't play them. Three is that he feels his edge comes from his ability to cap those close games, and he has no special insight into these large spreads, so he stays away. Four is that he feels that picking public teams is bad for his image as a tout, and players who buy a pick from him don't want to be told to lay -14.5 let alone -24. He's afraid of being seen as a joke. I make no judgement on this man, I don't know him or him picks beyond this thread. He could be anything from great to random.

It could also be any combination of the above.

Sebastian has said before that he is a contrarian. He will often say about one of his picks, "the entire world is on X, so contrarian that I am I am going to go with Y".

So far today we have Tampa Bay in the bank, a 300 star play, Jacksonville looking like it will go in the bank, a 100 star play...two big plays starting at 4:00.

[curious]

NY Giants still one of your 5 easy winners. Minnesota, a 7 point dog, is crushing them.

what does that have to do with my question, which was "why would an obviously talented handicapper, week after week, skip over the top winning NFL teams"?

[curious]

Can you please tell us what the 5 rocking chair winners for this week are going to be? You're going to find it's a little harder to find those "obvious" winners if you have to point them out ahead of time instead of cherry picking the card after the fact. Seriously, give us the easy winners this weekend before the games are played, if they win that would help substantiate the point you are trying to make. A lot of time as gamblers we can suffer from selective memory. Guy thinks/talks about 10 games or so that he really likes but doesn't bet, when he sees one of them win he kicks himself for not betting it. Truth is if you kept track he probably went 5-5 or so on the games he mentioned but only remembers the winners he didn't bet. Another place you can see this selective memory syndrome is a dice table, neighbor for example claims every time they switch the stick man the next roll is a 7. He's convinced of it. The next roll can be 4, 5, 6, 10, 2, 12, 8, 4, 3, 8, 6 and not a word, then finally a 7 he forgets all the other rolls and screams - see I told you, happens every time!!

Paying someone else for picks I would imagine it's real easy to do some second guessing, especialy after the games are completed. Easy to think why didn't we play this game? Or this one? And so on. If one you liked hits you kick yourself, if one loses you probably forget about it. Write down every obvious play before the games are played, I would guess you aren't doing as well as you think you are. If it turns out you are in fact really smarter than the tout quit paying the guy, it's real simple. BTW I am no tout like Sebastian but I would quit gambling before I laid 24 points and up on an NFL game, let alone sent it out to clients. If NE hits then you can say you told me so, how could anyone not have that rocking chair winner, if it loses let's just forget about it eh? No need to make a big deal of it, next roll is probably a 7 anyway.

Well, I have noticed with following Sebastian's system. If you bet every pick religiously and get the spread that Sebastian tells you to get, even if you have to buy the points to get it, then month in and month out you will be up significant numbers of units. If you don't do that you will either lose overall or not win as much as you would have had you played Sebastian's picks as he called them.

The majority of the time that I have second guessed one of his picks and faded it, I got hammered. Not every time, but most of the time.

And yes, you are right, you do tend to look at other games and say "why weren't we on that one"? I asked sebastian about this once and he said "because I did not see any value in that game".

However, there is no way that one person can study everything, so I am sure that there are angles out there, somewhere, that sebastian is missing.

I know in MLB, trifectabx and I posted totals picks day in and day out that won a very high %. Sebastian doesn't play very many totals.

I am not criticizing an obviously talented handicapper, just wondering what the reasoning would be.

[HedgeHog]

what does that have to do with my question, which was "why would an obviously talented handicapper, week after week, skip over the top winning NFL teams"?

I think Durito answered your original question. The top teams typically are heavy chalk, and Favs of 7 points and higher are just 47.4% ATS the past 22 years. Tough to argue those stats, but you keep betting the NYG -7 and NE -24 and learn the hard way.