[MadCapper]

My friend did this back in the winter of 03. He found a terrible/square poster at a different forum and faded him. He made tons of money off him, but then decided he could cap on his own. He was broke before Easter.

I think if you can find a poster thats real bad, you can ride him for a while.

[HedgeHog]

My friend did this back in the winter of 03. He found a terrible/square poster at a different forum and faded him. He made tons of money off him, but then decided he could cap on his own. He was broke before Easter.

I think if you can find a poster thats real bad, you can ride him for a while.

Many have faded JJ successfully, especially when he's cold.

[VegasDave]

I'd say it is almost just as hard to find someone who picks 55% losers as it is to find someone who picks 55% winners.

[MadCapper]

I'd say it is almost just as hard to find someone who picks 55% losers as it is to find someone who picks 55% winners.

I disagree. More losers than winners on all these forums.

[VegasDave]

I disagree. More losers than winners on all these forums.

Losers, sure. But lose how badly? Consistent enough that they lose 54% or more over an extended period of time that makes fading them still profitable against the vig? Losers go on hot streaks just like winners go on cold streaks. Plenty of us can pick 51% winners but that just isn't enough to beat the vig... thus making us losers. Picking 48% winners is pretty damn bad, but fading against this person would not do you much good.

If you believe in fading someone during their cold streaks, then you must also believe in playing someone during their hot streaks. But streaks are relatively meaningless... longrun most people will pick in the 49 - 51% region and fade or bet, you lose.

[BigBollocks]

Many have faded JJ successfully, especially when he's cold.

JJ's posted plays over a three year period are absolutely atrocious. I'd venture to say he's under 40% in 2,000+ plays (very statistically significant). Whether he's really playing the other side is a completely different story, but HH isn't kidding when he says JJ has made a lot of posters here very wealthy in fading his posted plays (with one poster here exclusively fading JJ)

[slacker00]

It's tough to do worse than flipping a coin, statistically, in the long run.

[Cannon]

From November till the end of the NCAA Foots and NFL regular season he hit 27%. Followed up with 25% in the BOWLS lost all of his big games. Then he hit an amazing 1-15 in the NFL post season. Then he told everyone to bet a fighter named Owen Beck and the over saying it was the biggest bet of his life he loses both of those.

It was a hell of a lot of fun. He sucks the most out of anyone that posts on any forum.

[diogee]

That is awesome cannon...could have been fading me for the last week and made some decent cash as well.

[Cannon]

On the fade Hanky train.

[MadCapper]

are you serious with fading jj? or is it a joke?

[Justin7]

No one is smart enough to be that dumb.

[Cannon]

Well I guess I am that dumb. But I really like winning.

[Quebb Diesel]

It's tough to do worse than flipping a coin, statistically, in the long run.

not necessarily...you have to put into fact that hardly anybody is picking randomly...now if you went off iid random samples for your picks THEN you would pick very similar to a coin flip when the sample size is large and in a numerous amount of trials

[isetcap]

I disagree. More losers than winners on all these forums.

If this were the case then it would be quite easy to be a winner. A book's dream is a player who picks 50%. This is why they strive so hard to make sure their players pick 50%.

I am much more inclined to think that someone who picks much lower than 50% over an extended period of time clearly knows what they're doing versus someone who picks 50% during that same period.

[slacker00]

not necessarily...you have to put into fact that hardly anybody is picking randomly...now if you went off iid random samples for your picks THEN you would pick very similar to a coin flip when the sample size is large and in a numerous amount of trials

For someone that has no clue about what constitutes a good or bad bet, they are effectively picking randomly. For example, if the guy always picked the team with the team name coming first in alphabetical order, these picks wouldn't fare much different than randomly picked teams.

Similarly, books are said to shade square tendencies such as taking the favorite, the over, etc. I'm doubt this percentage is significant enough to be a very meaningful factor by itself.

[MadCapper]

If this were the case then it would be quite easy to be a winner. A book's dream is a player who picks 50%. This is why they strive so hard to make sure their players pick 50%.

I am much more inclined to think that someone who picks much lower than 50% over an extended period of time clearly knows what they're doing versus someone who picks 50% during that same period.

What do you mean with your 2nd paragraph?

[mofome]

i asked the same thing a couple weeks ago, ive never done it, but cannon love it.

[20Four7]

Fading JJ for any sport and Jamie UK for soccer is golden. It's too bad cannon posted JJ's record because I thought it was my well kept secret.

[BrentCrude]

It's a little harder fading when you have ten plus horses in a field but when Charlsea Cantey,Bob Neumire,Dave Johnson,Randy Moss''the horse guy not thereceiver ''and all the rest of the really smart people in horse racing have a lock pick,you can count on the horse losing.

I have never seen a bunch of people so into a sport who know everything there is to know about horses who are so hopeless at handicapping.

[compaqDikk]

the problem with fading hank webber is sometimes he doesn't post his picks, but you have to sit thru 10 minutes of his insane rambling video then he throws his pick in there