[HedgeHog]

Im sure everyone is aware of mine and betlikeimbroke (lol jk bro) arguement. He is saying my record is FALSE because sometimes I pick...like example Suns +3 1st half and Suns game +5.5. He is saying my record is not accurate that I am 2-0 on posted picks.

There's nothing wrong with picking the Suns 1st half and Suns Game as straights (parlaying them is a different story of course). Sure you have an increased chance of going 2-0, but your chances at going 0-2 are raised as well. Your record is legit!

[Ganchrow]

The point is that it's easier to put up a very successful record making correlated picks than making uncorrelated picks. Certainly this effect will diminish in importance over the long term, but a 63-28 record consisting of many highly correlated picks is clearly less impressive than a 63-28 record consisting of largely uncorrelated picks.

[donjuan]

As Ganchrow says, basically by making wagers that are correlated your sample size is not what it appears to be.

[beetman]

A
G
E
N
D
A

Ganchrow@broke.com, Iwin is god how can you criticize his record, you're just mad b/c he went 2-5 when you took his picks. There are no such things as correlated picks, YOU (and the books) JUST THINK THEY'RE CORRELATED. Just wanted to get all these out of the way b/c when I post something like this, these are the replies I get. People have a hard time believing that I want Iwin to be a 70% capper, hell it'd be a free money party if he's "cracked the code", but I'm referring to uncorrelated wagers, not simply having highly correlated wagers that count as multiple picks. Send apologies to bettil(like)imbroke999@degenerateposter. com

Can I parlay Suns first half with Suns game at your book then? Thanks.