[kdmfox]

Remember the teams that stiffed you with a poor performance last week or last game ... The tendency is to bet against them the next week, and more often than not you lose on them again ... Go against the grain and play them again ... The Fox



:frustrate

[jjgold]

Foxy that is a solid tip and an accurate one

[THESCOUT]

always worth a 2nd look

[Mudcat]

I'm not meaning to be argumentative but I don't think I agree with that. I think doing that would produce roughly 50/50 results.

I would need more reasons to place a bet than just that.

[Senator7]

I'm not meaning to be argumentative but I don't think I agree with that. I think doing that would produce roughly 50/50 results.

I would need more reasons to place a bet than just that.

I will agree with Mr. Jeopardy here and just emphasize the need to be objective at all times when handicapping and placing bets. You can't let the previous week's failures prevent you from making money this week. Having grudges against certain teams or falling in love with certain teams will hurt your bankroll. Stay objective, smart, and focused and you'll do just fine.

Senator 7

[eagles]

thanks for that tips foxy. I'm really bad at sports but i usually go to www.nowwinbig.com they get me some profits so far in this season

[Ganchrow]

Remember the teams that stiffed you with a poor performance last week or last game ... The tendency is to bet against them the next week, and more often than not you lose on them again ... Go against the grain and play them again ... The Fox

Yes but that only works if either the home team's name begins with the letters A-F, K, or Y, or if the sum of the scores is a prime number greater than 5.

[jjgold]

Home team Dogs getting 7 or more points in the NFL is alwyas a good thing also

[Illusion]

Home team Dogs getting 7 or more points in the NFL is alwyas a good thing also

You got that right. I pound those lines when I see them.

[SBR_John]

Remember the teams that stiffed you with a poor performance last week or last game

I like this reasoning and I'll expnad it just a bit.

Look for marginal teams over performing. Last week I mentioned TCU and Ga Tech. Just be careful and not bet against the real deal maybe like Notre Dame. Now I'm not convinced ND is the real deal but they have earned the right to be watched and not bet against.

And the part II to this theory i look for good teams who have had a rough couple of games and are bid way down like Michigan -6-7 over Mich St.

[Mudcat]

Home team Dogs getting 7 or more points in the NFL is alwyas a good thing also

Again, not meaning to be argumentative but I have 11 years of research in front of me which shows betting NFL home dogs of 7 or more points to produce a record of

68-82.

In fact doing the exact opposite and betting the away favorite of 7+ would have been profitable and the home dog would have been a pretty big minus.

[Senator7]

Apparently, there's a reason that Mudcat qualified for Jeopardy!

BTW, you're not being argumentative. You're engaging and contributing to intelligent, lively debate!

Senator 7

[BuddyBear]

sorry kdmfox this is fool's gold you are presenting. This observation is based on your own personal observations which are inextricably loaded with biases. You need to do what Mudcat does and keep track with comprehensive data to support your claims. I mean i don't want to be argumentative either, but I think the way you are rationalizing your plays are going to get you in big trouble.

Mudcat is using the scientific approach to gambling while you are using what are known as lay theories or "implicit theories" which are characterized by the absence of scientific thinking. Think of it this way....science guards against overgeneralization by committing themselves in advance to a sufficiently large and representative sample. Over time, errors caused by biases and other factors are detected. When necessary, theories are modified, even discarded. On the other hand, as common sense explanations (like the ones above) become reified through experience, errors in reasoning become more difficult to change as time passes. Although many commonsense observations may be accurate, people often cling tightly to beliefs derived from commonsense observations that are incorrect.

Basically...you need data/evidence/stats/figures for whatever claim you want to believe otherwise you will go bankrupt!

[Senator7]

sorry kdmfox this is fool's gold you are presenting. This observation is based on your own personal observations which are inextricably loaded with biases. You need to do what Mudcat does and keep track with comprehensive data to support your claims. I mean i don't want to be argumentative either, but I think the way you are rationalizing your plays are going to get you in big trouble.

Mudcat is using the scientific approach to gambling while you are using what are known as lay theories or "implicit theories" which are characterized by the absence of scientific thinking. Think of it this way....science guards against overgeneralization by committing themselves in advance to a sufficiently large and representative sample. Over time, errors caused by biases and other factors are detected. When necessary, theories are modified, even discarded. On the other hand, as common sense explanations (like the ones above) become reified through experience, errors in reasoning become more difficult to change as time passes. Although many commonsense observations may be accurate, people often cling tightly to beliefs derived from commonsense observations that are incorrect.

Basically...you need data/evidence/stats/figures for whatever claim you want to believe otherwise you will go bankrupt!

With this answer, Buddy Bear should try to qualify for Jeopardy! It could be him, Mudcat, and Ken Jennings for all the marbles. Odds for that matchup:

Mudcat -150
BuddyBear -125
Jennings +200

Senator 7

[clonecat]

This forum does seem to be filled with near geniuses. With Buddy Bear's response, I think he knows who shot and killed Kennedy. I am out if we ever start sports trivia as I will have no chance.