[yisman]

I hate noon games!!!

Cubs x24 (3 are RL) / Cincinnati x4 (1 is RL)
under x2 / over
San Francisco x20 (1 is RL) / Houston x5
under x6 / over
Dodgers RL x13 ML x6 / Milwaukee x5
over x2 / under x3
Detroit RL x9 ML x4 / Baltimore
over x2 / under
Tampa Bay x7 (1 is RL) / Kansas City x3
over / under x3
Pittsburgh x14 (1 is RL) / Washington
over x2 / under
Oakland x10 / Texas x3
under x4 / over
Arizona x8 / Mets x2
under x2
Atlanta x9 / San Diego x7
under x4 / over

[tlafer]

I wonder why the plays given out by sports services in baseball are overwhelmingly favorites as opposed to underdogs? Does there tend to be more value in betting favorites in baseball for some reason, or does it indicate some kind of a bias toward taking the favorite on the part of sports services?

[Biff Webster]

Thanks Yisman. Check your PM.

[yisman]

I think it's a bias. Baseball is actually a sport for underdogs.


I also notice they love big time starting pitchers. Cain pitching? They jump.

[curious]

Originally Posted by tlafer

I wonder why the plays given out by sports services in baseball are overwhelmingly favorites as opposed to underdogs? Does there tend to be more value in betting favorites in baseball for some reason, or does it indicate some kind of a bias toward taking the favorite on the part of sports services?

It is easy to pick a big favorite. All the generic stats are heavily on the side of the big favorite.

To find the true value you have to dig for the less than obvious. For things like the fact that the Royals are 9-0 when beating a team the day before in a game where they were never behind and the Rays are 1-6 when losing the day before in a game in which they never led.

Most of these pick service people either do not have the skills to dig for these gems or do not have the time or the work ethic.

[Nickelicious]

Rays looking good right now, Curious. But so is your Over FF in that game.

[yisman]

I'll be back in about five hours to finish it up.

[curious]

Originally Posted by Nickelicious

Rays looking good right now, Curious. But so is your Over FF in that game.

I guess that stat I quoted didn't mean anything after all. Good thing I played both sides of this game. I have both teams in parlays over the later games. LOL

[brandon m]

I dunno when I looked at the rays today I saw real value. The rays absolutely own KC winning 5 of the last 6 and it looks like its gonna be 6 of 7.

[sailorman2439]

I wonder how well the underdog plays fare versus the heavy favorites. Maybe some touts are about winning percentage and others are about value.

[dvb02]

Curious, where are you now posting your plays?

[alex81]

Originally Posted by tlafer

I wonder why the plays given out by sports services in baseball are overwhelmingly favorites as opposed to underdogs? Does there tend to be more value in betting favorites in baseball for some reason, or does it indicate some kind of a bias toward taking the favorite on the part of sports services?

There are a few things to consider when comparing favorites to underdogs in baseball. Favorites win 56% of the time. This season is no exception. Statistics prove that a bettor who only plays faves in baseball is likely to lose his money 5 times faster than a bettor who only plays underdogs. That being said, the reality is that there is a lot of value playing the underdog. Picking the underdog is not an easy matter and requires a lot of skill and effort. But to be successful in sports betting you have to be able to identify plays that offer a high amount of value. This is more than just picking an underdog in baseball. I personally only play medium to small favorites (-150 or less), underdogs (+150 or less), runline plays (-150 or less) and point totals in baseball. Once in a while, I lay down some coin on prop bets too when I see that there is value.

Hope this helps.

[curious]

Originally Posted by dvb02

Curious, where are you now posting your plays?

I'm not.

[yisman]

Originally Posted by alex81

There are a few things to consider when comparing favorites to underdogs in baseball. Favorites win 56% of the time. This season is no exception. Statistics prove that a bettor who only plays faves in baseball is likely to lose his money 5 times faster than a bettor who only plays underdogs. That being said, the reality is that there is a lot of value playing the underdog. Picking the underdog is not an easy matter and requires a lot of skill and effort. But to be successful in sports betting you have to be able to identify plays that offer a high amount of value. This is more than just picking an underdog in baseball. I personally only play medium to small favorites (-150 or less), underdogs (+150 or less), runline plays (-150 or less) and point totals in baseball. Once in a while, I lay down some coin on prop bets too when I see that there is value.

Hope this helps.

I've found that the easiest way to make money in hockey, tennis, and baseball is to focus on the underdogs and find the ones with value.

And of course, unless you want to get buried, avoid everything above -200.

[Tirr]

Is it finished or are we gonna see some changes?

thanks!

[yisman]

1)Cubs
2)Pittsburgh
3)Detroit RL
4)San Francisco
5)Dodgers RL
6)SF/HOU UNDER
7)Arizona
8)Oakland

is my attempt at ranking them.

[keel44]

To throw my 2 cents out there about betting favorites in baseball, the fact is in baseball there are no point spreads, just money lines. Even though you pay some heavy juice, a win is a win, and a win brings money to the bankroll. Of course the best way to go about it, is to flat out avoid heavy favorites with a chance of getting upset. Also I like to RISK one unit on favorites, not try to PROFIT one unit on favorites. I feel the best way to bet baseball is to bet carefully selected favorites within -120 to -200. I love under 9.5's also.

[advanced]

You guys are missing the point. If a team is -300, the bet has value if you think that team wins >75.1% of the time.
That said, betting big favorites can be bad if your bankroll can't withstand a few punches.

[yisman]

The point is that baseball can be so random that I basically would never give a team a better than 75% chance to win.

Therefore, betting -300s would be disastrous.

If you crunch the numbers, betting big favorites is a terrible strategy.

Of course, most of them win, so if you can avoid the losers it will be profitable, but good luck with that.

[tlafer]

Thanks for all the replies! yisman and alex81 that's what I thought, that the better value is more likely to be found in underdogs, which I guess is why it seems somewhat surprising that so many of these services seem to almost always take the favorite. keel44 that's what I do - I risk 1 unit instead of trying to win 1 unit on favorites, I feel way more comfortable doing it that way and not risking losing so much.

[advanced]

Originally Posted by yisman

The point is that baseball can be so random that I basically would never give a team a better than 75% chance to win.

Therefore, betting -300s would be disastrous.

If you crunch the numbers, betting big favorites is a terrible strategy.

Of course, most of them win, so if you can avoid the losers it will be profitable, but good luck with that.

I'd love to see those numbers.

My example was extreme, but the point still stands for favorites in general.

[dvb02]

Originally Posted by curious

I'm not.

I'm sorry to hear that.........I am going to miss them!

[BettorBob]

Another bad day... I hope this isn't a trend.



2009-08-03,Diamondbacks,8,-162,6-5,W,$19422
2009-08-03,Athletics,10,-119,4-3,W,$18622
2009-08-03,Pirates,14,-147,4-8,L,$17622
2009-08-03,Tigers,13,-250,6-5,W,$19680
2009-08-03,Dodgers,19,-234,5-6,L,$18380
2009-08-03,Giants/Astros UNDER 8,6,-103,4-3,W,$22826
2009-08-03,Giants,20,-129,3-4,L,$22226
2009-08-03,Cubs,24,-135,4-2,W,$24806
2009-08-02,Pirates,15,-133,3-5,L,$22406
2009-08-02,Mets,10,-116,2-5,L,$24401
2009-08-02,Braves,16,-128,9-1,L,$25561
2009-08-02,Cardinals,13,-270,0-2,L,$27609
2009-08-02,Marlins,19,-135,3-2,W,$31119
2009-08-02,Rockies,12,-125,6-4,W,$29219
2009-08-02,BlueJays,11,-108,7-2,W,$28019
2009-08-02,Angels,18,-104,13-4,W,$26919
2009-08-01,Mariners/Rangers UNDER 8,6,-109,7-2,L,$25119
2009-08-01,Rangers,5,110,2-7,L,$25773
2009-08-01,Mets,5,136,9-6,W,$26273
2009-08-01,Yankees,10,-140,4-14,L,$25593
2009-08-01,Rays,9,-300,7-1,W,$26993
2009-08-01,Rockies,13,-142,6-2,W,$26093
2009-08-01,BlueJays,5,-104,6-5,W,$24793
2009-07-31,Mets,12,100,2-3,L,$24293
2009-07-31,Rockies,15,-160,5-3,W,$25493
2009-07-31,Cardinals,8,-174,4-3,W,$23993
2009-07-31,Cubs,15,-131,2-5,L,$23193
2009-07-31,Rangers,6,-159,5-4,W,$25158
2009-07-31,Rays,11,-270,8-2,W,$24558
2009-07-31,Tigers,16,-164,5-6,L,$23458
2009-07-31,Angels/Twins OVER 10,7,-110,11-5,W,$26082
2009-07-30,Cubs,6,-180,12-3,W,$25382
2009-07-30,Brewers,10,-285,7-3,W,$24782
2009-07-30,RedSox,5,-386,8-5,W,$23782
2009-07-30,Rangers,8,-168,7-1,W,$23282
2009-07-30,Mets,8,-138,7-0,W,$22482
2009-07-29,Marlins,15,-153,6-3,W,$21682
2009-07-29,Phillies,18,-159,0-4,L,$20182
2009-07-29,Rangers/Tigers UNDER 8.5,12,-116,13-5,L,$23044
2009-07-29,Giants,11,-163,1-0,W,$24436
2009-07-29,Cubs,5,-185,12-0,W,$23336
2009-07-28,Mariners,14,-122,4-3,W,$22836
2009-07-28,Braves/Marlins UNDER 7.5,7,-105,3-4,W,$21436
2009-07-28,RedSox,8,-226,8-9,L,$20736
2009-07-28,Yankees,19,-138,2-6,L,$22544
2009-07-27,Giants,10,-230,4-2,W,$25166
2009-07-27,RedSox,11,-325,8-3,W,$24166
2009-07-27,Rangers/Tigers UNDER 9.5,6,-116,5-2,W,$23066
2009-07-27,Rangers,12,-153,5-2,W,$22466
2009-07-27,Cubs,10,-158,5-1,W,$21266
2009-07-27,Angels/Indians OVER 10,7,-113,8-6,W,$20266
2009-07-27,WhiteSox/Twins OVER 9.5,6,100,4-3,L,$19566
2009-07-27,Phillies,16,-112,6-2,W,$20166
2009-07-27,Yankees,11,-103,11-4,W,$18566
2009-07-27,Rockies,12,-154,3-7,L,$17466
2009-07-27,BlueJays/Mariners UNDER 7.5,8,-141,11-4,L,$19314
2009-07-26,Nationals,5,-154,3-2,W,$20442
2009-07-26,Cubs,10,-225,5-2,W,$19942
2009-07-26,RedSox,8,-176,2-6,L,$18942
2009-07-26,Rays/BlueJays UNDER 8.5,8,-108,5-1,W,$20350
2009-07-26,Rays,12,-107,1-5,L,$19550
2009-07-26,Angels,17,-140,1-10,L,$20834
2009-07-26,Rangers,10,-144,7-2,W,$23214
2009-07-26,Astros,15,-151,3-8,L,$22214
2009-07-24,Braves,9,-118,9-4,W,$24479
2009-07-24,Rangers,9,132,2-0,W,$23579
2009-07-24,Angels,8,-145,6-3,W,$22391
2009-07-23,Phillies,12,-300,9-4,W,$21591
2009-07-23,Diamondbacks/Pirates UNDER 7.5,6,100,11-4,L,$20391
2009-07-23,Yankees,12,-270,6-3,W,$20991
2009-07-23,Angels,19,-143,6-5,W,$19791
2009-07-23,Cardinals,13,-174,4-1,W,$17891
2009-07-23,WhiteSox,21,-113,5-0,W,$16591
2009-07-23,Mariners/Tigers UNDER 9,5,-118,2-1,W,$14491
2009-07-23,Tigers,11,-120,1-2,L,$13991
2009-07-22,Mariners,24,-135,2-1,W,$15311
2009-07-22,Giants/Braves UNDER 7,8,-109,4-2,W,$12911
2009-07-22,Giants,15,101,2-4,L,$12111
2009-07-22,Cardinals/Astros UNDER 7.5,8,-126,4-3,W,$13611
2009-07-22,RedSox,10,-150,1-3,L,$12811
2009-07-22,Marlins,11,-144,5-0,W,$14311
2009-07-21,Brewers,8,-137,2-0,W,$13211
2009-07-21,Dodgers,6,-201,12-3,W,$12411
2009-07-21,Angels,7,-123,10-2,W,$11811
2009-07-21,Angels,7,-130,8-5,W,$11111
2009-07-21,RedSox,11,-169,2-4,L,$10411
2009-07-21,Phillies,13,-126,4-1,W,$12270
2009-07-20,WhiteSox,14,-101,4-3,W,$10970
2009-07-20,Rockies,23,-148,10-6,W,$9570
2009-07-20,Twins/Athletics UNDER 8,6,-120,14-13,L,$7270
2009-07-19,Giants/Pirates UNDER 7.5,6,-120,4-3,W,$7990
2009-07-19,Mariners,13,-111,5-3,W,$7390
2009-07-19,Phillies,13,-126,5-0,W,$6090
2009-07-17,Rays,7,-145,8-7,W,$4790
2009-07-17,Twins/Rangers UNDER 10.5,8,100,5-3,W,$4090
2009-07-17,Rockies,7,-147,5-3,W,$3290
2009-07-16,Rockies,17,-125,10-1,W,$2590
2009-07-12,Giants,6,-127,4-10,L,$890
2009-07-12,Tigers,4,-197,10-1,W,$1652
2009-07-12,Marlins,11,-117,8-1,W,$1252
2009-07-10,Marlins/Diamondbacks UNDER 7.5,5,-110,8-0,L,$152
2009-07-10,Dodgers,5,-130,12-8,W,$702
2009-07-09,Dodgers,6,-156,11-2,W,$202
2009-07-07,Twins,5,120,2-10,L,$-398
2009-07-06,Mariners,4,-110,5-0,W,$102
2009-07-06,Tigers,5,-143,3-4,L,$-298
2009-07-03,Cardinals,6,-116,7-4,W,$417
2009-07-02,WhiteSox,5,-132,4-1,W,$-183
2009-07-02,Cubs,6,-144,9-5,W,$-683
2009-07-01,WhiteSox,6,114,6-2,W,$-1283
2009-06-30,Mariners/Yankees UNDER 9.5,3,-121,8-5,L,$-1967
2009-06-24,Pirates,5,-120,10-6,W,$-1604
2009-06-22,Cardinals,4,-111,4-6,L,$-2104
2009-06-21,Rangers,3,-139,2-3,L,$-1660
2009-06-21,Brewers/Tigers UNDER 8,3,-119,3-2,W,$-1243
2009-06-21,Twins,4,-113,1-4,L,$-1543
2009-06-19,Athletics,4,-130,7-5,W,$-1091
2009-06-19,BlueJays,4,-102,1-2,L,$-1491
2009-06-19,WhiteSox,4,105,3-4,L,$-1083
2009-06-15,Angels,8,-125,9-7,W,$-683
2009-06-10,Cubs,4,-122,7-1,W,$-1483
2009-06-08,Cardinals,3,-127,2-5,L,$-1883
2009-06-08,Rangers/BlueJays UNDER 10.5,3,-104,6-3,W,$-1502
2009-06-03,Braves,4,-130,2-3,L,$-1802
2009-06-02,Giants,5,-146,6-10,L,$-1282
2009-05-26,Astros,5,-113,4-6,L,$-552
2009-05-26,Twins,4,-112,5-2,W,$13
2009-05-25,Tigers,6,-136,13-1,W,$-387
2009-05-25,Diamondbacks,4,-140,7-9,L,$-987
2009-05-24,Tigers,4,-152,1-3,L,$-427
2009-05-24,Brewers/Twins OVER 9.5,4,-120,6-3,L,$181
2009-05-22,Phillies/Yankees OVER 11,4,-126,7-3,L,$661
2009-05-22,Twins,4,-138,11-3,W,$1165
2009-05-22,WhiteSox,5,-130,2-0,W,$765
2009-05-21,Giants,4,-134,2-3,L,$265
2009-05-19,Pirates/Nationals OVER 10,3,107,8-5,W,$801
2009-05-19,Athletics/Rays OVER 9.5,3,-115,4-1,L,$480
2009-05-19,Cubs,4,-122,0-3,L,$825
2009-05-19,Dodgers,4,-145,5-3,W,$1313
2009-05-17,Orioles,4,-104,4-7,L,$913
2009-05-15,Indians/Rays OVER 10.5,4,-107,8-7,W,$1329
2009-05-14,Mets,4,-130,7-4,W,$929
2009-05-11,Indians/WhiteSox OVER 9.5,3,-104,9-4,W,$529
2009-05-11,Giants,8,-150,11-7,W,$229
2009-05-10,Giants,4,-126,7-5,W,$-571
2009-05-08,BlueJays,5,-110,3-5,L,$-971
2009-05-08,Marlins,3,100,8-3,W,$-421
2009-05-08,Royals,4,-110,1-4,L,$-721
2009-05-07,Cubs/Astros OVER 10,3,-126,8-5,W,$-281
2009-05-07,Cubs,3,-141,8-5,W,$-581
2009-05-07,Phillies,6,111,5-7,L,$-881
2009-05-06,Twins,5,-112,1-4,L,$-281
2009-05-05,Dodgers,4,-118,3-1,W,$279
2009-05-05,Cardinals,8,-140,7-10,L,$-121
2009-05-04,Angels,3,-114,5-2,W,$999
2009-05-04,Rangers/Mariners UNDER 7.5,3,-115,6-5,L,$699
2009-05-04,Braves,3,-116,4-6,L,$1044
2009-05-02,Rangers,4,-128,9-6,W,$1392
2009-05-02,Mariners,6,-135,2-3,L,$992
2009-05-01,Brewers,3,-143,2-5,L,$1802
2009-05-01,WhiteSox,3,-111,4-3,W,$2231
2009-05-01,Padres,5,121,0-1,L,$1931
2009-05-01,Giants,5,-108,3-2,W,$2431
2009-04-30,Cardinals,4,-112,9-4,W,$1931
2009-04-30,Brewers,5,-105,4-1,W,$1531
2009-04-30,Dodgers,4,-144,8-5,W,$1031
2009-04-30,RedSox,5,-105,0-13,L,$631
2009-04-29,Giants,3,-143,9-4,W,$1156
2009-04-29,Cardinals,3,107,5-3,W,$856
2009-04-29,Pirates,3,183,0-1,L,$535
2009-04-28,Cardinals,6,-106,1-2,L,$835
2009-04-26,BlueJays,5,-147,4-3,W,$1471
2009-04-24,RedSox,5,-141,5-4,W,$971
2009-04-24,Rangers/Orioles OVER 11,3,-114,5-4,L,$471
2009-04-24,Giants,5,-125,5-1,W,$813
2009-04-23,WhiteSox,4,-107,2-6,L,$313
2009-04-23,Rays/Mariners UNDER 7.5,3,-110,1-0,W,$741
2009-04-23,Dodgers,5,-128,2-0,W,$441
2009-04-23,Cardinals,3,-135,12-8,W,$-59
2009-04-22,Cardinals,5,-101,5-2,W,$-359
2009-04-21,Marlins,5,-138,2-3,L,$-859
2009-04-20,Astros,4,-122,3-4,L,$-169
2009-04-20,Marlins,3,-128,0-8,L,$319
2009-04-20,Rockies,5,-101,3-6,L,$703
2009-04-19,Pirates,3,-105,1-11,L,$1208
2009-04-19,Orioles/RedSox OVER 10,3,106,2-1,L,$1523
2009-04-19,Indians/Yankees OVER 10.5,4,-124,7-3,L,$1823
2009-04-17,Astros,6,-147,1-2,L,$2319
2009-04-17,Marlins,5,-125,3-2,W,$3201
2009-04-17,Padres,6,156,8-7,W,$2701
2009-04-16,Phillies,6,-128,2-8,L,$1765
2009-04-16,BlueJays,6,-133,9-2,W,$2533
2009-04-15,Reds,3,125,3-9,L,$1933
2009-04-15,Yankees,3,-108,4-3,W,$2233
2009-04-14,Cardinals,3,-127,6-7,L,$1933
2009-04-14,Royals,6,-136,9-3,W,$2314
2009-04-14,Yankees,4,110,7-2,W,$1714
2009-04-12,Rangers,4,107,4-6,L,$1274
2009-04-11,Cubs,5,-128,6-5,W,$1674
2009-04-11,BlueJays,3,-115,5-4,W,$1174
2009-04-10,Indians/BlueJays OVER 9,2,-112,13-7,W,$874
2009-04-10,Dodgers/Diamondbacks OVER 10,2,-128,9-4,W,$674
2009-04-10,Angels,4,-107,6-3,W,$474
2009-04-10,Rangers/Tigers OVER 10.5,3,-115,15-2,W,$74
2009-04-08,Reds,3,-118,7-9,L,$-226
2009-04-07,Rockies/Diamondbacks UNDER 9,2,-117,3-0,W,$128
2009-04-06,Angels,3,-138,3-0,W,$-72
2009-04-05,Phillies,3,-124,1-4,L,$-372

[yisman]

you're burying it by using ML instead of RL.

Maybe we should just ignore games like that if you're using ML. It'll wipe out all the profits before long.

One other thing:

curious's suggestion is not really reflecting the true consensus, because 10 unopposed is much stronger than 15/6.

[BettorBob]

Originally Posted by yisman

you're burying it by using ML instead of RL.

Maybe we should just ignore games like that if you're using ML. It'll wipe out all the profits before long.

One other thing:

curious's suggestion is not really reflecting the true consensus, because 10 unopposed is much stronger than 15/6.

Yeah, if I ever find a reliable source of historical runlines I'll modify it to use RL when the ML goes past -200. But we would have had an additional loss on Detroit yesterday with the RL, so it would've ended up being even worse (the Dodgers loss would have dropped from -245 to -130 which is better, but on the Tigers we would've lost 135 per unit rather than wining 100 per unit).

I wonder what's causing the drastic change in the chart over the past few days. Maybe all those trades right before the deadline have confused the handicappers? Or is the NFL preseason stealing their focus?

[Biff Webster]

How do you determine the units per pick?

[curious]

Originally Posted by yisman

you're burying it by using ML instead of RL.

Maybe we should just ignore games like that if you're using ML. It'll wipe out all the profits before long.

One other thing:

curious's suggestion is not really reflecting the true consensus, because 10 unopposed is much stronger than 15/6.

Understand. Then instead of using a simple number, we could use %. 15-6 is .600, 10-0 is 1.000. Now you have to figure out what the bet size is.

Maybe say that bet size is % * 10 units? So, the 1.000 play is 10 units, the .600 play is 6 units?

[curious]

Originally Posted by BettorBob

Yeah, if I ever find a reliable source of historical runlines I'll modify it to use RL when the ML goes past -200. But we would have had an additional loss on Detroit yesterday with the RL, so it would've ended up being even worse (the Dodgers loss would have dropped from -245 to -130 which is better, but on the Tigers we would've lost 135 per unit rather than wining 100 per unit).

I wonder what's causing the drastic change in the chart over the past few days. Maybe all those trades right before the deadline have confused the handicappers? Or is the NFL preseason stealing their focus?

The all star break this year broke everyone's systems. Just look at the SBR cappers. People who were in the tank pre all star game are on fire post all star game. People who were on fire pre all star game are in the tank post all star game.

Some of the teams are so different post all star break that the stats pre all star break don't mean anything, so how do you cap a team like that? For example how do you cap the #$*&^%@#%$* Indians? Pre all star break they were AWFULLLLL. Post all star break they are huge money makers.

Is there any way we can run stats on the records that each service has post all star break and weight the services with good records more? In other words give them more than 1 vote?

[BettorBob]

Originally Posted by curious

Is there any way we can run stats on the records that each service has post all star break and weight the services with good records more? In other words give them more than 1 vote?

I've actually been working on a project along these lines... I'm building a website and database that keeps track of each capper's record on MLB, and eventually on football and hoops (both college and pro). The goal will be to find consensus plays among profitable touts. I'm leaving town this weekend but I should have something up by the middle of next week. Is anybody out there any good at web design?

[BettorBob]

Here's a couple of ugly screenshots in case curious (or anyone else who is also curious ) wants to see what I'm working on... It's still very rough, and the front end is hideous, but I'm going to beta test it during the NFL preseason and should have it up and running by the start of NFL and college football.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9283/ss1g.png
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8392/ss2bqe.png
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8038/ss3p.png

(These probably won't work if you just click on 'em, since ImageShack doesn't seem to like SBRForum very much. But you can copy the image URLs and paste them into a new browser window so that ImageShack can't see the referring URL.)

[yisman]

they work by clicking. I've yet to see links that don't work by clicking unless the forum censors them.

[BettorBob]

Originally Posted by yisman

they work by clicking. I've yet to see links that don't work by clicking unless the forum censors them.

Hmm, that's interesting... when I click them, I get this: