killbutchereat said:

---

Bama has never beat Rice, hth

---

This is correct

If it was this easy sports gambling wouldn't be legal.

toucan82 said:

---

bro, don't just give away good information like this

---

Why? You're not betting against each other

whoop1995 said:

---

killbutchereat said:

---

Bama has never beat Rice, hth

---

This is correct

---

I always knew that Rice was the bluest of the blue bloods.

You will love the horses
Bet the favorite to show.
On a $2 you might get back $2.10. But you will win at a higher rate than 3 point favorites on the money line.

DrZ said:

---

You will love the horses
Bet the favorite to show.
On a $2 you might get back $2.10. But you will win at a higher rate than 3 point favorites on the money line.

---

Not me. When I bet on the favorite to show, he gets DFL.

What happens when unranked Rice beats #3 Alabama or unranked App State beats #6 Texas A&M?

The best approach is to build a time machine out of an old DeLorean, launch yourself into the future and purchase a sports almanac, then return to present day and bet the winners as listed.

Sixty percent of the time, it works every time. Unless some meddling teen-ager gets in the way.

For you naysayers, I would like to read a compelling argument against betting on Alabama beating Rice.

How about Alabama favored to win by 11.5 points over Kentucky? Is that a good bet?

Each bet you have a big chance of winning a llittle money and a small chance of losing a lot of money.

Tanker123 said:

---

For you naysayers, I would like to read a compelling argument against betting on Alabama beating Rice.

---

Because the line would be something like -35 and you likely won't get a money line because Vegas normally doesn't offer it on games like that. If you do get a money line, it would be something like -25000 or -50000

At -35, a CFB team wins 99.3% of the time. So if you bet 25000 to win 100, 143 times you win $100 and 1 time you lose 25,000. The issue I think missing in your analysis is you are only looking at a single season of data and you are back solving for a result. This is especially true when you are doing the wide spreads because the odds of the upset are low but they do happen Vegas uses 20-30 years of data when setting the odds. I encourage you take your model and run it for games for the last 10 years.

Let's go to a real world example
The widest line I could find quickly that had a money line was Iowa vs Michigan in the Big 10 championship. The line was -21.5 and the ML was +1400/-4000. Over the last 20 years, Michigan should win 93.6% of the time.

If you bet the game 1000 times with a $100 bet you get the following
Bet on Iowa - 64 times you win $1400. You win $89,600 but you bet $100,000 so you lose $10,400

Bet on Michigan - 936 times you win $102.5 so you win $95,940 but you bet $100,000 so you lose $4,060.

I actually hope you have the very rare system that makes you the next Billy Walters, but for every Billy, there are thousands that had a system that people lost a lot of money.

Good luck with your system.

Facts, OP, facts

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

Facts, OP, facts

---

I believe him when he says he has a model that would have worked last year for the number of games he used but I doubt it will work over time. I myself have come up with systems in the stock market based on historical data but most of them didn't work going forward. A few models did work but the stock market makes most people money over time while Vegas takes it from almost everyone.

The only reason I gamble is for entertainment and I know going in, I will lose money over time.

For the most part Walters didn't have a rare system so-to-speak -- wasn't a situation where "road favorites cover X% of the time".

He simply was able to identify sources of information and data that had better number crunching than Las Vegas sportsbooks had at that time but more importantly the network to get money down en masse at multiple outs at one time. Even in the later years when the major sports all had highly refined numbers, Billy was acquiring sources that excelled in soft markets like minor conference college hoops totals.

But along with the network and the number crunchers, most professionals understand the number you get is the most important. The amount of money wagered at +4.5 is significantly different than the amount wagered at +4 -- often times to the extent that at +4 you don't even make the play anymore.

Proposition Joe said:

---

For the most part Walters didn't have a rare system so-to-speak -- wasn't a situation where "road favorites cover X% of the time".

He simply was able to identify sources of information and data that had better number crunching than Las Vegas sportsbooks had at that time but more importantly the network to get money down en masse at multiple outs at one time. Even in the later years when the major sports all had highly refined numbers, Billy was acquiring sources that excelled in soft markets like minor conference college hoops totals.

But along with the network and the number crunchers, most professionals understand the number you get is the most important. The amount of money wagered at +4.5 is significantly different than the amount wagered at +4 -- often times to the extent that at +4 you don't even make the play anymore.

---

No doubt Walters had a system that took advantage of knowledge and analysis that wasn't readily available and that knowledge was his edge. He did have a system for how to transfer that knowledge into points for the spread. Now almost all of it is available to everyone. Would he still be a sharp, of course but he wouldn't make the money he did for most of his career.

There is one system that I think might work over time. Find out who I would be on in NFL games and take the opposite side. I think that would make money every year even with the vig. I like SF minus the points.

If Walters was still heavy in the game now, he'd likely have about 1,000 NIL sources offering him "advantages".

Yep. He definitely wouldn't be opposed to insider trading.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

Facts, OP, facts

---

I believe him when he says he has a model that would have worked last year for the number of games he used but I doubt it will work over time. I myself have come up with systems in the stock market based on historical data but most of them didn't work going forward. A few models did work but the stock market makes most people money over time while Vegas takes it from almost everyone.

The only reason I gamble is for entertainment and I know going in, I will lose money over time.

---

Your assumption is wrong. The fundamentals have not changed.

I tweaked nothing. I asked myself a question, then researched the answer. The answer immediately illuminated something completely unexpected in regard to the requisite variables to develop the 139 model. The beauty is the simplicity of the paradigm and facilitates a logical approach to betting as opposed to relying on luck.

Perfection can be an illusive concept, but I found the perfect system for last season. However, I expect some imperfection this year and purposely built in some lost bets to see what imperfection looks like in my projections.

I firmly believe losing bets will materially slow the growth of my account but will not impact the principal if I diversify my bets each weekend. Considering the findings of the 139 research, I expect to lose a handful of bets at most which means I will win a significant number of the bets.

Let's look at 2023. Alabama was favored by 10.5. I would have bet Alabama winning the game based on the 139 model. $100 would have a payout around $126. That's easy money. The beauty is compounding the winnings on a weekly basis.

Tanker123 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

Facts, OP, facts

---

I believe him when he says he has a model that would have worked last year for the number of games he used but I doubt it will work over time. I myself have come up with systems in the stock market based on historical data but most of them didn't work going forward. A few models did work but the stock market makes most people money over time while Vegas takes it from almost everyone.

The only reason I gamble is for entertainment and I know going in, I will lose money over time.

---

Your assumption is wrong. The fundamentals have not changed.

---

What fundamentals are you saying I made an assumption that was wrong?

Over how many years have you tested your model? I assume when you were creating it, you had an initial model that was right 80 or 90% of the time so you found things in the games it missed and then tweaked the model so they games would be correct, if you still weren't at the 100% you say this model did last year, you made further changes. Is that correct?

Also, what did you assume the ML was for a game like Rice vs Bama since those games rarely have a ML?

You would be blown away by the simpicity and accuracy of the model.

Tanker123 said:

---

You would be blown away by the simpicity and accuracy of the model.

---

Again, how many years have you backtested it to confirm it works every year? A model that is essentially fit based on one year of data isn't one that I would call robust.

I am not saying it won't work because I haven't seen the details but again, I have seen a lot of models in my life that people said was a fool proof way to make money and they only worked for a short period of time.

You also haven't explained what you assumed for a money line for the Bama/Rice game that has a spread over 28 since Vegas doesn't usually provide a line for those games. I am just curious as to how you handle your example game.

I am also curious why you think all of the people who spend a lot of time on sports betting looking at presumably the same data haven't figured this out if it is a simple model?

I got lucky. I asked what happens when a team of 4 and 5 stars plays a team of 3 stars. The more talented team will win a significant percentage of the games. I like the simplicity of this paradigm.

If you have a 95% chance of winning each match, what is the probability you will go 39-0 if you make 3 bets per week? Vegas knows the answer to this question and I don't think Tanker does.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

I got lucky. I asked what happens when a team of 4 and 5 stars plays a team of 3 stars. The more talented team will win a significant percentage of the games. I like the simplicity of this paradigm.

---

So you must not have included A&M in your analysis the last few years.

---

A&M was not part of the researched set of teams due to the screening criteria based on performance. I make the assumption the Ag football team with a bunch of 4 and 5 star is the only unranked team.

I estimate that I will bet on 100 games and ran simulations of losing bets 4, 6, 12 times. I should be able to make money even if I lose 12 times although the impact will be dramatic. I will not lose 12 times considering the results of the 139 study. It won't be close.

I plan on diversifying the risk by trying to bet on 5 games at a time. If I lose a bet, the gains from the other 4 games will mitigate the lost bet.

Ha-ha. Good luck with that! I am not going to bet money on that, at the moment i need to find a new job and things are gettin tied. Just found a service which can do my paper for me https://academized.com/write-my-paper , so hopefully job search will be faster and more sufficient. I will definitely following this thread and will be happy to celebrate when you become rich.

Does he know you can't edit your bets like he edits his posts?

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Does he know you can't edit your bets like he edits his posts?

---

It really does not matter because I will make bank. My problem will be making too much money.

Porkchop, I really am not offering anything. I am stating that I will make a lot of money because I found a paradigm I discovered. I am not offering the paradigm because it would be silly to do so. You could not pay me enough to divulge my findings. lol

Tanker123 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Does he know you can't edit your bets like he edits his posts?

---

It really does not matter because I will make bank. My problem will be making too much money.

---

I think you are so full of it your eyes are brown. Making too much money? lol

Tanker123 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Does he know you can't edit your bets like he edits his posts?

---

It really does not matter because I will make bank. My problem will be making too much money.

Porkchop, I really am not offering anything. I am stating that I will make a lot of money because I found a paradigm I discovered. I am not offering the paradigm because it would be silly to do so. You could not pay me enough to divulge my findings. lol

---

huh??

one safe place said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Does he know you can't edit your bets like he edits his posts?

---

It really does not matter because I will make bank. My problem will be making too much money.

---

I think you are so full of it your eyes are brown. Making too much money? lol

---

I don't think he is full of it but I do think he will find the model doesn't work over time like he thinks it does.

Kansas Kid said:

---

one safe place said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Does he know you can't edit your bets like he edits his posts?

---

It really does not matter because I will make bank. My problem will be making too much money.

---

I think you are so full of it your eyes are brown. Making too much money? lol

---

I don't think he is full of it but I do think he will find the model doesn't work over time like he thinks it does.

---

I looked at the intersection of very talented teams and their performances. That paradigm will not change.

Tanker123 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

one safe place said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Does he know you can't edit your bets like he edits his posts?

---

It really does not matter because I will make bank. My problem will be making too much money.

---

I think you are so full of it your eyes are brown. Making too much money? lol

---

I don't think he is full of it but I do think he will find the model doesn't work over time like he thinks it does.

---

I looked at the intersection of very talented teams and their performances. That paradigm will not change.

---

Like Kansas over tu at Austin
App State over A&M and Michigan
Utah over USC
Kansas over OU
TCU in 2022 over a number of team.
Kansas State over a large number of teams the last 3 decades
Etc

There are numerous examples of teams with a lot of 4 and 5 star talent losing to teams with poorly ranked talent. Nebraska won 3 titles in 4 years in the 90s without a class ranked in the top 10.

This is why a lot of us are skeptical of your model but again, good luck next year.