- May 5, 2011
- 2,143
- 2,133
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Why do you guys keep giving (feeding) him attention? smh
Yeah I will stop. Apologies to Lenny.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Why do you guys keep giving (feeding) him attention? smh
Over a 2 month period I made around 500 NCABB steam plays at Australian books, which ended up with me netting about $15K before I restricted on this market at all Aussie books that offered it. I beat the closing line by an average of 1 point to achieve 58% ATS.
So you spent countless hours working on a system that gets you $15k and restricted on all Aussie books?
Typically, getting restricted on one market, means restrictions on all others (dependent on the bookie).
Brettels, you seem to be confusing the following:
1. Your point - that beating the closing line is correlated with winning
2. My point - that moving lines is not a good thing
Both points are true, but you have incorrectly suggested that they are mutually exclusive.
Assume you think there is substantial edge on a certain line and you would be happy to bet x (or in your case, maybe 0.1x).
Situation A - you can get down x
Situation B - the line moves after betting <x.
Which situation is more profitable?
Sportsbet restricted me on all other markets, Sportingbet restricted me on just NCABB, Centrebet restricted me on all sports until I called them up, acted like I didn't know why they would possibly do that, and they isolated the ban to NCABB. The TAB's never did anything, but they offered only a limited amount of games, and I hit them only infrequently as the vig had their lines set to $1.87.
The point is that if you start to even look like making reasonable amounts of money off a bookie, then they restrict your account.
That's the toughest impediment to long-term success.
However, you've already said you can easily overcome this issue, so that would be the last barrier.
I usually dribble in $250 packets (however I randomize my bet sizing). It seems easier to not trip up their internal systems.
Notice the Kings play. Luxbet open at +9, I bet them for $250 with intention of dribbling packets, and then they immediately take the play off the board for 5 minutes, and re-open at +8.5 I dribble for more packets, and eventually build my position to about $1.3K. They then take the market OTB again for a few minutes, and then re-open at +8. At this point I shop the rest of my action elsewhere at +8.5
Why!!Situation A.
Why would I bet < x, which only in turn gives the books cheaper information, only to have them move the line closer to my own numbers before I secured the amount that I wanted?
I'm 58.9% ATS over 191 plays this year.
Please stop quoting pitiful sample sizes also.
Why!!
Why would I?!!??!
Brett, your stories are getting the best of you.
I think you need to update your modelling to iron out the discrepencies in your stories.
that's still pretty good. i get $5 on $100-200 bets nowHe gave me a scenario in a vacuum you ****. If I had popped LuxBet at the $2.5K I wanted, they would have given me $250 and moved the line a full point.
WTF? This is your response? You don't know what to say do you?
i don't want to be aloneOh...Hi Lenny, fancy seeing you here
you used to be funnier when you posted actual jokes and not tired bay 13 memes
to summarise:WTF hapenned here????
I did notice that when you click on the image, at the bottom it has over 61,000 facebook 'likes'. Now I know that a lot of people are very interested in the gambling fortunes of Lenny29, but...Anyone else notice that in the image Brett posted, the hawks sydney line which was a win, seemed to be resulted as a loss?