Unknown said:
Shay,
I thought it was obvious that the Thunder were the right side. I posted my reasoning in this forum.
They were laying two points and they were up by 18 with a few minutes to go. I would propose that the Thunder were at least 60% to cover the line. That is, if the game were replayed under the same conditions a large number of times, the Thunder would cover the two points in at least 60% of them.
Do you think that the Thunder were less than 60% to cover the line of two points?
Dr M.
i read your post (retrospectively now) and you made a strong case for it. I think they were more like 55% to cover but that's not the point, you're money was in good at -2 -110. Well done.
My grievance on this thread and other threads is someone saying that they were put into the 'wrong side'. That's just nonsensical. It all comes down to the price you make it and the price available. if someone thought SA were say 54% to cover 2.5 last night then you'd right to play it.
It's a game of opinion versus the collective opinion of the market. It is not an equal sum game where there is a right and wrong side.
[/quote]
Shay,
My main grievance with you is that you called me a lemming. I suggest that you do a little research before insulting people.
The goal of these fora is to exchange information to try to get on the right side of the game. Many times, there is no "right side." Many times there is.
It seems to me that your statement, "My grievance on this thread and other threads is someone saying that they were put into the 'wrong side'. That's just nonsensical. It all comes down to the price you make it and the price available. if someone thought SA were say 54% to cover 2.5 last night then you'd right to play it." is self-contradictory.
Hopefully, the bettors know that it comes down to the difference -- if any -- between correct price and the available price. If the correct price varies significantly from the available price then there is a right side. If the Spurs were 54% to cover 2.5 then they were the right side.
The way you make money in this market is to take advantage of the situations in which the market is over-reacting to a particular result/event. I know this, others know this and I'm guessing that this is the point you are trying to make.
Perhaps you are trying to say, "there is no right side irrespective of the price." That is, the right side depends upon the price.
This is especially true in baseball, where there is so much randomness. The Yankees were the right side last night against the Cardinals, not because they won, but because they were +156 and they should have been something like +130. Which, I believe, is the point you are trying to make. If the Cardinals were -105, they would have been the right side.
Dr M.