ccon8181 said:
Thanks Lloyd- somehow I missed what Vegasron had added too. His statement looks like a pretty clear indicator of where this thread is going. I seriously doubt the OP can counter the challenges these dudes (Shay, Lloyd and Vegasron) are making.
I can counter all of the challenges presented, and the majority of the information can be found either on my website or by just doing a little research by those who question this new venture.
I went to your website that is listed in your signature box and I don't see any information regarding anything that's been challenged. I do not see anything about minimum investment, percentage you keep, etc. If I am looking in the wrong place, please point me in the right direction
But when I have some scrub - Vegas Ron leading off his post by calling me a bafoon.. I refer back to Business 101, which is not to argue with idiots, they'll only bring you down. I'm not going to proofread a post on pregame when I have such limited time. No shit my fund has a small sample size of picks its been in operation for a month and a half, of course I haven't racked up 1000 picks yet.. Common sense would be to look at my personal historic performance. Which is 932 documents picks against the spread winning 55.15% of the time.
His point likely goes to the fact that even though you may have been successful in the past, picking off numbers from wherever you please, it's going to be a lot more difficult betting against one line set. He is absolutely correct that when dealing with a small sample size, how often you beat the close is a much better predictor of success going forward than actual wins and losses thus far.
On to the other issues about limits. CG does place limits on certain bettors, a friend of mine has 3k limits on NBA. For this venture, all wagers are placed through a business, not an individual. I've spoken with the higher ups of CG multiple times and currently have decent limits in place. They have confirmed that they will never lower those limits, if my firm reaches a point where I need higher limits a face to face will be set up and it will be determined in a meeting. Now if they do decide to restrict my business with limits I will be the first to publicize this and subsequently it would severely hurt this venture that CG has spent lots of money to get approved with Senate Bill 443.
Do you have this in writing that they will "never lower your limits". If you don't, it's not worth much. Again, I'm not saying you cannot be successful doing this, at least for a short time period. It's just the idea that this is a mutual fund, and like Vanguard it's going to just grow and grow and you can keep betting more and more isn't realistic.
Its also fair to point out that the Voulgaris bets 1st half spreads, team totals and over unders, which is basically him verse the book with minimal handle on those types of bets.
That may be the case but I'm pretty sure he was talking about full games in regards to the Sloan conference. If Voulgaris was actually bitching about only being able to get 5K on first halves and team totals (which seems very unlikely), why didn't he get corrected on the spot by the guy from CG?
I cant speak for CG but in meeting with them my style of betting is contrarian, meaning I'm betting on big games, just spreads and usually the side with minimal action. A very well connected individual I consult with has suggested that the book might be using my fund to "lay-off" action and balance their handle. Like I said I cant speak for them but they are aware of my betting strategy.
In addition, (once again I cant speak for CG) the Vp of CG has gone on CNBC stating that this bill would hopefully get the sharpest to relocate to nevada and establish funds.
Well it would be really poor business to say "We only want people who will lose to come out here".
This could be in advance of the legalization of sportsbetting which is expected in the next 2-5 years. Meaning that there would be significantly more money being wagered across the US. As of today only 2.6% of wagers are placed legally. Funds like mine would help CG price markets, and balance handles- if I can prove to be as successful as I have demonstrated. But most of the naysayers in this thread cant comprehend that type of advancement or change.
What you are talking about is similar to what Pinnacle has done for years. The difference is they allow sharps to bet into them early at lower limits to pound out the number.
Lastly, this benefits the market as a whole because I'm bringing investors, not gamblers into the fold, thus raising the handle.
You can call it what you want but the people sending you money are gamblers. They just don't think they can win on their own so they're letting you try and do it for them. If they were actually investors, they'd put their money in an Index fund and do nothing.
If someone else was to create an avenue to bring more money to the table I wouldn't have any objection because the more money at the table the higher the limits available, in theory.
In theory, yes, this is correct. If you take the most simplistic example, the Super Bowl, even a sharp can get plenty down because the handle is so large. Whether this quasi mutual fund initiative generates enough of an effect on handle to allow you to get limits where you need to satisfy customers remains to be seen.
Regardless my fund is up 14.5%, that's real money, current investors have earned real money off of this endeavor. Hate all you want, if limits get imposed I will be the first to publicize it. Until then investors are receiving returns, but maybe you'd like it better if they signed up for your 5 star lock of the year lol!!!
I don't sell picks so I don't know what you're talking about. Also, if you want to be considered something akin to a mutual fund, it probably lacks professionalism to end a sentence with "lol" followed by four exclamation points.
[/quote]