GameBred
Members-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Everything posted by GameBred
-
The most overrated player in the NBA has excuses for his dreadfulness
GameBred replied to Mofome's topic in Main Stage
-
Thanks to you, I think I coined a new term :) Can't wait to use it again so don't take too long a sabbatical between rabble-rousing, please. Just let me know if I ever use it innappriately as tonality does not translate via text.
-
Great news and congratulations to you and your wife Babies bring luck.
-
Ask me anything about the Pay-Per-head Industry
GameBred replied to ReliablePPH's topic in Main Stage
I don't think it exists either R-PPH. Thanks. -
Ask me anything about the Pay-Per-head Industry
GameBred replied to ReliablePPH's topic in Main Stage
I am looking to find an odds screen that shows various PPH action throughout the week. Are you saying these are possibly available when you sign up for a PPH? Thank you. -
Ask me anything about the Pay-Per-head Industry
GameBred replied to ReliablePPH's topic in Main Stage
Is there an odds screen for various PPH's or do most prefer to be off sceen? -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
You're welcome. LOL... a winner once every 25 years; like the thought process. I think of it as if we had 300 fifty-percent cappers do this in a month, only 1 would be expected to hit 64 picks. Not sure how that seems to me, I guess that sounds about right. -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
I started out with the "216 separate trials" approach and got off to a flying start when I did 1/216 * 5 = $2.31 (payoff for all 3 #'s coming up) then got caught up when trying to complete the rest. Adding the other possibilities together just didn't come easy for me. That was fun as I love exercising the brain so if you have anymore, send them our way please. -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
PJ, I was looking forward to your comment on this post. Agree? Disagree? -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
Evade, I did that originally with Excel (Number, general) and still came up with those figures, which I guess is good because: 34.72 + 20.83 + 2.31 = 57.86 (2W2P@S's #). Thanks. No more rounding off :) -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
~ 0.33% -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
-
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
I’d like to solve the already solved puzzle. No Matches (5/6)^3 = 57.87 * -$1 = -57.87 1 Match 3 rolls * (5.6)^2 * (1/6) = 34.77 * $1 = 34.77 2 Matches 3 rolls * (5/6) * (1/6)^2 = .0692 * $3 = 20.76 3 Matches (1/6)^3 = .0046 * $5 = 2.30 Had 2W2P2S not provided the answers, I would not have known how many decimal places to go and I am still not positive. For instance, I would have came up with 2.50 (not 2.30) for the 3 matches in 3 rolls as I would have rounded .0046 to .005. Is it a mistake to ever round up in these situations? How do we know how many decimal places we need to go? Also, any reason why my numbers were slightly off from 2W2P2S’s, especially in the 2 matches scenario? My math was 3 * .8333 * .0277 * $3 = 20.77 (not 20.82). Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. -
Don't play poker but they changed their software a bit so that may be why and their live betting is worse off for it, IMO.
-
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
Great question. Interesting caveat with the "no public news" from open to close and I am assuming no market manipulation is taking place so I will go with: I'd take the free point off the close and as for my rankings, they would be from the bottom to the top of your list.... meaning I would rank the close as the having the lowest prediction error, then the # 30 minutes before the game, etc.. down to the raw opener having the largest prediction error. This is probably the cliche answer but it is the best I can do :) As for the change in rankings, perhaps I would make some adjustments for all three scenario's by not exactly sure how I would rearrange the rankings; sorry for the non-committal response. -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
I can use all the help I can get :) Thank you. -
I'm conducting an interview with a very sharp numbers guy
GameBred replied to KingRevolver's topic in Main Stage
Impressed. Going to try to figure this out.., having the answers helps :) -
Why would you need to take 4 years off? Why not slowly grow the roll and skill build over that time? It took me 5 years to create anything resembling a “respectable†roll and I routinely bet $5 to $10 a game when I first got serious about this; that is the discipline. I think the 1% rule makes sense for rolls smaller than 100k but please keep in mind that when betting into -110 lines, you would need a $110,000 BR to risk $1,110 to win $1,000. I am not saying that you shouldn’t take your shots to grow a smaller roll into a larger one; that is actually your optimum strategy. Just saying I think your typical exposure should be light. Just my opinion and every trader needs to ultimately answer this question for themselves. Good luck.
Footer title
This content can be configured within your theme settings in your ACP. You can add any HTML including images, paragraphs and lists.
Footer title
This content can be configured within your theme settings in your ACP. You can add any HTML including images, paragraphs and lists.
Footer title
This content can be configured within your theme settings in your ACP. You can add any HTML including images, paragraphs and lists.