Usa Forum - 4095 Solution manuals and Test banks to Materials Engineering Books

rodwes15

7/14/2011 5:41:00 AM

List of Solutions Manuals and Test Banks
________________________________________

contact me to : mattosbw1@gmail.com
mattosbw1(at)gmail.com

NOTE : "THIS SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR : CHINA, INDIA, RUSSIA,
PAKISTAN, IRAQ, IRAN, PHILIPPINES, NORTH KOREA, NEPAL, BANGLADESH, SRI
LANKA, MALDIVES, BHUTAN & COLOMBIA".

If your wanted solutions manual is not in this list, also can ask me
if is available (it is a partial list). Then if you need solutions
manual only contact me by email.

"ARE NOT AVAILABLES BOOKS IN DIGITAL FORMAT", ONLY SOLUTIONS MANUALS
AND TEST BANKS.

This same "list of titles" of texts with availables solutions manual
and/or test banks is for download from :

http://www.megaupload.com/?...

I do not review the forums, just send me an email. Please do not use
emails from servers "LIVE" , all they are take as spam emails in my
inbox.

- Materials Engineering :
_________________________

Solution manual Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing : Materials,
Processes, and Systems (3rd Ed., Mikell Groover)
Solution manual Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing : Materials,
Processes, and Systems (4th Ed., Mikell Groover)
Solution manual Fundamentals of Manufacturing (2nd Ed., Philip D.
Rufe)
Solution manual Principles of Metal Manufacturing Processes (Beddoes &
Bibby)
Solution manual Materials Science for Engineering Students (Traugott
Fischer)
Solution manual Essentials of Modern Materials Science and Engineering
(James Newell)
Solution manual Materials Science and Engineering : An Introduction
(6th Ed., William Callister)
Solution manual Materials Science and Engineering : An Introduction
(7th Ed., William Callister)
Solution manual Materials Science and Engineering : An Introduction
(8th Ed., William Callister)
Solution manual Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering :
Integrated Approach (2nd Ed., William Callister)
Solution manual Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering :
Integrated Approach (3rd Ed., William Callister)
Solution manual Science and Design of Engineering Materials (2nd Ed.,
Schaffer, Saxena, et al)
Solution manual Manual of Mineral Science (23rd Ed., Cornelis Klein &
Barbara Dutrow)
Solution manual Materials and Processes in Manufacturing (9th Ed., E.
Paul DeGarmo, J. T. Black, Ronald A. Kohser)
Solution manual DeGarmo's Materials and Processes in Manufacturing
(10th Ed., E. Paul DeGarmo, J. T. Black, Ronald A. Kohser)
Solution manual Foundations of Materials Science and Engineering (3rd
Ed, Smith)
Solution manual Foundations of Materials Science and Engineering (4th
Ed, Smith & Hashemi)
Solution manual Foundations of Materials Science and Engineering (5th
Ed, Smith & Hashemi)
Solution manual Engineering Materials Science (Milton Ohring)
Solution manual Metal Fatigue in Engineering (2nd Ed., Stephens,
Fatemi & Fuchs)
Solution manual Mechanical Behavior of Materials (3rd Ed. Dowling)
Solution manual Mechanical Behavior of Materials (W.F. Hosford)
Solution manual Mechanical Behavior of Materials (Keith Bowman)
Solution manual Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering
Materials (4th Ed., Richard Hertzberg)
Solution manual From Polymers to Plastics (A.K. van der Vegt)
Solution manual Nanoengineering of Structural, Functional and Smart
Materials (Mark Schulz, Ajit Kelkar, Mannur Sundaresan)
Solution manual Principles Of Polymer Systems (5th Ed., by Ferdinand
Rodriguez, Claude Cohen, Christopher Ober, Lynden Archer)
Solution manual Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Materials (4th
Ed. David Gaskell)
Solution manual Structure and Properties of Engineering Materiales
(5th Ed., Daniel Henkel & Alan Pense)
Solution manual Plastics : Materials and Processing (3rd Ed., Strong)
Solution manual Engineering Materials : Properties and Selection (8th
Ed., Budinski)
Solution manual Engineering Materials : Properties and Selection (9th
Ed., Budinski)
Solution manual Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers (6th
Ed., Shackelford)
Solution manual Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers (7th
Ed., Shackelford)
Solution manual Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers -
International Edition (7th Ed., Shackelford)
Solution manual Creative Design of Products and Systems (Saeed Niku)
Solution manual Materials : Engineering, Science, Processing and
Design (1st Ed., Michael Ashby, Hugh Shercliff & David Cebon)
Solution manual Materials : Engineering, Science, Processing and
Design (2nd Ed., Michael Ashby, Hugh Shercliff & David Cebon)
Solution manual Engineering Materials Vol. 1 : An Introduction to
Properties, Applications and Design (3rd Ed., Michael Ashby & David
Jones)
Solution manual Engineering Materials Vol. 2 : An Introduction to
Microstructures, Processing and Design (3rd Ed., Michael Ashby & David
Jones)
Solution manual Materials and the Environment : Eco-informed Material
Choice (Michael Ashby)
Solution manual Principles of Corrosion Engineering and Corrosion
Control (Zaki Ahmad)
Solution manual Corrosion and Corrosion Control : An Introduction to
Corrosion Science and Engineering (4th Ed., R. Winston Revie & Herbert
H. Uhlig)
Solution manual Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites (3rd Ed.,
Bhagwan Agarwal, Lawrence Broutman & K. Chandrashekhara)
Solution manual Basic Engineering Plasticity : An Introduction with
Engineering and Manufacturing Applications (David Rees)
Solution manual Steels : Microstructure and Properties (3rd Ed.
Bhadeshia & Honeycombe)
Solution manual Theory of Plasticity (3rd Ed. Jagabanduhu Chakrabarty)
Solution manual Plastics : Microstructure and Engineering Applications
(3rd Ed., Nigel Mills)
Solution manual Laser Processing of Engineering Materials :
Principles, Procedure and Industrial Application (John Ion)
Solution manual Sintering : Densification, Grain Growth and
Microstructure (Suk-Joong Kang)
Solution manual Biomaterials : An Introduction (3rd Ed., Joon Park &
R.S. Lakes)
Solution manual Biomaterials : The Intersection of Biology and
Materials Science (Temenoff & Mikos)
Solution manual Biomaterials Science : An Introduction to Materials in
Medicine (2nd Ed., Ratner, Hoffman, Schoen & Lemons)
Solution manual Tissue Engineering (Bernhard O. Palsson & Sangeeta N.
Bhatia)
Solution manual Tissue Engineering (Clemens van Blitterswijk, et al.)
Solution manual Introduction to Materials Management (6th Ed., Arnold,
Chapman & Clive)
Solution manual Fundamentals of Solid State Engineering (2nd Ed.,
Manijeh Razeghi)
Solution manual Smart Electronic Materials : Fundamentals and
Applications (Jasprit Singh)
Solution manual Composite Materials : Science and Engineering (2nd
Ed., Krishan K. Chawla)
Solution manual Laminar Composites (George Staab)
Solution manual Physical Metallurgy and Advanced Materials (7th Ed.,
R.E. Smallman & A.H.W. Ngan)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

contact me to : mattosbw1@gmail.com
mattosbw1(at)gmail.com

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

8 Answers

Andrew

12/21/2011 10:19:00 PM

On Dec 21, 1:10 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 3:55 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 12:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 21, 12:23 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 21, 3:15 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:56:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Dec 21, 12:04 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:57:59 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >On Dec 20, 6:47 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > >> >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2:36 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:19:18 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >Is that the worst betting line ever? I would have thought the Giants
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >would be favored by 6 or so, and if you count the home field advantage
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >(which really only counts partially, you do have to deal with the
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >other teams fans, but you don't have to travel and stay in a hotel,
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >etc.) maybe bring it down to 3 (or 4 1/2 because of the quasi HF
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >advantage). But the Jets -3? I don't get it, who exactly thinks the
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >Giants are that bad? They have a better QB, better RBs (even though
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >Bradshaw is banged up), arguably better receivers, although maybe
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >that's close . . . I know the Giants have issues on defense but so do
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >the Jets! With the exception of the secondary, I'd say the Giants rate
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >higher than the Jets at every other position. Why are the Jets
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >favored? Brad? Andrew? Jeff? Neil? Buehller?
>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > Because more people are betting on them?
>
> > > > > > >> >> >> Indeed you are correct. Vegas's only goal withe the point spread is
> > > > > > >> >> >> to make certain 50% of bettors pick each team.
>
> > > > > > >> >> >The opening line doesn't favor the Jets because more people are
> > > > > > >> >> >betting on them, nobody knows who's betting on who until somebody
> > > > > > >> >> >starts the betting. The opening line is the linemaker's educated
> > > > > > >> >> >opinion as to what the betting public may do. Obviously, the line
> > > > > > >> >> >maker believes - as Andrew does - that the public perceives the Jets
> > > > > > >> >> >as the better team, making the line Jets -3. My question was why are
> > > > > > >> >> >the Jets favored, asked because I disagree that they are the better
> > > > > > >> >> >team and I also believe that the general betting public are more apt
> > > > > > >> >> >to be Giants backers than Jets backers, hence I would have opened the
> > > > > > >> >> >line differently.
>
> > > > > > >> >> >But under no circumstance is the opening line reflective of the
> > > > > > >> >> >betting action. Can't be. The betting action hadn't taken place yet.
>
> > > > > > >> >> But Vegas is essentially betting on what the betting action will be.
> > > > > > >> >> They are trying to split the bets for each team.
>
> > > > > > >> >They are taking an educated guess. They certainly cannot be basing
> > > > > > >> >their "guess" on what the betting action is, because the betting
> > > > > > >> >action doesn't happen until the line is set.
>
> > > > > > >> Which is why I said that Vegas is betting on the betting. Please try
> > > > > > >> to follow the points other people are making.
>
> > > > > > >> >Which came first the line or the betting?
>
> > > > > > >> >The line.
>
> > > > > > >> Which is based on their (highly educated) expectation of how the
> > > > > > >> betting public will ask.
>
> > > > > > >> Ask yourself this - how often does a line move during the week by more
> > > > > > >> than about 1 point (setting aside instances where something happens to
> > > > > > >> a significant player for either team)?
>
> > > > > > >I agree that Vegas is very very good at setting lines but not solely
> > > > > > >because they "guess" what the final score will be (although sometimes
> > > > > > >they do) but because they gauge what the betting public will do. They
> > > > > > >are just as good if not better at predicting what the public will do,
> > > > > > >than at what the games will do. *Nobody* can predict what the games
> > > > > > >will do, ask Green Bay, Kansas CIty and Neil about that. Now, once the
> > > > > > >line comes out, many amateur bettors adjust their thinking to fall in
> > > > > > >line with what Vegas "thinks." Sharp bettors, know that Vegas, like
> > > > > > >anybody.anywhere else, makes mistakes from time to time, and they look
> > > > > > >for the skewed line. That's what I was getting at, that there might be
> > > > > > >an error here with the Jets -3 opening line. I wasn't looking for an
> > > > > > >explanation as to how the opening lines are set, or how Las Vegas
> > > > > > >sports betting works. I already know more about that, than likely any
> > > > > > >one of you geniuses. And I mean that with respect (except in O'Hara's
> > > > > > >case) as I think the majority of you guys that I'm arguing with here
> > > > > > >about this are very intelligent - in your own areas.
>
> > > > > > >> Vegas is very, very good at
> > > > > > >> understanding where the money will fall. Yes, they miss sometimes,
> > > > > > >> but they're right far more often.
>
> > > > > > >Better at that than where the final score will fall. That's why it
> > > > > > >behooves a sharp, smart, experienced bettor to look for the bad line -
> > > > > > >if it exists - every single week that the lines come out.
>
> > > > > > You can find a lot of sharp, smart, experienced bettors in bankruptcy
> > > > > > court or in jail.
>
> > > > > Not really. If they're in bankruptcy court they sure as shit ain't
> > > > > sharps!
>
> > > > After many years of gambling on sports, I've come to determine that
> > > > the only so-called "sharps" are those that don't gamble on sports
> > > > anymore.
>
> > > Just because you don't know any "sharps" doesn't mean they don't
> > > exist.
>
> > A friend of mine recently posted the following post, which sums up far
> > better than I ever could, exactly how little skill is involved in
> > betting NFL games. I've yet to see anyone prove themselves to be, over
> > the long run, any better at picking NFL games against the spread than
> > they are at picking a coin flip.
>
> >http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/you_have_no_skill_a......
>
> All jokes and funny videos to the side, what exactly are you saying,
> that because you have never come across anybody that wins at sports
> betting, that the person that does, therefore doesn't exist? Hey, I'm
> not saying it's common to find people that can do it successfully,
> hell, I personally don't know anybody that wins consistently
> either . . . but that you and I don't know any of them surely doesn't
> prove that they don't exist.

Did you read the post or not? I didn't link to any jokes or funny
videos. I linked to a statistical evaluation of a self-selected group
of NFL gambling experts, among whom any difference between the best
and worst of that group is within a standard deviation. I'm saying
there is no proof that I have ever seen of people who gamble on NFL
games who are any better than 50/50 over the long run in picking games
against the spread. Sure, maybe such a person does exist, and maybe
the Loch Ness monster and Yeti are hanging out enjoying some haggis
and homebrew. I'm saying I've yet to see any type of proof that any of
that exists.

Andrew

12/21/2011 10:22:00 PM

On Dec 21, 2:09 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:10:22 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
>
>
> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 21, 3:55 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 21, 12:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Dec 21, 12:23 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Dec 21, 3:15 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:56:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >On Dec 21, 12:04 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:57:59 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >On Dec 20, 6:47 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > >> >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> >On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2:36 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:19:18 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >Is that the worst betting line ever? I would have thought the Giants
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >would be favored by 6 or so, and if you count the home field advantage
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >(which really only counts partially, you do have to deal with the
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >other teams fans, but you don't have to travel and stay in a hotel,
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >etc.) maybe bring it down to 3 (or 4 1/2 because of the quasi HF
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >advantage). But the Jets -3? I don't get it, who exactly thinks the
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >Giants are that bad? They have a better QB, better RBs (even though
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >Bradshaw is banged up), arguably better receivers, although maybe
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >that's close . . . I know the Giants have issues on defense but so do
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >the Jets! With the exception of the secondary, I'd say the Giants rate
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >higher than the Jets at every other position. Why are the Jets
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >favored? Brad? Andrew? Jeff? Neil? Buehller?
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Because more people are betting on them?
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> Indeed you are correct. Vegas's only goal withe the point spread is
> >> > > > > >> >> >> to make certain 50% of bettors pick each team.
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >The opening line doesn't favor the Jets because more people are
> >> > > > > >> >> >betting on them, nobody knows who's betting on who until somebody
> >> > > > > >> >> >starts the betting. The opening line is the linemaker's educated
> >> > > > > >> >> >opinion as to what the betting public may do. Obviously, the line
> >> > > > > >> >> >maker believes - as Andrew does - that the public perceives the Jets
> >> > > > > >> >> >as the better team, making the line Jets -3. My question was why are
> >> > > > > >> >> >the Jets favored, asked because I disagree that they are the better
> >> > > > > >> >> >team and I also believe that the general betting public are more apt
> >> > > > > >> >> >to be Giants backers than Jets backers, hence I would have opened the
> >> > > > > >> >> >line differently.
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >But under no circumstance is the opening line reflective of the
> >> > > > > >> >> >betting action. Can't be. The betting action hadn't taken place yet.
>
> >> > > > > >> >> But Vegas is essentially betting on what the betting action will be.
> >> > > > > >> >> They are trying to split the bets for each team.
>
> >> > > > > >> >They are taking an educated guess. They certainly cannot be basing
> >> > > > > >> >their "guess" on what the betting action is, because the betting
> >> > > > > >> >action doesn't happen until the line is set.
>
> >> > > > > >> Which is why I said that Vegas is betting on the betting. Please try
> >> > > > > >> to follow the points other people are making.
>
> >> > > > > >> >Which came first the line or the betting?
>
> >> > > > > >> >The line.
>
> >> > > > > >> Which is based on their (highly educated) expectation of how the
> >> > > > > >> betting public will ask.
>
> >> > > > > >> Ask yourself this - how often does a line move during the week by more
> >> > > > > >> than about 1 point (setting aside instances where something happens to
> >> > > > > >> a significant player for either team)?
>
> >> > > > > >I agree that Vegas is very very good at setting lines but not solely
> >> > > > > >because they "guess" what the final score will be (although sometimes
> >> > > > > >they do) but because they gauge what the betting public will do. They
> >> > > > > >are just as good if not better at predicting what the public will do,
> >> > > > > >than at what the games will do. *Nobody* can predict what the games
> >> > > > > >will do, ask Green Bay, Kansas CIty and Neil about that. Now, once the
> >> > > > > >line comes out, many amateur bettors adjust their thinking to fall in
> >> > > > > >line with what Vegas "thinks." Sharp bettors, know that Vegas, like
> >> > > > > >anybody.anywhere else, makes mistakes from time to time, and they look
> >> > > > > >for the skewed line. That's what I was getting at, that there might be
> >> > > > > >an error here with the Jets -3 opening line. I wasn't looking for an
> >> > > > > >explanation as to how the opening lines are set, or how Las Vegas
> >> > > > > >sports betting works. I already know more about that, than likely any
> >> > > > > >one of you geniuses. And I mean that with respect (except in O'Hara's
> >> > > > > >case) as I think the majority of you guys that I'm arguing with here
> >> > > > > >about this are very intelligent - in your own areas.
>
> >> > > > > >> Vegas is very, very good at
> >> > > > > >> understanding where the money will fall. Yes, they miss sometimes,
> >> > > > > >> but they're right far more often.
>
> >> > > > > >Better at that than where the final score will fall. That's why it
> >> > > > > >behooves a sharp, smart, experienced bettor to look for the bad line -
> >> > > > > >if it exists - every single week that the lines come out.
>
> >> > > > > You can find a lot of sharp, smart, experienced bettors in bankruptcy
> >> > > > > court or in jail.
>
> >> > > > Not really. If they're in bankruptcy court they sure as shit ain't
> >> > > > sharps!
>
> >> > > After many years of gambling on sports, I've come to determine that
> >> > > the only so-called "sharps" are those that don't gamble on sports
> >> > > anymore.
>
> >> > Just because you don't know any "sharps" doesn't mean they don't
> >> > exist.
>
> >> A friend of mine recently posted the following post, which sums up far
> >> better than I ever could, exactly how little skill is involved in
> >> betting NFL games. I've yet to see anyone prove themselves to be, over
> >> the long run, any better at picking NFL games against the spread than
> >> they are at picking a coin flip.
>
> >>http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/you_have_no_skill_a......
>
> >All jokes and funny videos to the side, what exactly are you saying,
> >that because you have never come across anybody that wins at sports
> >betting, that the person that does, therefore doesn't exist? Hey, I'm
> >not saying it's common to find people that can do it successfully,
> >hell, I personally don't know anybody that wins consistently
> >either . . . but that you and I don't know any of them surely doesn't
> >prove that they don't exist.
>
> Let's remember that we're talking about betting NFL games here, not
> sports betting in general. Most sports bettors who consistently make
> money are probably doing by betting college basketball. As I'm sure
> you know, that's because there are so many teams and so many games
> that it makes it much harder for the oddsmakers to set accurate lines.
> They can't possibly get enough information about all those games to do
> so. As a result, it's much easier to find a line that's out of whack,
> especially for a college bb junkie who concentrates on picking
> relatively obscure games.

HRYK. Even more specifically, people betting college basketball games
between the start of the season and the end of the NFL regular season/
college bowl season have the best chance of winning money betting on
sports (aside from, you know, those people paying same college
basketball players to shave points here and there). During that sweet
spot of the season, bookmakers are generally spending more time
getting the numbers of NFL games, college football games, NBA games
and NHL games right before they eventually get to deciding whether
Northern Iowa should be a 10 or a 12 point favorite when they host
Centenary.

marcman

12/21/2011 10:50:00 PM

On Dec 21, 5:09 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:10:22 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 21, 3:55 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 21, 12:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Dec 21, 12:23 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Dec 21, 3:15 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:56:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >On Dec 21, 12:04 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:57:59 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >On Dec 20, 6:47 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > >> >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> >On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2:36 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:19:18 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >Is that the worst betting line ever? I would have thought the Giants
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >would be favored by 6 or so, and if you count the home field advantage
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >(which really only counts partially, you do have to deal with the
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >other teams fans, but you don't have to travel and stay in a hotel,
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >etc.) maybe bring it down to 3 (or 4 1/2 because of the quasi HF
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >advantage). But the Jets -3? I don't get it, who exactly thinks the
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >Giants are that bad? They have a better QB, better RBs (even though
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >Bradshaw is banged up), arguably better receivers, although maybe
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >that's close . . . I know the Giants have issues on defense but so do
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >the Jets! With the exception of the secondary, I'd say the Giants rate
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >higher than the Jets at every other position. Why are the Jets
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >favored? Brad? Andrew? Jeff? Neil? Buehller?
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Because more people are betting on them?
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >> Indeed you are correct. Vegas's only goal withe the point spread is
> >> > > > > >> >> >> to make certain 50% of bettors pick each team.
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >The opening line doesn't favor the Jets because more people are
> >> > > > > >> >> >betting on them, nobody knows who's betting on who until somebody
> >> > > > > >> >> >starts the betting. The opening line is the linemaker's educated
> >> > > > > >> >> >opinion as to what the betting public may do. Obviously, the line
> >> > > > > >> >> >maker believes - as Andrew does - that the public perceives the Jets
> >> > > > > >> >> >as the better team, making the line Jets -3. My question was why are
> >> > > > > >> >> >the Jets favored, asked because I disagree that they are the better
> >> > > > > >> >> >team and I also believe that the general betting public are more apt
> >> > > > > >> >> >to be Giants backers than Jets backers, hence I would have opened the
> >> > > > > >> >> >line differently.
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >But under no circumstance is the opening line reflective of the
> >> > > > > >> >> >betting action. Can't be. The betting action hadn't taken place yet.
>
> >> > > > > >> >> But Vegas is essentially betting on what the betting action will be.
> >> > > > > >> >> They are trying to split the bets for each team.
>
> >> > > > > >> >They are taking an educated guess. They certainly cannot be basing
> >> > > > > >> >their "guess" on what the betting action is, because the betting
> >> > > > > >> >action doesn't happen until the line is set.
>
> >> > > > > >> Which is why I said that Vegas is betting on the betting. Please try
> >> > > > > >> to follow the points other people are making.
>
> >> > > > > >> >Which came first the line or the betting?
>
> >> > > > > >> >The line.
>
> >> > > > > >> Which is based on their (highly educated) expectation of how the
> >> > > > > >> betting public will ask.
>
> >> > > > > >> Ask yourself this - how often does a line move during the week by more
> >> > > > > >> than about 1 point (setting aside instances where something happens to
> >> > > > > >> a significant player for either team)?
>
> >> > > > > >I agree that Vegas is very very good at setting lines but not solely
> >> > > > > >because they "guess" what the final score will be (although sometimes
> >> > > > > >they do) but because they gauge what the betting public will do. They
> >> > > > > >are just as good if not better at predicting what the public will do,
> >> > > > > >than at what the games will do. *Nobody* can predict what the games
> >> > > > > >will do, ask Green Bay, Kansas CIty and Neil about that. Now, once the
> >> > > > > >line comes out, many amateur bettors adjust their thinking to fall in
> >> > > > > >line with what Vegas "thinks." Sharp bettors, know that Vegas, like
> >> > > > > >anybody.anywhere else, makes mistakes from time to time, and they look
> >> > > > > >for the skewed line. That's what I was getting at, that there might be
> >> > > > > >an error here with the Jets -3 opening line. I wasn't looking for an
> >> > > > > >explanation as to how the opening lines are set, or how Las Vegas
> >> > > > > >sports betting works. I already know more about that, than likely any
> >> > > > > >one of you geniuses. And I mean that with respect (except in O'Hara's
> >> > > > > >case) as I think the majority of you guys that I'm arguing with here
> >> > > > > >about this are very intelligent - in your own areas.
>
> >> > > > > >> Vegas is very, very good at
> >> > > > > >> understanding where the money will fall. Yes, they miss sometimes,
> >> > > > > >> but they're right far more often.
>
> >> > > > > >Better at that than where the final score will fall. That's why it
> >> > > > > >behooves a sharp, smart, experienced bettor to look for the bad line -
> >> > > > > >if it exists - every single week that the lines come out.
>
> >> > > > > You can find a lot of sharp, smart, experienced bettors in bankruptcy
> >> > > > > court or in jail.
>
> >> > > > Not really. If they're in bankruptcy court they sure as shit ain't
> >> > > > sharps!
>
> >> > > After many years of gambling on sports, I've come to determine that
> >> > > the only so-called "sharps" are those that don't gamble on sports
> >> > > anymore.
>
> >> > Just because you don't know any "sharps" doesn't mean they don't
> >> > exist.
>
> >> A friend of mine recently posted the following post, which sums up far
> >> better than I ever could, exactly how little skill is involved in
> >> betting NFL games. I've yet to see anyone prove themselves to be, over
> >> the long run, any better at picking NFL games against the spread than
> >> they are at picking a coin flip.
>
> >>http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/you_have_no_skill_a......
>
> >All jokes and funny videos to the side, what exactly are you saying,
> >that because you have never come across anybody that wins at sports
> >betting, that the person that does, therefore doesn't exist? Hey, I'm
> >not saying it's common to find people that can do it successfully,
> >hell, I personally don't know anybody that wins consistently
> >either . . . but that you and I don't know any of them surely doesn't
> >prove that they don't exist.
>
> Let's remember that we're talking about betting NFL games here, not
> sports betting in general. Most sports bettors who consistently make
> money are probably doing by betting college basketball. As I'm sure
> you know, that's because there are so many teams and so many games
> that it makes it much harder for the oddsmakers to set accurate lines.
> They can't possibly get enough information about all those games to do
> so. As a result, it's much easier to find a line that's out of whack,
> especially for a college bb junkie who concentrates on picking
> relatively obscure games.

Yes! That's absolutely correct. The sheer number of college teams does
indeed make it somewhat more difficult for the oddsmaker to get it
just exactly perfect. For a stats oriented ncaa bb betting junkie,
there is usually more value opportunities than in the NFL.

The thing is though, that there is no shortage of NFL bettors that
*think* they know what they're doing that actually do not. And because
of that, the public is often wrong when it comes to handicapping an
NFL game. This is where the theory that if you can gauge the public
and bet against them, in the NFL, you may just show a profit.
Generally speaking, public NFL bettors are some of the dumbest public
bettors of all the major sports public bettors. In my humble
opinion . . .

marcman

12/21/2011 10:52:00 PM

On Dec 21, 5:19 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 1:10 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 3:55 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 12:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 21, 12:23 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 21, 3:15 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:56:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >On Dec 21, 12:04 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:57:59 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >On Dec 20, 6:47 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > >> >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2:36 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:19:18 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Is that the worst betting line ever? I would have thought the Giants
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >would be favored by 6 or so, and if you count the home field advantage
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >(which really only counts partially, you do have to deal with the
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >other teams fans, but you don't have to travel and stay in a hotel,
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >etc.) maybe bring it down to 3 (or 4 1/2 because of the quasi HF
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >advantage). But the Jets -3? I don't get it, who exactly thinks the
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Giants are that bad? They have a better QB, better RBs (even though
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Bradshaw is banged up), arguably better receivers, although maybe
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >that's close . . . I know the Giants have issues on defense but so do
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >the Jets! With the exception of the secondary, I'd say the Giants rate
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >higher than the Jets at every other position. Why are the Jets
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >favored? Brad? Andrew? Jeff? Neil? Buehller?
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > Because more people are betting on them?
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> Indeed you are correct. Vegas's only goal withe the point spread is
> > > > > > > >> >> >> to make certain 50% of bettors pick each team.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >The opening line doesn't favor the Jets because more people are
> > > > > > > >> >> >betting on them, nobody knows who's betting on who until somebody
> > > > > > > >> >> >starts the betting. The opening line is the linemaker's educated
> > > > > > > >> >> >opinion as to what the betting public may do. Obviously, the line
> > > > > > > >> >> >maker believes - as Andrew does - that the public perceives the Jets
> > > > > > > >> >> >as the better team, making the line Jets -3. My question was why are
> > > > > > > >> >> >the Jets favored, asked because I disagree that they are the better
> > > > > > > >> >> >team and I also believe that the general betting public are more apt
> > > > > > > >> >> >to be Giants backers than Jets backers, hence I would have opened the
> > > > > > > >> >> >line differently.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >But under no circumstance is the opening line reflective of the
> > > > > > > >> >> >betting action. Can't be. The betting action hadn't taken place yet.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> But Vegas is essentially betting on what the betting action will be.
> > > > > > > >> >> They are trying to split the bets for each team.
>
> > > > > > > >> >They are taking an educated guess. They certainly cannot be basing
> > > > > > > >> >their "guess" on what the betting action is, because the betting
> > > > > > > >> >action doesn't happen until the line is set.
>
> > > > > > > >> Which is why I said that Vegas is betting on the betting. Please try
> > > > > > > >> to follow the points other people are making.
>
> > > > > > > >> >Which came first the line or the betting?
>
> > > > > > > >> >The line.
>
> > > > > > > >> Which is based on their (highly educated) expectation of how the
> > > > > > > >> betting public will ask.
>
> > > > > > > >> Ask yourself this - how often does a line move during the week by more
> > > > > > > >> than about 1 point (setting aside instances where something happens to
> > > > > > > >> a significant player for either team)?
>
> > > > > > > >I agree that Vegas is very very good at setting lines but not solely
> > > > > > > >because they "guess" what the final score will be (although sometimes
> > > > > > > >they do) but because they gauge what the betting public will do. They
> > > > > > > >are just as good if not better at predicting what the public will do,
> > > > > > > >than at what the games will do. *Nobody* can predict what the games
> > > > > > > >will do, ask Green Bay, Kansas CIty and Neil about that. Now, once the
> > > > > > > >line comes out, many amateur bettors adjust their thinking to fall in
> > > > > > > >line with what Vegas "thinks." Sharp bettors, know that Vegas, like
> > > > > > > >anybody.anywhere else, makes mistakes from time to time, and they look
> > > > > > > >for the skewed line. That's what I was getting at, that there might be
> > > > > > > >an error here with the Jets -3 opening line. I wasn't looking for an
> > > > > > > >explanation as to how the opening lines are set, or how Las Vegas
> > > > > > > >sports betting works. I already know more about that, than likely any
> > > > > > > >one of you geniuses. And I mean that with respect (except in O'Hara's
> > > > > > > >case) as I think the majority of you guys that I'm arguing with here
> > > > > > > >about this are very intelligent - in your own areas.
>
> > > > > > > >> Vegas is very, very good at
> > > > > > > >> understanding where the money will fall. Yes, they miss sometimes,
> > > > > > > >> but they're right far more often.
>
> > > > > > > >Better at that than where the final score will fall. That's why it
> > > > > > > >behooves a sharp, smart, experienced bettor to look for the bad line -
> > > > > > > >if it exists - every single week that the lines come out.
>
> > > > > > > You can find a lot of sharp, smart, experienced bettors in bankruptcy
> > > > > > > court or in jail.
>
> > > > > > Not really. If they're in bankruptcy court they sure as shit ain't
> > > > > > sharps!
>
> > > > > After many years of gambling on sports, I've come to determine that
> > > > > the only so-called "sharps" are those that don't gamble on sports
> > > > > anymore.
>
> > > > Just because you don't know any "sharps" doesn't mean they don't
> > > > exist.
>
> > > A friend of mine recently posted the following post, which sums up far
> > > better than I ever could, exactly how little skill is involved in
> > > betting NFL games. I've yet to see anyone prove themselves to be, over
> > > the long run, any better at picking NFL games against the spread than
> > > they are at picking a coin flip.
>
> > >http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/you_have_no_skill_a.......
>
> > All jokes and funny videos to the side, what exactly are you saying,
> > that because you have never come across anybody that wins at sports
> > betting, that the person that does, therefore doesn't exist? Hey, I'm
> > not saying it's common to find people that can do it successfully,
> > hell, I personally don't know anybody that wins consistently
> > either . . . but that you and I don't know any of them surely doesn't
> > prove that they don't exist.
>
> Did you read the post or not? I didn't link to any jokes or funny
> videos. I linked to a statistical evaluation of a self-selected group
> of NFL gambling experts, among whom any difference between the best
> and worst of that group is within a standard deviation. I'm saying
> there is no proof that I have ever seen of people who gamble on NFL
> games who are any better than 50/50 over the long run in picking games
> against the spread. Sure, maybe such a person does exist, and maybe
> the Loch Ness monster and Yeti are hanging out enjoying some haggis
> and homebrew. I'm saying I've yet to see any type of proof that any of
> that exists.

That might be what you're saying now, that you have yet to see any
such person, but earlier you were saying that that person doesn't
exist. At all. I'm pretty sure. I'll go back and double check that,
but that's what I thought we were arguing about there in the last part
of our argument.

Andrew

12/21/2011 11:27:00 PM

On Dec 21, 2:51 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:19 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 1:10 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 3:55 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 21, 12:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 21, 12:23 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 21, 3:15 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:56:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >On Dec 21, 12:04 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:57:59 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >On Dec 20, 6:47 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2:36 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:19:18 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Is that the worst betting line ever? I would have thought the Giants
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >would be favored by 6 or so, and if you count the home field advantage
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >(which really only counts partially, you do have to deal with the
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >other teams fans, but you don't have to travel and stay in a hotel,
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >etc.) maybe bring it down to 3 (or 4 1/2 because of the quasi HF
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >advantage). But the Jets -3? I don't get it, who exactly thinks the
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Giants are that bad? They have a better QB, better RBs (even though
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Bradshaw is banged up), arguably better receivers, although maybe
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >that's close . . . I know the Giants have issues on defense but so do
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >the Jets! With the exception of the secondary, I'd say the Giants rate
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >higher than the Jets at every other position. Why are the Jets
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >favored? Brad? Andrew? Jeff? Neil? Buehller?
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > Because more people are betting on them?
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Indeed you are correct. Vegas's only goal withe the point spread is
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> to make certain 50% of bettors pick each team.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >The opening line doesn't favor the Jets because more people are
> > > > > > > > >> >> >betting on them, nobody knows who's betting on who until somebody
> > > > > > > > >> >> >starts the betting. The opening line is the linemaker's educated
> > > > > > > > >> >> >opinion as to what the betting public may do. Obviously, the line
> > > > > > > > >> >> >maker believes - as Andrew does - that the public perceives the Jets
> > > > > > > > >> >> >as the better team, making the line Jets -3. My question was why are
> > > > > > > > >> >> >the Jets favored, asked because I disagree that they are the better
> > > > > > > > >> >> >team and I also believe that the general betting public are more apt
> > > > > > > > >> >> >to be Giants backers than Jets backers, hence I would have opened the
> > > > > > > > >> >> >line differently.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >But under no circumstance is the opening line reflective of the
> > > > > > > > >> >> >betting action. Can't be. The betting action hadn't taken place yet.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> But Vegas is essentially betting on what the betting action will be.
> > > > > > > > >> >> They are trying to split the bets for each team.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >They are taking an educated guess. They certainly cannot be basing
> > > > > > > > >> >their "guess" on what the betting action is, because the betting
> > > > > > > > >> >action doesn't happen until the line is set.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Which is why I said that Vegas is betting on the betting.. Please try
> > > > > > > > >> to follow the points other people are making.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >Which came first the line or the betting?
>
> > > > > > > > >> >The line.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Which is based on their (highly educated) expectation of how the
> > > > > > > > >> betting public will ask.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Ask yourself this - how often does a line move during the week by more
> > > > > > > > >> than about 1 point (setting aside instances where something happens to
> > > > > > > > >> a significant player for either team)?
>
> > > > > > > > >I agree that Vegas is very very good at setting lines but not solely
> > > > > > > > >because they "guess" what the final score will be (although sometimes
> > > > > > > > >they do) but because they gauge what the betting public will do. They
> > > > > > > > >are just as good if not better at predicting what the public will do,
> > > > > > > > >than at what the games will do. *Nobody* can predict what the games
> > > > > > > > >will do, ask Green Bay, Kansas CIty and Neil about that. Now, once the
> > > > > > > > >line comes out, many amateur bettors adjust their thinking to fall in
> > > > > > > > >line with what Vegas "thinks." Sharp bettors, know that Vegas, like
> > > > > > > > >anybody.anywhere else, makes mistakes from time to time, and they look
> > > > > > > > >for the skewed line. That's what I was getting at, that there might be
> > > > > > > > >an error here with the Jets -3 opening line. I wasn't looking for an
> > > > > > > > >explanation as to how the opening lines are set, or how Las Vegas
> > > > > > > > >sports betting works. I already know more about that, than likely any
> > > > > > > > >one of you geniuses. And I mean that with respect (except in O'Hara's
> > > > > > > > >case) as I think the majority of you guys that I'm arguing with here
> > > > > > > > >about this are very intelligent - in your own areas.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Vegas is very, very good at
> > > > > > > > >> understanding where the money will fall. Yes, they miss sometimes,
> > > > > > > > >> but they're right far more often.
>
> > > > > > > > >Better at that than where the final score will fall. That's why it
> > > > > > > > >behooves a sharp, smart, experienced bettor to look for the bad line -
> > > > > > > > >if it exists - every single week that the lines come out.
>
> > > > > > > > You can find a lot of sharp, smart, experienced bettors in bankruptcy
> > > > > > > > court or in jail.
>
> > > > > > > Not really. If they're in bankruptcy court they sure as shit ain't
> > > > > > > sharps!
>
> > > > > > After many years of gambling on sports, I've come to determine that
> > > > > > the only so-called "sharps" are those that don't gamble on sports
> > > > > > anymore.
>
> > > > > Just because you don't know any "sharps" doesn't mean they don't
> > > > > exist.
>
> > > > A friend of mine recently posted the following post, which sums up far
> > > > better than I ever could, exactly how little skill is involved in
> > > > betting NFL games. I've yet to see anyone prove themselves to be, over
> > > > the long run, any better at picking NFL games against the spread than
> > > > they are at picking a coin flip.
>
> > > >http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/you_have_no_skill_a......
>
> > > All jokes and funny videos to the side, what exactly are you saying,
> > > that because you have never come across anybody that wins at sports
> > > betting, that the person that does, therefore doesn't exist? Hey, I'm
> > > not saying it's common to find people that can do it successfully,
> > > hell, I personally don't know anybody that wins consistently
> > > either . . . but that you and I don't know any of them surely doesn't
> > > prove that they don't exist.
>
> > Did you read the post or not? I didn't link to any jokes or funny
> > videos. I linked to a statistical evaluation of a self-selected group
> > of NFL gambling experts, among whom any difference between the best
> > and worst of that group is within a standard deviation. I'm saying
> > there is no proof that I have ever seen of people who gamble on NFL
> > games who are any better than 50/50 over the long run in picking games
> > against the spread. Sure, maybe such a person does exist, and maybe
> > the Loch Ness monster and Yeti are hanging out enjoying some haggis
> > and homebrew. I'm saying I've yet to see any type of proof that any of
> > that exists.
>
> That might be what you're saying now, that you have yet to see any
> such person, but earlier you were saying that that person doesn't
> exist. At all. I'm pretty sure. I'll go back and double check that,
> but that's what I thought we were arguing about there in the last part
> of our argument.

Here's an idea, how 'bout you go back and double check it before you
post? It's easy enough just to scroll up the post before you hit send
and read what I said. If you had done that, you would have realized
that I never wrote that at all.

It's awful difficult to have a discussion with someone who puts
absolutely no effort in to trying to understand what you're saying, a
trait you've displayed numerous times not just here in this thread but
elsewhere. There's nothing more frustrating than having a discussion
with someone who is just doing a lot of yapping and no listening.

marcman

12/21/2011 11:59:00 PM

On Dec 21, 6:27 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:51 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 5:19 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 1:10 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 21, 3:55 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 21, 12:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 21, 12:23 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 3:15 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:56:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >On Dec 21, 12:04 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:57:59 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > > >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >On Dec 20, 6:47 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2:36 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:19:18 -0800 (PST), marcman
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Is that the worst betting line ever? I would have thought the Giants
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >would be favored by 6 or so, and if you count the home field advantage
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >(which really only counts partially, you do have to deal with the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >other teams fans, but you don't have to travel and stay in a hotel,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >etc.) maybe bring it down to 3 (or 4 1/2 because of the quasi HF
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >advantage). But the Jets -3? I don't get it, who exactly thinks the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Giants are that bad? They have a better QB, better RBs (even though
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >Bradshaw is banged up), arguably better receivers, although maybe
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >that's close . . . I know the Giants have issues on defense but so do
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >the Jets! With the exception of the secondary, I'd say the Giants rate
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >higher than the Jets at every other position. Why are the Jets
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >favored? Brad? Andrew? Jeff? Neil? Buehller?
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > Because more people are betting on them?
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> Indeed you are correct. Vegas's only goal withe the point spread is
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> to make certain 50% of bettors pick each team.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >The opening line doesn't favor the Jets because more people are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >betting on them, nobody knows who's betting on who until somebody
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >starts the betting. The opening line is the linemaker's educated
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >opinion as to what the betting public may do. Obviously, the line
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >maker believes - as Andrew does - that the public perceives the Jets
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >as the better team, making the line Jets -3. My question was why are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >the Jets favored, asked because I disagree that they are the better
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >team and I also believe that the general betting public are more apt
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >to be Giants backers than Jets backers, hence I would have opened the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >line differently.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >But under no circumstance is the opening line reflective of the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >betting action. Can't be. The betting action hadn't taken place yet.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> But Vegas is essentially betting on what the betting action will be.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> They are trying to split the bets for each team.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >They are taking an educated guess. They certainly cannot be basing
> > > > > > > > > >> >their "guess" on what the betting action is, because the betting
> > > > > > > > > >> >action doesn't happen until the line is set.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Which is why I said that Vegas is betting on the betting. Please try
> > > > > > > > > >> to follow the points other people are making.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >Which came first the line or the betting?
>
> > > > > > > > > >> >The line.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Which is based on their (highly educated) expectation of how the
> > > > > > > > > >> betting public will ask.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Ask yourself this - how often does a line move during the week by more
> > > > > > > > > >> than about 1 point (setting aside instances where something happens to
> > > > > > > > > >> a significant player for either team)?
>
> > > > > > > > > >I agree that Vegas is very very good at setting lines but not solely
> > > > > > > > > >because they "guess" what the final score will be (although sometimes
> > > > > > > > > >they do) but because they gauge what the betting public will do. They
> > > > > > > > > >are just as good if not better at predicting what the public will do,
> > > > > > > > > >than at what the games will do. *Nobody* can predict what the games
> > > > > > > > > >will do, ask Green Bay, Kansas CIty and Neil about that. Now, once the
> > > > > > > > > >line comes out, many amateur bettors adjust their thinking to fall in
> > > > > > > > > >line with what Vegas "thinks." Sharp bettors, know that Vegas, like
> > > > > > > > > >anybody.anywhere else, makes mistakes from time to time, and they look
> > > > > > > > > >for the skewed line. That's what I was getting at, that there might be
> > > > > > > > > >an error here with the Jets -3 opening line. I wasn't looking for an
> > > > > > > > > >explanation as to how the opening lines are set, or how Las Vegas
> > > > > > > > > >sports betting works. I already know more about that, than likely any
> > > > > > > > > >one of you geniuses. And I mean that with respect (except in O'Hara's
> > > > > > > > > >case) as I think the majority of you guys that I'm arguing with here
> > > > > > > > > >about this are very intelligent - in your own areas.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Vegas is very, very good at
> > > > > > > > > >> understanding where the money will fall. Yes, they miss sometimes,
> > > > > > > > > >> but they're right far more often.
>
> > > > > > > > > >Better at that than where the final score will fall. That's why it
> > > > > > > > > >behooves a sharp, smart, experienced bettor to look for the bad line -
> > > > > > > > > >if it exists - every single week that the lines come out.
>
> > > > > > > > > You can find a lot of sharp, smart, experienced bettors in bankruptcy
> > > > > > > > > court or in jail.
>
> > > > > > > > Not really. If they're in bankruptcy court they sure as shit ain't
> > > > > > > > sharps!
>
> > > > > > > After many years of gambling on sports, I've come to determine that
> > > > > > > the only so-called "sharps" are those that don't gamble on sports
> > > > > > > anymore.
>
> > > > > > Just because you don't know any "sharps" doesn't mean they don't
> > > > > > exist.
>
> > > > > A friend of mine recently posted the following post, which sums up far
> > > > > better than I ever could, exactly how little skill is involved in
> > > > > betting NFL games. I've yet to see anyone prove themselves to be, over
> > > > > the long run, any better at picking NFL games against the spread than
> > > > > they are at picking a coin flip.
>
> > > > >http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/you_have_no_skill_a......
>
> > > > All jokes and funny videos to the side, what exactly are you saying,
> > > > that because you have never come across anybody that wins at sports
> > > > betting, that the person that does, therefore doesn't exist? Hey, I'm
> > > > not saying it's common to find people that can do it successfully,
> > > > hell, I personally don't know anybody that wins consistently
> > > > either . . . but that you and I don't know any of them surely doesn't
> > > > prove that they don't exist.
>
> > > Did you read the post or not? I didn't link to any jokes or funny
> > > videos. I linked to a statistical evaluation of a self-selected group
> > > of NFL gambling experts, among whom any difference between the best
> > > and worst of that group is within a standard deviation. I'm saying
> > > there is no proof that I have ever seen of people who gamble on NFL
> > > games who are any better than 50/50 over the long run in picking games
> > > against the spread. Sure, maybe such a person does exist, and maybe
> > > the Loch Ness monster and Yeti are hanging out enjoying some haggis
> > > and homebrew. I'm saying I've yet to see any type of proof that any of
> > > that exists.
>
> > That might be what you're saying now, that you have yet to see any
> > such person, but earlier you were saying that that person doesn't
> > exist. At all. I'm pretty sure. I'll go back and double check that,
> > but that's what I thought we were arguing about there in the last part
> > of our argument.
>
> Here's an idea, how 'bout you go back and double check it before you
> post?

Here's a better idea, why don;t you just say what you mean in the
first place?

Tell you what, I offered to go back and double check that because I
was being polite. I know what you wrote, and I now what you implied.

So here's an idea for you . . . who gives a shit about this stupid
fucking argument in the first place? If you weren't argumentative just
for the sake of being argumentative, we wouldn't have gotten this far
in the first place, we could have just got right to discussing the
actual Jets/Giants game, but nooo, in classic Andrew of RMGD fashion,
you had to pick a nit over the semantics. I asked how could the line
be the way it is, and instead of discussing the game, which you damn
sure knew is what I meant, you decided to discuss the technical
aspects of how lines are set in general.

And then you have the nerve to accuse me of wasting time arguing? LOL,
save it brother, there's nobody here that jumps on nonsense more often
- and better - than you do. And I say that with love Andrew, with
love.

> It's easy enough just to scroll up the post before you hit send
> and read what I said. If you had done that, you would have realized
> that I never wrote that at all.

Except of course that's exactly what you wrote, or meant, or whatever.
Unless this is the beginning of the next great Andrew semantics
argument . . .

>
> It's awful difficult to have a discussion with someone who puts
> absolutely no effort in to trying to understand what you're saying, a
> trait you've displayed numerous times not just here in this thread but
> elsewhere.

Elsewhere? Have you been following me to the supermarket?

> There's nothing more frustrating than having a discussion
> with someone who is just doing a lot of yapping and no listening.

I wonder if there are any mirrors in your house, Andrew . . .

Neil X

12/22/2011 4:47:00 AM

> > Andrew:
> >
> > Here's an idea, how 'bout you go back and double check it before you
> > post?

> marcman:
>
> Here's a better idea, why don;t you just say what you mean in the
> first place?
>
> Tell you what, I offered to go back and double check that because I
> was being polite. I know what you wrote, and I now what you implied.
>
> So here's an idea for you . . . who gives a shit about this stupid
> fucking argument in the first place? If you weren't argumentative just
> for the sake of being argumentative, ...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I've never understood what your were trying to say in this thread,
from your original post to it onward.

OTOH, it looks to me like Andrew wrote exactly what he meant.

One man's opinion.

********************
Question:

Name an issue that can never be successfully negotiated to an
acceptable middle ground compromise.

Answer #1:

The genesis of life: Creationism vs. Evolution

Answer #2:

Illegal immigrants: deport or naturalize.

Answer #3:

Bigger contributor to the 21st Century Financial Meltdown: Barney
Frank or the Lehman Brothers.

Answer #4:

Tim Tebow: Fundamentalist douchebag or douchebag fundamentalist.

Peace,
Neil X.

marcman

12/22/2011 4:52:00 AM

On Dec 21, 11:47 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Andrew:
>
> > > Here's an idea, how 'bout you go back and double check it before you
> > > post?
> > marcman:
>
> > Here's a better idea, why don;t you just say what you mean in the
> > first place?
>
> > Tell you what, I offered to go back and double check that because I
> > was being polite. I know what you wrote, and I now what you implied.
>
> > So here's an idea for you . . . who gives a shit about this stupid
> > fucking argument in the first place? If you weren't argumentative just
> > for the sake of being argumentative, ...
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> I've never understood what your were trying to say in this thread,
> from your original post to it onward.

You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know.

:)

> OTOH, it looks to me like Andrew wrote exactly what he meant.
>
> One man's opinion.
>
> ********************
> Question:
>
> Name an issue that can never be successfully negotiated to an
> acceptable middle ground compromise.
>
> Answer #1:
>
> The genesis of life: Creationism vs. Evolution
>
> Answer #2:
>
> Illegal immigrants: deport or naturalize.
>
> Answer #3:
>
> Bigger contributor to the 21st Century Financial Meltdown: Barney
> Frank or the Lehman Brothers.
>
> Answer #4:
>
> Tim Tebow: Fundamentalist douchebag or douchebag fundamentalist.
>
> Peace,
> Neil X.

rec.music.classical.guitar

4095 Solution manuals and Test banks to Materials Engineering Books

rodwes15

Andrew

Andrew

marcman

marcman

Andrew

marcman

Neil X

marcman

x Login to ForumsZone