One difference that Bob doesn't mention (and I'm not entirely disagreeing with his article) is that betting on sports, as opposed to VP, is that sports betting, particularly NFL betting is a constantly mutating animal. Yes, I know that new games, and paytables and comp rates change for VP, but they are mathematically quantifiable into a predetermined +/- %. But there are a number of factors that cannot be predetermined in NFL betting that may have changed without anyone's knowledge.
In the 1970's there were a number of specific situations that would come up that had very predictable winning percentages. Using the comparatively primitive computers of the day, the patterns became clearly evident by data mining through historic databases. You would not be guaranteed a win every time, but the winning percentage of these plays could approach or even exceed 80%. One such example, as I recall, was non-divisional games where the spread on the home team was P'em to -1 1/2. Of course, there weren't very many games that fit into this limited set of characteristics, probably fewer than 8-10 a year. But there were many different angles that could be played, some of which used information that was not available to the average bettor, or most probably to bookies. So on any given Sunday, there were almost always one or more plays that fit into one of the angles. And if you were playing with an 80% or better edge, one could make quite a nice living.
As computers became more widespread, more people became aware of the patterns, including those setting the lines. Or as one bookie once told me, "I like your play, even though you win, because it offsets the way the rest of the bettors are going, and I don't have to lay so much off." As the knowledge of the angles spread, the winning percentages went down, because the lines were adjusted to reflect increased public betting on the angle plays. Where a team might have been a 1 point favorite, it was now 3 or 3 1/2 or 4. Fairly subtle difference, but enough to take away the edge from the play.
So my point is, where Bob has every reason to expect that he will have a winning year next year because he is playing against definable mathematical certainties , Fezzik has been handicapping using certain criteria that may have been changed on him. Unless he adapts to the "new normal" and revises his methodology, there is probably a very good chance that he will have another losing season next year as well. That being said, since he has been successful for a long time, it speaks well of his ability to adapt, and I would expect that he could, and would, do so.
Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win. -Lazarus Long
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. -Yogi Berra
There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe. -Robert Heinlein
>________________________________
> From: vpFREE Administrator <vpfreeadmin@cox.net>
>To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:33 PM
>Subject: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JAN 2012
>
>
>
>Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JAN 2012
>
>"Fezzik Has a Losing Year"
>
>http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/0110.cfm
>
><a href="http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/0110.cfm">
>http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/0110.cfm</a>
>
>*************************************************
>This link is posted for informational purposes
>and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
>of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
>discussion of the article must be done in
>accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
>*************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
