One more note regarding the post that confronted me in this thread. Sorry in advance for the duration. It reminded me somewhat of an experience I had more than 20 years ago in (naturally) Las Vegas:
Then, as now, I liked to give out some of my betting systems. Not the best ones. Effective ones. Late in the 1991 season I was guest handicapper on the Saturday night Stardust line, along with a guy who I had never met, representing a major sports service. He announced his NFL Play of the Year on that program...Packers the next day, giving 7 points hosting Indianapolis. It was a consensus pick around town. The Colts were awful, one of the truly inept NFL teams in recent decades, nearly preceding the 2008 Lions at 0-16.
Didn't matter. I had numerous angles pointing to the Colts. I announced that the Colts were my highest rated play that weekend. Some of the angles are ones I still use and have mentioned here: Packers were .500 or worse yet giving -6 or above at home. Colts were road underdog with a 25% or lower winning percentage. Green Bay was favorite despite very low rushing attempt numbers. Their coach Lindy Infante was notorious for not wanting to bore himself by running the football.
The other handicapper was miffed that anyone could like the Colts. I chuckled and said I don't like the Colts, I like opposing any team the caliber of the Packers giving 7 points. I'll take my chances. The next day the public was predictably all over the Packers. I ended up taking Indianapolis +8.
They fittingly played a low scoring pathetic game. Green Bay won but didn't cover. I collected. Big deal. Wasn't a particularly great day for me otherwise.
Little did I know that the other handicapper somehow became so upset at my themes from that show, and winning by opposing his best bet, that he carried the paranoia and bitterness forward. Far forward. It was ridiculous, like guys in this era who follow certain posters around and spread negative reputation whenever they can, or dislike posts. Whatever the available vehicle.
A month later that guy called the Stardust Line when I was on. He chastised me for driving an older car, while he just bought a new one thanks to a fantastic December. Well that's wonderful. Thanks for calling in to tell us. The west coast needed to know that. Yes, I drive an 8 year old Datsun. It's just reaching its prime. In a town of value, were you really dense enough to purchase a new car? The best car buying advice I ever heard is: Never own a car in the decade of its birth.
The Stardust audience loved that. He did not. You could hear the steam beyond the laughter.
In the middle of the 1992 season, the same guy called the show again. He pointed out that a betting system I gave out a year earlier was having a terrible stretch. The cohost was in disbelief, chastising the caller. Keep in mind I gave that cohost some of my systems long before I offered them on the air. He had bet them and knew how reliable they were. A short losing streak was mostly trivia.
I offer this to demonstrate how far some people will take it, when they are determined to unleash that bitterness. That handicapper had to fixate on that system throughout an offseason. He's desperate for it to fail...badly...so he can spotlight it in public, trying to make me look bad. Same with the Johnny Manziel angle. He had to play in 2014, otherwise those old posts of mine from (apparently) last spring carry no weight. Undetermined. Not only does Johnny have to play, he needs to flop. I was thrilled he did flop, once he somehow was identified to start that game against the Bengals. As I've posted countless times, rookie quarterbacks seldom disturb the scoreboard. I had the Bengals.
Little did I know that at least one poster here was scheming to condemn me after Manziel's misery, in that game and the subsequent one. It's like something from the Investigative Discovery Channel, one with a stalker angle. Not "Dangerous Women," or "Evil Women." We need a new title. Has to be either Bar Stool or Happy Adjuster in there somewhere. Maybe I need a poll.
Bar Stoolers expect a safe haven around here. That's the primary issue. It's inconceivable to them that a segment others won't happily agree and back slap. They have been Bar Stoolers all their lives. Surrounded by nothing but Bar Stoolers. On sites like this they are attracted to fellow Bar Stoolers. Everything works, from Marino would throw for 7000 yards in this era, to Andy Dalton sucks, to any and all adjustments in favor of Tannehill. That's how the Bar Stoolers come up with the 11-5 forecast for 2014, as my confronter did, and don't see it as out of ordinary. I don't want to place too much emphasis on that. I nailed 8-8 each of the past two years. It's eligible to reverse next season, with my forecast being 3 games off and his being exact. Over the run of time, I will be closer to correct. Bar Stoolers don't have any concept of burden, as I've posted many times. The 11-5 sounds cute so let's go with it. Disregard that a number like that normally corresponds with 4 to 5 point average favoritism in every game.
If I wanted to be popular around here I wouldn't have announced so early and often that I really like the New York Jets. In particular I remember that Mr. Confronter took particular offense to that, as if he discovered something criminal.
IMO, there are three levels of analysis. This is perhaps the primary reason for this marathon post. It can apply anywhere but I'll use sports betting as reference since that's what I know best. No apologies.
Level One is clear headed and enthusiastic and simple. Easy application of a handful of angles, if not just one. Laser focus. That's where I was in college and early Las Vegas. I bet line of scrimmage dominance in college football and couldn't imagine why anyone prioritized anything else. Great bottom line. Had a bookie's son screaming at me virtually every Saturday night on the phone.
Then comes the dreaded Level Two. Unimaginable horror. Wider than any ocean. Most entrants never escape. Rod Serling dimensions all over the place. Swirling mass of conflicting variables, each delighted like Chucky as the applicant struggles to weigh and apply. The perennial and seemingly intentional tease is just enough success to hint at progress, before the next slug in the face, starting all over again with a clown dancing all over your slumping mass. Bar Stoolers are low level two. Virtually no variance. They don't get the joke, or even know it exists. Flyovers. Content simplistic adjustment.
Level Three is ultra rare. I've detected it only 4 or 5 times in Las Vegas. It's when the individual is either so special he essentially skipped Level Two as effortlessly as a CLEP test, or somehow juggled all the Level Two demons without losing his mind, escaping with enough left to survive and prosper. This is when all the angles are known, not merely a few, but properly assigned amidst fantastic logic and scope. Amazing clarity and contentment. Bill Clinton speaking on virtually any topic is robust Level Three. I'm not trying to inject politics. That's the best example I have. I think I know golf. Clinton was on Feherty and dominated the subject of golf beyond anything I've heard. Rhodes Scholars have a leg up on Level Three. Insert your own joke. Maybe all Rhodes Scholars are Level Three. I've never studied that trend. The late Jim Murray writing sports, that was supreme Level Three, nearly creating his own level. I'm not willing to go there, just like the football categories are Crap, Crowd and Cream. Nothing above Cream.
There are a few posters here who reach Level Three, IMO, in terms of draft analysis. That's why I wanted to post this angle in this forum, and used the Confronter angle as a convenient excuse.
In my case, I realized within 17 months in Level Two that I had no realistic opportunity at Level Three as a sports bettor. It was either leave town, or revert to Level One. That was my solution and it was the correct choice. All of my systems are essentially Automated Level One. That was intentional. The research may have been complicated and exhausting but you'll notice that the criteria are quite basic. Maybe one situational angle combined with a statistical angle. That's about it. I get in trouble only when I apply a bit of Level Two silly subjectivity.
Draft examination is difficult because I never figured out how to automate it. Too much damn Level Two. That's why I'm so fascinated by the new metrics availability and breakthrough, like the ones that identified Jamie Collins two years ago and Teddy Bridgewater last year. The handful of Level Three draft guys are eligible to scoff at that but for the rest of us the metrics offer amazing potential. Of course, the Bar Stool Level Two types are just the ones to reject metrics and happy adjust to wherever they desire.
One last point: Level One is also where I've chosen to go in investing. I highly recommend it. Level One is index funds. Low cost and little to no thought required. I have some SLF and not much else other than index funds. I managed to score big with Apple stock beginning in the mid to late '90s. I'm still kicking myself for not investing more, instead of splitting each allocation with the S&P index fund, one that stalled for a decade. When I found Steve Jobs as wagon that might have been brief dalliance in Level Three, probably my one trip. It didn't seem challenging. Fortunately I never pretended to tour Level Two in that arena. Jim Cramer of CNBC reluctantly conceded recently that index funds are ideal for someone who doesn't have enough time to fully study the market. Uh, that sounds like virtually everyone. Actually I'm not sure how many people can legitimately threaten Level Three as investor. I'm happy Level One there and disgusted at ongoing Level Two frustration as a golfer. Just one hole-in-one and I'll call it a delighted Level Three. :D
ostwhore:
::disapprove:
