"Sharps" vs "Squares"

[Romanowski]

This "Sharp vs. Squares" argument is so tiresome.

When "Squares" lose, it is because they are "donkey" stupid.

When "Sharps" lose, it is some sort of inexplicable calamitous "best number" failure.. (at least I shopped for teh best price and had value)

I can tell you this gambling axiom in a few words

" Both Sharps and Squares win and lose every night."


A "sharp" = someone who realizes that labels like "sharp" and "square" are terms created by bookies to allow their customers to psychologically mitigate, or justify, their losses with the purpose of encouraging further gambling.

A "square" = someone who believes labels have any relevance to reality.
Beyond that, the only valid evidence that you are any good is when books refuse (or limit) your action. If they don't, you're probably not that good, no matter what you're labeled.

Furthermor, as the years go on, there are less and less squares and more and more sharps. We can thank the internet for that. Hence the new terms "Sharp Square", the modern day evolving handicapper does not use any such terms.

[alby]

SHARP post

[Dr. Jack]

This is a great post. I mean really, really good! JMO

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jack

This is a great post. I mean really, really good!

I agree.

[domafia]

Be careful, a few more posts like these and you might be recruited to write for a gambling magazine. You know, the kind that troll forums desperately looking for someone they can pay money to. If you're good enough Rome all you have to do is send them emails and they'll send you checks!

[jaypasco]

i read this a copule times and have no idea what it means

[alby]

Originally Posted by domafia

Be careful, a few more posts like these and you might be recruited to write for a gambling magazine. You know, the kind that troll forums desperately looking for someone they can pay money to. If you're good enough Rome all you have to do is send them emails and they'll send you checks!

lmao

[LockFinder]

Originally Posted by Romanowski

This "Sharp vs. Squares" argument is so tiresome.

When "Squares" lose, it is because they are "donkey" stupid.

When "Sharps" lose, it is some sort of inexplicable calamitous "best number" failure.. (at least I shopped for teh best price and had value)

I can tell you this gambling axiom in a few words

" Both Sharps and Squares win and lose every night."


A "sharp" = someone who realizes that labels like "sharp" and "square" are terms created by bookies to allow their customers to psychologically mitigate, or justify, their losses with the purpose of encouraging further gambling.

A "square" = someone who believes labels have any relevance to reality.
Beyond that, the only valid evidence that you are any good is when books refuse (or limit) your action. If they don't, you're probably not that good, no matter what you're labeled.

Furthermor, as the years go on, there are less and less squares and more and more sharps. We can thank the internet for that. Hence the new terms "Sharp Square", the modern day evolving handicapper does not use any such terms.

I wish more people on this forum would read this post. Well said.

[jonnyblaze]

Originally Posted by jaypasco

i read this a copule times and have no idea what it means

I agree with you on this one Jay. Here's my .02
1) What does it mean?
2) Who cares what we call them?
3) If there are more sharps, why are books making more money than ever?

[Seanie Mac]

Originally Posted by jonnyblaze

I agree with you on this one Jay. Here's my .02
1) What does it mean?
2) Who cares what we call them?
3) If there are more sharps, why are books making more money than ever?

truth

[Hoosiercatdaddy]

LMAO this is great. When sharps lose, they lose because "public took that one". When squares lose, " they should have known to it looked too easy."

[Romanowski]

Dumbfounded statement, I would like to know what book's sheets you are privvy to see

I would suspect the average gamblers knowledge has doubled with the advent of the internet, and the books main advantage is psychological (money management) and volume rather than the "squares" consistently picking losers. Some people specialize in confrontation, and I would venture to guess that If I said the exact opposite, you would also disagree. You offer very little in a debatical sense. But rest assured thanks for posting, because you are "sharp" (in your eyes)

[jonnyblaze]

Originally Posted by Romanowski

Dumbfounded statement, I would like to know what book's sheets you are privvy to see

I would suspect the average gamblers knowledge has doubled with the advent of the internet, and the books main advantage is psychological (money management) and volume rather than the "squares" consistently picking losers. Some people specialize in confrontation, and I would venture to guess that If I said the exact opposite, you would also disagree. You offer very little in a debatical sense. But rest assured thanks for posting, because you are "sharp" (in your eyes)

Doubled huh? My fine friend, you are incorrect here. How do you possibly explain the explotion and growth of internet gaming sites, Vegas and the still very profitable underground bookmaking business if the "average" gambler has DOUBLED his knowledge?

In fact, I am privvy to a Bookmakers sheets (upon request) as well as a gaming websites inside statiscal analysis. To be blunt, business is better than ever for both.

While the internet provides more information for gamblers, it does not pick winners. If fact, the argument could be made that the internet not only encourages more foolish gaming losses (read: availability) than before, but elcits gamblers to use a purely quantitive analysis, an system that works for some but not many. In plain terms, many people look up irrelevant stats on the net and make a play based upon it.

Trust this Rome, you know your gambling and probably have more overall knowledge of on-line gaming than myself. That being said, you should know that over the course of a few years, gamblers will NEVER do better than 50%, leaving the books to collect the vig AT WORST.

[Romanowski]

mea culpa, it seems you dont understand my initial post, and that can only be the authors fault. I was simply speaking of the terms square and sharp. not sure how or where you are going off on this tangent, but interesting nonetheless

Analytical tools are certainly great to have, but its only by understanding the methodology that you can perform your own quantitative analysis. IMO this is the only way to go in handicapping vs superficially picking winners, which can offer short term success. But behind any successful trade, there are things that work for some that dont for others, and all have their own methods, neither right or wrong.

I disagree my educated guess would be the average joe can pick winners at a +EV rate, although money management is his downfall.

[jaypasco]

lol, stop