Let's say you've picked out 4 cappers to follow. They each have great records--they're geniuses!
But, as often happens, they disagree. Well, who's right, who's wrong? In the end they each seem to win money. How do they get value when they disagree so often?!
AND, when they all agree, it's almost always a guaranteed loser!
I guess the answer is to follow just one...but then they go down the tubes and you're screwed.
But, isn't it just as stupid to say "Don't follow handicappers because you never know when they'll hit a cold spell." Well, you never know when I--handicapping on my own--will hit a cold spell either! No matter what you do you'll hit cold spells.
Isn't it smarter time-wise to let somebody else do the handicapping, even if they do go through cold spells? Assuming that they're pretty decent handicappers to begin with? My job should just be to get the best lines I can and the best bonuses I can. And enter all the contests I can.
(Am I at 100 posts yet?).
But, as often happens, they disagree. Well, who's right, who's wrong? In the end they each seem to win money. How do they get value when they disagree so often?!
AND, when they all agree, it's almost always a guaranteed loser!
I guess the answer is to follow just one...but then they go down the tubes and you're screwed.
But, isn't it just as stupid to say "Don't follow handicappers because you never know when they'll hit a cold spell." Well, you never know when I--handicapping on my own--will hit a cold spell either! No matter what you do you'll hit cold spells.
Isn't it smarter time-wise to let somebody else do the handicapping, even if they do go through cold spells? Assuming that they're pretty decent handicappers to begin with? My job should just be to get the best lines I can and the best bonuses I can. And enter all the contests I can.
(Am I at 100 posts yet?).
