Just Curious (Vote) 583 views
I thought we had this before, but "Winners" was the answer.
Volume is not what most want, as it takes more time to get down more wagers.
Just asking what YOU would prefer. :) Less is more?
Some people do actually want more because then they run their own filters through the plays and do better that way. Other people don't want to do any handicapping or thinking of their own and just want single top plays rather than the grind. I'm not so sure that most people do not want the volume, but I may be wrong.
Less picks, higher quality...i.e. More winners percentage wise, = higher ROI.
So, I prefer less volume with higher percentage of winners.
I'd rather get down 2-5 high quality bets a week, than 50 so so.
Edited 12/27/14 at 7:34PM by wacked -
Edited 12/27/14 at 11:38PM by Timothy Wynn - spelling
@XPPX: what you mean? the regular client need to know how to cap a game? then why he pay to get the service?
Any further questions I'll be working on my AI haha.
Which reminds me has anyone seen the movie Alan Partridge? If not you should.
Edited 12/28/14 at 2:52AM by AtTheHelm43 - No reason listed.
Thanks guys. I read it all. Looks split about 50/50 leaning a bit towards people preferring top selections vs. a mild flurry of them. Really great post LockSoccerPicks. A term I like to throw around is the idea of "pinwheeling" or basing your selections off of something sound.
I guess another good question would be: does a capper that bets 3-10 games a day seem less sharp / disciplined or skilled to you than someone who does 1 a day? Here at PM there is a bias towards betting fewer plays as the star rating system rewards you for taking fewer plays on average per day as per the star rating formula here. Personally, I disagree with that bias; I think that it should only be results over a long period of time that matter and not how you skinned the cat getting there really.
Edited 12/28/14 at 3:00PM by XProfitProphetX - No reason listed.