Bad Beats: Deeper, trendier than ever
Ben Burns
Last week ‘s Bad Beats column either spawned the most intellectual conversation ever had in a Sports betting forum or the dumbest, depending how you look at it.
To quickly summarize, some of you believe there is no such thing as a bad beat. A loss is simply and ultimately a bad bet.
Others believe you can make a good bet but suffer a bad beat. When this happens, you believe that although you lost, you were on the side that will win significantly more times than not in that situation.
CLICK HERE NOW TO VIEW BEN BURNS’ WEEKLY PICKS —>
It was a deep debate, which will continue for at least two eternities.
On the other hand, last week’s sports slate wasn’t nearly as deep and didn’t produce any particularly bad beats that at least jumped out at us.
If they’re really feeling fussy, National League backers can lament Carl Crawford’s home run-thwarting catch.
Tom Watson leaving an eight-foot putt to win the British Open short surely hurt some. (How can you leave it short?!)
Other than that, it was Dullsville at Bad Beats Central.
But, as always, if you got hosed on a game this week, feel free to vent.
In the meantime, let’s throw out this question as kind of a follow up to last week’s debate.
Which trends, if any, do you most often use in your handicapping?
Game-to-game variables make the majority of trends irrelevant. And if you’re one of those who believe games are not connected in any form than you believe no trend adds value to either side.
The other side believes there are plenty of trends out there with value. But which ones are they?
Which side are you on?
David Payne writes for Ben Burns.
==========================================
