Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Smaller cap stocks
are generally not well followed and often you can make money in them even without the most skillful analytical mind, simply by digging
around to find a company with obvious attributes that nobody has bothered to look at yet. The analogy in sports betting is that you need
superior processing ability or non-public info to consistently make money betting on or against the Lakers, which should be an efficient
market; but making money on small-market college hoop games is not as hard if you familiarize yourself with the teams involved that the
linesmakers simply lack the time (but not the info) to more accurately handicap, and which don’t get enough action to create an efficient
market. One last correlation with the stock market is momentum. If there is a big move upward in a

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Smaller cap stocks
are generally not well followed and often you can make money in them even without the most skillful analytical mind, simply by digging
around to find a company with obvious attributes that nobody has bothered to look at yet. The analogy in sports betting is that you need
superior processing ability or non-public info to consistently make money betting on or against the Lakers, w

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
If there is a big move upward in a stock, something is going on and you might
be able to ride the movement for a while. Likewise I have noticed, particularly in college basketball, the line movements are good indicators
of which team will cover the spread; an increase in the spread will often result in the favorite covering, and vice versa.
— Belgo
Motivation
One fertile source of good bets is player motivation. Linesmakers have reams of data on past performances, and for the most part they predict
outcomes of future games by projecting past performances. If you can figure out the motivations of the players, you can zero in on games in which
past performances are not good indicators of what is going to happen. Here are some examples. Teams That Have Clinched
Here is an example that seems o

CURRENT SUMMARY:
If there is a big move upward in a stock, something is going on and you might
be able to ride the movement for a while. Likewise I have noticed, particularly in college basketball, the line movements are good indicators
of which team will cover the spread; an increase in the spread will often result in the favorite covering, and vice versa.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Here are some examples. Teams That Have Clinched
Here is an example that seems obvious, but has led to many good bets in the past and probably will find many good bets in years to come:
Once a team has won enough games to clinch everything worth having (such as home-field advantage in playoff games), it no longer has as
much incentive to win as it did when wins meant more. Thus betting against it might have positive expectation. Must Win
Look for situations where a team has extra motivation to win. This is mentioned in most books on betting sports. Other bettors also will spot
the extra motivation and will bet it enough to change the odds, but you still will have a good bet going with the motivation because there will be
bettors who go strictly by the numbers and think they have found a fa

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Here are some examples. Teams That Have Clinched
Here is an example that seems obvious, but has led to many good bets in the past and probably will find many good bets in years to come:
Once a team has won enough games to clinch everything worth having (such as home-field advantage in playoff games), it no longer has as
much incentive to win as it did when wins meant more.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
After ten weeks of the 1999 NFL season, Green Bay stood fourth in the NFC Central Division at 4-5. Its opponent for the
day was Detroit, leader of the NFC Central Division with a record of 6-3. The teams in the division between Detroit and Green Bay had records of
6-4 and 5-4. Green Bay had participated in several recent Super Bowls, and thus could be counted on to have a lot of pride. I’m sure Green Bay
players thought of themselves as being of Super Bowl caliber even if the 1999 version of their team did not appear to be Super Bowl bound. A
loss to Detroit would have meant Green Bay could kiss its playoff chances good-bye. Thus one would have expected Green Bay to be motivated
to play its best against Detroit. The game was being played at Green Bay. You might have expected Detroit to be

CURRENT SUMMARY:
After ten weeks of the 1999 NFL season, Green Bay stood fourth in the NFC Central Division at 4-5. Its opponent for the
day was Detroit, leader of the NFC Central Division with a record of 6-3.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
In total points scored for
the season, Detroit was 201-171 while Green Bay was 166-192. You might have expected to see Detroit listed as the favorite by about three
points. If that is what you expected, you would have been surprised to see Green Bay listed as a 4-point favorite early in the week. The closer it
got to game time, the higher the spread; by game time Green Bay was a 5-point favorite. Green Bay was a favorite not due to its record during its first nine games of the season, but because of the motivation situation. Bettors who
looked at more than just the numbers realized that Green Bay had sufficient motivation to play at a higher level than the numbers indicated. Final score: Green Bay 26, Detroit 17. Because the line contained about eight points of motivation, Green Bay may or

CURRENT SUMMARY:
In total points scored for
the season, Detroit was 201-171 while Green Bay was 166-192. You might have expected to see Detroit listed as the favorite by about three
points.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
I thought it was a good bet,
and in this game my bet won. It’s also possible that eight points was too much adjustment, and that Detroit was the smart bet, and that in this
game the smart bet lost. You won’t know whether you are capable of making good judgments in cases like this until you try, and keep careful
records, and then review your records to see what percentage of winners you are picking. Intensity Versus Talent
In NBA games, intensity overwhelms talent. If one can predict which team will be playing with more intensity, one can get an edge on bets on
selected NBA games. This is particularly true during NBA playoff games. Home Teams
Teams playing at home seem to play harder than visiting teams. How strong that phenomenon has been in the NFL has a chapter of its own

in this book.

CURRENT SUMMARY:
I thought it was a good bet,
and in this game my bet won. It’s also possible that eight points was too much adjustment, and that Detroit was the smart bet, and that in this
game the smart bet lost.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, let's tackle this step by step. I'm trying to understand how to create a knowledge card based on the provided excerpt about sports betting. The excerpt seems to discuss different strategies a


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
If you can identify situations where the home team’s natural advantage is greater or smaller than normal, you can find some positiveexpectation bets. You might, for example, look at home underdogs playing against teams that have already clinched everything worth clinching. Big Dogs
Strong teams involved in mismatches often do not play up to their potential. If the players see no reason to give an extra effort, they often
won’t. They might say they are going to play their hardest, but they generally won’t. If you are constructing your own power ratings, your ratings almost always will tell you that the double-digit dog will lose far worse than
predicted by the line. Your power ratings will tell you that huge favorites are great bets. Do not blindly follow your power ratings by backing huge

CURRENT SUMMARY:
If you can identify situations where the home team’s natural advantage is greater or smaller than normal, you can find some positiveexpectation bets. You might, for example, look at home underdogs playing against teams that have already clinched everything worth clinching.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Sometimes big
dogs beat big favorites outright. If you can discern which big favorites will play up to their potential and win big, and which will play just hard
enough to win but not cover the spread, you can find a great bet every once in a while. Here was my prediction for the 22 October 2000 NFL game of Denver at Cincinnati, as posted on BJ21.com:
CIN +10 vs. From reading the Denver Post, I get the impression Denver is not taking Cincinnati seriously. The Post calls them the
“Bungles.” I hope somebody has posted that article in the Cincinnati dressing room. This might be Cincinnati’s best chance if it wants to win
a game this year. Cincinnati had a record of 0-6, and had scored only 37 points in those six games. There had been articles discussing Cincinnati’s chances of
setting an all-

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Sometimes big
dogs beat big favorites outright. If you can discern which big favorites will play up to their potential and win big, and which will play just hard
enough to win but not cover the spread, you can find a great bet every once in a while.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Denver was a 10-point favorite, but it seemed to me from what I had read in the Denver
Post that Denver was not taking Cincinnati seriously. It turned out I was right; Cincinnati won outright, 31-21, ending all discussion of whether the
team would set an all-time record for futility. For information on the historical records of big NFL dogs, see the chapters on NFL results against the spread and NFL money lines. A caution on betting double-digit dogs: Historically they have performed well during the regular season, but not during playoffs or Super
Bowls. Discouraging Losses
Another source of good bets might be games following discouraging losses. TwoMinuteWarning.com calls it “Horrible Defeat Syndrome.”
I first noticed this phenomenon when intensively studying 1999 NFL results. In week 1,

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Denver was a 10-point favorite, but it seemed to me from what I had read in the Denver
Post that Denver was not taking Cincinnati seriously. It turned out I was right; Cincinnati won outright, 31-21, ending all discussion of whether the
team would set an all-time record for futility.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Cincinnati was comfortably ahead as a 9.5-point dog, but Tennessee managed to pull out a last-minute come-from-behind victory. That loss
seemed to drop Cincinnati into a two-month funk; it proceeded to lose nine straight against the spread. During the 2000-2001 basketball season, Maryland was ahead of Duke by ten points with a minute to play. Somehow Duke managed to pull
out a victory. That dropped Maryland into a tailspin that lasted for several weeks. What finally gave the Maryland team the emotional lift it needed
to get back to playing its normal game was a pep talk by the coach of the Baltimore Ravens, winners of the most recent Super Bowl. Obviously not all losses will result in a team’s losing its next few games against the spread. But I don’t think Maryland will be the last team to

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Cincinnati was comfortably ahead as a 9.5-point dog, but Tennessee managed to pull out a last-minute come-from-behind victory. That loss
seemed to drop Cincinnati into a two-month funk; it proceeded to lose nine straight against the spread.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
But I don’t think Maryland will be the last team to
be affected this way. Keep Records
My advice for you if you want to make bets based on motivation is the same as my advice if you want to make bets based on analysis of
existing data: Keep a separate record of those bets so that at any time you can review your past performance to be sure you really are picking
winners based on motivation. Attitude While Handicapping
My advice is do not try to pick the winner of the game. Instead, try to think in terms of either team’s having a chance if it plays hard enough. Then try to figure out the probability each team has of winning the game. You will find good bets on only some of the games. Most games have lines that are solid, meaning both teams are negative-expectation bets. You are looking for s

CURRENT SUMMARY:
But I don’t think Maryland will be the last team to
be affected this way. Keep Records
My advice for you if you want to make bets based on motivation is the same as my advice if you want to make bets based on analysis of
existing data: Keep a separate record of those bets so that at any time you can review your past performance to be sure you really are picking
winners based on motivation.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
You are looking for situations where a team’s probability of winning is higher than suggested by the odds. You have a good bet only if your
estimate of the probability of a team winning is different enough from the betting line, and if your estimate is correct. Sometimes your bet will lose. Making a smart bet is no guarantee of winning the bet. Here is a quote from BJ21.com, posted by one of the more esteemed members of the website’s community, who shall remain anonymous,
after I had posted that the Portland Trail Blazers +6 was a strong pick in the 2000 NBA finals:
I have no doubt whatsoever that Los Angeles will close out the series tonight. I keep hearing all over the place that Portland is really
much better than all of this, but it’s all nonsense. They didn’t even have to bother showi

CURRENT SUMMARY:
You are looking for situations where a team’s probability of winning is higher than suggested by the odds. You have a good bet only if your
estimate of the probability of a team winning is different enough from the betting line, and if your estimate is correct.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
When I read that I cringed, not because he disagreed with my pick, but because he was picking a winner rather than thinking in terms of
probabilities. I agreed with him that the Lakers had more talent than Portland, but he liked the Lakers no matter what. He ignored motivation. I
picked the Blazers because they were down 1-3 in the best-of-seven series, and had to win to stay alive. The Lakers had no reason to play hard
because they needed to win only one game out of three, but the Blazers could be counted on to be fighting for every loose ball. The result: The
Blazers won outright, 96-88. Remember: the object is to pick probabilities. If you do a good job of picking probabilities, the winners will come. Another Book to Check Out
King Yao is a sports handicapper as well as a poker player.

CURRENT SUMMARY:
When I read that I cringed, not because he disagreed with my pick, but because he was picking a winner rather than thinking in terms of
probabilities. I agreed with him that the Lakers had more talent than Portland, but he liked the Lakers no matter what.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, let me try to figure out what the user is asking for here. So, they've given me a series of queries where they're trying to extract the most important information from a sports betting docume


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
His Weighing the Odds in Sports

Betting is full of good information on football, basketball, and baseball. His chapter on baseball first halves breaks new ground. Last Word
There are lots of ways to handicap sports. You might find you are better at some handicapping methods than at others. You might find that
you are better at some sports than at others. The best way to identify your own personal strengths is to keep careful records of your picks and how
they do.

CURRENT SUMMARY:
His Weighing the Odds in Sports

Betting is full of good information on football, basketball, and baseball. His chapter on baseball first halves breaks new ground.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Watch for the possibility of fan money influencing the odds. When linesmakers expect fan money to back primarily one side, they nudge the
line to take extra advantage of that fan money. Sometimes the amount of money that pours into sportsbooks in support of a popular athlete or
popular team causes the odds to change to the point where taking the unpopular side is worthwhile. Sometimes money pours into Las Vegas sportsbooks in support of teams geographically located near Las Vegas; particularly watch for the
opportunity to bet against fan money pouring in to support teams from the Los Angeles area. Of course that does not mean betting blindly against
every Los Angeles team is a good idea. The more important that Internet sports betting becomes, the less likely that Los Angeles teams will be

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Watch for the possibility of fan money influencing the odds. When linesmakers expect fan money to back primarily one side, they nudge the
line to take extra advantage of that fan money.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
When large numbers of fans are betting with their hearts instead of their heads, you might find it worthwhile betting the unpopular side. This chapter presents examples. World Cup Soccer
Here’s an example I learned about from Fezzik, the handle used by a brilliant sports bettor who shares his thoughts on the Internet. He
posted this particular item on TwoPlusTwo.com. Mia Hamm, a talented and popular soccer player, was playing for the US team in the World Cup Final. Fezzik found a sportsbook offering a
bet on whether Hamm would score a goal during the game: Mia scores Yes +120, no -150. Fezzik thought of how popular Hamm was, and how
her fans would be much more likely to bet on her than against her. That led him to think that maybe the sportsbook had hung a line that would
take advantage of

CURRENT SUMMARY:
When large numbers of fans are betting with their hearts instead of their heads, you might find it worthwhile betting the unpopular side. This chapter presents examples.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Fezzik did some research into how likely it was that Hamm would score,
and came up with an estimate of 25 percent that she would. He figured that betting against her was worthwhile, and did so with a few thousand
dollars. Result: Hamm did not score in that game, and Fezzik won his bet. NBA Playoffs, 2000
In late March of 2000, before the NBA playoffs were to begin, most sportsbooks of Las Vegas had the Los Angeles Lakers at -120 to -150 to
win the NBA championship, and one place had -300. The Lakers were a very strong team, with a great manager, Phil Jackson. I was hoping to
find the Lakers to win the NBA at even money or better. When I found the Lakers at even money at the Riviera, I bet on them. The next day I
visited North Las Vegas. Poker Palace offered 8:5 on the Lakers to win the NBA

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Fezzik did some research into how likely it was that Hamm would score,
and came up with an estimate of 25 percent that she would. He figured that betting against her was worthwhile, and did so with a few thousand
dollars.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
I was amazed at the range of odds offered on that bet. A high of 9:5 and a low of -300 (or 1:3) on the Lakers to win the NBA, all at the same
time! That certainly emphasized the value of shopping around before making a bet! When I returned to Las Vegas in early May, the first round of the playoffs had just concluded and the second round had yet to start. I shopped
Laker odds all over town, and everywhere I went the Lakers were 1:6 or 1:7! Those were the odds to win the championship! The Lakers were good, but 1:6? To win the championship, the Lakers would have to defeat three other teams in best-four-of-seven series. One of those opponents was very likely to be the Portland Trail Blazers, who on paper looked to be almost as good as the Lakers. The two teams
had split their regular-season ga

CURRENT SUMMARY:
I was amazed at the range of odds offered on that bet. A high of 9:5 and a low of -300 (or 1:3) on the Lakers to win the NBA, all at the same
time!

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The Lakers should not have been as low as 1:6 against the Blazers alone, but they were 1:6 to beat the
Blazers and two other teams besides. This is an extreme example of local money backing a local favorite. That got me looking for ways to bet against the Lakers. Unfortunately, I could not find a bet on “Lakers to not win the championship.” The only
way I could bet against the Lakers was by betting on one or more of the other seven teams still alive in the tournament
MGM offered the Blazers at 8:1. Out of the eight teams left, the Lakers were the best by a small margin over the Blazers, and those two
seemed clearly superior to the other six. I thought Blazers at 8:1 was an outstanding opportunity, and backed up my analysis with a large bet. MGM also offered the Pacers at 10:1. The Pacers a

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The Lakers should not have been as low as 1:6 against the Blazers alone, but they were 1:6 to beat the
Blazers and two other teams besides. This is an extreme example of local money backing a local favorite.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The Pacers appeared to be the third strongest team left in the playoffs, but clearly inferior to both the
Lakers and the Blazers. What made the Pacers attractive was they were in a different division from the Lakers and Blazers. If they made the finals,
the Pacers would play only one of the Lakers or the Blazers. For the Lakers to win they would have to get past both the Blazers and the Pacers,
and for the Blazers to win they would have to get past both the Lakers and the Pacers. So I bet on the Pacers at 10:1. The second round of the playoffs saw the Lakers, Blazers, and Pacers all advancing. In the third round, the first series to finish was Pacers against New York, with the Pacers winning. So when the playoff wound down to the
final three teams, they were the three teams on which I had

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The Pacers appeared to be the third strongest team left in the playoffs, but clearly inferior to both the
Lakers and the Blazers. What made the Pacers attractive was they were in a different division from the Lakers and Blazers.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
I stood to win a whole lot more if the Blazers won the
tournament than if the Lakers or Pacers won, so I was rooting for the Blazers. Result: Lakers squeaked by the Blazers in game 7 of the semifinals, and then handily defeated the Pacers in the finals. The point of this section is the Lakers were hugely overbet when they were 1:6 or 1:7, opening the opportunity for positive-EV bets on their
opponents. De La Hoya vs. Mosley
Oscar De La Hoya was scheduled to fight Shane Mosley on 17 June 2000 in Las Vegas. I was visiting Las Vegas four days before the fight,
and shopping odds from sportsbook to sportsbook to see if I could scalp the fight (bet on both fighters at odds that would guarantee me a profit). Mosley to win was +210 at Desert Inn, and De La Hoya was -200 just up the street at Rivie

CURRENT SUMMARY:
I stood to win a whole lot more if the Blazers won the
tournament than if the Lakers or Pacers won, so I was rooting for the Blazers. Result: Lakers squeaked by the Blazers in game 7 of the semifinals, and then handily defeated the Pacers in the finals.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
I made small bets on both fighters just so I could write that I had scalped the fight. I had a winning bet combo no matter which fighter
won, but my return on investment was only 1 percent. After making my two small bets, I started thinking about the possibility of making a bigger bet. I wanted a higher return on investment than 1
percent. I wanted to figure which was a smarter bet, Mosley at +210 or De La Hoya at -200. I only thing I knew about boxing came from the one
time I laced on gloves as a teenager; I learned how slow my reflexes are. I recalled seeing the De La Hoya name in Las Vegas several times before, but the name Mosley was new to me. I discovered that De La
Hoya was a glamorous figure and was from Los Angeles. I suspected that De La Hoya could have been the betting favorite

CURRENT SUMMARY:
I made small bets on both fighters just so I could write that I had scalped the fight. I had a winning bet combo no matter which fighter
won, but my return on investment was only 1 percent.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
They were of similar age and size, and
had similar boxing records. So I returned to Desert Inn and put more money on Mosley. Result: Mosley won in a split decision. De La Hoya vs. Trinidad
Here is a bet combo I found in Las Vegas that I want to share someplace in this book, and this chapter seems like a good home for it. Oscar De La Hoya was fighting Felix Trinidad on 18 September 1999. I was in Las Vegas the day of the fight, and was shopping prices,
hoping to find a good bet. Here’s what I found: De La Hoya to win by knockout, 5:2 at Barbary Coast. Trinidad to win by knockout, also 5:2 at Barbary Coast. The fight
to go the distance, +160 at the Bally’s, right next door to the Barbary Coast. One of those bets had to win; the only other thing that could have happened was for the fight to b

CURRENT SUMMARY:
They were of similar age and size, and
had similar boxing records. So I returned to Desert Inn and put more money on Mosley.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The fight
to go the distance, +160 at the Bally’s, right next door to the Barbary Coast. One of those bets had to win; the only other thing that could have happened was for the fight to be canceled at the last minute, with all bets
being returned.
$200 on each fighter to win by knockout at 5:2 would have turned $400 into $700 if the fight ended in a knockout.
$270 on the fight to go the distance would have turned into $702 if neither fighter managed to knock out the other. (A $269.23 ticket would
have turned into $700, had you been able to bet that odd amount.)
Thus a total of $670 spread among three bets would have turned into $700 or more no matter what the outcome of the fight. That’s not
gambling, that’s investing, and earning a risk-free 4.6 percent in less than a day. After betting s

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The fight
to go the distance, +160 at the Bally’s, right next door to the Barbary Coast. One of those bets had to win; the only other thing that could have happened was for the fight to be canceled at the last minute, with all bets
being returned.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, let's tackle this. So, the user wants me to act like an expert knowledge assistant refining a sports betting knowledge card based on provided excerpts. They want the summary to capture the ma


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
After betting small amounts on each of the three bets to verify that a scalping opportunity actually existed, I started thinking about which of the
three bets was best. The three-bet combo gave the punter an edge, so at least one of the three individual bets must have given an edge. Perhaps
instead of all three bets giving a small edge, two of them were actually bad bets and the third contained a huge player edge. I figured that betting on a fighter to win by knockout was sexier than betting the fight to go the distance. Sexier bets attract more action from
squares and are less likely to offer an edge to sharp bettors. So I thought that the fight to go the distance was likely a better bet than either fighter
to win by knockout. I was actually driving away from Bally’s when I figured it out

CURRENT SUMMARY:
After betting small amounts on each of the three bets to verify that a scalping opportunity actually existed, I started thinking about which of the
three bets was best. The three-bet combo gave the punter an edge, so at least one of the three individual bets must have given an edge.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about veri


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The odds had dropped to +150 for the fight to go the distance, but I made the bet anyhow. Result: The fight went the distance, and some of Bally’s money ended up in my pocket. Willie’s Last Ride
This section was originally published in my long-out-of-print Betting Cheap Claimers, and is reproduced in my book Casino Tournament
Strategy. The date was 3 February 1990. The 1990s were the sixth decade in which Willie Shoemaker had raced horses. This day a $100,000
handicap was to be his last ride in an illustrious career. Patchy Groundfog was to be his mount. The conditions of the race included “This race will
be Bill Shoemaker’s final ride. In the event that his mount is withdrawn prior to the running of the race, any one of the remaining entrants’ jockeys
will be subject to replacement by Bil

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The odds had dropped to +150 for the fight to go the distance, but I made the bet anyhow. Result: The fight went the distance, and some of Bally’s money ended up in my pocket.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
In the event that his mount is withdrawn prior to the running of the race, any one of the remaining entrants’ jockeys
will be subject to replacement by Bill Shoemaker.” There were eleven horses in the race, and Shoemaker’s Patchy Groundfog went off the big
favorite at 3:5. Patchy Groundfog should not have been that big a favorite had bettors been going strictly by the information in the Daily Racing
Form. Undoubtedly many of the people backing Patchy Groundfog were betting only because it was Shoemaker’s last ride; they were betting with
their hearts and not their heads. The second-favorite went off at 5:1; and the next two favorites went off at 12:1. Result: One of the 12:1 horses won the race. Patchy Groundfog finished fourth. Winning Colors
When a big race like the Kentucky Derby comes

CURRENT SUMMARY:
In the event that his mount is withdrawn prior to the running of the race, any one of the remaining entrants’ jockeys
will be subject to replacement by Bill Shoemaker.” There were eleven horses in the race, and Shoemaker’s Patchy Groundfog went off the big
favorite at 3:5. Patchy Groundfog should not have been that big a favorite had bettors been going strictly by the information in the Daily Raci

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how sports


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Winning Colors
When a big race like the Kentucky Derby comes along, many race tracks televise the race and accept bets on it. The money being bet on
such a race does not all go into one big pool (or at least did not all go into one big pool in 1988, the year being discussed here.) Various tracks
had their own pari-mutuel pools for the race. The 1988 Kentucky Derby featured several regional favorites. A California horse, Winning Colors, was among the favorites. After Winning
Colors won, I scoured various editions of The Daily Racing Form to find the payouts at various tracks around the country. The results are listed in
Table 3. I originally published this table in Betting Cheap Claimers, and have also reproduced it in Casino Tournament Strategy. Table 3 clearly shows the effect of fans bac

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Winning Colors
When a big race like the Kentucky Derby comes along, many race tracks televise the race and accept bets on it. The money being bet on
such a race does not all go into one big pool (or at least did not all go into one big pool in 1988, the year being discussed here.) Various tracks
had their own pari-mutuel pools for the race.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The purpose of this chapter is to make the application of the methods of statistics to sports betting as easy as possible. The idea of testing a theory by taking a sample and looking for statistical significance has been around for a long time. This chapter adds
nothing new to the theory of statistics. There are three steps. First is formation of the hypothesis. Second is testing the hypothesis. Third is interpreting the results of the test. Forming the Hypothesis
Start by forming your hypothesis. This means make an explicit statement of what the relationship is that you wish to test. It is important to pin down all the details of your hypothesis before starting to gather data to test it. For example, you can’t test “Big NFL dogs
are good bets” without first defining exactly how big is a b

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The purpose of this chapter is to make the application of the methods of statistics to sports betting as easy as possible. The idea of testing a theory by taking a sample and looking for statistical significance has been around for a long time.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
It’s okay to examine part of your data during the formulation of your hypothesis. You might, for example, examine the results of games played
during the 1995 NFL season to define how big is a big dog. That might help you clarify your hypothesis as “NFL dogs of +5.5 or more are good
bets.” You must then throw away those games before beginning the test of your hypothesis. If you used 1995 games to decide to look only at dogs
of +5.5 or more, then you can’t use 1995 games to test that hypothesis. It is best to write down all details of the hypothesis to be sure that it does not get modified in any way during the testing phase. Testing the Hypothesis
There is a real problem in properly testing hypotheses involving sports: The quantity of data is small. For example, the NFL plays fewer than

CURRENT SUMMARY:
It’s okay to examine part of your data during the formulation of your hypothesis. You might, for example, examine the results of games played
during the 1995 NFL season to define how big is a big dog.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
tomorrow’s games, which is what you are trying to predict. Ideally you should like to test your hypotheses by making predictions for games yet to be played. But that means waiting months or years to
generate a sufficient sample size. It’s acceptable to test your hypothesis against games already played, but remember that the real proof that a system works is its ability to
predict future games. Though it’s acceptable to test your hypothesis using a database of games already played, you must do it properly. There are pitfalls that
might lead you to think you have discovered a relationship that in fact does not exist. In short, when you are testing using games already played, you may use only games that were not used in any way to formulate your
hypothesis. Modifying the Hypothesis
If, after

CURRENT SUMMARY:
tomorrow’s games, which is what you are trying to predict. Ideally you should like to test your hypotheses by making predictions for games yet to be played.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Modifying the Hypothesis
If, after starting to gather data to test your hypothesis, you decide that your hypothesis needs modification, then fine, modify the hypothesis. For example, suppose you used games played during the 1995 season to formulate the hypothesis “NFL dogs of +5.5 or more are good
bets.” Then you examined games played during the 1996 season. After studying those 1996 games, you concluded that your model seems to
work better if applied only to home dogs and not to traveling dogs. So you change your hypothesis to “NFL home dogs of +5.5 or more are good
bets.” Then you must throw out the 1996 data because they were used to modify your hypothesis. You must start your testing all over again, and
this time not use any 1995 or 1996 games because they were used in the formulation

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Modifying the Hypothesis
If, after starting to gather data to test your hypothesis, you decide that your hypothesis needs modification, then fine, modify the hypothesis. For example, suppose you used games played during the 1995 season to formulate the hypothesis “NFL dogs of +5.5 or more are good
bets.” Then you examined games played during the 1996 season.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, let's tackle this. The user has provided a detailed conversation history where they're asking for help refining knowledge cards related to sports betting. Each time, they've given an excerpt


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
You might decide several times to modify your hypothesis. Each time you modify it, you must throw out the games you have looked at so far
and not use them to test your newly modified hypothesis. You might, for example, next look at results of 1997 NFL games. You might decide that your theory seems to work better if applied to only
home dogs of +7 or more, instead of home dogs of +5.5 or more. So modify your hypothesis to “NFL home dogs of +7 or more are good bets.”
Then you must throw out the 1997 games and start your testing all over again. You have now thrown out 1995-1997 games, which leaves games
played in 1994 and earlier as well as games played in 1998 and later to test your hypothesis. I’ll say it again because it’s important and often violated: You must throw out all the games you

CURRENT SUMMARY:
You might decide several times to modify your hypothesis. Each time you modify it, you must throw out the games you have looked at so far
and not use them to test your newly modified hypothesis.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
I’ll say it again because it’s important and often violated: You must throw out all the games you used to formulate your initial hypothesis as
well as all the games you examined to modify your hypothesis. Only games not used in any manner in the construction of the hypothesis are valid
as a test of that hypothesis. Roulette Example
Understanding why a roulette system is worthless for predictions makes it easier to understand why some sports systems are worthless for
predictions. Roulette is a casino game with a ball that is spun around a track and falls down into one of 37 or 38 numbered slots. I could watch a hundred
spins of the ball, keeping careful track of which numbers won. Then I could analyze the results to find out which numbers tended to follow which
numbers. Maybe I would find a

CURRENT SUMMARY:
I’ll say it again because it’s important and often violated: You must throw out all the games you used to formulate your initial hypothesis as
well as all the games you examined to modify your hypothesis. Only games not used in any manner in the construction of the hypothesis are valid
as a test of that hypothesis.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Maybe I would find a profit for betting odd after two consecutive even numbers, red after a red-black-red sequence, and so forth. Suppose I did this and used my data to devise a roulette system, and offered to sell it to you. Would you buy this system? Your answer should be
“No.” Such a roulette system could tell you only which numbers tended to follow which numbers for the 100 spins I happened to watch. Only by
coincidence would that system work on a different 100 spins. You do not have the option of betting on the 100 spins I watched, so my roulette
system would be worthless to you. It would be a real surprise if it worked on balls that have yet to be spun. Suppose I carefully analyzed the results of the NFL games that were played last year to find the characteristics of the winners agai

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Maybe I would find a profit for betting odd after two consecutive even numbers, red after a red-black-red sequence, and so forth. Suppose I did this and used my data to devise a roulette system, and offered to sell it to you.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
I could come up with a system that would have made money had I used it for those games. Of course I did not use it to make money on
those games because I did not formulate the system until those games had already been played. But I could write an ad telling you how much
money you could have made had you used my system on those games. Would you be willing to bet your money on that system? Again, your
answer should be “No” because you do not have the option of betting the particular games on which the system would have worked. The only acceptable way to test a system is with a different set of data than was used to formulate the system. That’s every bit as true for
sports as it is for roulette. It is acceptable to analyze the results of past games to formulate a system. But that is not the p

CURRENT SUMMARY:
I could come up with a system that would have made money had I used it for those games. Of course I did not use it to make money on
those games because I did not formulate the system until those games had already been played.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The only performance worth reporting is how the system did against the different set of games. Interpreting the Results
So you formulated your hypothesis, and you use it to make predictions about games that were not used in the formation of the hypothesis. A full explanation of the science of statistics is beyond the scope of this book. If this area intrigues you, I suggest taking a college course in
statistics. This chapter discusses only one tiny area of statistics: using the binomial distribution to examine the significance of W-L records. You have a win-loss record that describes your sample. You are trying to show that the W-L record of your sample is significantly different
from 50 percent wins. Two Standard Errors
The most generally used standard of statistical significance is five

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The only performance worth reporting is how the system did against the different set of games. Interpreting the Results
So you formulated your hypothesis, and you use it to make predictions about games that were not used in the formation of the hypothesis.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
As a close approximation, five percent rarity occurs when the W-L
record of the sample you have gathered is two standard errors different from 50 percent wins. The square root of your sample size is the standard deviation of the difference between your total wins and total losses, which I will call
excess wins. The easy way to find the number of standard errors is to divide excess wins by the standard deviation. You have reached that five-percent point when the your excess wins is two standard errors. For example, suppose you tested the hypothesis that NFL home dogs of +7 or more are good bets by examining the games played during the
1998-2000 seasons. Suppose you came up with a W-L record of 30-25. That’s a sample size of 55 decisions. The square root of 55 is 7.4. 30 wins minus 25 losses

CURRENT SUMMARY:
As a close approximation, five percent rarity occurs when the W-L
record of the sample you have gathered is two standard errors different from 50 percent wins. The square root of your sample size is the standard deviation of the difference between your total wins and total losses, which I will call
excess wins.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
For 55 decisions you need a W-L record of 35-20 to have statistical significance at the five percent level. Suppose the W-L record for NFL home dogs of +7 or more was 32-15 for games played during 1995-1997. If you add those games in, you get
a record of 62-37 for the six-year period 1995-2000. Can you call that a sample of 99 decisions and test for significance? No you cannot do that. The reason is you used those 1995-1997 games to formulate and modify your hypothesis. You cannot also use them
to test the hypothesis. Only the games played in years other than 1995-1997 can be used to test that hypothesis. Two Standard Errors is Not Enough
Two standard errors is enough significance for many purposes, but not for betting sports. The search for profitable betting systems involves examining la

CURRENT SUMMARY:
For 55 decisions you need a W-L record of 35-20 to have statistical significance at the five percent level. Suppose the W-L record for NFL home dogs of +7 or more was 32-15 for games played during 1995-1997.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Approximately five percent of the
relationships you examine will meet a two-standard-error test by chance alone. Examine a hundred possible relationships all of which are really
no relationship, and you likely will find five that are significant at the two-standard-error level. The two-standard-error standard is reasonable to use for testing non-betting applications where there is only one hypothesis being tested,
and that hypothesis is never modified. But if dozens of hypotheses are being tested, or if you are willing to modify your hypothesis, then two
standard errors gives too many false positives. There are publications that report results that look like relationships but are in fact the expected product when one examines large quantities
of random data. The process of looking for rela

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Approximately five percent of the
relationships you examine will meet a two-standard-error test by chance alone. Examine a hundred possible relationships all of which are really
no relationship, and you likely will find five that are significant at the two-standard-error level.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Data mining can turn up nuggets, and some angles can work. However, most of what look like strong relationships in past data describe
what happened only in past games, and fail in attempts to predict the results of future games. If you have discovered a relationship that really exists, then examining more and more games will result in the level of significance going up
and up. If the first 100 games you analyze give you a 60-40 record, you are at two standard errors. So keep gathering more data. By the time your
sample size gets to 200, your W-L record might be 120-80 whereas the requirement for two standard errors is a W-L record 114-86. As your sample size increases, if the added games seem to have just 50 percent winners, then your initial results that made you so hopeful
were likely a

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Data mining can turn up nuggets, and some angles can work. However, most of what look like strong relationships in past data describe
what happened only in past games, and fail in attempts to predict the results of future games.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
As your sample size increases, if the added games seem to have just 50 percent winners, then your initial results that made you so hopeful
were likely a random blip in the data and do not result in a system you can use to win money from sportsbooks. If you are testing hypotheses using games already played rather than games yet to be played, you must use a higher standard of significance
than just five percent rarity. If you are going to draw conclusions from data mining but not test your hypotheses against different data, then the
minimum requirement for statistical significance is four standard errors. Think of it as two standard errors to develop the hypothesis and then two
more to test it. If you are testing a system against games already played, my suggestion is to hold out for 1:1000

CURRENT SUMMARY:
As your sample size increases, if the added games seem to have just 50 percent winners, then your initial results that made you so hopeful
were likely a random blip in the data and do not result in a system you can use to win money from sportsbooks. If you are testing hypotheses using games already played rather than games yet to be played, you must use a higher standard of significance
than just

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
If you are testing a system against games already played, my suggestion is to hold out for 1:1000 chance of a win-loss record being achieved
by chance alone. Even with a standard that high you will occasionally find false positives, methods that you at first think find good bets but later
prove to be worthless. Use of Table 4
To find out how rare your W-L record is, refer to table 4. The first column of table 4 lists sample sizes. Find the row that corresponds to the total of wins and losses in your sample. The second column of table 4 lists the minimum W-L requirements to have a one-out-of-100 rare event. Don’t get excited if your W-L record is
the same as listed in that column, because you will happen upon a sample of games that meet the requirements of the 1:100 column once for
every 10

CURRENT SUMMARY:
If you are testing a system against games already played, my suggestion is to hold out for 1:1000 chance of a win-loss record being achieved
by chance alone. Even with a standard that high you will occasionally find false positives, methods that you at first think find good bets but later
prove to be worthless.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The third column of table 4 lists the minimum W-L requirements to have a 1:1000 rare event. That means one in a thousand worthless
systems will achieve that kind of a W-L record by chance alone. When you find a system that achieves this good a W-L record on games that
were not used to formulate your hypothesis, you may have a system that will make you money. The last column of table 4 lists the minimum W-L requirements to have a 1:10,000 rare event. When you find a system that achieves a W-L
record equal to or better than the numbers in that column, you truly have a winning system. Note that the minimum sample size necessary to achieve rarity at the 1:100 level is 7. A record of 6-0 is not a 1:100 rare event. The “not pos”
entries in table 4 mean “not possible.” You need a sample of at lea

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The third column of table 4 lists the minimum W-L requirements to have a 1:1000 rare event. That means one in a thousand worthless
systems will achieve that kind of a W-L record by chance alone.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
The “not pos”
entries in table 4 mean “not possible.” You need a sample of at least 7 games to get to 1:100, and even then you need to go 7-0 to achieve
significance at the 1:100 level. The minimum sample size necessary to find a 1:1000 rare event is 10, and it’s a 1:1000 rarity only if the W-L record is 10-0. A 1:1000 rare event can stand a loss only if the sample size is 13 or more. A W-L record of 11-1 is not a 1:1000 rare event. Note that as the sample size gets larger, the win percentage required for significance drops. For example, the requirement for 1:1000 rarity on
a sample of 20 is 18-2, or 90 percent winners. But by the time the sample size gets to 100, the requirement for 1:1000 rarity is 66-34, which is only

CURRENT SUMMARY:
The “not pos”
entries in table 4 mean “not possible.” You need a sample of at least 7 games to get to 1:100, and even then you need to go 7-0 to achieve
significance at the 1:100 level. The minimum sample size necessary to find a 1:1000 rare event is 10, and it’s a 1:1000 rarity only if the W-L record is 10-0.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
If you are examining a relationship that is giving you two-thirds winners in a small sample of games, you won’t be able to verify the validity of
the relationship if your sample is only 20 games. But if the system continues to give you two-thirds winners, you will be able to meet the
requirements for 1:1000 rarity when your sample size reaches 100 games. The numbers in table 4 should be applied to your total sample size. If you are gathering games to test a system, and early results show
significance according to table 4, and then a group of games turns out to be mostly losers, that fact that the early results looked significant no
longer has any weight. For example, suppose you are testing a new system, and your early results achieve a W-L record of 14-1. You look at table 4 and shout wit

CURRENT SUMMARY:
If you are examining a relationship that is giving you two-thirds winners in a small sample of games, you won’t be able to verify the validity of
the relationship if your sample is only 20 games. But if the system continues to give you two-thirds winners, you will be able to meet the
requirements for 1:1000 rarity when your sample size reaches 100 games.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
That brings your 20-game totals
to 15-5. You look at table 4 and see that 15-5 does not even meet the minimum requirements for 1:100 rarity. The conclusion at that point: The
new system is not yet proven. You must focus on the 15-5 record that describes all the games in your sample; you cannot ignore the last five just
because they were losers. The fact that the first fifteen games went 14-1 no longer matters. It’s easy to apply statistics to W-L records. The distribution of number of wins is binomial. The numbers in table 4 have been calculated using
the binomial distribution with p = .5. You can recreate the entire table yourself using Excel. Rarity of a W-L record is also available on the Links page of BJ21.com; click on Sports: Prop Tools. Standard Deviation of a Binomial Distribution

CURRENT SUMMARY:
That brings your 20-game totals
to 15-5. You look at table 4 and see that 15-5 does not even meet the minimum requirements for 1:100 rarity.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
An alternative is to apply the traditional statistical tests
using standard deviation. Variance for a binomial distribution is npq. The n is the number of games you bet; p is the probability of winning by guessing, i.e. 0.5; and q is

1-p. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance. The answers you get by using npq for variance are not as accurate as the method used to generate the numbers in table 4. The npq
approach yields approximate answers, and the approximation is less accurate the farther you get out in the tails of the distribution. Table 4 uses
the binomial distribution directly, and involves no approximation. Sample Problems
Problem 1
The leader in a basketball handicapping tournament is 27-8 against the spread. Can you conclude that this guy is a great handicapper

CURRENT SUMMARY:
An alternative is to apply the traditional statistical tests
using standard deviation. Variance for a binomial distribution is npq.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Problem 2
Which is less likely to be a random result, a record of 15-5 for twenty games or a record of 65-35 for 100 games? Problem 3
A small preliminary sample indicates that a method is able to predict winners about 60 percent of the time. Assuming the 60 percent rate of
success continues, how large a sample is needed to meet the 1:1000 test of rarity? Solutions to Sample Problems
Problem 1
The leader in a basketball handicapping tournament is 27-8 against the spread. Can you conclude that this guy is a great handicapper? A record of 27-8 meets the table 4 criterion for being a 1:1000 rare event. However, there are at least two reasons to be cautious before
concluding that the leader is a great handicapper. One thing to look at is how many people are entered in the tournament. If there a

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Problem 2
Which is less likely to be a random result, a record of 15-5 for twenty games or a record of 65-35 for 100 games? Problem 3
A small preliminary sample indicates that a method is able to predict winners about 60 percent of the time.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how spo


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
If there are hundreds of entrants, then the chances are good that the
leader will achieve a 1:1000 result by chance alone. The other thing to be aware of when analyzing tournament data is sometimes some of the lines are “soft” — that is, bets available in the
tournament might not be available to people wanting to bet real money. For example, if Chicago is a 10-point favorite on every board in town but a
tournament card has Chicago -8, entrants are likely to take Chicago for the tournament. They will take Chicago in the tournament because it is -8
there, but they will not be able to put real money on Chicago -8. It’s easier to compile a record of 27-8 in a tournament with soft lines than with real
money against the spread. Table 4 applies only if the W-L record has been compiled against lin

CURRENT SUMMARY:
If there are hundreds of entrants, then the chances are good that the
leader will achieve a 1:1000 result by chance alone. The other thing to be aware of when analyzing tournament data is sometimes some of the lines are “soft” — that is, bets available in the
tournament might not be available to people wanting to bet real money.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, let's tackle this step by step. So, the user provided a detailed thought process where they were trying to understand how to create an improved knowledge card based on a sports betting docume


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Table 4 applies only if the W-L record has been compiled against lines offered for real-money bets; it does not apply to
tournaments using soft lines. In summary, the guy could well be a great handicapper, but you can’t say so conclusively based only on his leading a tournament with a 27-8
record. Problem 2
Which is less likely to be a random result, a record of 15-5 for twenty games or a record of 65-35 for 100 games?
15-5 is 75 percent winners, whereas 65-35 is only 65 percent winners. Nevertheless, 65-35 is harder to achieve by guessing. Table 4 shows
that 15-5 is achieved by guessing more than once in 100 tries, whereas 66-35 is achieved by guessing less than once in 100 tries, and almost
reaches a rarity of one in 1000. By that standard, a record of 65-35 is more impressive than is 15

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Table 4 applies only if the W-L record has been compiled against lines offered for real-money bets; it does not apply to
tournaments using soft lines. In summary, the guy could well be a great handicapper, but you can’t say so conclusively based only on his leading a tournament with a 27-8
record.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, let's tackle this. So, from what I understand, the user provided a detailed conversation history where they're refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Each time, they've give


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
It’s unlikely that by the time that person’s picks total 100 that
the W-L record will be 65-35 or better. Of course it’s possible, but it’s not likely. Problem 3
A small preliminary sample indicates that a method is able to predict winners about 60 percent of the time. Assuming the 60 percent rate of
success continues, how large a sample is needed to meet the 1:1000 test of rarity? A close look at the 1:1000 column of table 4 shows that for a sample size of 250, the W-L record required for significance is 150-100.

CURRENT SUMMARY:
It’s unlikely that by the time that person’s picks total 100 that
the W-L record will be 65-35 or better. Of course it’s possible, but it’s not likely.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about how


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
A parlay is a bet involving more than one team. When discussing parlays, team can mean side or it can be an over or an under. The two major kinds of parlays are “off the board” and “parlay cards.”
Off the board means the customer selects the teams to parlay from among the various possible bets that could be made alone as straight
bets. Parlay cards are printed up by the book, and have numbers on them that may or may not be the same as listed on the board. Parlays Off The Board
Look around a sportsbook for its list of rules, and among them you will find payoffs on parlays. These payoffs apply to combinations of any sports bets available in the sportsbook, except for those bets on which the book specifies “no
parlays.”
The vig on a two- or three-team parlay is related to the vig on a straigh

CURRENT SUMMARY:
A parlay is a bet involving more than one team. When discussing parlays, team can mean side or it can be an over or an under.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting stuff. I've read a few excerpts, and I want to make sure I get the key points right. Let's see what we have here.

The excerpt talks about parlays


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
A person whose picks are no better than guessing loses faster at
parlays than at straight bets. A person whose handicapping skills are sufficient to get an edge at straight bets can get a bigger edge on two- or
three-team parlays, but with more risk. Parlaying four or more teams almost always is a bad bet. Probably parlays got their start when some punter said to his bookie: “I want to bet team A to beat team B, and then I want to use the payoff to
bet team C to beat team D, but I don’t want to have to find you to collect on the first game in order to bet on the second game. Can you just use my
first-game payoff as a bet on the second game?”
The bookie of course said “Can do,” and then sat down to work out the math. He collects $11 from his customer as a bet on team A, and if
team A wins,

CURRENT SUMMARY:
A person whose picks are no better than guessing loses faster at
parlays than at straight bets. A person whose handicapping skills are sufficient to get an edge at straight bets can get a bigger edge on two- or
three-team parlays, but with more risk.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, let's tackle this step by step. So, the user provided a query about refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. They included an excerpt that discusses parlays in sports betting.


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
But instead of handing that $21 to the customer, he uses that $21 as a bet on team C. If team
C wins, each $11 of the new bet will turn into $21, so a $21 bet will turn into $40.09. So if both team A and team C win, the bettor wins $29.09 from the bookie. If A or C loses, or if both of them lose, the bookie wins $11 from the
bettor. That would get the bookie to thinking: Why not offer this two-game parlay to other customers? And why require that one game be finished
before the other begins — the bet could be made on two games played simultaneously. Two-Team Parlay
A win of $29.09 on an $11 bet is a bit awkward. So the bookie searched for a simpler fraction that would give approximately the same result.
29.09/11 is 2.64, so what was needed is a fraction close to 2.64. How about 13/5, which

CURRENT SUMMARY:
But instead of handing that $21 to the customer, he uses that $21 as a bet on team C. If team
C wins, each $11 of the new bet will turn into $21, so a $21 bet will turn into $40.09.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting thing. The user has given me a bunch of excerpts and wants me to extract the most important information and present it in a specific knowledge car


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Hey, why not? Thus was the payoff for a two-team parlay probably created. 13:5 means each dollar wagered on a winning two-team parlay wins $2.60,
which is four cents less than if the punter had bet a dollar on one game at 10:11, collected the winnings, and then parlayed those winnings and
the original $11 right back as a bet on the second game at 10:11. Three-Team Parlay
Suppose the $11 punter had specified three teams instead of just two. After the first two games won, the $40.09 payoff would have been
used as a wager on the third team at 10:11. Had that third team also won, the bookie would owe the punter a total of $76.54, of which $65.54
would have been winnings. Betting $11 and winning $65.54 means the average dollar bet on three winning teams would have won $5.96. Again this is an aw

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Hey, why not? Thus was the payoff for a two-team parlay probably created.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting thing. The user has given me a bunch of excerpts and wants me to extract the most important information and present it in a specific knowledge


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
In the case of three-team parlays, the bookie rounded
it off in the customer’s favor, calling it 6:1. Thus was the payoff for a three-team parlay created. 6:1 means each dollar wagered on a winning three-team parlay turns into $7, which is
four cents more than if the punter had bet a dollar on one game at 10:11, collected the winnings, and then handed those winnings right back as a
bet on the second game at 10:11, won on that game, and then repeated the process with a third game. Parlays of Four or More Teams
On parlays of four or more teams, the vig usually is higher. Four-team parlays should pay 12:1, but some books pay only 10:1. That is, if a
punter bets one game at a time, parlays his winnings, and keeps it up for four straight wins, he will have turned $1 into $13.28. Thus a four-tea

CURRENT SUMMARY:
In the case of three-team parlays, the bookie rounded
it off in the customer’s favor, calling it 6:1. Thus was the payoff for a three-team parlay created.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting thing. The user has given me a bunch of excerpts and wants me to extract the most important information and present it in a specific knowledge


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
Some sportsbooks do pay 12:1 on winning fourteam parlays, but others do not. Parlay odds are shown in table 5. The first column is the number of teams being parlayed. The second column is the true odds, which is what
the payoff would be if there were no edge for the casinos. The third column is what the parlay odds would be if they were figured on the basis of
10:11 for each team selected. Pushes
On parlays off the board, a push removes a team from the parlay, reducing the number of teams in the parlay. For example, a tie result would
convert a three-team parlay into a parlay involving the remaining two teams. A push in one game of a two-team parlay reduces the parlay to a
straight bet. EV on Parlays
Sports bettors who have no skill at picking winners give sportsbooks a huge percentage on

CURRENT SUMMARY:
Some sportsbooks do pay 12:1 on winning fourteam parlays, but others do not. Parlay odds are shown in table 5.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this sports betting thing. The user has provided a few excerpts and a current summary, and they want me to improve the knowledge card. Let me break this down step by


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
On 13:5 two-team parlays, choosing teams by flipping coins gives the sportsbooks 10.0
percent. For four-team parlays at 12:1, choosing teams by flipping coins gives the sportsbooks 18.75 percent. For bettors who choose teams by
flipping coins, parlays are bad news. If you must bet parlays, bet only on terms at least as good as the last column of table 5. There are, for example, sportsbooks that pay 14:5 on
two-team parlays, which is the equivalent of betting two teams at -105 each. Example of a Good Deal
In October of 2000 I received a brochure from an Internet sportsbook, Infinity Sports International, www.BetOnInternet.com, phone 1-877-9194263. The big print on the brochure said “Home of the world’s highest parlay odds.” So I immediately checked its table of parlay odds. 13:5 on two
team

CURRENT SUMMARY:
On 13:5 two-team parlays, choosing teams by flipping coins gives the sportsbooks 10.0
percent. For four-team parlays at 12:1, choosing teams by flipping coins gives the sportsbooks 18.75 percent.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, I need to tackle this query about refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. The user has provided a specific excerpt and wants the most important information extracted and pres


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
That’s the true odds, the break-even point for random guesses! For a Break-Even Handicapper
Off-the-board parlays are not necessarily bad news for skillful handicappers. Imagine a retired gentleman whose expertise on sports allows him to pick 52.5 percent winners. Thus he is able to overcome the book’s vig
on straight bets. In the long run his expectation is to break even on straight bets. He’s happy with that. His expertise allows him to while away the
hours in sportsbooks without having to pay for his seat. He sometimes wins and sometimes loses, but his wins and losses fairly balance out — on
straight bets. How would this retired gentleman do on parlays? Is his expectation to win or to lose? If he always picks teams that have 52.5 percent chance of winning, his expectation is to break ev

CURRENT SUMMARY:
That’s the true odds, the break-even point for random guesses! For a Break-Even Handicapper
Off-the-board parlays are not necessarily bad news for skillful handicappers.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Okay, I'm trying to understand this sports betting thing. The user has given me a bunch of excerpts and wants me to extract the most important information and present it in a specific knowledge card f


Question:
You are refining a knowledge card for a sports betting document. Extract the most important information.

EXCERPT:
He’ll experience larger risk
with parlays, having bigger ups and bigger downs than with straight bets, but in the long run his parlay wins will roughly balance out his parlay
losses. That’s true no matter how many teams he parlays, as long as he receives the odds shown in the third column of table 5. For a Winning Handicapper
Imagine a handicapper named Frank, who can pick more than 52.5 percent winners. What happens to parlays that Frank bets? If Frank is good enough to win money at straight bets laying -110, then Frank is also good enough to win money at parlays, so long as he
receives at least the odds shown in the third column of table 5. Here is an example. Suppose Frank likes two teams and estimates each as having 55 percent chance of covering the spread. On straight
bets at -110, Fr

CURRENT SUMMARY:
He’ll experience larger risk
with parlays, having bigger ups and bigger downs than with straight bets, but in the long run his parlay wins will roughly balance out his parlay
losses. That’s true no matter how many teams he parlays, as long as he receives the odds shown in the third column of table 5.

Provide an improved knowledge card in this exact format:
Summary: <1-2 sentences capturing the main point about sports betting>
Key Points:
- <concise bullet 1>
- <concise bullet 2>
- <concise bullet 3>
Themes: theme1, theme2, theme3

Begin the card now:

Alright, I'm trying to understand this sports betting thing. The user has given me a bunch of excerpts and wants me to extract the most important information and present it in a specific knowledge car