Being an Expert
“Expert” analysts who give recommendations without any historical data to their results is baloney. Here is a Tweet from Rockchalk saying Brad Evans isn’t good with running backs.
Brad replied with this:
Based off of FantasyPro’s stats, here is Brad Evans 2018 results and none of those 2018 numbers are 11.
Talk is Cheap
I noticed another analyst who I thought was out of line and tweeted at the article as you can see below.
He sent me a DM this morning.
“You want to see my betting slip, Tom? Weird, but alright…I’ve got a large piece of Scott, decent on JT, small on Rham, Sulli top 5 and 8 matchup bets so far.”
For the uneducated, Adam Scott holds the #16 spot in the Official World Golf Rankings. Jason is picking him as the #1 player for this course which is perfectly acceptable as long as he backs it up with money behind it. But, Tom, can’t you write and rank picks for the sake of ranking picks? I don’t think so, pal. Not for info you subscribe to.
Accountability
I subscribe to the Action Network. I expect information above and beyond Joe Blow behind his computer (aka me) giving picks. When your top analyst is picking the #16 player as his #1, that gives me pause, which is why I tweeted at him.
If you are getting paid to give advice to subscribers, you should have a track record posted at the end of every article you write. I want to know if who I’m taking advice from is qualified. Action Network has a “contributor” named BlackJack Fletcher. He’s down 90 units lifetime. Why would you want to listen to his picks?
My betting log has me down $1,063 dollars. You know you’re taking advice from a loser if you follow me. The guys who write these articles are not transparent with fiscal results and the public should know that. I don’t necessarily need to know how much money they win or lose, but track units on plays you make. Anything for accountability.
In the world of sports writing, everyone’s a winner. Until you tweet at them. Then the true colors and war of words start to fly.