My performance last week was breakeven (10-9, .526). No value-added from this spot on the forum thus far (23-30, .434). Pretty dismal actually. But, it’s a long season and optimism springs anew with these new rote selections:
1) PennState(-14.5)/Iowa
2) FresnoState(-27.5)/KentState
3) Duke(-21.5)/Connecticut
4) Alabama(-6.5)/Mississippi
5) Kentucky(-14)/Vanderbilt
6) UNLV(-2.5)/UTEP
7) NorthCarSt(-9)/Virginia
8) Mass(-3.5)/NewMexico
9) Oklahoma(-14.5)/ Cincinnati
10) Northwestern(+11.5)/Minnesota
11) MichiganState(+ 7.5)/Maryland
12) ArkansasSt(+7)/ SoMississippi
13) BowlingGreen(+ 13)/OhioUniv
14) Stanford(+12.5)/ Arizona
15) NotreDame(+3.5)/OhioState
16) SanDiegoSt(+6.5)/BoiseState
17) WashingtonSt(+3)/OregonState
18) Clemson(+2.5)/FloridaSt
19) BallState(+6.5)/GeorgiaSouth
For the record, there is some system rank-value going in the 2023 top four (7-5, .583).
Some value-added to share, though likely just for those tech players who have some volume capacity. While ATS Wins & Losses are the conventional measurement, there is the surrogate option to evaluate performance by SpreadMargin (SM). SM is how much a best-bet selection covers or fails to cover. In general, it speaks to how “competitive” that team was. SM doesn’t directly translate to pocket-dollars like W/L, but it provides a clue as to how your selections are faring. Be forewarned -- boring geek-stuff to follow.
Let’s demo that via an exercise. Extracted from my database (2013-22, 6114 games), the average SM is 12.3 per game (Std Dev = 9.6). So, if you have a 5-0 record and your total SM is 96.5, then your internal system is doing well (96.5 >> 12.3 x 5 = 61.5). If that SM total were 25, we’d know your selections are covering by an average of just 5 points each; well under the 12.3 historic average. Your system would be winning……but just barely.
If our ATS record is 12-9 (.571), we need to neutralize that record for the process. So, in that case our SM target becomes 36.9 ([12-9] x 12.3). When summing those 12-positive and 9-negative SMs, we find our total SM is a negative 27 – which suggests our system might be weaker than we perceive it to be. Clear as mud?
So, what of my full record to date? At that dismal 23-30, my SM target is a negative 86.1 (12.3 x -7). Looking to my performance spreadsheet, my total SM is a negative 75.5. So, because -75.5 is greater than -86.1, the system as a whole is internally-performing slightly better than history.
What about that top four record? My SM target there is 24.6 (12.3 x 2). Again, looking to my performance spreadsheet, my total SM was 82. Strong performance, suggesting some rank-value strength.
Is all of the above pure madness? Well, said earlier, it’s an alternative way to look under-the-hood. The Std. Dev. on the historic-average is high, so statistical confidence levels aren’t what your math professor would be thrilled about. However, the concept provides a thoughtful, if esoteric, clue.
Back to reality. No shortage of opportunity for us this week with 63 on the board.
Good luck,
TheKingfish