Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hey, last week was a big winner here (10-5, .667)! Having no less than 7 winners in the top 9 (.778). Albeit, we can safely assume my sad overall record (82-87-2, .485) didn’t instill enough confidence for anyone to jump on those top nine. A tough season….. I have supplied little value with my selections in 2023, and few replies to my periodic tech talk. Nonetheless, I will wrap up the latter with two subjects – both likely competing for top-rung on the forum boredom scale. I will first capture the overall-season relative to category. That would be an analysis of the 726 games in my database (all non-neutral site FBS), with a handful (10) yet to play on Friday/Saturday. The away teams turned out to be king, but not so as you could make any money on them. Away Dogs had a slight edge in 2023 (.506, 226-221-7), while Away Favs had a more distinct showing (.536, 143-124-4). Alas, we all know that these kind of performance stats run to .500 in the long run. Lastly, something with a bit more-teeth -- depending on your outlook. A revisit of SpreadMargin (SM); a quantitative measure of how efficiently the line is being set. SM being how much a team covers, or fails to cover. I formerly shared that my 2013-22 database (6114 games) had a SM mean of 12.3 (Std Dev 9.6). Those 12.3 points represented the level of predictability the linemaker achieved over those nine years. But the more compelling question -- is s/he getting better? Well, the SM mean for this season was 11.9 points (Std Dev 9.1). So, The Man has produced a line in 2023 stronger than in the recent past by 3.25% (1 - [11.9/12.3]), and his variation complements that. Should cappers be worried? Is AI insidiously closing in on sports wagering, making it the next slot machine to gobble up Blackjack table floorspace? And, what are the chances it will grow stronger by 3% next year? And the next? Yours to ponder…….. Hopefully, we are not that contented-frog being boiled in a slow-warming pot. As for me -- I’ll be back in 2024 with a retooled system. Ready to take the challenge; for at least one more season. I hope you (somewhat) enjoyed my presence here in 2023. |
TheKingfish | 6 |
|
|
Last Saturday was a loser here (6-10, .375) -- in the wake of two consecutive winning weeks. So it goes. The overall is now .468 (72-82-2). NG. Nonetheless, not one to stand down from what was started in August, the crank on my rote box has been rotated to generate these: The system’s top four shows some rank-value; though not enough to tout. A tough year. A very robust 65 on the board this week, meaning only three (3) FBS teams are sitting it out. Thus, no lack of opportunity for any of us. Between that and the turkey, please have yourself a similarly “robust” Thanksgiving! |
TheKingfish | 1 |
|
|
Just checking in with an update; adding three. Good luck, |
TheKingfish | 3 |
|
|
Last Saturday marked two (2) consecutive weeks for a winner here (8-7, .533). Granted, that feeble success rate doesn’t exactly cover drink tips at the sportsbook. The overall is now .478 (66-72-2). Grandma wouldn’t be too proud of that either. Nonetheless, the box finds encouragement in each one of these for the week ahead: For the record, the system’s top-five has provided some rank-value in 2023 (.556, 30-24-1). And volume is always a positive when linked with reasonable success…… A robust 64 on the board again this week. So, no excuse for anyone regarding the opportunity side of this gambit. |
TheKingfish | 3 |
|
|
Solid performance here last week (6-4-1, .600), though hardly enough to move the needle on the season (58-65-2, .472). It’s a tough game, with my rote system liking these this week: For the record, there has been some 2023 rank-value in the top five (.551, 27-22-1). You may recall, some weeks ago I did an overview on SpreadMargin (SM); a quantitative measure of how efficiently the line is being set. SM being how much a team covers, or fails to cover. Of course, the line is originally set by an algorithm the line maker applies – then subsequently adjusted by our input ($). I formerly shared that my 2013-22 database (6114 games) had a SM mean of 12.3 (Std Dev 9.6). If you will, those 12.3 points represent the level of predictability the line maker achieved over those nine years. Is s/he getting better? Well, the SM mean for this season (534 games) is 11.7 points (Std Dev 8.5). So, The Man has produced a line stronger than before (by 5%, 1 - [11.7/12.3]), and his comparably reduced-variation complements that. Should we be worried? Maybe, but how do we truly know? We can safely assume he’s using Artificial Intelligence (AI), and that next year -- he’ll be even more effective. That, in itself, is ominous; not good for cappers. Without venturing too deep into the weeds, I share the concept of applying the Two-Sample t-Test. We have means from two (2) populations; 12.3 & 11.7. Are those populations statistically/significantly different? My personal t-Test application says they ARE NOT; therein we accept the null hypothesis using a 0.05 significance level (two-tail p-value = 0.154). Therefore, mathematically, here in Nov/2023, it seems we have nothing to worry about……. Okay then. I hope the above wasn’t too boring (one person’s tech propensity in this small corner of the forum). A very robust 64 on the board this week, so once again -- ample opportunity for all of us. |
TheKingfish | 1 |
|
|
@WahooS
The “box” is merely an allegory for my rote system. Input into the box; turn the crank, outcome, etc…… BTW You certainly made the insightful correct-bet (Rebels). Keep it up. |
TheKingfish | 5 |
|
|
For the record. The box likes this one tonight: Good luck, |
TheKingfish | 5 |
|
|
A terrible outing here last week (2-5, .286), and no long-term value brought to the forum (52-61-1, .460). Not one to shrink from what was started back in August, the box has faith in the following: There’s some rank-value in the overall top five (.533, 24-21), but only enough to say the system has it. Hopefully, that’s a functional attribute that holds & builds. Several weeks past, I promised a statistical comment on SpreadMargin (SM); a quantitative measure of line magnitude efficiency. For you to embrace or not, it reflects the difficulty of our pursuit. The current data sampling (anecdotal) doesn’t look good for cappers….. 62 on the board this week, so ample opportunity for one and all. |
TheKingfish | 2 |
|
|
For the record. The box likes these before the Saturday main-event rolls around: Good luck, |
TheKingfish | 2 |
|
|
A small win here last week (5-4-1, .556), so no complaints. If that success rate were only so for the rest of my season -- now at .472 (50-56). Not good, but the former is an optimistic stepping-stone for our remaining five weeks. Rain or shine each week though, I insert the data and rotate the crank: For what it’s worth, the box is still offering a small slice of rank-value. Top four .563 (18-14). Providing some tech value-added today, although you may not share that view (eye of the beholder and all). Ever wonder how the overall-season is going relative to category? Well, here’s a snapshot, with 62% of our 2023 season gone. Albeit, my info is exclusive of neutral-site games (database sample-size too low for this capper). Away teams have shown an edge thus far. Away Dogs are .521 (137-126-6), and Away Favs are .565 (83-64-4). You could make a living on the latter. But alas, we all know that these kind of performance stats run to .500 in the (very) long run. There’s a reasonable amount of opportunity on the board this week (54 games). With even more theoretic-opportunity if you can evaluate them all…… |
TheKingfish | 3 |
|
|
@TheKingfish
For the record (again); my earlier late-addition forgot to add the Golden Gophers. Good luck, |
TheKingfish | 7 |
|
|
@TheKingfish
For the record; a late addition with the Rainbow Warriors. As always, thanks for the reply posts; making this corner of the forum a bit less lonely. One curiosity though. Andy posted as if I know him surreptitiously. Apologies but, to the best of my knowledge, the only Andy I know is my cousin’s husband..……..and he’s not a player. Nor does the virtuous family circle know me as TheKingfish. |
TheKingfish | 7 |
|
|
This corner of the forum continues to struggle; 6-7 (.462) last week, and no better overall (45-52, .464). Nonetheless, with six (6) volume-weeks left, the box has faith in a turnabout. And for the record, that box continues to offer a bit of rank-value. Top four .571 (16-12). Some more (boring) tech stuff for you. Two weeks ago, I offered up a slant on the concept of SpreadMargin (SM); and I will eventually roll back to that analysis. This time my forum topic is Betting a Middle. Thru years 2018-2021, I attempted six times -- and hit it once (Marshall/FIU, 11/24/18, on a gap of 5.5 points). It was sweet, becoming one of those unique jump-for-joy achievement capping moments. In fact, there was a game last week when the juices flowed for a moment – then promptly extinguished. My personal minimum-gap is 4. Hard to get…… Anyway, with payoff odds typically ranging between 29 and 36 to 1, I’m presently way ahead of the game. Even when you evaluate every game like I do, finding an opportunity is tough. Besides getting that correct early-wager down, finding that magic opportunity is tied to how much line-movement we have. As I prior-demonstrated on SM, I recently wondered if we’re seeing much movement in 2023. Of course, that has to do with the aggregate player-perception of line quality. If players see quality, the line moves accordingly (i.e., minimally). I track early and final lines, and my database (2013-22, 6114 games) saw a per-game mean line movement of 1.516 points (Std Dev = 1.373) over those nine years. So, what about season 2023? Well, that calculated mean (367 games) has been 0.996 points (Std Dev = 1.023). That constitutes a rather-stunning 34% less average line movement this year (1-0.996/1.516) when compared to the past. Albeit a small sample size, but not a good thing for cappers…..humble opinion. I submit, all manner of volatility/instability associated with the line is a boon for you & me. If the game is growing-tighter by this measure (or by SM), we might do well to be cognizant. More can be said (or calculated) on the subject, but inserting this into your present consciousness is probably a good thing. Or maybe better said – are you familiar with the eponymous acronym for Artificial Intelligence? Okay, back to reality – the Push & Tug; and all of that non-technical Grunting we have out on the gridiron! We have a solid quantity of games on the board this week (55). That means we have 17% of teams (23/133) are not contributing to our FBS base of opportunity…. |
TheKingfish | 7 |
|
|
Still toughing it out in this corner of the forum. Last week went 2-3 (.400), with the overall looking same (39-45, .464). But, with seven volume-weeks remaining, the box has hopes for a season turnaround in these: There has been some system rank-value though. The top four have gone a respectable .583 (14-10) thus far. I am tweaking my system a bit this week for those seven Saturdays that remain, so stand by for a veritable “groundswell” of winners……. The good news -- we have a reasonable amount of opportunity on the board this week (55 games). |
TheKingfish | 2 |
|
|
Zero value-added from this quarter last week (2-5, .286). Same with my full-season overall (37-42, .468); not good. Putting stock in the long season that remains (8 weeks), the box sees these as gold-dust for today: Some rank-value performance has reared its head though. The top four selections have gone .600 (12-8) thus far. Okay, here comes the boring tech segment. Two weeks ago, I offered the concept of SpreadMargin (SM); an alternate method for judging competitiveness. SM being how much a team covers, or fails to cover. At that time, I shared that my 2013-22 database (6114 games) had a SM mean of 12.3 (Std Dev 9.6). Anecdotally (having dutifully recorded all the scores and final lines this year), it felt like oddsmakers have been somewhat more competitive. That is, the line is tighter; a better predictor of outcome. That would not be good news for cappers. So, I did a quick comparison of the former (2013-22) versus 2023. Thus far this year we have a SM mean of 10.7 (Std Dev 7.5). Albeit, that’s a micro (264 games). However, on its face, there is the suggestion that something negative might be afoot. The Man has begun to produce a line stronger than before (by 13%, 1 - [10.7/12.3]), and his internal variation complements that. Might that be the result of his utilizing AI? And is that worrisome for short-pants cappers like me, and maybe you? It's food for thought. A statistical method (t-distribution) can be used to test a hypothesis about the difference between the means of two normal distributions; when the variances are roughly equal. Plus, there are some available tweaks on that method. After compiling a few more weeks of data, I will revisit that analytical thought. Stay tuned. Each season has a schedule opportunity-lull in early October, and this year is no exception – just 49 on the board this week. Considerably less than the last three weeks. |
TheKingfish | 1 |
|
|
@TheKingfish Just posting some late changes: 1) California(-12)/ArizonaState 3) OregonSt(-4)/Utah Good luck, TheKingfish |
TheKingfish | 3 |
|
|
My performance last week (12-7, 632) was an improvement over what came before. However, collective value-added here has been nonexistent (35-37, 486). I cashed the top six last week, but fully suspect no one else had enough confidence to do so. Turning that crank on the box turns out these for week #5: So what happened to the former Big Volume you normally encounter here? Well, I do volume primarily as a data-tracking function. In some years, the full of it plays successful. But most years, the system operationally settles into a rank-value generator where the top X selections bring value. For any tech player, presumably doing volume-handicapping, creating a rank-value system is an accomplishment; a system attribute (humble KF opinion). What I chase – is that X factor. In a given-year, where is the optimum cutoff point? Top four? Top eight? The Human Administrator has a good idea of same only when…...…the year is done. My explanation for the small selection volume above is a circling of the data-wagons. I need a certain sample size for the system to adequately reveal itself; and have confidence. I jumped in at four (4) weeks this year, but I retrospectively think three (3) would suffice. Anyway, I simply ask myself: what is systemically working, and I honor those internal arithmetic cutoff points. So far, the top four have gone .688 (11-5), so that drives the thinking. My evergreen data analysis continues weekly from here on out, with an enduring hope for the best. My opening 2023 post warned that it (tech) could be boring! Recognize though, reasonable (tech) opportunity is present for all of us this week with 56 on the board. |
TheKingfish | 3 |
|
|
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: 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. |
TheKingfish | 1 |
|
|
@Verdict Thank you for posting. I don’t get many reply posts -- especially when I’m not actively producing a stream of winners. I offer two thoughts: First, we are all essentially in competition with one another. The Man, acting as broker, takes his rake based on conventional juice. Conversely you and I are in the trenches, tugging at the flow-dollars, looking to corral our piece. So, the presence of incompetent bettors (like myself, purported) are a distinct advantage -- feeding cappers with talent. Second, consider the technical aspect of my method. I evaluate every game on the board. My X amount of dollars risked is generally the same amount as a fundamental capper who lands on 3 or 4 teams. Difference is, my X dollars are spread over a large group; diversified if you will. In the end, total juice adds to same for each case. And capper total-confidence is same for teams wagered. Apples & apples. I had a bad year in 2022. Prior, I had a good forum-documented year in 2021 (103-78-4, .569); my top two selections went .625 (15-9-2). We all operate in a challenging environment, and the handicapping combo of success & volume is no small thing. In fact, it can be value-added in the sense of community. Example: a capper can forge his/her personal selections, then see if they coincide with a reasonably successful (free) public source. No harm in that…..plus I received no challenges to my volume in 2021. With that I take my leave on this discussion, and allow the wisdom of this forum to wash over us. For my part, I respect every capper’s method. And ask a modicum of respect for mine…… |
TheKingfish | 5 |
|
|
I am providing no value-added to the forum thus far. Last Saturday was nothing less than horrible (6-12, .333), and the season record offers no better (13-21, .382). Alas, no shortage of optimism as I rotate the handle to generate these: There has been some rank-value in my 2023 top five, but short of profitable and only to say they are performing better than the rest (5-5, .500). A long season with lots of volume looms. And I’ll be here Rain or Shine -- until the very end. Hopefully not the literature-affirming………bitter end. No shortage of opportunity for us this week with 54 on the board. |
TheKingfish | 5 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.