### Recent Posts

piotrtoro
Are those prices from a local or off-shore? You can get better prices. Here are examples what is available at my books:

NO 22-1 (bet365)
Chargers 25-1 (bet365)
Giants 50-1 (Betfair)

Giants division 8.00 (bet365)

Boys U8 2.35 (Pinnacle)

Good luck with whatever plays you come up with

lmb4321
Quote Originally Posted by JerryWrasse:

Agree on Koetter but LOTS to like about them this year. This team should be a wildcard contender for the entire season. Would be pretty shocked if they aren't.

Regression is pointing upwards but it would surprise me if they were a wild card contender in this NFC with a super tough schedule.

There is a decent chance they will start 1-4 or 0-5 and Koetter gets fired.

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by kevmode:

This is a solid thread those -250 and -200 bets are scary because you have to win at such a high clip to show a profit.

Absolutely. That's why the price is so important in sports betting.

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by kevmode:

This is a solid thread those -250 and -200 bets are scary because you have to win at such a high clip to show a profit.

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by pdouble:

Heard you went tout

Good to see heff back in the building

Hey PDOUB!

Yeah, I run a website for picks & analysis. But no reason not to chime in here. Hope you are doing well!

suuma

#### An easy solution for everyone

What is the solution? Calculating Return on Risk (RoR). Return on Risk measures the efficiency of your betting process. You divide your profit by the amount you have risked:

RoR = profit / total risk

By measuring RoR, you can effectively measure the efficiency of your betting process. RoR is independent of the amount of units risked, the winning percentage and the average odds. Profit and total risk already process the average odds, so that the result is just the profit relative to what you are risking. Coming back to the examples above, the -110 guy achieves an RoR of +1.18% (1.3 / 110), the -120 guy ends up with an RoR of -2.83% (-3.4 / 120). Both have the same winning percentage, but the results are different just because one guy had lower odds on average.

Winning percentage and units won/lost are fine, but they are success-based and not efficiency-based. I don’t condemn anyone who quotes winning percentage and units – I do it myself. It looks good for advertising purposes, it gives you a good feeling and most of the people are familiar with winning percentage and units. But at the end, both are just a measurement system for tracking success. Adding Return on Risk gives everyone a clue about true efficiency.

suuma

Everyone who invests in stocks, bets on sports, plays Fantasy or whatever, has to deal with one important thing: measuring the process or return on risk. No matter what you invest in, you spend time and money and you goal is to get a profitable return in the long run. In the sports betting community, e.g. Gambling Twitter or betting forums, sports bettors mostly measure success. That’s the first step. Bettors generally measure success by win/loss records and the resulting winning percentage. Some more add the amount of units they won or lost. Those can be good indicators on how good or bad someone is betting. But those are also absolute numbers and can be misleading. A great win percentage over 60% or “+600 units this year” don’t necessarily mean a lot without context. You also cannot compare two different handicappers by those numbers.

Winning percentage and units won/lost don’t tell you anything about efficiency. In this context, efficiency means the profit relative to what you are investing. It depends on how many bets you make, what prices you play on and how much you invest per bet. You might have a high winning percentage when betting high MLB favorites, but you could still end up on the losing side despite hitting 60% or more. Someone who risks 5,000 units per season and is up 500 units, achieves the exact same efficiency as someone who risks 500 units and is up 50. It really just depends on how much you are investing and what the prices are. Here are some winning percentages and their required break even point depending on the average odds:

-250 / 71.43%

-200 / 66.67%

-150 / 60.00%

-140 / 58.33%

-130 / 56.52%

-120 / 54.55%

-115 / 53.49%

-110 / 52.38%

100 / 50.00%

+110 / 47.62%

+115 / 46.51%

+120 / 45.45%

+130 / 43.48%

+140 / 58.33%

+150 / 40.00%

+200 / 33.33%

+250 / 28.57%

When you play only spreads (NFL, e.g.) and your average odds are -110, you need to win 52.38% of the time to break even. That means your record over 100 games needs to be 53-47 in order to generate a profit. Someone who bets on an average price of -120, will generate a loss off a 53-47 record. Applying one unit per play, the -110 guy ends up with +1.3 units where as the -120 guy ends up with -3.4 units. That’s a difference of 4.7 units just because the average line is ten cents lower. That also shows you how important odds/price management is when it comes to sports betting. It also doesn’t matter whether one guy bets ten units per game or just one. The profit relative to the risk is the same.

vinnybet
There is no market for what he demands, plain at simple. It's when players can't judge their own value.

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by jh12345:

thank you for the writeups suuma!

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by jriv189:

@Suuma are you planning on posting any plays on covers this season?

Sorry, I'm just here for some offseason talk!

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by mafioso:

The real question is

If its all State run and not Federal

Wont certain Lines favor Some teams?

For example

lets say

Washington vs the Raiders

Vegas Line

Raiders -3

in lets say Maryland Virgina and DC

the line is Pick as all the action in those states will be on Washington

and in CA the line will be lets say Raiders -5 or 6

Is this a real possibility?

And can we set up a real network to exploit it

Great thought process. Yes, I think that's how it will look like. Raiders line in Cali will be off-market more often than not.

Sidehatch
Their offensive line is everything but improved from last year. DJ Humphries, Mike Iupati, Justin Pugh & Andre Smith are all terrible in pass protection. Center AQ Shipley is their best guy on paper and he isn't great. One of the worst lines.

Sidehatch
Yeah, it's good to discuss!

The Cardinals have significantly overperformed last year and they are set up for negative regression.

I get the Stanton/Gabbert argument, but the offense was bottom-10 material even with Palmer. Before Palmer went down last year, they went 0-4 against winning teams (DET, DAL, PHI, LAR), losing by an average of 20.75 points per game. They went 3-0 against the Colts, the Brian-Hoyer-led 49ers and the Buccaneers, winning by an average of 3.67 points per game, including two overtime wins against IND and SF.

On the season, the Birds finished with an 8-8 overall record. They went 6-2 in close games and had a Pythagorean win expectation of just 6.1. Based on pure offensive and defensive scoring, they had a win expectation of 6.6. Football Outsiders calculated a win expectation of 5.5 based on their efficiency metrics. The Cards were extremely fortunate to get to 8-8 and for this year they are set up for negative regression. With a sample size of 16 games, it’s important how and against who you win your games. The Cards met Brian Hoyer twice, won in overtime against Jacoby Brissett in his first start after getting traded and they somehow managed to get a week 17 win at Seattle when Drew Stanton went 15/34 for 145 passing yards and a passer rating of 54.2. On a different schedule and one or two different bounces in close game, no one can argue if the Cards won just five games.

The defense was the bright spot in 2017, but a lot had to do with ex-DC James Bettcher and his aggressive style with a lot of cover zero blitzes. They were highly successful against the bad teams, but conceded 28+ points against DAL, PHI, DET, LAR, LAR, TB & HOU. They allowed Tom Savage to have a career game, that should ring some alarm bells.

They don't have any interior rush. Markus Golden comes off an ACL/MCL injury, so I don't expect a huge impact during the first month. At linebacker, the Cards lack coverage ability. The experiment of making Deone Buccannon a LB/S hybrid didn’t work out well, he was one of the worst linebackers in coverage last year. Last year's rookie Haason Reddick also couldn’t excel in coverage. The secondary is the biggest problem for the Cardinals going into the season. They lost Tyrann Mathieu and cornerbacks Tramon Williams and Tyvon Banch which leaves Patrick Peterson as the only good cornerback. The depth chart behind him has names like Brandon Williams, Jamar Taylor and Bene Benwikere. Safety Antoine Bathea was decent in coverage last year, but he will turn 34 in July. Last year's rookie Budda Baker struggled in coverage. Rudy Ford barely played. On paper, this seems to be one of the worst secondaries in the league. It doesn’t help that they are going to play one heck of a schedule.

Personnel-wise, I've got their defense ranked bottom-5.

Sidehatch
-Bottom-10 defense
-Rookie QB or Bradford behind a swiss-cheese offensive line with four starters coming off injury.
-Questionable receiving corps
-Overperformed last season
-Steve Wilks is highly questionable to me as a rookie head coach: already said some questionable things, e.g. Patrick Peterson won't follow WR1s next year and rather stay on one side - check out the rest of the depth chart!
-Brutal schedule

More than 5 wins would shock me. Would rather wait for 6 and take the under!

Good luck with whatever you come up

suuma
Thanks, gentlemen!

DoubleUp

omb1
Winston is overrated. But so is his coach.

Possible scenario: The Bucs open the season vs @NO, PHI, PIT, @CHI & @ATL. 0-5 start, Koetter gets fired. New coach comes in, alters the offense, makes Winston look better than he is. Young secondary improves, maybe some easier games and some wins. Winston gets a fat contract and the Bucs are stuck with him for the next five years.

ckattar8
Here is some input on the offensive line out of my Bears team preview:

But the process of hiring smart and creative people didn’t stop with Helfrich. One of the most under-the-radar signings was offensive line coach Harry Hiestand, whom people call the best in the business. What do Zack Martin, Nick Martin, Ronnie Stanley, Mike McGlinchey and Quenton Nelson have in common? They are all from Notre Dame. They have all been first- or second-round draft picks since 2014 and they are all projected to be starters in week one of the upcoming season. The fourth denominator? They have been coached by Harry Hiestand. Hiestand has coached the Notre Dame offensive line from 2012 to 2017 and has produced four first-round linemen. Usually, coaches can be happy to produce one in five years.

Hiestand has already coached in the NFL. He served as the offensive line coach for the Bears from 2005 to 2009 and for the Titans from 2010 to 2011. It’s a flawed approach, because we ignore the personnel, scheme and the quarterbacks, but let’s take a look at adjusted sack rates. In his seven NFL seasons, Hiestand’s offensive lines never ranked worse than 21 in adjusted sack rate and that was his first season. The following ranks were 6, 19, 11, 13, 9 and 10. That’s a pretty clear picture – we can only assume that he is going to have a positive impact on the Bears offensive line.

ckattar8
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:

They are still the doormats of their division...very tough seeing them go 7-9, but its not so hard seeing them go 5-11...and just imagine what happens if Trubisky gets hurt...quickly into the leagues cellar...take the under buddy, they will be lucky to win 2 games within theit own div.

Applies to the majority of the teams. Packers went 3-7 without Rodgers and barely won vs CLE.

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by omb1:

Great post suuma.

Thanks, man!

suuma
Quote Originally Posted by porcelainfist:

good writeup. It it all comes down to, in my opinion, an educated guess in game strategy. Does the team want to run it? If so, will they be successful? Most importantly, why?

This is definitely a valid strategy of yours Suuma. However there are also times (like the 2016 Cowboys, the 2016 Patriots, the 2016-17 Browns, 2016 Niners, 2017 late season Niners) where you have  to recognize the wave

Yeah, like I said, it's important to understand whether it's driven by the fundamentals of the game or not. The 2016 Cowboys were a prime example.
Desktop View: Switch to Mobile View