Posted:
#26
Good luck brother, I hope you win. I love betting on army it's just foolish disregard injuries, starting quarterback questionability
NCAA foots week 1
Posted:
#30
Indigo, Hang in there friend. This and most forums are confrontational by nature. You gotta look at the posters individually and not the collective bully. People just gang up and post stuff just to post. Been that way forever. Actually a lot cleaner than back in the day.
Looking forward to your insights.
GL, Doc
Posted:
#31
Thanks for everyone's kind words.
It is part of being in a forum culture to look at other's threads to see what others have to say....and to see if there are things that we might learn and use, either now or in the future. If we are humble, we accept that we don't know everything, and from some who are greater than us we can benefit, and in the case of a gambling forum either use the information gained to increase our winning ability. We can chose to be confrontative and/or exasperated with others that don't agree with us, or think differently or accept that others will have a different way of looking at things, which can beneficial to us or even to society at large. In the world of innovation many were either ignored or violently opposed and scorned, before being accepted by society at large.
An example of this was the case of Ignaz Semmelweis who found that washing hands and antiseptic procedures in hospitals greatly decreased the incidence of infant deaths in hospitals in the 1800s. Despite overwhelming evidence that using those procedures greatly improved the chances of successful and healthy birthing of a child in hospitals, he was generally mocked and eventually not allowed to practice medicine in his native country. In his time, the discovery of germ theory had not been developed, so there was no scientific explanation on why his methods were so effective. As common, the mystics and the innovators are often ahead of the scientists,...sometimes by thousands of years.
One wise axiom is to look at someone else who is successful and emulate them or do what they do.
One person that is a winner is Biddy, in multiple sports. In week one he is liking the over in the Indiana/Florida International game...which would fit into my earier assertion that home dogs that score a lot tend to cover and go OVER. Indiana has been an offensive machine the past few years, and obviously their defense has allowed their share of points. This adds to my list of games that I would consider playing, the side and/or the OVER, week 1.
a) FIU/Indiana
b) Houston/Oklahoma
c) North Texas/SMU
I have not played these of yet, with the exception of North Texas which fits another long-term 61% angle, but considering.
Another part of research I did in the past, was to look at first year coaches and how they performed week 1. I found that new coaches that are road favorites perform terribly against the spread. To my knowledge there are no games that fit that scenario this week. If there are, someone may want to point that out to me....and there is next week's games to look at as well.
“A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends.”
? Baltasar Gracián, The Art of Worldly Wisdom
? Baltasar Gracián, The Art of Worldly Wisdom
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
I don't use this type of information to decide on my plays. One of my filters in picking games is to go against the majority....if my angles say to play team A, but they have more than 50% of the public on them, it is a "no play" for me unless I've gotten impatient and played the game early in the week before I've seen the consensus.
Playing on underdogs that have a >50% of the public on them has had a cover rate of about 45% of less the past few years.....I use the covers consensus because they have no reason to fabricate their results....I want to know who Joe Sixpack is on, and go against that, most of the time.
Indigoo, really like your mathematical approach, but the above quote bothers me. Why care what everyone else is doing??
You say there are stats showing underdogs with >50% support are 45% winners last couple of years. Seems like that should drift to 50% over several more years. The public does not play the game, the players do.
GL 
Posted:
#33
Uniman, I put out information that I have researched and when I think it is relevant to my handicapping I use it. Sometimes I'll put it out into the public area.
in the case you are referring to, when the public is on a game >50%,(and I only play underdogs the majority of time) I filter it out of my list, making it a no-play. It works for me. A couple of examples for week one are Oregon State and Tulane, both are underdogs and both have public backing. They would be automatic no-plays for me, even if they fit into my betting parameters...and Tulane could have been interesting, because they are running triple-option type schemes this year.
However, how you interpret my information and whether you think it is relevant to your handicapping, is up to you. I am not here to convince anyone of the information or the insights I have,........some will find my information applicable, and some may reject it as coincidence, or as you have mentioned, some may think it is due to regress to the mean.
I do know this, the public generally loses and it is my assumption that this won't change anytime soon, so a theory that could be put forth is that if we know the public loses, couldn't we find instances where they are on one side, and at a minimum avoid those games and, at a maximum play against those instances?
The only cases I have done research on this is in pro football and ncaa football, on underdogs, and in neither going back 5 plus years have dogs that have had public backing been profitable. I don't have the data anymore, but in most years to my best recollection they covered less than 45% of the time. I find this interesting and utilize it in my handicapping...you might not think it so interesting, relevant or you may find my line of thinking insanity.
No worries.
Posted:
#36
Quote Originally Posted by mbiddy:
I was wrong the Mean Green/Mustang total as wel but worry the MG can score 25+.....actually leaning Stangs minus the points.
I was wrong the Mean Green/Mustang total as wel but worry the MG can score 25+.....actually leaning Stangs minus the points.
On the Black Knights with ya.
BOL this year cuz!!
I like N Tx, or I should probably state that I hate SMU on the road as 9.5 favorites, Not because of the talent on the field, but more in my principals of the lines the book put out.
NO question N TX has been horrible in the past, and yes it certainly makes you look away like looking directly at the sun.
My thoughts are have you seen what SMU has done to deserve to be -9.5 road favorites?
I am a dog guy, that is where I look first to gather my thoughts information and start making a card. As I look to SMU I don't see much at all from their recent past history. Maybe they brought in some new talent, but even then most times it takes a bit of time to gel and get on the same page.
SMU is 29-118-2 SU 19.7 win % since 1990. If you want to go further to include all lined road games, dogs and favorites they are 65-82-1. That means fading SMU blindly on the road since 1990 you are a winner 55.8% of the time. No handicapping, no injury updates. Just a blind fade.
I am not saying anyone just bet against them without making an effort to know more, but this isn't a bad place to start looking for value, or in the case of N Tx is a good place to start.
Since 1990 SMU has been DD road favorites 4 times 1-3 Ats in those games. Since this game line is -9.5 at this time, that makes this game SMU's 5th highest road line. They have not been a road favorite since November of 2013. Not too many times are they playing on the road where they are acually considered by the books to be a good team. Most of the time these teams fail.
Smu has 1 win in their last 10 games, and even a loss to James Madison. I am not going to research how bad that loss really was or if they lost all their QB's that day.
Smu is 2-7 ATS their last 9.
So why is SMU favored by this many? Because as most of us know NTx is pretty dammn bad.
NTx I used the same time frame of 1990 and it spit these out:
NTx as a Home Dog of any # is 30-28 ATS since 1990.
If you then filter some of these results :
NTx is 16-7 ATS as a home dog catching 8 or more.
I am in no way telling you that this is the only way to break a game down. There is a lot more information you should and could gather. Its just where I begin to look for value.
If you have a keen eye to break down talent match-ups, or you have more to share I would love to know your thoughts.
My first thought is there are only a hand full of teams that North Texas can cover against as a home dog, and after looking though the past data this SMU team doesn't appear to me to be the team that is up for this challenge.
I know I look and sound foolish backing a team that lost to Portland state 66-7. I get it. Like I said already this isn't a great squad.
If this game lands in my data against crappy road favorites and it also lands in Indigo's data findings. I think this is an opportunity.
That is where my head is at. I am certain the books are going to need NTx here. I like that too.
Good luck!
Spottie2935 on socials
Posted:
#40
you lost me at 1990...heck, even if you would've said 2010 you would've still lost me. obviously everyone in entitled to their own opinion but how could you possibly think that a teams record 26 years ago would have any effect on this years team?
i was not stating i was going to lay the 9.5, merely that i leaned that way as opposed to over the total....
gl this year
i was not stating i was going to lay the 9.5, merely that i leaned that way as opposed to over the total....
gl this year
Posted:
#42
Mbiddy. Look both these teams are horrible, you know it. I go back to dates in the past to get a team profile. It has nothing to do with a certain match up or who the players are on the field. Smu or nTx could have brought in a few talented people. But if you look back it has consistently shown that this is a horrible road team that doesn't get the talent that I would fall in love with laying just shy of double digits on the road.
NTx is not a good team but their history shows solid home performances as home dogs and SMU shows the inability to cover on the road laying points. It's profiling a team, then you can take it from there.
In week one I am just getting my feet wet on horrible road teams that fail. Obviously I am not getting a prom queen in NTx but -9.5?? Early season I will take a shot and pay close attention to both these squads.
I am not trying to build anyone's bank but my own. Just stating my opinion. College is not my bread and butter, but I am trying to put my time and effort in to this. We will see if it works.
Spottie2935 on socials
Posted:
#44
Quote Originally Posted by VEGASJASON:
My vote is for your trends being a 100% waste. No missed tackle or dropped pas will occur because Smu did not cover a road game in 1993.
My vote is for your trends being a 100% waste. No missed tackle or dropped pas will occur because Smu did not cover a road game in 1993.
Ok cool Jason
In my opinion this is not a popularity contest or anything to vote on. This is about picking each other brains and sharing that information. It is up to each of us to decide what information holds value. When we are convinced then we try and look for the best line. Just because you or anyone else doesn't prefer the information I share doesn't mean that it is not valid or helpful to others.
Good luck! Our combined mission is to beat the books !
Spottie2935 on socials
Posted:
#45
6) FIU +10-
Football really starts tomorrow. I expect that Indiana's defense is what it's been the last few years, and there'll be points-a-plenty in the FIU game. I expect FIU will score >23, which is relevant to their ability to cover as a home dog.
7) Colorado State +9-
Love rivalry dogs, and as Mark Lawrence wrote, the Rams outgained the Buffs by over 150 yards last year in a close loss. Game is at a neutral site for bragging rights. Even when an instate team from a smaller conference is out-talented, which is debatable here, the dog puts their heart and soul into the game and covers more than they don't.
Colorado hasn't made the leap from potential to winners yet.....and maybe they won't this year again.
Best to everyone this year.
Hot Forum Topics
