Posted:
#26
GS/NY OVER >= 178.0 UNDER <= 206.0
So this would be a no bet because Oddmakers line set at 189?
0
If I was a Betting Man
Posted:
#27
Quote Originally Posted by Babooshki:
Just wanted to check in and make sure I'm reading this correctly..of the Over/Under that was documented. There are 4 Plays tonight:
Just wanted to check in and make sure I'm reading this correctly..of the Over/Under that was documented. There are 4 Plays tonight:
Orlando/Sac Under
Rockets/Bucks Under
Suns/San Antonio Under
Denver/Portland Under
Please if someone could answer that would be great, Hopefully im reading this correct..bc i already put them in.
thanks
Denver/Portland Under the line is at 210 but his calculated line is 211...the oddsmakers line is not greater than the calculated line so a under isn't recommended...Unless and not sure only he can answer is how much 1 point is a difference or is it considered a similar or close?
Orlando/Sac Under
Rockets/Bucks Under
Suns/San Antonio Under
Those 3 are correct according to his system
0
Posted:
#28
Not to hijack your thread...as I'm intrigued by your system or program as I ran one in football based off of numbers and calculations...gonna post and keep track of your system picks and my system picks and see where this goes...yesterday Bulls hit so lets see how this goes..
Today both formulas like Spurs under 198.5
Again appreciate your input 
0
Posted:
#29
I get the system things...everyone's got their own....but what ever happened to making picks based on the games YOU watch and the teams YOU follow? Am I the only guy that still does this? Lol....every other thread is my statistical this my system that.....don't get me wrong I'm not knocking it, I just feel that I have a better feel based on my observations than any computer crunching numbers.
0
Posted:
#31
@AFNfootballnerd - If the bookmaker's line falls between the listed range, then it's a NO BET. I haven't analyzed football and feel that it's much harder to predict as you're working with less games per season.
@boston8404 - I don't follow that way of thinking, because I believe it to be flawed. Picking based on teams you follow is more susceptible to confirmation bias. Things that confirm your observations tend to get noted, while other events are treated as anomalies. Through a purely statistical method, recommendations are generally more consistent.
@boston8404 - I don't follow that way of thinking, because I believe it to be flawed. Picking based on teams you follow is more susceptible to confirmation bias. Things that confirm your observations tend to get noted, while other events are treated as anomalies. Through a purely statistical method, recommendations are generally more consistent.
0
Posted:
#34
I agree with the fact that certain things theorized and confirmed give you a sense of validation yet other things not on your radar go ignored that COULD prove beneficial or detrimental later on....having said that I most certainly trust my trained eyes and 28 years of knowledge in baseball, basketball, and football. There are just certain things a computer program cannot pick up on that only the human eyes see. Good luck in your system, hope you reap some benefit out of it.
0
Posted:
#35
@boston8404 - If you have a reasonable model and stay consistent, then there's nothing wrong with that. It's the consistency with a logical model that is important. Moreover, it's much easier to be consistent with numbers than with subjective observations; hence, I choose statistics as my means of differentiation. However, if you are able to maintain wagering rationally and consistently, then any criticisms to your model is unfounded.
0
Posted:
#40
Quote Originally Posted by firstLast:
Stats updated. Here are the ranges for Thursday the 28th.
LAC/IND OVER <= 179.5 UNDER >= 197.5
PHI/CHI OVER <= 179.5 UNDER >= 190.5
MIN/LAL OVER <= 196.0 UNDER >= 201.5
Stats updated. Here are the ranges for Thursday the 28th.
LAC/IND OVER <= 179.5 UNDER >= 197.5
PHI/CHI OVER <= 179.5 UNDER >= 190.5
MIN/LAL OVER <= 196.0 UNDER >= 201.5
User Guide:
1. Look at the O/U line your bookie has.
2. If the line is between the range listed above for each game it is a NO PLAY.
3. If the line is BELOW the LOW end of the range play the OVER.
4. If the line is ABOVE the HIGH end of the range play the UNDER.
5. Collect your winnings.
My book has the Philly line BELOW the LOW end today and LAL ABOVE the HIGH end. Indy is within the range.
So play Philly OVER and LAL UNDER.
Note this is my explanation of the system not necessarily an endorsement!
BOL....
0
Posted:
#41
This is very interesting, but here is my thinking. Bookmakers have a statistical model they use as well and in turn take into the fact the teams playing after the model spits out a final value.
Bettors see lakers/t wolves and think high scoring --- hence the added points to the model. On the other side they see bulls/76ers and think low scoring. Could be why you see your model says over for the "defensive" game and under for the "offensive" team or does the model already consider that?
I've just confused myself
Bettors see lakers/t wolves and think high scoring --- hence the added points to the model. On the other side they see bulls/76ers and think low scoring. Could be why you see your model says over for the "defensive" game and under for the "offensive" team or does the model already consider that?
I've just confused myself
0
Posted:
#46
Stats updated. Here are the ranges for Friday, 1st of March.
IND/TOR OVER <= 169.5 UNDER >= 185.5
NY/WAS OVER <= 186.5 UNDER >=196.0
HOU/ORL OVER <= 199.5 UNDER >= 206.0
GS/BOS OVER <= 185.0 UNDER >= 201.5
LAC/CLE OVER <= 189.5 UNDER >= 202.0
MEM/MIA OVER <= 185.0 UNDER >= 194.0
DAL/BKN OVER <= 195.0 UNDER >= 200.0
DET/NO OVER <= 185.5 UNDER >= 202.5
SAC/SAN OVER <= 184.5 UNDER >= 193.5
CHA/UTA OVER <= 185.5 UNDER >= 196.5
ATL/PHX OVER <= 192.0 UNDER >= 198.5
OKC/DEN OVER <= 200.5 UNDER >= 221.0
IND/TOR OVER <= 169.5 UNDER >= 185.5
NY/WAS OVER <= 186.5 UNDER >=196.0
HOU/ORL OVER <= 199.5 UNDER >= 206.0
GS/BOS OVER <= 185.0 UNDER >= 201.5
LAC/CLE OVER <= 189.5 UNDER >= 202.0
MEM/MIA OVER <= 185.0 UNDER >= 194.0
DAL/BKN OVER <= 195.0 UNDER >= 200.0
DET/NO OVER <= 185.5 UNDER >= 202.5
SAC/SAN OVER <= 184.5 UNDER >= 193.5
CHA/UTA OVER <= 185.5 UNDER >= 196.5
ATL/PHX OVER <= 192.0 UNDER >= 198.5
OKC/DEN OVER <= 200.5 UNDER >= 221.0
0
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by firstLast:
Results (Overall 4-7)
FEB 26, 2013 (0-2)
LAC/IND NO BET
PHI/CHI UNDER 178.5 LOSS
MIN/LAL OVER 205.5 LOSS
Results (Overall 4-7)
FEB 26, 2013 (0-2)
LAC/IND NO BET
PHI/CHI UNDER 178.5 LOSS
MIN/LAL OVER 205.5 LOSS
How did you lose these games when the totals of both went the projected of what you described.
PHI/CHI had 175
MIN/LAL had 210
Am I missing something here?
0
Posted:
#49
Miami/Sac went way over because of double OT, how do program this kind of variance? Over/unders seem like putting a gun to your head. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Baseball, football and baskets, all real difficult to predict based on models. So many variables like injuries, starters sitting, emotional motivation, etc. Computer models can not possible account for all and I do like your attempt and will be following, and hope you hit over the 53%.
0
Hot Forum Topics
