Posted:
#126
Bermax! You the man! Are you going to post your model results vs pinnacle on the O/U totals?
0
NBA line making model. Will post interesting/strange lines.
Posted:
#127
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
DET -5.8 / +4.5
PHI +1.6 / +10.5
SAS -17.3 / -9.0
LAC -3.2 / +3.0
I have
DET P/U play for me
PHI +3 play for me
SA -14 play for me
LAC P/U not sure,, borderline
I also think Min is getting 5 more pts than they should and LAL are getting 5 too many also
Great thread
0
Posted:
#130
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
That's PHI +10.5 at pinny, sorry, I type too fast for my own good sometimes, I'll restate the matchups in a more logical way w the team's listed that books (generously?) give more points on the spread than the model thinks they should have:
model/pinnacle
DET -5.8 / +4.5
PHI +1.6 / +10.5
SAS -17.3 / -9.0
LAC -3.2 / +3.0
I've downloaded the pdf file of yours, but havent made it in excel, yet. However, my own system got almost identical for the Clips - Philly game.
0
Posted:
#131
Bermax,
Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.
Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)
Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.
2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.
Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.
I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.
BOL refining it as you move along.
Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.
Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)
Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.
2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.
Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.
I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.
BOL refining it as you move along.
0
Posted:
#132
Ok here comes games incl ref bias. Will be copy pasting w everything in this format; model first, current pinny line second. As you know by now the model is a raw stats line without any incorporation of injuries or lineup changes.
Model:
Detroit Pistons 101.7 -6.6 196.8
Charlotte Hornets 95.1 6.6
Pinnacle:
Detroit Pistons 95.0 5.5 195.5
Charlotte Hornets 100.0 -5.5
0
Posted:
#141
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Bermax,
Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.
Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)
Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.
2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.
Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.
I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.
BOL refining it as you move along.
Bermax,
Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.
Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)
Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.
2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.
Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.
I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.
BOL refining it as you move along.
I think people usually overvalue B2b's and especially the so called tanking. Think about it:how would you cap a tanking team? I think the public perception in this -and by public i mean the majority of people, like 80% - pretty wrong.
They imagine a tanking team wont put any effort in their play, and they are going to loose games with 20-30+, and dont want to win, which is so not true from many many aspects. Players are competing, with each other, with the opponent teams, for their spots in the team, for the money, this latter can be the biggest reason maybe, that they are going to give a close to usual effort, if not bigger. They might not win outright, but can keep games pretty close.
With all these, i want to say:u cant cap a tanking team, you cant imagine and you cant know what their true intentions are, unless you are an insider. So you should take a tanking team as they wouldnt be tanking, just playing normal, or bit worse, maybe.
Also, interesting aspect can be, the opponent teams might dont give that much effort vs a so called tanking team, anyway, which can give a slap to the public perception of loosing games with 20+.
0
Posted:
#146
Quote Originally Posted by Proxyi:
I think people usually overvalue B2b's and especially the so called tanking. Think about it:how would you cap a tanking team? I think the public perception in this -and by public i mean the majority of people, like 80% - pretty wrong.
They imagine a tanking team wont put any effort in their play, and they are going to loose games with 20-30+, and dont want to win, which is so not true from many many aspects. Players are competing, with each other, with the opponent teams, for their spots in the team, for the money, this latter can be the biggest reason maybe, that they are going to give a close to usual effort, if not bigger. They might not win outright, but can keep games pretty close.
With all these, i want to say:u cant cap a tanking team, you cant imagine and you cant know what their true intentions are, unless you are an insider. So you should take a tanking team as they wouldnt be tanking, just playing normal, or bit worse, maybe.
Also, interesting aspect can be, the opponent teams might dont give that much effort vs a so called tanking team, anyway, which can give a slap to the public perception of loosing games with 20+.
I think people usually overvalue B2b's and especially the so called tanking. Think about it:how would you cap a tanking team? I think the public perception in this -and by public i mean the majority of people, like 80% - pretty wrong.
They imagine a tanking team wont put any effort in their play, and they are going to loose games with 20-30+, and dont want to win, which is so not true from many many aspects. Players are competing, with each other, with the opponent teams, for their spots in the team, for the money, this latter can be the biggest reason maybe, that they are going to give a close to usual effort, if not bigger. They might not win outright, but can keep games pretty close.
With all these, i want to say:u cant cap a tanking team, you cant imagine and you cant know what their true intentions are, unless you are an insider. So you should take a tanking team as they wouldnt be tanking, just playing normal, or bit worse, maybe.
Also, interesting aspect can be, the opponent teams might dont give that much effort vs a so called tanking team, anyway, which can give a slap to the public perception of loosing games with 20+.
I agree with you. Capping tanking teams is hard and maybe you should just stay away unless the team in question seem to be getting double digit pts extra on the spread without any other plausible cause other than the perception of tanking.
Yes people probably overvalue B2Bs. Only B2Bs with any impact - from what I have been able to find reading up on it and analysing own data - is road games on B2b nights which costs the team one (1) point.
0
Posted:
#147
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Bermax,
Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.
Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)
Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.
2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.
Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.
I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.
BOL refining it as you move along.
Bermax,
Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.
Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)
Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.
2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.
Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.
I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.
BOL refining it as you move along.
This is exactly why I started the thread to get a discussion going on the intangibles, which is easier to do and to see how they're valued if you got the raw stats line. B2B road games is included in the model. It's worth one point in reality on average. What the public perceives it's value to be I dont know but maybe we can get some kind of idea in this thread
0
Posted:
#148
Quote Originally Posted by JefCostello:
Alright, gonna take the over on this for $50 and see how it goes. Thanks for all the work and effort.
A little warning about totals: they are EXTREMELY sensitive to game pace. the total in the toronto game rises to 225 if it is played at 97 pace instead of the calculated average 93 in the model. And both these teams have played several 97 pace games recently. Total betting my own feel is you need to have some sort of grounded idea if the game will be fast paced or slow to support your picking; otherwise it can be a real crapshoot averages being what they are. Spreads are more robust, a +10 spread will still be almost the same regardless if the pace is 89 or 99
0
Posted:
#149
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
A little warning about totals: they are EXTREMELY sensitive to game pace. the total in the toronto game rises to 225 if it is played at 97 pace instead of the calculated average 93 in the model. And both these teams have played several 97 pace games recently. Total betting my own feel is you need to have some sort of grounded idea if the game will be fast paced or slow to support your picking; otherwise it can be a real crapshoot averages being what they are. Spreads are more robust, a +10 spread will still be almost the same regardless if the pace is 89 or 99
you took the over so that would actually be great for you I realise. But to take the other example, if it is played at 86 pace, which has also been the case recently for both teams, total sinks to 193. In short they are a bit scary
0
Posted:
#150
If you guys noticed I put "tanking" in quotes in my previous posts. I dont add or subtract points for tanking. I just found it interesting that all the games with discrepancies in spreads relative to this system have these elements behind them. Im gonna keep my eyes on these games.
Keep up the good work
Keep up the good work
0
Hot Forum Topics
