But that's exactly what the system does to determine which favorites to bet. If you're following the system then you will be doing that plus betting his "UNDERDOG" selections.
Actually no. We may be splitting hairs but the way the system works (if I'm understanding it correctly) is you run every games numbers (13-15 games a week). From those numbers, the match ups where the 10-game average is equal you eliminate which pares down the list, for examples sake, lets say down to 10. In those 10 games, your INITIAL pick would be the teams with lower totals. THEN, you run the numbers again taking into account the top 7 power rankings. So, from your list of INITIAL 10 picks, IF and only IF one of those picks is going against a Top 7 team, you SWITCH the pick to the top 7 team or highest rated when top 7 vs. top 7 is the match up.
Therefore, you don't BLINDLY bet top 7 favorites. Games involving top 7 could be disqualified due to same 10 game average. Or the top 7 team could ALREADY be the pick due to lower 10 game average.
I say splitting hairs because the actual process may only eliminate a couple or so top 7 teams from the picks so most likely you'll end up playing MOST of the top 7 teams anyways. Which is why I think it's best to just eliminate any games involving top 7 teams completely, vs. switching the picks.
Quote Originally Posted by NinjaNight:
But that's exactly what the system does to determine which favorites to bet. If you're following the system then you will be doing that plus betting his "UNDERDOG" selections.
Actually no. We may be splitting hairs but the way the system works (if I'm understanding it correctly) is you run every games numbers (13-15 games a week). From those numbers, the match ups where the 10-game average is equal you eliminate which pares down the list, for examples sake, lets say down to 10. In those 10 games, your INITIAL pick would be the teams with lower totals. THEN, you run the numbers again taking into account the top 7 power rankings. So, from your list of INITIAL 10 picks, IF and only IF one of those picks is going against a Top 7 team, you SWITCH the pick to the top 7 team or highest rated when top 7 vs. top 7 is the match up.
Therefore, you don't BLINDLY bet top 7 favorites. Games involving top 7 could be disqualified due to same 10 game average. Or the top 7 team could ALREADY be the pick due to lower 10 game average.
I say splitting hairs because the actual process may only eliminate a couple or so top 7 teams from the picks so most likely you'll end up playing MOST of the top 7 teams anyways. Which is why I think it's best to just eliminate any games involving top 7 teams completely, vs. switching the picks.
I have much respect to anyone that has things to add... Im gonna tell you guys that i will be adding this to my repertoire... Which anyone can do... The hard part is how much you factor this angle into your weekly selections and the amount of work it takes to tweak it... Our metrics are different for the most part,, but is also very important,, because the following year if we compare the same spots are they going to be within certain margins of our metric thinking that the house isnt playing bate and switch? Remember the house has all the info we have and maybe more,,, they knew that the only people that Bet on the JAX-TB game were sharps... This is the advantage that the house has... so before you go and make random plays,, differentiate games that are public games like primetime games and games that have no attention... When good handicappers lose,, the public gives them no respect,, because the public simply doesnt know how much work is involved that isnt someone that's from the inside at least... So i give him credit even if it regresses someday
Welcome back OP,
I have much respect to anyone that has things to add... Im gonna tell you guys that i will be adding this to my repertoire... Which anyone can do... The hard part is how much you factor this angle into your weekly selections and the amount of work it takes to tweak it... Our metrics are different for the most part,, but is also very important,, because the following year if we compare the same spots are they going to be within certain margins of our metric thinking that the house isnt playing bate and switch? Remember the house has all the info we have and maybe more,,, they knew that the only people that Bet on the JAX-TB game were sharps... This is the advantage that the house has... so before you go and make random plays,, differentiate games that are public games like primetime games and games that have no attention... When good handicappers lose,, the public gives them no respect,, because the public simply doesnt know how much work is involved that isnt someone that's from the inside at least... So i give him credit even if it regresses someday
I think people are confusing what PointsRator is saying when he says "underdog" method. His system has NOTHING to do with which team is the ATS underdog that Vegas is dictating. "Underdog" when PR uses it means the team that has averaged LESS points the last 10 games which may or may not be the true Vegas spread dog.
His use of "favorites" is also misleading as again it may not be the true ATS "Favorite" (although most likely the top 7 teams will usually be favorites unless against another top 7). His "favorites" is moreso akin to "public" favorites (bandwagon).
Again, PointsRator, please correct me if I am completely missing the boat.
(PointsRator, please correct me if I'm wrong)
I think people are confusing what PointsRator is saying when he says "underdog" method. His system has NOTHING to do with which team is the ATS underdog that Vegas is dictating. "Underdog" when PR uses it means the team that has averaged LESS points the last 10 games which may or may not be the true Vegas spread dog.
His use of "favorites" is also misleading as again it may not be the true ATS "Favorite" (although most likely the top 7 teams will usually be favorites unless against another top 7). His "favorites" is moreso akin to "public" favorites (bandwagon).
Again, PointsRator, please correct me if I am completely missing the boat.
His system primarily finds the dogs... And that's his main focus because those numbers are real... He figures finding the dogs are so much stronger he will deal with the favorites later... Yes vegas creates false information all the time by telling you who should be the dog or favorite based on who's laying the chalk... But was there ever a time where you bought points and didnt have to pay? LOL... Points is = to money... And when the wrong team is the favorite... Those points are merely free... Top 7 teams you have to break it down by the culture of the team.. For instance,, Rogers always plays upto the level of competition,, where as manning not so much... What we need to have in place is a reliable number first,, then we compare with what the current number is,, if there's a big disreptancy between your number and the market number then there you go... buying off of 3 is more expensive than buying off of 7 and buying off of 7 is always more expensive than 11... In regards to finding the favorites,, there's only so many favs that come out,, and there's only 15 games per week on average,,, first use the process of elimination then examine which teams break this model... Usually Brady, Zona have been breaking models lately that come to mind...
His system primarily finds the dogs... And that's his main focus because those numbers are real... He figures finding the dogs are so much stronger he will deal with the favorites later... Yes vegas creates false information all the time by telling you who should be the dog or favorite based on who's laying the chalk... But was there ever a time where you bought points and didnt have to pay? LOL... Points is = to money... And when the wrong team is the favorite... Those points are merely free... Top 7 teams you have to break it down by the culture of the team.. For instance,, Rogers always plays upto the level of competition,, where as manning not so much... What we need to have in place is a reliable number first,, then we compare with what the current number is,, if there's a big disreptancy between your number and the market number then there you go... buying off of 3 is more expensive than buying off of 7 and buying off of 7 is always more expensive than 11... In regards to finding the favorites,, there's only so many favs that come out,, and there's only 15 games per week on average,,, first use the process of elimination then examine which teams break this model... Usually Brady, Zona have been breaking models lately that come to mind...
And when a team scores 6 home points (dallas),, no one wants those points,, hence no one wants free money... This idea alone can prove his system is pretty reliable.. But after all its football and the sample size is only so big... The house knows you dont want those points why? Because if you saw that game,, it is un watchable... Let alone taking that same team again...
And when a team scores 6 home points (dallas),, no one wants those points,, hence no one wants free money... This idea alone can prove his system is pretty reliable.. But after all its football and the sample size is only so big... The house knows you dont want those points why? Because if you saw that game,, it is un watchable... Let alone taking that same team again...
I think people are confusing what PointsRator is saying when he says "underdog" method. His system has NOTHING to do with which team is the ATS underdog that Vegas is dictating. "Underdog" when PR uses it means the team that has averaged LESS points the last 10 games which may or may not be the true Vegas spread dog.
His use of "favorites" is also misleading as again it may not be the true ATS "Favorite" (although most likely the top 7 teams will usually be favorites unless against another top 7). His "favorites" is moreso akin to "public" favorites (bandwagon).
Again, PointsRator, please correct me if I am completely missing the boat.
Yup, you're correct. The strategy is very simple but its contains a combination of UNEXPECTED factors that NO one would consider to even use BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. I know, even i questioned it at first and i was even surprised at the discovery but i have created crazier things before in the horse racing industry and it is still working TODAY with minor changes.
I spent 6 months refining this NFL strategy while in programming class as my personal project. I added SEVERAL COMMON FACTORS, tested them, looked at the results and kept removing and adding until i was satisfied. I wanted it to be simple and unique at the same time with different approach.
I told no one it would work for the entire season. Thats the BIG MISTAKE, i see most people on here make. ONE SYSTEMS WON'T WORK EVERY TIME, you have to keep adjusting. I'm no fool. Hence, why i didn't make no BIG PROMISES like others. I only requested someone to back test it for me because i don't have access to the data. Its not that i can't do it.
I didn't know much about the NFL until January - Early February when one of my classmates asked me to study some data for the Superbowl (because i'm known to find unique patterns, no matter what data it is). I did it and i predicted the winner....that's when my interest grew. Just that feeling. I taught myself everything else.
The strategy is confusing to others but its perfectly fine and will do very well same way with minor updates. I know the updates needed. The injection of simple updates at various points of the season is all needed.
I studied last year Week 13 which was 9-5-1 & Week 17 which was 11-6-0 and it did very well same way. This show me that the strategy has capability and can continue to work with minors updates (removing/adding different factors) along the way.
I just don't have 2013-2014 & 2012-2013 or even beyond data.
Quote Originally Posted by naesiy:
(PointsRator, please correct me if I'm wrong)
I think people are confusing what PointsRator is saying when he says "underdog" method. His system has NOTHING to do with which team is the ATS underdog that Vegas is dictating. "Underdog" when PR uses it means the team that has averaged LESS points the last 10 games which may or may not be the true Vegas spread dog.
His use of "favorites" is also misleading as again it may not be the true ATS "Favorite" (although most likely the top 7 teams will usually be favorites unless against another top 7). His "favorites" is moreso akin to "public" favorites (bandwagon).
Again, PointsRator, please correct me if I am completely missing the boat.
Yup, you're correct. The strategy is very simple but its contains a combination of UNEXPECTED factors that NO one would consider to even use BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. I know, even i questioned it at first and i was even surprised at the discovery but i have created crazier things before in the horse racing industry and it is still working TODAY with minor changes.
I spent 6 months refining this NFL strategy while in programming class as my personal project. I added SEVERAL COMMON FACTORS, tested them, looked at the results and kept removing and adding until i was satisfied. I wanted it to be simple and unique at the same time with different approach.
I told no one it would work for the entire season. Thats the BIG MISTAKE, i see most people on here make. ONE SYSTEMS WON'T WORK EVERY TIME, you have to keep adjusting. I'm no fool. Hence, why i didn't make no BIG PROMISES like others. I only requested someone to back test it for me because i don't have access to the data. Its not that i can't do it.
I didn't know much about the NFL until January - Early February when one of my classmates asked me to study some data for the Superbowl (because i'm known to find unique patterns, no matter what data it is). I did it and i predicted the winner....that's when my interest grew. Just that feeling. I taught myself everything else.
The strategy is confusing to others but its perfectly fine and will do very well same way with minor updates. I know the updates needed. The injection of simple updates at various points of the season is all needed.
I studied last year Week 13 which was 9-5-1 & Week 17 which was 11-6-0 and it did very well same way. This show me that the strategy has capability and can continue to work with minors updates (removing/adding different factors) along the way.
I just don't have 2013-2014 & 2012-2013 or even beyond data.
Pointsrator Sorry I dont have data that will help you But I would love to see the updates in your system I hope you let us ride with you to see how the system goes
Pointsrator Sorry I dont have data that will help you But I would love to see the updates in your system I hope you let us ride with you to see how the system goes
1. No matter if it's a winner or loser, I appreciate the time you and anyone takes to help others win $$.
2. I'd help you back check it but I don't have the data either. I've never been the type to keep data to make picks. Something I've wanted to do but after 15 years of sports betting, I'm either lazy, content with my style or just don't care too much since it's really just a hobby for me (probably all of that combined). So sorry that I can't assist in that but note that your thread had several people wanting to help, they just needed to understand the system first, which I think is proving slightly challenging so far for most.
3. Going back to the system, I really think including the "favorites" method to your picks is providing more risk than reward. Again, I think you're better off just eliminating that pick if the top 7 contradicts it. We all know the top 7 will never cover all the time but you know some will. I think you are dealing with a 50/50 situation and in that event, why take on the extra juice? A no bet is rarely a bad bet in my opinion.
Hopefully you keep it up and get someone to assist in back checking the data to 2-3 years ago. The only one I can think of that may be able to help you is LeagueCapper? I think he keeps really good records to back up his trends analysis.
PR,
1. No matter if it's a winner or loser, I appreciate the time you and anyone takes to help others win $$.
2. I'd help you back check it but I don't have the data either. I've never been the type to keep data to make picks. Something I've wanted to do but after 15 years of sports betting, I'm either lazy, content with my style or just don't care too much since it's really just a hobby for me (probably all of that combined). So sorry that I can't assist in that but note that your thread had several people wanting to help, they just needed to understand the system first, which I think is proving slightly challenging so far for most.
3. Going back to the system, I really think including the "favorites" method to your picks is providing more risk than reward. Again, I think you're better off just eliminating that pick if the top 7 contradicts it. We all know the top 7 will never cover all the time but you know some will. I think you are dealing with a 50/50 situation and in that event, why take on the extra juice? A no bet is rarely a bad bet in my opinion.
Hopefully you keep it up and get someone to assist in back checking the data to 2-3 years ago. The only one I can think of that may be able to help you is LeagueCapper? I think he keeps really good records to back up his trends analysis.
Yup, you're correct. The strategy is very simple but its contains a combination of UNEXPECTED factors that NO one would consider to even use BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. I know, even i questioned it at first and i was even surprised at the discovery but i have created crazier things before in the horse racing industry and it is still working TODAY with minor changes.
I spent 6 months refining this NFL strategy while in programming class as my personal project. I added SEVERAL COMMON FACTORS, tested them, looked at the results and kept removing and adding until i was satisfied. I wanted it to be simple and unique at the same time with different approach.
I told no one it would work for the entire season. Thats the BIG MISTAKE, i see most people on here make. ONE SYSTEMS WON'T WORK EVERY TIME, you have to keep adjusting. I'm no fool. Hence, why i didn't make no BIG PROMISES like others. I only requested someone to back test it for me because i don't have access to the data. Its not that i can't do it.
I didn't know much about the NFL until January - Early February when one of my classmates asked me to study some data for the Superbowl (because i'm known to find unique patterns, no matter what data it is). I did it and i predicted the winner....that's when my interest grew. Just that feeling. I taught myself everything else.
The strategy is confusing to others but its perfectly fine and will do very well same way with minor updates. I know the updates needed. The injection of simple updates at various points of the season is all needed.
I studied last year Week 13 which was 9-5-1 & Week 17 which was 11-6-0 and it did very well same way. This show me that the strategy has capability and can continue to work with minors updates (removing/adding different factors) along the way.
I just don't have 2013-2014 & 2012-2013 or even beyond data.
3 years , or maybe 4 years from now ... what you had been doing for the last 6 months IT'S a starting point of your data
Don't worry too much about back testting the RESULTED of the last 2, 3 years ( if someone can help it will be great ...if not no BIG DEAL )
Just my 2 cents
Quote Originally Posted by PointsRator:
Yup, you're correct. The strategy is very simple but its contains a combination of UNEXPECTED factors that NO one would consider to even use BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. I know, even i questioned it at first and i was even surprised at the discovery but i have created crazier things before in the horse racing industry and it is still working TODAY with minor changes.
I spent 6 months refining this NFL strategy while in programming class as my personal project. I added SEVERAL COMMON FACTORS, tested them, looked at the results and kept removing and adding until i was satisfied. I wanted it to be simple and unique at the same time with different approach.
I told no one it would work for the entire season. Thats the BIG MISTAKE, i see most people on here make. ONE SYSTEMS WON'T WORK EVERY TIME, you have to keep adjusting. I'm no fool. Hence, why i didn't make no BIG PROMISES like others. I only requested someone to back test it for me because i don't have access to the data. Its not that i can't do it.
I didn't know much about the NFL until January - Early February when one of my classmates asked me to study some data for the Superbowl (because i'm known to find unique patterns, no matter what data it is). I did it and i predicted the winner....that's when my interest grew. Just that feeling. I taught myself everything else.
The strategy is confusing to others but its perfectly fine and will do very well same way with minor updates. I know the updates needed. The injection of simple updates at various points of the season is all needed.
I studied last year Week 13 which was 9-5-1 & Week 17 which was 11-6-0 and it did very well same way. This show me that the strategy has capability and can continue to work with minors updates (removing/adding different factors) along the way.
I just don't have 2013-2014 & 2012-2013 or even beyond data.
3 years , or maybe 4 years from now ... what you had been doing for the last 6 months IT'S a starting point of your data
Don't worry too much about back testting the RESULTED of the last 2, 3 years ( if someone can help it will be great ...if not no BIG DEAL )
Alight , just to give you guys a jist... For the year 2013-2014 this is what i found...
If you were to blindly take the team that averaged fewer home points for the year you woulve hit 50/50 and lose juice....
For the same year ,, if you were to take all of the dogs or all of the favorites... You wouldve also hit 50/50 and lose juice...
Having said that,, i have isolated the favorites that come out ... Which are remarkable... Using 3 variables of the top 7,,, and when i say top 7 i mean top 7 either defense or offense,, and finally the teams that has the bigger star mainly quarterbacks or the bigger market teams are the favorites that come out on top in these spots... And when the dogs come out, it seems that the wrong team was favored...
Now remember these are all ATS numbers that i use from covers... The only game that landed on the number was OAK-DEN.. I've seen people get +16 or +16.5 and the game ended right on 16... But these dont make no difference when the sample size of 69% of games where it was applicable in the regular season...
This is probably the furthest i will go that my time would allow... I think op needs to ad more criterias to filter out which dogs or favorites come out... This system sounds too simple other than the top seven... Top 7 could mean defense or offense... But if i were to guess,, i think his system dictates defenses more than offenses...
Alight , just to give you guys a jist... For the year 2013-2014 this is what i found...
If you were to blindly take the team that averaged fewer home points for the year you woulve hit 50/50 and lose juice....
For the same year ,, if you were to take all of the dogs or all of the favorites... You wouldve also hit 50/50 and lose juice...
Having said that,, i have isolated the favorites that come out ... Which are remarkable... Using 3 variables of the top 7,,, and when i say top 7 i mean top 7 either defense or offense,, and finally the teams that has the bigger star mainly quarterbacks or the bigger market teams are the favorites that come out on top in these spots... And when the dogs come out, it seems that the wrong team was favored...
Now remember these are all ATS numbers that i use from covers... The only game that landed on the number was OAK-DEN.. I've seen people get +16 or +16.5 and the game ended right on 16... But these dont make no difference when the sample size of 69% of games where it was applicable in the regular season...
This is probably the furthest i will go that my time would allow... I think op needs to ad more criterias to filter out which dogs or favorites come out... This system sounds too simple other than the top seven... Top 7 could mean defense or offense... But if i were to guess,, i think his system dictates defenses more than offenses...
In which case that would make sense... Because most of the betting public is glued to watching offenses with exception of the old Steelers and Ravens type of defense or the new Seahawks... I've fed the model all three years... lately OP's system is working best for 2015 as it stands... But also lately as mentioned in another post,,, teams spent significantly more of defenses in the past two years than they ever had... The seahawks made that statement for the rest to follow... Even the patriots picked up Revis and who wouldve known that the best offense went against the best defense... And what Manning could not finish brady finished... And what the seahawks couldnt finish Eli could finish lol.. These winners were all posted for two years in a row in the "lines dictate the spread" thread...
In which case that would make sense... Because most of the betting public is glued to watching offenses with exception of the old Steelers and Ravens type of defense or the new Seahawks... I've fed the model all three years... lately OP's system is working best for 2015 as it stands... But also lately as mentioned in another post,,, teams spent significantly more of defenses in the past two years than they ever had... The seahawks made that statement for the rest to follow... Even the patriots picked up Revis and who wouldve known that the best offense went against the best defense... And what Manning could not finish brady finished... And what the seahawks couldnt finish Eli could finish lol.. These winners were all posted for two years in a row in the "lines dictate the spread" thread...
Alight , just to give you guys a jist... For the year 2013-2014 this is what i found...
If you were to blindly take the team that averaged fewer home points for the year you woulve hit 50/50 and lose juice....
For the same year ,, if you were to take all of the dogs or all of the favorites... You wouldve also hit 50/50 and lose juice...
Having said that,, i have isolated the favorites that come out ... Which are remarkable... Using 3 variables of the top 7,,, and when i say top 7 i mean top 7 either defense or offense,, and finally the teams that has the bigger star mainly quarterbacks or the bigger market teams are the favorites that come out on top in these spots... And when the dogs come out, it seems that the wrong team was favored...
Now remember these are all ATS numbers that i use from covers... The only game that landed on the number was OAK-DEN.. I've seen people get +16 or +16.5 and the game ended right on 16... But these dont make no difference when the sample size of 69% of games where it was applicable in the regular season...
This is probably the furthest i will go that my time would allow... I think op needs to ad more criterias to filter out which dogs or favorites come out... This system sounds too simple other than the top seven... Top 7 could mean defense or offense... But if i were to guess,, i think his system dictates defenses more than offenses...
Your effort is noted and appreciated, but this is not really what PR's system is, especially if you took the entire 2013-2014 season as a whole to dictate the lower scoring team. The "last ten games" is a big component as the 11th game and predicted "winner" would be dependent on the most recent revolving sample size. If you ran the predictions for week 1 2013-2014 but used the entire season to predicate it, that'd be wrong as you are using future results to determine an outcome based on a spread that is only valid as of week 1. The "lower scoring team" could flip flop depending on what sample size you are using.
My thoughts: The last 10 games is an indicator of possible public perception (a low scoring "crappy" team), mixed with Vegas thinking and how to exploit public perception (a undervalued/overvalued team catching more/less points than they should. Recent low scoring teams probably have a low public perception, therefore, Vegas can set an inflated number that isn't indicative to the true handicap. The average bettor will probably side with the "favorite" i.e. higher scoring team as recent history dictates, even subconsciously, that the favorite will outscore the team that doesn't score much.
Then you add the Top 7 because Vegas knows at least some of the public teams NEED to cover the spread to keep the public interested, even if they take turns covering. Not all the times but just enough to get people coming back.
idk...just rambling.
Quote Originally Posted by HoldingXYZ:
Alight , just to give you guys a jist... For the year 2013-2014 this is what i found...
If you were to blindly take the team that averaged fewer home points for the year you woulve hit 50/50 and lose juice....
For the same year ,, if you were to take all of the dogs or all of the favorites... You wouldve also hit 50/50 and lose juice...
Having said that,, i have isolated the favorites that come out ... Which are remarkable... Using 3 variables of the top 7,,, and when i say top 7 i mean top 7 either defense or offense,, and finally the teams that has the bigger star mainly quarterbacks or the bigger market teams are the favorites that come out on top in these spots... And when the dogs come out, it seems that the wrong team was favored...
Now remember these are all ATS numbers that i use from covers... The only game that landed on the number was OAK-DEN.. I've seen people get +16 or +16.5 and the game ended right on 16... But these dont make no difference when the sample size of 69% of games where it was applicable in the regular season...
This is probably the furthest i will go that my time would allow... I think op needs to ad more criterias to filter out which dogs or favorites come out... This system sounds too simple other than the top seven... Top 7 could mean defense or offense... But if i were to guess,, i think his system dictates defenses more than offenses...
Your effort is noted and appreciated, but this is not really what PR's system is, especially if you took the entire 2013-2014 season as a whole to dictate the lower scoring team. The "last ten games" is a big component as the 11th game and predicted "winner" would be dependent on the most recent revolving sample size. If you ran the predictions for week 1 2013-2014 but used the entire season to predicate it, that'd be wrong as you are using future results to determine an outcome based on a spread that is only valid as of week 1. The "lower scoring team" could flip flop depending on what sample size you are using.
My thoughts: The last 10 games is an indicator of possible public perception (a low scoring "crappy" team), mixed with Vegas thinking and how to exploit public perception (a undervalued/overvalued team catching more/less points than they should. Recent low scoring teams probably have a low public perception, therefore, Vegas can set an inflated number that isn't indicative to the true handicap. The average bettor will probably side with the "favorite" i.e. higher scoring team as recent history dictates, even subconsciously, that the favorite will outscore the team that doesn't score much.
Then you add the Top 7 because Vegas knows at least some of the public teams NEED to cover the spread to keep the public interested, even if they take turns covering. Not all the times but just enough to get people coming back.
Yeap Naesiy, i totally agree... Public perception is built into most of these lines... Especially since football is public sport... I agree that it is programmed into the perception of many that low scoring teams are not remembered in a good way and a sample size of the last 10 would be about an accurate way to measure the public perception of that team in their long term memory... Then you factor in the short term perception and i think OP will be onto something... This also explains why Denver,NE, GB has been going under alot... Because the public is not aware of their defenses improving... By the looks of it only Denver of the 3 were adjusted and still would fall under the total by double digits...
Yeap Naesiy, i totally agree... Public perception is built into most of these lines... Especially since football is public sport... I agree that it is programmed into the perception of many that low scoring teams are not remembered in a good way and a sample size of the last 10 would be about an accurate way to measure the public perception of that team in their long term memory... Then you factor in the short term perception and i think OP will be onto something... This also explains why Denver,NE, GB has been going under alot... Because the public is not aware of their defenses improving... By the looks of it only Denver of the 3 were adjusted and still would fall under the total by double digits...
So on one end.. You have a defense like denver improving,, but on the other end you have a offense that's regressing ... You add both of these up vs the average team and it means under... And contrary to public belief that The big three always goes over... One criteria might i ad, is separating the low scoring small medium and large market teams... And i guarantee you with out any back testing that there's a discrepancy worth putting your money on as well as never fading certain stars early in the season without knowing how to pick your spots...
So on one end.. You have a defense like denver improving,, but on the other end you have a offense that's regressing ... You add both of these up vs the average team and it means under... And contrary to public belief that The big three always goes over... One criteria might i ad, is separating the low scoring small medium and large market teams... And i guarantee you with out any back testing that there's a discrepancy worth putting your money on as well as never fading certain stars early in the season without knowing how to pick your spots...
I think the poster : FadeorRide or FadeorDie pissed him off last night with something like : "... you can go 1-10 this week and 1-10 next week ,eventually you will break even ..."
his request to remove his own thread is here: : https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=17&sub=102175815
I didn't piss him off. I said most systems end up at around 50-55% ATS. If anyone finds that offensive they need to go back to kindergarten.
Quote Originally Posted by Second2-Numbers:
I think the poster : FadeorRide or FadeorDie pissed him off last night with something like : "... you can go 1-10 this week and 1-10 next week ,eventually you will break even ..."
his request to remove his own thread is here: : https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=17&sub=102175815
I didn't piss him off. I said most systems end up at around 50-55% ATS. If anyone finds that offensive they need to go back to kindergarten.
And a sample size of 10 is probably the size that the books use as well... So if you reverse engineered what the house is doing using 10 games it sounds perfect... Perfect in a sense that the technology they use to create a base line number across the board is exponential smoothing,, and 10 games sounds about right and a few inches against the public to hit them over the head...
And a sample size of 10 is probably the size that the books use as well... So if you reverse engineered what the house is doing using 10 games it sounds perfect... Perfect in a sense that the technology they use to create a base line number across the board is exponential smoothing,, and 10 games sounds about right and a few inches against the public to hit them over the head...
Hot Forum Topics
