Posted:
#251
Calin, do you mean 01.04.09 - char/bos game?
0
Basketball over / under system
Posted:
#259
New to the forums. This post and others focusing on system-handicapping was what drew me in.
Calinreddog - impressed with your efforts. I've read through all of the pages, and I'm still unsure exactly where things stand as far as your current formula. Perhaps it hasn't been disclosed. I kind've wondered what has caused the various changes, as every time I saw a record posted it looked fine. Maybe you switched the formula when the record took a downturn and then you didn't post updated records. Anyway, I noticed the record posted on Feb 8 of 63-48 (58.3%) for CBB and 19-14 for the NBA. Not a huge sample, but it is incredibly hard to hit 58% on over 100 games of anything so I thought it merited a longer tracking. I also noticed a post in March basically saying "I realize now that no system can consistently succeed with a fairly large amount of games being picked." Perhaps I'm stubborn, but I still believe there can be (and probably are) high-volume systems that can hit 56%. I think your creativity and research is good, and I would hate to see you give up hope on a good system too quickly. Especially since even a 56% system could go through lengthy periods of little or no profit. Keep grinding.
0
Posted:
#260
Quote Originally Posted by Chapter13:
New to the forums. This post and others focusing on system-handicapping was what drew me in.
Calinreddog - impressed with your efforts. I've read through all of the pages, and I'm still unsure exactly where things stand as far as your current formula. Perhaps it hasn't been disclosed. I kind've wondered what has caused the various changes, as every time I saw a record posted it looked fine. Maybe you switched the formula when the record took a downturn and then you didn't post updated records. Anyway, I noticed the record posted on Feb 8 of 63-48 (58.3%) for CBB and 19-14 for the NBA. Not a huge sample, but it is incredibly hard to hit 58% on over 100 games of anything so I thought it merited a longer tracking. I also noticed a post in March basically saying "I realize now that no system can consistently succeed with a fairly large amount of games being picked." Perhaps I'm stubborn, but I still believe there can be (and probably are) high-volume systems that can hit 56%. I think your creativity and research is good, and I would hate to see you give up hope on a good system too quickly. Especially since even a 56% system could go through lengthy periods of little or no profit. Keep grinding.
0
Posted:
#262
Quote Originally Posted by Chapter13:
New to the forums. This post and others focusing on system-handicapping was what drew me in.
Calinreddog - impressed with your efforts. I've read through all of the pages, and I'm still unsure exactly where things stand as far as your current formula. Perhaps it hasn't been disclosed. I kind've wondered what has caused the various changes, as every time I saw a record posted it looked fine. Maybe you switched the formula when the record took a downturn and then you didn't post updated records. Anyway, I noticed the record posted on Feb 8 of 63-48 (58.3%) for CBB and 19-14 for the NBA. Not a huge sample, but it is incredibly hard to hit 58% on over 100 games of anything so I thought it merited a longer tracking. I also noticed a post in March basically saying "I realize now that no system can consistently succeed with a fairly large amount of games being picked." Perhaps I'm stubborn, but I still believe there can be (and probably are) high-volume systems that can hit 56%. I think your creativity and research is good, and I would hate to see you give up hope on a good system too quickly. Especially since even a 56% system could go through lengthy periods of little or no profit. Keep grinding.
As yourself, I also checked out this thread and found it to be impressive, based on using sabermetric stats to do basketball totals shows a very high % of success ratio. 56% is "mild" in comparision to added variables, and correct management, I would say 65% when picking your spots. i have used this form over the years, but with added variables and have gotten increased value with continued research. confining it to NBA action only. This is an excellent thread for the novice to get a foundation on basketball total play, and brings the insight forward to the capper...
calinreddog, good job, vg contribution, fine tune it..
0
Posted:
#265
I guess what I should've made clearer on the post above is that I'm trying to figure out what the current (or final) version of the system. Since there were various changes, I'm not exactly sure exactly what Calindred considered the best method. I guess we're still on Point For Home plus Point-Against Home plus PF-away plus PA-away divide it all by 2. Then compare to the line, and decide what percentage deviation you want to us to determine it as a play. If anyone can confirm that it would be great, along with any additional tracking information. Sports Network, if you wanted to throw out any other variables you have determined to be helpful then I'm sure nobody on here would complain.
0
Posted:
#268
Chapter13, TheSharkTank, please believe me I forgot where's the end and what seemed to be the best way to determine totals. I considered this thread dead. I am sorry but I don't have records and I used several different formulas over the time...
I am surprised about Dominican Capper's post above with 10-0 using my formula. Maybe we should ask him what formula did he use. I had days with 8-2 on NCAAB but I also had days with 2-8, so I don't know...
0
Posted:
#269
Quote Originally Posted by sports_Network:
As yourself, I also checked out this thread and found it to be impressive, based on using sabermetric stats to do basketball totals shows a very high % of success ratio. 56% is "mild" in comparision to added variables, and correct management, I would say 65% when picking your spots. i have used this form over the years, but with added variables and have gotten increased value with continued research. confining it to NBA action only. This is an excellent thread for the novice to get a foundation on basketball total play, and brings the insight forward to the capper...
calinreddog, good job, vg contribution, fine tune it..
sports_Network you're much to kind, thank you, but I didn't get anywhere with my trials.
0
Posted:
#273
Calinreddog: It just looked to me that every time I saw records posted they looked pretty good. Perhaps once the win percentage took a downturn you stopped posting the records. I still think the PF/PA basic theory you were working had good logic and passed my smell test. Still think you might be too hard on the systems and might've tossed something with promise too quickly. If you could remember the basics and 2, 3 or 4 different variations you were working with some of us would still be interested in continuing things a bit farther next year.
0
Posted:
#275
Quote Originally Posted by Chapter13:
Calinreddog: It just looked to me that every time I saw records posted they looked pretty good. Perhaps once the win percentage took a downturn you stopped posting the records. I still think the PF/PA basic theory you were working had good logic and passed my smell test. Still think you might be too hard on the systems and might've tossed something with promise too quickly. If you could remember the basics and 2, 3 or 4 different variations you were working with some of us would still be interested in continuing things a bit farther next year.
One variation I still recall and I continue to use on soccer as well is:
Compute offensive avg = pf avg road team + pf avg home team
Compute defensive avg = pa avg road team + pa avg home team
Compare the offensive avg and the defensive avg with the total set by the bookie and take the biggest distance or difference if the odds are in your favour.
Example:
dal - den
Offensive avg = 97.4 + 109.4 = 206.8
Defensive avg = 99.7 + 99.8 = 199.5
Total set by the bookie = 206.5
Distance for offensive avg = 0.3
Distance for defensive avg = -7.0
We should pick the under.
0
Hot Forum Topics
