Posted:
#226
with the lehman news... I wouldnt want to be holding any stock right now. IMO
0
Critique My Method
Posted:
#227
Quote Originally Posted by skiliftman:
sdiinc: "BTW, the only other game that looked good to me today was STL over PIT @ 120. What do your numbers show?"
For 9/12, I had STL over PIT, but they changed the starter later in the day and the numbers shifted to PIT. My numbers liked TEX over OAK that day for the underdog.
Today I have no underdogs to win, but TEX over OAK is a close one.
Phil
sdiinc: "BTW, the only other game that looked good to me today was STL over PIT @ 120. What do your numbers show?"
For 9/12, I had STL over PIT, but they changed the starter later in the day and the numbers shifted to PIT. My numbers liked TEX over OAK that day for the underdog.
Today I have no underdogs to win, but TEX over OAK is a close one.
Phil
I'm more of a value guy. I'm also contrarian so I'm sitting on a lot of cash right now, buying stuff on the dips.
Energy has been good to me this year but mostly it was oil-related in the first half of the year. I like pharma and Asian/LATAM telco related as well. Buy stuff that is undervalued/oversold and works well in tough markets.
0
Posted:
#228
So people are emailing you to get info about the betting system and then we who read the thread gets info about stocks. Maybe it can be the other way around since i really like this thread?
I have some info to share about money management. Instead of just trying to get my losses back starting with the second bet, i bet to win a smaller amount on the second bet as well.
I had a win yesterday since i bet to get my lost unit back from the first bet and then added half a unit for a smaller profit. If it doesn´t work on the second bet, then i start to bet to just get my losses back starting with the third bet. Sure, it means that you need to bet a little more to get back to even if the first two bets fail but not much. It´s been working so far and i will continue doing it since i don´t see it make a big difference in risk.
I have some info to share about money management. Instead of just trying to get my losses back starting with the second bet, i bet to win a smaller amount on the second bet as well.
I had a win yesterday since i bet to get my lost unit back from the first bet and then added half a unit for a smaller profit. If it doesn´t work on the second bet, then i start to bet to just get my losses back starting with the third bet. Sure, it means that you need to bet a little more to get back to even if the first two bets fail but not much. It´s been working so far and i will continue doing it since i don´t see it make a big difference in risk.
0
Posted:
#230
Kansas City PPG(home) + Seattle ERA(away) / 2
(4.1 + 5.3 ) / 2 = 4.7
Seattle PPG(road) + Kansas City ERA(home) / 2
(4.3 + 4.8 ) / 2 = 4.55
4.7 - 4.55 = 0.15 (Advantage Kansas City)
Kansas City PPG(home) + Carlos Silva ERA(away) / 2
(4.1 + 6.53 ) / 2 = 5.315
Seattle PPG(road) + Davies ERA(home) / 2
(4.3 + 4.7 ) / 2 = 4.50
5.35 - 4.50 = 0.85 (Large Advantage KC)
Why is Seattle the play here at +135?
0
Posted:
#231
Quote Originally Posted by pete22:
So people are emailing you to get info about the betting system and then we who read the thread gets info about stocks. Maybe it can be the other way around since i really like this thread?
I have some info to share about money management. Instead of just trying to get my losses back starting with the second bet, i bet to win a smaller amount on the second bet as well.
I had a win yesterday since i bet to get my lost unit back from the first bet and then added half a unit for a smaller profit. If it doesn´t work on the second bet, then i start to bet to just get my losses back starting with the third bet. Sure, it means that you need to bet a little more to get back to even if the first two bets fail but not much. It´s been working so far and i will continue doing it since i don´t see it make a big difference in risk.
So people are emailing you to get info about the betting system and then we who read the thread gets info about stocks. Maybe it can be the other way around since i really like this thread?
I have some info to share about money management. Instead of just trying to get my losses back starting with the second bet, i bet to win a smaller amount on the second bet as well.
I had a win yesterday since i bet to get my lost unit back from the first bet and then added half a unit for a smaller profit. If it doesn´t work on the second bet, then i start to bet to just get my losses back starting with the third bet. Sure, it means that you need to bet a little more to get back to even if the first two bets fail but not much. It´s been working so far and i will continue doing it since i don´t see it make a big difference in risk.
Obviously it was a mistake to post my email. I get complaints on email and people on the thread complain as well. Excuse my first experience with managing a thread. I'm beginning to think it's not worth the pay. Oh, wait...
As for the progression, I think the approach you describe is too risky-you'll have alot more at risk on a 4 or 5 game losing streak than I will. The reason I use the approach I do is it allows me to chase a loss with the least amount possible.
0
Posted:
#232
A recent email exchange which may be informative (my responses in red):
First off i'd like to ask you about your baseball system.
1) You start with a 50 unit bankroll and you mentioned that you were able to double your bankroll every month. Did you mean starting from 50 units, you doubled your bankroll to 100 units? Or a ROI double ? Where you wagered X amount and achieved 2X back?
I shared this before I came to the conclusion that I was betting too much per game as a %. In reality after I've adjusted my unit size to 2% of my portfolio, you would be looking at something more like 20% gain per month. Still great for me, but some guys have mocked that, and they're using unit sizes of 5%, which would translateinto 50% monthly. After I ran some intensive tests I concluded 5% was just too much for me, and if I can get 20% a month, I can retire in six months and do sports investing full-time.
2) You need both formulas to agree either positive or negative right? But if it is negative that means that it is predicting the road team to win right? So if you are playing the home underdog....but it comes out to be a negative number, suggesting a road team victory, does that cancel the play?
I do look for agreement, but I frequently accept disagreement if it is slight.
Because the formula is referencing home team performance, a negative result means the home team should lose by that margin. If I am playing a home underdog, it would be because the formulas are positive, or one is strongly positive and the other barely negative. This happens alot, where you have a +1.25 and a -0.13, that is a case where I would play it, especially with a high ML, because what it is really telling me is: "on the one hand, I think the team will win by more than a run, and on the other, they will lose by a fraction of one, and so it seems relatively even, and yet the payoff is huge."
If you could flip a dime and know that half the time you're going to get a quarter back and half the time you're going to lose the dime, wouldn't you do that all day every day?
3) I thought i replied to you, but i guess not. So to answer your question from an earlier post, I mentioned that I knew the amount of games to bet before season starts. The reason is because I chase a team playing at home or away for 6 consecutive games. Using data from the past 5 years, i look at how the teams perform on the road/home and look for any tendencies. For example, certain teams in the past 5 seasons have always had at least 1 game on the road that went Under or loss. I chase them to go under/ lose/win/over.
I know that this is a very simple approach and is not derived from a statistical/mathematical logic.
I'm sorry, but count me a skeptic. A particular team's data from 5 years ago in a certain situation is hardly a predictive factor when personnel have changed so much and the environmental conditions are different, the motivating factors have changed, and so forth. On the surface something like this can sound good, but when I've dug enough in the past on these kinds of things, I've always found flaws. That's not to say it doesn't work for you, but I want to rule out anything I can't measure. It's the only way I know how to manage money, whether in stocks or sports. I'd rather be wrong and have a reason than right and lucky, because if I'm the latter I'm just a gambler.
4) I would like to try using your formula for the NHL this season and your same money management approach as well.
You mentioned that you've tried NHL last season, how did it go? and what formula did you use?
Would this be the formula:
(Home Goals per game + Road Goals against)/2 - (Road Goals per game + Home goals against)/2 ???
I do not know if it is possible to have a second formula for hockey because unlike baseball, you do not have the option of a "LISTED PITCHER". Goalies are almost not taken into account for the lines as the backup can start last minute.
Also in hockey if you are looking for a 50% chance of winning....once the game gets into a shootout, it really is a crapshoot.
It's a different formula but based on similar factors; underdogs in favorable statistical positions with a attractive ML. In hockey the goalie is important but obviously in a different way than the pitcher. I don't consider shootouts because it's irrelevant; it's still a question of past performance and whoever scores the most wins, so regression formulas predict that adequately. I'll share it as soon as I'm ready-last year was my first year on NHL and my records are a mess and I learned from starting the covers thread that I get overwhelmed with detailed questions I'm not ready to answer yet-I make one mistake and I'll get worn out for weeks.
I really like your Investment mentality in your method and i have followed way too many people in the past that just try to handicap the games and it is almost never profitable in the end. You have opened my eyes...with your ideas of efficiency and turnover rate. And i now ask myself... WHY do i stop a chase at 3 games,,,or even 6 games? As there really is no statistical advantage other than the 'Home stand is over'.
Do ever stop to take a loss if you have a 10 game losing streak? or is 6 just happen to be the worst streak to date?
Thanks, I think you can see my philosophy is investment rather than gambling, and there needs to be a reason behind every decision. But you've asked the one question I don't think I have a good answer for, and that is the chase.
I developed this modified chase because I thought most progressive systems were far too aggressive. I also know that statistically speaking, in a 50/50 environment most losses will be immediately followed by a win, and that in a very high percentage of cases, if there are two losses in a row, a win is even more likely. What I did not think through in depth (like my bankroll units), was the length of a streak. So, at the moment six losses is the worst to date, 5 has happened once or twice, 4 several times, 3 often. It's a perfect binomial graph, except I've never had 6 wins in a row (have had 5), so I guess I'm due.
The bottom line is I have to develop a method to address a 'endless' losing streak. Statistically speaking, it is of course certain that eventually this will happen. It is not a problem if you are straight betting, and I have considered eliminating the progressive system and just having more plays. Thus far this season if I had bet twice a day instead of once a day, and eliminated the progression, I would have about the same profit, but have eliminated the progressive risk. Of course, my efficiency would have dropped by 50%, so there is an element of risk there.
I know you are extremely busy, but i do hope to hear from you soon.
Hope this helps.
First off i'd like to ask you about your baseball system.
1) You start with a 50 unit bankroll and you mentioned that you were able to double your bankroll every month. Did you mean starting from 50 units, you doubled your bankroll to 100 units? Or a ROI double ? Where you wagered X amount and achieved 2X back?
I shared this before I came to the conclusion that I was betting too much per game as a %. In reality after I've adjusted my unit size to 2% of my portfolio, you would be looking at something more like 20% gain per month. Still great for me, but some guys have mocked that, and they're using unit sizes of 5%, which would translateinto 50% monthly. After I ran some intensive tests I concluded 5% was just too much for me, and if I can get 20% a month, I can retire in six months and do sports investing full-time.
2) You need both formulas to agree either positive or negative right? But if it is negative that means that it is predicting the road team to win right? So if you are playing the home underdog....but it comes out to be a negative number, suggesting a road team victory, does that cancel the play?
I do look for agreement, but I frequently accept disagreement if it is slight.
Because the formula is referencing home team performance, a negative result means the home team should lose by that margin. If I am playing a home underdog, it would be because the formulas are positive, or one is strongly positive and the other barely negative. This happens alot, where you have a +1.25 and a -0.13, that is a case where I would play it, especially with a high ML, because what it is really telling me is: "on the one hand, I think the team will win by more than a run, and on the other, they will lose by a fraction of one, and so it seems relatively even, and yet the payoff is huge."
If you could flip a dime and know that half the time you're going to get a quarter back and half the time you're going to lose the dime, wouldn't you do that all day every day?
3) I thought i replied to you, but i guess not. So to answer your question from an earlier post, I mentioned that I knew the amount of games to bet before season starts. The reason is because I chase a team playing at home or away for 6 consecutive games. Using data from the past 5 years, i look at how the teams perform on the road/home and look for any tendencies. For example, certain teams in the past 5 seasons have always had at least 1 game on the road that went Under or loss. I chase them to go under/ lose/win/over.
I know that this is a very simple approach and is not derived from a statistical/mathematical logic.
I'm sorry, but count me a skeptic. A particular team's data from 5 years ago in a certain situation is hardly a predictive factor when personnel have changed so much and the environmental conditions are different, the motivating factors have changed, and so forth. On the surface something like this can sound good, but when I've dug enough in the past on these kinds of things, I've always found flaws. That's not to say it doesn't work for you, but I want to rule out anything I can't measure. It's the only way I know how to manage money, whether in stocks or sports. I'd rather be wrong and have a reason than right and lucky, because if I'm the latter I'm just a gambler.
4) I would like to try using your formula for the NHL this season and your same money management approach as well.
You mentioned that you've tried NHL last season, how did it go? and what formula did you use?
Would this be the formula:
(Home Goals per game + Road Goals against)/2 - (Road Goals per game + Home goals against)/2 ???
I do not know if it is possible to have a second formula for hockey because unlike baseball, you do not have the option of a "LISTED PITCHER". Goalies are almost not taken into account for the lines as the backup can start last minute.
Also in hockey if you are looking for a 50% chance of winning....once the game gets into a shootout, it really is a crapshoot.
It's a different formula but based on similar factors; underdogs in favorable statistical positions with a attractive ML. In hockey the goalie is important but obviously in a different way than the pitcher. I don't consider shootouts because it's irrelevant; it's still a question of past performance and whoever scores the most wins, so regression formulas predict that adequately. I'll share it as soon as I'm ready-last year was my first year on NHL and my records are a mess and I learned from starting the covers thread that I get overwhelmed with detailed questions I'm not ready to answer yet-I make one mistake and I'll get worn out for weeks.
I really like your Investment mentality in your method and i have followed way too many people in the past that just try to handicap the games and it is almost never profitable in the end. You have opened my eyes...with your ideas of efficiency and turnover rate. And i now ask myself... WHY do i stop a chase at 3 games,,,or even 6 games? As there really is no statistical advantage other than the 'Home stand is over'.
Do ever stop to take a loss if you have a 10 game losing streak? or is 6 just happen to be the worst streak to date?
Thanks, I think you can see my philosophy is investment rather than gambling, and there needs to be a reason behind every decision. But you've asked the one question I don't think I have a good answer for, and that is the chase.
I developed this modified chase because I thought most progressive systems were far too aggressive. I also know that statistically speaking, in a 50/50 environment most losses will be immediately followed by a win, and that in a very high percentage of cases, if there are two losses in a row, a win is even more likely. What I did not think through in depth (like my bankroll units), was the length of a streak. So, at the moment six losses is the worst to date, 5 has happened once or twice, 4 several times, 3 often. It's a perfect binomial graph, except I've never had 6 wins in a row (have had 5), so I guess I'm due.
The bottom line is I have to develop a method to address a 'endless' losing streak. Statistically speaking, it is of course certain that eventually this will happen. It is not a problem if you are straight betting, and I have considered eliminating the progressive system and just having more plays. Thus far this season if I had bet twice a day instead of once a day, and eliminated the progression, I would have about the same profit, but have eliminated the progressive risk. Of course, my efficiency would have dropped by 50%, so there is an element of risk there.
I know you are extremely busy, but i do hope to hear from you soon.
Hope this helps.
0
Posted:
#233
Another recent email exchange:
Hi, I have read through your baseball system posts on covers.com and I am very impressed. I have a couple questions and suggestions if you'd be willing to help me understand your methods.
Questions:
Thank
you very much for your help. It is great how you have incorporated your
experience in the business world into this successful system. Hope to
hear from you soon.
Thanks for the feedback!
Mark
Hi, I have read through your baseball system posts on covers.com and I am very impressed. I have a couple questions and suggestions if you'd be willing to help me understand your methods.
1. : (PPGhome + ERAroad)/2 - (PPGroad + ERAhome)/2.. Does this formula mean Runs per game of home team at home + ERA of road team on road and so on? Basically,
does this formula not take into account the starting pitchers and your second formula does?
Right. It is an unsophisticated way for me to see the scenario when both the teams' performance overall and the pitcher's performance both align (i.e., both formulas produce a negative result or both produce a positive result). You could obviously use this to bet on favorites as well with a much higher success rate albeit lower payouts.
Right. It is an unsophisticated way for me to see the scenario when both the teams' performance overall and the pitcher's performance both align (i.e., both formulas produce a negative result or both produce a positive result). You could obviously use this to bet on favorites as well with a much higher success rate albeit lower payouts.
2.
: When you get your run differentials how do you compare the raw number
with the money line given. What is your criteria for a game to be
deemed as a play?
I address this in the post on 8/16:
There are several attractive games today, but this one has by far the best ML value. Just an insight into how I value those; I take the line and I divide it into 100. In this case, 152 into 100. I then multiply the result (.658) by .50, which gives me .34, which is 34%, or the winning rate I need at this ML to break even. (.50 being the generic break even rate if my ML were 100).
So when I look at the formulas that I run and I analyze the results, what I see is that a certain game should be about a 50/50 toss up, and yet one team is getting this great ML, and so the numbers here help me choose based on ML when the other factors may not distinguish one game over another. I guess that's a complicated way of explaining how I value the ML premium, and I'm sure someone out there has a more sophisticated system and a better way of explaining it.
I address this in the post on 8/16:
There are several attractive games today, but this one has by far the best ML value. Just an insight into how I value those; I take the line and I divide it into 100. In this case, 152 into 100. I then multiply the result (.658) by .50, which gives me .34, which is 34%, or the winning rate I need at this ML to break even. (.50 being the generic break even rate if my ML were 100).
So when I look at the formulas that I run and I analyze the results, what I see is that a certain game should be about a 50/50 toss up, and yet one team is getting this great ML, and so the numbers here help me choose based on ML when the other factors may not distinguish one game over another. I guess that's a complicated way of explaining how I value the ML premium, and I'm sure someone out there has a more sophisticated system and a better way of explaining it.
Suggestions:
1. I like the idea of factoring in average innings pitched and bullpen ERA as one poster suggested.
Yes, I am looking at several ways to do this.
Yes, I am looking at several ways to do this.
2.
Since you are using ERA, this does not account for unearned runs. I was
wondering if some of your losses come from teams who give up a lot of
unearned runs. If so you could factor average earned runs per game into
your formula. It would be a simple addition and would not require you
to add another formula.
Yes, I think I will move to this and away from ERA. I'm not backtesting anything at the moment as I'm busy working on my NHL and NFL formulas to improve upon last year.
Yes, I think I will move to this and away from ERA. I'm not backtesting anything at the moment as I'm busy working on my NHL and NFL formulas to improve upon last year.
Thanks for the feedback!
Mark
0
Posted:
#234
Quote Originally Posted by UsaSurfer:
Kansas City PPG(home) + Seattle ERA(away) / 2
(4.1 + 5.3 ) / 2 = 4.7
Seattle PPG(road) + Kansas City ERA(home) / 2
(4.3 + 4.8 ) / 2 = 4.55
4.7 - 4.55 = 0.15 (Advantage Kansas City)
Kansas City PPG(home) + Carlos Silva ERA(away) / 2
(4.1 + 6.53 ) / 2 = 5.315
Seattle PPG(road) + Davies ERA(home) / 2
(4.3 + 4.7 ) / 2 = 4.50
5.35 - 4.50 = 0.85 (Large Advantage KC)
Why is Seattle the play here at +135?
Surfer, where do you get your data? I have KC at formula 1= -.18 and formula 2= -.14
0
Posted:
#235
Didn´t mean to sound like i´m complaining. Sorry about that. I just like to hear what people have to say about your system and maybe i can pick up a thing or two in the process. I don´t understand how people can mock you about a 20% increase per month. Since it´s virtually riskfree everyone should be so happy. The only reason i tried to modify the money management is that you talked about the possibility to bet two games per day and i think this involves less risk.
Input anyone?
Input anyone?
0
Posted:
#236
Sdiinc where do you get your stats from I got formula 1 = .37 frm 2 = .915? I get my info from covers on the top of the game matchup page is a Home/Away page for R/9 and ERA. https://www.covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/matchups/g4_homeaway_9.html
Also are you going to bet into the playoffs? If not are you planning on ending your system before the season ends? It would be good to end on a win rather than ending on a 5/6 game lose streak just a suggestion.
Also are you going to bet into the playoffs? If not are you planning on ending your system before the season ends? It would be good to end on a win rather than ending on a 5/6 game lose streak just a suggestion.
0
Posted:
#238
Yeah I would also like to say thanks. I find all of this very interesting. But I am skeptical that everyone else, using a large variety of sources, is always coming up with very different figures.
Addressing the calculations above, Pete is using covers.com numbers. I am using the site scoresandodds.com. Both of us had very similar calculations, both favoring the Royals.
How are your numbers so drastically different? I would understand how a different source would create a slightly different calc, but we aren't even close.
0
Posted:
#240
Thanks everyone for the feedback. This thread is meant for that, after all.
I thought I had mentioned before that I am using a database I bought from a 'friend' last year. And my formulas are being generated daily for my by a program another 'friend' put together for me last summer, rather than one I put together on Excel. I don't want to alert my friend to the money I'm making because I know what will happen when I ask for his further input (i.e., suddenly the db is worth $1,000,000). So, there is a little bit of the 'Wizard of Oz' going on here, but it's not intentional and I'm trying to work through it.
The reality of the matter is even though we're doing well I'm making more money at my real job and so I'm trying to balance this with my NFL picks and trying to iron out the NHL underdog formula and figuring out a NBA formula (barely made money last year). No excuses, just a FYI.
So, bear with me, post your ideas/suggestions, and we'll all make (more) money together.
I thought I had mentioned before that I am using a database I bought from a 'friend' last year. And my formulas are being generated daily for my by a program another 'friend' put together for me last summer, rather than one I put together on Excel. I don't want to alert my friend to the money I'm making because I know what will happen when I ask for his further input (i.e., suddenly the db is worth $1,000,000). So, there is a little bit of the 'Wizard of Oz' going on here, but it's not intentional and I'm trying to work through it.
The reality of the matter is even though we're doing well I'm making more money at my real job and so I'm trying to balance this with my NFL picks and trying to iron out the NHL underdog formula and figuring out a NBA formula (barely made money last year). No excuses, just a FYI.
So, bear with me, post your ideas/suggestions, and we'll all make (more) money together.
0
Posted:
#241
Sounds good sdiinc. Whatever that database is doing, its working well apparently. And we definitely appreciate the advice. But in an effort to bo honest on all levels, I would like to state that it is absolute fact that your formula is nothing close to the one previously quoted.
There is a ZERO percent chance that your previously quoted formula is calculating the numbers below:
"I have KC at formula 1= -.18 and formula 2= -.14"
0
Posted:
#244
Quote Originally Posted by UsaSurfer:
Sounds good sdiinc. Whatever that database is doing, its working well apparently. And we definitely appreciate the advice. But in an effort to bo honest on all levels, I would like to state that it is absolute fact that your formula is nothing close to the one previously quoted.
There is a ZERO percent chance that your previously quoted formula is calculating the numbers below:
"I have KC at formula 1= -.18 and formula 2= -.14"
Surfer, I think we all appreciate honest input. However, like Milkman demonstrated for us before, not all criticism is constructive.
For example, you have not established as 'fact' that the formula I am using is different than that quoted above. All you have done is assert that your input produces a different result than my input. I am willing to bet that anyone who is following this thread will produce results different from others using the same formula; at least that is the feedback I have gotten by email over the last two months.
As I have already stated-multiple times-my formula is using a database I purchased, not a public or online source, and so there may be differences in the results produced by the formula. This is of course the case with any formula that depends upon multiple inputs.
You chose to ignore this 'fact' in stating your conclusion, rather than accepting it as true and attempting to reconcile the differences for our mutual benefit. You are confusing the facts for the truth-or you have another motive.
You joined Covers this month and your only posts are on this page and they are all critical. It would not be unreasonable for an objective observer to conclude your true intent is disruption.
I welcome any post that is helpful.
Mark
0
Posted:
#245
sdiinc,
I definitely did not want to sound critical of you in any way. I can guarantee you are a lot smarter than me and made a lot more money with your predictinos. However, I definitely did want to be critical of the formula you quoted previously. I have read every word of this thread and understand that you are using a database that you have purchased. However you keep mentioning the complexity of this database at the same time you mention the simplicity of your formula. In all reality there is absolutely "Zero" chance that the formulas are as simple as
First formula: (PPGhome + ERAroad)/2 - (PPGroad + ERAhome)/2
Second formula: (PPGhome + ERAroad pitcher)/2 - (PPGroad + ERAhome pitcher)/2
Second formula: (PPGhome + ERAroad pitcher)/2 - (PPGroad + ERAhome pitcher)/2
I have no motives of disruption. The point of my post is simply to clear up the calculations. I do not think you are doing anything incorrectly, or misleading us, or doing anything negative at all. But it is an undeniable "Fact" that the formula you previously quoted is incomplete.
Using last night as an example. Kansas City's team ERA and team PPG at home were both higher than Seattle's team ERA and team PPG on the road. Furthermore, Carlos Silva's ERA on the road was significantly higher than Kyle Davies ERA at home. There is no way that any reasonable inputs could have created results indicating an advantage for Seattle.
0
Posted:
#249
Mark, you seem like a very intelligent and scientific thinking man.so I think you could appreciate what surfer is trying to say, which is:
the ppg for home team, ppg for road team, era home...... ect
all the components of your formulas are not subjective. They are and can only be in this universe 1 value and 1 value only.
whether you get your info from espn, covers, mlb, sportsline, or a paid for database the bottom line is that the cubs played 148 games in which they scored 790 runs which equals 5.33 ppg. period.
this is his confusion.
surfer... I believe that Mark is using a database with several years of data. Thats where lies the discrepancy . you will not get the same values using only this years stats .
I think.
so if each of you could respond with a simple yes if my thoughts in reference to each of you are correct, it will be all cleared up and we can move on.
mark, we do appreciate your hard work. but men need to fully understand something before we can totally buy into it. which is, I believe, what we all want to be able to do.
the ppg for home team, ppg for road team, era home...... ect
all the components of your formulas are not subjective. They are and can only be in this universe 1 value and 1 value only.
whether you get your info from espn, covers, mlb, sportsline, or a paid for database the bottom line is that the cubs played 148 games in which they scored 790 runs which equals 5.33 ppg. period.
this is his confusion.
surfer... I believe that Mark is using a database with several years of data. Thats where lies the discrepancy . you will not get the same values using only this years stats .
I think.
so if each of you could respond with a simple yes if my thoughts in reference to each of you are correct, it will be all cleared up and we can move on.
mark, we do appreciate your hard work. but men need to fully understand something before we can totally buy into it. which is, I believe, what we all want to be able to do.
0
Hot Forum Topics
