SHIRLEY'S LINES

Hello to everyone, and many thanks for the continued support.

Since we have had numerous requests for the opportunity to purchase our numbers, I would quickly like to address that issue. As I have stated many times before, we have no interest in selling our numbers or our totals projections. We are absolutely flattered at the number of requests received, but unfortunately, it is not in our best interest to pursue this path. We simply are too busy with our business, with several new and exciting opportunities on the horizon.

We still post daily on a private site, and have beeen doing so for over 7 years now. All of our history is documented on this site. If perhaps you have the "luxury" of being a member, you have access to our selections on a daily basis. The cost is zero, and our 7+ year record speaks for itself.

Let's get on with todays lines.

ODU       5.1
Purdue    1.8
Florida  12.1
Denver    8.8
Richmond  8.1
Clemson   0.7
Temple   12.6
Maryland  8.2
Wisconsin 9.6
Duke     20.1
UCLA      1.1

Our last posting (Sunday 2/13) provided astonishing results. Everyone should have gone 3-0 as St johns, Purdue and Xavier were all outright underdog winners, and the other 3 games posted, Duke, Rider and St Joes fell exactly on our predicted number. Amazing.

I also saw that a number of you had played all 6 of our games in combinations of parlays, etc. Congratulations on your wins, but this is not our recommended wagering suggestion, as the lower expectancy received from the other wagers, IMO, is simply not worth the risk. The Duke line was provided for information purposes only. Stick with our methods and the model. Don't unneccesarily risk money.

Looking over my notes, I see that our posting record on this site is 63.2%. This was after a somewhat abysmal start, but we have rebounded rather nicely in here. It's not 67%, but it's getting closer. It should be obvous to all by now that we have a winning method that probably has a low end hit rate of at least 60%. This can be proven by a number of discrete and continous statistical testing methods. Our handicapping model should satisfy even the most discriminating of handicappers.

The past week was a winning week for our model hitting 23 of 37 games while our totals showed a profit of 13.6 units. Our "dead time" theory games ( a subset of our totals) also went 5-0. We're not counting these wins for the posting record on this site, and are just provided for informational purposes. However, all of these selections can be verified on the private site we post on.

If you don't know what I am referring to when I mention "dead time", reread my post and try to understand the concept. It's thinking out of the box a bit, but opportunity to wager on these games is as close to printing money that you will find in sports wagering. The linesmakers simply underestimate the totals in the matchups by a median of over 10.5%. This theory does not work as well in the pros, because the ratio of forced action to dead time is larger due to the 24 second clock vs the 35 second shot clock that exists in college. If there was a 60 second shot clock, I suspect my theory would even yield superior results, although I can't be sure.

On a personal note, we will be travelling to a number of states over the next 2 weeks, and will most likely be unable to post on this site, my apologies. Our business is taking off again, and a new opportunity to have partial ownership in a small, but very profitable, firm has presented itself. I promise to at least provide lines for day 1 of the tournament. Don't wager until you see our numbers. I will most likely take day 1 off from work. We should have a couple of surprises, and I'm looking forward to sharing these with you.

Did anyone see Watson humiliate the other 2 Jeapordy Champions last week? I personally know a 5 time Jeapordy winner, and he told me he wants nothing to do with Mr. Watson. The point I am making is that computers have given us the tool to research and employ methods that were simply not available 20-30 years ago. While in college, we "crashed" the IBM mainframe many times with our blackjack and sports handicapping simulations. Our conference multiple regression analysis models would take over 3.5 hours to run, while using a large percentage of the available resources. Now, in 2011, they take a total of 17 minutes! If you think that a computer can't outperform a human, you might wish to rethink your stance on the subject. For us, the computer provides the ability to quantify variables with uncanny accuracy, that simply wasn't possible 30 years ago.

Again, because it is a slow Sunday, the lines are close to our projections. My suggestion is to use my numbers to reinforce games you already have an opinion on. There are 4 or 5 winning handicappers in this forum, so maybe for today, take their picks and play the games where my numbers point you in the same direction. I could list their names here, but it would be inappropriate, and I might leave someone out by mistake. All of you should know who they are by now.

I wish everyone success, and I will not be able to respond to posts, because there is only so much time in a day.

Please try to remember, all of the above information is coming from a girl wearing a dunce cap. Always keep that in mind.

Best wishes,

Shirley

As if you didn't have enough to think about already, I wanted to share my thoughts on something, and how it pertains to game wagering after a selection has been made.

Since ours prediction method is a method which involves a muti-dimensional analysis, on many planes, games where the pointspread is the highest, would also most likely inolve more risk. The reason is that as we approach our predicted number and the bookies number, we approach an area where there is an abundance of entropy (in the statistical use of the term), and this entropy should increase as the spread and our prediction approach higher absolute numbers, thus adding to the disorder or "confusion" in the predicted outcome.

What does this mean? I think a 1 - 6.50 point underdog, on average, is a superior wager than an 7+ point underdog. We usually make our largest plays on 6 1/2 point underdogs or less.

For the same reasons, we like large favorites, all the time remembering that there is an inherent underdog-favorite bias going against us.

Shirley

For the record, my selections floundered on this site initially, hovering around 47%. Although, ironically, doing well in sides, mostly totals were posted here as selections. Additionally, highly correlated wagers were made as well, thus compounding the negative expectancy on losing selections.

Since then, we have posted a record of 56-20 on sides, yielding a combined 63.2%  WITHOUT POSTING ANY FURTHER CORRELATED WAGERS. If we had, we would be in the area of 95-34. That's a rather nice area. Common sense should tell you that.

In my opinion, and that of most of the people on thi site, we have provided members of this forum with some valuable information that they can use as a tool in conjuction with their selections, all for a fee of ZERO. I think that's a pretty good deal. Sometimes entertainment is also provided, also free of charge.

There will always be a subversive element on this site, and it's simply unavoidable as you have a cross section of people that frequent. Some are probably even employees or paid handicappers. It's not to difficult to see the hidden agenda employed here. IT'S EVEN THAT OBVIOUS TO A DUNCE! That certinly would provide an explanation of comments made by the same people in many threads throught this website, and the staffs condoning of these individuals and their behavior.

This is what you should learn to expect on a public forum, thus it loses its attractiveness in the "sharing of information" process. If these same individuals could constructively comment on a game, and share their wealth of knowledge, it would be appreciated and welcomed by the entire covers community. I'm sure that a number of posters share my views on the issue described above.

Please take notice that I am stating this all before the 1PM EST games have started.

Personally, I would like to see that short little chubby person darn a dunce cap, since he is the one MOST deserving of it. However, I certainly wouldn't lend him mine, for fear of lice!

This will be my final posting of the day.

Shirley

I'm not sure hwat happened to the original thread. Perhaps I struck a nerve, somewhere. Ya' think?

I just wanted to repost the lines, in case people didn't write them down. The covers community should at least have access to the numbers

It's probably better this way, without all of the excessive "noise" that goes on in a thread sometimes.

Shirley

The Private website is a "members only" group. you must be recommended by another member to gain access.

It consists of a small group of "investors" that share information about worldwide positive expectation events. The group consists of a few authors, as well as experts in many fields, including financial markets.

If you're not already a member, it's highly unlikely that anyone could become one. The recommendation process is the hitch. You need to display a high level of expertise in some area, then voted in, while all the while proving your worth, and also passing the test of not being a "spy" for the house.

I will have tournament lines posted for day 1. Don't worry.

Shirley

Members only

Why are you here at Covers then?

If your group hits almost 70% i'm puzzled of why you would waste your time here.

I tried to use your system for 2nd half bets, this was done using the same coralation for full game bets that were not considered "safe" this worked very well.

fantastic you do your own lines, advise to contact information, appreciate your time. 

I'm loving your lines Shirley....any chance u could send me a peek @ some for today or tomorrow?  Text, e-mail, carrier pigeon ????  You are my top source...thx either way!