[bluetooth3]

Not sure how many of you were able to see this last year, but if you were to fade the Hilton Supercontest top 5, you would be hitting at 60% late into the season.

Top 5 picks for tomorrow

TB -2
Pitts -6.5
Tenn +3.5
Det -5.5
Saints -3


Best of luck!

[Snake24]

Don't you have the Falcons as your pick on another thread.

[bluetooth3]

Don't you have the Falcons as your pick on another thread.

Yes falcons and browns. Which is good. The above picks are the top 5 picks selected in the contest. So fading them was successful last season.

[bluetooth3]

So far, if you were to FADE the top 5 picks, you would be 3-1 right now with the last game pending on the Lions -5.5, so either going to be a 60% or 80% opening week for the FADE of the Top 5 Hilton Picks

[aznjeff07]

interesting. keep them coming weekly

[Greg242]

interesting. keep them coming weekly

Agreed! Thanks!

[greypimps]

Lmfao man u guys sucks. Please dont give bad picks especially with that tb shit.. cmon panthers with or without starting qb still better than bucks.

[slacker00]

Lmfao man u guys sucks. Please dont give bad picks especially with that tb shit.. cmon panthers with or without starting qb still better than bucks.

These were plays from last week, these games already happened. OP seems to have done ok with his idea so far.

[Blannewk]

Idea is to FADE, read the thread...

Lmfao man u guys sucks. Please dont give bad picks especially with that tb shit.. cmon panthers with or without starting qb still better than bucks.

[crackerjack]

Lmfao man u guys sucks. Please dont give bad picks especially with that tb shit.. cmon panthers with or without starting qb still better than bucks.

Reading comprehension fail

[Meestermike]

Reading comprehension fail

All I can say is read it thoroughly...

[bluetooth3]

So after week 1, if you were to FADE the top 5 picks:

3-2 60%


I'll have this every week as soon as the picks are in

[Greg242]

So after week 1, if you were to FADE the top 5 picks:

3-2 60%


I'll have this every week as soon as the picks are in

I know you said last year you would be at 60% early in the season, how did it play out if you faded for the entire season?

[bluetooth3]

Last season if you were to FADE the top 5, you would have hit at 58%. This comes after the Top 5 picks went 11-4 to finish the season. So they top 5 were hot the final 3 weeks of the season and that dropped it below the 60%. So before Week 15, you would have been hitting at above 60%!

[bluetooth3]

Week 2...Again, the plan is to FADE the Top 5...FADE

NE -3
SD +6
BUF +1
SF -6.5
DET +3

Best of luck!

[aznjeff07]

4/5 of those picks are picks by

DAVID FROHARDT LANE-1 BUF WAS NE KC PHI
DAVID FROHARDT LANE-2 DET DAL NE STL SD

he supposedly hits 58%

[Greg242]

Week 2...Again, the plan is to FADE the Top 5...FADE

NE -3
SD +6
BUF +1
SF -6.5
DET +3

Best of luck!

Thanks!

[Greg242]

4/5 of those picks are picks by

DAVID FROHARDT LANE-1 BUF WAS NE KC PHI
DAVID FROHARDT LANE-2 DET DAL NE STL SD

he supposedly hits 58%

No one gives a fck idiot

[POOLSIDE]

Week 2...Again, the plan is to FADE the Top 5...FADE

NE -3
SD +6
BUF +1
SF -6.5
DET +3

Best of luck!

I'd exclude New England from this list, it's an anomaly. Supercontest freezes the line Wednesday. They get to make their picks after the AP arrest news but with the line from before it happened. Doesn't apply to us I don't think, no matter what the outcome of the game.

[aznjeff07]

No one gives a fck idiot

I appreciate your input. You contribute much to the thought process of picks. Actually, you contributed nothing....

[bluetooth3]

I'd exclude New England from this list, it's an anomaly. Supercontest freezes the line Wednesday. They get to make their picks after the AP arrest news but with the line from before it happened. Doesn't apply to us I don't think, no matter what the outcome of the game.

Agreed. I was surprised to see SD on there. I actually liked SD today but now that they are on here, no play. I did like Car and Chi before I saw this. So those two look like plays.

[bluetooth3]

Thanks!

Let's cash!

[jhack704]

Vikings will win today. Ne easiest public fade on the card

[bluetooth3]

So this week the Hilton top 5 went 3-2. A couple of the games, BUF and SD looked like the "sharp side with the public being on Miami and Seattle. Quite interesting to see these 2 were in the top 5. After 2 weeks, if you were to FADE:

5-5 50%

[bluetooth3]

Remember, the play is to FADE these top 5 picks. For this week, there are 6 because the 5th pick was a tied. On the season the top 5 is 5-5.

Redskins +6.5
Colts -6.5
Giants +2
Bengals -6.5
Dallas -1.5
Bills -2.5

[POOLSIDE]

I believe this is only volume, correct? As in, 380 people chose blah blah, 354 chose blah blah. Have you ever considered looking at the percentages? I feel like there could be value here. Bear with me.

For example, at a glance, I think the number one fade this week should be Indy. Yes, 373 took Washington and only 352 took Indy, but look at the other side of those games. 123 people chose Philadelphia while only 96 chose Jacksonville. Broken down into percentages of the people who chose each game, those two games look like this:

Washington - 75.2%
Philadelphia - 24.8%

Indianapolis - 78.5%
Jacksonville - 21.5%

Clearly, OF THE PEOPLE WHO PICKED THESE GAMES, a slightly higher percentage felt comfortable betting on Indy.

This might not be the best example, as the two sets of numbers are close either way. However, the percentage can be relevant.

As an example, let's say 373 people chose Washington and they were the most popular pick. But let's also say that 338 people chose Philadelphia and they were the sixth most popular pick, which would not have made the top five list. According to this, we'd be fading Washington and selecting Philly. But these numbers are so close to 50/50 that I don't see any value either way.

On the other hand, let's pretend (to be clear, I'm making these numbers up) only 235 people chose Washington. This wouldn't make the list. For the other side of that game, let's say only 25 people chose Philly. That says less that 10% of the people that chose this game, chose Philly. That seems like a relevant number, but only time will tell.

I'll do a percentage breakdown for all the games in another post. It'll take a minute, but hopefully it'll be worth it. I'll also list them in order of largest percentile discrepancy to least, which would hypothetically be a fancy way of saying most relevant to least relevant.

[bluetooth3]

I believe this is only volume, correct? As in, 380 people chose blah blah, 354 chose blah blah. Have you ever considered looking at the percentages? I feel like there could be value here. Bear with me.

For example, at a glance, I think the number one fade this week should be Indy. Yes, 373 took Washington and only 352 took Indy, but look at the other side of those games. 123 people chose Philadelphia while only 96 chose Jacksonville. Broken down into percentages of the people who chose each game, those two games look like this:

Washington - 75.2%
Philadelphia - 24.8%

Indianapolis - 78.5%
Jacksonville - 21.5%

Clearly, OF THE PEOPLE WHO PICKED THESE GAMES, a slightly higher percentage felt comfortable betting on Indy.

This might not be the best example, as the two sets of numbers are close either way. However, the percentage can be relevant.

As an example, let's say 373 people chose Washington and they were the most popular pick. But let's also say that 338 people chose Philadelphia and they were the sixth most popular pick, which would not have made the top five list. According to this, we'd be fading Washington and selecting Philly. But these numbers are so close to 50/50 that I don't see any value either way.

On the other hand, let's pretend (to be clear, I'm making these numbers up) only 235 people chose Washington. This wouldn't make the list. For the other side of that game, let's say only 25 people chose Philly. That says less that 10% of the people that chose this game, chose Philly. That seems like a relevant number, but only time will tell.

I'll do a percentage breakdown for all the games in another post. It'll take a minute, but hopefully it'll be worth it. I'll also list them in order of largest percentile discrepancy to least, which would hypothetically be a fancy way of saying most relevant to least relevant.

Believe it or not, but I have thought about that. I also use that approach with myself when looking at the amount of selections for each team. I like looking at the 5 least plays and trying to argue for that side with the same mindset that you have. I havent broken it down though like you are talking about, but that would be something worth paying attention to.

Now since it is just sheer volume, the Hilton Top 5 were mainly square picks or lines that shifted dramatically for one reason or another. But I have seen that this week and last week, some of the top 5 games are actually pretty decent spots to fade the public (Buffalo at 36%, Giants at 38%) and in these games I am quite torn because it crosses out plays that I like. It is still early in the season and since the Hilton Top 5 were so brutal last year, still trying to roll off that success. But I like your approach and thats a good plan to take.

[POOLSIDE]

Here it is. I'm guessing the idea would be to fade the teams with the highest percentages, but I wouldn't suggest anyone make a bet based solely on that. At least, not this week. Let's look back at it (no jokes please) Monday and see if it means anything.

IND - 78.5%
JAX - 21.5%

WAS - 75.2%
PHI - 24.8%

NO - 74.4%
MIN - 25.6%

CHI - 68.4%
NYJ - 31.6%

SEA - 68.1%
DEN - 31.9%

CIN - 67.7%
TEN - 32.3%

KC - 66.5%
MIA - 33.5%

SF - 64.0%
ARI - 36.0%

NYG - 63.8%
HOU - 36.2%

BAL - 60.6%
CLE - 39.4%

DAL - 60.6%
STL - 39.4%

NE - 59.2%
OAK - 40.8

BUF - 56.6%
SD - 43.4%

CAR - 54.3%
PIT - 45.7%

GB - 53.6%
DET - 46.4%

[POOLSIDE]

Believe it or not, but I have thought about that. I also use that approach with myself when looking at the amount of selections for each team. I like looking at the 5 least plays and trying to argue for that side with the same mindset that you have. I havent broken it down though like you are talking about, but that would be something worth paying attention to.

Now since it is just sheer volume, the Hilton Top 5 were mainly square picks or lines that shifted dramatically for one reason or another. But I have seen that this week and last week, some of the top 5 games are actually pretty decent spots to fade the public (Buffalo at 36%, Giants at 38%) and in these games I am quite torn because it crosses out plays that I like. It is still early in the season and since the Hilton Top 5 were so brutal last year, still trying to roll off that success. But I like your approach and thats a good plan to take.

Interesting that you brought up Buffalo. While they were the fifth most selected team, San Diego also got a good amount of selections. From a percentage standpoint, that's the game with the third least amount of useful information. It doesn't (in theory) mean one thing or another about which side to choose. It's just basically, no information. Although it is interesting that so many people felt strongly enough about one side to choose the game, yet those feelings were almost a 50/50 split.

[gs]

Just fyi yesterday I faded to consensus top nine picks in college football betting and went 7-2, so I believe fading the Hilton will show a profit in the long run

[R.P. McMurphy]

I honestly see NOTHING sharp at all about fading Saints or Indy. Both far superior to their opponents and in all likelihood both will be 1-2 by end of day. Especially Saints the Thunderdome will be crazy today and Minny lost their best option on offense by far. Enjoy hoping Cassel can backdoor cover a shootout in Nola while whiteknuckling your remote for 3+ hours.

[bluetooth3]

I honestly see NOTHING sharp at all about fading Saints or Indy. Both far superior to their opponents and in all likelihood both will be 1-2 by end of day. Especially Saints the Thunderdome will be crazy today and Minny lost their best option on offense by far. Enjoy hoping Cassel can backdoor cover a shootout in Nola while whiteknuckling your remote for 3+ hours.

Not sure where you got the saints/Vikings play from. Neither of those are in this weeks Hilton Top 5

[R.P. McMurphy]

Was just referring to highest %'s the public is on that Poolside posted. If I were just blindly fading the public those 2 I would probably stay clear of. See quite a few guys on them but nobody has given a football reason lol. Nothing to do with Hilton plays sorry for confusion. GL

[POOLSIDE]

I honestly see NOTHING sharp at all about fading Saints or Indy. Both far superior to their opponents and in all likelihood both will be 1-2 by end of day. Especially Saints the Thunderdome will be crazy today and Minny lost their best option on offense by far. Enjoy hoping Cassel can backdoor cover a shootout in Nola while whiteknuckling your remote for 3+ hours.

Slow down and read. I simply posted percentages so we could see if there's any value. Jeez. I even said not to make bets based on this and to just wait and see. Sorry for taking time to post something that may end up being valuable. My bad.

[jhack704]

Just fyi yesterday I faded to consensus top nine picks in college football betting and went 7-2, so I believe fading the Hilton will show a profit in the long run

What site u use?