Originally posted by GoggsViggs
Can't wait til NFL!
Excerpt from Chad Millman blog: Finding Early Value in the NFL
So, where is the value if you still want to bet season win totals? Well, at the Hilton, bookmaker Jeff Sherman tells me the significant moves have been on the Bears (8.5), Bucs (8), Rams (7.5) and Giants (9.5) over. But, he also cautions, that hasn't been based on any handicapper's opinion. It's mostly because other books out there have slightly different totals and wiseguys are playing both sides.
Over at Lucky's, Jimmy Vaccaro reports that he's already moved the Bengals a full game down because he's had so much action on the under. He's also picked up a lot of action on the Cards and Vikes over, thanks to the additions of Messieurs Kolb and McNabb respectively. (Cards to win the division and Cards over Carolina in Week 1 have also gotten some play. Others getting Week 1 interest at Lucky's: Falcons as small faves over the Bears and Vikes, who opened plus-10 against the Chargers.)
The other day on my podcast I spoke with The SportsBoss, a finance professional himself who applies fancy money algorithms to handicapping models. He had the Steelers and Eagles both winning 12 games this year, a slight value on the 10.5 wins being offered by the Hilton. But the number he really liked was, in a contrarian move, Arizona under seven. This was his logic: "I'm not sold on Kolb at all. They won five games last year and I don't see a three-game improvement. They are still poor against the pass in yards per attempt and they traded their best corner in Rodgers-Cromartie. This year they also play non-division games against the NFC East and AFC North, which is tougher than the AFC West from last year. Under seven for the Cards is probably my top play."
I also checked in with Geoff Kulesa, of wunderdogsports.com. He uses a lot of systems and precedent to make his decisions, combined with some old fashioned pythag wins. He told me he liked "the Titans over seven wins and that has plus juice on it, right now. The reason I like that is a couple of things. I have a theme with this, and it's the same as my other stuff: How should they have done last year versus how did they actually do. If you look at them they had the biggest difference of actual wins versus pythag wins. They should have won 8.5 based on points scored and points allowed. Right now they are projected to win seven. According to pythag wins that is 1.5 games less. Also they had a huge change in schedule. They had the toughest schedule last year if you look at the win percentage of teams they played. This year they have the 23rd-easiest schedule, which is a reason they can outperform. They were also in top half of the league in offense and defense last year, that is consistent with eight or nine wins. I think seven wins is a low bar."
Kulesa also liked Denver and the over at 5.5 wins. "I think there will be some regression to the mean. When you do that badly you improve automatically. If you look at why they did poorly last year, minus-17 in turnovers, tied for worst in the league, they won't do that again. I also like a system in which you look at new coaches coming into a situation where the expectations are similar. Denver won four games last year. They should have won five based on the pythag. When you have a situation with a new coach and similar expectation for a team they almost always improve and do it at two to three games. That puts them in six or seven wins."
Excerpt from Chad Millman blog: Finding Early Value in the NFL
So, where is the value if you still want to bet season win totals? Well, at the Hilton, bookmaker Jeff Sherman tells me the significant moves have been on the Bears (8.5), Bucs (8), Rams (7.5) and Giants (9.5) over. But, he also cautions, that hasn't been based on any handicapper's opinion. It's mostly because other books out there have slightly different totals and wiseguys are playing both sides.
Over at Lucky's, Jimmy Vaccaro reports that he's already moved the Bengals a full game down because he's had so much action on the under. He's also picked up a lot of action on the Cards and Vikes over, thanks to the additions of Messieurs Kolb and McNabb respectively. (Cards to win the division and Cards over Carolina in Week 1 have also gotten some play. Others getting Week 1 interest at Lucky's: Falcons as small faves over the Bears and Vikes, who opened plus-10 against the Chargers.)
The other day on my podcast I spoke with The SportsBoss, a finance professional himself who applies fancy money algorithms to handicapping models. He had the Steelers and Eagles both winning 12 games this year, a slight value on the 10.5 wins being offered by the Hilton. But the number he really liked was, in a contrarian move, Arizona under seven. This was his logic: "I'm not sold on Kolb at all. They won five games last year and I don't see a three-game improvement. They are still poor against the pass in yards per attempt and they traded their best corner in Rodgers-Cromartie. This year they also play non-division games against the NFC East and AFC North, which is tougher than the AFC West from last year. Under seven for the Cards is probably my top play."
I also checked in with Geoff Kulesa, of wunderdogsports.com. He uses a lot of systems and precedent to make his decisions, combined with some old fashioned pythag wins. He told me he liked "the Titans over seven wins and that has plus juice on it, right now. The reason I like that is a couple of things. I have a theme with this, and it's the same as my other stuff: How should they have done last year versus how did they actually do. If you look at them they had the biggest difference of actual wins versus pythag wins. They should have won 8.5 based on points scored and points allowed. Right now they are projected to win seven. According to pythag wins that is 1.5 games less. Also they had a huge change in schedule. They had the toughest schedule last year if you look at the win percentage of teams they played. This year they have the 23rd-easiest schedule, which is a reason they can outperform. They were also in top half of the league in offense and defense last year, that is consistent with eight or nine wins. I think seven wins is a low bar."
Kulesa also liked Denver and the over at 5.5 wins. "I think there will be some regression to the mean. When you do that badly you improve automatically. If you look at why they did poorly last year, minus-17 in turnovers, tied for worst in the league, they won't do that again. I also like a system in which you look at new coaches coming into a situation where the expectations are similar. Denver won four games last year. They should have won five based on the pythag. When you have a situation with a new coach and similar expectation for a team they almost always improve and do it at two to three games. That puts them in six or seven wins."
i hate you Heath Bell!
sooo close.