Valuing Games

**brooks85** · 09-18-09, 11:30 AM

I agree with ya. There are times when I bet heavy when I really favor a play but usually all my plays are same size.

**M.W.** · 09-18-09, 11:54 AM

Why should anyone have one game rated higher than another? If you have 3 games slated as plays for the day why should any one of the games be a better value than another?

Because you believe one game has a better chance of covering than the other.

**wal66** · 09-18-09, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by M.W.

Because you believe one game has a better chance of covering than the other.

I guess the point we aren't connecting is why should any of the games you wager on have less of a chance to win than any other game? Why not ONLY wager the games that have the best chance at covering and then equally distribute the units?

**M.W.** · 09-18-09, 01:02 PM

I guess the point we aren't connecting is why should any of the games you wager on have less of a chance to win than any other game?

How can they not?

Why not ONLY wager the games that have the best chance at covering and then equally distribute the units?

The "best chance"? What does that mean? One thing it means is that you agree that different games have different chances of covering -- some have a good chance, some have a better chance, and some have "the best chance".

**wal66** · 09-18-09, 01:42 PM

Something is being lost in translation. Maybe I am the one who's not reading it correctly. You said some games have better chances of covering. I'm saying that is true so if certain games have a better chance to cover than others why even wager on the ones that don't have as good a cap'd chance of being a winner?
If you're playing 6 games on a weekend. # of the six are 5 unit plays and the rest are lessor unit plays because they in your opinion have less chance to cover meaning they are lessor value plays then why even risk any units on those plays at all. Why not increase the units on the STRONGER plays only and just play those 3 games?

**wal66** · 09-18-09, 01:43 PM

Oh and I'm not arguing I am merely trying to dialogue.

**sean1981** · 09-18-09, 02:49 PM

wal66,

I understand the argument that you are making, and I think it's a fairly well reasoned one: a game worth playing is worth playing 100% or not at all.

I'm going to have to go with a good old NOT SO FAST, MY FRIEND

It's nice to believe that every pick you make is a stone-cold lock, but that's not always the case. For money management reasons, analysis and evaluation reasons, and other concerns, I value games in different tiers.

For example, this week I played Cincinnati -1 at Oregon State as a .5 unit game. The majority of my plays this week are two unit games. But, as I explained in my thread, I don't have supreme confidence in Cincy laying points on the road against a major conference team. So, what am I left with? I really like this Cincy team and its coach. I think they have a solid shot at winning on the field, but the line wasn't favorable. It was a choice between abandoning the game altogether or making a judgment as to how to lessen my risk given the unfavorable line. Ultimately, I chose to play Cincy at 1/4 of the value I would have if they were say a three-point dog. If Cincy was getting 1.5 points, I would have bet them as a full two-unit play this week because my analysis would have been on the right side of the line.

Another, but slightly different, example is my East Carolina play this week. Coming into to the week, before the lines were posted, this is a game that I had circled as a possible upset special. Based on UNC's poll ranking, I was hoping to get somewhere in the neighborhood of ten points, but when the line came out at UNC -7 and basically did not move all week, I looked for better plays. That was until news broke that UNC's offensive line was decimated by injuries. Before the week, ECU was a green light. Once the lines came out, ECU was a red light. And now, with this news, they are yellow -- take with caution. For me, this means play the game that you liked at a discounted rate to lessen the risk.

So, to get to the bottom of these long-winded examples, I devalue based on several factors, but it usually leans on the line and/or money management, as opposed to a tout telling you to play 35* on its CFGOY based on a hunch. If I like a game, but some other factor like: (1) weather, (2) injury, (3) line movement, or (4) half-point lines comes into play, then I may have to devalue it rather than downright forget it.

**wal66** · 09-18-09, 03:55 PM

Good example sean and well presented.

**Cougar Bait** · 09-18-09, 05:19 PM

I use a system similar the one Pags uses, except I do value my plays differently here and there. I think I understand both points of view and each can be right. Let me explain. As long as you use a bankroll, instead of gambling with money that you may have to come up with if you lose, you can gradually increase your unit size as each week progresses as you get a better feel for the teams. Pags also decreases his unit size as the year comes to an end. Also, we differ when it comes to Bowl games. He doesn't play them. I can't not play them. I'll go through my leans when the lines come out and circle what I like. If I see a couple things during the week that peak more interest in a play, or if I see good cappers on the same side during the week, I might up the play. It has not worked this year as I have done worse on my 2 unit plays than I have on my 1 unit plays...but last year this worked really well. I guess we've got a few months to determine if my system is foolish. Nice post Wal, and some good points from Sean as well.

**M.W.** · 09-18-09, 05:21 PM

Something is being lost in translation. Maybe I am the one who's not reading it correctly. You said some games have better chances of covering. I'm saying that is true so if certain games have a better chance to cover than others why even wager on the ones that don't have as good a cap'd chance of being a winner?

Okay, that's a good question, if you're talking about games being played at the same time. The reason to spread your bets among several games is to diversify your portfolio so it's not all or nothing. That allows you to put more of your bankroll into play.

**wal66** · 09-18-09, 07:01 PM

M.W. there actually was something being lost in translation and it was on my part. I didn't clearly convey the example.

I mentioned three game scenerio so we'll use that but it can be any number of games throughout the entire day it doesn't matter.

Example A
Florida -21 (5-units)
Syracuse +3 (3-units)
Wake Forest -4.5 (1-units)

Why do I like Florida more than Wake Forest? I put the same effort in capping these games they qualified in my system as plays so why would I put more importance on Florida? Why wouldn't my card look more like this?

Example B
Florida -21 (3-units)
Syracuse +3 (3-units)
Wake Forest -4.5 (3-units)

If I lose the Florida game in example A but win the other two I lose $150 on a day when I picked 66% of my games correctly.

If I lose the Florida game in Example B but win the others I still win $90 on the day and I am rewarde for selecting 66%. Also and this can be equally as important here, should I lose 2 out of the three games I lose $120 on the day which is still less than example A.

I think I laid it out more clearly here. Explaining it doesn't make it any better or worse just gave me smething to do till the game starts.

**twincities77** · 09-18-09, 07:17 PM

If you get really good at the games statistically and with power rankings and have a large enough sample, you could conceivably have a very good idea on what % of the time each team should cover a particular line. The unit size (3 units, 2 units, whatever) is matched to this % as a means of bankroll management (Kelly Criterion I believe is the basis for it).

That said, I imagine most folks who post those numbers are effectively just pulling them out of their ass based on how strongly they feel the games should go.