 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Analysis of First Year Coaches ATS.
Really solid article.
http://coachesbythenumbers.com/ats-a...oaches-part-1/
Breaks down the ATS numbers of first year coaches by month, year, conference, AQ/Non-AQ. Great stuff. Good read. You don't want to be on the wrong side of their research.
-- Disclaimer: I have a subscription to the site, but this article is free --
Kind of a silly article. There's a reason why they went back to 2002.
2 games under breakeven @ -110 the last 5 seasons.
Presentation data mining FTW.
Last edited by MonkeyF0cker; 07-21-11 at 04:54 PM.
what is the reasoning for 2002 cut-off? You can find coaching changes and databases for prior to that.
why would the market not adjust for this? It's not like it's a secret.
No directly useful results, but I like the idea of characterizing CFB coach performance. I hope they follow up on it.
One season does not a trend make (they claim going 48, 49, 52, 35 ATS is a clear downward trend and it may go lower this year).
It kind of is a trend when the performance of a year is comprised of 300+ games right? All of the those games trended down. I think it was just poorly worded.Originally Posted by That Foreign Guy
As for the year, yeah, I wish they would have gone even further back than 2002. I guess they don't have the data.
Last edited by BoiseAndTheOver; 07-22-11 at 08:54 AM.
Yeah. Their whole website is dedicated to it.
Take a look at their Coach Gambling Profile:
http://coachesbythenumbers.com/coach...ach=Nick+Saban
Really neat stuff.
Why no mention of the rising "trend" from 2005-2009?
I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't fit their article.
much better to fade coaches in their last year, IMO
the August ATS record is encouraging.......not much else tho
Part 2 of their analysis is out.
http://coachesbythenumbers.com/ats-a...oaches-part-2/
Much more 'actionable' data in this one. It breaks down home and away. First part was a broad trend, but it looks like these guys have a few serious tips in this one.
From the website:
"In Part 2 of our analysis on First Year Coaches, we delve even deeper into their performance against the spread. When we start examining home and away trends, and factoring in opponent records, some pretty amazing statistics and trends start popping out."
That's all you need to know that the site's methodology is crap. It's just data mining trash, and I'm surprised Justin7 is letting this shill post here.
I think it's hilarious. Total failure in his attempt to promote it in the CFB forum last week and then he tries to sell its value to the mathematical modeling crowd, who are the most likely bettors to recognize garbage when they see it... I'm sure J7 will remove it shortly.
I love the way Boise State has managed to use the expert spam technique of unbiased third party recommendation.
Because their data set only goes back to 2002. If they were really interested in this, they'd go back to at least 1993 with the last major rules change.
Mostly useless "datamining" crap. Wrong use of the word, but the point holds, IMO.
On the other hand, binning coaches in some fashion as to capability has some value.
Reply With Quote