Can old school handicapping beat the line?

[Jimmy Beamish]

[winnerloser]

huh

[bitcoinLuke]

Define old school handicapping

[Gaze73]

You bet!

[agendaman]

no not in the long run

[stevenash]

no not in the long run

Disagree.

[tsty]

How many models stay unchanged for a few months let alone a year?

The answer is obviously no

If i was betting 20 years ago with the knowledge i have now i would be a billionaire

[gojetsgomoxies]

i've never understood this........... is selectively beating the final line that difficult?

i'm pretty sure you could come up with a model to beat the final line......... but can you beat -110? and on enough games to lower variance

[gojetsgomoxies]

and my comment might not have related to "old school handicapping"......... might be someone with simply a good feel. a good feel for sentiment. momentum and awesome/horrible teams.

[stevenash]

How many models stay unchanged for a few months let alone a year?

The answer is obviously no

If i was betting 20 years ago with the knowledge i have now i would be a billionaire

Handicapping methods haven’t changed over the years.
The big difference is how fast we can access information today ad opposed to say 20 years ago.

Like I said handicapping methods have held pretty much steady through the years.
In 1980 you would start handicapping a MLB game with starting pitching first.
In 2020 you still start handicapping a MLB with starting pitching.
What’s the old MLB adage about momentum?

NFL handicapping it still begins with QB, the d an o-lines too.
Hasn’t changed much.
And Parcells has been saying forever if you win 2 of these 3 categories you win the game.
Offense, defense, and special teams.

[tsty]

Not sure what you are talking about but those 30k posts seem to have gone to waste

[stevenash]

Not sure what you are talking about but those 30k posts seem to have gone to waste

I’ll simplify it for you.
Handicapping fundamentals haven’t changed much over the years.

And what does the amount of posts have to do with anything?

[jtoler]

if u mean taking the best color format or the stronger mascot then yes. love matchups between say the lions against the cardinals because a lion can eat a bird but lions against chargers take chargers because a lion is no match against a lightning bolt

[Believe_EMT]

still not sure what OP is looking for. however, here is some secret sauce to remind everyone how simple handicapping can be for the nfl. i don't have my numbers handy, and have not tracked it for a few years, but even from a common sense standpoint this one works. add volume to overcome turnovers, which ruin the best laid plans.

i don't want to misquote myself. i'll try to look through my older posts from years back. hold please, will check my files.

[stevenash]

still not sure what OP is looking for. however, here is some secret sauce to remind everyone how simple handicapping can be for the nfl. i don't have my numbers handy, and have not tracked it for a few years, but even from a common sense standpoint this one works. add volume to overcome turnovers, which ruin the best laid plans.

i don't want to misquote myself. i'll try to look through my older posts from years back. hold please, will check my files.

Another so simple it even makes sense to a caveman handicapping weapon (for lack of a better word) I learned was in the NFL 68 percent of the time teams over .500 cover the line against teams under .500

Or in other words good teams not only beat but cover against bad teams.

i wonder if 30,000 posts went to waste in this post?

[Believe_EMT]

ok, this data covers 2006 - 2014 season. this ish is not rocket science.

NFL teams that win ITS win

SU 1,281 - 614 67% winners

ATS 1,161 - 695 63% winners

it is that fukking easy. accurately forecast yardage totals, add a fukkton of volume to limit impact of turnovers, count your money.

anyone want to collect the data for the last 4+ season of SU and ATS records for ITS winners?

of course this makes sense, the team that gains more yards wins more often than the other team. keep it simple fellas.

[tsty]

Time to stop posting ey

It's not as fun when people can't even string together a coherent sentence

[stevenash]

ok, this data covers 2006 - 2014 season. this ish is not rocket science.

NFL teams that win ITS win

SU 1,281 - 614 67% winners

ATS 1,161 - 695 63% winners

it is that fukking easy. accurately forecast yardage totals, add a fukkton of volume to limit impact of turnovers, count your money.

anyone want to collect the data for the last 4+ season of SU and ATS records for ITS winners?

of course this makes sense, the team that gains more yards wins more often than the other team. keep it simple fellas.

Another fun fact I learned is roughly 2 out of 3 times a team that attempts 40 or more passes in a game loses that game. (Discounting games where both teams attempt 40 passes)

[Believe_EMT]

Time to stop posting ey
It's not as fun when people can't even string together a coherent sentence

unsure where that is directed. but i clearly just proved to you that in the nfl, the team that gains more yardage both wins and covers that game over 60% of the time. it doesn't get any more basic than that. we can debate how useful those numbers are and the best approach to leverage any value, if any exists.

if you don't understand the difference between SU (straight up) and ATS (against the spread) winners, i'm going to begin questioning your sports investing acumen.

[stevenash]

unsure where that is directed. but i clearly just proved to you that in the nfl, the team that gains more yardage both wins and covers that game over 60% of the time. it doesn't get any more basic than that. we can debate how useful those numbers are and the best approach to leverage any value, if any exists.

if you don't understand the difference between SU (straight up) and ATS (against the spread) winners, i'm going to begin questioning your sports investing acumen.

Let it go, he’s just another SBR troll.

[chilidog]

ok, this data covers 2006 - 2014 season. this ish is not rocket science.

NFL teams that win ITS win

SU 1,281 - 614 67% winners

ATS 1,161 - 695 63% winners

it is that fukking easy. accurately forecast yardage totals, add a fukkton of volume to limit impact of turnovers, count your money.

anyone want to collect the data for the last 4+ season of SU and ATS records for ITS winners?

of course this makes sense, the team that gains more yards wins more often than the other team. keep it simple fellas.

What are ITS winners?

[BeatTheJerk]

Define old school handicapping

Using a fukKing newspaper to cap games.

[Jimmy Beamish]

Define old school handicapping

Well, anything not involving mathematical models or computer simulation. Basically watching the games, doing your research and making your own line based on what you think/imagine will -- most likely -- happen.

[Gaze73]

ok, this data covers 2006 - 2014 season. this ish is not rocket science.

NFL teams that win ITS win

SU 1,281 - 614 67% winners

ATS 1,161 - 695 63% winners

it is that fukking easy. accurately forecast yardage totals, add a fukkton of volume to limit impact of turnovers, count your money.

anyone want to collect the data for the last 4+ season of SU and ATS records for ITS winners?

of course this makes sense, the team that gains more yards wins more often than the other team. keep it simple fellas.

Is this a troll? If it's that easy, 1. Why aren't you making millions on NFL?, 2. Why didn't the efficient market figure it out by now?

NFL 68 percent of the time teams over .500 cover the line against teams under .500

Same questions for you. Betting on a good team against a bad team is the most obvious thing a guy who made his first ever bet in NFL would do. Yet somehow most people don't even hit 50%.

[Bsims]

Another fun fact I learned is roughly 2 out of 3 times a team that attempts 40 or more passes in a game loses that game. (Discounting games where both teams attempt 40 passes)

I did my first computer analysis 50 years ago. It was an attempt to predict NFL scores from past box scores. I used multiple linear regression to assign a co-efficient to each statistic. I was surprised and disappointed with the results. The most important factor in a team's score was the number of the opponent's turnovers. This was followed by their turnovers (obviously a negative factor). These two are the least predictable factors. The third factor was a team's rushing yards. Another surprise was a team's passing yards had a negative co-efficient. I pondered this for a while finally concluded that when a team was losing, they started passing more.

Those box scores were back in the 1960's. It would be interesting to run the analysis again. The NFL has become more of a passing game and I suspect the passing yards would have a positive co-efficient today.

[stevenash]

Is this a troll? If it's that easy, 1. Why aren't you making millions on NFL?, 2. Why didn't the efficient market figure it out by now?





Same questions for you. Betting on a good team against a bad team is the most obvious thing a guy who made his first ever bet in NFL would do. Yet somehow most people don't even hit 50%.

Most sports bettors struggle to win 50 percent is because they usually make stupid bets like teasers and parlays instead of just staying with single flat bets.

i doubt you follow my threads if you did I just went 12-1 in 13 picks across three weeks flat betting only.
It can be done.

[Gaze73]

Most sports bettors struggle to win 50 percent is because they usually make stupid bets like teasers and parlays instead of just staying with single flat bets.

i doubt you follow my threads if you did I just went 12-1 in 13 picks across three weeks flat betting only.
It can be done.

No. Look at the Pick 6 contest. Overall record 47081-48288-1415 49.37 %. Every year it's exactly like that. Why don't people just bet on the top teams against the bottom teams to hit 68%? Probably because the spreads are in double digits and win 49%.

[stevenash]

No. Look at the Pick 6 contest. Overall record 47081-48288-1415 49.37 %. Every year it's exactly like that. Why don't people just bet on the top teams against the bottom teams to hit 68%? Probably because the spreads are in double digits and win 49%.

Just for shits and giggles I’ll try to track the remaining NFL games here just tracking teams above .500 playing teams below .500

We have:

Ravens -14.5 over Jets
Pats -10 over Bengals
Seahawks -6 over Panthers
SF -12 Falcons
Rams (even) Cowboys
Vikings -1 Chargers
Saints -10.5 Colts

I have just targeted seven NFL games this weekend.
To turn a profit one would have to go 4-3 or better.
400 dollars collected on the winners, 315 (using -105 reduced juice) paid out for the three losers.
85 dollar modest profit would be the result.

Now I would narrow those aforementioned seven games down to what I think would be the top three bets (no more than three since I don’t like to volume bet)

I would eliminate the Pats game because that’s the exception to the rule.
Depending on how far back you want to go in history double digit home dogs usually cover around 56 to 58 percent of the time. (This is not a precise number)
The Bengals are double digit dogs right now.

Now I’m down to six games I’m looking at.
At first glance I think the Cowboy game could go either way and for now I’m eliminating that game.
I have all week to look at the other five games but at first glance the Seahawks looks like a real solid play.

Vikings look like a good play too.

[bitcoinLuke]

Well, anything not involving mathematical models or computer simulation. Basically watching the games, doing your research and making your own line based on what you think/imagine will -- most likely -- happen.

Thank you.

And no, that doesn't work anymore.

[Jimmy Beamish]

Thank you.

And no, that doesn't work anymore.

[tsty]

it was more fun trolling danshan since he had a slight clue

even gaze to a certain degree

but this steven guy might be the dumbest oyster in this section lol

how do you bet for over 10 years with 30k posts on a sportsbetting forum and just be so wrong?

[Gaze73]

it was more fun trolling danshan since he had a slight clue

even gaze to a certain degree

but this steven guy might be the dumbest oyster in this section lol

how do you bet for over 10 years with 30k posts on a sportsbetting forum and just be so wrong?

Don't you disrespect Steve-o, he hits 68% in NFL!

[rustie]

Don't you disrespect Steve-o, he hits 68% in NFL!

And you sir hit 100% of the bets you post after the fact !