[Adnakol]

Hi, I am new to the forum. Some great stuff in here..

My question is about the accuscore custom simulations. It is apparent that their normal sims don't provide much value. However, has anybody used the custom sims to input their own calculated values? Is this something worth looking into, or is it better to use Monte Carlo software? Thanks in advance for the input.

[Pokerjoe]

Honestly, I don't think you will ever find value from any public rating or score estimate. It's simple econ: if it's public, and it works, word will spread, and the value will be bet out of it.

I'll go further and suggest that all publicly released ratings, systems or estimates are ONLY released because they DON'T work.

For years and years, I've seen people post questions like yours on various boards. Here on this sub-forum alone right now there's a guy asking for help getting started "successfully capping the NFL," and another "looking for reliable baseball handicapping program".

Well, aren't we all.

I'm not meaning to pick on any of you guys, you all sincerely want help. But does it occur to any of you that what you're really asking for is free money?

Trying to help someone beat this game is pointless. You can beat this game in two ways: by gut-capping, or math-capping. If the former, it can't be taught. If the latter, it can't be shared.

What can be shared is tips and info on betting. Ganchrow's calculators are great for this. And betting is an important part of being a winning player (obviously, by "capping" I mean, deciding what bet to make, and by "betting" I mean deciding how, how much, and where to wager; not that the decisions are entirely mutually exclusive)

But though capping opinions can be shared, capping systems can't.

This isn't my regular forum, so I hope I'm not out of line here. But I wonder if people are even thinking about what they're asking. I know the comeback: "if you don't want to help, just STFU!" But the thing is, I think anyone claiming to "help" people looking for systems aren't actually helping at all, and that my point in this post, actually, is the most helpful advice in the long run. You might even say that I'm only telling you what I wish someone had told me ten years ago.

Nobody smart enough to develop a system that beats sportsbetting is going to be dumb enough to destroy it by trying to share it. And notice I said "try" to share. "Actually" sharing a value-finding system isn't really even possible for very long. It would be like trying to slake a man's thirst with water in a sieve.

But good luck going forward, and certainly feel free to ignore me and seek a gravy train. I'm sometimes wrong.

[losturmarbles]

Pokerjoe

post of the year.

[Adnakol]

I agree with most of what you said PokerJoe. Thanks for taking the time with you lengthy reply, however you came nowhere near answering my question. I have my own methods of calculating Expected Values of many stats, and right now I use a pure Expected Value spreadsheet. I am looking to incorporate simulation into my final numbers. I do not want accuscore to give me a winner based on their estimates. I already posted that there is no value in that. I am wondering if I enter my own unique calculated values into the CUSTOM simulator would a good result follow. So maybe you misunderstood my original post and train of thought. Anyone out there who can answer my question?

[Pokerjoe]

No, I understand. But what can anyone tell you? What do you think anyone would tell you? If it would work, they aren't going to say so on a public forum and get hundreds of geeks like me chasing down the right weights (not that hundreds of geeks like me haven't chased all that down long ago; playing with the weights and variables is a right of passage in this biz).

But even if someone here tells you "yeah, it will work," that doesn't mean anything either, because it's a little hard to trust anyone else's work (though not impossible) because there's so, so much really bad work being done in this field. You can read this and other forums and see how clueless the average bettor is, even the average math-capper (this is actually a good forum, btw; not meaning to disparage it).

Accuscore's custom simulator is a public score estimate. But do you doubt that Accuscore themselves haven't bothered with the simple challenge of backfiguring every combination of every weight of every variable? Don't you think that was the first thing they did when they built their DB and program? Their approach strikes me as fairly vanilla datamining. Their public estimate is itself most likely just the best backfit.

Look at Statfox. Twominutewarning. Covers. Others. All good work. All a fail. So, now, public. Build a great DB and accessing program? Doesn't work? Put it on the web and recoup your investment.

There's no money lying on the ground. If it's easy, obvious and public, it isn't going to work. And playing with the variables and weights in a custom simulator is that.

But I'm not actually much meaning to dissuade you from trying things out. Like others here, I enjoy playing with numbers. Looking for the system is fun, and that has value for its own sake. Good luck with your idea.

[accuscoresucks]

fuk accuscore
accu as a semi-usefull tool
develope your own software ie;model,ones with sos# are the best and carry good roi

praise poker joe the new poster of the year with an most exellent answer provided

[Adnakol]

Thanks accusucks... I was leaning towards developing my own software, just wanted to make sure there wasn't a better way to go.

[BigCap]

To get at the heart of your question, I have found some value in the accuscore custom sims to determine correlated side/total parlays.

Example: assuming LAL/DEN goes over Friday, LAL has about a 32% chance of of winning. If it goes under, LAL improves to 35%. So assuming LAL fair chance of winning at 34.8%, I might see some value with DEN-over.

Anyone who uses accuscore seriously has learned to adjust to their deficiencies, in particular MLB totals. I find it a fairly valuable tool in the arsenal.

[curinator]

Hi, I am new to the forum. Some great stuff in here..

My question is about the accuscore custom simulations. It is apparent that their normal sims don't provide much value. However, has anybody used the custom sims to input their own calculated values? Is this something worth looking into, or is it better to use Monte Carlo software? Thanks in advance for the input.

I know many people already replied to this thread, but just to throw my two cents in. Lots of hate on accuscore and other public modeling systems seems to be a bit unjustified.

Everyone expects to make 10% or more profit on turnover these days when it's very hard to even make 5%. This isn't the '80s where information is hard to come by. We all live in the internet age and all have access to a variety of tools. One thing people fail to recognize and always will fail to recognize is how important monitoring lines is and when to place a wager in regards to line movement. I don't care what kind of modeling system you've created or how you handicap games, if you can't devote a few hours a day to monitoring lines and betting percentages you will lose. Period. This is a concept I don't think will ever be fully understood. Handicapping and making a decent modeling system is half of the battle, knowing when to place your wager to avoid market rejection is the rest.

That being said I have found accuscore to be a very good start in regards to what lines to focus on. If you study their archives you will see they are much more accurate for certain lines than they are others. I am glad people have the mindset that any kind of system in the public domain doesn't work and I hope this trend continues, and I'm fairly certain it will. When people use a system like accuscore, they automate it and think they will have profitable results, devoting very little time to actually doing anything else. Money management and not realizing the importance of 5-10 cents will always ensure public modeling systems will be regarded as a "bad" tool to use in sportsbetting.

To answer your question, accuscore's simulations do find value and instead of focusing on custom simulations, I'd advise you to go through their yearly archives to find what kind of dogs and favorites and in what line-line range have been the most profitable each year. Once you can isolate these, you have a group of plays to focus on. Then the second part begins in regards to public betting percentages and line movement and making sure you place your wager at the right time during the day.

If you can't devote this effort to monitoring lines (and I know 95% of people can't due to work + family), then accuscore isn't probably for you. In fact, sports betting probably isn't either unless you like to lose money. Accuscore presents itselfs as a way to automate wagering and this is one thing they are not and one reason they probably don't have much respect in internet forum communities. People have tried automating their wagering using their simulations and you will lose money doing this. There is no get rich quick scheme or ways to automate wagering. Wagering is a science and art, finding a mathematical system is the science part and knowing how and when to place a wager is the art. You need to master both parts to be successful.

[BigCap]

Points well taken. Knowing when to place bets on MLB, for example, can make a coin-flip system profitable.

There are some areas in which accuscore does very well, and others it does not. Leave it to the discernment of the subscriber how to best take advantage of it. I hope you are right that it continues to get bashed.

Unfortunately, accuscore does not provide archives that allow techniques such as the one I suggested above to be evaluated.

I know many people already replied to this thread, but just to throw my two cents in. Lots of hate on accuscore and other public modeling systems seems to be a bit unjustified.

Everyone expects to make 10% or more profit on turnover these days when it's very hard to even make 5%. This isn't the '80s where information is hard to come by. We all live in the internet age and all have access to a variety of tools. One thing people fail to recognize and always will fail to recognize is how important monitoring lines is and when to place a wager in regards to line movement. I don't care what kind of modeling system you've created or how you handicap games, if you can't devote a few hours a day to monitoring lines and betting percentages you will lose. Period. This is a concept I don't think will ever be fully understood. Handicapping and making a decent modeling system is half of the battle, knowing when to place your wager to avoid market rejection is the rest.

That being said I have found accuscore to be a very good start in regards to what lines to focus on. If you study their archives you will see they are much more accurate for certain lines than they are others. I am glad people have the mindset that any kind of system in the public domain doesn't work and I hope this trend continues, and I'm fairly certain it will. When people use a system like accuscore, they automate it and think they will have profitable results, devoting very little time to actually doing anything else. Money management and not realizing the importance of 5-10 cents will always ensure public modeling systems will be regarded as a "bad" tool to use in sportsbetting.

To answer your question, accuscore's simulations do find value and instead of focusing on custom simulations, I'd advise you to go through their yearly archives to find what kind of dogs and favorites and in what line-line range have been the most profitable each year. Once you can isolate these, you have a group of plays to focus on. Then the second part begins in regards to public betting percentages and line movement and making sure you place your wager at the right time during the day.

If you can't devote this effort to monitoring lines (and I know 95% of people can't due to work + family), then accuscore isn't probably for you. In fact, sports betting probably isn't either unless you like to lose money. Accuscore presents itselfs as a way to automate wagering and this is one thing they are not and one reason they probably don't have much respect in internet forum communities. People have tried automating their wagering using their simulations and you will lose money doing this. There is no get rich quick scheme or ways to automate wagering. Wagering is a science and art, finding a mathematical system is the science part and knowing how and when to place a wager is the art. You need to master both parts to be successful.

[Pokerjoe]

Lots of hate on accuscore and other public modeling systems seems to be a bit unjustified.

I don't have hate for them. I just wouldn't recommend them as a sides/totals betting tool. Might be useful for props or fantasy stuff, I don't know. But I do know that they're public, so if they beat props or fantasy lines, then the prop and fantasy linemakers will start using them, and you'll lose your edge.

One thing people fail to recognize and always will fail to recognize is how important monitoring lines is and when to place a wager in regards to line movement.

Actually, I think people here very much recognize that capping is half the battle, and betting smart is the other half.

That being said I have found accuscore to be a very good start in regards to what lines to focus on. If you study their archives you will see they are much more accurate for certain lines than they are others. I am glad people have the mindset that any kind of system in the public domain doesn't work and I hope this trend continues, and I'm fairly certain it will.

Their greater accuracy vs certain lines may very well be mere noise. Anytime you start looking at subsets, you're asking for noise. Study races and you'll certainly find that red-silk jockeys lose money. But look hard enough and you might find that they profited in odd-numbered maiden claimers on Tuesdays. Statfox is almost entirely based on such nonsense.

As to the your idea that the public disrespects such systems, I'd say you're very wrong. "Posters here" does not equal "the public." "The public" will gleefully jump on any capper or system with a single 60% 100-game sample. There are still people who will track Sagarin for a week, see him win, and bet the ranch like they discovered something.

To answer your question, accuscore's simulations do find value and instead of focusing on custom simulations, I'd advise you to go through their yearly archives to find what kind of dogs and favorites and in what line-line range have been the most profitable each year.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Narrowing, and re-narrowing the subsets until you find the appearance of profit is a betting disaster waiting to happen.

Then the second part begins in regards to public betting percentages and line movement and making sure you place your wager at the right time during the day.

If you can't devote this effort to monitoring lines (and I know 95% of people can't due to work + family), then accuscore isn't probably for you. In fact, sports betting probably isn't either unless you like to lose money.

I completely agree. Well said.

[BigCap]

No method will ever win at anything better than a marginal rate of profit, measured over the long run, public or not. If accuscore picks at an equivalent of +1 unit over 100 units wagered, nobody is going to pay any attention to them for two reasons: people will conclude that since it is a public site they cannot possibly add any value, and their "success" can be explained by randomness.

I would never believe anybody's claims based on historical results, the books can be cooked too easily. One must follow the picks ex ante, and produce their own results.

[curinator]

Pokerjoe,

I'm not trying to argue. Obviously, the posters here as a whole / people visting the forums are losing money or else sbr wouldn't have those neat little banners at the top.

Your reference to the subsets just being "noise" doesn't hold since accuscore has many years of data and MLB has 2,400+ games a year. It is very easy to find situations with a 1000+ sample size over the seasons where they have performed well in if you go through their archives. You can also find the reverse, 1000+ sample size situations where they haven't been profitable. I wouldn't call that noise.

People may recognize betting smart is half the battle, but the fact is, they still don't. We both agree that you have to devote a few hours at least each day to be profitable and even though people may bet smart, they still can't devote that amount of time.

Also, people know betting contrarian is better, yet they don't. Same goes for the stock market. It's common knowledge yet the fact is people can know something, yet still disregard it. Who knows if accuscore will lose its edge. I can wonder that everyday about any kind of wager I make regardless of what tools I may use. Maybe people are catching on. Maybe ways I used to find value aren't working anymore. That's the risk you run all the time for whatever you do in terms of trading, whether it be trading stocks or trading (wagering on) a team.

Regardless, we both have the same mindset and view on a lot of things and both realize any method used to find value is at risk regardless of what it may be, public or not. Until I see 50/50 bets on each side of spreads and moneylines and the lines aren't moving at all, there will always be value somewhere. I still think accouscore is a valuable tool when combined with other methods of finding and exploiting value.