[scottybweyy]

I have a few questions related to the types of bets made (e.g. spread, moneyline, total).

1. Does anyone have data for a book like pinnacle and the volume of the types of bets made over a period of time and type of sport (e.g. NFL 2012 x%/y%/z%)

2. For those who keep records here, what is your distribution and your respective profit/losses. No need to list exact figures, just looking for which types of bets have treated you well.

Thank you!

[Dark Horse]

2) You play what wins that season. One year it's totals, the next year it's sides. After last year I expected to clean up with MLB totals, but that didn't happen. Maybe it was the fact that my primary focus shifted to horse racing, but I've experienced similar shifts in other sports. Just because totals or sides clean up one year that doesn't mean they will perform that way the next season. The only explanation I could come up with is that there are subtle underlying 'climate shifts' that affect the efficiency of models. Perhaps the best way is to start from scratch each year. Then again, it's unusual to hand in 4 or 5% over this many plays, so it's quite possible that a lack of interest (all focus on horses) is behind that. Anyway, bottomline is to play what wins each season -of course this is not immediately obvious, but it is later in the season-, and not expect a continuation from last season.

http://contests.covers.com/Sportscon...1738&sportid=5

Just to show the benefit of starting from scratch. If you go from the above link to the NHL section, you'll see that sides went 116-100 for +33 units in the first season. The next season I played the very same method, but it got stuck in the mud and cost me 16 units. That's just the strange way the cookie crumbles. My mistake, and this took me years to understand, was that I was not in tune with the season in progress. Last year I worked hard on a NHL totals model and had +25 units to show for it. Do I expect a repeat? You guessed it. The answer to that question, stupidly, is 'yes'.

[mathdotcom]

2) You play what wins that season. One year it's totals, the next year it's sides. After last year I expected to clean up with MLB totals, but that didn't happen. Maybe it was the fact that my primary focus shifted to horse racing, but I've experienced similar shifts in other sports. Just because totals or sides clean up one year that doesn't mean they will perform that way the next season. The only explanation I could come up with is that there are subtle underlying 'climate shifts' that affect the efficiency of models. Perhaps the best way is to start from scratch each year. Then again, it's unusual to hand in 4 or 5% over this many plays, so it's quite possible that a lack of interest (all focus on horses) is behind that. Anyway, bottomline is to play what wins each season -of course this is not immediately obvious, but it is later in the season-, and not expect a continuation from last season.

http://contests.covers.com/Sportscon...1738&sportid=5

Just to show the benefit of starting from scratch. If you go from the above link to the NHL section, you'll see that sides went 116-100 for +33 units in the first season. The next season I played the very same method, but it got stuck in the mud and cost me 16 units. That's just the strange way the cookie crumbles. My mistake, and this took me years to understand, was that I was not in tune with the season in progress. Last year I worked hard on a NHL totals model and had +25 units to show for it. Do I expect a repeat? You guessed it. The answer to that question, stupidly, is 'yes'.

And we can stop reading after the bolded part

Moron

[Dark Horse]

And we can stop reading after the bolded part

Moron

That's your problem. As it was clearly addressed later.

Amazing how arrogant you are. But you're the one who has to live with it. Ridiculous little keyboard hero. lol

[mathdotcom]

OK couldn't resist



Climate shifts!!

Actually there is no mystery !!

Take 3 coins, flip each one 10 times, record results

Any that doesn't have the same number of heads and tails would beat -110 vig if you had picked the right side!

Flip that coin again and see how you do betting the same side! Oh, you're breaking even but losing on the juice?

Must be a CLIMATE SHIFT

Actually... I came across this term called randomness and I think it fits this situation quite well. I should go on myth busters!

[mathdotcom]

Now let's examine the horse betting theory. Maybe you're not beating the coin flip at -110 because you're too busy watching TV at the same time.

Take your coin and go into an empty room.

Focus really hard.

Flip coin and watch it twirl without blinking.

Nope, still losing.

What could be happening ??

[mathdotcom]

But you're right Dark Horse, you should just play what wins that season.

So buddy... tell me... what's going to win in NFL this year? Home MLs? Away spreads? Unders on totals over 47.5?

I'd really like to know before the season starts, that would be a big help.

[Dark Horse]

Oh, I set off quite a reaction. lol

Maybe read past the first sentence.

But you don't have to do that. You're so good. One word is enough. Keep it up little one. One day you'll get there.

[mathdotcom]

When are people going to realize the key to success is making a line that's better than the book's, whether it's ML spread or total, and then betting when there is +EV?

I guess this is too daunting so people think by only betting on Mondays when it's raining in Alaska they can maybe gain an edge.

[mathdotcom]

I did read the rest. Very funny.

Can you please highlight the line with your key insight? I missed it.

Was it to start from scratch every year?

You should be thanking me for calling bullshit on people who have no clue what they're doing, and therefore are basically misleading the OP.

Also, can you explain to me how you managed to make 975 units going 79-80 ATS this year? I wonder what happened there.

[Dark Horse]

Also, can you explain to me how you managed to make 975 units going 79-80 ATS this year? I wonder what happened there.

That would be 9.75 units. And if you don't even know the answer to that question, perhaps you're not the expert you think you are.

[Dark Horse]

Anyway. Obviously there are different ways to skin a cat. Not just one. So whenever you're ready you can stop the arrogant act. If you're a lion, why not relax? If you're a mouse trying to roar like a lion, sorry to tell you it's just a squeak.

[mathdotcom]

Shit you're right, it must be really good Kelly money management and betting dogs

Oh wait.. I took a little peak..

One day:

Sport	Game	Score	Pick	Amount	Result	Units
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2959.html	1	Under 9	200	WON	+200
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2980.html	3
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2966.html	1	Under 10	200	PUSH	0
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2977.html	9
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2970.html	4	Under 7.5	200	WON	+200
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2973.html	1
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2957.html	1	Under 8	200	WON	+200
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2963.html	2
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2972.html	8	Under 8	200	LOSS	-220
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2964.html	2
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2976.html	6	Under 7.5	200	LOSS	-220
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2958.html	7
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2983.html	4	Under 9	200	LOSS	-220
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2974.html	7
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2965.html	3	Under 7.5	200	LOSS	-220
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2979.html	6
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2982.html	2	Under 8	200	WON	+200
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2971.html	0
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2961.html	8	Under 7.5	200	LOSS	-220
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2981.html	3
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2967.html	5	Under 9	200	WON	+200
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2975.html	3
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2956.html	3	Under 9	200	PUSH	0
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2968.html	6
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2955.html	1	Under 6.5	200	LOSS	-220
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2962.html	7

Next day

MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2959.html	4	Over 9.5	200	WON	+200
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2983.html	6
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2974.html	7	Chi. White Sox +167	100	WON	+167
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2966.html	5	Over 9.5	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2984.html	1	Toronto +215	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2970.html	6	Over 9.5	300	LOSS	-330
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2980.html	2	Cleveland +142	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2960.html	4	Over 8	300	LOSS	-330
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2962.html	9	San Francisco +134	100	WON	+134
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2957.html	0	Over 8.5	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2963.html	9	Over 9.5	200	WON	+200
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2982.html	5
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2964.html	4	NY Mets +110	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2972.html	5	Over 8	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2958.html	3	LA Dodgers +152	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2967.html	2
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2979.html	13	LA Angels +113	100	WON	+113
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2978.html	0	Over 10	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2973.html	9	Seattle +123	100	WON	+123
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2965.html	6	Over 9.5	200	WON	+200
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2968.html	0	Arizona +143	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2961.html	4	Over 8	300	LOSS	-330
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2981.html	2	Houston +118	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2955.html	8
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2975.html	2	Milwaukee +105	100	WON	+105
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2976.html	3	Over 9.5	200	LOSS	-220
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2971.html	6	Pittsburgh +109	100	WON	+109
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2956.html	2

Next day

MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2959.html	2	Baltimore +136	100	WON	+136
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2983.html	1	Over 9	300	LOSS	-330
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2974.html	1	Chi. White Sox +158	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2966.html	10	Over 11	300	PUSH	0
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2984.html	0	Toronto +164	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2970.html	6
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2980.html	10	Over 8	300	WON	+300
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2960.html	6
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2962.html	9	San Francisco +111	100	WON	+111
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2957.html	4	Over 8.5	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2963.html	1	Chi. Cubs +120	100	WON	+120
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2982.html	5
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2964.html	3	NY Mets +142	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2972.html	4	Over 8	300	LOSS	-330
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2958.html	3	Philadelphia +111	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2967.html	5	Over 6.5	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2979.html	2	Over 9	300	PUSH	0
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2978.html	7
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2973.html	7	Seattle +122	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2965.html	8	Over 9	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2968.html	7	Arizona +132	100	WON	+132
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2961.html	1	Over 8	300	PUSH	0
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2981.html	4	Houston +128	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2955.html	8	Over 6.5	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2975.html	3	Milwaukee +134	100	WON	+134
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2976.html	4	Over 9	300	LOSS	-330
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2971.html	9	Colorado +115	100	LOSS	-100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2956.html	6	Over 10.5	300	WON	+300
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2977.html	3	Oakland +122	100	WON	+122
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2969.html	4	Over 8	300	LOSS	-330

Next day

Sport	Game	Score	Pick	Amount	Result	Units
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2965.html	3	Under 9.5	300	WON	+300
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2959.html	5
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2966.html	14	Under 9	200	LOSS	-220
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2980.html	1
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2970.html	7	Under 9.5	300	LOSS	-330
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2984.html	10
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2960.html	7	Under 8	300	LOSS	-330
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2983.html	3
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2957.html	5	Under 7.5	100	LOSS	-110
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2964.html	6
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2967.html	5	Under 8	100	WON	+100
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2963.html	0
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2975.html	7	Under 8.5	100	LOSS	-110
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2958.html	8
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2972.html	4	Under 9	100	LOSS	-110
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2968.html	7
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2969.html	3	Under 8	100	LOSS	-110
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2974.html	7
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2978.html	3	Under 10.5	300	LOSS	-330
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2977.html	8
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2976.html	5	Under 8	300	PUSH	0
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2981.html	3
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2955.html	5	Under 8	300	LOSS	-330
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2971.html	11
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2973.html	4	Under 7	300	WON	+300
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2979.html	1
MLB	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2956.html	6	Under 8	300	LOSS	-330
	covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/teams/team2962.html	9

WOW I have NO DOUBT you are betting based on EV and not on some sort of "can I get an erection this morning" system that determines whether you bet the board over or under.

Good luck to you !!

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Oh well, another potentially interesting thread down the pan.

[mathdotcom]

The answer is simple

In general you'd expect spreads to have more value (or cost you less...) since the vig is lower than moneylines.

The spread and moneylines are simple derivatives of each other. Example:

Pr(Covering 3.5 pts) = Pr(Covering 0 pts) - Pr(Losing by 1 or 2 or 3) = Moneyline - Pr(Losing by 1 or 2 or 3)

So if you like a team and want to know whether to lay the points or take the moneyline, you need to know what the 1 2 and 3 are worth.

If you shop enough sometimes you'll find the best value is in the spread and sometimes you'll find the best value in the moneyline. It's like asking whether you should buy corn or Iowa farmland.

[scottybweyy]

I figure posting in the HTT as a first time poster to SBR I would be shunned! The theme of responses is obvious. In general, handicap w/o seeing the lines then take only take +EV situations irrelevant of the bet type.

Still curious over the long run what has been been the most profitable (or least detrimental). MDC seems to favor the spread which make sense.

[GunShard]

I'm going to take screenshots each week on the NFL season. Going to keep track of a ML betting theory and see if it's profitable or not.

[chopperocker]

I'm going to take screenshots each week on the NFL season. Going to keep track of a ML betting theory and see if it's profitable or not.

food for thought -
Home Dogs off an Away Dog SU win are
32-31 SU
40-23 ATS

..and as a dog of less than +7
28-24 SU
33-19 ATS

[mathdotcom]

food for thought -
home dogs off an away dog su win are
32-31 su
40-23 ats

..and as a dog of less than +7
28-24 su
33-19 ats

ugh ugh ugh

[Waterstpub87]

My Opinion:

I've been the most successful with totals. For whatever reason, I seem to hit totals at a better clip at the moment. The modeling that I have done is completely based on totals and I've done alright for the past year or so, which means little going forward, but I hope to continue to win at totals with the system I've developed. I create my own predicated total and bet when the market differs significantly from my own projections. At least it is a step in the right direction, because I am betting on actual values and not on meaningless statistics.

I tend to throw out any data that is against the spread and such, because those statistics don't tell me anything about the actual strength of the team. Understand that the spread represents public/bookmaker (depends on how you believe they make the lines) perception, and not on the actual strength of the teams. If a team is 7-0 ats over the past 7 weeks, it means absolutely nothing either way about their performance this week. It is an arbitrary number, and nothing more. All it tells me is that the public/bookmakers have undervalued the team. This doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

Human minds are very susceptible to falling for false patterns. Your mind evolved to recognize and look for patterns, IE: If I go to this place in the river and fish, I normally catch fish, therefore I will continue to fish at this point in the river. This evolution leads people, especially gamblers, to assume things like, The patriots have covered the spread 8 times in the last 10 weeks, therefore, I will bet on them and they will cover. This is absolutely foolish to do in the long term, but many people will continue to fall for this because their minds function in this manner. Understanding this really helped me to improve on my wagering because I try to not fall into this trap.

You have to always be looking for a reason to reject your model. Test it statistically, in multiple categories, to try to prove to yourself it is right. For the total model I developed for NBA, I ran binomial distributions, Z-Score tests, paired sample tests to try to find if there was a significant difference between the totals I predicted, the total, and the final score. Still a small sample size, only one season for NFL and NBA, but enough to move forward with it this year.

Good luck with everything.

[scottybweyy]

food for thought -
Home Dogs off an Away Dog SU win are
32-31 SU
40-23 ATS

..and as a dog of less than +7
28-24 SU
33-19 ATS

I doubt this short term result has any long term predictive value but interesting nonetheless.

Can you clarify "Home Dogs off an Away Dog SU win" if the home dog was previously the away dog or if they beat a dog while away?

[scottybweyy]

My Opinion:

If a team is 7-0 ats over the past 7 weeks, it means absolutely nothing either way about their performance this week. It is an arbitrary number, and nothing more. All it tells me is that the public/bookmakers have undervalued the team. This doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

Probably the best piece of information in this thread!

Are you planning on using a totals model with the NFL of CFB this season? If so are you seeding it for X number of weeks of the current season before you have good data set?

[chopperocker]

I doubt this short term result has any long term predictive value but interesting nonetheless.

Can you clarify "Home Dogs off an Away Dog SU win" if the home dog was previously the away dog or if they beat a dog while away?

the home dog was previously the away dog

i dont blind bet trends, but i do believe that they can show situations where the market tends to over/under value.

[sayhey69]

All it tells me is that the public/bookmakers have undervalued the team. This doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

or that the public/bookmakers have perfectly valued the team and they just happened to go 7-0.

[Wrecktangle]

2) You play what wins that season. One year it's totals, the next year it's sides. After last year I expected to clean up with MLB totals, but that didn't happen. Maybe it was the fact that my primary focus shifted to horse racing, but I've experienced similar shifts in other sports. Just because totals or sides clean up one year that doesn't mean they will perform that way the next season. The only explanation I could come up with is that there are subtle underlying 'climate shifts' that affect the efficiency of models. Perhaps the best way is to start from scratch each year. Then again, it's unusual to hand in 4 or 5% over this many plays, so it's quite possible that a lack of interest (all focus on horses) is behind that. Anyway, bottomline is to play what wins each season -of course this is not immediately obvious, but it is later in the season-, and not expect a continuation from last season.

http://contests.covers.com/Sportscon...1738&sportid=5

Just to show the benefit of starting from scratch. If you go from the above link to the NHL section, you'll see that sides went 116-100 for +33 units in the first season. The next season I played the very same method, but it got stuck in the mud and cost me 16 units. That's just the strange way the cookie crumbles. My mistake, and this took me years to understand, was that I was not in tune with the season in progress. Last year I worked hard on a NHL totals model and had +25 units to show for it. Do I expect a repeat? You guessed it. The answer to that question, stupidly, is 'yes'.

DH, I'm putting the season to season differences due to: rule changes (especially in the NFL where every year is almost a statistical category unto itself), coaching "fashion", injury impacts, and statistical drift. Depending on the league, it's difficult to say which of these are paramount in any particular year.

I think got one of them right last year where I forecast the NFL would be higher in scoring due to offenses being ahead of defenses due to the "almost" strike, and the shortened training season, making sides & money lines better prediction event than totals. This came from analysis of the '87 and '82 strike years. One of the few times I got it right, but then again maybe that was really a "mind" coin flip.

[Waterstpub87]

Probably the best piece of information in this thread!

Are you planning on using a totals model with the NFL of CFB this season? If so are you seeding it for X number of weeks of the current season before you have good data set?

Absolutely I am using a model for totals this season. Last year I only did NFL, and I am attempting to use it for CFB and NFL this season. I am collecting data and waiting till week 5 for both seasons to start betting. It may not be a massive amount of data, but it is a place to start. College football is a little more challenging because you have to cover more teams, and occasionally the teams play opponents that I'm not covering, so those games can't count, so all the CFB teams might not be bettable by week 5. We'll see how it does and plan for the NBA season at the same time.

[Dark Horse]

DH, I'm putting the season to season differences due to: rule changes (especially in the NFL where every year is almost a statistical category unto itself), coaching "fashion", injury impacts, and statistical drift. Depending on the league, it's difficult to say which of these are paramount in any particular year.

I think got one of them right last year where I forecast the NFL would be higher in scoring due to offenses being ahead of defenses due to the "almost" strike, and the shortened training season, making sides & money lines better prediction event than totals. This came from analysis of the '87 and '82 strike years. One of the few times I got it right, but then again maybe that was really a "mind" coin flip.

Changes and fluctuations keep things interesting. I'm reading some stuff about David Bohm's work, about interconnectedness, that could help me understand better, if only in an abstract manner. Too abstract for math guys, I would assume. ;)

[Inspirited]

uh david bohm and sports betting? wtf???

[Dark Horse]

This is not the place to discuss it. The overwhelming tendency here is to laugh at what is not understood. The way to learn anything new is the exact opposite.

[MonkeyF0cker]

uh david bohm and sports betting? wtf???

You wouldn't understand. He's talking about next level shit. These types of topics are incomprehensible to mere mortals such as yourself. I am currently reading an Emeril Lagasse cajun cookbook to advance my understanding of women's handball. I'd tell you how it works, but that's for me to know and profit from and you to laugh at, you ignorant simpleton.

[mathdotcom]

Anyone can open an advanced astrophysics book

[sayhey69]

astrophysics and quantum mechanics are definitely topics that math people don't understand

[MonkeyF0cker]

Dark Horse knew you guys wouldn't understand.

He'll be interconnectedly laughing all the way to the bank.

Stupid math suckers.

[cyberbabble]

http://www.amazon.com/Biorhythm-spor.../dp/0668041455

The real inside secret is available for $0.94USD (used)

[Dark Horse]

Pretty astute, monkey. Everybody on this once pristine, now over-crowded beach is p*ssing in the water. But solve a field with a higher threshold, and you get to p*ss from way up on the cliff. Just remember, it ain't rain. ;)