Apologies if this is all very basic. The first question I have is not about the numbers that are crossed, but about the 'cushion' that is bought as a result of crossing those numbers. In other words, if a RD crosses 10 how many additional points are added almost for free because they hardly ever come up? The next solid football number is 13, isn't it? That sure seems like a lot of points, within the realities of football scores. Is it possible that this 'approaches' a maximum margin of victory, on a realistic football scale?
-
Comment -
A bet on a HF crossing 3 and 7 is basically a bet that the team will win SU.
A bet on a RD crossing 7 and 10 is basically a bet that the team won't be blown out (per above suggestion of extra cushion).
Does on-the-field motivation weigh in differently in these situations? I would say so. The HF will be highly motivated to win SU. That's a clear goal. "You play to win the game!"
The RD situation has a reverse motivation. When is the teaser challenged? Only when the HF is up big. The game is in the bag. In that case the HF is bound to relax early. But the RD often still plays for pride.
In each case there is a HF/RD. And the HF typically sets the tone, with the RD in the role of the one who reacts. A football reality that may or may not show up on the math side.
To test this, I would be interested to see if the percentage of backdoor covers for RD +4.5-6 is above the norm. (unfortunately, that would involve a lot of number crunching; but the math guys are good at that, right?) Then again, does one really need math to decide that the likelihood of a backdoor cover is proportional to the degree of certainty of the win? The answer to the dilemma is simple: "prevent defense".
It's either that well known football term, or ... "blind luck" (the proud man's translation of "I have no clue"). Take your pick.
(sidenote - do not be intimidated by the arrogance of the math geniuses in here. They love to act as if they know it all. But their knowledge, while considerable, tends to be unbalanced and one-sided).Last edited by Dark Horse; 10-15-10, 04:27 PM.Comment -
thanks horse....one should learn how to filter the information...I am not so bad in math and understand what this guys trying to say, however, saying that RD 4.5-6 was pure luck for the last 6 years is total bs...no matter how you look at it, but let them do what they are good at...I will try to win some moneyComment -
GUYS I still try to get the place for us to post the potential plays...are you agree?Comment -
Have you guys realized that not many sites offer 4 team 13 pointers anymore?
I love it when they tip that hint and not all books take them away ... it's a good sign of where one should go.Comment -
wrong. you are bad at the math.
let's say that we had 30 different groupings (I'm simplifying as the group sizes differ)
RD 14.5+
RD 14.5-13.5
RD 13.5-12.5
RD 12.5-11.5
RD 11.5-10.5
RD 10.5-9.5
RD 9.5-8.5
RD 8.5-7.5
RD 7.5-6.5
RD 6.5-5.5
RD 5.5-4.5
RD 4.5-3.5
RD 3.5-2.5
RD 2.5-1.5
RD 1.5-PK
HD 14.5+
HD 14.5-13.5
HD 13.5-12.5
HD 12.5-11.5
HD 11.5-10.5
HD 10.5-9.5
HD 9.5-8.5
HD 8.5-7.5
HD 7.5-6.5
HD 6.5-5.5
HD 5.5-4.5
HD 4.5-3.5
HD 3.5-2.5
HD 2.5-1.5
HD 1.5-PK
what do you think the chances are that one of the groupings will have some amazing underlying ATS in either the dog or fav direction just by blind luck? It's more than you think.
The key thing in betting 6 point teasers is does the range added supplement the spread line by >21% of potential outcomes.Comment -
Since this hypothesis is motivational, it should not surprise you that, if proven accurate, different starting points will produce different outcomes. Speaking from experience in another study: the (backdoor) phenomenon is real, but the distribution is not even. Naturally, if you prefer 'blind luck' over a more serious investigation into cause and effect, that is your prerogative.
We could theorize about beaten teams with greater 'punch' getting less preferential treatment at the end of games; but that would be pointless unless it followed the initial research step suggested earlier. (I'm sure that someone as knowledgeable as yourself is not unfamiliar with the term 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions').Last edited by Dark Horse; 10-16-10, 02:51 PM.Comment -
Yeah, and +6/+6.5 also cover +10.5 like shit, so nice try. It's so funny that I knew you would respond with that exact storyline of nonsense, which is why I didn't post the 6/6.5 info and deprive you of a chance to make a bigger fool out of yourself ITT. Narrative fallacy FTL.Comment -
Yeah, in this forum, you ban the guy who has a database and posts actual analysis, and not the guy who just makes up a series of nonsensical stories and thinks years>#bets for sample size. Good luck with that.Comment -
nobody here should be bannedComment -
so what do you guys think about tomorrow games???...any oportunities...I see just 2 so farComment -
Pinny has KC +10.5 -242 on their NFL-alternate-high. The breakeven on a BTC teaser is ~-260. Will some of you "true believers" please go take advantage of the 20c discount already?Comment -
Game starts in 30 minutes, surely somebody with money believes in this shit, right!?!??!?!?!?!?Comment -
.3 team 9 pts teasers is the way to go if u have to do teasersComment -
Oh shit, KC got bet down from 4.5 to 4 on CRIS just now, somebody get a message to the Texans that they're too dangerous now and not to let up at all. Hurry.Comment -
Never mind, back to 4.5, now KC is just a bunch of punk-ass chumps that you can let backdoor you with no fear.Comment -
TomCowley is my hero
way to point out the alt spread stuff
those that believe in this 'system' believe that Pinny is hanging extremely beatable lines in their alt spread marketComment -
Not just pinny hanging them, but them sitting there all day (at more than just pinny) and nobody betting them at all.Comment -
what the score in KC Houston game now???Comment -
Where is your bet ticket?Comment -
good point - well made. guess that settles that 1 for me..Pinny has KC +10.5 -242 on their NFL-alternate-high. The breakeven on a BTC teaser is ~-260.
thanks for the help
Last edited by subs; 10-17-10, 08:51 PM.Comment -
excellent postComment -
How active is the alternate line market at Pinny?
For the Dolphins / Patriots MNF game a few weeks ago, ~an hour before kickoff, I noticed that both Alts were at +7.5 for each team (since the pats originally opened at -1, and then it flipped to Dolphins -1), yet the Pats +7.5 number was greater (-305 vs. -300 or something along those lines) than Dolphins +7.5, despite the spread being slightly in the Fins favor (I think ML was like -106 / -104).
Is this market that accurate?Comment -
Unlike you, I don't claim to have all the answers. Unlike you, I did not create a narrative, but pointed at the football realities of backdoor covers and prevent defense as more realistic cause/effect explanation (for the success of the subset in question) than your '16 years of blind luck'. Without a sliver of doubt, 'blind luck' is creating a narrative to fit your narrow view. I did not state that my hypothesis was accurate, because it would require further investigation and proof. I did point out how that could be obtained. And I also specified that, after that necessary initial step, we could look at your beloved 7 pt teaser subset. If, instead, you wish to embrace that subset as evidence in favor of your easy blind luck theory, be my guest. I have done plenty of backdoor cover research, and will readily admit that I'm not interested enough in this particular topic to comb through 16 years of NFL data. As to your idea that starting out with a hypothesis to explore a 'mystery' is creating a narrative, such lack of scientific understanding is not surprising in your case. There are two types of scientists. Data crunchers who work with the known, and explorers who embrace the unknown. I do not need to tell you in which group you belong.Last edited by Dark Horse; 10-18-10, 09:53 AM.Comment -
I used to think you were just a somewhat eccentric outside the box thinker. Now I know why RickySteve thinks you're arguably the worst non-statnerds posting in this subforum.Comment -
This. If you'd just get the primary data (lines and scores), and I've already told you a good enough source, and test the logical consequences of your brilliant hypotheses against it before you post, we'd be spared your unfiltered stream of nonsense. The problem isn't creating a hypothesis to test- it's that you don't bother to trivially refute it before you post. You aren't creative and scientific for coming up with this stuff- you're just awful for not realizing it sucks before you post it.Comment -
this is not ok at all from an estimated growth standpoint.
The only reason to bet a teaser is due to the extra range of points being a bargain. With this subset, if you believe the past datamined trend will continue into the future, the teaser range is worth squat. It actually is harmful and gives up the edge one has on the original spread line.
No wonder so many posters hate the math nerds (thought police); it's because they keep using the wrong math.Comment -
I appreciate the feedback. I understand that some here must defend at all cost what it is they think they know. As to your semi-sect of enlightened minds. In light of your readily tossed insults and arrogance, it is amusing that you so willingly expose the limitations of your 'genius' by tossing 16 years of data you can't explain on the 'blind luck' pile. Is that the best you've got?
To others. Please realize that the weakness of this math clan is that they all think the same way (with very few exceptions). This makes them entirely predictable. By exploring the questions they refuse to ask, they can be beaten rather easily. Obviously not every investigation is going to produce results, but some will. Do not let your thought processes be limited by these self-proclaimed experts.Last edited by Dark Horse; 10-18-10, 11:33 AM.Comment -
You think you understand the process, but you don't.
I suggested that the subset in question may be so successful because of prevent defense. After all, if one of these dogs were behind 17 points with a few minutes left, they could easily play against a disinterested defense, and themselves only be interested in a TD (foregoing the FG).
That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.
I understand your counterargument. But, unlike you, I do not accept it offhand as overruling the hypothesis. I would first want to see to what extent backdoor covers, as a result of prevent defense, manifest at a higher than average ratio within the successful teaser subset. If it turns out that prevent defense plays no role, that is an answer. Then I was on the wrong track. But if it does play a role, I know I'm on the right track. As you pointed out, the answer would not be complete in itself, but that's the next question. The art of correctly identifying exemptions to a working theory is often more work than establishing the theory itself; they would have to be rooted in one or more other football realities, so more opportunity to learn... (prevent defense is a football reality; there are others). You may be good with math, but do you understand how to translate numbers back to the field?
So I'm using prevent defense as a starting point. Of a process. I don't know what the final answer will be. But I do know that by exploring such questions, regarded as pointless by people as yourself, very unusual insights have presented themselves, and will continue to do so. In this case, where I would have to go over the score sheet of every single game in the past 16 years, I'm passing. So admittedly, there is nothing I will do to undermine your blind belief in blind luck. Quite honestly, I prefer it that way.Last edited by Dark Horse; 10-18-10, 12:55 PM.Comment
