College betting model

[Bill the cop]

How about making one last attempt (or first attempt) to explain THIS:



Explain, using hypothetical FO FU DO DU percentages where neither dogs nor overs cover >50%, how your system wins. Seriously. Write down any 4 numbers where D<=50%, O<=50%, and your system would win. Any 4 numbers at all.

I really don't know what it'll prove, I already said the D/O comes in at 20% in the dataset I'm studying (isn't that 45%x45%=20.25%?). Or, I guess we could look at the actual data I posted above. Dogs 3312 for 49.6%, Overs 3226 for 48.3%, (49.6%x48.3%=23.9%). But we know the D/O doesn't come in at 23.9% except in games where the LTR is irrelevant (LTRs of higher than 9).

It sure seems there is a lot of effort being made here to prove something just can't work, but nevertheless HAS been working (both in-sample and out-of-sample) for over 10 years. Maybe this is just another case of me winning by playing the "BLIND LUCK" card.

[tomcowley]

Jesus christ, will you answer the actual question already? Dogs have not hit 49.8% in your system, They hit 54%. Overs have not hit 48.3%. They hit 56%.

WRITE DOWN HYPOTHETICAL FIRST-HALF DO/DU/FU/FO PERCENTAGES SUCH THAT DOG (that's DO+DU) <=50% AND OVER (that's DO+FO) <=50% AND YOUR SYSTEM STILL WINS.

You're putting on a celebrity jeopardy level performance here.

[Peregrine Stoop]

for real, the sample you are quoting with the ~49%, btc, is not the same sample you are betting

[Bill the cop]

"AND YOUR SYSTEM STILL WINS."

Yeah, that's what I've been saying.

Seriously, you guys need to get up to speed on LTR data or we really can't have an intelligent conversation about what I'm doing.

[tomcowley]

"AND YOUR SYSTEM STILL WINS."

Yeah, that's what I've been saying.

Seriously, you guys need to get up to speed on LTR data or we really can't have an intelligent conversation about what I'm doing.

LOL, or you need to get up to speed on reading basic English. Here, I'll dumb it down to business-school math level:

WRITE DOWN HYPOTHETICAL FIRST-HALF DO/DU/FU/FO PERCENTAGES FOR THE GAMES YOUR SYSTEM APPLIES TO SUCH THAT DOG (that's DO+DU) <=50% AND OVER (that's DO+FO) <=50% AND WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR SUGGESTED BETS (DOG AND OVER), THEY SHOW A POSITIVE EXPECTATION BASED ON THE PROBABILITIES YOU JUST GOT DONE WRITING DOWN.

There? Simple enough? Or do I have to dumb it down to criminal justice math level? Do they even use numbers, or is it just guncrime=hardtime?

[Bill the cop]

Sorry pal, I thought there were some standards here. I'm not going to stand by and have a profession I spent 25 years in as a top official denigrated by some mouth-breather in a sports forum. You'll have to figure out what exactly a model based on LTR data is on your own (good luck with that). "Think Tank"?, I think not! I'm out of here.

[Peregrine Stoop]

wow, BillTheCop doesn't even understand 'his own system'

[tomcowley]

He got me. I breathed a sigh of relief right out of my mouth.

[trixtrix]

i don't have the data, but i would think anyone who do possess the data, proving/disprove btc's claims should be easy

plot the relationship between decreasing LTR vs. dog/over cover rates. if his proposition is true then there should a clear proportional relationship between the two factors.

[wrongturn]

in the full set, anything is about 50%, that is no doubt. but in btc's subset, the dogs and overs are covering more than 50%. the question is whether they will last. i guess all have their own conclusions.

[Peregrine Stoop]

in the full set, anything is about 50%, that is no doubt. but in btc's subset, the dogs and overs are covering more than 50%. the question is whether they will last. i guess all have their own conclusions.

thank you for making this post. This is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying BTC's thing here hasn't worked in the past and is not working now. I'm saying it's working because the 1H market has been inefficient on large favorites. If the market becomes efficient, BTC's system will not work. It's always dangerous to expect inefficiencies to last, especially when one is making them so public. Just think of the NFL home dog stuff.

[RickySteve]

Statnerds always gonna hate, can't even figure out LTR on their graphing calculators.

[gamble4heisman]

man, you eliteist's sure do feel better after running people off..... this time because he can't/won't write in calculus.....

sometimes the answer isn't what it seems.... this riddle has nothing to do with past, present, future market efficiencies or inefficiencies..... the first half market will always be inefficient when it comes to THIS SYSTEM OF BETS..... because of HOW THE GAME IS SCORED..... there.... now go slay sone dragons....

[Peregrine Stoop]

how shocking... those that don't get the math throwing slings and arrows at those that do

[jolmscheid]

Hey Bill....your PM is off

[jolmscheid]

Any other way to contact ya?? Thanks man...just had a few questions!

[Inkwell77]

The people in this thread are unreal, arguing with some guy about his system after he explains it over and over.

The only debate going on here is whether or not the first half market is efficient/inefficient? But, riddle me this, can a market be both efficient and inefficient at the same time?

For instance in these games where the LTR (line to total ratio as this guy likes to call it) is anywhere less than 5 points who is to say that the over/under in those games has not been efficiently around the 50/50 mark and the fav/dog ratio has not been around the 50/50 mark.

Now if the market were to hypothetically correct itself in this situation (be it by the favorite being favored by less, or raising the 1st half total) it could then become inefficient in another way.

I wonder how this system worked during the months of October and November last year.

[u21c3f6]

... But, riddle me this, can a market be both efficient and inefficient at the same time? ...

Yes and let me explain what I mean.

Horse racing, stock options, sports betting etc. overall markets are efficient. If you throw a dart at a list to make your selections you should lose on average the track take, spread & costs, vig etc. The "trick" is to find a subset of the overall market that deviates (inefficiency) from the overall efficiency.

If you believe that the ATS line is always efficient such as a coin flip with a fair coin, then no one would have the ability to make selections and be profitable (let's forget about scalping etc. for the moment). If the ATS line was truly always 50-50, then no amount of study etc. would allow you to make selections that would deviate very far from 50% winners thereby losing the vig. It would be like studying the flipping of a fair coin and trying to select heads or tails that would have a winning rate greater than 50%. Hopefully you would agree that that would be highly unlikely.

The "trick" is to find subsets of the overall set that deviate from the overall efficiency. For example, you might find some criteria that in 10% of the games the favorite covers 55% of the time while there may be other criteria where in 10% of the games, the underdog covers 55% of the time. Both of these "inefficient" subsets can (and do) exist in the overall market without effecting the overall efficiency.

I will not go into a great amount of detail but I use this concept in making horse race selections. I look for those races where there is a higher probabilty that the favorite will be either underbet or overbet when compared to other horses and then I make my selections accordingly. It only takes me a minute or two to "handicap" a race but that includes over 30 years experience and the fact that I am looking for something relatively specific. On average I find a selection in 1 out of 6 or 7 races. This subset of races usually creates a 10% or greater edge for me.

Now it appears that BTC has found his subset. Whether or not his (or my) subset will continue in the future, only time will tell (time has very much been on my side ).

In a different thread I posted my wagering experience with Jai Alai and how I found a subset of trifecta combinations that were underbet. The initial reaction to my statement was that it had to be variance and that the market would correct it. But the market never did correct it (not enough study, books and/or free-flowing info about Jai Alai) and the only reason I don't currently wager on Jai Alai is the fact that the amount of money wagered on Jai Alai has decreased to the point that even though the same trifecta combinations continue to be underbet, there is not enough money in the pools to deal with the "take" and be profitable.

Here's to everyone finding their own subset.

Joe.

[wantitall4moi]

The people in this thread are unreal, arguing with some guy about his system after he explains it over and over.

The only debate going on here is whether or not the first half market is efficient/inefficient? But, riddle me this, can a market be both efficient and inefficient at the same time?

For instance in these games where the LTR (line to total ratio as this guy likes to call it) is anywhere less than 5 points who is to say that the over/under in those games has not been efficiently around the 50/50 mark and the fav/dog ratio has not been around the 50/50 mark.

Now if the market were to hypothetically correct itself in this situation (be it by the favorite being favored by less, or raising the 1st half total) it could then become inefficient in another way.

I wonder how this system worked during the months of October and November last year.

to add to wehat the guy above said. People have been raised on tout speak for the most part. Used to be that 'information' was the key ingredient to beat the line. 'We have inside info', heard it all the time, still hear it today. Ten once the guys figured out the 'inside info' wasnt enough to sell themselves they started with 'data' and stats and trends, They all started getting databases and could look up things in the blink of an eye, they found stuff that had some subsets or appeared to and twisted and used that to sell to people. As it progressed and they could search more parameters they created 'super systems' where they would pull shit like 20-0 over the past 10 years or 31-2 the last 6 seasons. We have all seen them so we know the pitch.

Then once people figured that those were also useless they started in with trying to validate themselves with economic talk. They started preaching bank roll and money management, then the sports betting world was like the stock market and they knew the market better than anyone, they had inside dope with boos and knew what side was heavy and what side wasnt, they knew what side the 'sharp' guys were betting, they knew what lines were getting bet and not moving, and thus were being gambled on by the books. This is the era we are in now. The market era. Once people figure out that that is bullshit too they will come up with another make believe catch phrase.

While 'market' in a generic term is true it isnt what people try to make it out to be. But as it pertains to this debate everyone thinks theyre an expert and thus eevryone thinks they can contribute. The irony is theyre all probably half right. i didnt read it, but I am sure whatever numbers they have are valid, they just dont realize their numbers arent the only ones. So when they try and determine something they arent using all the facts. If you have 6 books you can have 6 different offerings for the same game. Lines might be same but vig could be different, or lines might be different but with similar vigs. Any multitude of factors, and all those factors over all the examples will create a mish-mash of results. The 'purest' way to do it is use a single book with their odds and their results and bet with them exclusively. That is really the only way to control it. But if you use several sources,and I am not talking Stu Feiner, you are going to corrupt the data. Probably wont invalidate it, but if you dont get the correct side of it it will be useless.

Thats why these debates rage on and on between math guys, handicappers, stats guys you name it. They all have some validity, but none of them really look at everything. But when you do you realize a lot of things.

One final thing about subsets. With the right database you can find alot, probably hundreds, that have 80% plus returns in football or basketball. The trick is to make sure you dont reduce a subset so much it invalidates it. If the generic subset is 60% with 200 results, and you dont think that is good enough so you keep adding criteria until you get something that is 20-3, you have over analyzed it. The original of say 128-83 was probably as far as you needed to go. But in everyones mind (just about) 86% is better than 60%.

But I always laugh at these threads with supposed smart guys in them, a person is spoon feeding you something to make you money (which is really kind of dumb in the first place) and no one wants to take advantage of it. Then when the books change the rules those same dopes are the ones complaining about books killing all the +ev bets. Its sad and comical at the same time.

[donjuan]

Joe,

You are confusing bias with efficiency.

[wantitall4moi]

Joe,

You are confusing bias with efficiency.

semantics?

At least in terms of sports or horse betting. Can either be defined before the fact versus an unknown outcome? And on the flip side can they be determined by past known events? at least going forward.

IMO I have always held with less concrete definitions and more a fluid cross section of similar ideas. Basically a grey area rather than a black and white. But I imagine other are more linear.

[donjuan]

semantics?

At least in terms of sports or horse betting. Can either be defined before the fact versus an unknown outcome? And on the flip side can they be determined by past known events? at least going forward.

IMO I have always held with less concrete definitions and more a fluid cross section of similar ideas. Basically a grey area rather than a black and white. But I imagine other are more linear.

If you're going to talk about a topic in depth, you should probably use the correct terminology, especially when it's not very difficult. It's not really semantics as they are two fairly different concepts.

Unbiased market: No subsets (like home dogs of 7+) are +EV.
Efficient market: Nothing is +EV.

[wantitall4moi]

If you're going to talk about a topic in depth, you should probably use the correct terminology, especially when it's not very difficult. It's not really semantics as they are two fairly different concepts.

Unbiased market: No subsets (like home dogs of 7+) are +EV.
Efficient market: Nothing is +EV.

Again it is semantics, if no subsets are +Ev then nothing is +Ev.

But the biggest hurdle is finding what +Ev really is on a single wager.

[donjuan]

Again it is semantics, if no subsets are +Ev then nothing is +Ev.

But the biggest hurdle is finding what +Ev really is on a single wager.

In the words of everyone else ever reading one of your posts:

LOLwtf

[Geor99]

This is a subject that I have been thinking about for many years. I am happy to see that other people have been trying to solve the same riddle. I have finally solved the debate in my head. Here is what I have come up with:

As the 1st half spread and total numbers come closer to one another, the market is saying that it is increasingly difficult for the dog to score any points. If the spread and total actually converge (ex. Dog+27, Tot 27), the market is actually saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the dog to score any points. 100% of the scoring potential is located in the favorite. IF the dog has any chance of scoring with this equivalent side/total, the market is inefficient.

If the market is efficient, then BTC's theory has to be incorrect. He is basically saying if the spread/total is 24/28, then it is much more likely for the DOG/OVER to occur than the FAV/UNDER because F/U can only occur at 25-0,26-0, 27-0, and the pushes. The market, by definition, is stating that these few outcomes are exactly as likely as any DOG/OVER possibility. This makes sense if you remember that the market is stating that it is basically impossible for the dog to score. The chance of the dog scoring at all is = to these few possible outcomes.

Summary: A close spread/total means that it is very difficult for the dog to score any points. And as the spread and total converge, the market is stating that the DOG can not score. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well, but this has helped me understand this topic.

[Bill the cop]

This is a subject that I have been thinking about for many years. I am happy to see that other people have been trying to solve the same riddle. I have finally solved the debate in my head. Here is what I have come up with:

As the 1st half spread and total numbers come closer to one another, the market is saying that it is increasingly difficult for the dog to score any points. If the spread and total actually converge (ex. Dog+27, Tot 27), the market is actually saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the dog to score any points. 100% of the scoring potential is located in the favorite. IF the dog has any chance of scoring with this equivalent side/total, the market is inefficient.

If the market is efficient, then BTC's theory has to be incorrect. He is basically saying if the spread/total is 24/28, then it is much more likely for the DOG/OVER to occur than the FAV/UNDER because F/U can only occur at 25-0,26-0, 27-0, 27-2, and the pushes. The market, by definition, is stating that these few outcomes are exactly as likely as any DOG/OVER possibility. This makes sense if you remember that the market is stating that it is basically impossible for the dog to score. The chance of the dog scoring at all is = to these few possible outcomes.

Summary: A close spread/total means that it is very difficult for the dog to score any points. And as the spread and total converge, the market is stating that the DOG can not score. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well, but this has helped me understand this topic.

Thank you for your input. A few points that may shed some light on this issue for you. If you see a 1st line of 24/28 this suggests a full game line of 40/56 (LTR of 1.4). The books is saying final score of 48-8 is about right. If the dog scores in the 1st H, the F/U is not possible (but of course the D/O is in play).

Lets look at how games with LTR of 1.3 to 1.5 actually played out historically from a 1st H perspective:

SS 86
F/O and D/U 69, or 80.3%
F/U 3 or 3.5%
D/O 14 or 16.3%

It should come as no surprise that the highly correlated F/O & D/U did so well, but the real value was in the D/O coming in at about 4.6 times as often as the F/U. I'll just leave it at that ( I've already more time "defending" my position then was necessary).

[donjuan]

Players Talk level analysis. Bring back Ganch.

Edit: Bill's analysis. Geor's explanation is spot on but BTC is too dim to even begin to comprehend what was said.

[Bill the cop]

Geor99

"F/U can only occur at 25-0,26-0, 27-0, 27-2, and the pushes"

Of course you can't include that 27-2 in these outcomes (as the game would go over), also the only realistic football score by one team in this scenario would be 27-0 (it would take some bizarre scoring to get to 25-0 or 26-0).

[donjuan]

Geor99

"F/U can only occur at 25-0,26-0, 27-0, 27-2, and the pushes"

Of course you can't include that 27-2 in these outcomes (as the game would go over), also the only realistic football score by one team in this scenario would be 27-0 (it would take some bizarre scoring to get to 25-0 or 26-0).

Where do you come up with this shit? I can think of a couple teams off the top of my head that regularly go for 2 in the first half in blowout games (Boise and Oregon). It's pretty sad anyone is dumb enough to follow you.

[chunk]

[quote=wantitall4moi;





Thats why these debates rage on and on between math guys, handicappers, stats guys you name it. They all have some validity, but none of them really look at everything. But when you do you realize a lot of things.

One final thing about subsets. With the right database you can find alot, probably hundreds, that have 80% plus returns in football or basketball. The trick is to make sure you dont reduce a subset so much it invalidates it. If the generic subset is 60% with 200 results, and you dont think that is good enough so you keep adding criteria until you get something that is 20-3, you have over analyzed it. The original of say 128-83 was probably as far as you needed to go. But in everyones mind (just about) 86% is better than 60%.

I take it that you're speaking in terms of setting parameters or filters that would produce a smaller subset. If this, however was tested over time and the results were positive in terms of net value, would this not be beneficial? I would imagine that some would call this data mining or some other term, but I think this can have value if time proven although the sample size would be small indeed....no?

P.S. I think that you made several insightful posts in this sub-forum today. And no math tutorials....imagine that.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If the spread and total actually converge (ex. Dog+27, Tot 27), the market is actually saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the dog to score any points.

No.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Where do you come up with this shit? I can think of a couple teams off the top of my head that regularly go for 2 in the first half in blowout games (Boise and Oregon). It's pretty sad anyone is dumb enough to follow you.

USC does it routinely.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Nobody misses extra points in college football either apparently.

[Bill the cop]

Where do you come up with this shit? I can think of a couple teams off the top of my head that regularly go for 2 in the first half in blowout games (Boise and Oregon). It's pretty sad anyone is dumb enough to follow you.

The problem with people who THINK they know something and post stupid stuff like you do, is that they just dig themselves deeper and deeper. It's obvious you don't have any type of database or you wouldn't have made that statement.

Over the last 3 years there have been 139 games that met the 2:1 LTR (which are the games we're talking about). Do you know how many of those games had either team score exactly 25 or 26 points in the first half? Of course you don't. Well let me enlighten you, NONE. That's right zero, nada!

I'm not saying it COULDN'T happen, I'm just saying it would be an unrealistic football score for one team to score exactly 25 or 26 points in the 1st half, and even rarer for the score to be exactly 25-0 or 26-0.

[wantitall4moi]

The problem with people who THINK they know something and post stupid stuff like you do, is that they just dig themselves deeper and deeper. It's obvious you don't have any type of database or you wouldn't have made that statement.

Over the last 3 years there have been 139 games that met the 2:1 LTR (which are the games we're talking about). Do you know how many of those games had either team score exactly 25 or 26 points in the first half? Of course you don't. Well let me enlighten you, NONE. That's right zero, nada!

I'm not saying it COULDN'T happen, I'm just saying it would be an unrealistic football score for one team to score exactly 25 or 26 points in the 1st half.

I ran it thru mine back to 2001 for all lines available, (line moves, not just closers or openers) although my half time stuff is limited to just a handful books, it can be more generous than what you post if you shop around or get the extreme number both ways at different books. but tht is obviously looking at results after the fact.


But like I said I dont like to comment on certain things.