I'm sure people here know there's a fairly new stat in basketball called "true shooting percentage" which weighs a players success drawing free throws and making three point shots.
I keep separate workbooks for my moneyline and pointspread bets because I like to know how I'm doing in each, and especially what my strike rate is in a set of categories that I have filters for (dogs, favs, overs, unders, and a few reason types).
I've been thinking about redoing my spreadsheet, though, because it's kind of a hassle to go to a separate workbook to enter the moneyline bets. So I was wondering if there was a way to combine moneyline and pointspread plays into a "true handicapping percentage." A number that would be your winning percentage adjusted by your odds.
I'm sure there is, but these things don't come easily to me. Would it be as simple as adding together all the odds and multiplying by the strike rate? For example, let's say I average the columns and find I hit 50% at +102, would multiplying them together give me what I'm looking for? I think not, but I'm just trying to show the limits of my thinking.
Would be grateful for any straight-forward non-condescending help.
I keep separate workbooks for my moneyline and pointspread bets because I like to know how I'm doing in each, and especially what my strike rate is in a set of categories that I have filters for (dogs, favs, overs, unders, and a few reason types).
I've been thinking about redoing my spreadsheet, though, because it's kind of a hassle to go to a separate workbook to enter the moneyline bets. So I was wondering if there was a way to combine moneyline and pointspread plays into a "true handicapping percentage." A number that would be your winning percentage adjusted by your odds.
I'm sure there is, but these things don't come easily to me. Would it be as simple as adding together all the odds and multiplying by the strike rate? For example, let's say I average the columns and find I hit 50% at +102, would multiplying them together give me what I'm looking for? I think not, but I'm just trying to show the limits of my thinking.
Would be grateful for any straight-forward non-condescending help.