Stats suck and no help at all

**Tackleberry** · 03-03-11, 04:57 PM

1) You can't use your "visible advantages" to quantify the outcomes of an event and therefore you never know at what price it is profitable to make a bet on either side
2) You're assuming the market isn't already factoring in this info, if it's one of the large markets it almost certainly is
3) Doing what you're doing is fine if you like to gamble for a bit of fun, but you can never seriously expect to be profitable in the long term

**bozeman** · 03-03-11, 09:47 PM

1. what are your successes and model?
2. Do you think stats are included in the market opinion also?

**Tackleberry** · 03-03-11, 10:08 PM

1)You can view my posts in the hockey section. I have posted over 500 plays from my player matchup model and have an ROI of a little under 6%. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I just know that doing what you describe is a sure fire way to lose money.

2)I think you're viewing things all wrong, actually I know you are. This is such an open ended and vague question I don't even know how to really answer it. But how the hell can anyone say anything about the probabilities of outcomes without looking at some stats? Also it is not having the stats which is all that matters it is how well you process that information to develop an informed idea of what the probabilities are for the outcome of the event.

If you honestly think you can bet on large market sports and make money by just looking at your 'visible advantage' unquanitifiable situations you are delusional.

**splash** · 03-04-11, 09:15 AM

boze, what makes you qualified to identify "visible advantages" that no one else sees?

and before you ask, my method/model is being a bookie, so I count on my customers thinking they can beat the market using the eyeball test.

**Romanov** · 03-04-11, 09:23 AM

market puts so many things into creating the wagers especially your visible advantages. they KNOW people will make their bets off of "visible" advantages and they account for it. It is why most people lose at this. bad advice

**rkelly110** · 03-04-11, 11:21 AM

Stats are very helpful in determining how the book comes up with their numbers.
That's what they use to set the line, after that it's the public who moves the line
around. If the line is out of whack when looking at the stats, there's something up,
like a star player is out or some variable like that.

I cap every game, but I usually bet just looking at the odds. My record keeping
tells me that works.

**goblue12** · 03-04-11, 01:08 PM

Yeah, pretty much. All trends tend toward average and the books take into consideration almost every stat that matters. Very, very few people beat them off talent by creating a successful model.

An easier way to beat them is by catching the slow-mover on the extra half-point or betting the soft side of scalps / arbs with Pinny. Bonus whoring helps as well.

**CreaturE** · 03-04-11, 01:27 PM

Stats are useful, however, you're right in thinking that you shouldn't JUST be betting on stats alone.

**JustinBieber** · 03-04-11, 01:43 PM

jesus christ I thought this thread couldn't get any worse and then Creature just tops it.

**30K Millionaire** · 03-04-11, 01:58 PM

When you look at the NHL goalies and MLB pitchers, I bet you are looking at stats. For example, Avg. goals allowed per game, or ERA. Saying stats suck and are useless is a stupid comment.

**ScreaminPain** · 03-04-11, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by bozeman

anything that creates a VISIBLE ADVANTAGE to one of the teams.
What are you guys? Anyone was in 60's over a season in anything using the stats only? I don't think so.

Geez, Bozeman......

How archaic can you be? "Back in the day" you could have a valid point, but with the wealth of information available with this new thing called the INTERNET, the linesmakers don't miss much. Trying to find a slight advantage is increasingly difficult. To surmise one could simply go by "feel" as you discribe is ludicrous.

I feel sorry for your bankroll...but best wishes from here forward...

**Inspirited** · 03-04-11, 06:29 PM

can you give some more detailed reasoning on some games bozeman? i want to see how your process works.

**gLonghorn** · 03-04-11, 07:27 PM

Another boring rehash of the qualitative vs quantitative - stats vs hunches - empirical vs emotional argument. Here's the bottom line - there may be a small group of people who can use their gut to pick up angles on a team or two in any sport, but being able to underwrite or evaluate enough games to make enough of a profit over a long enough time means you need to be evaluating not only Texas vs Oklahoma, but also Utah Valley vs Houston Baptist...and nobody can pick Utah Valley vs Houston Baptist on a hunch. Even if you are talking NBA or NHL, nobody has enough of an intuition on enough of the teams to consistently make profitable calls. I believe that there are a select few that can do that with a couple of teams, but after that you've got to get empirical to cover all the ground.

**Peregrine Stoop** · 03-04-11, 08:49 PM

for most gamblers, they'd be better off never looking at stats

**Tackleberry** · 03-05-11, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Peregrine Stoop

for most gamblers, they'd be better off never looking at stats

most gamblers would be better off not ever placing a bet

**boondoggle** · 03-05-11, 01:39 AM

bozeman...I agree with you...here is an example that the stat boys miss. On thursday, the blue jackets (nhl) visited oilers..now stats wise..blue jackets much better stats...what happened...oilers blew them out...if it was all stats...we would have no one to take our bets.

To further clarify my position...in some sports stats are more valuable..MLB comes to mind but much less in NHL. NHL is played on ice where there is such a large luck factor that stats can lead you down the wrong path imo.

Finally, few days ago..toronto pulled huge upset over flyers and it was so easy to call and bet...but the team with all the best stats lost..imagine that....

**Peregrine Stoop** · 03-05-11, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Tackleberry

most gamblers would be better off not ever placing a bet

good point

**suicidekings** · 03-05-11, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by boondoggle

bozeman...I agree with you...here is an example that the stat boys miss. On thursday, the blue jackets (nhl) visited oilers..now stats wise..blue jackets much better stats...what happened...oilers blew them out...if it was all stats...we would have no one to take our bets.

To further clarify my position...in some sports stats are more valuable..MLB comes to mind but much less in NHL. NHL is played on ice where there is such a large luck factor that stats can lead you down the wrong path imo.

Finally, few days ago..toronto pulled huge upset over flyers and it was so easy to call and bet...but the team with all the best stats lost..imagine that....

Wow... This post only serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between drawing conclusions by looking through the stats section on nhl.com and applying mathematical modeling to project the outcome of a game. There's a HUGE difference between the two, although both make use of "stats"...

Hockey is definitely the most difficult of the major sports to quantify mathematically because virtually every possession is a cooperative effort and most of the data available just isn't detailed enough to offer a lot of insight into exactly why and how one team matches up well against another one. But the data does exist if you look for it, and it can be manipulated in ways that will give you an advantage in betting. Doesn't mean you'll win every bet, but this information does identify situations where the price available is not reflective of the true odds of the matchup, and that provides you with an edge will directly affect your bottom line.

**boondoggle** · 03-05-11, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by suicidekings

Wow... This post only serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between drawing conclusions by looking through the stats section on nhl.com and applying mathematical modeling to project the outcome of a game. There's a HUGE difference between the two, although both make use of "stats"...

Hockey is definitely the most difficult of the major sports to quantify mathematically because virtually every possession is a cooperative effort and most of the data available just isn't detailed enough to offer a lot of insight into exactly why and how one team matches up well against another one. But the data does exist if you look for it, and it can be manipulated in ways that will give you an advantage in betting. Doesn't mean you'll win every bet, but this information does identify situations where the price available is not reflective of the true odds of the matchup, and that provides you with an edge will directly affect your bottom line.

...I have some land in florida...beachfront, beautiful...cheap...low tide...

**BetFULike** · 03-06-11, 06:56 PM

I am still new to all this, but this thread prompted me to ask the question: Do the stats models loose their effectiveness as the season matures? December through January I was getting 65% ATS with NBA and NCCAB. However February is so bad I am down to 55% cumulative. I use a combination of Sagarin, Kempon and Massey. I have additional conditions for potential winners. If I like the proposed bet, I go with it. Any thoughts?

**Peregrine Stoop** · 03-06-11, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by BetFULike

I am still new to all this, but this thread prompted me to ask the question: Do the stats models loose their effectiveness as the season matures? December through January I was getting 65% ATS with NBA and NCCAB. However February is so bad I am down to 55% cumulative. I use a combination of Sagarin, Kempon and Massey. I have additional conditions for potential winners. If I like the proposed bet, I go with it. Any thoughts?

you were probably running insanely hot before.
Think of your inputs as A, B, and C.
Well, the closing line is shaped by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I... ZZD
there are no money trees

**cant call it** · 03-06-11, 09:29 PM

If you don't think ERA, PPG, REBOUNDS, TURNOVERS, % mean anything you are loco.

**PRC** · 03-06-11, 11:08 PM

Why argue with him? We need people who think like this.

**suicidekings** · 03-07-11, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by BetFULike

I am still new to all this, but this thread prompted me to ask the question: Do the stats models loose their effectiveness as the season matures? December through January I was getting 65% ATS with NBA and NCCAB. However February is so bad I am down to 55% cumulative. I use a combination of Sagarin, Kempon and Massey. I have additional conditions for potential winners. If I like the proposed bet, I go with it. Any thoughts?

Yes and No. As the season progresses, the statistics are going to be more representative of a team's true nature (larger sample of games), but may not accurately reflect a team's current form, nor will they account for injuries to key players, etc.

Look at the Philadelphia 76ers stats and assume you were capping an upcoming PHI game on Feb 1. Their numbers were:

Oct 26 - Nov 26: 3W-13L, avg. margin of victory = -2.6ppg
Nov 27 - Jan 31: 18W-13L, avg MOV = +2.4ppg
Oct 26 - Jan 31: 21W-26L, avg MOV = +0.1ppg

Which isn't to say you should exclude those first 16 games entirely, but you can see that the big picture in this case was not representative of PHI's current form, so your numbers would not be as relevant if you didn't consider that they had dramatically improved over time.