-
Comment -
Nice!Comment -
TGoat, how many games do you feel is necessary to get a good idea if a model is at least a "solid" foundation? I've run around 50 games with approximately a 50% winning percentage, but my "plays" have been right at 60% (a little higher until tonight's bizarre finish in 3 different games.) Am I still in the "lucky" stage rather than having a good principle?Comment -
Damn good question.
I would have to say yes, you are still in the "lucky" stage. Look at it this way. How would you be doing if over the next, say 20 games you went 5-15. That could throw you right into the toidy.
Here is a simple example that should clarify the point: I've found something in the NBA this year that is sitting right on 64% winners. It's a very, very simple system. To wit:
Take any road dog getting 10.5 or more points. That's it.
Now let's see how this system has fared over the last 8 years against the spread.
63-69-0 2002
60-65-2 2003
72-70-3 2004
56-55-1 2005
65-48-4 2006
88-106-5 2007
83-86-6 2008
46-26-1 2009
In 8 years it's had two winning years. Admittedly, this is a bare bones uncomplicated system. But if you weren't careful, and it continued to do well the rest of this year, you could easily fall into the trap of thinking it will do well next year--and it very well could!
The bottom line is tread lightly and test thoroughly. There hasn't been one single time in my life when I discovered something I thought perhaps was too good to be true that actually was--not one time.
If something is too good to be true, then I know I either made a mistake or my sample size is too small.
I am ever the skeptic.Comment -
Always throwing water on the fire, aren't you, TGoat?
I was really afraid you were going to say that, although I hoped you wouldn't. The one comment I would have is that I'm currently working on a system for this season. It might not work next year, but I'm just looking for winners this go around.
This does seem to be the hardest part about working with systems. You feel like things are working great, and then all of a sudden a bad run comes and ruins what you thought you had. Most of the time though, I just hope it was the right pick and tell myself it was just a bad luck (see the 60ish points scored in the final quarter of 3 games last night). The bottom line is, though, as you said, we're betting on humans. Whether or not a team should hold the other team to 25 points in the final quarter means nothing to a Kobe Bryant as he completely ignores his supposed offensive efficiency to score 35. It wouldn't be betting if it wasn't that way. But I feel like math gives us a much better shot at the games that go "how they are supposed to" than picking the team who's covered the spread the last 3 games or notwhat. But I guess only testing and recording will tell.
Miami (+1)
Under 192
Go Systems!Comment -
This might be a better explanation about sample size.
If you're hitting 60% winners after 50 games that's 30-20 +7.27 Units.
Now let's say you go on that 5-15 losing streak and your record becomes 35-35 - 3.19 Units. The problem is that your system could still be very good, but you're about to get "shaken out of it" because of that bad run.
Now look at what happens if your sample size is 300 games with 60% winners. Your record is 180-120 + 44 Units. If you go on that 5-15 bad run now your record changes to 185-135 (58%) + 33 Units.
Sample size makes all the difference.Comment -
lookin good buddyComment -
TGoat how did you fare?Comment -
Well, since you asked, the system didn't have any strong plays today. The two strongest plays were Portland and the Lakers, but they weren't good enough to post. (I'm only posting the 12+ point plays, which are holding right at 62%.)
So I bet the Lakers and the Under and Oregon St +8.5. (OSU never relinquished the lead.) I would have also bet Portland, but I got shut out, so, 3-0.
I got up too late to bet Football. I would have had AZ and the under, 1-1.
I don't bet hockey, because I'm just very wary of that game, and I don't like to watch it--it makes me dizzy, but I would have gone 5-0. Hockey seems to be very streaky, and yesterday 4-6. I think I'll just keep watching.Comment -
Wow. Nice day but coulda been a windfall! Do you system hockey? I don't know anything about it.Comment -
Jan 11
pho -9 (62%, 14) (LOSS)
gs +5.5 (64%, 17) (WIN)Comment -
No plays today.Comment -
1/13/09
gs -2 (61%, 15)Comment -
After 444 games, betting every game, no matter the strength of the play, the system for sides is 246-198 (55%) + 25.61 Units. (Totals on the other hand have regressed badly and are even or losing money. See attached images.)
Sides are holding steady at 55% and have been for a long time. I think what I'll do from here on out is just list all of the system plays for every game. I tested different sections, just grabbing a random chunk of games here and there and they all showed positive results. For example, it was 6-5 today, 2-3 yesterday, and 6-3 the day before yesterday--14-11 (56%) for the last three days. This was typical. So I'll try that for a while. I'll put an "S" by the "strong" plays like I have been posting.
By the way, I'm not posting these plays because I think anybody should be betting them. To the contrary, it's merely an exercise in examining a purely mechanical handicapping method. Often, in my own betting, I will bet against them--or with them--as the case may be.
I'll revisit and reevaluate in two-weeks time (12-27). That should be around 100 games. If things go the way they have been, my confidence level is about 95% that we'll see something around +55-45 (55%) + 5 Units.
12/14/09
chi +7
cle +1Comment -
A thousand ways to failComment -
12/14/09
chi +7
cle +1
1-0-1Comment -
Continued in new thread in NBA section called "TGoat's Sides."Comment
