A 3-0 night! Thank you, Mr. K! I was sweating that Memphis game going into OT, but fortunately we dodged that bullet. Hope you scored on any late picks you may have made as well. 
-
Comment -
atdhe getting taken down was the best thing that could of happened. Now I no longer watch the end of close games online. Much less stress not even knowing the game nearly went to OT. Curiosity killed the cat.Originally posted by dume walkerA 3-0 night! Thank you, Mr. K! I was sweating that Memphis game going into OT, but fortunately we dodged that bullet. Hope you scored on any late picks you may have made as well.
Thanks for the points.Comment -
-
No model plays tonight. Plan on looking for 2H stuff throughout the day.
2/12
pass
------
NBA: 81-55-3Comment -
UNDER 187.5 in the Hawks - Bobcats game looks enticing.Comment -
That one looks really sharp to me. Line is 187.5. My projection came out to 187.7.Originally posted by NYSportsGuy210Comment -
Just curious.. How did you come up with that projection?Originally posted by 70kgmanComment -
Hawks - Bobcats 95-92
Value totals
Nets-Knicks 93-100
Hornets-Buls 92-99Comment -
Ohio St. / Wisconsin Under 67.5 2HComment -
Answering that would be exposing how my (original) math model works, which isn't going to happen.Originally posted by Steve226Comment -
Give us this at least - which program you use to run the projections?Comment -
It is an excel clone. It isn't any kind of automated program that just tells me a number. I have to manually input certain relevant numbers and stats into the spreadsheet at the end of each night. A lot of work.
The 2H plays have nothing to do with any kind of math model, I am just straight capping those based on the 1H/2H line and what I see in the halftime box score.Comment -
THanks k-manComment -
Not much you can do when a team finds its range like Wisconsin did. Oh, well... On to the next...Comment -
Yeah, that one had no chance with the way they were shooting. They were both over 50% at halftime, and instead of treading back toward their averages, they actually got better in that 2nd half.
I am still looking at all these 2H's. Even with the big card today, I am just not finding anything I like enough to wager on. Hopefully something on these 8:30-10:00 games.
I ended up coming in 1st this week in SBR's moneyball contest. $1000 prize for a free contest isn't too shabby.
Comment -
Congrats on the moneyball win! Have no idea what that contest is, but I do know what a $1,000 is. And that's an impressive chunk of change to put in your pocket. I'll keep my eyes open if there are any late picks that catch your fancy.Comment -
2H Murray St. / Jacksonville St. Over 66Comment -
Hopefully I don't end up regretting this. Been on the fence with it all day. Normally I would void this solely because of the confusing heavy line movement toward the under. But lately, every game that has looked good statistically that I voided because of LM has ended up winning anyway, so I am just going to ignore the line movement this time.
2/13
Portland / Detroit Over 184.5
------
NBA: 81-55-3Comment -
Easily won. I don't understand that line movement at all. LM aside, I would of liked that over all the way up to 190.
My math model plays are on a 14-1 run now. If you include the plays during that time that I voided solely because of sketchy line movement, they are on a 20-1 run.Comment -
I get kind of perverse pleasure knowing that you're +26 units with a near 60% win percentage and I have to sometimes go 3 pages deep to find your thread. I'm even reluctant to post this for fear you might be "discovered" and have your thread clogged up with all the nonsense that often comes with that.
I like the simple and low profile nature of this. And I especially like the winners. Keep 'em coming, K-Man. Keep 'em coming.Comment -
I couldn't agree more. Under the radar with just a few cool people posting in it (or just you, haha) is ideal. The amount I was betting (at least to start) almost didn't feel worth the amount of time I was putting into building/tweaking/updating my model every day, which is the reason I decided to start this thread. Thought maybe one or two people who were following the NCAA football system thread I had might be interested, which would make the effort more worthwhile.Originally posted by dume walker
I am pretty happy with the way these plays are going so far, especially considering I started the year with all secondary filters removed (failed experiment), and then spent a few weeks tweaking the new secondary filters/other stuff on the fly. I was 35-30 two months ago which was around the time I finalized everything. I have been 50-25 (66.6%) since.Comment -
I been following your thread for a while because these threads interest me as we have something in common...I am cultivating my own totals model and it's funny to hear you say some of the things about your model and the amount of time you've put in to it, because I've been going through the exact same thing. What started out as a simple Access DB that has basically outgrown (or will) it and needs to be ported over to something more robust so I can do some cool stuff. I have spent so many hours on it I can't even begin to guess how many and am constantly looking at ways to improve it even more trying to improve the hit rate. I'm even reviewing an old Prob/Stats book to see if I can use anything from there.
As I've learned more about it and gambling/modeling in general, it's actually made a better capper because of all the data your exposed to and it's been more about the modeling than the gambling at this point. I've also been reading some good beginner books that all serious gamblers should know about. Gathering the data is intensive at first because you have so many variables to choose from but I've got down to a 5min process each day and produce two different picks that are hitting around 57% and 62% respectively. It's too early to say that I'm on to something as I'm only a couple hundred plays in and haven't tested with external data or data not used to develop the model like I should.
I have no intention of starting a thread here for obvious reasons but am always game for knowledge sharing and discussion about things...there's not a lot of healthy discussion here but once in a while it can be had, so ask away. Although, I actually spend more time in the think tank these days looking for new angles as that's where all the "academics" hang out, there's some really sharp people on here that you'd never know about.
Well, I came here to leave a quick comment and wrote a book
- sorry I get a little carried away sometimes talking about this stuff. My GF just glazes over and tells me she's bored when I start yapping...Anyways, good work and stick with it because if you have something you can make some cash with good MM and betting strategies. 
Comment -
Man, Bear. What are some of those basic books you recommend. And, in addition to K-Man, could you say who some of those sharper posters are whom you respect.Comment -
If you want to get the basics and learn something useful these are a good start. A lot of people who are new at this and want to take this seriously wouldn't even know some of these concepts exist (I didn't) and that's why they will always lose. Actually, knowing doesn't even make you a winner, but at least you'll have a shot.Originally posted by dume walker
Here they are...you can find them all at Amazon for a reasonable price.
Sharp Sports Betting - Stanford Wong
Conquering Risk - Elihu Feustel
Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting - King Yao
I've learned more from these than I ever have here, that's for sure.
Comment -
Thanks, Man, Bear. I will look them up. I'm actually familiar with Stanford Wong (a pseudonym he uses). He actually had a term -- "wonging" -- named after him in blackjack. This is the technique in which one player sits at the table counting and then signals to another team member when the deck is ten-rich. The new player then sits down and starts making the big bets, instead of the first player suddenly raising his bets, which is the first tip-off of a counter.
On a side-note... My ex-mother-in-law (now 86) was friends with Ed Thorpe, the guy who invented card-counting. Used to hang out at UC Irvine (if my memory serves correctly). They were both math whizzes. My mother-in-law was literally one of the leading statisticians in the country. She and two co-authors wrote a book on reliability that served as the industry standard for about 15 years. This is the feeling I get
when I think of "if only" I had been more aware of sports betting and could have turned her attentions in that direction when I first married her daughter.
And now I need to apologize to you, K-Man. I said I was glad there weren't people clogging up your thread with nonsense. And here I am doing it myself.
Back to business. Looking forward to your next picks.Comment -
2/14
1st Half: LA Clippers / Milwaukee Under 96.5
------
NBA: 83-55-3
p.s if you are wondering why the wins went up 2 instead of 1, it's because I noticed there was one day I forgot to add 1 win on to that record, I just copied and pasted the record from the day before without adding the win from that previous day.
Comment -
I will reply to your posts a little later today Dume and Bear. I have to head out.Comment -
Well, as they say hindsight is always 20/20 and I've done the same about stats but I never had the access you did.Originally posted by dume walkerThanks, Man, Bear. I will look them up. I'm actually familiar with Stanford Wong (a pseudonym he uses). He actually had a term -- "wonging" -- named after him in blackjack. This is the technique in which one player sits at the table counting and then signals to another team member when the deck is ten-rich. The new player then sits down and starts making the big bets, instead of the first player suddenly raising his bets, which is the first tip-off of a counter. On a side-note... My ex-mother-in-law (now 86) was friends with Ed Thorpe, the guy who invented card-counting. Used to hang out at UC Irvine (if my memory serves correctly). They were both math whizzes. My mother-in-law was literally one of the leading statisticians in the country. She and two co-authors wrote a book on reliability that served as the industry standard for about 15 years. This is the feeling I get when I think of "if only" I had been more aware of sports betting and could have turned her attentions in that direction when I first married her daughter. And now I need to apologize to you, K-Man. I said I was glad there weren't people clogging up your thread with nonsense. And here I am doing it myself. Back to business. Looking forward to your next picks. What was the name of her book?
I didn't know a lot about Wong previously but from what I've seen/heard he's one of the best and brightest minds around when it comes to this stuff. I wish I would've had these books earlier and been able to apply some of his principles in FB where there are so many more money making opportunities that I never knew existed.
That's funny you bring up BJ cuz he has a book I want to get as I live in Nevada and love to play me some BJ, although I didn't get much time these days. I've never took it too serious but I was more than a recreational player for a little while back.Comment -
Systems and/or models are definitely all about trial and error. I have had many models/systems that sounded good in concept but failed miserably. Only a few have turned out the way I have hoped and ended up getting put to use for real money. This NBA totals model being one of them. I personally prefer building my models around very specific relevant under the radar type of angles or stats. The math model I use for these totals focuses on short term trends that deviate from their averages in a variety of statistical categories. I have my math model set up to isolate games (based on those short term trends) that (likely) should go 10+ points off an accurate total based on season averages for those two teams. Next step is to come up with that accurate total based on season averages. After that, it is just judgement calls and common sense, basically figuring out how many points off that number I would still consider it a +EV bet.Originally posted by ManBearPigI been following your thread for a while because these threads interest me as we have something in common...I am cultivating my own totals model and it's funny to hear you say some of the things about your model and the amount of time you've put in to it, because I've been going through the exact same thing. What started out as a simple Access DB that has basically outgrown (or will) it and needs to be ported over to something more robust so I can do some cool stuff. I have spent so many hours on it I can't even begin to guess how many and am constantly looking at ways to improve it even more trying to improve the hit rate. I'm even reviewing an old Prob/Stats book to see if I can use anything from there.
As I've learned more about it and gambling/modeling in general, it's actually made a better capper because of all the data your exposed to and it's been more about the modeling than the gambling at this point. I've also been reading some good beginner books that all serious gamblers should know about. Gathering the data is intensive at first because you have so many variables to choose from but I've got down to a 5min process each day and produce two different picks that are hitting around 57% and 62% respectively. It's too early to say that I'm on to something as I'm only a couple hundred plays in and haven't tested with external data or data not used to develop the model like I should.
I have no intention of starting a thread here for obvious reasons but am always game for knowledge sharing and discussion about things...there's not a lot of healthy discussion here but once in a while it can be had, so ask away. Although, I actually spend more time in the think tank these days looking for new angles as that's where all the "academics" hang out, there's some really sharp people on here that you'd never know about.
Well, I came here to leave a quick comment and wrote a book - sorry I get a little carried away sometimes talking about this stuff. My GF just glazes over and tells me she's bored when I start yapping...Anyways, good work and stick with it because if you have something you can make some cash with good MM and betting strategies.
Good luck with your model building. The best advice I would give is to keep detailed stats along with all the results. After you get a decent sample size, you can go through them all and find the cream of the crop, and tighten up the parameters of the model, or expand certain successful areas of it. The neanderthal version of this math model I am using was built years ago and I am still making tweaks and adjustments where I see fit to make it "smarter" as I go along. I think it shows in the results. The results have gotten better the further into the season I get, even though the lines are probably getting sharper on the linesmakers end this time of year.
Like manbear mentioned, there are a lot of knowledgeable people who hang out in the think tank sub-forum. That would be a good place to loiter to learn from the ground up. There are a few cappers threads around here I pop into once in a while, and may even tail if their pick sounds good, but I haven't really paid enough attention to any one of them on a regular enough basis to be able to have any concrete opinion about their capping.Originally posted by dume walkerComment -
Hey, thanks for the reply I agree with what you've said here. Finding the right stats is one of the keys to being successful because if you're going to generate a number you want it to be relevant. I think I have a good foundation though and now it's just about figuring out how many layers I need. I'm constantly looking for a good time frame to use generate numbers so when you say short term trends, I totally agree. Do you look at it game to game basis (i.e 5, 7 games) or do you just consider a specific time frame more useful. I prefer a time-frame, but am looking at developing 5/10 game numbers to use, but I don't want to saturate it either.
One thing I would like to incorporate is some pace modifier that could be used, for example, on teams playing a B2B or 4 in 7. There are games that you can't predict the pace no matter what but something like this could be valuable if I can figure out a way to incorporate it usefully. I would also like to develop some sort of model for halves, but that will have to come after the season because I don't have the data broken down right now to develop such a model at the moment and I'd like to see where this goes first.
Thanks again and GL tonight.Comment -
Hey, ManBear. I'm flattered you'd like to know the name of my ex-mom-in-law's book (she's actually written a couple), but I'd prefer not to i.d. her in a gambling forum. Not looking to complicate anything in that area of my life.
Good luck with your BJ career. I never learned to count myself. Seems the casinos now have so many guards against it, it would be near impossible to pull it off. You'll find when you go to an increasingly rare single deck game they will not let you sit down mid-deal. You have to wait for a new shuffle. And they re-shuffle nearly halfway through the deck. That's to prevent "wonging". You can thank Stanford for that.
Quite honestly, I think what K-Man is doing is some of the most exciting stuff going. That's why I'm hoping it stays low profile. I find myself walking a tightrope between wanting him to know how appreciated his hard work and results are while at the same time -- and very selfishly -- not wanting to alert others to it. These threads seem to warp with increased attention.
So, K-Man, I hope you keep at it no matter what happens here and let those of us who couldn't psyche out your models if you laid them all in front of us piece by piece tag blindly along.Comment -
Like the New Jersey / San Antonio Over 93.5 2HComment -
Tennessee St. / Tennessee Tech Under 77.5 2HComment -
Sorry for disturb,
the last 2, are plays or just leans? All the opinions you say here are plays for you... ?
(hope you understand what i'm saying... sorry for my english..)Comment -
The 2nd half plays I post are just extra spot plays I am playing, since some people showed interest in me posting them. They have nothing to do with my math model plays, I keep those plays separate.Originally posted by CardiffComment
