Wave Theory Experiment

surfpunk17 · 01-29-13, 06:17 PM

1/29/13

NC State +4

Record 0-0-0

surfpunk17 · 01-30-13, 02:20 PM

1/30/13

Oklahoma +6.5

Record 1-0-0

numismatist · 01-30-13, 02:21 PM

Can you share with us which trends you are looking at? Good luck.

tto827 · 01-30-13, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by numismatist

Can you share with us which trends you are looking at? Good luck.

Pretty sure he is going by the teams recent ATS record.

surfpunk17 · 01-30-13, 03:09 PM

Yes, the only trend I am looking at is a team's performance vs the spread. I chart each team for at least the past ten games. From there if I feel I need more information I chart farther back and examine again. What I am looking for is a good setup based on the wave pattern. If you google "elliot wave pattern" you can see pictures of what that basic trend looks like. Obviously not all teams charts fit into this pattern. In fact, most don't. However, so far I've found that I can usually find at least one or two games a day that match the criteria I'm looking for.Like I said above, this is just an experiment, nothing more. Feel free to tail, fade or ignore as you wish... BOL to all.

Louisvillekid1 · 01-30-13, 03:30 PM

Few things,

20 games is not enough of a sample size to prove this experiment a success or failure. But I realize you already know this as you sound educated.

More importantly, the oddsmakers are very aware about how teams are doing ATS and they adjust accordingly. When Team A has covered say 6 in a row, this is when we get an inflated line (especially if it a big market team on tv) and betting against them in this instance is where the value you speak about lies.

Anyway I'll be watching and Good luck, its an interesting thread.

numismatist · 01-30-13, 03:32 PM

For anyone interested.....

Elliott wave principle - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_wave_principle

surfpunk17 · 01-31-13, 02:28 PM

1/31/13

Providence +1.5

Record 2-0-0

NjSunDvlSal · 01-31-13, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by surfpunk17

1/31/13

Providence +1.5

Record 2-0-0

I hope you're 2-1 after today as I have UCONN -1.5 haha

ashulga · 01-31-13, 03:06 PM

Looks good, I incorporate everything into my picks usually including something similar to your pattern. It works better if stay with average to above average teams as often shitty teams can stay bad for ever and never hit that upward swing in college I am talking about. Good luck, I might tail you as I like that pick

surfpunk17 · 02-01-13, 01:18 PM

2/1/13

No Picks

Record 2-1-0

surfpunk17 · 02-02-13, 12:30 PM

2/2/13

St John's +8

Record 2-1-0

tto827 · 02-02-13, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by surfpunk17

2/2/13

St John's +8

Record 2-1-0

Love it. Bout to be 3-1 barring something strange.

RabidGolfer · 02-02-13, 03:38 PM

I've actually considered applying stochastics to a team's performance against the spread, but also chart how many points by which they beat the spread or fall short. It seems to me you could identify a momentum shift when a team begins to perform close to the line (the peak or valley of the stochastic). If you had a team that has been terrible ATS, and one that has been great ATS, but their recent performances were both pretty close to the line, it would be plausible when they played each other that the line would be skewed in the direction of the favorite, and the dog would be the better wager.

surfpunk17 · 02-04-13, 04:25 PM

2/4/13

Texas +6

Record 2-2-0

numismatist · 02-04-13, 04:39 PM

I think Texas has a chance to win straight up here tonight. West Virginia is just the type of team their stout defense can shut down....

surfpunk17 · 02-05-13, 11:31 AM

2/5/13

Purdue -2.5

Record 3-2-0

ashulga · 02-05-13, 12:23 PM

I like your theory, however I would also avoid certain plays to polish it up and maybe improve the winning %. I would avoid including small favs on the rd, which are public favs as well while laying pts on the team with weak road record. Purdue 2-4 away, Penn st 7-8 at home. High chance Penn St wins the game straight up.

surfpunk17 · 02-05-13, 05:56 PM

Thanks for all the input.. I completely agree that small road favs are not a place you want to consistently put your money. A lot of the picks i've posted so far aren't games I would normally bet, just going with the patterns. Gonna see where we're at around ten picks, then maybe start incorporating some other ideas in.

surfpunk17 · 02-06-13, 03:14 PM

2/6/13

Baylor +7

Record 4-2-0

CappinTerp · 02-06-13, 04:16 PM

Good luck with your experiment. I use to trade Bonds for a living and understand about technical analysis. From my many years of doing this I have found out that as in any market where one "invest" money that Fundamental analysis is much more important and rules over the technicals. For me it is about a 80/20 % split for one can not ignore the tech. As I once said to one of our currency traders who would chart everything.............................. ..."That every ship on the ocean floor had a chart room."..........................gl

surfpunk17 · 02-06-13, 08:04 PM

Thanks for the input. I personally used to use a much more fundamental approach to "investing". Over the past few years my focus has shifted much more towards trying to identify patterns. You mentioned being a bond trader, I personally believe that is a perfect example of fundamentals not working. The idea of anyone wanting to own Japanese, Euro or even American debt seems absolutely ridiculous to me. But again, everyones interpretation of "facts" can be different. The hardest part of doing a good fundamental analysis most certainly has to be finding MEANINGFUL information. There is no shortage of information out there, yet finding something that is going to effect the bet, or price movement can be tricky.

Like you said, you can't ignore any one aspect of the process. I'm just trying to see if there is anything meaningful here from a more technical perspective. GL.

CappinTerp · 02-07-13, 10:16 AM

surf17 you seem like a reasonable person that is open and wants to learn. So I will pass on a few things.(don't get me wrong..I do not know it all.) The main reason why tech. analyses does not work that well with sports betting is the fact that the moves don't always hold up.! Meaning that the "smart money" is not always smart.The best way to make $ from price action (IMO) is to fully understand the sport and to recognize "as i put it " when a line is suspiciously high or low and bet the other way. I could go on and on here but I do have a great book for you to read. It was written about 100 years ago but the connection to speculating on sports and other markets are uncanny.!! It is called: Reminiscences of a Stock Operator. You will get a lot out of this.!!!............................gl

ashulga · 02-07-13, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by CappinTerp

surf17 you seem like a reasonable person that is open and wants to learn. So I will pass on a few things.(don't get me wrong..I do not know it all.) The main reason why tech. analyses does not work that well with sports betting is the fact that the moves don't always hold up.! Meaning that the "smart money" is not always smart.The best way to make $ from price action (IMO) is to fully understand the sport and to recognize "as i put it " when a line is suspiciously high or low and bet the other way. I could go on and on here but I do have a great book for you to read. It was written about 100 years ago but the connection to speculating on sports and other markets are uncanny.!! It is called: Reminiscences of a Stock Operator. You will get a lot out of this.!!!............................gl

Fact is, both of you are right. The more angles you can evaluate and have in your favor the better. Line movement, public side, wave theory, injuries, ref assignments, home/away trends strength, daily trends (for picking later games), etc... You can never factor in too much information. The daily grind if finding games where majority of this criteria fits for the play and finding best value. Worst plays are the ones where you pick a game because that's the game you like to see/follow and tell yourself I will play this game. Yes one side still has to cover and other not cover, but there might not be any value in that game and you are flipping a coin and hope you hit and in long run will likely show no profit long term because you are not finding value.
That's why these forums should be more informative with ppl bringing things of value to the table so we can find games and sides with most value and all make positive gains, vs majority of ppl trying to show how good of the cappers they can be by posting their "locks". That doesn't help anyone and misleads some ppl that follow because there is no value for that pick.

surfpunk17 · 02-07-13, 03:42 PM

Ahh, the good ol "lock". The one word that needs to be removed from betting. The idea of someone posting a "lock" is hilarious. I mean think about it. If you really believed you had a lock, you wouldn't be wasting a second on these forums. You would be out all day trying to borrow as much money as humanly possible to put on it.

The thing i've always been curious about, is how much of my own analysis is already baked into the spread. I mean how much of injuries, refs, home/away, streaks, and so on have already been factored in?

Terp, thanks for the book recommendation. Cant wait to read it. Actually pretty amazed I haven't come across it earlier. A part of the review on Amazon states "Bullish in bear markets, and bearish among bulls, he claims that only suckers gamble on the market." While obviously that principal has worked well in the markets, I believe the application of that to sports betting is largely ignored. My hope for this experiment to find some evidence, however minuscule, that the idea of buy low/sell high can be applied to sports betting... GL to all

surfpunk17 · 02-07-13, 06:51 PM

2/7/13

Idaho St +1

Record 5-2-0

*From a conventional analysis point of view, I hate this pick.

ashulga · 02-07-13, 06:58 PM

Actually a very solid pick. I like it. Their records would be virtually identical if they played same amount of home games. Home team should have big advantage in this one. BOL

surfpunk17 · 02-09-13, 01:48 PM

2/9/13

Oklahoma St -3

Record 5-3-0

surfpunk17 · 02-10-13, 02:07 PM

2/10/13

Colorado +2

Record 6-3-0

kripsak · 02-11-13, 12:05 AM

Thanks surfpunk

surfpunk17 · 02-12-13, 01:27 PM

2/12/13

James Madison -4

Record 7-3-0

Fishscale · 02-12-13, 02:45 PM

Very interesting stuff here. I began charting stuff on graphs after reading this thread. NBA seems fairly consistent with the graph points hovering around the 0 mark, even when teams go on a covering run for 4-5 games, it always finds its way back around zero. Can definitely see specific patterns. Portland Trailblazers covering is a strong play according to the chart.

Tried it for NHL totals also, and it looks totally different. I know it's early in the season, but some teams have hit 1-2 overs so far, so half the graphs look like steep downward trajectories. I'll have to take some low scoring teams and back test them from last year to see if it looked similar and has any chance of coming back up.

surfpunk17 · 02-12-13, 04:03 PM

Nice Work... I've noticed the same thing through much of CBB. There seems to be a strong "pull" towards that 0 mark. I'm looking forward to MLB season where there will be a much greater sample size to attempt to find patterns.

Completely agree with the Trailblazers pick. BOL

EVPlus · 02-12-13, 05:55 PM

It's been some time since I engaged in a thread at sbr because it's overflowing with snot-nosed punks or pathetic degens starving for validation. Refreshing to run across a thread with some intellect behind it.

Personally, I haven't applied the wave theory to how I pick my games.

Looks like your model is off to a good start. However, I suspect that over-reliance on any single principle will, sooner or later, gravitate to around 50% (give or take a few percentage points). Vegas is too efficient and it will adapt.

For example, there was a time when the zig-zag theory was profitable during nba playoffs. Eventually, the market adapted and those who wagered based on that theory broke even at best.

In my experience, a confluence of several fundamental principles will yield more consistent results. I am not saying dump the wave theory but keep an eye out for ways to incorporate it into a more sophisticated model.