Epiphany- Doing research & study= no help

[MeatMan73]

I studyed for HOURS yesterday, I covered EVERY stat: defense percentage, offensive percentage, ATS numbers, etc., etc. EVERY single numerical sign pointed toward 5 teams yesterday: WV, Pitt, Purdue, ND, and Philly in the NBA.
I went 1-4
I now believe that studying and research does no good whatsoever, the belief that somehow we can find some facts (from the past) that can predict the outcome of a game in the future is a complete FALLACY.
Using numbers, history, and track-records is using LOGIC when these games are played with EMOTION. Throw in the other variables: unforeseen injuries, referees, coaching blunders, hot-cold shooters, and schizophrenic players attitudes, NOBODY CAN PREDICT that sh!t.
I'm starting to believe that one should keep you head and heart out of it. AND only bet on a team when you get a gut-feeling about something (which, for me, doesnt happen often) and follow your instinct. Phuk logic and reason

[NOPHUN]

Meat.. u are now a true degenarate

[OLGC_Slayer]

Try the exact same thing for a month and I'll bet you'll come out on top.

[Justin7]

If you want to worship stats, you need to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

Instead of using a raw stat, look at how teams perform against WVA compared to normal. So if 1 team normally shoots 50% from the field, and only hit 45% against WVA, then WVA is 5% better than that team's competition. Compiling stats adjusted this way are FAR more useful. This is equally so in NCAAF, when some teams run up great stats against panzies, but struggle against top 20 teams.

[babaoriley]

Try the exact same thing for a month and I'll bet you'll come out on top.

Yep.

[babaoriley]

If you want to worship stats, you need to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

Instead of using a raw stat, look at how teams perform against WVA compared to normal. So if 1 team normally shoots 50% from the field, and only hit 45% against WVA, then WVA is 5% better than that team's competition. Compiling stats adjusted this way are FAR more useful. This is equally so in NCAAF, when some teams run up great stats against panzies, but struggle against top 20 teams.

Yep. For a fun example, watch Memphis run all over Miss St. today and cover that 9 with ease.

[OLGC_Slayer]

Plus your sample size is too small. Use your stats and then shave points off and on for the emotional factor. You can't base success or failure on statistical analysis on such a small sample size.

[DukeJohn]

I studyed for HOURS yesterday, I covered EVERY stat: defense percentage, offensive percentage, ATS numbers, etc., etc. EVERY single numerical sign pointed toward 5 teams yesterday: WV, Pitt, Purdue, ND, and Philly in the NBA.
I went 1-4
I now believe that studying and research does no good whatsoever, the belief that somehow we can find some facts (from the past) that can predict the outcome of a game in the future is a complete FALLACY.
Using numbers, history, and track-records is using LOGIC when these games are played with EMOTION. Throw in the other variables: unforeseen injuries, referees, coaching blunders, hot-cold shooters, and schizophrenic players attitudes, NOBODY CAN PREDICT that sh!t.
I'm starting to believe that one should keep you head and heart out of it. AND only bet on a team when you get a gut-feeling about something (which, for me, doesnt happen often) and follow your instinct. Phuk logic and reason

Follow Justin's advice. I don't know anything really about College BB, so I had to go by just stats. On my MM bracket I had Duke, Michigan St., Xavier, and Washington St. Now of course these were just to win and not counting a spread. Counting the spread they would have went 3-1, but this is too small a sample size.

Again, I only used stats to come up with these plays as I never even looked at the NCAA before this. You could always check out the bracket picks of the leaders and see if it matches your handicapping, just as a guide.

[curious]

I studyed for HOURS yesterday, I covered EVERY stat: defense percentage, offensive percentage, ATS numbers, etc., etc. EVERY single numerical sign pointed toward 5 teams yesterday: WV, Pitt, Purdue, ND, and Philly in the NBA.
I went 1-4
I now believe that studying and research does no good whatsoever, the belief that somehow we can find some facts (from the past) that can predict the outcome of a game in the future is a complete FALLACY.
Using numbers, history, and track-records is using LOGIC when these games are played with EMOTION. Throw in the other variables: unforeseen injuries, referees, coaching blunders, hot-cold shooters, and schizophrenic players attitudes, NOBODY CAN PREDICT that sh!t.
I'm starting to believe that one should keep you head and heart out of it. AND only bet on a team when you get a gut-feeling about something (which, for me, doesnt happen often) and follow your instinct. Phuk logic and reason

You need to use Strength of Schedule adjusted stats. Also you need to look at regional rivalries. Cincinnati at home vs regional rivals, they are very tough. Cincinnati on the road vs teams they never heard of, they could care less. Any of the west coast teams playing any of the other west coast teams, any of them can win at any time. Put any of them on the road vs non west coast teams, they will get mauled. There are also teams which just cannot win big games. And there are teams which seem to only win when it is a big upset. Go figure.

You also have to look at trend lines. What has a team done the last 10 games? Or the last 30, or the second half of the season? Telling me that player X averages 20 points a game for the season might be misleading IF he was averaging 30 points a game the first half of the season and 10 points the second half of the season and we are in the end of the second half of the season.

Some people think there is a "last game of the road trip" fade factor in basketball. The stats seem to indicate this.

Having said all of this and sounding like I actually know what I am doing, I had an NBA day a few weeks ago where 3 of my picks lost by 20 points or more. LOL