NCAAF Week 10: Peter Loshak and Justin7 Preview

[SBRPicks]

SBR’s Justin7 and Peter Loshak start out by looking at the 3 Top 25 games this week involving favorites of 30 points or more, after Justin went 1-2 last week taking 3 30+ point dogs. Again, the situation is looking possibly favorable for all 3 favorites, and the lines in each of those games has moved at least 2 points in favor of the favorite since opening.

Vanderbilt would be greatly outclassed by No. 1 Florida even when at full strength, but they will go into this game with numerous injuries to important starters. Central Florida goes on the road to face No. 2 Texas on a short week, possibly drained and in a “letdown” spot after their national TV 1-point win over Marshall. And awful Washington St. faces No. 21 Arizona off of a bye week and looking to kick off a strong stretch run in the Pac-10. One of these games is Justin’s strongest play of the week.

No. 3 Alabama is a 7.5-point home favorite over No. 9 LSU, and Justin has a lean towards Alabama which enhances a favorable betting opportunity he sees in this spot. Loshak has gotten reports that No. 11 Penn St. is attracting both sharp and public action as a 3.5-point home favorite over No. 15 Ohio St., but Justin passes as he sees this line as right on.

Navy presents an intriguing matchup with No. 19 Notre Dame as an 11-point road dog. The Fighting Irish get star WR Michael Floyd back from injury for this game, which could turn their already impressive passing attack into an unstoppable one. But the Midshipmen have been an impressively scrappy team as well as a good bet this year, having gone 6-3 ATS and hung tough with some good opponents.

[big joe 1212]

Does Justin own only 1 shirt?

[Fishhead]

As always, enjoyed the thoughts from both of you.

[The Bishop]

Justin, how can you like Navy so much but not make them a play? Or are you playing them, just not a computer play?

[Justin7]

Justin, how can you like Navy so much but not make them a play? Or are you playing them, just not a computer play?

It's not a computer play. I'll bet any computer play before you see this video. On games I have lean on, I typically look for more information or an unreasonably favorable line.

Part of it is ego also. If I list something as a "play", it's on my spread-sheet. So, I give out my best stuff as plays. I'm very confident I'll win with my "official plays", and my SBR sheet validates this. I'm very picky about plays and information I give out... when it comes to handicapping, I never bullshit on picks.

I don't expect to hit above 55% on all my plays, or I would be leaving a lot of money on the table. I *do* expect to hit above that on my best stuff, and am actually above 57% (and above a 12% ROR) on my SBR sheet.

Why should I care about my "spreadsheet dick size"? With credibility comes information. I probably answer 20+ emails a week on handicapping topics, and once in awhile a pile of money lands in my lap (in the form of information).

[Matt Rain]

Good video as always.

Looks like the Lostache was trimmed a bit. Lookin' good.

[The Bishop]

It's not a computer play. I'll bet any computer play before you see this video. On games I have lean on, I typically look for more information or an unreasonably favorable line.

Part of it is ego also. If I list something as a "play", it's on my spread-sheet. So, I give out my best stuff as plays. I'm very confident I'll win with my "official plays", and my SBR sheet validates this. I'm very picky about plays and information I give out... when it comes to handicapping, I never bullshit on picks.

I don't expect to hit above 55% on all my plays, or I would be leaving a lot of money on the table. I *do* expect to hit above that on my best stuff, and am actually above 57% (and above a 12% ROR) on my SBR sheet.

Why should I care about my "spreadsheet dick size"? With credibility comes information. I probably answer 20+ emails a week on handicapping topics, and once in awhile a pile of money lands in my lap (in the form of information).

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

I just wasn't sure if Navy was an official play, if you were laying off, or if you were betting it but not counting it as an "official play" (like Kansas +8 vs Oklahoma 2 weeks ago) or what. If you were betting it (official play or not) I would play it, if you were laying off I probably wouldn't.

[Justin7]

I have not bet on Navy yet. I won't bet ND, but I might do Navy.

[IrishTim]

I've made money betting against ND last 2 weeks (3-1 on the season...lost the Michigan one big but hit with Nevada), but I think ND finally beats up on a decent team this week (Wash. St. doesn't count).

[InTheHole]

Well it is concerning to see Justin7 hinting @ Navy. I really liked the Notre Dame play. Navy just runs runs runs...

[saintjames]

[tblues2005]

good insight there Justin on your picks here. Interesting with some of them here.

[gman2114]

good insight there Justin

[dmtrader]

Once again, very informative. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

[yahoonino]

kepp those video coming

[azn624]

thanks for the vid

[bpw6]

!!

Good stuff!

[saintjames]

[The Bishop]

Justin, LSU/Alabama line moving in LSU's favor. Down to 7 in some places and others (like Pinny and MB) still hanging 7.5 but with juice in LSU's favor. Are you still planning on using Alabama in your teasers?

[Justin7]

Justin, LSU/Alabama line moving in LSU's favor. Down to 7 in some places and others (like Pinny and MB) still hanging 7.5 but with juice in LSU's favor. Are you still planning on using Alabama in your teasers?

I'll wait until the last minute. Right now, it's close.

The "1" pushes about 2.5% of the time. If I'm getting -7.5 teased down to -1.5, I really want to "take back" +270 on the dog ML. So if LSU is +270 at Matchbook with a spread of -7.5, it's a play.

[IrishTim]

Thanks for the tip J7.

[Wrigley]

good stuff guys

[The Bishop]

Nice call on UCF.

1 more question regarding using Alabama in teasers. I realize you probably ended up not using them, but this is more of a theory question. You mention in the video that you want lower totals for these, 48 or lower. Isn't this counterintuitive when teasing down favorites? The lower the total, the more valuable each point is, thus teasing UP from say, +1.5 to +7.5 is better with low totals, but shouldn't teasing down from -7.5 to -1.5 be less valuable with low totals since you are essentially giving up more for each point?

[Justin7]

Nice call on UCF.

1 more question regarding using Alabama in teasers. I realize you probably ended up not using them, but this is more of a theory question. You mention in the video that you want lower totals for these, 48 or lower. Isn't this counterintuitive when teasing down favorites? The lower the total, the more valuable each point is, thus teasing UP from say, +1.5 to +7.5 is better with low totals, but shouldn't teasing down from -7.5 to -1.5 be less valuable with low totals since you are essentially giving up more for each point?

Huh? The points are worth more, regardless of which way you are going.

[The Bishop]

Huh? The points are worth more, regardless of which way you are going.

Yeah, that was a bad way to put it. Trying to think of a good way to phrase it...

In a lower scoring game, points are obviously harder to come by, meaning there is less margin for error. In a game with a total of 60, Team B picking off Team A and returning it for a touchdown is not as big of a blow as Team A will not have as hard of a time of scoring to "make up for it." In a game with a total of 40, a pick 6 is a much more devastating and Team A will have a harder time overcoming it. If turnovers are relatively random (not as random in NCAAF as NFL, but still somewhat random, right?) Wouldn't this inherently favor the dog?

Essentially, I'm trying to get at the correlation between low totals and dogs, I don't know a concise way to phrase it.

[saintjames]

[Justin7]

Bishop,

Teasers are good when the "sweet spot" - the margins of victory affected by the teaser - is greater than 21%.

In low totaled games, you have fewer blowouts. The "tails" are thinner, and more games land close to the number. Favorite or dog, the push-rates of different numbers near the game spread increase as the total decreases. Lower totals have a bigger sweet-spot (in both NCAAF and NFL).

[IrishTim]

I understand the concept Justin, but is there anyway you could use numbers to illustrate this 21% theory?

[Justin7]

I understand the concept Justin, but is there anyway you could use numbers to illustrate this 21% theory?

If you play a 2-team 6-point teaser at even money, you have to win both legs. For this to be breakeven,
(p^2) - (1 - p^2) =0
Where p^2 is the odds of you winning (with p being the odds of winning a teaser leg).

Simplifying, 2p^2 = 1
p^2 = 1/2
p = 0.707

So if the original line is fair (50%), you and you need to win 70.7% of your teaser legs, just under 21% have to land in that teaser zone for it to be worthwhile.

[IrishTim]

Thanks for the explanation, Justin. Nice hit with Central Florida which I tailed. Thanks for the pick, look forward to next week's video.

[The Bishop]

Bishop,

Teasers are good when the "sweet spot" - the margins of victory affected by the teaser - is greater than 21%.

In low totaled games, you have fewer blowouts. The "tails" are thinner, and more games land close to the number. Favorite or dog, the push-rates of different numbers near the game spread increase as the total decreases. Lower totals have a bigger sweet-spot (in both NCAAF and NFL).

Yeah, I understand the 21% part. I guess I never thought about the tails of the bell curve being thinner.

You did say that 1 subset that's very good is home favs in games where the total is 48 or lower. Given your explanations above, shouldn't home dogs (and probably road dogs as well) be equally good when the total is low? If the sweet spot is bigger, and the points are worth more regardless of which way you're going, dogs should be just as good as favs should they not?

[Justin7]

Yeah, I understand the 21% part. I guess I never thought about the tails of the bell curve being thinner.

You did say that 1 subset that's very good is home favs in games where the total is 48 or lower. Given your explanations above, shouldn't home dogs (and probably road dogs as well) be equally good when the total is low? If the sweet spot is bigger, and the points are worth more regardless of which way you're going, dogs should be just as good as favs should they not?

Small dogs with low totals are better than small dogs with high totals. Both groups are losers though.

This parallels the NFL. The strongest set in NFL is the home favorite, which is even stronger with low totals.

[IrishTim]

Any spreadsheet plays for Sunday, Justin?

[saintjames]

[Justin7]

Any spreadsheet plays for Sunday, Justin?

I almost never have "monster plays" in NFL... The best ones are 55% or less (compared to NCAAF and other sports, where 58%+ is doable).