This article is dated but it doesn't change
the validity of the argument.
Methods to Madness
Torn between two point-spread records? Feeling like a fool?
By Bobby Smith
A DISDAIN FOR TEAM POINT-SPREAD records – even those filtered by role – was expressed in our first issue of the 2005 football season. On the first weekend of college football 2005, investing “with the so-called trend” on the strongest winning and losing favorites and underdogs in each category from 2002-04, would have produced a 10-4 record. However, in the weeks since the opener, that record is 19-26, for an overall record of 29-30.
That is called spinning your wheels. Wheel-spinners may think that this is a break-even approach. They might even be satisfied with it. But it is very much a loss. A double-loss, actually. Because the approach ignores reality. That reality is that as the strongest and weakest team records level off, others are beginning their respective ascents and descents into the never-ending, always changing circle of ‘’best’’ and ‘’worst.’’ And by the time these new teams have reached those points and are identified, it will be time for their records to level off, while others emerge to continue the cycle.
Win or lose, the “Ship Has Sailed” approach teaches you nothing. The first time that a player loses a wager that was based on an individual team’s point-spread record should be a message to that player that this is not the way to go, and that there were other factors much more important that were missed. What were they?
We’re only too happy to present situational point-spread records when they apply. The kind of records that comprise a larger sample across a range of teams all attempting to do the same thing in the same situation on a football field. This is a much more viable measuring stick than one team’s overall ATS record against 12 different opponents over 15 games in different places, many with different lead-ins, based solely on a Las Vegas number created outside the football field, with different players, and possibly different coaches, unaccounted for in the mix.
From last week’s issue, there may have been only one individual point-spread record referred to in the NFL: Chargers 5-0 ATS as road underdogs since last season. The Chargers were a RECOMMENDED outright winner at New England. But that particular “record” was simply a supplement to the forecast as a whole. Certainly, New England’s 29-9 ATS over the last two-plus seasons was more impressive as a long-term trend. That record was not mentioned, because, in my estimation, it was not valid in this particular instance or in any other instance, really. What good is a long-term trend for one team, in the present? Three years from now, New England will NOT be 58-18 ATS over the last four-plus seasons!
Can you now understand that in nearly any match-up, you’ll be able to find attractive point-spread records for either side? When choosing between two pretty girls, it would be nice to know a few “unseen” qualities that might separate them before the choice was made. That’s what a forecaster must do. Unearth the unseen. There are plenty of people out there who think that by virtue of looking at a match-up they way they want to, that they are engaging in the process of forecasting or handicapping. No way, Jose. Not even close.
By the way, our member area at [] lists plenty of team point-spread records. Lots of people use them to find value in the teams with the weakest records, and overpriced teams with the strongest records. In point-spread play, it is always possible to guess right based on the least important reason. But those who are guessing right for the least important reason, and continue to do it that way, will eventually have more losses than wins. I think some call it “technical handicapping.” I also think technical handicappers are lazy and don’t want to do much work. Which is fine. Just don’t come knocking on my door.
the validity of the argument.
Methods to Madness
Torn between two point-spread records? Feeling like a fool?
By Bobby Smith
A DISDAIN FOR TEAM POINT-SPREAD records – even those filtered by role – was expressed in our first issue of the 2005 football season. On the first weekend of college football 2005, investing “with the so-called trend” on the strongest winning and losing favorites and underdogs in each category from 2002-04, would have produced a 10-4 record. However, in the weeks since the opener, that record is 19-26, for an overall record of 29-30.
That is called spinning your wheels. Wheel-spinners may think that this is a break-even approach. They might even be satisfied with it. But it is very much a loss. A double-loss, actually. Because the approach ignores reality. That reality is that as the strongest and weakest team records level off, others are beginning their respective ascents and descents into the never-ending, always changing circle of ‘’best’’ and ‘’worst.’’ And by the time these new teams have reached those points and are identified, it will be time for their records to level off, while others emerge to continue the cycle.
Win or lose, the “Ship Has Sailed” approach teaches you nothing. The first time that a player loses a wager that was based on an individual team’s point-spread record should be a message to that player that this is not the way to go, and that there were other factors much more important that were missed. What were they?
We’re only too happy to present situational point-spread records when they apply. The kind of records that comprise a larger sample across a range of teams all attempting to do the same thing in the same situation on a football field. This is a much more viable measuring stick than one team’s overall ATS record against 12 different opponents over 15 games in different places, many with different lead-ins, based solely on a Las Vegas number created outside the football field, with different players, and possibly different coaches, unaccounted for in the mix.
From last week’s issue, there may have been only one individual point-spread record referred to in the NFL: Chargers 5-0 ATS as road underdogs since last season. The Chargers were a RECOMMENDED outright winner at New England. But that particular “record” was simply a supplement to the forecast as a whole. Certainly, New England’s 29-9 ATS over the last two-plus seasons was more impressive as a long-term trend. That record was not mentioned, because, in my estimation, it was not valid in this particular instance or in any other instance, really. What good is a long-term trend for one team, in the present? Three years from now, New England will NOT be 58-18 ATS over the last four-plus seasons!
Can you now understand that in nearly any match-up, you’ll be able to find attractive point-spread records for either side? When choosing between two pretty girls, it would be nice to know a few “unseen” qualities that might separate them before the choice was made. That’s what a forecaster must do. Unearth the unseen. There are plenty of people out there who think that by virtue of looking at a match-up they way they want to, that they are engaging in the process of forecasting or handicapping. No way, Jose. Not even close.
By the way, our member area at [] lists plenty of team point-spread records. Lots of people use them to find value in the teams with the weakest records, and overpriced teams with the strongest records. In point-spread play, it is always possible to guess right based on the least important reason. But those who are guessing right for the least important reason, and continue to do it that way, will eventually have more losses than wins. I think some call it “technical handicapping.” I also think technical handicappers are lazy and don’t want to do much work. Which is fine. Just don’t come knocking on my door.
