-
Comment -
kraken leave him alone dumfukComment -
Hey pal, this isn't the fukking Red CrossComment -
Research:
Since July 18 - Overs: 115 ... Unders: 138 ... Push: 20
Positive Factors: 130 ... Negative Factors: 140 ... Positive Factors Over/Under: 51 / 69 (57.5%) ... Negative Factors Over/Under: 61 / 69 (53.1%)
Negative Factor Breakdown:
0 to -1: Over 15 / Under 15
-1 to -2: Over 12 / Under 7
-2 to -3: Over 6 / Under 11
-3 to -4: Over 9 / Under 10
-4 to -5: Over 6 / Under 10
-5 to -6: Over 5 / Under 9
-6 and up: Over 8 / Under 7
Positive Factor Breakdown:
0 to 1: Over 13 / Under 20
1 to 2: Over 10 / Under 12
2 to 3: Over 12 / Under 11
3 to 4: Over 7 / Under 6
4 to 5: Over 4 / Under 4
5 to 6: Over 2 / Under 4
6 and up: Over 3 / Under 12
Profit in this sample size seems to be playing unders on a negative factor between -2 and -6 which has yielded an under result 60.6% of the time... and playing unders on factors 6 and up which yields an under 80% of the time. Combine these two angles and its yielding under 64.2% of the time.
The only profitable place to play an over has been factors of -1 to -2 and +2 to +4, but its a razor thin margin within the margin for error so not recommended.
Funny that the "extremes", factors of over 6 or -6 have yielded opposite expected results. I attribute this to the "too good to be true" effect, which makes a lot of sense.
Going to try and breakdown this even further with posted totals.Comment -
When the factor is over 6, if the posted total is 8.0-9.5 it has gone under 100% of the time (5 out of 5)
When the factor is between -2 and -6, if the posted total is 7.5 to 9.5 it has gone under 71.1% of the time (32 out of 45)
Combine this and its 37 out of 50, or 74% success
Will have to remember thisComment -
appreciate your letting us follow along every step of the way on the developments of this "work in progress"...Comment -
Not a lot here today.... only 1 game falls into the 74% criteria from the research yesterday... Washington/Houston
-10.170 ARI/PIT
-6.162 SEA/BAL
-4.015 WAS/HOU
-1.096 MIN/CLE
-0.816 CIN/MIL
-0.745 ATL/PHI
-0.728 CHC/SD
-0.344 KAN/CHW
0.044 LAA/OAK
0.804 NYY/DET
1.546 COL/LAD
5.560 SF/STL
6.621 TEX/BOSComment -
Plays:
Washington/Houston U 8.5
That's itComment -
Adding: SEA/BAL U 8.5
I know it falls outside of the -2 to -6 range, but just barely and at 8.5 and the first game of a series with Baltimore coming back from a road trip I am willing to roll the dice hereComment -
Kraken, Didnt miss a word,just decided not to be ignorant like you......Do you get it......I also dont have to bash people......or post pics of my vacations, to get attention. If you dont like someones methods dont follow....seem like a big bully to me.Comment -
GL frogs!! Glad you are still running this and are being more selective. You are one of SBR's winners.Comment -
Yeah but if it's -4 or -5, what's the difference? How do you know whether U7.5 -125 on a game is good or not?Comment -
A lot of mumbo jumbo. You need to calculate the % chance a game will go over/under to gauge value on the price. Picking a side isn't enough, you have to make sure you're getting value in your bets as wellComment -
I plan on getting there but its still early. Right now I am just building up a database because the sample size is still small. Probably won't even be fully integrated in ways like you say until next season. Can't do much right now with a small sample size. I do not advise anyone to make bets on these numbers but to just follow the progress.
But for people who do follow this thread and want to make bets based on the numbers I have pointed out the trends to play based on the small sample size so far.Comment -
??? You put in your reason for edit "missed a word". Now, I'm no Edison but that sure seems to me that you "missed a word". Not sure how else to take it.
You do things your way matty, I'll do them mine. You don't like them, I don't give a fukk. But when someone comes out with this bullshit calculator and gets guys tailing them, I'm gonna speak my piece whether you think it's bullying or not. Got that? I'm not asking you for permission. Last warning.
I've got 3 or 4 more vacations this year, I'll be sure to post those pics up as well so you can see what your're missing out on. Just another service I provide. For Free!Comment -
I just converted stats to sabermetrics that use log5 formulas where it could benefit. Namely the "crude" total so its not as crude anymore, and some batting average stats.
Excited to see what it will bring tomorrowComment -
froggy your goal should be to come up with a single total with an attached line
this approach is 90% caping and 10% model
as donald pointed out you're not even following your own numbersComment -
Isn't there some sort of sbr regulation (or at least a well-established "tradition") that in order to qualify to be such a blatantly- and consistently-abrasive sphinctre as we see exhibited in the above "contribution"...one must first achieve the status of Pro?
Maybe there's some sort of underground sphinctre-apprenticeship program that may ultimately "earn" this pathetic blow-hard the coveted "recognition" by the PWOSEIMLABCDR (pros with obvious self-esteem issues...most-likely aggravated by chronic diaper-rash) that he tries so hard to emulate, to the point of what psychologists call "overcompensation" (Look guys, I'm a non-pro...but i can be an even more-disruptive douche...recognize me...oh please recognize...sigh...damn if i just had $200 bucks, life'd be so much easier...)
_________
Analysts studying the proliferation of posts such as that quoted above--EITHER excreted by the traditional pro "author" OR by this new sort of non-pro suck-up--have recently come up with a simple, easy to remember acronym to capture all those who regularly extrude counter-productive endlessly-argumentative keyboard crap like this...
TITs(Thread-Infesting Twats).
We can look at and laugh at
like this...and talk ABOUT them if we want to pity or analyze the pathetic lives that give rise to their posts...just don't talk TO them directly...this will starve them of what they crave (the attention of their obvious intellectual superiors)...oh, they may "flare up" initially at their being unmasked (and pitied rather than feared)...but eventually, like un-scratched acne...they'll just dry up and go away.
Comment -
Because in the short 3 week history of this model, factors of -6 or lower have actually gone over more than under.
But I have done a lot of overhauling and revamping today, so tomorrow is going to bring about a new approach. I made it more mathematically sound, so it should be better.
I will be making a new thread as well, because I feel the changes are that significantComment -
This seems like trend mining. You should learn move advanced approaches. If you have the ability to program this, I'd imagine you have the ability to learn more advanced modeling techniques.Comment -
Comment -
I called this from day one.
Don't you realize you have a garbage model when you aren't interested in following its strongest predictions?
I'm not even sure if you're up or not, but if you want to keep your money I suggest you abandon this model now. You'll thank me later, I promise you.Comment -
Actually signed up for an acct today just to tell you frogs that I like what you have been doing been following for the posts and appreciate you sharing been using this as yet another tool to help cap games. thanks
"math" there's no reason to hate... you dont like it get lostComment -
You would have gone 4-0 yesterday if you had played your top two OVERS and your top two UNDERS. I don't understand why you build a model a certain way and then reject the data it's giving you. This is bizarre. Trust your model or abandon it altogether.
We are trying to help you here.Comment -
Nobody's hating, they are actually trying to save people money. I agree it's rather odd to create a model and then disregard it's output.Comment -
how we lookin' today, frogs?Comment -
With new changes comes a new thread.
Please check out "TOTALCON Mark II" thread from here on out
Mods, if you want to lock this thread, please feel free to do so.Comment
