[realitybias]

Alright. I want to inform all of you of a certain handicapping toolbox that you can purchase online called foxsheets. It bills itself as a service that will help you handicap, but not as a handicapping service perse. In the FAQ section, despite this billing, one answer says, "If the Super Situations(TM), Game Simulator, and Super Matchup Situations agree, it would constitute a solid play."

These sheets are sectioned out with different areas...
Super Situations - They take teams that have similar stats over the last 20 years, and see how they did against one another. They look for trends in those teams that are associated with winning, and if one team has the vast majority of the trends, its an edge for that team.

Super Simulator - This simulator will take the game and make predictions based off of their stats, and similar teams stats, as to what the score would be. It shows trends towards either team covering that are associated with winning situations.

Super Matchup Situations - It shows how this team in particular matches up with similar opponents, shows trends associated with winning, and gives edges to particular teams.


Here is the problem. They don't work. Not at all. Over the last 3 weeks, I have burned through 400 dollars (two bankrolls), and watched its predictions go 2-12 (this is no lie, in games that these sheets show an edge to one of the teams in all 3 situations, the game has gone the other way ATS or totals). I almost believe that these sheets are run by vegas straight to win vegas money. They are outright scary in how bad they are at helping decide what game to handicap towards. I have read several times on this forum and others, too, that their stats often are in question. You dont know what teams in the past they are being compared to, and several of its "super situations" have apparently been shown to be incorrect.

All in all, steer clear of foxsheets. They will not help you be a better handicapper unless you fade them.

[Hareeba!]

You are probably correct that they aren't much good but to conclude so on the basis of just 14 games is hardly fair.

You really should be giving it at least a 200 game test before making any definite conclusions.

[realitybias]

Its just weird to see it not at least break 50% if its any good of a tool.

[realitybias]

Plus they charge you 79 dollars a month, you'd hope it would be at least marginally helpful.