It's not so much that I disagree with the teams you picked, but which games you bet on. Here are your picks:
1. SD -0.01 v. TEN Away |
2. ARI +7 v. SEA Away - Bet Soon |
3. PIT +10 v. NE Away - Bet Soon |
4. STL +6.5 v. CIN Away |
5. KC +6.5 v. DEN Away |
I can't fault you for any of your team choices, but these are games that seem to have a lot of uncertainty in them. In fact only the PIT v NE and STL v CIN have games involving teams that are in the top half of the league in consistency (based on your Beta rankings), and in each of the games (exception: PIT), you're putting your money on the MORE volatile team. Check out your picks with the Betas added:
1. SD -0.01 v. TEN (28)............... (22) |
2. ARI +7 v. SEA (20)............. (13) |
3. PIT +10 v. NE (6)................ (12) |
4. STL +6.5 v. CIN (15)................. (7) |
5. KC +6.5 v. DEN (30).............. (18) |
I'm not sure what your method is for your final picks, but I would expect higher success in games that history shows would be less volatile. Any thoughts on why the box doesn't weigh volatility more?
No comments:
Post a Comment