You know, I watched upset after upset go down, and got really frustrated, until i realized I actually did ok. The big loser was the moneyline betting. When the upsets hit, the moneylines just fell apart. Seeing as the payouts on winning the moneylines are so low, i am tempted to scrap the whole thing and stick with the spreads, especially considering that although over the 14 games this weekend I only got 5 right (possibly 6 with NE v CIN tonight), I don't bet all the games, only my top 9, and all 5 (or 6) were in my parlays. The parlay system I use did what it is supposed to, and pulled out one winner, which covered all the other losers, plus netted me a small profit. Pretty good for an off week. Unfortunately I got killed in the moneylines, so netted a 50% loss this week... terrible.
Week 4 comments:
PHI vs NYG - man this was a killer. I got your text about westbrook, but honestly i doubt it would have mattered. 12 sacks? Just plain awful. Taking the season as a whole it looks like the DET game was a fluke last week. I'm very anti Philly right now.
NYJ vs BUF - wtf? I know you had buffalo covering, but i don't get this one. This was my #2 pick this week, and it hit me really hard. Cost me 3 parlays. Lesson learned - my top 3 from now on will include picks that the box and I agree on, with a possibility of one replacement.
BAL vs CLE - again, wtf? again, i know you had cle covering, and yeah, i don't get it. Apparently I need to rethink these two teams the rest of the year. Suddenly CLE is 2-2, and has covered the spread 3 weeks straight. Meanwhile Baltimore is 2-2, and isn't covering spreads. Squeaking past NYJ, ARI, and losing to CLE and CIN is telling me to pick against these guys from now on.
OAK vs MIA - ok, we both picked correctly here, but the idea to hedge and pick MIA in the moneyline was not a good one. Hedging with parlays is a terrible idea, it seems, since you are likely to lose one of the parlays. It's hard enough to pick several teams to win in a group. Of course, if I had hit the middle I would be shouting how great an idea it was....
ARI vs PIT - Arizona is a spread buster. This week the upset PIT, last week they covered vs. BAL, Week 2 they upset SEA, and Week 1 they almost beat SF. I'm upgrading these guys, much like I did with TB this week.
TB vs. CAR - this one worked out great. You and I both liked this game, upgraded them from earlier in the year and now.... crap! Cadillac is out with a knee injury. What to do with them next week?
So I'm not sure if you bet the way you you sent out in your last email, but if you did, it looked like you got beat up trying to hedge those games. You correctly picked OAK, TB, and ARI to cover. Unfortunately they all upset and you would have lost your hedge bet on the moneyline, yielding a negative... Are you going to stick with the hedging?
Final thought... I am so pissed about the moneyline thing I am tempted to throw down $25 on the pats to cover tonight. Then I think... I may have a gambling problem.
TMC
Showing posts with label week 04 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label week 04 2007. Show all posts
Monday, October 1, 2007
Week 4 - Postgame Analysis, Breaking Even Is for Suckers
Hahaha... you are in the grips of the evil gambling monster I call Gamblore.
I am in total agreement about the moneyline. Maybe in the long run the
hedge scheme would work, especially if I concentrated on figuring the
payout schemes, but in the end, it's just too much work for too little
money. If I picked just the spreads this week, I would have broken
even. Instead, I got fancy, and I lost 15%. If I win both bets tonight
(CIN to cover, NE to win), I'll almost break even. Totally worthless.
Week 4 Box commentary:
The good:
CLE, BUF, ARI, TB, ATL, DET
Un-fucking-believable how right on the box is with these picks. All of
them were home dogs. All of them WON, much less covered. Home dogs
went 6-2 this week on my system, and 7-1 if my system had picked NYG (it
predicted a 3.1 spread, not 3.0, so it BARELY chose PHI). 7 and
freaking 1. If I had bet home dogs down the line, I would be up HUGE
(almost 100%). This is a pattern going back 2 years, too, so I really
like it once the season gets in sway and the pattern re-emerges. In
terms of team by team, I think all the above teams are losers for the
most part. TB is still overrated in my mind, since they lost to a
mediocre SEA, and beat the terrible NO, STL, and CAR, none of whom can
string together a win. Next week they play IND, then we'll see how good
they really are.
BUF and CLE will always hang around - they, like JAC, tend to play up or
down to their competition. BUF will get blown out for most of the year,
and CLE will be just annoying enough to be 8-8 or 7-9 this year. ATL,
ARI, and DET are total wildcards - depending on what kind of pasta they
ate the night before or how much fairy dust they sprinkle on themselves,
they will win or lose like champs or like they've never seen a football.
The bad:
PHI, SD, DEN, MIN
I know Peyton's good, but that was just a terrible performance by DEN.
How do you run for 160 yards in the FIRST HALF and don't score? They
had to settle for FGs twice, and if they could get in the endzone, it's
a different game. Plus, the D just looked tired. With SD, I knew they
were worse this season, but KC??? Both of us didn't like that the box
picked KC to win, despite picking SD on the spread (an oxymoron, but SD
to cover was a "mean regression override" module, it would have picked
KC to cover if it wasn't overridden). But KC? Herm Edwards and Norv
Turner are far and away the worst head coaches in the NFL - I figured
between the two of them on the same field, the better team should win
handily. But that was ugly. MIN has the third worst coach in Bam
Childress, and he was in full form against the Pack. Three times he
punted from GB territory - and it took GB 5 plays to get to where the
ball was originally punted. Not to mention punting on the GB 48 yd line
while LOSING in the 4th quarter by a TD. They are just terrible. I
hope the system never picks MIN again.
PHI killed us both. The box loves PHI, and has for years actually. But
they just look awful. Next week, if the Box wants PHI, I'm personally
calling McNabb and saying, "black QBs are no good", because that's the
only thing that seems to get him charged enough to win.
All in all, I've made the following decisions: NO moneyline bets unless
it's the top percentage pick on good lays (-200 or better). ONE parlay
pick - parlays, unless you're using a system like yours where parlays
are the majority of your bets and you've spread out your chances, lose.
They're just not good bets for the most part, but I like them, so
doing it once a week with my highest percentage possibilities could be
good. Even if my top 3 parlay looks like: BUF +3.5, DAL to win, DET to
win. That would have won me big this week.
Right now, I hate half the NFL almost as much as my fantasy football
peewee team.
My final bets ended up as:
Winners:
OAK +4.5
NE -330
BUF +3.5
GB -130
Losers:
Moneyline Parlay [DET, TB, NE, PIT] (fucking PIT blowing what should
have been an easy win)
Spread Parlay [TB, PHI, MIN]
CIN +7.5
NYJ -190
MIN +2
MTB
I am in total agreement about the moneyline. Maybe in the long run the
hedge scheme would work, especially if I concentrated on figuring the
payout schemes, but in the end, it's just too much work for too little
money. If I picked just the spreads this week, I would have broken
even. Instead, I got fancy, and I lost 15%. If I win both bets tonight
(CIN to cover, NE to win), I'll almost break even. Totally worthless.
Week 4 Box commentary:
The good:
CLE, BUF, ARI, TB, ATL, DET
Un-fucking-believable how right on the box is with these picks. All of
them were home dogs. All of them WON, much less covered. Home dogs
went 6-2 this week on my system, and 7-1 if my system had picked NYG (it
predicted a 3.1 spread, not 3.0, so it BARELY chose PHI). 7 and
freaking 1. If I had bet home dogs down the line, I would be up HUGE
(almost 100%). This is a pattern going back 2 years, too, so I really
like it once the season gets in sway and the pattern re-emerges. In
terms of team by team, I think all the above teams are losers for the
most part. TB is still overrated in my mind, since they lost to a
mediocre SEA, and beat the terrible NO, STL, and CAR, none of whom can
string together a win. Next week they play IND, then we'll see how good
they really are.
BUF and CLE will always hang around - they, like JAC, tend to play up or
down to their competition. BUF will get blown out for most of the year,
and CLE will be just annoying enough to be 8-8 or 7-9 this year. ATL,
ARI, and DET are total wildcards - depending on what kind of pasta they
ate the night before or how much fairy dust they sprinkle on themselves,
they will win or lose like champs or like they've never seen a football.
The bad:
PHI, SD, DEN, MIN
I know Peyton's good, but that was just a terrible performance by DEN.
How do you run for 160 yards in the FIRST HALF and don't score? They
had to settle for FGs twice, and if they could get in the endzone, it's
a different game. Plus, the D just looked tired. With SD, I knew they
were worse this season, but KC??? Both of us didn't like that the box
picked KC to win, despite picking SD on the spread (an oxymoron, but SD
to cover was a "mean regression override" module, it would have picked
KC to cover if it wasn't overridden). But KC? Herm Edwards and Norv
Turner are far and away the worst head coaches in the NFL - I figured
between the two of them on the same field, the better team should win
handily. But that was ugly. MIN has the third worst coach in Bam
Childress, and he was in full form against the Pack. Three times he
punted from GB territory - and it took GB 5 plays to get to where the
ball was originally punted. Not to mention punting on the GB 48 yd line
while LOSING in the 4th quarter by a TD. They are just terrible. I
hope the system never picks MIN again.
PHI killed us both. The box loves PHI, and has for years actually. But
they just look awful. Next week, if the Box wants PHI, I'm personally
calling McNabb and saying, "black QBs are no good", because that's the
only thing that seems to get him charged enough to win.
All in all, I've made the following decisions: NO moneyline bets unless
it's the top percentage pick on good lays (-200 or better). ONE parlay
pick - parlays, unless you're using a system like yours where parlays
are the majority of your bets and you've spread out your chances, lose.
They're just not good bets for the most part, but I like them, so
doing it once a week with my highest percentage possibilities could be
good. Even if my top 3 parlay looks like: BUF +3.5, DAL to win, DET to
win. That would have won me big this week.
Right now, I hate half the NFL almost as much as my fantasy football
peewee team.
My final bets ended up as:
Winners:
OAK +4.5
NE -330
BUF +3.5
GB -130
Losers:
Moneyline Parlay [DET, TB, NE, PIT] (fucking PIT blowing what should
have been an easy win)
Spread Parlay [TB, PHI, MIN]
CIN +7.5
NYJ -190
MIN +2
MTB
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Week 4 - Box's Results
Week 4 Box results:
| Results for Week 4 |
| Spread: MIN +2 (-105) v. GB - $7.44 wins $0.00 |
| Moneyline: GB (-130) v. MIN - $7.62 wins $13.48 |
| Spread: BUF +3.5 (-105) v. NYJ - $9.87 wins $19.27 |
| Moneyline: NYJ (-190) v. BUF - $5.20 wins $0.00 |
| Spread: CIN +7.5 (-105) v. NE - $7.18 wins $0.00 |
| Moneyline: NE (-330) v. CIN - $7.89 wins $10.28 |
| Parlay: MIN +2 (-105) v. GB, PHI -3 (105) v. NYG, TB +3 (-120) v. CAR - $5.00 wins $0.00 |
| Parlay: PIT (-260) v. ARI, NE (-330) v. CIN, TB (140) v. CAR, DET (130) v. CHI - $5.00 wins $0.00 |
| Spread: OAK +4.5 (-105) v. MIA - $5.00 wins $9.76 |
| Results for Week 4 | |
| Bet Totals: | $60.20 |
| Potential Winnings: | $115.57 |
| Potential Payouts: | $52.79 |
| Actual Profit: | -$7.41 |
| %s: Week 4 | -12.31% |
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Week 4 - Your Box Might Be Right, But I Am Righterer
First, some musings:
I. Seattle scares the snot out of me. We were both nervous last week,
I picked them anyway, and they didn't cover. Once again, I'm nervous
about the SF game, yet here we are both picking Seattle to cover. I
even specifically said the following: "I will pick against Seattle
from now on if they are favored, and with them if they are 'dogs". I
may need a substitute here.
II. The box went 2-1-1 last week
with the top 4, and the WAS game I want to call a fluke. So I think I
need to suck it and promote some of the box's picks into my top area.
Especially considering your advice that I am heavy on the big
favorites. I'm thinking the oakland game, since we both agree on that
one, plus I'm hedged with my moneyline mia pick.
III.
My gut substitutions with favorites did well. NE covered at -17, Car
covered at -4, Indy pushed at -6, NYJ pushed at -3. This tempers my II
above, gotta have faith in real-time information and a reality check
outside the numbers.
IV. Baltimore is a dangerous team to bet
with. I was so sure ARI wouldn't come close last week, but sure enough
Bal had to come from behind and win, but not cover the spread. Here we
go again with my being positive CLE can't get close. I think I need to
demote this game.
V. Buffalo is worse than anyone thinks. And
that's saying a lot because most think they suck. I'm sticking to my
guns here and leaving NYJ over Buf at #2.
1. gb over min -1.5
2. nyj over buf -3.5
3. oak over mia +4 --> promotion to get one of the box's favorites in my top 3, plus add an underdog; see observation II
4. phi over nyg -3 --> promotion - the box loves this pick. see observation II.
5.
bal over cle -4.5 --> demotion based on observation IV above. Plus
the box picks CLE to cover, which it has done successfully two weeks in
a row.
6. ne over cin -7
7. sd over kc -11.5
8. det over chi +3
9.
tb over car +3 --> substitution for sea over sf -2. not only did we
say last week that it was time to take tb seriously, but we get a
chance to pick them as an underdog, and the box loves them too. Plus I
can follow observation I above.
TMC
I. Seattle scares the snot out of me. We were both nervous last week,
I picked them anyway, and they didn't cover. Once again, I'm nervous
about the SF game, yet here we are both picking Seattle to cover. I
even specifically said the following: "I will pick against Seattle
from now on if they are favored, and with them if they are 'dogs". I
may need a substitute here.
II. The box went 2-1-1 last week
with the top 4, and the WAS game I want to call a fluke. So I think I
need to suck it and promote some of the box's picks into my top area.
Especially considering your advice that I am heavy on the big
favorites. I'm thinking the oakland game, since we both agree on that
one, plus I'm hedged with my moneyline mia pick.
III.
My gut substitutions with favorites did well. NE covered at -17, Car
covered at -4, Indy pushed at -6, NYJ pushed at -3. This tempers my II
above, gotta have faith in real-time information and a reality check
outside the numbers.
IV. Baltimore is a dangerous team to bet
with. I was so sure ARI wouldn't come close last week, but sure enough
Bal had to come from behind and win, but not cover the spread. Here we
go again with my being positive CLE can't get close. I think I need to
demote this game.
V. Buffalo is worse than anyone thinks. And
that's saying a lot because most think they suck. I'm sticking to my
guns here and leaving NYJ over Buf at #2.
1. gb over min -1.5
2. nyj over buf -3.5
3. oak over mia +4 --> promotion to get one of the box's favorites in my top 3, plus add an underdog; see observation II
4. phi over nyg -3 --> promotion - the box loves this pick. see observation II.
5.
bal over cle -4.5 --> demotion based on observation IV above. Plus
the box picks CLE to cover, which it has done successfully two weeks in
a row.
6. ne over cin -7
7. sd over kc -11.5
8. det over chi +3
9.
tb over car +3 --> substitution for sea over sf -2. not only did we
say last week that it was time to take tb seriously, but we get a
chance to pick them as an underdog, and the box loves them too. Plus I
can follow observation I above.
TMC
Week 4 - Box's Final Bets
Box's final locked in bets for Week 4:
| Bets for Week 4 |
| Spread: MIN +2 (-105) v. GB - $7.44 to win $7.09 |
| Moneyline: GB (-130) v. MIN - $7.62 to win $5.86 |
| Spread: BUF +3.5 (-105) v. NYJ - $9.87 to win $9.40 |
| Moneyline: NYJ (-190) v. BUF - $5.20 to win $2.74 |
| Spread: CIN +7.5 (-105) v. NE - $7.18 to win $6.84 |
| Moneyline: NE (-330) v. CIN - $7.89 to win $2.39 |
| Parlay: MIN +2 (-105) v. GB, PHI -3 (105) v. NYG, TB +3 (-120) v. CAR - $5.00 to win $31.69 |
| Parlay: PIT (-260) v. ARI, NE (-330) v. CIN, TB (140) v. CAR, DET (130) v. CHI - $5.00 to win $44.80 |
| Spread: OAK +4.5 (-105) v. MIA - $5.00 to win $4.76 |
| Bet Totals: | $60.20 |
| Potential Winnings: | $115.57 |
Friday, September 28, 2007
Week 4 - Hedging Sounds Like Balls
HEDGING: so basically in order to come up on top you need the favorite to win, but not cover the spread. If they win and cover, your losses probably are cut in half, right? Figure a $10 bet on each... Moneyline bet wins $5, spread loses $10, for a net of -$5.
ok, so here's where i'm thinking it's not such a good idea.... Had you just bet the moneyline, you would have not lost the $10 on the spread, for a net gain of $5. Now assume the opposite happens and the moneyline bet loses, so you win your spread pick. You win maybe $9 on your spread, and lose $10 on the moneyline for a net of -$1. Now assume you actually hit the middle ground and win both for a net of +$14. OK so now let's assume each scenario is equally likely to happen, you're expected winnings are:
1/3(-$-5) + 1/3($-1) + 1/3($14) = +$2.67.... holy shit. it came out positive... ok, surely someone who's been doing this longer than us has figured this out already, right? Are you plugging in the potential losses/winnings into your formula? in theory you could predict your expected winnings assuming that each scenario is just as likely as the others... then again, maybe this is the flaw. Is it really just as likely that you hit the blessed middle ground as it is that the winner cover, losing your spread bid? Consider this... the spread is designed to make it 50-50 chance that the dog will cover. If 1/2 the time they don't cover, that means that in the above scenario the odds of netting -$5 is 1/2, not 1/3, shifting expectations to:
1/2(-$5) + 1/4($-1) + 1/4($14) = -10/4-1/4+14/4 = +$0.75
ok, this is still interesting to me since it stayed positive, but since it is so close to zero, the actual payouts are critical here. I bet it can end up negative with larger lays. Plus there is one last bit of analysis i've left out... If the 'dog does cover half the time, what percentage of those games does the 'dog actually upset the favorite? This would shift expectations again. I would think you could look up this information... either use the historical percentage for head-ups upsets, or take it a step further to weigh that figure based on specific teams playing. This seems like a job for the BOX!
Having said all that... even assuming the above formula holds, a long term return of .75% return is pretty crappy, and to see any payoffs that were exciting (say... winning $50 on a weekend), you're bankroll has to be kinda high. In fact, it would take over $500 in gambling to win $50 in this scenario.
Unless you come up with some unbeatable system, I think the fun factor (i.e. potential big payoff) keeps my interest in the parlays.
-TMC-
ok, so here's where i'm thinking it's not such a good idea.... Had you just bet the moneyline, you would have not lost the $10 on the spread, for a net gain of $5. Now assume the opposite happens and the moneyline bet loses, so you win your spread pick. You win maybe $9 on your spread, and lose $10 on the moneyline for a net of -$1. Now assume you actually hit the middle ground and win both for a net of +$14. OK so now let's assume each scenario is equally likely to happen, you're expected winnings are:
1/3(-$-5) + 1/3($-1) + 1/3($14) = +$2.67.... holy shit. it came out positive... ok, surely someone who's been doing this longer than us has figured this out already, right? Are you plugging in the potential losses/winnings into your formula? in theory you could predict your expected winnings assuming that each scenario is just as likely as the others... then again, maybe this is the flaw. Is it really just as likely that you hit the blessed middle ground as it is that the winner cover, losing your spread bid? Consider this... the spread is designed to make it 50-50 chance that the dog will cover. If 1/2 the time they don't cover, that means that in the above scenario the odds of netting -$5 is 1/2, not 1/3, shifting expectations to:
1/2(-$5) + 1/4($-1) + 1/4($14) = -10/4-1/4+14/4 = +$0.75
ok, this is still interesting to me since it stayed positive, but since it is so close to zero, the actual payouts are critical here. I bet it can end up negative with larger lays. Plus there is one last bit of analysis i've left out... If the 'dog does cover half the time, what percentage of those games does the 'dog actually upset the favorite? This would shift expectations again. I would think you could look up this information... either use the historical percentage for head-ups upsets, or take it a step further to weigh that figure based on specific teams playing. This seems like a job for the BOX!
Having said all that... even assuming the above formula holds, a long term return of .75% return is pretty crappy, and to see any payoffs that were exciting (say... winning $50 on a weekend), you're bankroll has to be kinda high. In fact, it would take over $500 in gambling to win $50 in this scenario.
Unless you come up with some unbeatable system, I think the fun factor (i.e. potential big payoff) keeps my interest in the parlays.
-TMC-
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Week 4 - The Averager, a Gambling Superhero?
Ok, so I did something pretty cool I think. I cross averaged the boxes
best winning percentage picks over the last year and a half for the
moneyline and spread. Meaning, I found out I win 90% (that's right,
NINETY) of my 11th ranked spread pick, but I only win 42% of my 11th
ranked moneyline pick - so I've started averaging the two picks to get
the highest percentage combos I can get. This way I either get a decent
hedge in a win/lose scenario, a great week on a win/win, and a tough one
on lose/lose.
So here is my list:
Top 4 Spread/Moneyline Combos (spreads first, then moneylines):
BUF+3.5 (90% pick historically!), NYJ -190
STL+12.5, DAL (which is currently OFF, so I might not be able to bet
this one)
CIN +7, NE -330 (terrible payout on NE win, but it's almost a lock)
ATL +2.5, HOU -150
First impressions: I obviously haven't figured in the lay properly yet,
but it's a start. Plus I like the picks - all but the Atlanta pick, but
frankly, that one's not so bad either. I just no very little about
either teams' playing style. Typically, AFC over NFC (which bears out
in that pick), but home dog on the spread. Either way, I'm fairly hedged.
Top parlay combos:
PHI, MIN, SF (with Plaxico possibly injured, could be a lock on Philly -
this is the 1/2/3 conviction picks)
BUF, ATL, SF (this is the 1/2/3 win percentage picks)
Frankly, I like this new system picks. I avoid the terrible games
(KC/SD weirdness, ARI/PIT weirdness, CLE covering any spread weirdness).
--------------------------------- crappy disclaimer: I just looked up
the spreads, and CAR is -3 rather than OFF. This changed all my picks
and convictions. Here are the NEW picks after entering the spread so
you can see how the Box readjusts.
Top 4 Spread/Moneyline Combos (spreads first, then moneylines):
OAK+4 (90% pick historically!), MIA -230
TB +3, TB (apparently, the Box hearts TB)
STL+12.5, DAL
ARI +6, PIT -260 (damn, I do NOT heart this game)
Top parlay combos:
TB, PHI, MIN (this is the 1/2/3 conviction picks)
OAK, STL, SD (this is the 1/2/3 win percentage picks)
So, all my previous commentary is pointless. The Box switches
conviction as spreads change, it's part of the danger of moving
averages. I actually don't hate these picks, and I liked TB to win
before the spread was announced anyway.
My thought on yours is it's very very favorite heavy on the top
spreads... historically, this does not pan out as the season goes on.
That said, this season has been a favorite heavy season, so who knows.
As to the moneyline, the whole key will be the lay I think. The payout
on NE is 330 wins 100. That's TERRIBLE. Basically, you get 30% return
for your money. So that's the real game - there's no money in easy
favorites. Which means I have to teach the system to base it's
convictions on lays as well - maximum payouts for minimum risk. For
instance, I think PHI is basically a lock this week, and it's paying out
140/100. That's more than DOUBLE the NE payout, and should therefore be
ranked higher. I'll have to program it... so much to do.
best winning percentage picks over the last year and a half for the
moneyline and spread. Meaning, I found out I win 90% (that's right,
NINETY) of my 11th ranked spread pick, but I only win 42% of my 11th
ranked moneyline pick - so I've started averaging the two picks to get
the highest percentage combos I can get. This way I either get a decent
hedge in a win/lose scenario, a great week on a win/win, and a tough one
on lose/lose.
So here is my list:
Top 4 Spread/Moneyline Combos (spreads first, then moneylines):
BUF+3.5 (90% pick historically!), NYJ -190
STL+12.5, DAL (which is currently OFF, so I might not be able to bet
this one)
CIN +7, NE -330 (terrible payout on NE win, but it's almost a lock)
ATL +2.5, HOU -150
First impressions: I obviously haven't figured in the lay properly yet,
but it's a start. Plus I like the picks - all but the Atlanta pick, but
frankly, that one's not so bad either. I just no very little about
either teams' playing style. Typically, AFC over NFC (which bears out
in that pick), but home dog on the spread. Either way, I'm fairly hedged.
Top parlay combos:
PHI, MIN, SF (with Plaxico possibly injured, could be a lock on Philly -
this is the 1/2/3 conviction picks)
BUF, ATL, SF (this is the 1/2/3 win percentage picks)
Frankly, I like this new system picks. I avoid the terrible games
(KC/SD weirdness, ARI/PIT weirdness, CLE covering any spread weirdness).
--------------------------------- crappy disclaimer: I just looked up
the spreads, and CAR is -3 rather than OFF. This changed all my picks
and convictions. Here are the NEW picks after entering the spread so
you can see how the Box readjusts.
Top 4 Spread/Moneyline Combos (spreads first, then moneylines):
OAK+4 (90% pick historically!), MIA -230
TB +3, TB (apparently, the Box hearts TB)
STL+12.5, DAL
ARI +6, PIT -260 (damn, I do NOT heart this game)
Top parlay combos:
TB, PHI, MIN (this is the 1/2/3 conviction picks)
OAK, STL, SD (this is the 1/2/3 win percentage picks)
So, all my previous commentary is pointless. The Box switches
conviction as spreads change, it's part of the danger of moving
averages. I actually don't hate these picks, and I liked TB to win
before the spread was announced anyway.
My thought on yours is it's very very favorite heavy on the top
spreads... historically, this does not pan out as the season goes on.
That said, this season has been a favorite heavy season, so who knows.
As to the moneyline, the whole key will be the lay I think. The payout
on NE is 330 wins 100. That's TERRIBLE. Basically, you get 30% return
for your money. So that's the real game - there's no money in easy
favorites. Which means I have to teach the system to base it's
convictions on lays as well - maximum payouts for minimum risk. For
instance, I think PHI is basically a lock this week, and it's paying out
140/100. That's more than DOUBLE the NE payout, and should therefore be
ranked higher. I'll have to program it... so much to do.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Week 4 - The Mad Capper's Game Rankings
ok, I've cross-checked the lists and come up with my preliminary rankings and parlays.
Moneyline:
1. ne over cin
2. gb over min
3. dal over stl
4. sd over kc
5. bal over cle
6. nyj over buf
7. ind over den
8. pit over ari
9. mia over oak
So you may have noticed I stuck to my guns on this one. we agreed on most of them, but i had to stick with NE, DAL, and SD. The one switch I made was to drop the Hou vs Atl game in favor of mia vs oak. This is my experiment with picking the favorite in the moneyline, and picking the 'dog in the spread. So according to these rankings, my parlays will be:
[ne-gb-dal] [ne-sd-bal] [gb-nyj-ind] [dal-pit-mia] [ne-gb-dal-sd-bal-nyj]
Spread:
(depending on what the TB v CAR spread comes in at, they could be included here)
1. gb over min -1.5
2. nyj over buf -3.5
3. bal over cle -4.5
4. ne over cin -7
5. oak over mia +4
6. sea over sf -2
7. sd over kc -11.5
8. phi over nyg -3
9. det over chi +3
I really wanted to factor the spread box in here, but had a really tough time with your top picks. So actually my top 4 thumb their noses at the box, betting completely the opposite direction, plus i avoided your top rated games. So I decided that I would stick with the box the rest of the way to try to make amends. Note that one of the riskier TMC-picks is ne over cin. i decided not to do the genius-maneuver here (like with oak v mia), and just bet the pats when i saw that the spread had come down half a point to 7. Now that the pats can win by a touchdown and tie, i just can't bet against them. I honestly had no clue what to do with bets 5-9, so i'm really counting on the box to pull through here. Anyway, this is how the parlays will shake out:
[gb-nyj-bal] [gb-ne-oak] [nyj-sea-sd] [bal-phi-det] [gb-nyj-bal-ne-oak-sea]
Whew. That's a lot of work for one day.
-TMC-
Moneyline:
1. ne over cin
2. gb over min
3. dal over stl
4. sd over kc
5. bal over cle
6. nyj over buf
7. ind over den
8. pit over ari
9. mia over oak
So you may have noticed I stuck to my guns on this one. we agreed on most of them, but i had to stick with NE, DAL, and SD. The one switch I made was to drop the Hou vs Atl game in favor of mia vs oak. This is my experiment with picking the favorite in the moneyline, and picking the 'dog in the spread. So according to these rankings, my parlays will be:
[ne-gb-dal] [ne-sd-bal] [gb-nyj-ind] [dal-pit-mia] [ne-gb-dal-sd-bal-nyj]
Spread:
(depending on what the TB v CAR spread comes in at, they could be included here)
1. gb over min -1.5
2. nyj over buf -3.5
3. bal over cle -4.5
4. ne over cin -7
5. oak over mia +4
6. sea over sf -2
7. sd over kc -11.5
8. phi over nyg -3
9. det over chi +3
I really wanted to factor the spread box in here, but had a really tough time with your top picks. So actually my top 4 thumb their noses at the box, betting completely the opposite direction, plus i avoided your top rated games. So I decided that I would stick with the box the rest of the way to try to make amends. Note that one of the riskier TMC-picks is ne over cin. i decided not to do the genius-maneuver here (like with oak v mia), and just bet the pats when i saw that the spread had come down half a point to 7. Now that the pats can win by a touchdown and tie, i just can't bet against them. I honestly had no clue what to do with bets 5-9, so i'm really counting on the box to pull through here. Anyway, this is how the parlays will shake out:
[gb-nyj-bal] [gb-ne-oak] [nyj-sea-sd] [bal-phi-det] [gb-nyj-bal-ne-oak-sea]
Whew. That's a lot of work for one day.
-TMC-
Week 4 - The Capper Commentary - Part Deuce
Wow.
You've got some craaaaazy stuff going on here with your money line bets. I love your idea of spreading risk by picking a 'dog to cover the spread, and the favorite to win the moneyline. when i read that, i thought "this is the smartest thing i've ever heard"... stroke of genius, buddy. really.
i'm going to do twice as many parlays using half-bets, so i am going to have a 5-parlay set devoted to moneylining. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. OK, so my comments on your moneyline picks:
1. NYJ - I like this one, it is my #6.
2. SEA - This didn't make my top 9, but i agree with you. I won't be betting this one, though.
3. GB - love this one, it's my #2.
4. KC - you are crazy. your #4 confidence is that KC beats SD??? i think you need to recheck this one, since you have SD covering the spread on your other box.
--->6th grade sense of humor alert: we should refer to the two systems as the "spread box" and the "money box" - get it? it's like vagina. eh heh heh, heh heh... shut up, beavis... oh man, i need more sleep.
5. HOU - squeaked in at my #9, we are in agreement here.
6. BAL - I like this one also, at #4.
7. MIA - this is one where you like oakland to cover the spread, but mia to win (see 'smartest thing..ever' comment above). This didn't make my top 9, though.
8. PHI - doesn't make my top 9. I don't like this game at all, both teams have multiple personality syndrome.
9. IND - I have this game slightly higher at #7.
10. TB - Didn't make my top 9, but i agree TB should win.
11. DET - Also didn't make my top 9. I think i'm gonna stay away.
12. PIT - I like PIT to win here, and they made it in for me at #8.
13. NE - This is where you start to get silly - This is my #1 game of the week. no WAY CIN's defense stops NE this week. no way. In other news, by including this game in the betting, you can pick CIN to cover the spread in a separate bet.
14. DAL - Again... c'mon, what are you doing here? last? the spread is like 12! I love dallas in this game at my #3 spot. Also an opportunity to pick DAL here and STL to cover the huge spread later.
Double check your money box, i think you've got some holes. particularly #4, 13-14. In any case I'm going to try to reconcile my own favorites with yours here and put together a final top 9.
-TMC-
You've got some craaaaazy stuff going on here with your money line bets. I love your idea of spreading risk by picking a 'dog to cover the spread, and the favorite to win the moneyline. when i read that, i thought "this is the smartest thing i've ever heard"... stroke of genius, buddy. really.
i'm going to do twice as many parlays using half-bets, so i am going to have a 5-parlay set devoted to moneylining. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. OK, so my comments on your moneyline picks:
1. NYJ - I like this one, it is my #6.
2. SEA - This didn't make my top 9, but i agree with you. I won't be betting this one, though.
3. GB - love this one, it's my #2.
4. KC - you are crazy. your #4 confidence is that KC beats SD??? i think you need to recheck this one, since you have SD covering the spread on your other box.
--->6th grade sense of humor alert: we should refer to the two systems as the "spread box" and the "money box" - get it? it's like vagina. eh heh heh, heh heh... shut up, beavis... oh man, i need more sleep.
5. HOU - squeaked in at my #9, we are in agreement here.
6. BAL - I like this one also, at #4.
7. MIA - this is one where you like oakland to cover the spread, but mia to win (see 'smartest thing..ever' comment above). This didn't make my top 9, though.
8. PHI - doesn't make my top 9. I don't like this game at all, both teams have multiple personality syndrome.
9. IND - I have this game slightly higher at #7.
10. TB - Didn't make my top 9, but i agree TB should win.
11. DET - Also didn't make my top 9. I think i'm gonna stay away.
12. PIT - I like PIT to win here, and they made it in for me at #8.
13. NE - This is where you start to get silly - This is my #1 game of the week. no WAY CIN's defense stops NE this week. no way. In other news, by including this game in the betting, you can pick CIN to cover the spread in a separate bet.
14. DAL - Again... c'mon, what are you doing here? last? the spread is like 12! I love dallas in this game at my #3 spot. Also an opportunity to pick DAL here and STL to cover the huge spread later.
Double check your money box, i think you've got some holes. particularly #4, 13-14. In any case I'm going to try to reconcile my own favorites with yours here and put together a final top 9.
-TMC-
Week 4 - The Capper Commentary - Part Un
Comments on the spread box...
1. PHI -3 @ NYG - This is a risky game to me (see above), but i have no problem with your pick.
2. MIN +1.5 @ GB - I have to disagree with you here... this is my #1 pick of the week. Did you see MIN suck it last week vs KC? Oh man it was sad. Kelly Holcomb just got to town like 15 days ago, and he isn't that good to start off with. Huard to Bowe (who? yeah, exactly) looked like montana to rice out there. Contract that with GBs solid win vs SD last week and few injuries, and only giving 1.5 points... i think this is a gimme so much i already locked in the pick in fear that the spread might change as the week goes on.
3. SEA -2 @ SF - Another risky game i think. I like SEA here, too. But probably not as a #3.
4. DET +3 v CHI - This one kinda scares me too... at first i thought det based on the records, then thought chi, since det hasn't beaten a good team yet, plus rex is benched. then i remembered that lance briggs, mike brown and a couple other defensive starters are injured. so maybe i go back to detroit... i dunno, man, so i'll rely on the box. but again, not this high.
5. ARI +6 v PIT - This is deja vu - very similar to last week's dilemma on how to handle ARI vs BAL. Last week ARI covered, despite what i thought, so i am tempted to bet with the box this week, even though my gut told me go with PIT, who have the #2 defense, and are scoring on the ground and in the air. Not sure what to do here.
6. CIN +7.5 v NE - I gotta tell you, I think NE is gonna cover this spread. howver, I love the idea of picking with you here, and then picking NE to win the moneyline. Damn your genius ideas. This was my #4 pick, that's how much i like NE to cover.... damn damn damn.
7. STL +11.5 @ DAL- oh these big spreads drive me crazy. steven jackson is out, bulger is in but playing with 2 broken ribs, 2 of their starting OL are out, and they have been pounded by every team they've played. Yet you want to pick them to cover against DAL, who is just blowing people out? at Dallas? Me and the spread box are clearly having issues this week.
8. ATL +2.5 v HOU- another disagreement. HOU is playing great ball, and even without A. Johnson, they got within a touchdown of Indy. The spread is so small I think I go with HOU here, unless you think ATL is going to upset?
9. CLE +4.5 v BAL - I am 100% against you here. This is my #2 pick, and no way CLE upsets BAL like it did to CIN. CIN had no defense. Terell Suggs and Bart Scott are going to get 4 combined sacks, Derek Anderson throws 3 picks.
10. OAK +4 @ MIA- hey! we agree! i don't like mia, and oakland seems to be playing tough. I like the 4 points, too.
11. BUF +3.5 v NYJ - Dammit man, this is my #3. How is it possible that we disagree completely on my top 4? Buffalo just lost losman, and is forced to start their rookie, plus their hotshot rookie linebacker paul polyzcudkslksdfmsky. NYJ are better than their record. Playoff team last year and losses to NE and BAL are not something to get upset about.
12. DEN +9.5 @ IND - again, i hate these big spreads. my gut says indy covers, but i'll follow you on this one.
13. SD -11.5 v KC- amazing. the box picked a huge favorite. and i agree. SD explodes this week after being embarrassed two weeks in a row.
14. TB OFF @ CAR - I like TB to win, i'm very curious what the spread is here. If CAR is favored this could become a big pick.
-TMC-
1. PHI -3 @ NYG - This is a risky game to me (see above), but i have no problem with your pick.
2. MIN +1.5 @ GB - I have to disagree with you here... this is my #1 pick of the week. Did you see MIN suck it last week vs KC? Oh man it was sad. Kelly Holcomb just got to town like 15 days ago, and he isn't that good to start off with. Huard to Bowe (who? yeah, exactly) looked like montana to rice out there. Contract that with GBs solid win vs SD last week and few injuries, and only giving 1.5 points... i think this is a gimme so much i already locked in the pick in fear that the spread might change as the week goes on.
3. SEA -2 @ SF - Another risky game i think. I like SEA here, too. But probably not as a #3.
4. DET +3 v CHI - This one kinda scares me too... at first i thought det based on the records, then thought chi, since det hasn't beaten a good team yet, plus rex is benched. then i remembered that lance briggs, mike brown and a couple other defensive starters are injured. so maybe i go back to detroit... i dunno, man, so i'll rely on the box. but again, not this high.
5. ARI +6 v PIT - This is deja vu - very similar to last week's dilemma on how to handle ARI vs BAL. Last week ARI covered, despite what i thought, so i am tempted to bet with the box this week, even though my gut told me go with PIT, who have the #2 defense, and are scoring on the ground and in the air. Not sure what to do here.
6. CIN +7.5 v NE - I gotta tell you, I think NE is gonna cover this spread. howver, I love the idea of picking with you here, and then picking NE to win the moneyline. Damn your genius ideas. This was my #4 pick, that's how much i like NE to cover.... damn damn damn.
7. STL +11.5 @ DAL- oh these big spreads drive me crazy. steven jackson is out, bulger is in but playing with 2 broken ribs, 2 of their starting OL are out, and they have been pounded by every team they've played. Yet you want to pick them to cover against DAL, who is just blowing people out? at Dallas? Me and the spread box are clearly having issues this week.
8. ATL +2.5 v HOU- another disagreement. HOU is playing great ball, and even without A. Johnson, they got within a touchdown of Indy. The spread is so small I think I go with HOU here, unless you think ATL is going to upset?
9. CLE +4.5 v BAL - I am 100% against you here. This is my #2 pick, and no way CLE upsets BAL like it did to CIN. CIN had no defense. Terell Suggs and Bart Scott are going to get 4 combined sacks, Derek Anderson throws 3 picks.
10. OAK +4 @ MIA- hey! we agree! i don't like mia, and oakland seems to be playing tough. I like the 4 points, too.
11. BUF +3.5 v NYJ - Dammit man, this is my #3. How is it possible that we disagree completely on my top 4? Buffalo just lost losman, and is forced to start their rookie, plus their hotshot rookie linebacker paul polyzcudkslksdfmsky. NYJ are better than their record. Playoff team last year and losses to NE and BAL are not something to get upset about.
12. DEN +9.5 @ IND - again, i hate these big spreads. my gut says indy covers, but i'll follow you on this one.
13. SD -11.5 v KC- amazing. the box picked a huge favorite. and i agree. SD explodes this week after being embarrassed two weeks in a row.
14. TB OFF @ CAR - I like TB to win, i'm very curious what the spread is here. If CAR is favored this could become a big pick.
-TMC-
Week 4 - First Impressions - Hedging Risk Like a Sally
On to the Money Line
The ML is interesting in that, no matter how I narrow the parameters,
the results are mixed. I have good weeks and bad, but I average 58%
over the last two seasons if I pick teams that are predicted to win that
are playing at home. If I do a pure "who will win" over the entire
league, I'm at 55%. Mediocre, but still profitable. When I saw this, I
needed to know which picks were historically stronger picks. This is
where it gets interesting.
For some reason, picks 10-16 (depending on Bye weeks) average a whopping
67%. Picks 12-16 are at 70%, and picks 15-16 are at a ridiculous 75%
correct. The most convicted picks are not so good. Which makes me
think the way I am measuring conviction is wrong, but I'll change that
up later. For now, here are the list of picks:
1. NYJ
2. SEA
3. GB
4. KC
5. HOU
6. BAL
7. MIA
8. PHI
9. IND
10. TB
11. DET
12. PIT
13. NE
14. DAL
Already, I can see it makes sense to combine this with spreads and limit
my risk. GB is the only one in my top 5, but if I combine some of the
other spreads, I can take NYJ to win and BUF to cover, NE to win and CIN
to cover... etc.
-MTB-
The ML is interesting in that, no matter how I narrow the parameters,
the results are mixed. I have good weeks and bad, but I average 58%
over the last two seasons if I pick teams that are predicted to win that
are playing at home. If I do a pure "who will win" over the entire
league, I'm at 55%. Mediocre, but still profitable. When I saw this, I
needed to know which picks were historically stronger picks. This is
where it gets interesting.
For some reason, picks 10-16 (depending on Bye weeks) average a whopping
67%. Picks 12-16 are at 70%, and picks 15-16 are at a ridiculous 75%
correct. The most convicted picks are not so good. Which makes me
think the way I am measuring conviction is wrong, but I'll change that
up later. For now, here are the list of picks:
1. NYJ
2. SEA
3. GB
4. KC
5. HOU
6. BAL
7. MIA
8. PHI
9. IND
10. TB
11. DET
12. PIT
13. NE
14. DAL
Already, I can see it makes sense to combine this with spreads and limit
my risk. GB is the only one in my top 5, but if I combine some of the
other spreads, I can take NYJ to win and BUF to cover, NE to win and CIN
to cover... etc.
-MTB-
Week 4 - Box's First Impressions - Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
Trust me, you won't like the box this week. I don't like the box this
week, either. So much so that I'm running TWO boxes concurrently right
now to see which one performs better. I like the methods of my newer
system (the thinking makes more sense), but I like the picks of the
original system (you'll see what I mean). I also added a Money Line
component, which is sweet - I might start picking the top 4 spreads and
their coinciding Money Lines to either a.) double up, or b.) offset any
losses. I'll give you some ML picks after the spreads.
Box 1 (the new and improved) says (in order of conviction):
1. PHI -3 @ NYG
2. MIN +1.5 @ GB
3. SEA -2 @ SF
4. DET +3 v CHI
5. ARI +6 v PIT
6. CIN +7.5 v NE
7. STL +11.5 @ DAL
8. ATL +2.5 v HOU
9. CLE +4.5 v BAL
10. OAK +4 @ MIA
11. BUF +3.5 v NYJ
12. DEN +9.5 @ IND
13. SD -11.5 v KC
14. TB OFF @ CAR
Now, before I start in with the "what the hell???" on some of these
picks, there are some good explanations. PHI is the lock of the week by
the system, though it will be closer than the system thinks. MIN is a
close second, and I think there's a good reason GB isn't a lock. First,
historically, Favre sucks balls at MIN. Second, MIN's D is much better
(surprisingly) than SD, and MIN running game has been much better. This
game will be a pretty grueling game I think. The system predicts GB
winning by 1 on the ML side, so cross my fingers the stats know what
they're talking about.
The 3rd pick makes me more nervous than the first two. SEA
traditionally has a hard time in SF, and their games are always very
very close. I'm comforted by how badly Alex Smith is playing, but it'll
be a game of defense I think. And I like SF's D better. Especially at
home. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised to lose this bet.
Now we get to crazy. DET? The system, in fact, says that DET should be
FAVORED by 3, not getting 3. That seems to be ridiculous. I think
Griese will be better than Grossman for sure, but I just can't imagine
DET able to stop a baby in a stroller after last weeks blowout. The ARI
pick is OK by me, I have few convictions either way, though PIT is
playing amazing football, tough not to see it being a 7 point game. CIN
is your classic "Home Dog" pick. I'm just hoping it's a garbage TD that
covers for CIN. CIN is the pick on both systems, so it's a pretty
strong pick.
STL, another dog pick, mostly because the spread is high. I can't
imagine DAL not winning by at least 10, so another cross my fingers.
The rest of the picks are all totally conceivable, despite picking SD.
The SD pick is a mean regression pick more than the system thinking SD
will cover - in fact, the system predicts KC WINNING by 1, but SD has
fallen so far below it's range, the system is trained to assume they can
get back into their range until the range changes.
-MTB-
week, either. So much so that I'm running TWO boxes concurrently right
now to see which one performs better. I like the methods of my newer
system (the thinking makes more sense), but I like the picks of the
original system (you'll see what I mean). I also added a Money Line
component, which is sweet - I might start picking the top 4 spreads and
their coinciding Money Lines to either a.) double up, or b.) offset any
losses. I'll give you some ML picks after the spreads.
Box 1 (the new and improved) says (in order of conviction):
1. PHI -3 @ NYG
2. MIN +1.5 @ GB
3. SEA -2 @ SF
4. DET +3 v CHI
5. ARI +6 v PIT
6. CIN +7.5 v NE
7. STL +11.5 @ DAL
8. ATL +2.5 v HOU
9. CLE +4.5 v BAL
10. OAK +4 @ MIA
11. BUF +3.5 v NYJ
12. DEN +9.5 @ IND
13. SD -11.5 v KC
14. TB OFF @ CAR
Now, before I start in with the "what the hell???" on some of these
picks, there are some good explanations. PHI is the lock of the week by
the system, though it will be closer than the system thinks. MIN is a
close second, and I think there's a good reason GB isn't a lock. First,
historically, Favre sucks balls at MIN. Second, MIN's D is much better
(surprisingly) than SD, and MIN running game has been much better. This
game will be a pretty grueling game I think. The system predicts GB
winning by 1 on the ML side, so cross my fingers the stats know what
they're talking about.
The 3rd pick makes me more nervous than the first two. SEA
traditionally has a hard time in SF, and their games are always very
very close. I'm comforted by how badly Alex Smith is playing, but it'll
be a game of defense I think. And I like SF's D better. Especially at
home. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised to lose this bet.
Now we get to crazy. DET? The system, in fact, says that DET should be
FAVORED by 3, not getting 3. That seems to be ridiculous. I think
Griese will be better than Grossman for sure, but I just can't imagine
DET able to stop a baby in a stroller after last weeks blowout. The ARI
pick is OK by me, I have few convictions either way, though PIT is
playing amazing football, tough not to see it being a 7 point game. CIN
is your classic "Home Dog" pick. I'm just hoping it's a garbage TD that
covers for CIN. CIN is the pick on both systems, so it's a pretty
strong pick.
STL, another dog pick, mostly because the spread is high. I can't
imagine DAL not winning by at least 10, so another cross my fingers.
The rest of the picks are all totally conceivable, despite picking SD.
The SD pick is a mean regression pick more than the system thinking SD
will cover - in fact, the system predicts KC WINNING by 1, but SD has
fallen so far below it's range, the system is trained to assume they can
get back into their range until the range changes.
-MTB-
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Week 4 - Lock in GB
I already locked in my first parlay... [bal - gb - nyj]..... GB's spread over MIN is only 1.5, i wanted to get it in before everyone bet on GB and the spread moved. This has to be the biggest gimme of the week.
I like my top four picks:
1. GB over MIN (-1.5)
2. BAL over CLE (-4.5)
3. NYJ over MIA (-3.5)
4. NE over CIN (-7.5)
...But the rest is a toss up. I need the box! gotta round off my 5-9 picks! or maybe this is the week to stick with only 6 teams? hmm... i'll wait to see what you come up with.
PPS I think i've made up my mind... I'm going 1/2 bets and doing two different sets of 5 parlays. One set will be the same as last week, and the second set will be money line bets. Here are my top nine for moneyline:
1. pats over cin
2. gb over min
3. dal over stl
4. bal over cle
5. sd over kc
6. nyj over buf
7. ind over den
8. pit over ari
9. hou over atl
Overall I am way more comfortable with my moneyline bets.
-TMC-
I like my top four picks:
1. GB over MIN (-1.5)
2. BAL over CLE (-4.5)
3. NYJ over MIA (-3.5)
4. NE over CIN (-7.5)
...But the rest is a toss up. I need the box! gotta round off my 5-9 picks! or maybe this is the week to stick with only 6 teams? hmm... i'll wait to see what you come up with.
PPS I think i've made up my mind... I'm going 1/2 bets and doing two different sets of 5 parlays. One set will be the same as last week, and the second set will be money line bets. Here are my top nine for moneyline:
1. pats over cin
2. gb over min
3. dal over stl
4. bal over cle
5. sd over kc
6. nyj over buf
7. ind over den
8. pit over ari
9. hou over atl
Overall I am way more comfortable with my moneyline bets.
-TMC-
Week 4 - Brewing New Parlay Systems
ok, so i had to babysit these surveyors at one of our jobsites today... so basically i sat in my car all day and brainstormed different parlay systems.... fantastic use of company time.
so last week i used my top 9 and put together 4 3-team parlays in descending confidence, plus a 6 team parlay using my top 6:
(a) [1-3] [1,4,5] [2,6,7] [3,8,9], [1-6]
Then i thought.. why not make 1/2 bets (in mycase $5 instead of $10), and make twice as many bets - just rearranging the order so that if my combinations don't work, i'll have another whole set that could work out. basically still use the parlays above, plus:
(b) [1,2,4] [1,6,8] [2,4,9] [3,5,7], [4-9]
i think statistics go against me with this theory, though. I now need to win twice as many parlays to meet the same payoff, plus the second set of parlays is less likely to occur (according to my preference list). so on second thought i think this is not a good idea. i'm curious on your thoughts, though.
Another idea i had was to use the original set, only instead of my 6-team parlay, use two 6-team parlays with half bets. these are the long shots anyway, so why not mix up the team combinations and have two shots at the big payoff? maybe something like this:
(c) [1-6]; [4-9] or [1-3,7-9] or [my six favorite 'gut feeling picks']
Lastly i thought about reducing the pool of teams i'm betting on from 9 to 6. This way i'm only dealing with my 6 favorites:
(d) [1-3] [1,4,5] [2,3,6] [4,5,6] [1-6]
This one has some promise, i think. This yields the same results as (a) if one of my top 3 loses. but it costs me two parlays instead of one parlay if 4-6 lose. So on the one hand, i'm not risking any parlays with 7-9 picks, but if 4-6 lose, each one costs me two parlays. and there are deadly combos that kill the whole thing such as 2,5 losing or 1,4 losing.... man the more i think about this the more i dislike it.... anyway...
On to moneyline betting....
I think i love this. I am badass at predicting straight up winners. last week i was 11-5, and nailed 8 out of my top 9. If the payouts are similar to point spread parlays, i think i'm gonna try it out this week. Interesting that the box is good at picking spreads, and i am better at picking straight-up winners.... there has to be a way to use this to our advantage...
-TMC-
so last week i used my top 9 and put together 4 3-team parlays in descending confidence, plus a 6 team parlay using my top 6:
(a) [1-3] [1,4,5] [2,6,7] [3,8,9], [1-6]
Then i thought.. why not make 1/2 bets (in mycase $5 instead of $10), and make twice as many bets - just rearranging the order so that if my combinations don't work, i'll have another whole set that could work out. basically still use the parlays above, plus:
(b) [1,2,4] [1,6,8] [2,4,9] [3,5,7], [4-9]
i think statistics go against me with this theory, though. I now need to win twice as many parlays to meet the same payoff, plus the second set of parlays is less likely to occur (according to my preference list). so on second thought i think this is not a good idea. i'm curious on your thoughts, though.
Another idea i had was to use the original set, only instead of my 6-team parlay, use two 6-team parlays with half bets. these are the long shots anyway, so why not mix up the team combinations and have two shots at the big payoff? maybe something like this:
(c) [1-6]; [4-9] or [1-3,7-9] or [my six favorite 'gut feeling picks']
Lastly i thought about reducing the pool of teams i'm betting on from 9 to 6. This way i'm only dealing with my 6 favorites:
(d) [1-3] [1,4,5] [2,3,6] [4,5,6] [1-6]
This one has some promise, i think. This yields the same results as (a) if one of my top 3 loses. but it costs me two parlays instead of one parlay if 4-6 lose. So on the one hand, i'm not risking any parlays with 7-9 picks, but if 4-6 lose, each one costs me two parlays. and there are deadly combos that kill the whole thing such as 2,5 losing or 1,4 losing.... man the more i think about this the more i dislike it.... anyway...
On to moneyline betting....
I think i love this. I am badass at predicting straight up winners. last week i was 11-5, and nailed 8 out of my top 9. If the payouts are similar to point spread parlays, i think i'm gonna try it out this week. Interesting that the box is good at picking spreads, and i am better at picking straight-up winners.... there has to be a way to use this to our advantage...
-TMC-
Monday, September 24, 2007
Week 4 - Box and Moneyline are Not Making Sweet Love
I thought about moneyline, thinking it would be much easier to nail with
the system. So in one of my furious idea sketches, I removed the spread
equations and picked just winners and losers: since the 2006 season, I
hit on 44% of the time. Terrible. It at least makes me feel good about
my spread analysis, it must be adding value since I can't pick a winner
at all. I'd do better if I flipped a fucking coin!
Maybe if I limit it to just underdogs... or just favorites... or just
home or away teams... maybe I'd get better results. I'll try it, but it
looks pretty balls.
-MTB-
the system. So in one of my furious idea sketches, I removed the spread
equations and picked just winners and losers: since the 2006 season, I
hit on 44% of the time. Terrible. It at least makes me feel good about
my spread analysis, it must be adding value since I can't pick a winner
at all. I'd do better if I flipped a fucking coin!
Maybe if I limit it to just underdogs... or just favorites... or just
home or away teams... maybe I'd get better results. I'll try it, but it
looks pretty balls.
-MTB-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)