Week 10 - Box's Results

It was ugly, but it was a positive week. I still haven't taught the Box the teaser yet, I've missed twice now. The payouts are relatively terrible on the teasers, as well, so I haven't decided whether they are worth the risk. Overall, the Box went 8-6 this week, and avoided major screw ups. More commentary to come, I am psyched about the performance of my new "double down" function.

Results for Week 10

Spread: CAR -4 (-105) v. ATL - $6.32 wins $0.00

Spread: NYG +1.5 (-105) v. DAL - $5.39 wins $0.00

Spread: CIN +4 (-105) v. BAL - $6.29 wins $12.28

Moneyline: WAS (-145) v. PHI - $5.00 wins $0.00

Parlay: JAC +4 (-105) v. TEN, CLE +9.5 (-105) v. PIT, CIN +4 (-105) v. BAL - $5.00 wins $37.21

Parlay: TEN (-210) v. JAC, WAS (-145) v. PHI, IND (-190) v. SD, KC (-175) v. DEN - $5.00 wins $0.00

Parlay: NO -5.5 (-105) v. STL, DET +7 (-115) v. ARI, CAR +2 (-105) v. ATL, DAL +4.5 (-115) v. NYG, CIN +10 (-105) v. BAL, SEA -4 (-105) v. SF - $5.00 wins $0.00

Results for Week 10
Bet Totals:	$38.00
Potential Winnings:	$107.71
Potential Payouts:	$49.49
Actual Profit:	$11.49
%s: Week 10	30.24%

Week 10 - Recap - Multiple Personality Strikes Again!

Tough week on all fronts. The box failed me, and I failed me.

First, the winners:

Cleveland - I had them in on a teaser and straight parlay +16 and +10, respectively. Cleveland continues to be an underrated football team, and continues to beat the spreads. I almost bet this game straight up on a moneyline since it was +400, but am glad I did not. That last-second field goal miss quite possibly would have destroyed me.

GB - GB continues to be a solid pick week in and week out. I am a little nervous moving forward with them, since they just pounded a MIN team that just pounded a SD team that just beat up IND. Plus they beat KC and DEN in their houses in the previous two weeks. Wave Theory may suggest they will start to be overvalued in coming weeks, definitely something to keep an eye out for.

Buffalo - They made it scary, but they covered their 2.5 points against a lousy MIA team. I actually thought this game was way underestimating the Bills, I'm glad the spread wasn't higher, i probably would have bet them all the way to +7. Looking forward, I'm thinking they are still a good pick against low-average opponents, especially since they will be destroyed by NE next week.

CIN - Finally! I have lost so many bets betting on this team (and in any game involving BAL), but they beat the Ravens like they should have. Also considered this as an upset moneyline pick, but in the end stuck to using them in a parlay. Looking forward, I will probably avoid this team mostly. They may be a good team to pick against, as they may become overvalued after upsetting the Ravens, who people still seem to think are a playoff team (they are not).

And... The losers:

DET - a Multiple Personality team and I made them my #1 pick of the week - and it completely screwed me. I had them in half of my parlays so this game shut off 50% of my chances. Vegas had Arizona favored, the box, G-SPAM and I all thought they were crazy... classic trap game. How could a DET team on a winning streak against some solid oponnents be underdogs against a losing ARI team playing with a 60% healthy backup quarterback? No clue. But they were right. ARI forced 5 turnovers, and that was all she wrote. I know better than to bet on multiple personality teams, but i ignored it and it cost me.

WAS - beaten by a multiple personality team - Philly. Dammit again! I know better than to bet these games, yet I did it twice this week! twice! Ugh. I had WAS in a four team moneyline parlay. Very disappointed in myself for picking this game.

INDY - By the time they played, My four bets had already lost, so I didn't find out until this morning that they were upset by SD. 6 picks from Manning? yikes. definitely one of those freak games of the week. Normally I would be more pissed, but the multiple personality teams already screwed my bets. I'll continue to hold Indy high in future picks. I'm not worried about them.

Tennessee - I took them in a teaser, figuring that they would beat JAX again, and taking away the negative point spread. Didn't matter as JAX came through with thte upset. I usually don't bet on TN because I think they are regularly overrated, yet continue to win. That was my logic on the teaser bet - it might not be pretty but they'll pull off the W. Looking forward I'm thinking they can't be trusted at all.

The box - I'm surprised to hear you won this week, Matty. A lot of Box's top picks went down. I noticed you pulled one parlay off, depsite this though:

MIA, CAR, NYG, MIN, NO all lost.

Good for you for picking the right combos and navigating away from these guys.

Gotta rest up, continue inputting data into my wave theory spreadsheet and get back to you later.

PS check out the comments in your last post, i dropped some questions for you.

TMC

Week 10 - Financials, SPAM, and Box - Priapism Rules

First things first: ALL HAIL THE BOX. SD won't cover say you? Boxy says otherwise. CLE can't cover? Neigh, jerk! Box says and CLE does! All that work to make financials a part of the betting seems not worth it. Or was it?

So, upon advice of Capper, I altered the stats on which the financials are based, and now the results make a lot more sense. Now, the financials are figured thusly:

The beta is now figured using a ratio of points scored to statistical score - a scaled and redesigned version of DVOA from the geniusi at Football Outsiders. Basically, it's a ratio of points to team value over average. As an example, if NE is 40% above the average team (which scales to a score of 140), and they score 37 points, the ratio is 37/140 = 0.22. The baseline score is a score of 20 (the historical average) divided by 100 (the most average team possible), or 0.20. What that means is that, if NE scored the exact amount of points it SHOULD score, it would score 28 points. Because it scored 37, it has a higher point to score ratio.

This is a very effective way of describing whether or not a team is performing as expected or not. So when I figure the all the financials using these ratios, the rankings now look like this:

	Sharpe	Alpha	Beta
Team	Rank	Rank	Rank
ARI	18	22	24
ATL	30	28	27
BAL	26	29	21
BUF	27	25	17
CAR	24	26	16
CHI	23	17	23
CIN	9	10	8
CLE	4	2	30
DAL	2	3	3
DEN	29	30	4
DET	7	6	18
GB	8	13	20
HOU	11	7	5
IND	3	4	9
JAC	19	23	2
KC	28	27	19
MIA	15	14	28
MIN	14	21	29
NE	1	1	14
NO	12	9	25
NYG	6	5	12
NYJ	25	8	32
OAK	20	15	26
PHI	17	20	31
PIT	5	12	11
SD	10	11	6
SEA	13	16	13
SF	31	31	1
STL	32	32	10
TB	22	19	22
TEN	16	18	15
WAS	21	24	7

Almost the same as before, really. But now, I figured out HOW to use these scores. Or, more accurately, my lovely wife gave me the idea.

She suggested, "Why do you have to tell the Box how many games you want to pick? Shouldn't the Box tell you? Shouldn't there be a threshold?" I don't know why I hadn't thought of it, I thought that could be genius. But rather than letting the Box tell me what games to bet, (since that means there would be weeks I only bet one game, sometimes zero, and that's no fun) I'm having the Box now tell me what games to DOUBLE the bet. The beta does an AMAZING job of gaging volatility for spread bets, and a Sharpe/Alpha average picks moneyline winners like I pick my nose.

I'll get more into this during the week, but for now, let's just say I would have made FIFTEEN TIMES MORE on my bets if I'd been doing it all along. Pure semi genius.

Check back for results later today/tomorrow, it was another winning week! It was a little ugly, but still a winner!

Week 10 - Capper's Final Picks

Despite my misgivings about this week, and the fact that Cin +4.5 moved to +3.5 when I wasn't looking, I pretty much stayed with the same parlays, and yes, once again i broke my picks up into those based on my insane cappings, and those based on the box. I left the G-SPAM alone, as it seems to have quirks:

[cin +3.5 -- cle +10 -- det +1.5] --> Box Picks

[buf -2.5 -- ind -3.5 -- det +1.5] --> Capper Picks

[ind +2.5 -- ten +1.5 -- gb 0] --> 6-point teaser

[buf -145 -- ind -190 -- was -145 -- gb -260] --> Capper ML parlay

So a couple teams show up twice, and could really screw me up. Cheer, cheer for detroit, buffalo, and indy!

Good luck!

Week 10 - Check your pants, is it really spam?

Did you run the G-SPAM without my apple sauce modification? Were the results any different?

I think something's off here. Factoring in volatility should increase the success rate. It's only logical. If a team plays consistently at some level, you should know how to bet their game. The application must be flawed.

Basically I'm thinking that:

1. If the game is A vs B, and
2. A plays at consistent level X, while
3. B plays at consistent level X+1,
4. if you bet B, you should expect to win.

Solution #1: Pick games in which both teams have high-ranked Beta Values (low volatility), then pick the winner based on the box's predictions. In this case we have past performance predicting future outcome, with a low possibility for variance from past performance. Overall this should yield good results.

Solution #2: Since Alpha and SHARPE ratios factor in performance and volatility in the form of a neat ratio, you should be able to pick any game and pick the team with the higher ratio as the winner. I suggest using a sample size of 10 games only, going back further than that may include irrelevant information.
*Performance = Performance vs. the average nfl team , so each team's ratios will reflect strength of schedule.

Solution #3: Creation of the Mad Capper Ratio (MCR)! When the box spits out an expected margin of victory vs. the NFL Average (MV), divide it by the Beta Ratio (BR) to come up with essentially an inflation adjusted MV, the MCR! Comparing the two teams' MCRs should give you the winner.

MCR = MV/BR

Week 10 - If There's SPAM In My Pants, Clap Your Hands

So I made the quick switch per Mad Capper's suggestion - use the stats and compare apples to apples. After a week of work, it's official: I suck. Or, at least, SSPAM (Stupid Super Pick Averaging Machine).

Using the stats that correct for the average, the long term results were SIGNIFICANTLY worse.

The ole Box is looking better and better... we'll see how we do this week.

Week 10 - Making G-SPAM apple sauce

Crystal Clear, Excelius!

I, myself, prefer kama to karma - like kama sutra gigity gigity.

Back to football- What do you think about altering the G-Spam to calculate volatility in relation to how a team performs against the average - exactly what the box does with stats only - instead of calculating the volatility of points scored only?

It seems that with this method, you would be taking strength of schedule into account more directly (since both teams' performance would be defined not in a bubble, but vs. the average team). Basically what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter so much how many points scores from week to week, what matters is margin of victory in combination with the strength of the opponent, exactly what the box considers.

Then, instead of averaging the box and the G-SPAM (two different systems), it's all rolled into one. Sorta like making apple sauce out of two apples instead of apples and peanuts (ew, peanuts).

Keep Capping, baby.

Week 10 - You Dare Question My Salted Meat?

You ask good questions, grasshopper, let me see if I can explain.

First, all of the financials (Sharpe, beta, and alpha) are based on pure points. They do NOT take into account the statistics that the original (and still sexy) Box uses, they only look at week to week output of points regardless of the team they are playing. So if DAL scores a rolling average of 25 points per game (NE is somewhere around a ridiculous 39 points per game on the season), and last week they scored 25 points, they would show a lower volatility, especially if they did that consistently. If DAL (beta of 1.39) plays NYG (beta of 1.12), the beta module will pick the team with lower volatility (basically, whichever team is closest to 1.0), which in this case is the NYG.

Sharpe and alpha are different ways to measure essentially the same thing: how good is the team relative to their volatility/risk? Despite NYG having a slightly better volatility, DAL has been PAYING OUT HUGE on it's moderately higher risk. DAL has an alpha of 8.78 to NYG 2.85, and DAL has a Sharpe of 0.99 to NYG 0.53. That makes sense when you think about it - despite NYG playing more consistently, they have played more consistently at a lower level than DAL. One week, DAL may score 50 points, and the next 20, but they are still outputting higher scores than NYG.

Now, what I may do to make the modules run a little more evenly is to find out which teams consistently cover rather than just score. I tried this earlier this week, and it got sticky. It may be worth a revisit. The financials right now are great ways to modify your thinking, ESPECIALLY on moneyline bets, since it's gives you a benchmark against which you can measure the schizophrenic teams. This chart may better illustrate that, noting that interesting schizo teams include ATL (beta rank 8th, Sharpe and alpha rank 30th), DEN (beta rank 5th, Sharpe and alpha rank 29th and 28th), and KC (beta rank 7th, Sharpe and alpha rank 28th and 29th). Basically it's showing you that a.) these teams perform consistently week to week, and b.) they perform consistently BAD week to week.

	Sharpe	Alpha	Beta
Team	Rank	Rank	Rank
ARI	18	24	6
ATL	30	30	8
BAL	26	27	20
BUF	27	26	14
CAR	24	25	3
CHI	23	23	13
CIN	9	7	19
CLE	4	3	31
DAL	2	2	10
DEN	29	28	5
DET	7	8	18
GB	8	9	25
HOU	11	6	26
IND	3	5	23
JAC	19	20	16
KC	28	29	7
MIA	15	11	32
MIN	14	18	15
NE	1	1	2
NO	12	14	9
NYG	6	10	11
NYJ	25	16	30
OAK	20	22	22
PHI	17	17	29
PIT	5	4	21
SD	10	15	12
SEA	13	13	24
SF	31	31	4
STL	32	32	27
TB	22	19	17
TEN	16	12	28
WAS	21	21	1

What I've done with these rankings is AVERAGE the scores in with the original Box (they are making sweet love). It's a weighted average, so the original Box is weighted 2/3, the financials are 1/3 (historically it seems to pick up a few games, but I have to finish the back test). This explains why the pick is still NYG, because they are actually statistically better and lower volatility, versus a high risk/high return play of DAL which is weighted less. What the averaging has accomplished is switched the following picks from the original Box:

STL +11.5 switched to NO -11.5
ATL +4 switched to CAR -4

Both of these games were on the cusp statistically, but the weighting pushed them over the edge.

Are you humbled by my intellect? I thought so. (For all this boasting, I figure I should lose 100% of my bets this week - karma's a hideous bitch goddess).

Week 10 - Are the Moneylines "The Money"?

Does anyone say "The Money" anymore? Probably not.

Anyways, since the spreads are so bastard-like this week, it may be time to return to the moneylines and pick some winners. The goal is to find several games where the confidence in the winner is high, but the lay is low(er)..

JAX at TN 175/-210
DEN at KC 155/-175
BUF at MIA -145/125
CLE at PIT 400/-500
STL at NO 450/-600
ATL at CAR 175/-210
PHI at WAS 125/-145
MIN at GB 220/-260
CIN at BAL 175/-210
CHI at OAK -200/170
DAL at NYG (EVEN) off
DET at ARI off
IND at SD -190/165
SF at SEA 450/-600

I like these six for parlays....
1. Buf -145 vs Mia
2. Was -145 vs Phi
3. Ind -190 vs SD
4. Ten -210 vs JAX
5. Car -210 vs Atl
6. GB -260 vx Min

...and am considering a couple underdogs straight-up:
7. Cle +400 vs Pit
8. Cin +175 vs Bal

Week 10 - Excelus Incredulus? G-SPAM response.

Response to the G-SPAM (baby)...

I love the idea of accounting for volatility - this would put some statistical analysis behind my "multiple personality" teams. However, some of the results make me question whether or not the parameters you've set are giving you what you think you have.... ok, confusing sentence, but basically i'm saying, are you sure the G-SPAM is giving you a better indicator of future performance than the original box?

The original Box picks a team to cover the spread based on past performance against the average team. The G-SPAM averages ratios that factors in volatility, hopefully reducing the risk of multiple personality teams.

However, why would the G-SPAM pick NYG +1.5, when both the alpha and SHARPE ratios pick Dallas? Since the Alpha and SHARPE ratios take into account peformance against the average team AND volatility, it would seem that if they agree on Dal, then Dal would be the pick when averaged. This is not the case. Any theories?

Week 10 - Box and G-SPAM's Final Bets

So here we go, it's an interesting week. G-SPAM's first test week will pose interesting problems for me, I'm sure, and the Box is probably a little jealous right now, but here are the wacky picks:

Parlays:
1. CIN +4 v. BAL, CLE +9.5 v. PIT, JAC +4 v. TEN: $5.00 pays potential $32.21
2. KC -175 v. DEN, IND -190 v. SD, WAS -145 v. PHI, TEN -210 v. JAC: $5.00 pays potential $24.91

Teaser (6 Point):
3. SEA -4 v. SF, CIN +10 v. BAL, DAL +4.5 v. NYG, CAR +2 v. ATL, DET +7 v. ARI, NO -5.5 v. STL: $5.00 pays potential $30.00

Moneyline:
1. WAS -145 v. PHI: $5.00 pays potential $3.45

Spread:
1. CIN +4 (-105) v. BAL: $6.29 pays potential $5.99
2. NYG +1.5 (-105) v. DAL: $5.39 pays potential $5.13
3. CAR -4 (-105) v. ATL: $5.07 pays potential $4.61

Total Bet: $38.00
Total Potential Winnings: $102.85

Things to note: the module that weeds out high juice games (expensive games for the return) seems to be working well, as the lays on the spread games are all below the average 110, and the moneylines are all nice and manageable. There are some conflicting (seemingly) picks, and that indicates conflicts in modules. I think of it as hedges, but we have a NYG +1.5 (basically, NYG to win), AND a DAL +4.5 in the teaser. This week's MIV (most important victory) - CIN +4.

Week 10 - G-SPAM, Meet World

So I just finished adding my financial modeling to the system. It now calculates bastardized versions of Alpha, Beta, and the Sharpe Ratio. The base for my equations are as follows:

Moving Ave of Points Scored = "Portfolio Return"
Moving Average of Points Across the League (week by week) = "Market Return"
Historical Average of Points Scored (historically, the average team scores 20 points) = "Riskless"

Using that as my basis, I made a few models. First, I made a "Super Ranker", ranking the original box picks with the new measures of volatility and return to rerank taking into account the financial modeling. The ranks end up being pretty much the same, with slight variations in the middle.

The more interesting piece has turned out to be the "suggested pick" in the matchups week to week. For instance, the picking the team with the better Sharpe Ratio (ie, team that beats the benchmark more consistently with less risk) doesn't always mean picking the team with the statistical edge. So I get lots of mixing and matching. When the suggested picks agree with the statistical picks, hypothetically I should get my best results. I haven't back tested (I figured 3am on a work night was late enough), but here are some of the layouts this week:

Sharpe Ratio Picks - Sharpe measures returns over risk (volatility)

1	NO
2	SEA
3	CIN
4	MIA
5	CAR
6	DET
7	IND
8	DAL
9	GB
10	TEN
11	OAK
12	PHI
13	CLE
14	KC

Beta Picks - Beta measures volatility only, so these teams are most consistent (even if they consistently lose)

1	DEN
2	BAL
3	CAR
4	NYG
5	ARI
6	OAK
7	MIN
8	SF
9	JAC
10	SD
11	WAS
12	NO
13	BUF
14	PIT

Alpha Picks - Another way to measure returns over risk.

1	NO
2	CIN
3	SEA
4	DET
5	DAL
6	MIA
7	IND
8	GB
9	TEN
10	CAR
11	PHI
12	CLE
13	OAK
14	DEN

Which leads me to this - the Box's GENIUS SUPER PICK AVERAGING MACHINE (or G-SPAM):

1	CAR
2	NYG
3	NO
4	CLE
5	DET
6	SD
7	CIN
8	DEN
9	MIN
10	MIA
11	SF
12	JAC
13	PHI
14	OAK

Now these are some picks I can get behind. What the financials seem to do really well is pick WINNERS, not against the spread. What the stats do very well is pick SPREADS. Combining the two has given me lower risk, high return version of the spread picking machine - G-SPAM. I will be doing a combo of pick happiness this week, with some wacky moneyline parlays and
interesting spread combos. I will post that here tonight. Ain't nothing but a G-SPAM thing, baaaaby...

Week 10 - Hate the box!

Matty, Matty, Matty....

Your killing me with the box this week. I need to put together a list of 6 to make a couple parlay bets, and your games just seem risky as hell.

I can buy Cin +4.5 vs. Bal and we agree on Det and Cle... so that's three. I am totally in favor of Indy -3.5, so going against the box there gives me four. The top picks on the box left over are NYG +1.5 vs Dal, OAK +3 vs. Chi, JAX +4 vs Ten, and Mia +2.5 vs Buf...

With such a low spread you are basically saying the Giants will beat the #1 NFC team (DAl).

Oak is having trouble tying its shoes, and although Chi is having a tough year, they can beat up on bad teams, and still have most of the team that went to the super bowl last year.

Jax is still starting its no-name backup, and Ten is a for-real 6-2.

Buf has been on the rise for 4 weeks, and mia looks awful. the spread is less than a field goal... you really think miami can get that close?

Right now I'm thinking about a parlay based on our agreed picks, and maybe some teasers to give your 'dogs some more breathing room. Something like:

1. [det +1.5, cle +9, cin +4.5]
2. [ind -3.5, buf -2.5, det +1.5]
3. [cin +10.5, GB pk, oak +9] (6-point teaser)
4. [ten +1.5, cle +15, det +7.5] (6-point teaser)


Very curious to see your favorites.

Week 10 - Lions #1! - Mad Capper vs Vegas

I was pretty much on target this week, which doesn't make for interesting debate. However, the Lions vs Cardinals game wasn't even close - here's the breakdown:

VEGAS ................THE MAD CAPPER...............DIFF.
jax (+4.5) at ten.... jax (+5)..................... 0.5
den (+4) at KC....... den (+3)..................... 1.0
buf (-2.5) at mia.... buf (-6)..................... 3.5
cle (+9.5) at pit.... cle (+4)..................... 5.5
stl (+11.5) at NO.... stl (+10).................... 1.5
atl (+4) at car...... atl (+2)..................... 2.0
phi (+2.5) at was.... phi (+5)..................... 2.5
min (+6)at gb........ min (+5)..................... 1.0
cin (+4) at bal...... cin (+3)..................... 1.0
chi (-3) at oak...... chi (-4)..................... 1.0
dal (-1.5) at nyg.... dal (even) .................. 1.5
det (+1) at ari...... det (-10).................... 11.0
ind (-3.5) at sd..... ind (-6)..................... 2.5
sf (+10) at sea...... sf (+3)...................... 7.0
The games in red are those where there is more than a 3 point differential between me and the Vegas line. These are the picks I will concentrate on for betting the spread. In order of conviction:

1. det (+1) over ari - with an 11 point differential, this is easily the favorite of the week.

2.buf (-2.5) over mia - 3.5 differential, and the big 'mo' is going in opposite directions for miami and buffalo. love this pick.

3.cle (+9.5) over pit - Pit looks impressive, but i still think cleveland is underrated. As Matty pointed out, they are 6-1 vs the spread this year, and so far I don't think the spreads are giving them enough credit for the year they are having. Just for kicks, throw in the fact that Big Ben is hurting, they have a short week, and there may be a little lax attitude after blowing out division rival baltimore.

4.ind (-3.5) at sd - SD continues to wield some sort of gambling spell over the spreads, even though they aren't the team people think they are. Indy will rebound after losing a tough game to NE, and 3.5 points is not nearly enough respect for Indy.

The rest of the games are risky bets in my opinion.. they could go either way. I'll definitely be checking out the box before making my final picks.

Week 10 - Box's First Impression - Wag the Dog(s)

The picks are in, and they are flea laden:

The PICKS

1. CIN +4.5 v. BAL Away

2. NYG +1.5 v. DAL @Home

3. SD +3.5 v. IND @Home

4. OAK +3 v. CHI @Home

5. JAC +4.5 v. TEN Away

6. MIA +2.5 v. BUF @Home

7. MIN +6 v. GB Away

8. CLE +9 v. PIT Away

9. STL +12 v. NO Away

10. DET +1.5 v. ARI Away

11. SF +10 v. SEA Away

12. DEN +3.5 v. KC Away

13. ATL +4 v. CAR Away

14. PHI +2.5 v. WAS Away

Initial commentary to come tomorrow, too busy at the moment. But read em and weep. A losing week coming? Perhaps!

Week 10 - Mad Capping the games

OK, so before the spreads come out of Vegas, here's how I would cap this week:

JAX +5 at TN
DEN +3 at KC
BUF -6 at MIA
CLE +4 at PIT
STL +10 at NO
ATL +2 at CAR
PHI +5 at WAS
MIN +5 at GB
CIN +3 at BAL
CHI +4 at OAK
DAL at NYG (EVEN)
DET -7 at ARI
IND -6 at SD
SF +3 at SEA

Matt, would you care to tell us what the box thinks the spreads should be? As usual, I will make my first draft of picks based on comparing the actual spreads to my lines.

TMC

Week 10 - Wave Theory - Thank You Elliot

I'm not surprised that someone else has monitored trends in this fashion before, in fact somewhere in the cobwebs of my grey matter I'm pretty sure I've heard of this Elliot fellow and his stock market Wave Theory. I suppose I will have to cite him now whenever I refer to my own Wave Theory(1), for fear of reprisal from Mrs. Hammond and her cadre of MLA plagiarism police. (That's right, I worked cadre, the MLA and Mrs. Hammond into a football blog. Have the box top THAT!)

I'm thinking that the stock market WT is very macro in scope, and although the premise is similar - emotion/psychology will overvalue/undervalue something - I think that in reference to sportsbooks, it could happen on a more micro level. Sort of like day-trading.

Anyways, this is going to take some research and some spreadsheet jockeying, but I'm betting there will be some trends, amplified by the fact that gamblers are inherently illogical people (case in point, the house always win). I like your idea of keeping track of the lays, also. Getting historical data might be tricky, i'm not sure if this information is published anywhere, but I'm definitely going to keep track from here on out this season.

Footnotes:
(1) Elliot originally coined the term Wave Theory in his stock market theories.

Week 10 - Wave Theory Already a Theory?

You're getting into my (limited) territory now - you're Wave Theory is already a stock market theory. Several times over.

What you're describing is sort of combination of Elliot Wave Theory and trend following modeling. Elliot basically says that people do things in rhythms, and those rhythms are measurable. I don't know much about it, but check this out for more basic info.

Trend following is pretty widely used in Managed Futures funds (though less so now then 10 or 20 years ago), and basically is a method of following the "wave" of the market as it breaks through historically boundaries. Ie, when a stock price moves above its 52 week average, it triggers an event (usually a buy) until the trend reverses. I think for handicaps, there is too little data to use this effectively, not to mention the team performance is often uncorrelated to movements in the spread. Though that may be worth looking at.

The most obvious "mass hysteria" trend will show up if you watch the lines come out on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. For instance, last week, within hours of the NE/IND line being set at NE -4, it shot up to NE -5.5. This was a reaction almost entirely to the NE drubbings of lesser teams, and it totally neglected IND being an equal, if not even slightly better team statistically. But this doesn't necessarily indicate that a team is "overpriced", since you need to know how much the spread was worth to begin with.

This gets to the heart of the Box in a way, since I decided to ignore spread movements and mass hysteria and bet the team that statistically has the edge when compared to a league average (correcting for volatility in team performance).

One of my "real job" coworkers makes his picks based entirely on spread movements. His is a far less systematic approach, but he makes notes on the movements day to day and makes decisions based on that. I think more telling for the Capper Wave Theory will be movements in the lay, actually, when combined with the spread. The lay tells you much more about how bets are being placed - if bets are coming in, Vegas can make games less worth betting just by making them more expensive, but keeping the same spread. I bet if you measured movements in the lay to spread ratio, you'd get some interesting statistics that truly tell you how people bet.

Hmmm... am I a genius? The answer is: of course.

Week 10 - Wave Theory - Thoughts on Beating the Trends

I had a thought (just one. i try not to over-exert) today. Because they are set in order to entice 50% of gamblers to wager on either side of the game, the spreads are tied pretty loosely to likelihood of victory, more closely to public opinion, and most closely to the opinions (and whimsy) of gamblers.

Much like the stock market, I'm thinking that as underrated teams out-perform the spread week in and week out, gamblers jump on the bandwagon in increasing numbers, thus forcing an over-correction and a spread that they will not be able to cover. This should also happen in reverse as losing teams are bet against, giving them a spread they can cover.

I will call this my Wave Theory. As of this morning it is just a bit of half thought-out logic, but I am going to put some research into comparing teams' records against the spread and see if their is any patterns to teams that consistenty win or lose against the spread. Stay tuned.

Coming up... Mad Capping this week's game.