All Forums | NBA Betting

NBA line making model. Will post interesting/strange lines.

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 24922
Posts: 192
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2014
Posts: 1219
Posted: #126
Bermax! You the man! Are you going to post your model results vs pinnacle on the O/U totals?
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2009
Posts: 3138
Posted: #127
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:



DET  -5.8 / +4.5
PHI  +1.6 / +10.5
SAS -17.3 / -9.0
LAC -3.2 / +3.0

I have
DET  P/U    play for me
PHI  +3       play for me
SA   -14      play for me
LAC  P/U    not sure,, borderline

I also think  Min is getting 5 more pts than they should and LAL are getting 5 too many also

Great thread
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2013
Posts: 708
Posted: #128
Just got on this thread...the spread listed next to each team is the spreadsheet a team should be giving or getting, correct?  Thanks, gl
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2013
Posts: 32
Posted: #129
Love this, but still not sure what should be the plays. I know Bermax doesn't want to make picks but could someone clarify what are the play possibilities..thanks and GL to all
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2014
Posts: 792
Posted: #130
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:


That's PHI +10.5 at pinny, sorry, I type too fast for my own good sometimes, I'll restate the matchups in a more logical way w the team's listed that books (generously?) give more points on the spread than the model thinks they should have:

model/pinnacle

DET  -5.8 / +4.5
PHI  +1.6 / +10.5
SAS -17.3 / -9.0
LAC -3.2 / +3.0


I've downloaded the pdf file of yours, but havent made it in excel, yet. However, my own system got almost identical for the Clips - Philly game.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2014
Posts: 47692
Posted: #131
Bermax,

Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.

Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)

Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.

2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.

Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.

I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.

BOL refining it as you move along.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #132
Ok here comes games incl ref bias. Will be copy pasting w everything in this format; model first, current pinny line second. As you know by now the model is a raw stats line without any incorporation of injuries or lineup changes.

Model:
Detroit Pistons 101.7 -6.6 196.8
Charlotte Hornets 95.1 6.6

Pinnacle:
Detroit Pistons 95.0 5.5 195.5
Charlotte Hornets 100.0 -5.5
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #133
Philadelphia 76ers 94.3 2.4 191.1
Washington Wizards 96.7 -2.4

Philadelphia 76ers 91.5 10.5 191.0
Washington Wizards 100.5 -10.5
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #134
San Antonio Spurs 108.8 -15.6 202.0
Orlando Magic 93.2 15.6

San Antonio Spurs 104.5 -10.5 196.5
Orlando Magic 93.0 10.5

B2b road game for SAS, missed that in the preliminary post; also some effect of ref bias brings the original number down a bit closer to books.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #135
Indiana Pacers 99.4 4.5 203.2
Boston Celtics 103.8 -4.5

Indiana Pacers 98.0 4.0 200.0
Boston Celtics 102.0 -4.0

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #136
Brooklyn Nets 101.6 -9.5 193.7
New York Knicks 92.1 9.5

Brooklyn Nets 101.5 -9.5 194.5
New York Knicks 92.5 9.5

[home court adv of 2.3 pts incorporated in model line but because of away team being from same city question is if that should be the case]
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #137
Chicago Bulls 101.4 -5.8 196.9
Milwaukee Bucks 95.6 5.8

Chicago Bulls 98.5 -5.5 191.5
Milwaukee Bucks 93.0 5.5

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #138
Toronto Raptors 110.3 -8.8 211.7
Minnesota Timberwolves 101.5 8.8

Toronto Raptors 106.5 -9.5 203.5
Minnesota Timberwolves 96.5 9.5

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #139
Dallas Mavericks 102.5 4.9 209.9
Oklahoma City Thunder 107.4 -4.9

Dallas Mavericks 106.5 2.5 215.0
Oklahoma City Thunder 108.5 -2.5

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #140
Sacramento Kings 100.6 6.5 207.7
Houston Rockets 107.1 -6.5

Sacramento Kings 98.0 12.0 211.5
Houston Rockets 112.0 -12.0

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2014
Posts: 792
Posted: #141
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:

Bermax,

Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.

Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)

Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.

2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.

Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.

I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.

BOL refining it as you move along.


I think people usually overvalue B2b's and especially the so called tanking. Think about it:how would you cap a tanking team? I think the public perception in this -and by public i mean the majority of people, like 80% - pretty wrong.
They imagine a tanking team wont put any effort in their play, and they are going to loose games with 20-30+, and dont want to win, which is so not true from many many aspects. Players are competing, with each other, with the opponent teams, for their spots in the team, for the money, this latter can be the biggest reason maybe, that they are going to give a close to usual effort, if not bigger. They might not win outright, but can keep games pretty close.

With all these, i want to say:u cant cap a tanking team, you cant imagine and you cant know what their true intentions are, unless you are an insider. So you should take a tanking team as they wouldnt be tanking, just playing normal, or bit worse, maybe.
Also, interesting aspect can be, the opponent teams might dont give that much effort vs a so called tanking team, anyway, which can give a slap to the public perception of loosing games with 20+.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #142
Denver Nuggets 95.3 3.5 194.1
Utah Jazz 98.8 -3.5

Denver Nuggets 94.5 5.0 193.0
Utah Jazz 99.0 -5.0

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2015
Posts: 662
Posted: #143
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:

Toronto Raptors 110.3 -8.8 211.7
Minnesota Timberwolves 101.5 8.8

Toronto Raptors 106.5 -9.5 203.5
Minnesota Timberwolves 96.5 9.5


Alright, gonna take the over on this for $50 and see how it goes. Thanks for all the work and effort.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #144
Los Angeles Clippers 106.2 -2.9 209.5
Portland Trail Blazers 103.3 2.9

Los Angeles Clippers 102.5 3.0 208.5
Portland Trail Blazers 105.5 -3.0

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #145
New Orleans Pelicans 97.5 -3.3 191.7
Los Angeles Lakers 94.2 3.3

New Orleans Pelicans 103.5 -9.0 197.5
Los Angeles Lakers 94.0 9.0

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #146
Quote Originally Posted by Proxyi:



I think people usually overvalue B2b's and especially the so called tanking. Think about it:how would you cap a tanking team? I think the public perception in this -and by public i mean the majority of people, like 80% - pretty wrong.
They imagine a tanking team wont put any effort in their play, and they are going to loose games with 20-30+, and dont want to win, which is so not true from many many aspects. Players are competing, with each other, with the opponent teams, for their spots in the team, for the money, this latter can be the biggest reason maybe, that they are going to give a close to usual effort, if not bigger. They might not win outright, but can keep games pretty close.

With all these, i want to say:u cant cap a tanking team, you cant imagine and you cant know what their true intentions are, unless you are an insider. So you should take a tanking team as they wouldnt be tanking, just playing normal, or bit worse, maybe.
Also, interesting aspect can be, the opponent teams might dont give that much effort vs a so called tanking team, anyway, which can give a slap to the public perception of loosing games with 20+.

I agree with you. Capping tanking teams is hard and maybe you should just stay away unless the team in question seem to be getting double digit pts extra on the spread without any other plausible cause other than the perception of tanking.

Yes people probably overvalue B2Bs. Only B2Bs with any impact - from what I have been able to find reading up on it and analysing own data - is road games on B2b nights which costs the team one (1) point.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #147
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:

Bermax,

Yesterday in this thread I mentioned a few elements that are hard to attach a # to when capping.

Teams who are "tanking"(philly)
Teams desperate of making playoffs(hornets)
Human elements...B2B's(Det) (spurs) (clippers)

Your model spit out discrepancies in all the games w/ these elements...I just want to play devil's advocate and maybe you could refrence these things once you get the results.

2nd I have to remind everyone that Bermax stated that he DID NOT include referee bias.

Also, it was a very nice gesture to include a disclaimer in his OP.

I feel like you still have a kick a s s sytem nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.

BOL refining it as you move along.

This is exactly why I started the thread to get a discussion going on the intangibles, which is easier to do and to see how they're valued if you got the raw stats line. B2B road games is included in the model. It's worth one point in reality on average. What the public perceives it's value to be I dont know but maybe we can get some kind of idea in this thread
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #148
Quote Originally Posted by JefCostello:


Alright, gonna take the over on this for $50 and see how it goes. Thanks for all the work and effort.

A little warning about totals: they are EXTREMELY sensitive to game pace. the total in the toronto game rises to 225 if it is played at 97 pace instead of the calculated average 93 in the model. And both these teams have played several 97 pace games recently. Total betting my own feel is you need to have some sort of grounded idea if the game will be fast paced or slow to support your picking; otherwise it can be a real crapshoot averages being what they are. Spreads are more robust, a +10 spread will still be almost the same regardless if the pace is 89 or 99
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 239
Posted: #149
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:


A little warning about totals: they are EXTREMELY sensitive to game pace. the total in the toronto game rises to 225 if it is played at 97 pace instead of the calculated average 93 in the model. And both these teams have played several 97 pace games recently. Total betting my own feel is you need to have some sort of grounded idea if the game will be fast paced or slow to support your picking; otherwise it can be a real crapshoot averages being what they are. Spreads are more robust, a +10 spread will still be almost the same regardless if the pace is 89 or 99

you took the over so that would actually be great for you I realise. But to take the other example, if it is played at 86 pace, which has also been the case recently for both teams, total sinks to 193. In short they are a bit scary
 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2014
Posts: 47692
Posted: #150
If you guys noticed I put "tanking" in quotes in my previous posts. I dont add or subtract points for tanking. I just found it interesting that all the games with discrepancies in spreads relative to this system have these elements behind them. Im gonna keep my eyes on these games.

Keep up the good work
All Forums | NBA Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.