No other way then to have a relative or a friend who is a book
that way you know which way the public is going.
I gave up on technical handicapping a long time ago.
the matchups
what O line vs D Line
running back vs Line backers
QB and WR vs DBs and safetys
Special teams?
all of it doesnt mean squat
September 11 2010
Wiscy played San Jose St at home
Yes I know a whopping 38 point favorite
You couldnt find a bigger mismatch in 10 years
Everything Stat wise and everything matchup wise pointed to a 50 point blowout even if they were to pull the starters
the O-line was supposed to open up huge holes for the running back
You would figure 7 or 12 yard chunks at a time
that would open up the passing game for 30 and 40 yard bombs as the d-line and linebackers were never supposed to even get a sniff at the QB and the secondary couldnt stop a thing
Well wrong
17-0 at the half
27-14 final
I can show you countless games like this in college and Pros
that on paper
Matchup wise looked like complete romps and the spreads werent to lure you in either
they were what I consider to be correct lines for power teams playing less inferior competition.
0
No other way then to have a relative or a friend who is a book
that way you know which way the public is going.
I gave up on technical handicapping a long time ago.
the matchups
what O line vs D Line
running back vs Line backers
QB and WR vs DBs and safetys
Special teams?
all of it doesnt mean squat
September 11 2010
Wiscy played San Jose St at home
Yes I know a whopping 38 point favorite
You couldnt find a bigger mismatch in 10 years
Everything Stat wise and everything matchup wise pointed to a 50 point blowout even if they were to pull the starters
the O-line was supposed to open up huge holes for the running back
You would figure 7 or 12 yard chunks at a time
that would open up the passing game for 30 and 40 yard bombs as the d-line and linebackers were never supposed to even get a sniff at the QB and the secondary couldnt stop a thing
Well wrong
17-0 at the half
27-14 final
I can show you countless games like this in college and Pros
that on paper
Matchup wise looked like complete romps and the spreads werent to lure you in either
they were what I consider to be correct lines for power teams playing less inferior competition.
Still, if turnovers were the sole thing we could use in our favor to cap matches and always get them right, everyone would be making a fortune in the NFL.
Vegas has a adjusted as they always do and it's not that easy anymore. I can't buy into the whole penalty vs turnover thing that keeps the game going the way Vegas needs.
The teams that were tops against the spread had very good defenses and therefore paid for it less when they put the ball back into their opponents hands, coupled with the fact they overachieved last season in the spread makers eyes.
0
Appreciate the info Mafioso
Still, if turnovers were the sole thing we could use in our favor to cap matches and always get them right, everyone would be making a fortune in the NFL.
Vegas has a adjusted as they always do and it's not that easy anymore. I can't buy into the whole penalty vs turnover thing that keeps the game going the way Vegas needs.
The teams that were tops against the spread had very good defenses and therefore paid for it less when they put the ball back into their opponents hands, coupled with the fact they overachieved last season in the spread makers eyes.
In all due respect, there are a thousand ways to look at a football game, and every year the Vegas line has done almost as well as is possible to cap a game, and every year there is immense competition to beat that line. Some do beat it in given years, but again, if you look at the records of the very very best over 20,25 or 30 years, you soon realize that the absolute greatest in the world at this are getting 51-53% success if they are lucky! Some are below 50%! Folks, this is only true way to look at the viability of spread betting, over a very long period of time with at least several thousand games to analyze. Don't fool yourself into thinking that your record one year, if good, means you are good capper. Most likely, you will fall on your face the next year. I am not saying this to discourage anyone. Capping is a fun challenge, and making money is ever more fun, but I think many of you underestimate how really difficult it all is. What you want to do is build a system that can get you on average 53-55% success against the spread, if you are a rock star at it (big if) and if you can, then will a little luck added to that, you will be in a position to cash in the super contest, or with good management skills, be in position to win annually in thoughtful spread betting. What you want, is that extra 2,3,4 or 5% above chance (and again, that is an extremely difficult challenge and one that is only possible to even evaluate properly without a huge sample size (certainly not one or even 15 years ... way too tiny a sample size such that chance elements are impossible to separate from real effects) .... so, keep trying to build the perfect capping system folks. I am trying to do it. But I do it willingly and knowingly aware of the limitations of this challenge, and the extreme difficulty of this task. Rather than discourage me, it inspires me even more to try to be the best. Because the best are not very good folks ... they are actually quite bad when you look over many years, and the larger sample size you have, the closer you get to truth.
0
In all due respect, there are a thousand ways to look at a football game, and every year the Vegas line has done almost as well as is possible to cap a game, and every year there is immense competition to beat that line. Some do beat it in given years, but again, if you look at the records of the very very best over 20,25 or 30 years, you soon realize that the absolute greatest in the world at this are getting 51-53% success if they are lucky! Some are below 50%! Folks, this is only true way to look at the viability of spread betting, over a very long period of time with at least several thousand games to analyze. Don't fool yourself into thinking that your record one year, if good, means you are good capper. Most likely, you will fall on your face the next year. I am not saying this to discourage anyone. Capping is a fun challenge, and making money is ever more fun, but I think many of you underestimate how really difficult it all is. What you want to do is build a system that can get you on average 53-55% success against the spread, if you are a rock star at it (big if) and if you can, then will a little luck added to that, you will be in a position to cash in the super contest, or with good management skills, be in position to win annually in thoughtful spread betting. What you want, is that extra 2,3,4 or 5% above chance (and again, that is an extremely difficult challenge and one that is only possible to even evaluate properly without a huge sample size (certainly not one or even 15 years ... way too tiny a sample size such that chance elements are impossible to separate from real effects) .... so, keep trying to build the perfect capping system folks. I am trying to do it. But I do it willingly and knowingly aware of the limitations of this challenge, and the extreme difficulty of this task. Rather than discourage me, it inspires me even more to try to be the best. Because the best are not very good folks ... they are actually quite bad when you look over many years, and the larger sample size you have, the closer you get to truth.
I also have experience coding, extensively in R, looking to not to fully automate my picks with programming, but rather use it to elicit overlooked stats and hidden angles.
Ex. Panthers had a great defense last year predicated on Josh Norman, Roman Harper, Luke and Thomas Davis. They also rotated their D-line and often used 6-7 different players a game. This made those guys with fresh legs seem like superstars, but in reality they were just fresher.
In reality, they were great at getting to the QB, but much more questionable run stuffers, and RBs didn't have to break out like Doug Martin in week 4 or Rashad Jennings against the giants, they had to do just enough to get their team within striking range and the rest of it fell upon the guys opposite Josh Norman, who were they again? Yeah.... so as dominant as the panthers were, they could be exposed by the right team, with a healthy peyton manning, that superbowl would have looked like super bowl 48 with the broncos on the dominating side.
It's really hard to find these nuggets and most of the time, some stupid NFL or ESPN analyst stumbles upon them and blows their significance out of proportion, but the odd ball stats, the covered up weaknesses (brady's garbage O-line vs quick passing scheme) can often lead to some great dog bets. And as always, keep an eye on who the public loves and look for smart money reverse line movements.
0
@nygjmap
I also have experience coding, extensively in R, looking to not to fully automate my picks with programming, but rather use it to elicit overlooked stats and hidden angles.
Ex. Panthers had a great defense last year predicated on Josh Norman, Roman Harper, Luke and Thomas Davis. They also rotated their D-line and often used 6-7 different players a game. This made those guys with fresh legs seem like superstars, but in reality they were just fresher.
In reality, they were great at getting to the QB, but much more questionable run stuffers, and RBs didn't have to break out like Doug Martin in week 4 or Rashad Jennings against the giants, they had to do just enough to get their team within striking range and the rest of it fell upon the guys opposite Josh Norman, who were they again? Yeah.... so as dominant as the panthers were, they could be exposed by the right team, with a healthy peyton manning, that superbowl would have looked like super bowl 48 with the broncos on the dominating side.
It's really hard to find these nuggets and most of the time, some stupid NFL or ESPN analyst stumbles upon them and blows their significance out of proportion, but the odd ball stats, the covered up weaknesses (brady's garbage O-line vs quick passing scheme) can often lead to some great dog bets. And as always, keep an eye on who the public loves and look for smart money reverse line movements.
@footballsmart I completely disagree as it depends on the type of bettor you are. The bulk of my action (90%) comes in 2 picks a week throughout the NFL season, I can guaranteed selective bettors do not revert to the mean, if you only bet twice a week and pick smart (or tease sharp lines) you can make a fortune. You are referring ot people that bet EVERYDAY or very frequently, there is no all encompassing expertise that will allow this to go on and if there is it's EXTREMELY rare, so I agree to that point.
@Par_Laid Nice to see a fellow programmer here! I completely agree my program is similar in that it lays out the upmost important and relevant data and then I cap the game myself using what it presents to me. It was found the worlds most powerful computer took 40 minutes to map what we do in 1 second. So before you're all daunted by the Vegas supercomputers, think of that!
0
@footballsmart I completely disagree as it depends on the type of bettor you are. The bulk of my action (90%) comes in 2 picks a week throughout the NFL season, I can guaranteed selective bettors do not revert to the mean, if you only bet twice a week and pick smart (or tease sharp lines) you can make a fortune. You are referring ot people that bet EVERYDAY or very frequently, there is no all encompassing expertise that will allow this to go on and if there is it's EXTREMELY rare, so I agree to that point.
@Par_Laid Nice to see a fellow programmer here! I completely agree my program is similar in that it lays out the upmost important and relevant data and then I cap the game myself using what it presents to me. It was found the worlds most powerful computer took 40 minutes to map what we do in 1 second. So before you're all daunted by the Vegas supercomputers, think of that!
@footballsmart I completely disagree as it depends on the type of bettor you are. The bulk of my action (90%) comes in 2 picks a week throughout the NFL season, I can guaranteed selective bettors do not revert to the mean, if you only bet twice a week and pick smart (or tease sharp lines) you can make a fortune. You are referring ot people that bet EVERYDAY or very frequently, there is no all encompassing expertise that will allow this to go on and if there is it's EXTREMELY rare, so I agree to that point.@Par_Laid Nice to see a fellow programmer here! I completely agree my program is similar in that it lays out the upmost important and relevant data and then I cap the game myself using what it presents to me. It was found the worlds most powerful computer took 40 minutes to map what we do in 1 second. So before you're all daunted by the Vegas supercomputers, think of that!
NYGJMAP, I would agree with you that if you limit most of your bets to just 2 games a week you can do well, but I would love to know what overall percent of success you have gotten using that approach over many hundreds of games. The problem is that it only equates to about 32 picks a year, so it would take 30 years to just get a,sample size of 1000! Meaning your success over 200 or even 500 games is,highly questionable and there are huge chance elements. Sure, you might be making money like this, but it can also,come crashing down any year. I have looked at over 30 years of games very carefully, and find that when you limit to only 2 picks a week, you do get a slight increase in success over the long haul, but it looks,to me to be about a 1% boost only. Certainly there is a good chance to make money,but nowhere near as great a change as one might expect. You might bet that way for 20 years, and you are doing very well if you can make money in 12 years and only lose in 8. Its,like day trading where you can succeed in 7 or 8 months if you are great, but lose money in 4 or 5 months. Discipline is huge here.
0
Quote Originally Posted by nygjmap:
@footballsmart I completely disagree as it depends on the type of bettor you are. The bulk of my action (90%) comes in 2 picks a week throughout the NFL season, I can guaranteed selective bettors do not revert to the mean, if you only bet twice a week and pick smart (or tease sharp lines) you can make a fortune. You are referring ot people that bet EVERYDAY or very frequently, there is no all encompassing expertise that will allow this to go on and if there is it's EXTREMELY rare, so I agree to that point.@Par_Laid Nice to see a fellow programmer here! I completely agree my program is similar in that it lays out the upmost important and relevant data and then I cap the game myself using what it presents to me. It was found the worlds most powerful computer took 40 minutes to map what we do in 1 second. So before you're all daunted by the Vegas supercomputers, think of that!
NYGJMAP, I would agree with you that if you limit most of your bets to just 2 games a week you can do well, but I would love to know what overall percent of success you have gotten using that approach over many hundreds of games. The problem is that it only equates to about 32 picks a year, so it would take 30 years to just get a,sample size of 1000! Meaning your success over 200 or even 500 games is,highly questionable and there are huge chance elements. Sure, you might be making money like this, but it can also,come crashing down any year. I have looked at over 30 years of games very carefully, and find that when you limit to only 2 picks a week, you do get a slight increase in success over the long haul, but it looks,to me to be about a 1% boost only. Certainly there is a good chance to make money,but nowhere near as great a change as one might expect. You might bet that way for 20 years, and you are doing very well if you can make money in 12 years and only lose in 8. Its,like day trading where you can succeed in 7 or 8 months if you are great, but lose money in 4 or 5 months. Discipline is huge here.
In my opinion it all lies in what the public is betting for the most part or it use to I say use to For the simple reason that algorithm has ruined the art of bookmakers putting out a razor sharp line.
The only real way for an experienced capper to profit These days is live betting or pick spots on high profile games the public is hammering.
Remember when if a team lost the turnover battle by 2 or more turnovers the game would be a complete loss? Forget about the cover but a complete and utter loss.
The game has changed How many times last year and the year before where a team lost the turnover battle and not only won the game but covered the big number too?
Do the research You will see this wack job that is me is right on the money with this assessment.
Even summa last year had to abandon some of his technical stuff to beat the NFL game in the playoffs.
Oh yes. My eyes were opened.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mafioso:
In my opinion it all lies in what the public is betting for the most part or it use to I say use to For the simple reason that algorithm has ruined the art of bookmakers putting out a razor sharp line.
The only real way for an experienced capper to profit These days is live betting or pick spots on high profile games the public is hammering.
Remember when if a team lost the turnover battle by 2 or more turnovers the game would be a complete loss? Forget about the cover but a complete and utter loss.
The game has changed How many times last year and the year before where a team lost the turnover battle and not only won the game but covered the big number too?
Do the research You will see this wack job that is me is right on the money with this assessment.
Even summa last year had to abandon some of his technical stuff to beat the NFL game in the playoffs.
Vikings were the Best team ATS last
season going 13-3 ATS and 1-0 ATS in the playoffs
So how did they fare turnover battle
wise?
22 For 17 Against
thats not even an edge of +1 a game
its not even ½ a turnover a game
Yet they finished the season 13-3 ATS
actually 14-3
\Use to be if you didnt average +2 or
more on the turnover ration Your goose was cooked.
Bengals 12-3 ATS 1-0 in the playoffs
28 for 17 Against
+11 Yet they were 12-3 ATS 13-3 ATS if
you count the playoffs
Carolina 15-1 Straight up but 11-5 ATS
finished with +20 on the turnover
margin
You would figure the spread record
would have been stronger since they forced roughly 2.5 turnovers per
game
Yet the Vikings were only +5 for the
year on turnovers and finished 13-3 ATS 14-3 ATS including playoffs.
Steelers 9-6-1 ATS
that was the 4th best ATS
team
30 turnovers for and a whopping 28
against
Arizona 9-7 ATS
+9 turnover ration
Packers 9-7 ATS +5 turnover ration
Dallas was -22 in the turnover ration
and it showed with a 4-11-1 ATS record
Titans were -14 and it showed with a
4-11-1 ATS record
Dolphins were only -3 in turnover ratio
yet the finished 5-11 ATS
If we looked at this thing 10 or 12
years ago
You would see the turnover battle was
one of the most important aspects of cover or not cover.
Not so anymore
Is it the referees with the happy flag
throwing to help offenses?
What has changed?
The rules regarding targeting?
Use to be teams didnt recover from good
or bad turnover play
You could after week 5 know for almost
absolute certain that some teams were turnover machines and others
were turnover forcing monsters and it played a huge outcome towards
the spread.
I LIKED WHAT YOU WERE SAYING . (OLD VS NEW) THE ROAD TO THE SUPER BOWL IS THROU- SUCH & SUCH A TEAM, YOU KNEW WHO THE POWER HOUSES WERE. GL HOPE YOU WIN BIG
0
Quote Originally Posted by mafioso:
Vikings were the Best team ATS last
season going 13-3 ATS and 1-0 ATS in the playoffs
So how did they fare turnover battle
wise?
22 For 17 Against
thats not even an edge of +1 a game
its not even ½ a turnover a game
Yet they finished the season 13-3 ATS
actually 14-3
\Use to be if you didnt average +2 or
more on the turnover ration Your goose was cooked.
Bengals 12-3 ATS 1-0 in the playoffs
28 for 17 Against
+11 Yet they were 12-3 ATS 13-3 ATS if
you count the playoffs
Carolina 15-1 Straight up but 11-5 ATS
finished with +20 on the turnover
margin
You would figure the spread record
would have been stronger since they forced roughly 2.5 turnovers per
game
Yet the Vikings were only +5 for the
year on turnovers and finished 13-3 ATS 14-3 ATS including playoffs.
Steelers 9-6-1 ATS
that was the 4th best ATS
team
30 turnovers for and a whopping 28
against
Arizona 9-7 ATS
+9 turnover ration
Packers 9-7 ATS +5 turnover ration
Dallas was -22 in the turnover ration
and it showed with a 4-11-1 ATS record
Titans were -14 and it showed with a
4-11-1 ATS record
Dolphins were only -3 in turnover ratio
yet the finished 5-11 ATS
If we looked at this thing 10 or 12
years ago
You would see the turnover battle was
one of the most important aspects of cover or not cover.
Not so anymore
Is it the referees with the happy flag
throwing to help offenses?
What has changed?
The rules regarding targeting?
Use to be teams didnt recover from good
or bad turnover play
You could after week 5 know for almost
absolute certain that some teams were turnover machines and others
were turnover forcing monsters and it played a huge outcome towards
the spread.
I LIKED WHAT YOU WERE SAYING . (OLD VS NEW) THE ROAD TO THE SUPER BOWL IS THROU- SUCH & SUCH A TEAM, YOU KNEW WHO THE POWER HOUSES WERE. GL HOPE YOU WIN BIG
That's a pretty fundamental tip especially with teasers, though u give me an idea with calculating teams that sit on leads, If I can figure out what teams sit on the ball up a score, I can calculate who may cover against them that may be a bigger underdog than usually.
Idk if it would be a worthy parameter but if I can find conclusive statistics on a correlation between increased Time of Possession and lower covering numbers I might have another nice addition!
0
Quote Originally Posted by GunShard:
Bet on key numbers. +3 field goal, +7 touchdown.
That's a pretty fundamental tip especially with teasers, though u give me an idea with calculating teams that sit on leads, If I can figure out what teams sit on the ball up a score, I can calculate who may cover against them that may be a bigger underdog than usually.
Idk if it would be a worthy parameter but if I can find conclusive statistics on a correlation between increased Time of Possession and lower covering numbers I might have another nice addition!
Here is the BEST advice I can give ANYONE who truly has a strong desire to succeed in sports betting.
It is the simplest idea but it carries the most intellectual weight.
"Focus primarily on underdogs. I'm not sayng play ONLY underdogs........I'm saying play about 80% underdogs and 20% faves. In other words 4 to 1 ratio. For every four underdogs you play, you'll play one fave.
Over the years, I have made a great deal of money (100's of thousands) with this approach.
Can I explain it all here in one post? Of course not.
But if you follow this rule RELIGIOUSLY with UTMOST discipline, youll see what it will bring.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR UNDERDOG PLAYS.
0
Here is the BEST advice I can give ANYONE who truly has a strong desire to succeed in sports betting.
It is the simplest idea but it carries the most intellectual weight.
"Focus primarily on underdogs. I'm not sayng play ONLY underdogs........I'm saying play about 80% underdogs and 20% faves. In other words 4 to 1 ratio. For every four underdogs you play, you'll play one fave.
Over the years, I have made a great deal of money (100's of thousands) with this approach.
Can I explain it all here in one post? Of course not.
But if you follow this rule RELIGIOUSLY with UTMOST discipline, youll see what it will bring.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR UNDERDOG PLAYS.
sometimes guys focus too much on trying to handicap the game itself, look elsewhere for who is betting what. you can learn a great deal from this. In other words, who to fade and who to follow. Again I'm over simplifying here but if you take these two principles I mentioned in these two posts and utilize them, you'll have success.......trust me.
0
Another technique I use is this........
" I handicap handicappers"
sometimes guys focus too much on trying to handicap the game itself, look elsewhere for who is betting what. you can learn a great deal from this. In other words, who to fade and who to follow. Again I'm over simplifying here but if you take these two principles I mentioned in these two posts and utilize them, you'll have success.......trust me.
the ONLY thing to focus on in a game is the LINE because that is what you are betting against. xs and os really dont mean anything because the game is so random and players/teams have so much variance good and bad on a weekly basis.a system i used last season to make a nice few quid especially in the play offs was to create the line by reversing the fixture to the other teams stadium. the best example i can give is the championship game between new england and denver last year. new england was laying 3 on the road and the world and his mother thought new england would cover using the eye test as new england cruised by kc and denver won but was outplayed by the steelers. this line equated to new england being 10 pt favs if the game was being played at foxboro which is clearly ridiculous (the week before new england at one stage was -4 at home to the chiefs) so the line value on denver was enormous even though the eye test/public were all over the patriots. we all know how it ended. so in summary the line is the complete main focus when betting on any game because that is what you are betting against
0
the ONLY thing to focus on in a game is the LINE because that is what you are betting against. xs and os really dont mean anything because the game is so random and players/teams have so much variance good and bad on a weekly basis.a system i used last season to make a nice few quid especially in the play offs was to create the line by reversing the fixture to the other teams stadium. the best example i can give is the championship game between new england and denver last year. new england was laying 3 on the road and the world and his mother thought new england would cover using the eye test as new england cruised by kc and denver won but was outplayed by the steelers. this line equated to new england being 10 pt favs if the game was being played at foxboro which is clearly ridiculous (the week before new england at one stage was -4 at home to the chiefs) so the line value on denver was enormous even though the eye test/public were all over the patriots. we all know how it ended. so in summary the line is the complete main focus when betting on any game because that is what you are betting against
My point is there is a much smaller sample size (only 16 games) compared to every other sport so the lines aren't as sharp. There are no team trends to go based off of, so there's no way to empirically predict the outcome based off numbers like in other sports. This means their algorithms aren't as strong as the knowledge of a team and match-up you can analyze for yourself. Just the news a team will lean more on their running back one week gives you valuable information that Vegas won't take into account.
Actually it's quite the opposite..the less games ,spaced week apart, are more refined than baseball almost 15 games a night or nba,ncaa, and nhl all requiring daily lines during fb season
Every tom person and Harry play nfl but nhl volume is substantially lower
Nba totals are commonly 20 Pts above or below posted total...these would be most beatable numbers
0
Quote Originally Posted by nygjmap:
My point is there is a much smaller sample size (only 16 games) compared to every other sport so the lines aren't as sharp. There are no team trends to go based off of, so there's no way to empirically predict the outcome based off numbers like in other sports. This means their algorithms aren't as strong as the knowledge of a team and match-up you can analyze for yourself. Just the news a team will lean more on their running back one week gives you valuable information that Vegas won't take into account.
Actually it's quite the opposite..the less games ,spaced week apart, are more refined than baseball almost 15 games a night or nba,ncaa, and nhl all requiring daily lines during fb season
Every tom person and Harry play nfl but nhl volume is substantially lower
Nba totals are commonly 20 Pts above or below posted total...these would be most beatable numbers
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.
HOPE YOU WIN BIG
Hot Forum Topics
