FreakyFresh

Results from Saturday's Plays:

3*
Navy/Western Kentucky    Over 52.5  

2*
Southern Miss/Marshall    Under 51  
Auburn/Mississippi St.    Under 57.5  
Michigan/Notre Dame    Over 55.5   
Tulsa/Tulane    Under 64   
Alabama/Penn State Over 42   
Cincinnati/Tennessee    Under 56   
BYU/Texas   Under 48.5   
Kentucky/Central Michigan    Over 48   
Iowa/Iowa St.    Over 44.5   



Week 2 Results:

3* Games:
Overall: 1 - 0 (100%)
Adjusted for Stars:  3 - 0  (100%)
Adj. for Stars & Vig:  2.73 - 0  (Net: +2.73)
Return on Investment:  +90% ... (2.73/3)

2* Games:
Overall: 5 - 4 (55.5%)
Adjusted for Stars:  10 - 8 (55.5%)
Adj. for Stars & Vig:  9.09 - 8  (Net: +1.09)
Return on Investment:  6.06% .... (1.09/18)

Total:
Overall:  6 - 4 (60%)
Adjustment for Stars:  13 - 8  (61.9%)
Adj. for Stars & Vig:  11.82 - 8  (Net: +3.82)
Return on Investment:  18.2% .... (3.82/21)


Overall, it turned out to be a good week, hitting 6 of 10 total picks, and after adjusting for the larger play on the Navy/Western Kentucky play, it was really a 61.9% week.  The net result of the week was +3.82 Stars (or units, as they are interchangeable really for these purposes).  In total there was 21 Stars (or units) gettting action for the week, so it resulted in a 18.2% ROI. I'll continue the thread once Football Outsiders posts their plays for this upcoming week.

Been posting some stuff to the site for a few years on and off; testing some strategies mainly in NCAAB that have been up and down but nothing special.

I've been doing some analysis using Football Outsiders' NCAAF stats and rankings and such. A lot of there college stuff at least is focused towards the speads/lines when they do their analysis and projections. Yet, they do make projections, and I've been messing around with them to get plays on the Over/Unders.

I can go into detail at later time if anyone wants to discuss what I've been looking at, how I've tweaked their projections or such, but for now I'm going to post today's plays before the games kick off here at noon.

For starters each play will be either a 4*, 3*, or 2* (each star (*), representing a unit in the bankroll).

Here's today's plays:

3*
Navy/Western Kentucky    Over 52.5

2*'s
Southern Miss/Marshall    Under 51
Auburn/Mississippi St.    Under 57.5
Michigan/Notre Dame    Over 55.5
Tulsa/Tulane    Under 64
Alabama/Penn St.    Over 42
Cincinnati/Tennessee    Under 56
BYU/Texas    Under 48.5
Kentucky/Central Michigan    Over 48
Iowa/Iowa St.    Over 44.5

Hey guys. Posted in here before the past year or so, with mixed results and mixed feelings about systems.

I have felt the need to post what I thought were going to be profitable systems in here for college football and basketball, only to realize that I am probably tricking myself into thinking that if they hit, there is something behind it, rather than accept the fact any success is probably due to randomness. This probably goes for every system on this forum.

One of my never dying passions is to work on a system that actually has merit to it, and makes legitimate logical sense. I don't know if any of you have ever seen the 'Sport Science' videos, but there was one on ESPN during March Madness that suggested that the venues of the games had direct effect on shooting.

This instantly sparked my mind and revoked personal experiences from playing basketball. Almost all basketball players would agree on the fact that it is easier to shoot in a venue that is 'less confined' than rather with massive amount of space and room. Buildings, walls, fences, fans, etc evoke senses in the brain that help give a sensory feel for how far the basket is. Also I would agree that while it is easier to shoot with a 'closer' more 'confined' background, it's also when the background is contrasted more with the hoop or the backboard.

The video suggests these are all true, and their statistics back it up, but their statistics are a joke. Even though I am able to realize how the statistics were gathered were a joke, I would love to further expand on this, and conduct the study fully. I really feel like there is potential in such factors, and obviously potential factors that Vegas and Sportsbooks don't already have an edge on.

How to obtain such information such an arena's height, and space capacity, and contrast in lighting seems damn near impossible, but if somehow, just somehow a collective group was to come together and get this... it could be huge.

Has anyone seen the 'Sport Science' video I am talking about?

GL to you too

YTD: 2-0: +2 units
ATS: 1-0: +1 unit
ML: 1-0: +1 unit

Tonight's Card

Dayton ML -160 (1.29 units to win .81 units)

Xavier +6 -110 (1.1 unit to win 1 unit)

Butler +3 -110 (1.1 unit to win 1 unit)

Miami OH +3.5 -110 (1.1 unit to win 1 unit)

Check out YouCapper.com. It's an extremely interesting website, and the theory behind it is very cool. A website like this will never become too popular or anything, but I urge you to check it out.

For those of you who want to track your plays you can, those wanting to sell winners you can, and those of you willing to buy winners you can too.

I post my picks there under the same name I have hear on Covers, if you are wanting to search for someone on there.

Wait, I thought that was Nueral Man!

So if Nebraska pulls this sucker out tonight... who do you all think they will play?

Money has got to be on Cincinnati, at least I think so, knowing what I know about how the BCS works.

TCU is ahead of them in the standings, in the latest version, but ever so slightly. I think with the win vs. Pitt today, the computers are going to favor Cincinnati even more now. It's gonna give them a little more edge in the computers.

The real question is what are the human voters going to do? I mean personally I imagine them rewarding for them beating Pitt today, and running the table as a 'big six conference team'.

Any chance that you guys think that the human voters will think oppositely though, and realize the reality is that Cincinnati was down 3 touchdowns today against an above average team in Pittsburgh today, and 14 late in the game. Will they think that "Is this a team that should play for the NC?", ahead of TCU who has been on an absolute demolish tear lately.

Will Cincinnati being fresh in the mind, by just playing today also have a positive effect for them?

How about this.. how many small school coaches will vote TCU ahead of Cincinnati purely because TCU represents them? I'm not sure of the distribution of votes between the coaches, but that would be an interesting angle on things.

I'm tellin you, if Nebraska wins (and that is what this is all based on)... this is going to be a BCS debate for the ages, and will only beg the question of the 4 team playoff because of Boise State also with their undefeated record.

IMO TCU would be most deserving and should play Alabama, but I think Cincinnati would be more likely to grab that second spot.

Your opinions....

Good game to go to huh Phil? Wow, just checked the box score, and cant' figure out which tidbit is crazier..

Pitt has 3 starters who play a combined 68 minutes without recording a single point

New Hampshire not getting a point for about 11 minutes

Wannamaker and Gibbs combining for 16 of Pitt's 17 baskets

or

The combined first half points of 22 which shattered the previous post shot clock area record of 28.

Plays

Oregon State -2.5 -110 (1.1 units)

Oregon State -145 (1.45 uints)

I'm waitin for some possible line movements on Xavier and San Diego.

The only way to get attention on this thread as a new comer is to tout yourself very highly. The problem with that is that most of the people who do are frauds and the one's that do and lose early take the heat for it without really given the chance to prove themselves (but they bring it on themselves.

So I'll sit back and quietly start my own daily thread, without self promotion, never mention a past history outside of this thread (because even if you have a good one, people only care what you have posted on here, or it doesn't really matter to them), even though I track my picks with another third party just for fun.

I believe that any game I find value in by capping against the spread, there is value in the money line as well. So, for each game I see value in, I'll post a play on the ML and Spread.

YTD: 0 units

MoneyLine: 0-0 0 units

Spread: 0-0 0 units

 

This is as far from the truth as anything on here. Duquesne and Pitt are only steps away from each other, but because they are in the same area doesn't mean they have recruiting battles. There is absolutely no basketball talent here in Western PA, and these school rarely recruit the same players. Yeah, Pitt recruits the better players, but that gap is closing. Damian Saunders, Duquesne's best player, and a legit pro prospect, was heading to Marquette before things got screwed up and ended up at Duquesne. Their other top player who is out, Melquan Bolding, was heading to Louisiville, as I recall before things fell through and he ended up at Duquesne. Bill Clark, a solid wingman for the Dukes comes played at Oak Hill for a year, the top prep school in the nation.

Didn't like any game yesterday enough (Monday) to put down a POD, had a small lean on Penn State, but I didn't think it was enough to risk a B game on for the 3 game chase. Have one tonight though:

Tuesday's POD (Dec 1)

NORTHEASTERN Pickvs. Providence (NCAAB) (B) -110

$47.93 to win $43.57

Sunday's POD (Nov 29)

WYOMING -6 vs. Pepperdine (NCAAB) (A) (-4)

Lost $20.74

New Bankroll: $1,075.27

Thanks GameBoy....

Sunday's POD (Nov 29) Day 7

WYOMING -6 vs. Pepperdine (NCAAB) (A) -110

$22.82 to win $20.74

OREGON STATE +7  vs. G Washington (NCAAB) (-7)  +$20.36

New Bankroll: $1,098.09
ROI (6 Days): 9.8%
Record: 5-1 (83.3%)
3 Game Chase Record 5-0 (4-1,1-0,0-0)

Saturday's POD (Nov 28)

OREGON STATE +7 vs. George Washington (NCAAB) (A) (-110)

$22.40 to win $20.36

Yesterday's POD (Thurs Nov 26)

XAVIER -4.5 vs. Marquette (10)  -$19.99

New Bankroll $1,035.76
Record 3-1 75%
3 Game Chase Record 3-0 (3-1,0-0,0-0)




Friday Nov. 27 POD

COLORADO +10.5 vs. Nebraska (NCAAF) (B) -110

$46.17 to win $41.97