handicap6272

@Diskodude

 If I enter a $1 contest and finish 20th out of 20 after spending an entire day researching players, is it safe to say that DFS is not my calling? 

P.S. - I hate you Derek Carr. And all your sorry teammates. 

Can't find them. 

@Eddy_Winslow

Why are so many games showing 'Off' (for O/U and/or ATS) on the first line marked 'Open:?' 

The second line is labeled 'Live:' but I'm not asking about that one. Those numbers appear to be accurate, showing current O/U and ATS numbers. 

Under "Scores and Matchups," when checking lines on games, the first line of data gives opening numbers for O/U and ATS. Sometimes one or both say 'Off' instead of a number, even as late as Friday. Why do the opening stats say 'Off' instead of numbers? i.e. JAC v. IND right now. 

@davemsh

 I misread the question. I thought he was asking for the surest winner. 

@YouWish

 CIN

In years past, I've used line movement GRAPHS as the fastest way to see where the lines have been throughout the week. Along the bottom of the graph, is the passage of time. The vertical bar on the left side of the graph measures peaks and valleys of line movement. Now, I can't find it anywhere. Does anyone remember what to click on to find it? To be clear, when you look at matchups, it's not the 'Consensus' option, as that is a bar chart with horizontal bars showing how many have bet on each side. Nor am I talking about 'Line Movement' which shows the changes throughout the week, using digital numbers, and grouped by sports book. What I'm looking for are simple graphs, with time across the bottom, and line value up the left side. Unless Covers did away with it, I can't find it. Perhaps I'm confusing websites and it's not a Covers feature at all. 

https://www.covers.com/sport/football/nfl/odds

It looks like a web design flaw. I'm using Google Chrome on a Mac. 

https://www.covers.com/nfl/season-preview-for-every-team-2022-23

The article info at the top doesn't say anything about the teams being listed in an order that represents anyone's power ranking opinion. I'm still looking for a definitively stated, recent, power ranking article. 

Books on handicapping say that the home field advantage is worth 3 points. But before assigning the 3 point advantage, they're basing their point predictions on historical stats which don't specify who the home team was. So when you look at past scores, you don't know which team had a 3 point advantage by playing at home. Would you compensate for this incomplete historical data by adding between 0 to 2 points to your home team's score prediction instead of 3? If so, how many, exactly? Is 3 still considered the best number to use, in spite of not knowing who the home team was for each past game that you're basing your predictions on?  

What makes you think he's in heaven? 

@DoubleUp4Life

 Naw, he's just avoiding summer work because he can get away with it more than ever. If anyone complains, he becomes a highly paid broadcaster overnight. Must be nice. :)

There used to be much discussion of how the league was transitioning from a 'run first' game, to much more passing. The theory was that it made the game more exciting to 'air out the ball' on more plays, resulting in more scoring. Teams embraced the changes. But the trend didn't happen overnight. In what year would you say the trend of a higher percentage of pass plays throughout the league begin? In what year would you say the transition had finished evolving into today's game, for the most part? I'm asking this in order to separate historical stats into two major time frames. The first time frame will be when the run game was king. The second time frame will be when the pass game had established itself as king. I don't want to use stats (i.e. points scored) that are too old to help predict the results of today's games.  

Never mind, I think I found it. Now I'm trying to figure out how to delete a post, like this one. 

@14allall41

 Yes. I just did my first tally and season-to-date I'm 52-29 which puts me at over 64%. I hear most people can't do 60% over time, not even the pros. 

I read a book where the author said something about not going thru with a bet he would have otherwise made if he had watched the line all week and it moved against him toward the end. He didn't say by how much, so it's assumed that even a half point would nix the deal.  The book mainly discusses spreads, not O/U. He may have been speaking more of spreads than O/Us, especially key numbers, though he didn't say it had to be a key number moving against him in order for him to not bet. I presume his reasoning was due to him getting burned in the past more times than it was worth, so he just doesn't risk it anymore. 

I'm wanting to get other takes on this idea, i.e. what your experience/policy is, on both spreads and O/Us. For example, if your numbers still have you winning if they hold up, even with a half point less of an edge than you could have gotten had you acted sooner, do you take on that extra risk in either instance? I've had several times when my numbers tell me what to do, and I lose a half point on the line being offered, and I still would have won (or lost) anyway. That half point moving against me hasn't made a difference that I can remember. On the other hand, I've had numerous times when holding out for a BETTER line, or jumping on one BEFORE it moves against me, HAS made a difference. I follow line movements on COVERS to decide whether to act now or wait. 

As for tonights game, I decided to hold off after the line moved a half point against me when the reason I had waited was because I thought it might move a half point in my favor. I don't know that it was worth it. I had the under and will be very surprised if it would have made a difference, as it usually doesn't. 
As for the book author, he may have been speaking ONLY of the spread, not totals, yet I've been practicing his policy for totals as well. Given my record so far, doing so hasn't helped me. If anything, I'm worse off than if I had gone ahead with the bet.  

I posted two threads this week under 'General Discussion' and they stayed there a little while and then disappeared. Who is deleting them and why? 

I keep seeing touts touted as 'returning X number of dollars to $100 players.'  No matter what formula I apply to their won/loss record, I can't come up with the same total winnings for a $100 player as they do. I've tried using both 10% vig and 5% vig in my formulas, but it's still off. (5% is a lot closer to what the touts advertise than the standard sports book vig of 10%, but they don't tell you what vig they're actually using). What is the correct, exact formula to use, step by step? 
With regard to the seeming controversy as to WHO pays the vig, I'm currently of the belief that the winners pay all of the rake cause they only get back approx. 90% of what they put up. The losers just lose 100% of what they put up. 

It seems to me that if a person can bet hundreds of thousand of dollars on their favorite Wall St. stocks and options from their brokerage accounts, they should be able to bet on sports the same way, especially since we know they have the technology cause that's what offshore sports books are doing. Armed with a computer with Windows or Mac OS and a browser, you'd good to go. 

Perhaps there are states where you can. If so, which states? And if they can do it, why can't all states where electronic sports betting has been legalized do it?  

...or someone you know personally and know for a fact how much they had on deposit. Please specify whether it was you who had the money on deposit, or if it was someone you know personally. Did you or they have any trouble getting your money out? It seems to me that the sports book could just disappear,  keep all your money, and you would have no recourse. I'm afraid to send them much after honing my skills to a good win rate and wanting to up the ante on my wagers. It's one thing to build up an account over the years through winnings and then trust them with the money won, (paper winnings, not money actually sent to them), and quite another to send them as much as I'd like to wager starting in week 1 of the NFL season.