Critique my Method (NFL)

danielmphan is a dummy. You can 1000 games a week and win. Take a look at my last 2 weeks of ATS and totals.

17-10 ATS 

16-10-1 totals

Clearly I am not winning here.

system = play all games that fit the parameters of the system

capping = playing games where you think you have an edge

this is a systems thread.

System formula shows high confidence PIT win but by only 7 pts, so the play is:

CIN +10.5

I know alot of you guys follow the O/U, my formula wasn't designed with that as an objective, but it does calculate a probable total, in this case 37 pts, so it would be an OVER if you play that game.

Be sure to check out the NBA and NHL threads, the NHL is an underdog system similar to my MLB, thus far we are doing extremely well.

Have a great day!

Week 12:

HOU +3
DET +8.5
NYJ +5
KC +3
STL +8.5
MIA
MIN +2.5
PHI +1
OAK +9.5
ATL -1
AZ +3

I've noticed some discussion regarding the wisdom of a large number of events when wagering.  It has been alleged, but not proven, that by wagering a large number of times, one is 'giving away' money to the sportsbook. 

This myth is a widespread one, viz., that you are guaranteed to lose in the long run.  I believe the fallacy is rooted in the inherent advantage of the house in most casino games.  If one accepts this fact as the only consideration, then it does not matter whether one wagers many times or few, because the conclusion (total bankroll loss) is inevitable, the question is only when.

Of course, I believe the myth is also fed by the mistaken impression that you are betting against the bookie when you wager in sports.  Of course you are not betting against the bookie, but against your fellow bettor, for the bookie is only a broker.  The bookie wins 100% of the time, whether you win or not (excepting a push), just as a real estate agent, mortgage broker, or stock broker earns a commission on a sale, whether it is profitable for you or not.

Thus, if you factor the transaction costs (the juice) into your approach to sports investing, then it does not matter whether you wager 1 time a day or 20, because your success is not dependent upon the juice, but rather the performance of your methodology.

Put another way, on a -110 spread, your break even point is roughly 53%.  It is 53% whether you bet 1 time or 10 times.  If your strategy is profitable above 53%, then of course you would want to bet as many times as possible.

Amateurs or gamblers, as opposed to professionals or investors, will claim that it is better to have a high average with a fewer number of events than a lower average with a higher number of events, but of course this is not true.  If you averaged 70% and made 10 plays a week, versus a professional who averaged 55% but made 20 plays a week, it is easy to see that the professional nets far more.  Using a unit of $100:

Amateur net gain:  7 wins x $91=$637
Pro net gain:  11 wins x $91=$1001

I hope this example is illustrative.

Sdiinc gets love for going 5-6 ATS and you hate on my picks?

As for the bookie sites... does it really matter how " bad " they are if they give me the most favorable lines. Define " bad " anyways. They always take my wager and always pay out. They don't send me a  card on my birthday but I will get over it. To date 63.34% NFL. Thats sharppppppp baby.

I haven't been following the picks but 63% ATS in NFL would be very good indeed-better than my record-setting year in '07.  I suspect this is only over the course of a few weeks, because I follow the best stats guys in sports and no one I know is above 55% YTD for NFL.

Of course, this thread is about critiquing my method, or even, critiquing the method of other contributors, such as go2guys.  Touting picks without much explanation doesn't offer much opportunity for constructive criticism.  I have nothing against selling picks-I'm all for it, in fact-but I sure wouldn't spend money without a 3rd party verified track record.

I don't follow the banter, so my apologies if I've missed said explanation in a previous post.

I know guys playing with only $500 bankroll, at 2% that's $10 a wager, I think the smallest most will allow.  Proper bankroll management requires that you use a small enough unit to weather the inevitable streaks. 

My 'theory' doesn't make 'assumptions'.  Not every game has the same confidence, of course.  Last year I was able to much more easily identify the high confidence games.  This year has proven to be much more difficult.  I suspect it is because the actual result of the games has been so different from the expected result. That's called 'standard deviation' and I'll address it more in the next post.

Dabar,

I'm not aware of any hidden factors.  Of course, the higher your accuracy rate, the lower the SD (over the long run).  Put another way, the more accurate you are, the fewer incidence of variation there are, thus your total deviation is reduced.  Simple, right?

As for ques #1, I'm not sure I have an answer.  Because I invest in multiple sports at a time (presently NFL, NBA and NHL), I consider myself as having alot of diversification.  As a result I don't experience the streaks you mentioned, although they remain a theoretical possibility. 

During MLB my longest win streak was 5, my longest losing streak was 7.  At only 50%, the odds of the latter are only 8/10 of 1 percent.  And yet it does happen.  My only protection against this is using a small unit size (I started at 2% and I'm working my way down to 1% due to total bankroll growth).  I started out with only 1 play per day, but will attempt to make 2-3 next year and watch to see if accuracy suffers.

As to question #2, I'm not really a handicapper, more of an investor with contrarian approach.  I don't have the expertise or insight into the different sports to look at things that traditional handicappers follow.  What I do is look at the statistical factors I believe are central to team performance, then develop methods of comparing the sum of those factors for the two teams involved.  The result should be a prediction.  Then I compare that prediction against the line, and finally, I have accounts at multiple books, which sometimes can prove the difference.

Most people think it is them against the bookie, but of course this is wrong.  Sometimes the line is influenced by the public betting and so there can be a larger than expected spread between the published line and reality.  I try to capitalize on this whenever possible, but this is a much bigger trend for me in MLB and NHL because those are ML payoffs (which I love).

If you had a 'filter' with a long-term, quantifiable history of prediction, I would be interested.  However, I've been working on this for a few years now and the only credible guys I know are doing stats-related stuff, the rest are handicappers with 'secrets' and alot of ego.

One of my favorites is Brian Burke, he doesn't do ATS predictions but he has a great blog on NFL stats, you can google 'advanced nfl stats'.

 

Wow, My "question" about "assumptions" seems to have ruffled some feathers. LOL  Do you not consider your "Method", "System" or whatever you want to call it a theory?  Here is the definition.

Broadly speaking we can say that a theory is some kind of belief or claim that (supposedly) explains, asserts, or consolidates some class of claims.

I haven't followed your previous threads and I read though this one and didn't see anything about "confidence" assigned to games, so I "assumed" it didn't.  Sorry I made that "assumpion."  LOL

The only reason I posted is because I am curious on the same issue as to # of games bet.  I "assume" this is a question that will go on forever.  I have my opinions but will keep them to myself.

BOL

 

 

No ruffled feathers here, your question was just imprecisely worded.  Assumptions are different from mathematical formulas which depend upon data which is empirical rather than theoretical.  Your 'assumption' was that in my previous comments about the measurable advantage of a larger number of events that I considered all events as equally probable.  That is incorrect.  I merely demonstrated how a larger number of events, even with a lower accuracy, results in a larger net profit, as part of disproving the fallacy of guaranteed profits through smaller number of events.

No problem on the assumptions-I just don't post all the output of the calculation.  Feel free to inquire about anything else-that's why it's called "Critique My Method".

Dabar, I have found the NCAAF very difficult to predict using statistical methods.  I suspect it is more of a handicappers game. 

One of the things about football in general is the lower number of games creates a higher standard deviation, because there is no opportunity in the course of a season for 'luck' to be balanced out by a larger number of events.  I think NCAAF is even more the case here. 

If you check thepredictiontracker.com, Todd Beck tracks all of the top handicappers (those willing to publish picks anyway), you'll see no one is above 53% ATS and many are below 50%.  That doesn't do much for my confidence level in college.  I hear from lots of guys bragging about 60 or 70% ATS, but they inevitably stop sending me reports after a few weeks.

Anyway, best of luck and keep us posted.

Thanks for the straight answer (the part in bold)