Let's take the accuscore prediction and compare it to the days lines to find value.
For example, let's say hypothetically, the line on a BAL/TEX game is TEX -155 and BAL 164 while Accuscore says TEX wins 60% of the time and BAL wins 40% of the time.
Looking at BAL's line of 164, we see that we would have to win at a 30% clip to break even. Comparing that number to the accuscore, we see that BAL's simulated games hit at 40% - A difference of 10%.
In trying this out for all the games, I've found the differences to be mostly small. But, there are a few plays that jump out.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Let's take the accuscore prediction and compare it to the days lines to find value.
For example, let's say hypothetically, the line on a BAL/TEX game is TEX -155 and BAL 164 while Accuscore says TEX wins 60% of the time and BAL wins 40% of the time.
Looking at BAL's line of 164, we see that we would have to win at a 30% clip to break even. Comparing that number to the accuscore, we see that BAL's simulated games hit at 40% - A difference of 10%.
In trying this out for all the games, I've found the differences to be mostly small. But, there are a few plays that jump out.
Accuscore is bullshit...Their claimed "simulations" always picks favorites to win, and the results are always matching the lines. I doubt they even "simulate" the games, they probably just look at who the favorite is then set percentages from there.
0
Accuscore is bullshit...Their claimed "simulations" always picks favorites to win, and the results are always matching the lines. I doubt they even "simulate" the games, they probably just look at who the favorite is then set percentages from there.
In the past couple of years I find them about as good as flipping a coin.
I followed Accuscore last summer every day. It was a free App on my iPod Touch and I always used to read the game previews from that every morning when I first woke up, along with my email and weather.
I tracked a few notes along the way, to see if anything flowed, but I have to agree with Lippsman.. flipping a coin was just as good as their predictions. It hasn't got any better this year.
Also, like Sharky said, the "simulations" always takes into heavy consideration who is the predetermined favorite. Results do match the lines almost 100%.
The only time I may have found it useful was when the line was about even for a game.. then it seemed to pick more upsets. But based on the other findings, this doesn't seem any more useful.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Lippsman:
In the past couple of years I find them about as good as flipping a coin.
I followed Accuscore last summer every day. It was a free App on my iPod Touch and I always used to read the game previews from that every morning when I first woke up, along with my email and weather.
I tracked a few notes along the way, to see if anything flowed, but I have to agree with Lippsman.. flipping a coin was just as good as their predictions. It hasn't got any better this year.
Also, like Sharky said, the "simulations" always takes into heavy consideration who is the predetermined favorite. Results do match the lines almost 100%.
The only time I may have found it useful was when the line was about even for a game.. then it seemed to pick more upsets. But based on the other findings, this doesn't seem any more useful.
Thanks for the input! I couldn't agree with you guys more.
To try and pick winners using Accuscore is absurd. They do always lean to the favorite and you might as well just flip a coin.
Here, I'm hoping to show that one can use the "predictions" to point out inflated lines for the day. (The Accuscore numbers can be found here on Covers in the preview for each game). I didn't have a chance to elaborate more on that in my post yesterday and I apologize for that.
The fact that last nights picks went 4-1 was pretty much irrelevant. The hope is that the units brought in from that 4-1 night would be greater than units brought in from any other 4-1 selection. Last night's leans brought in 4.6 units. That converts to 1.15 units per win. That is the number we are trying to increase here.
I ran today's games and found that out of the 15 games today, 6 produced a noticeable difference in percentage points between the break-even number and the predicted result. Should we play these 6 games based solely on this disparity? Of course not. But it might help point out the inflated lines.
Here are the 6 games followed by the difference in percentage points:
Now, would I play STL? Probably not. But I will carry a little more consideration towards the other plays when handicapping my games today.
Thanks!
Your thoughts and ideas on this subject are, of course, always welcomed.
0
Thanks for the input! I couldn't agree with you guys more.
To try and pick winners using Accuscore is absurd. They do always lean to the favorite and you might as well just flip a coin.
Here, I'm hoping to show that one can use the "predictions" to point out inflated lines for the day. (The Accuscore numbers can be found here on Covers in the preview for each game). I didn't have a chance to elaborate more on that in my post yesterday and I apologize for that.
The fact that last nights picks went 4-1 was pretty much irrelevant. The hope is that the units brought in from that 4-1 night would be greater than units brought in from any other 4-1 selection. Last night's leans brought in 4.6 units. That converts to 1.15 units per win. That is the number we are trying to increase here.
I ran today's games and found that out of the 15 games today, 6 produced a noticeable difference in percentage points between the break-even number and the predicted result. Should we play these 6 games based solely on this disparity? Of course not. But it might help point out the inflated lines.
Here are the 6 games followed by the difference in percentage points:
Hot Forum Topics
