Should it not be if you lose by 4 as a +7 dog then your action point would be +4 since if you win by 3 your action point is +10.
Also, what are you suppose to do with these action points? If a team is very positive do you bet them the next game or what? And are the action points cumulative or single game?
My mistake.
If you bet a -7 team and the team win by 10 you are +3 action points. because you beat the psread by 3. If win by 4 you are -3 action points. Little different than the post but you get it.
It is a way to predict the accuracy of a system and much more accurate than your win loss record ATS when the system meets your criteria (7 points off). This was you keep track of the action points for all the bets you would be making, if the sytem meets your criteria. Your goal is to be as positive as possible. You could go 120-80 over 200 bets that meet your criteria but if you are negative action points your system is a long term loser and you are just getting lucky.
Like i said market argeeance is even stronger but none of you guys are going to run those tests. Figured someone might not be lazy enought to run the action points test tho. I wont be however. I have ran almost every variation of the dudley, and i deffinatly consider this a variation of the dudley with a few simple additions, and they do not give a long term edge. Especially in the NFL. Regression and averages are great from showing how a team as performed. They are not nessearily good for predicting how a team will perform.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CallMeBruce:
Should it not be if you lose by 4 as a +7 dog then your action point would be +4 since if you win by 3 your action point is +10.
Also, what are you suppose to do with these action points? If a team is very positive do you bet them the next game or what? And are the action points cumulative or single game?
My mistake.
If you bet a -7 team and the team win by 10 you are +3 action points. because you beat the psread by 3. If win by 4 you are -3 action points. Little different than the post but you get it.
It is a way to predict the accuracy of a system and much more accurate than your win loss record ATS when the system meets your criteria (7 points off). This was you keep track of the action points for all the bets you would be making, if the sytem meets your criteria. Your goal is to be as positive as possible. You could go 120-80 over 200 bets that meet your criteria but if you are negative action points your system is a long term loser and you are just getting lucky.
Like i said market argeeance is even stronger but none of you guys are going to run those tests. Figured someone might not be lazy enought to run the action points test tho. I wont be however. I have ran almost every variation of the dudley, and i deffinatly consider this a variation of the dudley with a few simple additions, and they do not give a long term edge. Especially in the NFL. Regression and averages are great from showing how a team as performed. They are not nessearily good for predicting how a team will perform.
If you bet a -7 team and the team win by 10 you are +3 action points. because you beat the psread by 3. If win by 4 you are -3 action points. Little different than the post but you get it.
It is a way to predict the accuracy of a system and much more accurate than your win loss record ATS when the system meets your criteria (7 points off). This was you keep track of the action points for all the bets you would be making, if the sytem meets your criteria. Your goal is to be as positive as possible. You could go 120-80 over 200 bets that meet your criteria but if you are negative action points your system is a long term loser and you are just getting lucky.
Like i said market argeeance is even stronger but none of you guys are going to run those tests. Figured someone might not be lazy enought to run the action points test tho. I wont be however. I have ran almost every variation of the dudley, and i deffinatly consider this a variation of the dudley with a few simple additions, and they do not give a long term edge. Especially in the NFL. Regression and averages are great from showing how a team as performed. They are not nessearily good for predicting how a team will perform.
Correction, none of us (or at least not me) are smart enough to run those tests. Laziness has little to do with it. After I can wrap my head around what is going on with this system, perhaps a guy can test it for flaws/improvements.
Good luck
0
Quote Originally Posted by AChigurh:
My mistake.
If you bet a -7 team and the team win by 10 you are +3 action points. because you beat the psread by 3. If win by 4 you are -3 action points. Little different than the post but you get it.
It is a way to predict the accuracy of a system and much more accurate than your win loss record ATS when the system meets your criteria (7 points off). This was you keep track of the action points for all the bets you would be making, if the sytem meets your criteria. Your goal is to be as positive as possible. You could go 120-80 over 200 bets that meet your criteria but if you are negative action points your system is a long term loser and you are just getting lucky.
Like i said market argeeance is even stronger but none of you guys are going to run those tests. Figured someone might not be lazy enought to run the action points test tho. I wont be however. I have ran almost every variation of the dudley, and i deffinatly consider this a variation of the dudley with a few simple additions, and they do not give a long term edge. Especially in the NFL. Regression and averages are great from showing how a team as performed. They are not nessearily good for predicting how a team will perform.
Correction, none of us (or at least not me) are smart enough to run those tests. Laziness has little to do with it. After I can wrap my head around what is going on with this system, perhaps a guy can test it for flaws/improvements.
If you bet a -7 team and the team win by 10 you are +3 action points. because you beat the psread by 3. If win by 4 you are -3 action points. Little different than the post but you get it.
It is a way to predict the accuracy of a system and much more accurate than your win loss record ATS when the system meets your criteria (7 points off). This was you keep track of the action points for all the bets you would be making, if the sytem meets your criteria. Your goal is to be as positive as possible. You could go 120-80 over 200 bets that meet your criteria but if you are negative action points your system is a long term loser and you are just getting lucky.
Like i said market argeeance is even stronger but none of you guys are going to run those tests. Figured someone might not be lazy enought to run the action points test tho. I wont be however. I have ran almost every variation of the dudley, and i deffinatly consider this a variation of the dudley with a few simple additions, and they do not give a long term edge. Especially in the NFL. Regression and averages are great from showing how a team as performed. They are not nessearily good for predicting how a team will perform.
Exactly!
0
Quote Originally Posted by AChigurh:
My mistake.
If you bet a -7 team and the team win by 10 you are +3 action points. because you beat the psread by 3. If win by 4 you are -3 action points. Little different than the post but you get it.
It is a way to predict the accuracy of a system and much more accurate than your win loss record ATS when the system meets your criteria (7 points off). This was you keep track of the action points for all the bets you would be making, if the sytem meets your criteria. Your goal is to be as positive as possible. You could go 120-80 over 200 bets that meet your criteria but if you are negative action points your system is a long term loser and you are just getting lucky.
Like i said market argeeance is even stronger but none of you guys are going to run those tests. Figured someone might not be lazy enought to run the action points test tho. I wont be however. I have ran almost every variation of the dudley, and i deffinatly consider this a variation of the dudley with a few simple additions, and they do not give a long term edge. Especially in the NFL. Regression and averages are great from showing how a team as performed. They are not nessearily good for predicting how a team will perform.
you're accepting PM from friends only, so add me (or simply write your e-mail to me). I'll send you my spreadsheet. Just to know, I've made some changes to original rough's sheet as VGPOP suggested.
0
@mrweed13
you're accepting PM from friends only, so add me (or simply write your e-mail to me). I'll send you my spreadsheet. Just to know, I've made some changes to original rough's sheet as VGPOP suggested.
The number for SF is correct, but I was pointed out that I used the wrong SOS numbers for INDY, so instead of 31, like I originally got, I also have 21.9, like Lou4062, then after adding/subtracting the HFA, I have a final number of SF 13.9 Indy 23.2, so basically 14 to 24, it could be 14 to 23 as those numbers are denitely possible.
And thanks again Lou4062 for the SOS, that's exactly how I calculated it, just used the wrong numbers. Now to add more games and test it out further.
Now not that confused!
0
Hey Lou4062 and NFLNut and Rob,
The number for SF is correct, but I was pointed out that I used the wrong SOS numbers for INDY, so instead of 31, like I originally got, I also have 21.9, like Lou4062, then after adding/subtracting the HFA, I have a final number of SF 13.9 Indy 23.2, so basically 14 to 24, it could be 14 to 23 as those numbers are denitely possible.
And thanks again Lou4062 for the SOS, that's exactly how I calculated it, just used the wrong numbers. Now to add more games and test it out further.
The number for SF is correct, but I was pointed out that I used the wrong SOS numbers for INDY, so instead of 31, like I originally got, I also have 21.9, like Lou4062, then after adding/subtracting the HFA, I have a final number of SF 13.9 Indy 23.2, so basically 14 to 24, it could be 14 to 23 as those numbers are denitely possible.
And thanks again Lou4062 for the SOS, that's exactly how I calculated it, just used the wrong numbers. Now to add more games and test it out further.
Now not that confused!
No problem recon, I'm glad you got it straghtened out. This is all fun for me!
0
Quote Originally Posted by recon168:
Hey Lou4062 and NFLNut and Rob,
The number for SF is correct, but I was pointed out that I used the wrong SOS numbers for INDY, so instead of 31, like I originally got, I also have 21.9, like Lou4062, then after adding/subtracting the HFA, I have a final number of SF 13.9 Indy 23.2, so basically 14 to 24, it could be 14 to 23 as those numbers are denitely possible.
And thanks again Lou4062 for the SOS, that's exactly how I calculated it, just used the wrong numbers. Now to add more games and test it out further.
Now not that confused!
No problem recon, I'm glad you got it straghtened out. This is all fun for me!
In the NFL, home field advantage (HFA) also increases from the regular season to the playoffs even though the league’s single-game playoff format provides no incentive to prolong a series. One big reason for the difference is due to the relative strength of opponents.
The NFL’s regular season HFA is 57%--the home team wins 57 out of 100 times. But in the playoffs it’s 68%. The biggest difference between regular season games and playoff games is the relative strength of opponents. Regular season games can feature mismatches, but playoff games feature only opponents who are relatively close in ability.
When teams are well-matched in ability, other factors such as HFA, which are normally small, appear more decisive. There are fewer cases of games that feature a strong visitor against a weak home team in the playoffs. The winning percentage of the home team would therefore naturally increase.
Home Court Advantage in the NBA
In the NBA, HCA is even stronger than the NFL’s HFA. Think of home advantage not as a game-long effect, but as a tiny advantage on each possession. The NBA plays quickly with a short shot clock and long 48 minute games. It’s a sport on speed. Each team gets about 100 possessions per game. Over the course of each possession, a HCA effect accrues into a very large game-long effect. HCA in the NBA is unusually strong for natural reasons having nothing to do with bias.
In the NBA playoffs, HCA is magnified by the same process at work in the NFL. Teams are closer in ability, and therefore other factors such as HCA appear to be more decisive.
In the NFL, home field advantage (HFA) also increases from the regular season to the playoffs even though the league’s single-game playoff format provides no incentive to prolong a series. One big reason for the difference is due to the relative strength of opponents.
The NFL’s regular season HFA is 57%--the home team wins 57 out of 100 times. But in the playoffs it’s 68%. The biggest difference between regular season games and playoff games is the relative strength of opponents. Regular season games can feature mismatches, but playoff games feature only opponents who are relatively close in ability.
When teams are well-matched in ability, other factors such as HFA, which are normally small, appear more decisive. There are fewer cases of games that feature a strong visitor against a weak home team in the playoffs. The winning percentage of the home team would therefore naturally increase.
Home Court Advantage in the NBA
In the NBA, HCA is even stronger than the NFL’s HFA. Think of home advantage not as a game-long effect, but as a tiny advantage on each possession. The NBA plays quickly with a short shot clock and long 48 minute games. It’s a sport on speed. Each team gets about 100 possessions per game. Over the course of each possession, a HCA effect accrues into a very large game-long effect. HCA in the NBA is unusually strong for natural reasons having nothing to do with bias.
In the NBA playoffs, HCA is magnified by the same process at work in the NFL. Teams are closer in ability, and therefore other factors such as HCA appear to be more decisive.
Why wouldn't we use the road stats for SF and the home stats for Indy and ignore any Home Field Advantage adjustment ?
Also thought about it. I think the main reason for rough was that there wasn't enough games (only 1-3) at the moment he was doing spreadsheet. But now I think that we might try it. Will do calc and see how it goes...
0
Quote Originally Posted by NFL_NUT:
Why wouldn't we use the road stats for SF and the home stats for Indy and ignore any Home Field Advantage adjustment ?
Also thought about it. I think the main reason for rough was that there wasn't enough games (only 1-3) at the moment he was doing spreadsheet. But now I think that we might try it. Will do calc and see how it goes...
you're accepting PM from friends only, so add me (or simply write your e-mail to me). I'll send you my spreadsheet. Just to know, I've made some changes to original rough's sheet as VGPOP suggested.
Thanks Jesterr...I just PM'd my email address.
0
Quote Originally Posted by jesterr:
@mrweed13
you're accepting PM from friends only, so add me (or simply write your e-mail to me). I'll send you my spreadsheet. Just to know, I've made some changes to original rough's sheet as VGPOP suggested.
Couple general questions for those in the know on this sheet:
1. One key calculation seems to be yardage differential, and then strength of schedule yardage differential. Given that a team's efficiency at defending the run against a stronger schedule seems like it ought to weigh more heavily than their opponents relative ability to gain yards against a weaker schedule, why just average the two? I know I explained that poorly, but put simply, it seems we just "average" some data points where it seems that more sophisticated conideration might be due. Thoughts?
2. It seems Yards per Point is this model's way of considering turnovers. Are we weighing it appropriately per the typical correlation of turnover ratio's to victories or points scored? In other words, it would seem that if you used historical data, turnover differential is a key predictor for a game's result, even more so than yard differential. So is our use of YPPT appropriate in these calculations?
0
Couple general questions for those in the know on this sheet:
1. One key calculation seems to be yardage differential, and then strength of schedule yardage differential. Given that a team's efficiency at defending the run against a stronger schedule seems like it ought to weigh more heavily than their opponents relative ability to gain yards against a weaker schedule, why just average the two? I know I explained that poorly, but put simply, it seems we just "average" some data points where it seems that more sophisticated conideration might be due. Thoughts?
2. It seems Yards per Point is this model's way of considering turnovers. Are we weighing it appropriately per the typical correlation of turnover ratio's to victories or points scored? In other words, it would seem that if you used historical data, turnover differential is a key predictor for a game's result, even more so than yard differential. So is our use of YPPT appropriate in these calculations?
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.