Hilton Contest: lines: CHALK is 9-1 ATS

For What It’s Worth Excerpt from coldhardfootballfacts.com: "Just when you thought the NFL couldn’t get any less competitive, along comes Week 7 of the 2009 season – blowout Sunday. Ten of 12 games on Sunday were decided by double digits. Six were decided by four touchdowns or more. Shocking numbers by the standards of the NFL. It’s been an ongoing trend throughout the year, but it really jumped off the scorecards here in Week 7. In fact, we hadn't seen this many televised beatings since the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Through the early slate of six games Sunday alone, the margins of victory were 3, 10, 28, 28, 30 and 36 points – that’s an average margin of victory of 22.5 PPG for those of you keeping score at home. Including the late games, the average MOV for the week was 21.2 PPG. We don’t know if that’s a record of some kind, but it sure seems like it is in a league that’s always prided itself on the habitual competitiveness of almost every game. But we do have evidence that the league is growing less competitive. Through the end of Sunday’s games, just 19 of 102 (18.6%) games this year have been decided by a field goal or less; just 43 of 102 games (42.2%) of games have been decided by 7 points or less. Those marks put 2009 on pace to be the least competitive year since the NFL expanded to 16 games in 1978 and among the least competitive since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger (the info below comes from the NFL Record & Fact Book ... we don't have info for pre-1970). Fewest games decided by 3 points or less (since 1970): •1973 – 28 of 182 (15.4%) •1985 – 38 of 224 (17.0%) •1977 – 36 of 196 (18.4%) •2009 – 19 of 102 (18.6%) Only once since 1978, meanwhile, have fewer than 42 percent of games been decided by seven points or less (1992, 39.3%). But the trend here in recent weeks has definitely been toward more and more blowouts. The two games this week decided by a touchdown or less were easily the fewest of 2009. We don't have figures on double-digit blowouts from year to year, but we'll try to dig them up. Our instinct, in the wake of a rare week in which 10 of 12 games were decided by 10 points or more, is that blowouts have rarely if ever been more common."

[QUOTE=sportsmemo;7204]2009 Double Digits favorites 13-4 ATS. Double Digit favorites covering by an average of more than a touchdown. 2005 Double Digit favorites 14-15 ATS. Through week seven in 2005 5-1 Against the spread. 2005 Favorites Overall 148-108-10 58% 2005 Favorites through Weeks 1-7 55-45-2 55% 2005 Favorites through Weeks 8-SB 93-63-8 60% 2009 Favorites Overall 55-47-0 54% 2009 Favorites through weeks 1-7 55-47-0 54% Might not quite be the underdog bloodbath that the latter part of 2005 was because the market seems a little bit more anticipatory toward the difference. In 2005 at this point through week 7 only 6 DD favorite. 2009 has seen 17 sch favorites. Additionally the average line in 2005 was -4.5. The average line in 2009 is -6.1[/QUOTE] Good stuff. I think the one big difference between 2005 and 2009 is in 2005 there were supposedly 3 or 4 great teams that were winning and covering every week. This year it's sort of the opposite, it's more about how many bad teams are out there. I could be wrong but I don't recall the talk being about bad teams in 2005 like it is nowadays. What does all of this have to with the lines? Nothing really, LOL just thought it was interesting that is all.

Also maybe I am square for saying this but I have done really well in the NFL this year. Favorites, dogs, etc who cares? Bet where you see value and if you are doing the work and seeing things right you should and will win. It seems to be early week line moves (obviously made by sharp players) are winning this year just like any other year. That to me is more of an indication if this has been a bad or good year for sharps. Like I said in a previous thread not to toot my own horn but to make a point, I had Dallas-3, Pitt -3.5, Indy -12.5 and SD -4.5 all at or around the openers last week. If these type of plays were losing this year then I would believe that the sharps were losing. I think it is much better to look at which way the numbers have moved since the open and seen how those moves have done to judge how sharps are really doing. Most guys I know are doing fine in the NFL this season, now CFB that is another story.

Agree that faves/dogs is irrelevant. Of course it is. It's very silly to go into this with a preference. Just like it's silly to prefer teams that have been winning ATS to those who've been losing. To home teams or visitors. It's, naked, a series of coin flips. But it is true that lines may inflate, and that provides dog betting opps. I think we'll see that now. In CFB, too. Faves crushed at the end of Saturday. But more to the point--that Hilton leaders are betting faves--that's a great opp for anyone in the contest to FADE the big faves. I mean, without handicapping, just based on game theory, it's a golden opportunity. Contests aren't only about football. It's also a game played against opponents. This is so true that if God (bored, obv) whispered in your ear that all the top players in the Hilton this week would play all the biggest faves, AND that all of those faves were 53% likely to cover!!! YOU should say thanks, Chief, and fade those faves.

[QUOTE=Pachuca;7246] But more to the point--that Hilton leaders are betting faves--that's a great opp for anyone in the contest to FADE the big faves. I mean, without handicapping, just based on game theory, it's a golden opportunity. Contests aren't only about football. It's also a game played against opponents.[/QUOTE] So true. This is what makes some forms of horse betting unbelievably profitable, and why I prefer it to sports.

[QUOTE=RDTrains;7226]Excerpt from coldhardfootballfacts.com: "Just when you thought the NFL couldn’t get any less competitive, along comes Week 7 of the 2009 season – blowout Sunday. Ten of 12 games on Sunday were decided by double digits. Six were decided by four touchdowns or more. Shocking numbers by the standards of the NFL. It’s been an ongoing trend throughout the year, but it really jumped off the scorecards here in Week 7. In fact, we hadn't seen this many televised beatings since the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Through the early slate of six games Sunday alone, the margins of victory were 3, 10, 28, 28, 30 and 36 points – that’s an average margin of victory of 22.5 PPG for those of you keeping score at home. Including the late games, the average MOV for the week was 21.2 PPG. We don’t know if that’s a record of some kind, but it sure seems like it is in a league that’s always prided itself on the habitual competitiveness of almost every game. But we do have evidence that the league is growing less competitive. Through the end of Sunday’s games, just 19 of 102 (18.6%) games this year have been decided by a field goal or less; just 43 of 102 games (42.2%) of games have been decided by 7 points or less. Those marks put 2009 on pace to be the least competitive year since the NFL expanded to 16 games in 1978 and among the least competitive since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger (the info below comes from the NFL Record & Fact Book ... we don't have info for pre-1970). Fewest games decided by 3 points or less (since 1970): •1973 – 28 of 182 (15.4%) •1985 – 38 of 224 (17.0%) •1977 – 36 of 196 (18.4%) •2009 – 19 of 102 (18.6%) Only once since 1978, meanwhile, have fewer than 42 percent of games been decided by seven points or less (1992, 39.3%). But the trend here in recent weeks has definitely been toward more and more blowouts. The two games this week decided by a touchdown or less were easily the fewest of 2009. We don't have figures on double-digit blowouts from year to year, but we'll try to dig them up. Our instinct, in the wake of a rare week in which 10 of 12 games were decided by 10 points or more, is that blowouts have rarely if ever been more common."[/QUOTE] 1978 was the year the Passing game was opened up due to the Mel Blount rule. Probably, some teams were prepared for it with a passing game in wait, and most others were caught off guard because they were built for the run. Just a thought.. This year I think its more about all these new coaches who don't have the players in place to run their system. Everywhere you look there is a new coach struggling to win.

My assumption, always, with great prejudice, about "what it is," is variance. It takes a lot to convince me, if I watch a roulette game, that the wheel is off. There are supposed to be streaks of dogs winning, faves covering, home teams winning, road teams winning, and so on. These streaks don't mean anything. They're just variance. They are [I]supposed[/I] to happen, randomly. It's silly for anyone to adjust their capping because of it. If anything, look for the lines to adjust because the public is overbetting a streak, and fade. But if the public jumps on a streak, and the lines [I]don't[/I] move, then you [I]can't[/I] fade, because the value is only in the line, not the streak. Not in backing it, not in fading it. It doesn't matter if faves keep covering. If the lines [I]don't[/I] inflate, the faves are not anymore likely to not cover than otherwise. This fact is obv to most guys here, no doubt.

[QUOTE=Pachuca;7259]My assumption, always, with great prejudice, about "what it is," is variance. It takes a lot to convince me, if I watch a roulette game, that the wheel is off. There are supposed to be streaks of dogs winning, faves covering, home teams winning, road teams winning, and so on. These streaks don't mean anything. They're just variance. They are [I]supposed[/I] to happen, randomly. It's silly for anyone to adjust their capping because of it. If anything, look for the lines to adjust because the public is overbetting a streak, and fade. But if the public jumps on a streak, and the lines [I]don't[/I] move, then you [I]can't[/I] fade, because the value is only in the line, not the streak. Not in backing it, not in fading it. It doesn't matter if faves keep covering. If the lines [I]don't[/I] inflate, the faves are not anymore likely to not cover than otherwise. This fact is obv to most guys here, no doubt.[/QUOTE] There is no value in a line of -14 when teams are getting rolled by 30 on a consistent basis. If Vegas adjusts and makes the line 15.5, is there really value in taking say the Rams over the Colts? These teams aren't losing by 1 or 2 points on the point spread. They are getting hammered and blown out of buildings.

[QUOTE=cowboys;7262]There is no value in a line of -14 when teams are getting rolled by 30 on a consistent basis. If Vegas adjusts and makes the line 15.5, is there really value in taking say the Rams over the Colts? These teams aren't losing by 1 or 2 points on the point spread. They are getting hammered and blown out of buildings.[/QUOTE] Do you really think the NFL changed that much from last year? Do you think it ever changes drastically, one year to the next? Sports scores are just distribution points. And recently we've seen a cluster on one side of the bell curve midpoint. From a trivially small sample. The money isn't going to come flowing in now just by betting big faves. The game didn't suddenly get simple. It's never, ever ever going to be as easy as "Just bet faves/dogs/home teams/road teams/red jerseys/fat coaches" whatever. Never, ever, ever. You guys sound like poker players saying "Wow, 4's are so hot!!" "Yeah, and diamond flush draws!!" I've been on the Colts every game this year. But every game, I check my estimate against the pointspread. I made them 17 against the Rams. Which only means is I'd have been just as happy taking St. Louis +21 as I was in getting the Colts -13. Not meaning to lecture, btw. Hope I don't come across that way.

I think the books are doing a better job than they did in 2005. When I posted my power ratings for this year, many complained that I had too large of a gap between the top and the bottom teams. In 2005, the books never caught up to my power ratings. This year, they have adjusted rapidly. The books have been unlucky on most close games. This week steam on Pittsburg should have lost. Ditto for massive steam on Philadelphia. I was NOT impressed with Phil, a very lucky win ATS IMO. LW I would have oppened SD at -7, Ind at -16, and NE at -16. The rest were right at my numbers.