I got the response back from Sharp... very detailedbut thats the way he is most of the time...
XXXXXX, I know you know this, but I take the issue of honestly grading plays accurately and very seriously. It is one of the reasons why my following is consistently strong – I report my record accurately and account for the losses truthfully. As you can see here, I share when I have losses or wins accurately: [url]https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/Sharp_Records.html[/url]
Having been with my service several years, I am sure you have grown accustomed to my recaps, discussing why we lost or won on certain weeks, and sharing strategy with you. You also have seen how I adapt to the changing market, by inventing new strategies and plays to take advantage of certain situations, such as my Unders subset plays or my Overs lean plays. Last year was a prime example: The hit-rule change really affected the Unders, as scoring was at an all-time high during the time when those hits started to be enforced. After several weeks of studying the pattern, I reported my findings to you guys in a lengthy email and tweaked the program to account for these rule changes. After the tweaks to the program, the Unders hit 64% (with zero losing weeks) to finish the season. So I am constantly looking for ways to improve and beat the linesmakers, but I have never, ever tried to “win” by faking a record.
The Oklahoma Sports Monitor monitored me in 2009. I received help sending in the plays being it was my first season with a monitor. Unfortunately, my “help” was not always on the ball and a few plays were missed. Another problem was in grading the totals. As you know, I have 2 play types: Computer plays (straight out of my computer program and having absolutely nothing to do w/ handicapping) and my Personal plays, which is 100% my own handicapping (and having nothing to do w/ the computer). Being monitored as “Sharp Football Analysis”, there was no way to distinguish the totals from my computer program vs. the totals plays I made from own handicapping (and thus are my as personal plays). Because the record was not separated properly in 2009 by Ruth, in 2010, I had them separately track my computer plays vs. my personal plays.
As for 2009 tracking, my computer totals hit 60%, going 25-17. The Sports Monitor had the score 24-19 for 56%. The difference is quite simple – In 2009 I released 43 computer totals and 2 personal plays that were totals plays. These 2 personal play totals were sent to clients as personal plays (one was Wk 1, Pit/Ten Over). Both these “personal plays” lost. These were not from the renowned Overs program, just my own handicapping, and I make that ABUNDANTLY clear to my clients as you know. (I don’t bet my personal plays as strong as my computer’s totals, and I recommend to you guys to similarly bet the computer totals much stronger, and for good reason: My computer’s totals have hit 65% over 5 years, including 83% from the overs. No knock on my own handicapping for personal plays, but even though my personal plays are averaging 59% over 5 yrs, I can’t compete w/ a computer hitting between 65 and 83% over 5 years.)
Thus in 2009, those 2 personal play losses were credited to my totals record per the Sports Monitor in 2009, even though they are not computer total losses, they are personal play losses. There was 1 other computer total that I won that year but they graded as a push. So that is the difference between the correct 25-17 (60%) computer totals record and their incorrect 24-19 (56%) record. My actual 2009 record for all plays (computer + personal plays), as you know, was 54% as my personal plays had a down year in 2009. The Sports Monitor graded me at 52.2%. This difference was off by just a handful of plays. 3 of which were the totals in question, and the others being a few plays (some wins, some losses) that were not submitted to them, thanks to failure of my “help”.
Heading into 2010, I parted ways with the “help” that sent in plays for me in 2009. I also planned to part ways with Ruth altogether. Over the summer, I told them why I was planning to skip the 2010 season with some recommendations/criticisms for their service. I simply was frustrated w/ the way the service was run, the manner in which they required plays to be submitted, and the amount of oversight it took on my end and even then, the grading was still not always accurate. I could get into specific “back and forths” if you want, suffice it to say it was tedious and should not have happened.
However, in a huge gamebreaker for me, Ruth assured me that if I wanted to stay on board, I could be a “tester” during the pre-season for a new software they were using to submit the plays. This software would be automated and save a lot of time on my end and their end, ensure lines would be set for each game at time of submission, and eliminate the grading mistakes and issues. It sounded great. Because of that, along with the tremendous deal (discount) I was given, I rejoined in 2010. However, there was no testing ever done, and despite my frequent requests and questions, the “software” was never created. So each time I submitted a play, I had to type out my service name, play type (computer or personal), rot #, side, line and play “weight”. Being that I release throughout the week, as early as Tuesday, and I have a fair amount of plays each week, it became way too time consuming for me to personally do this submittal process prior to each and every release. Had I known it was going to be the same old process, I would have never joined in 2010. But each time I asked about the program, the answer I received was “we’re working on it, should be soon”.
So I started the season sending in plays myself. However, when looking over her updates early in the year I discovered some plays were not graded properly while others were missed altogether. It was 2009 all over again. It then became a weekly chore to “double check” the grading and email back and forth with Ruth (who is not very responsive to emails at times) to get the play correctly graded. Some examples: I would send in 9 plays on a certain week and she would grade only 7. I would send in 6 computer plays and 4 personal plays and she would have the count at 4 computer plays and 6 personal plays. Things like that. As you know, I release plays both early (Tues/Wed) and late (Sat/Sun) throughout the week, so she would receive upwards of 5 emails per week to Ruth. They lost track of some. They also would not grade teasers or 1st half bets, even though these are WA play types that I release on occasion when there is an advantageous reason to do so. So the teasers and 1st half bets I released last year did not show up on the record at all.
Eventually in 2010 it got to the point where I no longer cared what her service graded me at because of how inept it was run and how much time it took to submit each play. So I would send in plays when I had spare time (early in the week) and skip sending them in when my time was limited (usually later in the week). Prior to you contacting me, I couldn’t even tell what you my record is per their grading, as I stopped opening Ruth’s weekly updates and checking her work, literally starting mid-October. My time was better spent handicapping rather than checking for her mistakes (they were frequent) and dealing with the clean-up. This is exactly why there are fewer plays recorded there, and is 100% the reason why my actual record for plays I sent you and my clients is so different than what they have graded this past season.
Just now I went back and reviewed my plays there and wasn’t surprised. For the 2010 regular season: Ruth graded 136 computer plays. I gave out over 160 to clients. Ruth graded 96 personal plays. I gave out over 100 to clients. In addition, since I was not checking both the grading of plays as well as Ruth putting plays into wrong categories, unfortunately their record for 2010 is completely wrong.
Their record for the playoffs is wrong as well. They have my computer plays at 2-0 and my personal plays at 2-1, for an overall record of 4-1 in the 2010 playoffs. While I’d love to claim that record, I actually released to clients 18 plays in the playoffs and hit 56%. I had a losing week in the WC round and went 8-3 (73%) from the Div round thru the SB. Again, they have fewer plays than I released to clients(same as what happened in their regular season record tally), but this time their win percentage is higher than what I actually achieved.
I am not worried about the record there. I originally understood Ruth to run a clean shop as a very respectable tracker. I since heard they take extra money from certain handicappers and falsify records. I don’t know how rampant it is, I just know from what I heard online. I only joined their service in the first place because I understood it to be the most reputable monitor. My personal experience with them is far less sparkling. Between my experiences there over 1.75 years as well as my newfound knowledge that even their records aren’t 100% trustworthy (and what is the point of being monitored by someone who isn’t 100% trustworthy?) I don’t plan to return. My aim is to find a new monitoring service for the Fall that is trustworthy (with an easier play submission interface), and someone to help send in the plays for me, as it is a complete waste of my time (and thus my client’s time) and should be outsourced.
Sorry for the lengthy response that was somewhat delayed – I recently had surgery and am now catching back up on things, and with my downtime, was able to research everything you asked in detail. Hope you are having a great offseason and I hope we are able to see NFL in the fall! Be safe till then!
Best,
Sharp
