NFL Week 8 THREAD Picks

[QUOTE=bluehorseshoe;47701]I would always rather be on the winning side of a closing line rather than have a losing ticket that had great value. What makes a play good value? Just getting the best of a line? The Seattle, Washington, and Denver picks were good value? In all seriousness though I have always debated the importance getting the best of a number. I am sure it is probably much more important to the professional handicapper, but I do not believe it is going to turn a losing sports bettor to a winner or vice versa. I know long term the theory is that you can not win by constantly getting the worst of a number, but how many of those plays would have won with a number that you could have got on Wednesday vs placing the bet on game-day? I have been tracking my own personal losing plays that would have won if I had gotten a better number (regardless of whether or not I even would have had access to that number) and thus far for NCAA and NFL the percentage of these plays is less than a tenth of one percent. Furthermore if I had chosen to not make a play because of a line move that I missed I would have lost out on many winners that would have affected my bankroll far more than this tenth of a percent that I lost. In my opinion, the importance of "getting the best of a number" is losing its importance, or at least it seems to be less important right now in this market. I may not know what I am talking about, but things today are different than they were even just 5 years ago. My theory may just get tested tonight if indeed this game ends with San Diego winning by exactly 3; than all of those tickets that had KC +4 or even 3.5 are "good value" winning tickets. But what if KC wins outright, I would much rather have the KC +3 EV which I could find today, rather than the +4 -110 that was hard to find last week. Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE] Ask Cleveland bettors who had +9.5 yesterday about the value of half a point. It's outlier reporting, of course. But outliers are how you win handicapping sports when the lines are as tight as they are.

[QUOTE=joelshitshow;47703]Ask Cleveland bettors who had +9.5 yesterday about the value of half a point. It's outlier reporting, of course. But outliers are how you win handicapping sports when the lines are as tight as they are.[/QUOTE] True. This is my point though, look at all of the results yesterday and the number of plays where the line on the winner or loser mattered. Browns @ SF was exactly 10 and from what I saw these 10 were not there until just before kickoff. Same with the Jags +10, still only both of these only represented a push and from what I can tell the +10 was not there until just before kickoff. If one liked the favorites you really had all week to get in a winning play; and what if you did not play at -9.5 because you missed the -8.5 or -9. Over the course of a season how many non-plays would have been winners versus would have been pushes or losers? For me personally this year and last year as well these plays that come down to getting that half point seem to be less and less. Maybe just variance or getting lucky.

[QUOTE=joelshitshow;47703]Ask Cleveland bettors who had +9.5 yesterday about the value of half a point. It's outlier reporting, of course. But outliers are how you win handicapping sports when the lines are as tight as they are.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone disputes the value of getting the best of a number. But BKeiller raises a fair point--what distinguishes a 1-weight from a 4-weight play? Why would getting a number on one game be classified as "one fine bet" whereas hitting another game at its peak be just a 1-unit play? These questions about methodology are reasonable. Other than the fact that the market might later move the line 1-2 pts, what justifies the large bet sizes? When you're dealing with seemingly large disparities between the haves and have-nots like we have in the NFL right now, I'm curious if getting the extra line value matters as much as before. Of the 13 games in Week 7, 8 games were off the line by 8.5 points or more. The differences between the result and line (for sides) were 11, 10.5, 37, 31.5, 8.5, 13.5, 41 and 14.5. Of the 12 games in week 8 so far, 8 were off by 8 or more points. The margins were 23.5, 9, 8, 32, 19, 21, 11 and 24. Given this state of the NFL, is the optimal strategy really to hammer slight line inefficiencies for 4 units just to get a jump on the market, or will that just invite huge variance as you hope for that small edge to play out in actual game outcomes?

[QUOTE=joelshitshow;47703]It's outlier reporting, of course. But outliers are how you win handicapping sports when the lines are as tight as they are.[/QUOTE] This is true and it's all about making good bets at time of post, the rest is variance. However, the bigger issue for me is how generous Fezzik is being in giving himself Dallas +3.5 (-110) or other marginally available lines at best at time of his release. I have no doubt that he got in some Dal +3.5 -110 or better, but I think he should have to uphold the standard of giving WA lines ESPECIALLY in something like NFL sides.

Why do you think we don't track it. These arguments will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. And that's a generous truncation.

The difference between +3 and +3.5 is 23 cents in vig. IMagine taking a baseball team +163, The Dallas bases. Vs. taking them +140. OF COURSE, the logical math guys would say "#)%*#(%*%". We just lost 23 cents and you STILL think you can win with it??? Jesus. HOw about Seat +130 vs. Sea +105? Ditto. If you think in terms of the equivent moneylines when you make bets it REALLY shows the value you got. Seat +130 good, Sea +105 NO GOOD AT ALL. 1/2 a point on the NFL 3 is ENORMOUS. It's like having to lay -110 on a play vs. GETTING +113 with that hook............ Ideally, you handicap well, AND you take good numbers.............that's what won the Hilton for me in back 2 back years......but the ball bounced the right way for me those years as well..........

[QUOTE=joelshitshow;47703]Ask Cleveland bettors who had +9.5 yesterday about the value of half a point. It's outlier reporting, of course. But outliers are how you win handicapping sports when the lines are as tight as they are.[/QUOTE] Of course you could point to one game and say that the half point made a difference but the point of my post was that +10 is a great bet than -9 1/2 is not. Seems like if we bet a game at +3 and the market goes to +5 then it should be an even BETTER bet at +5 not "its a lemon". So serious question then, if I have two outs on a game and one has 8 and the other has 9 then I should have two great bets?? If the market was 8 would I automatically pound the 9??

[QUOTE=bluehorseshoe;47701]I would always rather be on the winning side of a closing line rather than have a losing ticket that had great value. [/QUOTE] I dont understand when you say this. There is no winning side, until the game ends. Nobody is psychic enough to know what the winning side will be. Why do you think ESPN spends 24 hours a day talking about what the right side is. Trying to figure out the right side is what makes sportsbetting so intriguing. It is why donkeys bet sports... cuz they think they can be on the winning side. The truth.. there is no right side. A team can easily over perform as under perform. The saints can have a bad day and lose to the rams, the cowboys can not have shown up to the game and get blown out. Nobody knows! All we can do is try our best to get the greatest value. Having said that, I do think Fezziks plays are all +EV given the knowledge before the game. I like Fezzik because he is not scared to pull the trigger on very bad teams. They are +EV long term, however, I think that betting bad teams has a lot more variance than betting more solid teams. There is a lot more unexpected BS that can happen if you bet crappy teams like Seattle or Rams or Broncos. I think the +EV is already factored into the line, but variance is not. I think these kinds of bets will stretch your long term out because of more crazy factors that can occur during the game (because they suck).. That's why squares like to bet on Tom Brady all the time because they dont have to deal with things that cause great variance. Of course what they are missing is although they have less variance and they get to see a more solid performance, their line has -EV value. If you are so scared of variance I recommend not betting the bad teams to shorten your long term. Bet only the picks that seem to be ok teams only. I, however, will continue to treasure Fezziks bad team plays and see them as opportunities. Even when you watch a game like the cowboys last night and feel like you want to throw up cuz your bet was dead even before the 2nd quarter.. Its easy to say you should not have bet it After the fact. But there is no way to know. We place our bets BEFORE the game, NOT AFTER. Just place the mathematical bet that you think has the best value.. After that whatever will be will be.

[QUOTE=Fezzik;47710] Ideally, you handicap well, AND you take good numbers.............that's what won the Hilton for me in back 2 back years......but the ball bounced the right way for me those years as well..........[/QUOTE] I think this quote REALLY sums up my questions well and causes me a LOT of confusion. If you handicapped Dallas well and the 3 1/2 made it a 3 weight then a move to 2 1/2 flips it all the way to Phil being a great bet?? So if it was + 3 1/2 -120 then it would have been say a 1 weight and at 3 -110 a no bet?? What if the line had gone to 4, would it have turned into a 4 weight?? Thanks for this discussion btw as I think it is VERY productive.

[QUOTE=anthony;47709]Why do you think we don't track it. These arguments will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. And that's a generous truncation.[/QUOTE] I didn't really see any of these comments as argumentative, but more as discussion. I know that sometimes it can be difficult to interpret tone from text but surely using this board for discussion (even if it is argumentative) is what it is for.