SB Plays

[QUOTE=bkeiller;56683]This doesnt make a lot of sense to me CB as the variance associated with the next event is surely contingent on the sample size and thus the casino has less math to work with and must use use inference. The player must also but I dont see how you can strictly use math when the variance and thus standard deviations are great. I may be wrong in extrapolating your logic but lets say a new kicker was 1 and 1 on extra points and the casino put up -1000/+800 on no missed extra point. Your math would say this is a great bet on the yes as he is 50-50. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE] I know you're posing a hypothetical scenario but I wouldn't wager on this and a casino would also be unlikely to offer it. I'm merely stating that saying that sample size is a limitation is false - the casinos are (generally) working with the same information we are. If you care to pose a more realistic scenario I'd take a look at it or see my Flacco example elsewhere in this thread.

[QUOTE=ColonialBlue;56685]I know you're posing a hypothetical scenario but I wouldn't wager on this and a casino would also be unlikely to offer it. I'm merely stating that saying that sample size is a limitation is false - the casinos are (generally) working with the same information we are. If you care to pose a more realistic scenario I'd take a look at it or see my Flacco example elsewhere in this thread.[/QUOTE] I understand that the casinos are working with the same information as the player but I disagree that sample size is irrelevant. For example with Flacco props you have a much better idea of the range and standard deviations of possible outcomes but with Kapernick you would not. In statistics the number of trials is greatly relevant to the ability to predict the outcome. Thus the math is somewhat at a disadvantage when there are few trials as opposed to many.

[QUOTE=bkeiller;56686]I understand that the casinos are working with the same information as the player but I disagree that sample size is irrelevant. For example with Flacco props you have a much better idea of the range and standard deviations of possible outcomes but with Kapernick you would not. In statistics the number of trials is greatly relevant to the ability to predict the outcome. Thus the math is somewhat at a disadvantage when there are few trials as opposed to many.[/QUOTE] You're confused. I never said it was irrelevant. I said that sample sizes are the same for players and casinos. Is there a secret NFL league that plays more games for casinos alone? Of course not Also, I don't bet the board. As I've posted before in other threads, I find all kinds of edges but the EV is too small so I pass on them or i dont feel comfortable with the data (sample size, etc). I focus on larger EVs which also gives me a "buffer" in instances where I'm wrong or there's late breaking news I've missed.

Thanks guys some good analysis on the game down there. I apologize to CB in advance here. I'm not trying to cyberbully but genuinely hoping you look at your contributions here a little differently. Please consider my needs. Since CB is relatively new to the board I just think it is fair for me to say that his strategies of betting are so fundamental that it is just irritating reading it over and over again. Obviously that is what everyone is doing to make a bet. We/all perceive a situation where the price does not reflect the true probability of the event occurring and make a bet. For god's sake CB this principle of sports betting must have existed for 25 years or more---if not 100 years. Starting from there CB uses the numbers...ie his database. Other posters include analysis and introduce bias which I agree with CB. Yes, they introduce bias because they feel the numbers don't accurately reflect the situation that is presented in front of them. That bias will either help them win or help them lose depending on the accuracy of their own bias/analysis. Guess what? So do the books introduce their own bias because they're not robots. They recognize the numbers need to be adjusted for bias/analysis/situations that are in front of them and will make those adjustments. And the shrewd handicapper will have to adjust to that to see if his great idea of the day is actually not already reflected in the line. And some guy using a database will flag all kinds of overlays because he doesn't use bias/analysis. And guess who wins in the long run? Another element that I find irritating---not confusing----but Price is Price. Let's stop talking about a Number and then there is price. There is only one price. It may involve a number and juice on that number that is not the standard -110. They can hang up any number they want for the game and the juice odds will just change. They can do this for any prop. They can pup up Flacco's passing numbers at 20.5, 20, 19, 7 what difference does it make we'll just adjust the juice we should pay to go over and under the number posted to reflect the probability of those numbers going over or under. Again this is just so fundamental it is irritating to read this over and over again CB trying to point this out that there is a number and a price and reinforcing this over and over again as if it is not the most basic thing anyone has ever heard of. But here is my real point.....if CB is paying money to be on this board...and he's already revealed that he made his first bet to change the lines a month ago...asked questions about betting there....sorry CB in my experience you're clearly a very new pro bettor or another wannabe. Good luck. But if I was paying a fee to be on this board...I would have the goal of LEARNING from Fez and othr posters and reading and thinking a little bit more---who have bet professionally and have earned money doing it and some cases lots of money. (1) Yes you will need to introduce analysis to beat the sportsbooks and the issues won't be numbers oriented. John made that point. And I think you'll find it useful. Winning just using a database. sure there will be things out there but it is more business intelligence that wins...not data. (2) Give bettors or mostly me a break and I don't need to read some fundamental principle espoused over and over again like it was an insight into betting. This type of stuff is corporate...you know teamwork, goals, a bunch of buzz words. Our buzz words, price,value,etc. Just boring to read this over and over and I don't have a clue or any reason to think you know what you're doing vs. anybody else. We're all trying to find value. Good grief. (3) Oh the computer programming. Can make a computer do whatever they want...yes.. Another total platitude. Anyone born after 1960 basically has pretty good computer skills. I can pay guys in India 10 bucks an hour to program computers. What a yawn this is. (4) Probably not great form to write *DANGER DANGER* after a Fez pick with your "analysis" being " I maintain he needs +105 to make it fly". If anyone knew your model or saw you had a 55% winning record out here or provided some some analysis I could take you seriously. Since you haven't done that....your post is..what we call over here.....RUBBISH.

The computer/spreadsheet can only tell you so much. It is certainly the best way to start your process by getting a raw number to work with. All my prop analysis starts with a raw number. The next step is adjusting that number for whatever factors I determine the computer does not take into account. The problem there is that requires lots of time - you have to know the players and the situations. Cutting down on time spent doing things manually is supposed to be one of the primary advantages of using the computer so it's a real issue for some who will see that process as one step forward then two steps back. I've been doing this a long time and know there are a number of different ways to arrive at a plus EV bet, not just one. If someone wants to state they do just fine using their method then you get no argument here. The debate would begin when it's declared as the one and only way to go about it. CB stops short of that but does seem to think his numbers trump all else. That annoys some, but others can understand that he is probably just enthusiastic about his way and is seeing good results. When the "correct line" is stated as being precisely -188 then you know that it's the spreadsheet that arrived at that. To me, that's the raw line. His critique of Fezzik seems understandable because most picks offer no real explanation outside of possibly a short blurb. Knowing the last two years results of the plays here, posted picks should probably include some supporting reasoning. Taking it on faith is not as easy as it used to be.

[QUOTE=frankb22;56692]The computer/spreadsheet can only tell you so much. It is certainly the best way to start your process by getting a raw number to work with. All my prop analysis starts with a raw number. The next step is adjusting that number for whatever factors I determine the computer does not take into account. The problem there is that requires lots of time - you have to know the players and the situations. Cutting down on time spent doing things manually is supposed to be one of the primary advantages of using the computer so it's a real issue for some who will see that process as one step forward then two steps back. I've been doing this a long time and know there are a number of different ways to arrive at a plus EV bet, not just one. If someone wants to state they do just fine using their method then you get no argument here. The debate would begin when it's declared as the one and only way to go about it. CB stops short of that but does seem to think his numbers trump all else. That annoys some, but others can understand that he is probably just enthusiastic about his way and is seeing good results. When the "correct line" is stated as being precisely -188 then you know that it's the spreadsheet that arrived at that. To me, that's the raw line. His critique of Fezzik seems understandable because most picks offer no real explanation outside of possibly a short blurb. Knowing the last two years results of the plays here, posted picks should probably include some supporting reasoning. Taking it on faith is not as easy as it used to be.[/QUOTE] I definitely don't assume that it's "my way or the highway" especially since I know that I'm not adept enough to be able to evaluate all types of props yet. I stay away from things like total rush yards, points-plus-assists, etc mostly because my math for that is still a work in progress. I'm happy to learn more about those. As for your other points, I would again posit that most things you would come up with are *already* factored into the number posted. The thoughts you posted are not exclusive to you, per se, lines makers can come up with those too. I'd like to hear your response on why you don't believe this to be the case please?

I will give a fast example. You went a nice 3-2 on your hockey picks last night so that is good night.So congrats. On the Ottawa game you're on the over. Jason Spezza is out of the lineup. The question is did the books adjust for that in their line? Did you adjust in your line? What data are even looking at to tell you what to do here? Are you aware he is their best player and one of the top guys in the NHL? He missed the previous game and he'll be out now going forward. Do I think the books adjusted for this factor? My answer is MAYBE to QUITE LIKELY. It really depends how smart they are. And even if they do they might not do it correctly. This is a critical part of betting. FrankB has told you that he doesn't think books take into account many factors. It is true. They may or may not and it is your job to figure out if they do. Do I think you adjusted for this in your anaysis? My answer is NO. I'm basing this off the fact you said you don't watch hockey and you prefer just an analytical appoach that is math oriented and asked in another thread do they still call Washington's area the MCI Center. No, they don't. It is the Verizon Center. Feel free to argue that there should be no adjustment for Spezza but nobody could take that seriously who is knowledgeable of the sport. Both you and the books need to make adjustments. There is no data for it for all intents and purposes or limited. And the limited data likely isn't applicable. The problem can only be solved by an analytical and reasoning approach. His absense will obviously bias Ottawa games to be lower scoring. It doesn't mean over isn't a good play of course since they might overadjust for it. This is all analysis and estimations has nothing to do with reading a database and a numbers approach (of course it does to the extent frankb refers to in that there has to be a RAW number to start with) You say books incorporate all factors. Then where is there an overlay? There never would be. There would be no point of any analysis including your own. You're not up to speed. Period. I'm being kind about it.

Here's how the numbers will not tell you the whole story. You stated Flacco has a greater chance going under 20 1/2 completions. If you look at Flacco's numbers he went over 17 times and under 19 times over the last two years. This is the baseline you work from. Now the real work begins. Flacco during that span is 26 wins and 10 losses. In the Superbowl, Baltimore has only a 40% chance of winning.....so chances are he will behind in the game. This means throwing more in the 4th quarter instead of handing off the ball to Rice and milking the clock. His record going over 20 1/2 completions when losing is 6-4. Then you also need to factor in the SF defense and how often they give up more than 20 1/2 completions. All in all, I would give a slight lean to the over, but probably not enough for me to make a play. In summary, numbers will give you a good baseline to work off of, but relying strictly on them without applying additional information will lead to ruin. Hoepfully you are not just adding up overs and unders to come up with your numbers, as there usually is much more there you need to digest. One other important point, SB props are "public" numbers. Many numbers have changed drastically since the orignal release 9 days ago. We are not wagering against casino numbers, as they are moving them based on action, but rather against the betting public. If you are smarter than the public you will win.....but you need to be significantly smarter to overcome the -110.

Pierce got 5 carries vs. Den. He was hurt. He aggravated the injury, and he couldn't play after the midpoint of the 3Q. He is healthy now. If he was healthy then he would have gotten 10 carries, and this number would be 9. OVER 7 is stealing.

[QUOTE=Fezzik;56724]Pierce got 5 carries vs. Den. He was hurt. He aggravated the injury, and he couldn't play after the midpoint of the 3Q. He is healthy now. If he was healthy then he would have gotten 10 carries, and this number would be 9. OVER 7 is stealing.[/QUOTE] Fezz, Are you going to be releasing any more props? Kind of disappointing to only have 1 when there are hundreds out there. Also, have you changed your mind on the SF ML play? Seems we are more likely to get 4 1/2 rather than 3 1/2 again. Thoughts? Thanks.