Hooligans Sportsbook

Trouble - need help

  • Start date
  • Replies
    115 Replies •
  • Views 7,909 Views
Muddy, why the shock over 65%? Granted over the course of a full year in every sport it would be phenomenal but for a single season like college football or something is it really that hard to believe?


This is why I ask Muddy

2008 College Football 56-29-1 (+1710)
2009 College Football 66-42 (+$585)


The second of those is a fair bit below 65%.

I had three seasons of NFL in the last 5 years that were in the 60's. The one may have edged over 65. But in the big picture, no. 65% is basically earning a unit for every 3 bets placed. Long term with NFL, I have probably averaged a unit for every 10 bets placed. That would be more like 55%.

I only wish I could win at that one-unit-per-ten-bets for everything I bet. I'm a grinder.

If I could do 65% consistently, I would be retired and living on Mudcat Island by now.
 
Muddy, the 2008 numbers reflect what happened after I finished my program. The 2009 number had a couple weeks where I decided to "improve" my program and didn't save the master and had to recreate the original from memory. Took a while to get all the "oooops, I forgot about" stuff back in.

This year these forst 2 weeks will be just me doing my best and then from weel 3 on it will be all program plays. Will track the performance. I don't play more than 5 games a week generally so 70% is obtainable I think. Hell when you really think about every game is a winner anyways.
 
Well that's fine. We'll see how it goes for you this year. Good luck.

Suppose you actually could pick 65% long-term, then this is the point where it is logical to discuss if you are giving away money by being so selective in vainly worrying about win percentage.

In other words, suppose you are playing 5 picks a week with a 65% win expectation. After 12 weeks you are 39-21 for a profit of 18 units (juice aside).

But if you are sharp enough to find those big edges, you should be able to spot some secondary plays with a lower edge but still +ev. It doesn't make sense that your skillz would only work in such a way that you can spot 65% winners and every other opinion you have is 50% or worse.

So suppose you play 20 picks a week with a 55% winning expectation. Not as glamorous sounding a number as 65% but after 12 weeks you are 132 - 108 for a profit of 24 units.

That's mo money.
 
Muddy, this is where someone like myself and a "Pro" (in quotes not to disrespect but to draw attention that not all considered Pro's consider themselves Pro's but may be precieved by others as Pro's) differ, not in terms of expectations and ROI but just general philosophy.

The program I designed and use isn't like a model or a system or anything that Think Tankers would maybe even acknowledge. Basically what it does is give me a calculated line. From that point I have a "must meet" variable that the calculated line must surpass. This narrows the field and allows me to focus on specific games that have met the requirements. Now I have judged "my program" based purely on it's generated numbers and it's right around 53% give or take a couple of decimal points for the past 2 seasons. I can't afford to spread myself out like that across the board so I take what lines are off by the most and research them from that point forward to come up with my final card.

Guys who do this for a living would probably take 53% across the board but a recreational player with recreational funds has to limit the number of plays.

Also to further the point. Someone in my position (who thinks like me, which absolutely doesn't mean it's logical outside my own head) tries to estimate the value of each play he/she is wagering on as equal value. Not in terms of line prices but just general terms of chances to win. So someone like myself does focus on win% over +EV vs -EV because if my %'s stay high my returns match. In order to think like a "Pro" I would have to work much harder, dedicate much more time and lose much of the enjoyment of the games themselves.

I am sure many will not read any of this and of those that do read it, won't agree. That's cool but if you don't understand my way of thinking or have imput to make me adjust some if not all (all is doubtful) please chime in. Even if I don't change my style it could be of value to someone else.
 
I think there is a good discusion to be had here and one that can be had without any of the the professionals amongst us having to reveal any of their trade secrets and still be able to benefit those who want to learn something about what it takes to make the leap from recreational to professional or on a smaller scale do better by their investment.
 
Muddy, this is where someone like myself and a "Pro" (in quotes not to disrespect but to draw attention that not all considered Pro's consider themselves Pro's but may be precieved by others as Pro's) differ, not in terms of expectations and ROI but just general philosophy.

The program I designed and use isn't like a model or a system or anything that Think Tankers would maybe even acknowledge. Basically what it does is give me a calculated line. From that point I have a "must meet" variable that the calculated line must surpass. This narrows the field and allows me to focus on specific games that have met the requirements. Now I have judged "my program" based purely on it's generated numbers and it's right around 53% give or take a couple of decimal points for the past 2 seasons. I can't afford to spread myself out like that across the board so I take what lines are off by the most and research them from that point forward to come up with my final card.

Guys who do this for a living would probably take 53% across the board but a recreational player with recreational funds has to limit the number of plays.

Also to further the point. Someone in my position (who thinks like me, which absolutely doesn't mean it's logical outside my own head) tries to estimate the value of each play he/she is wagering on as equal value. Not in terms of line prices but just general terms of chances to win. So someone like myself does focus on win% over +EV vs -EV because if my %'s stay high my returns match. In order to think like a "Pro" I would have to work much harder, dedicate much more time and lose much of the enjoyment of the games themselves.

I am sure many will not read any of this and of those that do read it, won't agree. That's cool but if you don't understand my way of thinking or have imput to make me adjust some if not all (all is doubtful) please chime in. Even if I don't change my style it could be of value to someone else.

Cliff's notes for ADD types: I don't give a shit about your methods. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves, I'm not listening.

Jesus can read between the lines Wally.

jesus_crying.jpg


:lol:
 
I'm not trying to talk you into anything Wally. Most likely scenario: your method of picking for the last couple years, like the method I used for my very good recent NFL seasons, is just fine and not in need of tweaking.

Speaking for myself, when I look at my 60%+ seasons, I do not think, Hey I should expand my parameters and be making more picks based on my slightly weaker leans. No, I think, That is a short-term abberation and I'm not really that good and it will all settle at a more modest level.

And in fact my long term results do bear that out. There have been years where I used the exact same methods and ended up below 50%. Good thing I wasn't playing weaker leans. But that's the way it goes: ups and downs - hopefully settling on the plus side in the long term.

That is very probably the case for you. I hope I'm wrong and you hit over 60% forever but in my experience things are likely to settle at a level somewhere below that.
 
The program I designed and use isn't like a model or a system or anything that Think Tankers would maybe even acknowledge.

Shit, my main baseball model doesn't even pass Justin7's test for not being a "system", is doomed to failure, and isn't even eligible to be discussed in the Think Tank.

Guys who do this for a living would probably take 53% across the board but a recreational player with recreational funds has to limit the number of plays.

If the entire set hits at 53%, but the cream-of-the-crop hits at or above 60%, then a good portion of the selections are not even profitable at -110, so it wouldn't be correct for anyone to play the whole set.

In order to think like a "Pro" I would have to work much harder, dedicate much more time and lose much of the enjoyment of the games themselves.

If you are able to hit > 60% of 100 games a season at -110 going forward, the only thing separating you from a pro is bet-sizing and the decision to widen your selection criteria. Count me among the very skeptical that your posted win% is anywhere near sustainable, though.

If you ever want, though, and if you'd be willing to divulge your methods in private, I can back-test your system.