Sports Forum   |   Scoreboard   |   Contact Us   |   WinPicks Software   |   Talkstock   |   Advertise   |   Follow Us on Twitter   |   Register  |   Login 
Register to post in the sports forumDownload the ScoresLine App for Android 

 
 
Forums   Register   Profile   Inbox   Address Book   Subscribe   My Forums   Search   FAQ   Login   Log Out

RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year)   Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Sports Handicapping Resources] >> WinPicks Software Forum >> RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/6/2003 2:01:14 PM   
Number Freak


Posts: 3294
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: New England (Boston)
Status: offline
What's wrong with talking here? What better place to talk about Winpicks than the Winpicks forum???

Regardless, GF, i'll e-mail you before I go to work.

_____________________________

http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzAxLzE5L2QyL2RlZmxhdGVnYXRlLjdmYzM1LmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/697ad4e4/3cc/deflategate.jpg

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 21
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/7/2003 4:21:24 PM   
Gambling Fool

 

Posts: 304
Joined: 1/10/1999
From: Dayton
Status: offline
RPRT,

Sorry wasn't trying to be exclusionary or anything, just practical...I think one of ideas I would like to get input on is the basis of expectation...when the average gambler makes a bet, what is the expected outcome...I think most would like to win them all but will ACCEPT an outcome that is at least 55% positive to account for juice...I contend that in sports betting, as in the casino, the odds are in the favor of the house (or bookie)...therefore, the average sportbettor can expect to win 95.50 on every $100 bet or a -4.5% expectation. That means to break even your system has to be better than average, and to make money your system has to be superb! But anyone can make money in the short haul, and often due, but the odds always seem to catch up...the secret is to make money over the long haul, or more specifically, come up with a system that maintains that 56% winning edge even in the worst case scenarios, and hopefully hits around 70% in the best case scenario...I challenge anyone to come up with a system that hits better than 70%, no matter what any tout says...even UNDERDOG in his heyday hit 70%...one of my pet peeves is that when you tell me a system you use has hit 65% over this season, it means nothing to me, what I want to know is as far back as can be humanly plotted, what has that system done...then you would find that all in all, systems don't work, they get hot, they get cold, its all a cycle, and in no way profitable....UNLESS you time the cycle, and doing that is as difficult as timing the Stock Market...more later...

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 22
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/8/2003 7:34:55 PM   
Gambling Fool

 

Posts: 304
Joined: 1/10/1999
From: Dayton
Status: offline
RPRT and N.F.

There is one formula that I stuck with all year in the NFL called MOZE which hit 61% since 1986 (122-78-5), that's when looking back since Jan 26, 1986, but it only gives you 10-12 picks per year...give me two more formulas like that in NBA and NCAAB and I will be happy...the formulas I use in horseracing are based on 100,000's of races; with that large a database, you weed out the lucky streaks and get down to the factors that really matter...but then you get back to expectation...if I have a formula that hits 61% over 16 years, I should be happy right, right, but is the average gambler happy, no, why, because, part of the gamblers high is action, the more exotic the better...10-team teasers, and 3-game parlays...betting underdogs on the ML...its like the pass line on the craps table, the most boring bet in the world, but offers a good advantage, if you can avoid betting the sucker bets...and that's a whole discussion in and of itself...how many players play a game because its on TV, or its Monday Night, not because there is a fundamental error in the line or because there is a significant betting edge...Number Freak, here is where you come in...I believe that to win at any sport you have to look at all the variables, not just the obvious ones that the bookies want you to look at...know why pro football is easier to beat than basketball...less variables...NFL teams change very little and one or two players don't have the same impact that they have on a basketball team...baseball is a discussion in and of itself...if we look at enough games, we will be able to find the key factors that determine the outcome of the game, and it may not be the obvious ones...the biggest factors in MOZE are points scored followed by field goals made, yards/game and points per 100 yards and finally rushing yards rounds out the top five...would anyone have guessed that (besides you NF and rprt)...to me points/100 yards is a great equalizer that allows you to equalize and compare teams, have you ever seen teams ranked that way...NOOOO! Now what if you were to take the top ten ATS teams over the last 10 years in the NFL and look at the top ten in points/100 yards over the same period...I'll bet a nickel the two lists will look very similar...more later...

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 23
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/9/2003 3:04:03 PM   
rprt

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 9/8/2000
From:
Status: offline

Gambling Fool,

Points scored and field goals made are mainstays of my formulas. I also rely on most of the defensive choices that are available. This is where Winpicks might have a weakness because of the lack of defensive choices. There are only a couple of other items that I think have any value. I always create my own formula and then have surelock make one up with the same parameters. I am always amazed at how different the surelock formula turns out. I never used Version 7.06. Is it any good. there is no reason to go back to far with formula checking because NFL rule changes could make it useless or at least far less effective.

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 24
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/9/2003 5:07:37 PM   
Gambling Fool

 

Posts: 304
Joined: 1/10/1999
From: Dayton
Status: offline
RPRT,

My formulas are tested back to 1986, what year would you suggest testing back to? Version 7.06 is useful because you can test your formulas against databases automatically, this will tell you what the best setting for that particular formula is, i.e., rolling average, balanced average. The only thing Microbrothers forgot to do is put a feature in there where you could assess all your formulas at once and print out the results...currently you must do them one at a time! If you haven't purchased it, I would be happy to assist you in running them through the database and giving you the results...but you are correct about the limited options in defensive choices...I would like to think that Microbrothers did the analysis and choses the options that closely correlated with wins and losses, but somehow, I don't think so...where does one go to get the most comprehensive stats for football, basketball...??

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 25
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/11/2003 4:52:27 PM   
rprt

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 9/8/2000
From:
Status: offline

Gambling Fool,

It is awesome that your formula (Moze) is hitting around 60% since 1986. Thats all you should need to retire after next year(seriously).
That formula, a nice fat starting bankroll and good money management should be golden for next season.

I never used version 7.06 because it came out late and I read some posts about problems with it. Does it work correctly?

I'm going to go over the rule changes over the last ten years to try to figure out where a good cutoff year could be set.

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 26
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/13/2003 5:55:05 PM   
Gambling Fool

 

Posts: 304
Joined: 1/10/1999
From: Dayton
Status: offline
Rprt,

First, let me give credit where credit is due...MOZE was an invention of Jeff from Las Vegas, I just tweaked it with version 7.06...it seems to work well, but my results (perhaps coincidentally) decreased significantly after I started using it! I have another formula, NYER, also obtained from this site, and tweaked by me that is hitting 69.2% ATS since NOV 2000, 37-16-2, but only averaging 20 games per year...that seems to be the secret to the best formulas selectivity...you don't get rich at this game betting $50/game, you get selective and bet $1000 IMHO...by the way the last NYER pick was Villanova+8 against Georgetown...I will post the rest as they occur...I am still looking for that elusive formula in NBA and College Football, then I truly can retire!

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 27
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/13/2003 7:38:24 PM   
rprt

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 9/8/2000
From:
Status: offline

Gambling Fool,

This is what I wrote in the first post of this thread.

"The less games that you have to play, the better off you will be. Action is fun but it is a good winning percentage and how much you bet that makes you money.
Betting the same amount on every game is the best way to let the winning percentage work for you."

We are both on the same page as far as this is concerned.

I guess we are actually accomplishing something with all this discussion. Wahoo.

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 28
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/14/2003 2:49:35 PM   
Number Freak


Posts: 3294
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: New England (Boston)
Status: offline
I just read this comment "...it seems to work well, but my results (perhaps coincidentally) decreased significantly after I started using it! I have another formula, NYER, also obtained from this site, and tweaked by me that is hitting 69.2% ATS since NOV 2000, 37-16-2, but only averaging 20 games per year...that seems to be the secret to the best formulas selectivity..."

First of all, a formula is only as good as the ACTUAL, PRESENT DAY results you receive from it. So many Winpicks users think their results are going to match the backfitted results and, one by one, they get disappointed.

Secondly, a very smart man with a statistics degree at Berkley wrote that the more you backfit statistics, the less reliable they become and the more of a dropoff in actual expectancy. Ironically, haven't you guys noticed that the more you backfit, and the amount of games decreases, the better results you get? Why do you think that is? If your answer is because the formula improved, you are mistaken.

Look, obviously if you had a proven winning system that never lost but only yields 1 game a season and always gives you 1-0, you would bet the mortgage on that one pick and live off of the winnings each year. Problem is, no one has a system or formula that is that good. Even "MOZE" at 122-78-5 since 1986 (what about 1985?), you're talking only 200 decisions in 17 years (less than 12 per), and you can't hang your hat on only 200 decisions PLUS IT'S BACKFITTED! So...with Moze backfitted at 61%, you would be lucky from 12 decisions to go 7-5 every year, probably 6-6. I'll give you the over-acheiving average of 7-5 first. You would need to wager 75% PER GAME of what you want to profit for the ENTIRE SEASON! To make, say, $10,000 a season you would need to wager around $7,500 a game to net the 1.5 units at 7-5. Is anyone brave (or crazy) enough to trust it that much? Your margin of error is so small. More likely you will go 6-6, now you have a losing season! You would lose $4,000 in juice! Say one bad break turns one win into a loss and you go 5-7. Suddenly you're getting crushed at -$20,000 and not enough games to get it back. You're screwed and, not to mention, homeless!!!

_____________________________

http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzAxLzE5L2QyL2RlZmxhdGVnYXRlLjdmYzM1LmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/697ad4e4/3cc/deflategate.jpg

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 29
RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) - 3/14/2003 3:58:00 PM   
Gambling Fool

 

Posts: 304
Joined: 1/10/1999
From: Dayton
Status: offline
N.F.

First off, I was referring to version 7.06 in the part about "it" not working well. MOZE last year was 7-5 ATS and 8-4 Totals...

You really have a knack at depressing me...but you are absolutely right, I would like to have two or three formulas like MOZE in each sport and look for consensus plays, but don't think that is going to happen anytime soon! But one thing you neglected to take into account is that although you are making 12-15 NFL bets (actually, I am making more bets because I am piggy-backing on your picks), you are also making 20 or so NBA bets and another 12-15 NCAA football bets and 20 or so NCAA basketball bets, so between September and March that's 70-75 bets, which is a healthy sample and doesn't include baseball, which has the most betting opportunities of all...how many people ration their bets...I do, it all gets back to expectations...I try to make no more than 200 sports bets a year, excluding the horses...my expectation is to hit 52.5% of those or 105...that is the break even point where you will make .5 units profit. Thats roughly four bets a week and doesn't include dumb crazy bets I make with my brother!?

(in reply to rprt)
Post #: 30
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Sports Handicapping Resources] >> WinPicks Software Forum >> RE: 2002 Winpicks NFL Recap. (Or What I Learned This Year) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 Unicode

0.094