Nfl Week 6

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Sam Donaldson...I moved your picks over here:"I may as well post my week six leans."Raiders +9Ravens +4.5Bengals +6Seahawks -1I'll get mine up soon... gonna have to look deep

[Shia LaBeouf 0]

I'll get mine up soon...

We wont hold our breath. Breaths? Breathes?

[jmkiser 0]

This stuff is actually kind of fun. After doing my research, I'll post what I'm looking at so far. Viable to change by Sunday, of course. I'm also taking the advice not to bet on my home team because I so want to warn everyone against picking the Ravens. Colts still looking for first win in their new Lucas Oil Stadium. But of course, I'm a Colts fanboy which means nothing I say is valid :PFavorite plays for now:Bears -3 against Falcons ... Bears D overwhelms rookie Matt Ryan. Falcons D isn't exactly stopping people.Dolphins +3 against Texans ... I've seen the Dolphins as the +3 dogs on one book and -3 favorites on another (idk why that is). Either way, Texans are having major problems against the run this year.Vikings -13.5 against Lions ... I know it's a big gap, but things couldn't be worse for the Lions. They are next to last in running and are now faced with a QB controversy to shake up their passing game. Vikings might be a lucky 2-3, but they still have an incredible run D which will solidify their shaky backfield. The Lions couldn't possibly have a defense worse then their run D. Oh wait, they do... they're passing D. Gus can play only average and they'll still run all over the Lions.Slight leans for now:Redskins -13.5 against Rams... Redskins are unbelievable at home and can run all over the Rams. Their D is just average, but the Rams can't even put up 11ppg if they tried. I'm still iffy, though, because the Redskins O is a running O and could easily run out the game clock before getting my 2 TD lead.Raiders +8 against Saints .... I saw +9 on Wagerline and +7.5 on Sportsbook. Saints come off brutal MNF loss and play a short week. They're also handing away wins this year. Raiders aren't the joke they were last year. I'm not excited about this because the Saints do have the talent to be top contenders. I also don't know as much about the Raiders as I do about other teams (/goes and finds a few articles to read)Contrarian possibility - I think I understood Wang's awesome post enough so here goes nothing Eagles/49ers UNDER 42.5 ... according to wagerline, people are flocking to pick the over. But Westbrook doesn't seem likely to play and the Eagles D isn't as bad as everyone might think... they're definitely fast and will cause a lot of problems against an O that isn't in sync. I see the Eagles needing to score at least 32-35 of those points to hit the over and I don't find it likely w/o Westbrook.So how did I do? This is a first for me in picking this way, so I'm completely open for advice.

[jmkiser 0]

Just finished reading all the other threads with wang's pov.I'm kind of starting to agree that I don't see the point in doing all the research.But as far as contrarianism (my new word) goes, I think I'm having trouble understanding where the value is. I understand that the thought process regarding line movements, picking against the crowd, etc. but where does that translate into value? I guess it's just hard for me to understand what the difference is (in terms of value) in picking with the crowd, against the crowd, or just flipping a coin.Do we have graphical history that shows the different success rates of picking with or against the crowd?I'll go try and read the OP in the 201 thread again to see if I understand it better.According to picking against the majority, 49ers +4.5, Falcons +3, Cardinals +5, Bengals +6, and Oakland +7.5-9 (depending on the book) are the picks with the least popularity. Why do these have more value? Which of these has more value? What is the value? Philosophical... mathematical?/confused

[powerpoker 0]

Sam Donaldson...I moved your picks over here:"I may as well post my week six leans."Raiders +9Ravens +4.5Bengals +6Seahawks -1I'll get mine up soon... gonna have to look deep

might want to buy that back, palmer aint playin

[DinkDonk 1]

This whole approach is made easier if you assume that the bookmakers have perfect knowledge about the true odds of the outcome of any game, so say a game is going to take place 100,000 times under the exact same conditions, they know the exact average outcome of that game. I know this isn't true (or even possible), but it's close enough to the truth that it makes contrarianism a very valid strategy for sports betting. So if the bookmakers have perfect knowledge, absolutely none of the information you gain with your research is going to be knowledge outside of what they already know. All of the things that you know are already considered when the line for the game is made. They also have a very accurate prediction on what the public majority will bet on each side, making their knowledge all the more useful. So the books have a few options on what to do with their "perfect knowledge." They can set a perfect unexploitable line and just win the juice every week with high variance due to unbalanced betting on each side. (I doubt very much that this is often, if ever, their approach.) They can set a line which equally and perfectly balances the public betting on each side of that line, which would net them the juice every single week with little to no variance. (These two approaches yield the same profits fwiw.) Orrrrr they can find exploitable public tendencies and set a line that will put the majority of the betting on the short side of any given line. This would bring on a bit of variance, but could also substantially raise their profit margin. Now looking at these three logical approaches, one could easily deduce that option one is the least desirable for us (the bettors). If we assume both perfect knowledge and an unexploitable line, sports betting is unbeatable. However, this also would seem to be the least desirable for the books, so we will rule it out. With that said, either of the other two approaches is beatable by betting with the books and their perfect knowledge, and the way to do that is by betting against the public (i.e. contrarianism.) I know that it pains you all to consider the possibility that none of your hours of watching sportscenter or reading sappy sports articles about sports will give you knowledge that the bookmakers don't have, but just think it about it logically. Do you really think that bookmakers who make their living in this mulitbillion dollar industry have less information at their disposal than you do?/rant

jmkiser- I wrote this out in another thread. It was more a frustrated rant in response to pseudo-cappers misunderstanding the theory, but it might help you understand where the value comes from.

[powerpoker 0]

Do you really think that bookmakers who make their living in this mulitbillion dollar industry have less information at their disposal than you do?This is the sentence that I have the biggest problem with. I agree we both have the same information available but its how you interpret it is what matters. Bookmakers are human to they DO MAKE MISTAKES THEY ARE NOT PERFERCT. There are a lot of lines that are set pretty much right on yet others that are softer and exploitable. They set the lines for all games within a 24hr periord which is not a lot of time to set these lines. There are interviews to be watched and read that display the emotional standpoint of the team which matters much more in college than in pro. Some of these interviews arent made public or even given till later in the week. You also have late injuries reports to account for. There is not just one way to handicap games but to say that research in any way is meaningless is simply laughable to me. You should be looking at the fundamental matchups along with situational plays to make. I never disagreed with the contrarian theory, i just disagree with its the ONLY way to cap games.

[jmkiser 0]

jmkiser- I wrote this out in another thread. It was more a frustrated rant in response to pseudo-cappers misunderstanding the theory, but it might help you understand where the value comes from.

Ah, thank you very much for that quote. You did a great job explaining it I only have a question or two left

This whole approach is made easier if you assume that the bookmakers have perfect knowledge about the true odds of the outcome of any game, so say a game is going to take place 100,000 times under the exact same conditions, they know the exact average outcome of that game. I know this isn't true (or even possible), but it's close enough to the truth that it makes contrarianism a very valid strategy for sports betting.So if the bookmakers have perfect knowledge, absolutely none of the information you gain with your research is going to be knowledge outside of what they already know. All of the things that you know are already considered when the line for the game is made. They also have a very accurate prediction on what the public majority will bet on each side, making their knowledge all the more useful.

This is the part that I understand the most about the bookmakers. It is THEIR LIVES to do this. I don't have the time or connections to possibly come up with enough research to match it. And there is also a danger to me doing research because if it isn't 100% complete or as complete as theirs (which is likely all the time), then I will have come up with a biased line that has absolutely no value and is about as relevant as me just guessing.

So the books have a few options on what to do with their "perfect knowledge." They can set a perfect unexploitable line and just win the juice every week with high variance due to unbalanced betting on each side. (I doubt very much that this is often, if ever, their approach.) They can set a line which equally and perfectly balances the public betting on each side of that line, which would net them the juice every single week with little to no variance. (These two approaches yield the same profits fwiw.) Orrrrr they can find exploitable public tendencies and set a line that will put the majority of the betting on the short side of any given line. This would bring on a bit of variance, but could also substantially raise their profit margin

It almost seems as if a perfect unexploitable line is impossible because there are a million different ways to graph the spread. This is what shocks me that I can't find people or programs (or something out there) with results to statistics (like you could enter different variables and find out the results for the last such and such time). There has to be some sort of history for or against people who... say... bet on all dogs given 21 points or more. You should be able to find out that if I had done that, I would either be a 43% loser or maybe a 57% winner if I had put 1 unit on each of those bets for the past 5 years in NCAA football.The line that perfectly balances public betting is more logical so the business who runs the book isn't "gambling". The interesting thing with that is that you obviously don't have the same amount of people betting one side or the other at EVERY book. Spreads are often different at different places as well which could mean a lot of things. But, for example, if Casino A book is getting 60-40 action on the dog with 500 bets and Casino B is getting 70-30 action on the favorite with 5000 bets, do we assume that A talks to B and doesn't change? If we have Wagerline consensus, you wonder why they aren't moving their points to middle? I mean, they're publishing that one side is taking the Eagles -4.5 over the 49ers this week @ 70-30.Then that brings up more questions. Are they actually gambling (i.e. dealing with a little variance) to increase their profits? Or do they talk to other books that have major action on the 49ers? It just seems that there are a million variants involved with the line that I admit I couldn't possibly understand them all unless I was involved in the business. But knowing that every book doesn't always try to middle by moving the spread, then we know there is some reason why.Referring to exploiting public tendencies, would the books really not middle a spread based only on a reason that they have more details then the public seems to know? Would they really gamble? Are the books possibly mixing consensuses as to get the best info? Do they have a reason to? Also, do we have a solid enough portrayal of public tendencies to put the word value to it?The big money question, do we really know that we're betting with the books by betting against public perception as to ascertain REAL value? Contrarianism is a very interesting theory that makes more sense the most "sports betting methods". But can we ask this question against some software that has the results of these histories? Can we find out whether this theory actual has the value we think it does by historical evidence?

Do you really think that bookmakers who make their living in this mulitbillion dollar industry have less information at their disposal than you do?

If there is one thing that I 100% agree with you on (that I learned from all of this contrarian talk), then that quote would be it. There is no way my research trumps their's and my research could create bias to rid of any "value" I might have felt I created.

[DinkDonk 1]

Do you really think that bookmakers who make their living in this mulitbillion dollar industry have less information at their disposal than you do?This is the sentence that I have the biggest problem with. I agree we both have the same information available but its how you interpret it is what matters. Bookmakers are human to they DO MAKE MISTAKES THEY ARE NOT PERFERCT. There are a lot of lines that are set pretty much right on yet others that are softer and exploitable. They set the lines for all games within a 24hr periord which is not a lot of time to set these lines. There are interviews to be watched and read that display the emotional standpoint of the team which matters much more in college than in pro. Some of these interviews arent made public or even given till later in the week. You also have late injuries reports to account for. There is not just one way to handicap games but to say that research in any way is meaningless is simply laughable to me. You should be looking at the fundamental matchups along with situational plays to make. I never disagreed with the contrarian theory, i just disagree with its the ONLY way to cap games.

That's fine. If you think that you can do that, then good luck to you. I just think that there are much easier and potentially more effective ways to gain an edge. I agree that the lines are exploitable. I think that contrarian philosophy is the best way to do so, but since I am not a bettor, I have no empirical evidence to back it up. The edge I see is purely theoretical. I don't think that research is meaningless, I would just choose to do my research in a different manner. I would rather figure out which statistics cause a misconception of a team's strength amongst the public than analyze a team's strength in relation to another team. For example, a fluky turnover differential or special teams touchdowns often give more of an illusion of a strength than represent a significant advantage, but the public will overvalue such stats. This idea has merit in most sports. In baseball, the public will overvalue a pitcher's W/L record and ERA and undervalue or disregard his K/9 or DIPS. The situations in which I think observations and research are meaningless are those in which people base their bets on ideas like "This team has a great run offense and this team isn't good against the run." Or "So and so isn't playing well this season and he is important to the offense." Most of the reasons people find to bet on games are entirely useless as they are built into the line. If you find information that isn't built into the line, then by all means use it, but that is a tough thing to do vs. very very good bookmakers.

[powerpoker 0]

That's fine. If you think that you can do that, then good luck to you. I just think that there are much easier and potentially more effective ways to gain an edge. I agree that the lines are exploitable. I think that contrarian philosophy is the best way to do so, but since I am not a bettor, I have no empirical evidence to back it up. The edge I see is purely theoretical. I don't think that research is meaningless, I would just choose to do my research in a different manner. I would rather figure out which statistics cause a misconception of a team's strength amongst the public than analyze a team's strength in relation to another team. For example, a fluky turnover differential or special teams touchdowns often give more of an illusion of a strength than represent a significant advantage, but the public will overvalue such stats. This idea has merit in most sports. In baseball, the public will overvalue a pitcher's W/L record and ERA and undervalue or disregard his K/9 or DIPS. The situations in which I think observations and research are meaningless are those in which people base their bets on ideas like "This team has a great run offense and this team isn't good against the run." Or "So and so isn't playing well this season and he is important to the offense." Most of the reasons people find to bet on games are entirely useless as they are built into the line. If you find information that isn't built into the line, then by all means use it, but that is a tough thing to do vs. very very good bookmakers.

Fair enough and i agree with a lot of what you wrote. Like i said i have no prob with contrarain plays, it just seems that when wang started this sportsbetting thread in the beginning it was for discussion and ananlyzation of games and so forth. Then after 1 week everyone just reads the thread on contrarism and its like drinking the koolaid and thats the only way to do things and if anyone ever disagreed with a contrarian play or whatever they would get slammed and just were told to read the thread. It was bothersome for a while now i just dont care enough to put my analyzation of plays i make on this board. Ill post my plays and answer questions if ppl have them since it seems that most of this board that simply followed that theory has dissapeared for some reason. Oh well, good luck to you for the rest of the day and tomorrow.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Since the forum died...we have some catching up to do:Currently... +26 unitsNCAA action is:Va +5 over E Carol 2 unitsKan -14 over Colorado 5 unitsCONTRARIAN ALERT: Wyo +24 over Utah 1unitMizzou -13.5 over Oklahoma State 3 unitsFlorida +6.5 over LSU 1 unitNFL:New Orl -7 over Oakland 4 unitsDen -3.5 over Jax 2 unitsGBay +3 over Sea 1 unit

[DinkDonk 1]

Fair enough and i agree with a lot of what you wrote. Like i said i have no prob with contrarain plays, it just seems that when wang started this sportsbetting thread in the beginning it was for discussion and ananlyzation of games and so forth. Then after 1 week everyone just reads the thread on contrarism and its like drinking the koolaid and thats the only way to do things and if anyone ever disagreed with a contrarian play or whatever they would get slammed and just were told to read the thread. It was bothersome for a while now i just dont care enough to put my analyzation of plays i make on this board. Ill post my plays and answer questions if ppl have them since it seems that most of this board that simply followed that theory has dissapeared for some reason. Oh well, good luck to you for the rest of the day and tomorrow.

Haha. Nice dig. I honestly have no problem with you or your personal style. I don't see us as enemies or opponents because we have different lines of thought. This thread is a bit different for me, because I don't and have never bet on sports. For the time being, this is purely a discussion of theory to me.

[powerpoker 0]

Haha. Nice dig. I honestly have no problem with you or your personal style. I don't see us as enemies or opponents because we have different lines of thought. This thread is a bit different for me, because I don't and have never bet on sports. For the time being, this is purely a discussion of theory to me.

Thanks, lol.Ive never had a problem with anyone on this board, and i like discussing this kinda stuff.

[Sam Donaldson 0]

Sam Donaldson...I moved your picks over here:"I may as well post my week six leans."Raiders +9Ravens +4.5Bengals +6Seahawks -1I'll get mine up soon... gonna have to look deep

OfficialRaiders +7Ravens +3.5Seahawks -1I might add Chargers -5, not sure yet.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

OfficialRaiders +7Ravens +3.5Seahawks -1I might add Chargers -5, not sure yet.

Good drop on the BengalsI hope I lose my Mizzou bet tonight..... That opens the door for my alma mater to be #1.HOOK 'EM Horns ! ! !

[powerpoker 0]

I havent put them in yet but most likely ill be on:Oak +7 Baltimore +4TB -1.5Minn -13.5Atl +3Arizona +5Arizona over 52Minn U 45

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Since the forum died...we have some catching up to do:Currently... +26 unitsNCAA action is:Va +5 over E Carol 2 units WINKan -14 over Colorado 5 units WINCONTRARIAN ALERT: Wyo +24 over Utah 1unit LossMizzou -13.5 over Oklahoma State 3 units LossFlorida +6.5 over LSU 1 unit WINNFL:New Orl -7 over Oakland 4 units WINDen -3.5 over Jax 2 units LossGBay +3 over Sea 1 unit WIN

+7 takes me to +33 units I dont like Monday's game so Im done for the week.