sorry just seen this ....nothing for me last night.
Interesting that those gsw lines were so off and now that they are back in cleve my line is right on ...gsw -4.81 so depending on how the masses ,ill see if i have a play
I see 5 dimes has a line up for game 5, gsw -6, I know basically what my line would be if say cleve won game 4 ,and am thinking cleve +6 is a pretty good number to take.If cleve wins i think that line would drop and not go up further then 6 , am really thinking about dumping on cleve now .
Jets96, I hope I have not overstepped here. If I have please let me know and allow me to step backwards as soon as possible. I took all your plays from 1/26/18 to 5/24/18 and placed them in a spreadsheet along with the result of each play. The idea was the hypothetical question: what would have happened if I had tailed you from 1/26/18 to 4/16/18 instead of generating my own plays. (It appears I would have won around 10 units instead of dropping 56.)
I also filtered your plays according to individual teams, and thought the result was interesting. There were 14 teams for which you picked 57% or better: Nets, Cavaliers, Clippers, Heat, Pacers, Celtics, Pelicans, Trailblazers, Rockets, Lakers, Magic, Jazz, Seventysixers, and Kings. Your win/loss record for those 14 teams was 58-18. For all the other teams the results were 20-40.
I am thinking that most of those 14 teams last year were fairly stable teams, usually well-coached, which, even if they didnt win, put out a fairly consistent product every night. Most of the other teams were not (excepting Warriors 1-1 and Spurs 1-2). But even the Spurs, obviously well coached, were de-stabilized by injuries, during that period, I believe. But for one reason or another, the other teams couldnt be counted on to play consistently every night, whether consistently bad, or consistently good. This would make it more difficult to assign point values to the different aspects of their games.
Do you think there could be any value in trying to determine inconsistent teams beforehand and then simply not betting on them when the numbers are in their favor?
If i could wouldnt know how to do it , not sure nets , lakers , jazz or kings were close to stable.
I think thats why my playoff records are off the charts the past couple of years. 20-8-1 this past year and 28-7 the year before, taking bad teams out of the mix and most teams at full strength helps .
now to figure out a way to forecast those bad teams in advance or over the course of the season .
I was thinking of maybe some kind of standard deviation measure something that gives an indication of how undependable a team can be from day to day...
Comments
Interesting that those gsw lines were so off and now that they are back in cleve my line is right on ...gsw -4.81 so depending on how the masses ,ill see if i have a play
so my bet is
Warriors -4.5
Under 217
luck
507 gsw -5
luck
I also filtered your plays according to individual teams, and thought the result was interesting. There were 14 teams for which you picked 57% or better: Nets, Cavaliers, Clippers, Heat, Pacers, Celtics, Pelicans, Trailblazers, Rockets, Lakers, Magic, Jazz, Seventysixers, and Kings. Your win/loss record for those 14 teams was 58-18. For all the other teams the results were 20-40.
I am thinking that most of those 14 teams last year were fairly stable teams, usually well-coached, which, even if they didnt win, put out a fairly consistent product every night. Most of the other teams were not (excepting Warriors 1-1 and Spurs 1-2). But even the Spurs, obviously well coached, were de-stabilized by injuries, during that period, I believe. But for one reason or another, the other teams couldnt be counted on to play consistently every night, whether consistently bad, or consistently good. This would make it more difficult to assign point values to the different aspects of their games.
Do you think there could be any value in trying to determine inconsistent teams beforehand and then simply not betting on them when the numbers are in their favor?
I think thats why my playoff records are off the charts the past couple of years. 20-8-1 this past year and 28-7 the year before, taking bad teams out of the mix and most teams at full strength helps .
bk 1 0 100.00%
cle 5 0 100.00%
lac 5 0 100.00%
mia 2 0 100.00%
ind 8 1 88.89%
bos 6 1 85.71%
nop 4 1 80.00%
por 5 2 71.43%
hou 2 1 66.67%
lal 2 1 66.67%
orl 4 2 66.67%
ut 4 2 66.67%
phi 6 4 60.00%
sac 4 3 57.14%
- - - Updated - - -
Here is for the other 15:
dal 3 3 50.00%
den 2 2 50.00%
det 2 2 50.00%
gs 1 1 50.00%
mn 2 2 50.00%
tor 3 4 42.86%
mil 1 2 33.33%
okc 1 2 33.33%
phx 2 4 33.33%
sa 1 2 33.33%
wsh 1 3 25.00%
atl 1 4 20.00%
cha 0 2 0.00%
mem 0 2 0.00%
ny 0 5 0.00%
I was thinking of maybe some kind of standard deviation measure something that gives an indication of how undependable a team can be from day to day...