Betting Talk

Early NBA games

organic313organic313 Senior Member
edited January 2014 in Sports Betting
Any opinions today?

Will give my input after a few posts...
«1

Comments

  • WeirWeir Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    MLK Unders for me. GL!
  • jets96jets96 Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    very smart weir
  • Dr. HDr. H Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    I don't know that playing on a trend that is years old and every capper with a keyboard knows about now is smart.
  • Old-TimerOld-Timer Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    2-2- so far with the Knicks/Nets game looking like an Under that would be 3-2. That MLK under theory when started I believe years ago it pertained to day games (I could be wrong on that it's been around so long it has no value) and hasn't been worth anything over the years. It's great if you like full card action with a good chance of not getting hurt and also a good chance of not making money.
  • jets96jets96 Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    Totals 2003-2013 76-49-2 to the under

    so like i said , if you do your handicapping and come up with under , i wouldnt blame you.

    I guess those numbers show its old and not worth looking at.
  • BigKahunaBigKahuna Banned
    edited January 2014
    jets96 wrote: »
    Totals 2003-2013 76-49-2 to the under

    so like i said , if you do your handicapping and come up with under , i wouldnt blame you.

    I guess those numbers show its old and not worth looking at.

    Thanks I don't have a keyboard ! :laugh:
  • Dr. HDr. H Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    jets96 wrote: »
    Totals 2003-2013 76-49-2 to the under

    so like i said , if you do your handicapping and come up with under , i wouldnt blame you.

    I guess those numbers show its old and not worth looking at.

    How about from '09-'10 until now?

    I'll save you the trouble - 17 overs, 16 unders.

    So yeah, it's old and it's been caught up to. Like I said.
  • BigKahunaBigKahuna Banned
    edited January 2014
    Dr. H wrote: »
    How about from '09-'10 until now?

    Yeah and what about just odd years ?

    Or only leap years ?

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if you don't give 10 years, not a big enough sample size, if you give that crosses their theory - no bueno.

    :idoit:
  • Dr. HDr. H Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    BigKahuna wrote: »
    Yeah and what about just odd years ?

    Or only leap years ?

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if you don't give 10 years, not a big enough sample size, if you give that crosses their theory - no bueno.

    :idoit:

    I didn't pick that year randomly. It went 11-1 in '08-'09, at which point everyone in the world knew about it and sucked all the value out. It hasn't been valuable since.
  • JalapanoseJalapanose Banned
    edited January 2014
    BigKahuna wrote: »
    Yeah and what about just odd years ?

    Or only leap years ?

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if you don't give 10 years, not a big enough sample size, if you give that crosses their theory - no bueno.

    :idoit:

    Lol no wonder you pick up one twenty stacks and can buy hotels in the Caribbean. Sooper sekrit MLK unders info cappin
  • StevieYStevieY Senior Handicapper
    edited January 2014
    BigKahuna wrote: »
    Yeah and what about just odd years ?

    Or only leap years ?

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if you don't give 10 years, not a big enough sample size, if you give that crosses their theory - no bueno.

    :idoit:

    It's not the sample size, it's the fact that it was one of the most widely used angles over the last decade. Without knowing what adjustments the books have made, the record is meaningless to what will happen in the future. What if the books dropped all those totals from an average of 196(just throwing out a number) to 190. Without knowing, you continue to blindly play it under, it is going to be ugly. Adjust your number by what you think the value of playing at an unusual time is and see if the books have as well. Going at such a public angle blindly after all these years can be dangerous.
  • BigKahunaBigKahuna Banned
    edited January 2014
    So H, just post the record from that time if you have it. Simplifies the discussion.

    And Jal if you are commenting to me , no comment you are the only ignore I got and the best one. I see you have tailed two of my comments , so must be the time of the month that you want to F with me, not interested in your childish SAUCY comments. LOL
  • organic313organic313 Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    Fuck all the bullshit... lets get some god damn winners in this thread!

    Letsssssssssssssss gooooooooooooooooo!
  • organic313organic313 Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    Western Carolina +2
  • Dr. HDr. H Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    BigKahuna wrote: »
    So H, just post the record from that time if you have it. Simplifies the discussion.

    And Jal if you are commenting to me , no comment you are the only ignore I got and the best one. I see you have tailed two of my comments , so must be the time of the month that you want to F with me, not interested in your childish SAUCY comments. LOL

    Ummm... I did post the record.
  • BigKahunaBigKahuna Banned
    edited January 2014
    I like the over in Villanova 147 -
    H, whats your number on that ?
  • JalapanoseJalapanose Banned
    edited January 2014
    BigKahuna wrote: »
    So H, just post the record from that time if you have it. Simplifies the discussion.

    And Jal if you are commenting to me , no comment you are the only ignore I got and the best one. I see you have tailed two of my comments , so must be the time of the month that you want to F with me, not interested in your childish SAUCY comments. LOL


    It's a message board, I'll reply to ya if I please. You know you love reading my posts lol
  • organic313organic313 Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    Jala, anything poppin out at you tonight other than Kahuna's penis?
  • Dr. HDr. H Senior Member
    edited January 2014
  • Old-TimerOld-Timer Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    jets96 wrote: »
    Totals 2003-2013 76-49-2 to the under

    so like i said , if you do your handicapping and come up with under , i wouldnt blame you.

    I guess those numbers show its old and not worth looking at.

    Can you let me know where you got them numbers or are they kept by you.
  • WeirWeir Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    This joint is becoming a joke. Must be 30 years of age or more to become a member. That might help
  • Old-TimerOld-Timer Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    I thought it was getting better. More plays a little more discussion. A couple of out of line threads but nothing is perfect but I've noticed good things lately. What bothers you about this thread discussing an old trend on MLK day.
  • StevieYStevieY Senior Handicapper
    edited January 2014
    I believe the angle wasn't all MLK games, just the day games. Since 2003(before this year), the angle for all games that started by 3:30 local time was 56-35-1 for closing lines, 56-36 for opening lines. I don't like comparing avg totals for 1 day with the rest of the season since matchups could lead to smaller/larger totals on any 1 day, but using it with line movement for the day can really show what the books are thinking, and when, if at all, they started trying to combat an angle.

    2003 2-5 O/U Avg opening line -4.44 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement up 0.08.
    2004 3-4 O/U Avg opening line -1.63 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement up 0.92

    Good results. Obviously the masses aren't playing it yet.

    2005 0-7 O/U Avg opening line -2.30 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement down 1.50.

    People pounded the games under for the first time. Coincidence? 1 year variance.

    2006 3-6 O/U Avg opening line +1.22 pts higher than avg season line. Avg line movement down 0.83.

    2 years in a row lines moved down. Take notice?

    2007 4-4 O/U Avg opening line -0.56 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement down 1.33. Angle in full public view now across many forums.

    Books didnt get hammered this year but another huge hit under on the games. Time to adjust?

    2008 6-3 O/U Avg opening line -5.83 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement up 0.39.

    Oops, over-adjusted. Angle players lost, line making players moved the lines up and won. Time to adjust again?

    2009 1-6 O/U Avg opening line +0.55 pts higher than avg season line. Avg line movement down 0.75.

    Went back too far again, angle and line making players on the same side again. Find a middle ground.

    2010 4-5 O/U Avg opening line -2.15 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement down 1.28.
    2011 5-4 O/U Avg opening line -0.56 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement down 0.95.
    2012 4-3 O/U Avg opening line -3.21 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement down 1.35.
    2013 3-3 O/U Avg opening line -3.39 pts lower than avg season line. Avg line movement down 1.16.

    Angle still being played huge despite the fact the books seemed to have found the happy zone for the opening line.

    This is why you have to break down an angle instead of just looking at the results. This angle can break even for the next 5-6 years and the overall record will still look great. Make the books give you a good line if you are going to proceed.
  • JalapanoseJalapanose Banned
    edited January 2014
    Great post, Stevie. Ever think about a similar study on stoffo unders? I think it is analogous
  • StevieYStevieY Senior Handicapper
    edited January 2014
    Jalapanose wrote: »
    Great post, Stevie. Ever think about a similar study on stoffo unders? I think it is analogous

    What were the rules for them?
  • Dr. HDr. H Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    Jalapanose wrote: »
    Great post, Stevie. Ever think about a similar study on stoffo unders? I think it is analogous

    I've been thinking the same thing throughout this thread.
  • Old-TimerOld-Timer Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    1. If both teams have starting pitchers ranked 20th or better in the Jeff Sagarin computer ratings
    ratings, play" under"'

    The requirements are that both pitchers have 3 starts and the computer ratings will have an A,B,C column and each will be used.

    EX: In the A column the 20th pitcher will end with an 3.65 npera (Just throwing out a number) you will then go to the B Column and stop when reaching that number 3.65 then the C Column. it's had success but last year there was a debate about using opening or closing lines but after monitoring it the closing line worked out better and it did show a slight profit. Some have suggested that when two pitchers are in the top 20 and it becomes a Stoffo Under play the books have picked up on this and have adjusted. I believe the books did pick up on lower total's then prior years but because of new drug testing policy's and looking at the offensive numbers dropping.

    2 years ago I tried the 1st 5 and the game and had a great deal of success it wasn't the same this past year. I thought by taking out the bullpen there would be better success it didn't work last year but did the prior year so I just stuck with the full game and showed a slight profit. I'm going to try again this year don't know if I'll add the 1st 5 innings again may take look first. Just to add it has been successful for quite sometime but so have other trends, systems, angles call it what you will and it may go by the way side like others have. That remains to be seen.

    Another requirement is that if a pitcher misses a start it must have another start before using that pitcher as a stoffo under play.

    If I missed anything there are a few that still play it and may include anything I missed. Bucky you there.
  • lumpy19lumpy19 Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    Steviey comes in and dominates
  • Dr. HDr. H Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    lumpy19 wrote: »
    Steviey comes in and dominates

    Obliteration.
  • WeirWeir Senior Member
    edited January 2014
    3 out of 5 is 60%. 4 out of 5 would have been better, but I'll take 60% anyday. That's what bothers me

    Old-Timer wrote: »
    I thought it was getting better. More plays a little more discussion. A couple of out of line threads but nothing is perfect but I've noticed good things lately. What bothers you about this thread discussing an old trend on MLK day.
Sign In or Register to comment.