I heard the last couple years from Yankee fans, when accessing the talent of Cleveland say almost word for word, "You know Justice will come up with some small injury that will keep him from playing a big game, happens way too much." Now what will they say about him? That trade came from left field(and for left field). I don't think that trade helps that much(a little maybe), but it doesn't hurt. For the costs, it was better than the Sosa deal would have been. It puts another veteran in their lineup. I think they could have done a lot better though, splitting the demands of Justice and Sosa, to get Alou. They still need pitching though, and they still have a minor league system to use if they choose. The problem is who do you stick in the bullpen? No team trading a picher to them will take an older, high priced salary in return, or shouldn't.
When they traded for Clemens, that shocked me. In games that David Wells had pitched in that previous year, the Yankees had an incredible record, something like 25-4. No matter what Clemens did, he probably wasn't going to reach that. Think the Yankees would like that trade back, could have Homer Bush playing second for them(solid enough despite his struggles this year, needs to be more patient, not enough walks for his great speed) and they would still have Eric Milton along with Wells.
"Think the Yankees would like that trade back, could have Homer Bush playing second for them(solid enough despite his struggles this year, needs to be more patient, not enough walks for his great speed) "
Why would they want Bush?
He is the worst offensive player in baseball right now, sort of a second base Rey Ordonez.
Danny
See the quote you copied (Despite his troubles this year). Even with that, Wells is better than Clemens at this stage in their careers. I wouldn't have made that trade straight up much less 2 for 1. Clemens is just a name now, like Cone(not as bad though).
It's funny reading what Yankee fans say. I know Indians fans think they got the worst of the deal.
David Justice is looked upon I believe as a first class hitter and I guy that delivers in post season play. He is having a decent year and believe it or not he actually is decent out in left field. I think Ledee was viewed upon by the Yanks as a questionable player for the future.
I think I know why the Tribe made this deal. Even though Justice was their leading RBI guy and had hit 20+ home runs they will need different players to rebuild with. I think the Indians realize that their chances of making the playoffs this year are slim (I know they are not that far out) so they know they will have to go into some sort of rebuilding mode. Manny Ramirez will want mega bucks and unloading Justice's $7,000,000 salary for Ledee's $240,000 salary could be used to sign Ramirez. Also Ledee might turn into a good player and he can help in the other outfield positions which the Indians need badly due to the injuries to Lofton and Ramirez. The Indians get some additional help with players that will be named later. Remember the Tribe has a new owner and they could be doing some cost cutting here.
All in all I think the Yanks got the best of this deal but I should reserve judgement until I see who the Indians get in return. Again it shows me that George is willing to spend the bucks to improve his team.
This trade is a non-issue, it won't make a difference to either team. I don't think Justice will give the Yanks much extra production and yes I know they still need pitching first, but we all know that so lets stop pointing out the obvious. From the Indians perspective it is a great trade. Justice is an old player who is bound to deteriorate soon. He is having a fairly good season, but its not going to be repeated for long as he will decline and the 7mil will look wasted. Ledee is not necessarily a player of the future but dumping old blood when you are getting quickly chased out of the playoff race makes sense.
As for the Sosa issue, I am still stumped at everyone's reaction to Sammy. A .315 average, 21 homers, 70 RBI in a lineup with no protection...for God's sake what the hell do you all want from him? No I am sorry Justice is not going to finish with Sammy's stats and further if you are pitching and the game is on the line, you surely want to face Justice before Sosa. I am not a huge Sammy fan but the bashing of him is just plain silly. Ship him off to Boston and they are a serious threat. Send him to Seattle and they would be clear favorites. Send him for another tour with the Sox and you gotta like them in the playoffs. Sammy is a difference maker playing for a bad team. Give him a little protection and put him in a pennant race and you will all eat your words. The only thing is this year all the big gun spenders in the AL are out of the race and that has killed the market for Sammy. I think though as trade deadline comes along someone will take advantage of the lack of a market for him and pick him up for a song, maybe two decent prospects. They say no one else wants him but the Yanks, but if you are in a tight playoff race and have a prospect or two you can spare, why not take Sammy just for this season? The teams I mentioned in Boston, Seattle, and Chicago all could use him to make serious push and even if they aren't talking now, each one has to think the World Series could be theirs for the taking if they pull the trigger and get a top producer playing for them even if its just for a few months. Each has some prospects or starters they could trade and please don't tell me all of them are happy with what they have. The same could be said of the NL except I think the Mets seem to want to go with all their young guys and the Braves need pitching first. The Dodgers have their premium RF and so do the Rockies, so the NL has little market for him. In any event I am almost certain something will be done because the Cubs will gain little by keeping him around.
If I had to guess now, don't be surprised to see Sammy stay in Chicago, but go south as the Cubs could desperately use Bill Simas and a couple of other arms to save their atrocious pen and the Sox don't really need three closers. If you could leadoff with Durham and Valentin and then clean up with Sosa, Thomas, and Ordonez...you would be a scary lineup indeed.
Boston might make a move for him, but unless they expect to keep him around they don't have much to give in return. Pedro and Sammy would be quite a show, but quite a payroll too. Seattle would have fit problems unless they felt Sammy or Buhner could play left field. However if you could have your middle three of Rodriguez, Sosa, and then Martinez...that would be the nightmare of any opposing pitcher. The Mariners have plenty to trade in pitching as they have their 7 starters on the staff, plus they have their phenom "little Unit" waiting for his chance in the majors probably next season. You may never have enough pitching, but to have that many starters is just a waste. I am very surprised Seattle has made no trades so far if anything just to clear up the log jam. I suppose when you are winning you don't want to mess up the chemistry, but when you are in a position to win it all this year, you need to do whatever it takes to make yourself the best by postseason.
One last thing, I don't really know if the Yankees could trade for someone who would make a difference pitching wise. I think Radke is a decent pitcher, but he has not been at his best this year. He just doesn't seem suited for a number 1 or even 2 role on a legitimate staff. He would seem to fit in like an Aaron Sele or a Rick Reed, that type of role. While the Yanks could certainly use that, one pitcher won't make them complete. Mussina would be good, but come on do you really think Angelos would trade anyone to the Yanks? He probably would block a trade of a third string catcher to them, he certainly is unlikely to ship off an ace pitcher. So that leaves Radke and who else? Seems the Boss only trusts veteran pitchers so that would prevent him for making a deal for someone like Ryan Dempster or Francisco Cordova. In other words, it seems like the Yanks are just going to have to get really hot or else they might as well forget it and start the rebuilding (or is it reloading?) now. There are no saviors as this team is a couple of pitchers away from being whole. Cone seems flat out finished and could be released before long and Pettitte and Clemens are good for a decent outing once every 3 or 4 turns so the team is really beyond hope in just a trade, they really are going to have to just pray the offense gets going somehow and that Cone and Clemens just find something left and get on a roll. Doesn't seem likely, but its probably the realistic truth here. If I were the Boss I would just hang onto Soriano and eat my losses this year. Who knows, they are the champs they might find a way into the playoffs, but if not just take my lumps, clean house year end with the dead weight veterans axed and spend like only you can and have a reshaped team next year ready to resume onto the top. I guess George though has forgotten what it looks like to lose in the playoffs and can't handle the thought.
I think analyzing the acquisition of Sosa is more complex than saying look at his stats. I mentioned before its hard to ignore 50 homers/120 Rbi.Unfortunately its not that simple.Issues such as 1)his demands to be the highest paid player for a new 6 yr deal.Keep in mind he is renegging on his current contract which has an option through next yr.This limits the market tremendously.2)his refusal to DH.According to his MGr and scouts his game(defense/baserunning has deteriorated)3)Cubs ridiculous demands for compensation(Yanks offered Ledee plus three top rated prospects at key positions,Cubs wanted 6 top prospects)Ther's a reason the Cubs have been a laughing stock for decades. Yanks got Justice for nothing.Torre asked are you ok with DH answer no problem.He's signed for the next 2 yrs at modest salary for a guy who was leading team in RBI,in Yankee stadium has 40 hr potential.They don't like him can trade him.This mornings paper said Pirates wanted him badly,possible trade for frontline pitcher.No one is saying he's better than Sammy,but clearly has far less bagage.As far as getting old,he's 34 and being asked to DH for 2 yrs.Sammy is 31 game is offense only insists on playing field and wants 6 yr mega money who's the greater risk.Final note,he failed in first go round with Sox,they are tight with money.You want to give him 96 million and than negotiate with their young stars to be...don't bet on it.
You missed my point, this is a trade purely for this year. The Cubs aren't going to get much now and Sammy will probably not play his option year with them. The Red Sox are the only team I mentioned that might sign him long term. Yes he is asking quite a bit and maybe its not reasonable, but my trade thoughts were purely for this year and this year only. A rent a player deal if you will and I know Sammy will be happy with it because it will mean he goes to a World Series contender. All 3 teams have a chance to win it all this year and you have to be willing to give up a few prospects or even a starter if it means a good chance at winning a title, since after all that is what you play for, not hoarding 5 guys who could be starters in 3 years. In the case of CWS and Sea, they both would gain more than enough in attendance to offset any cost Sammy would bring for playing the rest of the year with them. Heck one extra playoff series will pay for his remaining salary.
For next year, I have no idea where he might end up, but for this year my money goes on him being traded to a contender. The Cubs obviously don't want him around and if they don't pay him more money next year he will either holdout or they just will refuse to take his option. Does he deserve 16 mil/year? Probably not, but someone will pay him very close to that next year if for any other reason, he is one of maybe 5 players (2 of which are pitchers so only on their starts) in the league that draw fans to the park no matter which team he plays for or what the scouts currently think of his game. In reality he is best kept in Chicago because he will be overshadowed money wise by ARod during the offseason if he is indeed a free agent. If I had to put in a guess, I would say a surprise is in store and he would head to Houston. They have a new stadium with suddenly empty seats and Sammy would help take care of that, even if the owner was trying to cut costs recently. Oh well, thats for this winter, for now I think he can swing the balance of power in the AL postseason if he is dealt.
For the soccer experts, the line on Sunday's match is:
France -180 Italy +160
This seems like a steal to me, France is far more talented and the price is fairly reasonable. The French haven't even played that well so far, but on talent alone should have an easy time of it. The Italians only chance would seem to be if they play their defensive shell and hope for a lucky break or a spectacular play to get the win...or to win it in penalties. In any event I can't see how anyone can bet on an overmatched team, especially not even getting 2-1.
Can someone explain what this means?
France -180 Italy + 160
By the way France will win. Take any odds.
France -180 Italy + 160
For every $180 you bet on France, you'll win $100 if they win.
For every $100 you bet on Italy, you'll win $160 if they win.
"Take any odds". No no NO. This is how to go broke. Put it this way - how much will you let me have on Italy at 10-1 ?
Andy.
Andy.
I was right! hahahahaha
But you are right my odds comment was a little rash
thanks dan for the odds thing
New Kid
.
still enough to count my winnings though
The Italians only chance would seem to be if they play their defensive shell and hope for a lucky break or a spectacular play to get the win...or to win it in penalties
Game theory emphatically favours the Italian approach. I think you may be confusing possession and style with the actual results of a given match. The crucial element is the quality of goalmouth opportunity. The Italians will let the French take 50 1% opportunities knowing that at some point they will get a break with a 60% chance of success. Obviously I'm simplifying things but you get the point. The "lucky break" is to my mind no such thing.
My money is on the draw at the end of the ninety. I see no value backing either team.
Whilst in England I was watching the Euro 2000 matches and all the winners looked lucky to me - take France/Portugal - the frogs win on a penality kick for a hand ball which wasn't necessary for anything. Heck it looks like unorganized chaos to me.
Rather watch grass grow.
bet for eigther side to win 1/0 - I did when germany player England. got 11/2 on both bets and cleaned up.
Real exciting huh!
Good luck on that. I saw France is 5/2 to win 1-0 and Italy is 6/1 to win 1-0. France has too much offensive firepower to be willing to accept only 5/2 on them scoring only one goal. They have the better defense and goalie, they just haven't played very smart at times. Offensively though it is no match. Unless Italy holds them scoreless until 60 minutes or later, France will score at least 2 as the Italians will be forced to open it up. No use in a moral victory here, losing 3-0 or 1-0 is the same when its a major tournament final. I will call for a 3-1 win by the French. Portugal and Spain were probably the two other strongest teams in this tournament and the French were able to find a way (maybe a bit lucky) to beat them both. Italy is probably a step down for them. In any case I like these odds because even with extra time or penalties, I still can win the bet.
I couldn't watch more than a minute of any soccer match. How boring can you get. It is funny to see someone get knocked down, especially when they go down like they were shot, get carted off on a stretcher, get to the sidelines, srping off the stretcher and are ready to go back in(and I thought diving in hockey was bad).
Why would anyone want to watch a baseball game they have no money on? I think soccer is a better sport to watch than baseball and if I didn't get myself so financially involved with it each year I probably would never watch a game that I didn't go to in person or was played in October.
Just think baseball is just barely as popular as it was 10 years ago and now we have almost everyone doing a fantasy league of some sort. Imagine the popularity of baseball without fantasy leagues and sports channels putting on 10 games a week!
I find soccer more interesting to watch than the other sports due to the continuous action. Plus they don't score every two minutes, so it actually means something. Also the playing styles of teams differ more than in other games.
As a betting sport, the advantages are: (1) many national teams or club teams will be overpriced due to their reputations even when their current teams suck, (2) if you know the game well you can identify where a weaker team will matchup well with a stronger team, and (3) the format of tournaments leads to a lot of games where teams have different incentives, and this will distort results from what the oddsmakers and public expect.
Not much betting in Nevada means the world gets stuck with rip off odds though as I pointed out. It was refreshing to at least see somebody put out reasonable odds this year on EURO. If they had 20 cent lines on games around the world, but with half goals to avoid ties they would induce a lot more action and maybe get the interest of Nevada.
I dont' see any action. I see a bunch of marathon runners running up and down the field, maybe scoring 1 goal. Granted, I don't like all the scoring in baseball games these days, but I have never seen an exciting soccer game. Some of the best hockey and baseball games are 1-0. There is little thinking in soccer(and that comes from a pro soccer playing friend of mine), yeah they have plays and other boring shit they do, but it is just flat out slow and boring. The problem people have with baseball is they don't get into it. It is a thinking sport and most people have the attention span of an 8 year old, or they don't really understand the game(why things happen or what the thinking process was to do it). For example, when Leyritz hit the home run off Wohlers in the World Series, why did it happen? Did it happen because of what the wonderful media and most others said, that Leyritz is just a clutch player coming up big again, or the real reason that most baseball people know that it was because Wohlers threw a slider(a pitch he fell in love with for some reason) to a guy with a slider speed bat(for those that do not know, that is what is used in the dugout to describe a player with a slow bat). He throws him a fastball and the Braves may(probably) win the Series. There are so many variations that can happen. What can happen in soccer? Not much, just a bunch of running. I cringe when I hear people comparing it to hockey. Whatever!! I also find it funny that people say baseball is boring but they can watch football all day. I watch football all day, not saying I don't(but i don't think baseball is boring), but in 3 hours, there is 10-15 minutes of action.
"Most people have the attention span of an 8 year old and they don't understand the game". Anyone spot the irony here ?
Andy.
I understand soccer, one of my best friends is an ex-pro and he taught me many things about it, but I still find it very boring. I don't think it is fair for someone to make a comment about something without knowing anything about it, or without knowing what is going on(which is what most people do with baseball, they think they know it but they don't). He said he can't even sit and watch about 95% of the games. He said it looks so slow watching it, but it is different playing it. I take his word for it because I never played it, and never will(and never watch it again either).
Talk about boring, I don't want to know who has slider bat speed! I watch baseball and probably have more knowledge than most people watching it and I still don't find it interesting. The problem with baseball is very very simple...too many damn games. In soccer the games are a once a week event much like football. The passion and energy derived from the teams is part of the draw. Obviously its hard for you to get that watching most of the games we talk about. After all what do you care about France or Italy? I don't watch much European soccer myself and don't really give a damn about any of the countries, but I do enjoy high level matches like in Euro. Much like the American public who doesn't give two bits about a game until its October. Thats just part of it, there is no emotion when its just a regular season game worth 1/162 of your record. When its October and the games are for a title, thats when everyone can get into it. If they had soccer every night I am sure people would be bored silly of it too in Europe or anywhere else in the world. In the US they are pushing it by having teams play 2 games a week, but its certainly better than 6 or 7 a week like baseball.
In some respects I do agree that there is more stuff going on at a different level than most fans understand or care about...but that is another problem. Most people are just there to watch the competition, to sit with family or friends, to do things to enjoy themselves, not to think about what a pitcher should throw with a 1-2 count. That is a very small portion of the crowd and it will always be that way. Just the same as there is a very small portion that understand what the duties of a middle linebacker are, or how a team should try to have a center with an outside shot to draw out the opposing teams shot blocking center, or how a team can be frustrated by the neutral zone trap in hockey, etc. In some ways I think this is why the simplicity of soccer makes it so popular. You don't have to think as much about the game, it just happens. There are some factors involved such as making use of a height advantage or getting the ball with open space to some of your more accurate passers, but thats obviously minor compared to baseball strategy. In the end you love baseball and others love soccer. Its a real cheap shot to go out and rip another sport just because you don't find it interesting. If someone finds great joy in watching it why should you take a shot at their game because you don't enjoy it? Soccer is the worlds most popular sport and its not even close to second place. They must have something going on that keeps all those people interested...
Calling it boring? How is that a cheap shot? Just my opinion and you should know all about opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Oh yeah, you seem to always be right(and rip on most everything else that is said), so since I am accused of it, I might as well do it. You want a cheap shot, ok the only action at a soccer game is the fans fighting. It's the world's most popular sport because it is cheap to play. You just ripped on baseball(sounds like you don't care about it, just bet on it), is that a cheap shot? No. Do I care? No. Why do you care that I hate soccer? I wasn't the only one on here that doesn't like it.
Well no one has come in the middle of our baseball posts and clamored about how boring it is and how they can't watch a minute of it. Its fine, you are right, you are entitled to an opinion and I went overboard in the cheap shot claim. Please accept my apology.
As for betting baseball, I do it because I just excel at it. Basketball and football are my slightly above water sports. Baseball and hockey is where I get paid. I think its most important to have a similar attitude when betting seriously because it keeps all emotional or even fan opinions out of it. Every professional I knew back when I did it lost all fire for the games. They were boring, just a job. People that I met earlier on in their careers that had come from say Pittsburgh and lived and died with their team had now become yeah they won the game but I had no action on it. I commend your ability to still love the game even when so involved in the two business aspects of it. I know it took me about a year to get it out of my system and start enjoying the games again when I got out of the profession. Maybe the reason why I have always enjoyed soccer is that I never got very involved in betting it.
"ripping" soccer. I just agreed to a previous post. I didn't fire in on someones post who loves soccer, I wouldn't do that or think that it is right, unless he asked for opinions. I know there are lots of people who love soccer, and as you said, because there isn't much thinking involved. I understand people have jobs and when they are watching a game, they probably would rather not think much, just relax and enjoy it(baseball would be too mental for them to really enjoy it or understand everything), and that since baseball was my profession, I don't consider it thinking on my part, just reaction(and repetition). Talking with my friend(the soccer player), he agreed with that fact, that soccer is not a real thinking game. He also came up with a few points about why it is so popular across the globe but not really here(meaning that you won't see a TV network trying to buy rights to any professional soccer league in the near future, not enough viewers). He mentioned that it is cheap to play, and it doesn't take tremendous athletic ability to play. That doesn't mean there aren't very athletic people playing, but it isn't something that is very important. You don't have to be 6'6, bench 350lbs, run a 4.4 40, or have tremendous hand/eye(would need foot/eye but that along with agility is easier to develop than hand/eye) coordination to have "natural" talent playing soccer. The most important thing is agility, and everyone can increase their agility more so than the other items above. Kids in these foreign countries grab a ball and go into a field and start kicking it around. They do it all day long, just like kids used to do with baseball. You won't see kids in this country going out much on their own to play anything anymore with computers and video games. They have their practices and games and that's it. I'm not ancient(31), but I remember when the summer hit, you couldn't get a glove or bat out of my hands until I went to sleep. I would always be doing something, that's how it was with most everyone, and that was before the super multi-million dollar contracts were out there. You would think kids would be busting their ass now trying to get their piece, but all we have is a bunch of million dollar talents and 10 cent brains. Too small of a % knows how to play the game right anymore, and that is all the big sports, but baseball more than the others. I'm not talking the minute details that they should know anyways, but many obvious things.
I maintain that you don't understand football at all. This is clearly demonstrated by comments like "There is little thinking in soccer". That is simply untrue. Your friend may not have thought about it much when he played, some professionals don't, but that does not apply across the board.
My point is that in your post above there are several inconsistencies along the lines of "I think football is boring because it is boring ... anyone who thinks baseball is boring doesn't understand it". If you don't like it, fine. If you want to insult people who do like it, that's up to you, but expect them (ie me) to defend themselves.
Andy.
Because I call it boring insults people? I guess I have more pull than I thought. Toughen up buttercup. I'd hate to see what would happen if someone really insulted you. I replied agreeing to a post of someone else who talked about how boring it is, I didn't fire into some soccer lovers post. The thread started ripping soccer, I agree and people get mad at me for saying so, and act like the thread was started by someone liking soccer and I ripped them. Gee, if that's the case, then since it was started by someone ripping soccer, then anyone replying otherwise is insulting. I understand it and I still think it is boring, it is too slow(I also hate pitchers that take forever between pitches). That's my opinion. You think baseball is boring, fine, that's your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
.
I maintain that you don't understand football at all. This is clearly demonstrated by comments like "There is little thinking in soccer". That is simply untrue.
Amen to that. Soccer has almost impenetrable tactical subtleties that in some areas mirror chess or poker. I really have no idea what PA means.
I went to a baseball game when I visited the US last summer. I will accept many people find it fascinating and there are elements to it I may not fully understand. However, there did seem to be an awful lot of playing and missing and long periods where nothing was happening.
"I went to a baseball game when I visited the US last summer. I will accept many people find it fascinating and there are elements to it I may not fully understand. However, there did seem to be an awful lot of playing and missing and long periods where nothing was happening. "
Playing and missing? I understand that you probably haven't seen much baseball but I'm not sure what you mean by that. I do agree that there are games that are very boring, but on the whole, it isn't. Then again, there are games in every sport that are so boring that you wish they would just end. My opinion on soccer was with talking with my friend and watching a few dozen games in my life. I can't watch it anymore, never could. I'm sure I'm not the only one and I am sure there are people who can't watch baseball. I'm just glad I get baseball games when I flip around my dish and not soccer.
The first number is the current Abdulian power rating, and the number in parens is the change from the end of last season (when the ratings were generated mathematically, not ad hoc.) Feedback is desired. (For newbies, to get the estimated margin of victory of a team, takes its power rating and subtract its opponents' power rating.)
28.0 (-2) St. Louis Rams - Still an awesome team, but they can't remain injury free, can they? They stripped out some depth in their roster to stay under the cap, so you may see them struggle late in the season. Still have mondo backup QB, Trent Green. Lost their coach.
26.5 (+5.5) Washington Redskins - How did they put together this team under the cap?! Deion Sanders should prove very effective anti-Cowboy material, but may be lack-luster otherwise. Also added Jeff George, Kevin Mitchell, Adrian Murrell, Bruce Smith, and the top two draft picks. Owner could be a minus.
25.5 (+1.5) Indianapolis Colts - Beefed up defense in draft, otherwise largely unchanged. They gain a bit for experience and the sorely needed defensive players.
25.0 (0) Jacksonville Jaguars - Weak draft, largely unchanged.
24.0 (+1.5) Denver Broncos - Terrell is back, and Griese could blossom. Frerotte is now backup. Lost Shannon Sharp. It's all on Griese's shoulders.
24.0 (+1) Baltimore Ravens - Tony Banks has lots of potential, but will he get the chance? Got the Dilfer (a minus?) Got Jamal Lewis. Got Shannon Sharpe. Ray Lewis is back.
23.5 (+0.5) Oakland Raiders - A fine team that got a little unlucky and had a tough schedule last year. Watch to see if Janikowski is allowed to stay in the country and play (-1 if he gets booted.)
23.0 (+1) Tennessee Titans - Randall Godfrey should round out this solid team, which should nevertheless be overrated by the public.
22.5 (-1) Kansas City Chiefs - Derrick Thomas was a great player and a sad loss. Otherwise, largely unchanged.
22.5 (+2) Carolina Panthers - Natrone Means should help keep Tim B. healthy, as well as help fill in when Tim B is out. Defense still appears weak.
22.0 (+1) Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Pretty much unchanged, except the Dilfer and Bert Emmanuel are out, and Keyshawn Johnson and Jeff Christy are in. Johnson's effectiveness should be reduced given lack of a top notch QB. Drafted well.
22.0 (+1.5) Detroit Lions - A healthy Batchster could prove the Lions even tougher than their power rating here. Big new offensive linemen should help protect Batch. What's up with the 4 new QB's? Is the coach expecting to have a high QB mortality rate? Frerotte is gone, though, which is a good thing for the Lions, since the brain-damaged coach seemed to favor Frerotte over the Batchster last year.
21.5 (-1.5) Seattle Seahawks - Lost the Neck and Galloway.
20.5 (-3) Buffalo Bills - Looks like a big decline in the roster. Rob Johnson looks to be the starter, and Flutie may be demoralized.
20.0 (-1.5) Dallas Cowboys - Lost Deion Sanders, but made same mistake over again with Joey Galloway. A lot of unnoticed but important players have been stripped out of the defense to pay for Joey. Good riddance to Kevin Mathis, though. Coach Chan Gailey is gone, which is a big plus; his replacement is competent.
20.0 (+2.5) Philadelphia Eagles - I see a lot of potential here. The offense has got to be better this year, right? Two good RB's now. Drafted well. Still stressing defense, but they could be very much like last year's Tampa Bay.
20.0 (+2) Atlanta Falcons - Jamal is back and so is Hanspard. No reason they cannot return to superbowl form, if Chandler stays uninjured, which granted is a big "if."
20.0 (0) New England Patriots - Largely unchanged. The Patriots always seem to be on the verge of greatness, but never quite pull it off.
19.5 (-1) Green Bay Packers - There is a chance that Favre will pull himself together and have a superbowl quality season, but if I was a betting man, and I am, I'd bet not. They drafted to replace Chmura, but that whole thing is a distraction. Danny Wuerffel is probably a good acquisition and could step up if called upon, but will have to prove himself in training camp to even get third string status. Serious coaching problems.
19.5 (+0.5) Chicago Bears - Lost Bennett and Conway, but perhaps an overall slight improvement in the roster and lots of unfulfilled potential.
19.0 (+4) New Orleans Saints - Even just a healthy Ricky Williams should pull them way up, plus they have Jake Reed and Jeff Blake. Acquisition of Kevin Mathis is probably a minus.
19.0 (-4) Minnesota Vikings - Culpepper should choke, and as long as the Bubby doesn't replace him, the whole team should choke as a result.
19.0 (0) Pittsburgh Steelers - Largely unchanged. Kordell will still be starting.
18.5 (-1) New York Giants - Ron Dayne is going to be a phenomenon, but not if the Giants' coach can help it. He got rid of all the offensive linemen, so Dayne will have no blockers, and Kerry Collins should take a beating. Jason Garrett will be there after Kerry Collins is hospitalized, and Tiki Barber can fill in if Ron Dayne goes down. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Dayne runs right under the defensive linemen, though, knocking them off their feet like so many bowling pins. They could be a superbowl team next year, but not this year.
18.5 (+1) San Diego Chargers - Lost Natrone Means, but they already had a baby Natrone. Gained Curtis Conway for a deep ball threat. It's a team with a lot of potential, but it looks like this won't yet be their miracle year.
18.5 (-3) New York Jets - Testaverde is back, but Keyshawn is gone, and so is Parcells and most of the rest of the coaching staff.
17.0 (-3) Miami Dolphins - No Marino, no Jimmy Johnson, no chance.
16.5 (+2) Cleveland Browns - Lots of good drafts and acquisitions, though they dumped several veterans too, probably because they weren't performing. Tom Couch has bulked up to prepare for the pounding he is going to take again.
16.5 (+1) Arizona Cardinals - Plummer is healed and can't be any worse than last year.
15.0 (0) Cincinnati Bengals - They couldn't be any worse than last year, but they will try. Akili Smith is supposed to be their man this year, and he will likely continue to suffer from rookieitis. Peter Warrick won't be that much of a help, given the green QB. Lost Jeff Blake. No RB to speak of. Bad morale.
14.5 (-1) San Francisco 49ers - Could things get any worse for the 49'ers? I think so. It's a hopeless rebuilding year for them, with their salary cap woes. They drafted well, but cut their roster severely. Garcia has two no name rookies for backups.
If possible like to see home field advantage for each team,thank.
I do the home field advantages basically ad hoc. I have looked at historical data, and teams like Denver and Green Bay indeed have huge home field advantages. However, things can change quite a bit from season to season, so I prefer to wing it than to use past statistics. I watch the games, observe the crowd noise, and make my own estimate.
To use my home field advantages, add half the home field advantage to the power rating when at home, and subtract half when away.
4 - St. Louis Rams - Suddenly everyone is a Rams fan.
5 - Washington Redskins - RFK Stadium is a noisy tough place to play.
4 - Indianapolis Colts - Suddenly everyone is a Colts fan.
5 - Jacksonville Jaguars - Opponents' bench is in the sun, while the Jags' bench is in the shade.
5 - Denver Broncos - Mile high magic, insane loud fans (is this the year for their new stadium?)
2 - Baltimore Ravens - The bags the fans wore over their heads at the start of the season came off by the end. The fans are still a bit embarassed by their team, but that may change.
2 - Oakland Raiders - Traitors don't get much support.
4 - Tennessee Titans - Suddenly everyone is a Titans fan. Crowd need to learn when to be quiet, though.
5 - Kansas City Chiefs - Historically tough at home, very loud fans.
2 - Carolina Panthers - Not much support.
5 - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Impressive home game record.
4 - Detroit Lions - Dome noise, pretty good fans.
4 - Seattle Seahawks - Very noisy dome (do they have their new one yet?)
4 - Buffalo Bills - Supportive fans, cold weather.
4 - Dallas Cowboys - Last year especially they seemed much better at home than away.
2 - Philadelphia Eagles - Hostile unsupportive fans.
3 - Atlanta Falcons - Dome, but fans aren't well-trained nor fanatically loyal.
4 - New England Patriots - Play much better at home, it seems. Loud fans.
5 - Green Bay Packers - Legendary Lambeau Field, insanely loyal cheeseheads, frozen tundra, amazing home record.
3 - Chicago Bears - Good fans, otherwise the faltering team would probably get a 2 for home field advantage.
1 - New Orleans Saints - Hostile fans, possibly deserve zero or negative home field advantage.
4 - Minnesota Vikings - Noisy dome, crazy fans.
2 - Pittsburgh Steelers - Schizophrenic fans, supportive of the defense, hostile to the offense, Kordell seems to play better on the road.
4 - New York Giants - Traditionally a tough place to play.
3 - San Diego Chargers - Their loyal fans would like to have more to cheer for.
4 - New York Jets - Same as New York Giants.
5 - Miami Dolphins - Very tough on defense at home. Tropical weather probably helps them at home, but hurts them when they journey to the frozen tundras up North.
3 - Cleveland Browns - Loyal fans are just glad they have a team to cheer for, though they wish they had an NFL team instead of a high school team.
2.5 - Arizona Cardinals - Fans aren't terribly loyal, especially when the Cowboys are in town.
2 - Cincinnati Bengals - Disheartened fans, poor attendance, though this could change.
3 - San Francisco 49ers - Traditionally a big home field advantage, but fans don't have much to cheer for now.
My home field advantages average out to 3.5. 3 is kind of the default that most people use, but it's too low, and home field advantage is underestimated in the book lines.
Since it doesn't seem like it matters until Wild Bill says his peace (just kidding) here are my thoughts:
First of all I will start by saying I think power ratings are damn near worthless in football. Football is so much more about scheduling, matchups, emotions, and 1001 other things before a mechanical rating. I still fail to see how the numbers are good for finding bets. The handicapper that makes bets purely off power ratings is mediocre at best, there's little doubt about that. I think the only true useful thing is to maybe make some schedule adjustments as far as who has played tougher or easier schedules.
Having said all that, I do admit they make for interesting discussion and I won't fault you Abdul for doing that, so here goes:
StL : About the same, they really only figure to get better in some ways. They still have the cupcake schedule most of the year that allows them to avoid injuries and not expose their so so depth. Coaching change might make a difference as I don't think Martz is head coach material.
Wash: I just don't think it will happen this year, too many new parts to really jell. Maybe they get it together by playoff time, but they are going to be far overrated first 5 games or so. Make hay, better against the first month.
Indy: I don't think they improved, but they didn't fall. I don't know if the draft will improve their D and I think they just ran a bit well last year. Record may be close though as the rest of the division isn't a big threat to them.
Jax: I agree, if anything maybe down a point. They really will go as far as Fred Taylor's health takes them. Defense is solid, but padded up numbers with weak schedule.
Den: Solidly improved, maybe the favorites of the AFC. Griese is the key but I feel pretty certain he will have a big year and the D is slowly becoming one of the best.
Bal: Well improved but I can't believe your ratings had them this high to start with. They were merely middle of the pack last year and made some good moves this year. Killer division though at the top, maybe next year's team to watch.
Oak: Raiders just don't have it. One of those perennial teases, I can't even figure out what it will take. I would start with the lousy coach though. Seem to be a team to back against good opposition and back off against weaker touches on the schedule.
Ten: With a 13-3 record you are telling me your ratings for last year had them below Bal? Yeah they lost badly in a game to them, but I worry about your ratings Abdul if you had this team this low. They probably will not improve because I see contract squabbles with George and key losses in the D. They can still stay at a high level as there is more talent than you give them credit for. I would definitely put them ahead of Bal or Oak and probably close to Jax and Den.
KC: They suck and shouldn't be this high. Their problem is their system and the coaches. Anyone ever tell these guys they are playing PRO football? Running it into the line 35 times a game will never be a big winner, enough said.
Car: Improving greatly because of a coach with a plan. He is a D expert and I think he will find a way to get the D up to at least league average. The offense is loaded, a real rising team.
TB: You have got to be kidding? They didn't get to that close to the Super Bowl with mirrors, how can your ratings have them this low??? This one and the rating on Ten just have me scratching my head Abdul. This is the best team in the NFC and they did just enough in the offseason to win it all this year I think. The division is easy and the offense should be much better with some protection for King.
Det: You don't even talk about the running game, but thats the key this year. The running game was atrocious last year, more balance this year will be crucial. A little better, but they really overachieved most of last year I think.
Sea: About right on this one, although Galloway was nothing to this team. Drafting Alexander was a real mystery. Yes he was a steal, but they don't need him unless they are gonna cut Watters soon.
Buf: This one I disagree with greatly. I think it was addition by subtraction. Smith and Thomas were declining and now they let the young guys take over. This is an improving team because they have a solid young nucleus and after all they won 11 games last year so they should be higher up than this.
Dal: Nothing much here, still the same old vets and no Irvin so it could get worse. Probably down about Abdul's guess.
Phil: No one is going to confuse them with TB anytime soon. They didn't improve much for this season I think. They still have lots of sorting out to do with the young players and played over their heads last year. Solid building blocks, but a few years away from being playoff team.
Atl: Defense is a joke, but they have tons of weapons. Health problems say it all, can't make much of a rating on this team until you see the injury sheet each week.
NE: Verge of greatness? Seems like verge of collapse to me. A weak team that doesn't seem to build up much young talent, the opposite of Buf. Glaring lack of solid RB will just make things worse.
GB: Wuerffel may become Kurt Warner, but with another team no doubt. No really not much going on with this team, they still have the superhuman QB that gets wins singlehandedly. I say same as last year.
Chi: Have no comment, I get no read on this team. Played better than expected, but was it over their heads, we will see this year.
NO: Biggest improvement? I don't know about that. Tough to get a new QB and WR all working on the same page. Improved only because there is nowhere to go but up.
NYG: Super Bowl next year? Interesting thought, I don't see that happening. Good point about the line, but this is a conservative team even with the best of lines. Not expecting much here.
SD: Uh oh, Ryan Leaf may be the starter before long. They couldn't chase Beathard out of town fast enough, the drafts that proved Bobby smoked out are catching up to them. Should be an easy team to get players for considering the location, but they never get anyone that is a difference maker, that includes Conway.
NYJ: This one is probably off. The Jets can only improve on last year and are a middle of the road team at worst. They just started bad and had no breaks go their way. Not up to where they were two years ago, but .500 seems very attainable with weak sisters in this division of Mia and NE.
Mia: Not that Jimmy matters that much, just a lack of players will do them in. However maybe I am wrong on this team, they certainly could surprise and pull out a 9 win season with more stability at QB and RB.
Cle: Not even close. Thats what I would say, they aren't even close to the bottom teams, this should be your last team. They are two years from being competitive considering they got 2 wins on last second plays. I would be surprised to see them win more than 3 this year.
Arz: Bad to worse. A team with serious flaw, much like Oak. They can tease you with their talent, but always seem to let you down. I just avoid them as I don't know where they stand often.
Cin: Better than you think. The organization just needs to clear up the Dillon issue soon and they can move on to better things. The team isn't as bad as one would suspect and I think Warrick will be an incredible player, a real once every few years talent and with other solid WRs the league won't be able to gang up on him.
SF: Yeah they are bad, but the offense looks fairly good provided they find a way to keep Garcia up. The backfield and the receivers are very good and that should keep the poor defense off the field a bit more. I trust they find a way to make the line work at least a little better, hard to be worse than last year at that.
I find power ratings useful for a variety of things.
Washington: Yeah, I was tempted to rate them much lower, due to the parts jelling thing. Just look at the Browns last year. They had decent veterans on the offensive line, and they just didn't play together worth a darn. On the other hand, these are no mere mortals that the Redskins have procured.
Baltimore: This may be the Rams-type rags to riches team of the 2000 season. I thought it was obvious to everyone by the end of last season, but their strength is still not reflected in the superbowl lines nor in Wild Bill's mind. My program dropped out the first few games of the season, so that's part of the reason the Ravens shine in its eyes, but rightfully so, I think. They have a near TB-caliber defense, and much more potential than TB on offense. There's no question in my mind that they are a better team than Tampa Bay.
Oakland: We'll see. Even the Rams would have had a tough time with their schedule last year. However, my program probably overrated them, as I explain under Tampa Bay below.
Tennessee: You think Tennessee is a better team than Baltimore? Consider their two games: 14-11 (Tennessee victory at home) and 14-41 (Tennessee defeat in Baltimore.) Most of Tennessee's victories were with narrow margins of victory, and this does not impress my program, which values points, not victories. Tennessee's schedule was easy too: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, twice each.
Kansas City: My intuitive feelings are with you on this one, but if you look at their record last year, their only embarassment was losing to Chicago the first week.
Tampa Bay: You may be right that Tampa Bay may be underrated by my program. As I said, it values margins of victory, not victories, and Tampa Bay had a lot of thin wins, but that's what you'd expect from a team that is all defense and no offense. Also, Tampa Bay was crushed 45-0 by Oakland, so my program overreacted and lost all respect for Tampa Bay and overrated Oakland as well. I'll try to correct for these problems in the future.
Detroit: I think Detroit's poor rushing was more due to injuries than lack of RB's to fill Barry's shoes. They certainly need a running game to take pressure off the Batchster, and need a passing game to open up their running game.
Buffalo: Really? It sure seems like a big decline in their Roster. Thurman Thomas wasn't exactly dead weight. I think Flutie is the better QB for Buffalo.
Thanks for your feedback, Wild Bill. I have made a few adjustments to my ratings based on your comments.
-Abdul
Oh, actually Detroit bagged both their running backs, replacing them with two more: James Stewart, a veteran from Jacksonville, and Reuben Droughns, a draft pick from Oregon.
-Abdul
Oh, darn, Charlie Batch broke his leg a couple weeks ago in a non-contact practice. Tomczak (yeah, the one from the Steelers) will be starting in the first game. Batch will be back part-way through the season. So, the Lions could be toast.
-Abdul
Tomczak isn't much of a dropoff from Batch at least at this point of his career. Batch is developing and this could set him back not having a preseason. Might get some value taking the veteran who will get all the important snaps in preseason so he should be comfortable with his team. Remember last year where McNair was hurt and old man O'Donnell came in and did a good job filling in for an up and coming player.
Tomczak 75.8, McNair 78.6, Batch 84.1, O'Donnell 87.6.
Tomczak was playing for Pittsburgh and their sorry offense, you can't seriously be comparing these guys can you Abdul? Tennessee had Eddie George to open up the passing game, Detroit has a stable of wide receivers and a good TE to throw to, and Pittsburgh aint got sh**. Batch will certainly be a better QB long run, but he still has a ways to go. He is far from irreplacable at this point in his career. Add to that Detroit finally having a couple of quality RBs and this team will probably start fairly fast again. They just have no depth and that wore them out last year down the stretch and could do it again this year. In any event, watch out for Droughns. When he was healthy he was one of the best college backs I have seen in a long time, he reminded me of Eric Dickerson with the way he shed tacklers and got a burst of speed when he got into open field. Of course he never seemed to last more than two games without getting hurt...
Tomczak also got considerable playing a time a couple of seasons back, when the Steelers still had some talent. He wasn't any good then either.
"Tennessee had Eddie George to open up the passing game". Most people believe the underlying premise, including football coaches. I have yet to see any substantial evidence that a good running game makes the passing game better. I want to believe it too, but I have to see evidence first.
On the other hand, there is indeed a fairly substantial correlation between a *defense's* strength against the run and its ability to stop the pass.
Well its hard to prove because football is impossible to reconstruct. How will you ever know if a team would have done better running 40 times instead of 25 or if they passed 55 times instead of 35. Infinite variables make it tough to even come up with a criteria to prove such a point. However I would base it on common sense evidence in that almost all opponents facing the Titans used an 8 man front to stop George, or at the very least made their safety play the run first. It doesn't take mathematical proof to figure out a team is almost certain to be more successful when facing one less pass defender on most downs.
Just because the defense uses an 8-man front doesn't mean passing will be easier. Its more likely that such a front will simply change the *shape* of returns for a pass attempt:lower pass completion %, higher sack rate, and higher yards/catch.
And another argument must be answered: if the aggregate numbers on offense show no positive correlation between running and passing efficiency, why do defensive numbers?
Detroit has a legit chance to gets second in the NFC Norris division. With Stewart, they are going to run a lot. They also some good WR's, so maybe even Tomczak can get then 21 pts/game. I think a 10 win season is doable.
I learned a long time ago you have to "collapse" any power rating program for blowout wins. As you point out with TB they had one bad game, a loss that made up for a lot of wins. Back when I calculated power ratings I made sure to eliminate one good and one bad game as it would too often skew the number. Also anytime a team wins by more than 21 I stopped counting. In the NFL wins over 21 mean very little as the teams just start playing differently and too many scrubs are on the field. If you win by over 21 you just get credit for a big win, but not a total anihilation because you are never going to get favored by more than 21 so if you can win by that margin isn't a real concern.
As for Buffalo I think this is a team very misunderstood. Think of their records in the past and then remember they are like Pittsburgh, they get raided each year on the free agents and rarely get someone for themselves. They are the traditional build through the draft team and their last 10 year record speaks for itself. I agree the QB controversy is a distraction, but talent wise the Bills were almost as good as anyone else last year in the AFC and proved it by almost beating the AFC champs on the road if not for a lucky play. They drafted very well for their late position too. With this division I could easily see 10 or 11 wins.
As for Baltimore, yes I think they have improved but alot of it was through the draft so I think it will be a year before the additions are felt. They are still relying on Tony Banks or Trent Dilfer at QB and neither of them seem to be the type that will lead a really dominant team. Look at Banks, he had the weapons of the Rams less Marshall Faulk of course, and he didn't do much with it. They drafted Redman and he may be the guy to lead them next year. Otherwise I think they still have to develop quite a bit to make a huge step up. Tennessee won a lot of tight games but that is a sign of a good team. Teams that can win in the clutch and win with crucial drives and stops of drives are the better teams. Of course you might not want to lay a lot of points with them, but when they face top teams they usually come prepared and win. Thats the Titans as other than Buffalo game, they played with a lot of character and used their somewhat conservative offense to keep them in games and give them a chance to win at the end.
Detroit probably solved their running problems. Stewart is a good quality back and Droughns could be something special if he stays healthy.
Oakland has about the same schedule and I think their problem comes from poor coaching and the fact they have "glamour" players. And what were they thinking, they have about 5 corners now that can start. They need a safety though to replace Turner and that won't happen. Turner was one of the better ones in the NFL and his loss was felt when he was injured last year. Add to that I don't think Gannon has proven himself in clutch situations. He is much like Jeff George, can put up nice numbers but doesn't find ways to win. This team looks good, but they haven't been to the playoffs in Oakland yet and I don't see it happening this year either.
As for your home ratings, I pretty much agree. I think home/road splits are useful once you get enough games in a season. Otherwise the better teams tend to have the highest ratings. One team I did disagree with is Carolina. They fill the stadium and can be loud and their home/road split last year showed the difference until the very end of the season when their road play picked up. I think with some winning, that will again be one of the toughest places to play.
Abdul--
Before I give you my take on power ratings, let me ask the following questions of you. I know you are a mathematical genius at poker and BJ, but let me ask you about using strictly mathematical formulae for sports betting.
First, where is your edge? That is what sports betting is about. What are your ratings taking into account that the linesmaker doesn't? I have always been intrigued by purely objective handicapping, but I think you really have to have something based around something that isn't taken into account by the line. For example, you say that when Tampa got creamed by Oakland last year, they went way down in your computer's ratings. Well, I bet Vegas' ratings of the public did the same thing. If you're both accounting for things the same way, where is the value? In pro football this is especially dangerous, because so much information is put into the lines that they are usually pretty sharp (at least on sides).
I have power ratings that I use, but they merely set a framework to make sure I am not betting into any trap lines. From there I use scheduling and emotional factors and try to bet counter to the public. That is why I mostly bet the colleges, but the few pro bets I make are usually not bet because of ratings, but other things. The ratings act as a guide. Hey, but if it works.
Here's my take on your ratings. It may sound eerily similar to Wild Bill's.
Stl. I think they may be slightly undervalued early in the season because everyone expects a fall. With that division though, I doubt it. I think they are still hungry and still should be very good.
Wash. Yeah, they improved, but it won't be displayed early on. It takes too long to gel. I think everyone gave them about a +6 adjustment, so avoid the trap. Lay off early.
Indy. This will be everyone's darling team, but I think the league may be paying a little closer attention now. I expect a bit of a regression.
Jax. Yep, still good. Didn't get worse or better. The public may think less of them now, but I don't. They will be a good play on, until their typical playoff fold.
Den. Griese is everything. Terell won't be as successful until Griese proves himself. D is good, I think they are rated about right. Everyone expects the bounce back.
Balt. Yep, you got them a little high. I think their late season surge may have been a result of no one taking them seriously. I won't believe it till I see it. Avoid for now. Banks still sucks, Jamal L. is good but injury prone. D is pretty good. Public will overrate.
Oak. I think Janikowski was good pickup. Still don't like Gannon. People put too much stock in unproven older QB's (Banks, Gannon, B. Johnson) Again, I'll wait and see. Public will be about right.
Tenn. Yeah, the public will overrate them slightly, but they are still better than you have them. They may not go all out in the regular season like last year.
KC. Hate to sound so negative, but they suck too. They are not slightly worse than Tenn and Oakland. Gunther is an idiot and this team is 7-9 bound. Public rating is right.
Carolina. Another team that finished strong because of team's taking them lightly. If Beuerlein is the real deal (see Gannon, Banks) they have a powerful O, but wait and see. Public should overrate early, expecting late season mo' to carry on.
Tampa. Yeah, they are too low. Best D, great coach. You rate a lot of old sucky QB's ahead of King. He may be young and sucky, but we are unsure. I am sure that Tony Banks sucks. Only St. L is better in my book, and not by much. Public is keen on them, but may have same qualms you do. Don't.
Detroit. Just as good as Tampa? Not quite, they are significantly weaker on both sides. Good wideouts. Batch is OK, but not great. No running game and D is shaky. Down! Public should know they stink.
Seattle. I still think they are on the rise. Kitna is avg. D is good and the division is a crapshoot. You may have them a little low, but not by too much. They are better than KC and Oak. Their coach is pretty good too.
Buff. Hate the Flutie move, but other than that, look out. They are underrated by you and the public. They are winners who should be motivated after the debacle.
Dallas. Big fade forthcoming. You moved them down, but maybe not far enough. Too many changes and no chemistry equals last in the division. Can Emmitt and Troy care anymore? Overrated slightly by you and a lot by the public.
Philly. I really like what they are doing. I went to school with McNabb and I know he's working hard in offseason. offense should be improved. Could be second in the division. D is still solid. You're on the right track Abdul, but public will underrate them.
Atlanta. They lost hope last year after Jamal. I think they were somewhat smoke and mirrorish their super bowl year, so even if he's good they should be a bit down. If he's not back, well uh oh. Public may bet on return to form.
New England. I don't know. I've always liked Bledsoe, but this team is an enigma. Should be 7-9 to 8-8. I think your rating is right and the public should be on top of them too.
Green Bay. I love Favre, and if the offense clicked, they could be awesome again. The D is going to be shaky, no matter how good the offense is. The public loves Favre too, so I don't see much value yet.
Chicago. Being from Chi-Town, I can say that the Bears ain't going nowhere. Offense is getting better, but division will wear them out. Could finish second if everything went right, but don't count on it. Tough to place them. Ratings seem right.
Nawlins. What did Kevin Mathis piss in your soup? No, they aren't going anywhere. Jeff Blake sucks, Ricky still has too much pressure on him, etc. Don't hold your breath. A little overrated by you, but public should still figure them for the dogs they are.
Vikes. Culpepper is out of his league. Will they fall as far as people think? There's still some scary talent there, but they may lose focus if the season starts bad. Tough to call right now.
Steelers. About right. Not really going anywhere.
Giants. Still have screwed up offense. D is solid, but will Sehorn care now that he's married to Angie Harmon? I like your rating here. Could be better, but won't.
San Diego. Worst team in the division without a QB. Conway is finally home, but he is overrated. D can't keep carrying this team. A bit overrated if anything.
NY Jets. We'll see how important Parcells was. This team played awfully hard second half last year. I can't figure them this low. A bit underrated by uou. Public should have them pegged kinda high.
Miami. Always hated this team. They aren't going anywhere early, but late in the season there should be some value. Public has written them off, which is a good thing for betting. Late in the season, baby.
Cleveland. Fourth worst team in the league? No, the worst. Still too young. Everyone cares early in the season, so they should start real bad. Later in the year, when some teams don't care, they have a chance.
Arizona. You can take it to the bank that the AZ Cards will finish better than Cleveland. They aren't great, but they could go 8-8. Plummer's a winner and they are underrated.
Bengals. Still have Coslet, but a nucleus is forming. Could be this year's Baltimore if they try late in the season. Early on it will be rough.
49ers. Hahahahahahahahaha. So many times in the mid 90's. I took bushels of points only to see this team run up the score. Who's laughing now? They are this bad and the vets won't care. Still better than Cleveland though.
Anyway, overall your ratings are decent. Keep in mind it may sound like I trashed your ratings, but I didn't. The NFL is a very close league. When I say you really overrated somebody, I mean by only a couple of points. The NFL is so close though, that being off by only a few points here and there is the difference between cashing the tickets and 50%. I think your program needs some analysis (present on this board please). It takes too much "recent performance" into account. Late last season means little because how many teams were trying against Baltimore, Carolina, etc. Anyway, please respond because I think it's an interesting debate. I especially want to hear some of the details of your system.
MDMAniac
My name is not Abdul and I don't want to play 300-600 as mentioned in Poker Digest! That is scary, how did we come to very similar conclusions? Well my take has always been to create public ratings based on the future book around town. So far I see Skins ahead of the Rams at most places and that seems a reach to me. The Skins have way too much pressure on themselves and here is something I see happening. Game one they will go out and blow the pants off their opponent. Damn I don't even know who it is, but they are in trouble. The team will live up to expectations that one day and the world will be like here comes 16-0. After that it will be trouble. They will win a few more maybe if the schedule is willing and the train will be full with passengers riding cargo! They the derailment will come because everyone in the league will be fired up to play them for one, and for two they will not be quite as good as everyone thinks. There is a free game plan for you all. Bet them game one, pass or bet against game two, start going the other way game 3-6 or 7, then readjust accordingly. Ok, not so scientific, but I just think I can see this one coming from a mile away.
I think September bets are won right now. If you have experience at football, then you should be figuring out who you like the first month as the public wildly gyrates adjusting their opinions. First off nothing will be like last year. Yeah the good teams will win more than the bad teams, but the public tends to act like the teams took a week off and are now back at it. The only thing to look for in August is who did really well and really poorly, and of course look at injuries. For the teams that did well and were losing teams last year, tend to follow the same scenario as the Skins. They will probably win game one and two as the confidence will be up and the fans will be packing the stadium. Come week 3 or so, the harsh reality sets in that rarely can a team improve more than 2 or 3 games in a year unless they changed a lot fundamentally. Yeah one or two teams will, last year there were many more, but in general its best to think of teams in this manner. What did they win last year? Then consider 2 wins or losses like a standard deviation. A team that won 5 games last year should 66% of the time end up with 3-7 wins this year. The number of wins can be 3 or 4 in the case of the most extreme teams, ie 12-13 wins, 2-3 wins, but otherwise this 2 games will put you on the right path. Now go out and see by looking at future odds and looking at the opening week lines and compare them to the closing power ratings last year. Teams that are far outside of expectation are probably teams you want to bet on or against, but opposite the public sentiment. Then as the season goes on keep that target number of wins in mind and look to see who is playing out of that target and look to bet them to fall back within that target. Even a team that keeps winning can stop covering the number. Last year was a mess for this method to a degree, but I stuck to it and managed 48% which obviously sucks, but isn't bad considering just how many teams were out of target last year. I adjusted by pretty much dumping a couple teams quickly. I lost 2 bets against the Rams and that was it, from then on I backed off or even bet them in some situations where it was clear they would name the score. As with any method, the most valuable thing is to quickly see that you are wrong or off base and not force things, basically not let your ego get too involved. It may have won 5 years in a row, but it may not win this year. The winning handicapper is the person who can change with the times, but keeps his funadamental approach and understanding of the game and what makes money at it. In any case my point of all this is to say you will not win betting power ratings. Saying this team is 5 points better and the line is 3.5 so I bet the favorite will never make anyone rich except the books. You have to be one step ahead of the crowd in pro football. Matchups are more for colleges, pros are about emotion and basically beating the public opinion which is just so huge on the NFL. As it gets a little closer I might give out a list of who I would start the season betting on and against.
The reason why my ratings have the potential to be better than the Stardust opening lines is that I use a more mathematically rigorous process for generating them.
Roxy et al and the Stardust crew start with an initial set of ratings, much like the ones I gave here, based on their final ratings from last year and tweaked by hand for roster changes. To update the ratings after a game has been played, they take a small percentage of the difference between the observed margin of victory and their predicted margin of victory, and then tweak the two teams' power ratings up or down by this amount. The problem with this method is that it doesn't use all the information as best it could, especially if the initial power ratings are way off.
For example, first game last season, the Rams thumped the Ravens 27-10. Now the Rams were of course a very stinky team (heh) with a very stinky power rating. In fact, the stinky Ravens were rated about 3 points better, since the line was a pick and the game was in St. Louis. So, the stinky Ravens' power rating was adjusted way down into the gutter. Later, when the Ravens started covering and even winning games, this in turn caused other teams' power ratings to fall quite far. However, by that time we knew the Rams had been way underestimated at the start of the season, and so the Ravens were better than their power rating suggested and it wasn't such a shame to lose to them.
In contrast, my power ratings look at all the games at once, and so make more efficient use of the information. Last year I did exclude the early games late in the season to account for changes over time, but I plan to do this in a more disciplined manner this year.
Like I said, though, I find power ratings useful for a variety of things, not just going head-to-head with the opening lines.
-Abdul
St. Louis: Yes, I believe they are still slightly underestimated by the bookies/public, but I have chopped off a few points anyway to anticipate some "regression towards the mean," and some study by the other teams to find their Achilles' heel. Even then I still rate them higher than the bookies do, especially in relation to Washington.
Washington: I think there's a preseason bet here. Will Turner keep his stars out because he can't risk any injuries? Could be, but I suspect instead he needs to give them time to practice to learn to play together, and also he may be afraid to lose even a preseason game because of the owner!
Baltimore: Two February's ago I was going to take the Rams for the Superbowl (honest, ask my wife.) I saw the potential in the Rams, and in their rookie QB Tony Banks. I bet the hell out of the Rams in '98, and suffered for it. Banks was making rookie mistakes, but I saw a lot of potential if he would just calm down. However, he was traded to Baltimore before the season, and so some no name from the arena league and NFL Europe got all the glory instead of Banks after Green went down. Anyway, I think Tony Banks will eventually be a fine quarterback, maybe even this year. And remember, he doesn't even have to be any better than TB's King to get a shot at the superbowl, since the Ravens D is so tough.
Tampa Bay / Tennessee: I think you and Wild Bill are being swayed by their making it to the end of the playoffs. Tampa Bay beat Washington by 1 point. Tennessee beat Buffalo in a fluke and Indianapolis by just 3 points. They could have easily been knocked out earlier, and then you'd be talking about how great a couple other teams are instead, I suspect.
Carolina: I didn't really express it, but Carolina is one of my picks for teams with greatest potential. If their defense improves significantly and Tim B. stays healthy, they would be almost on par with Washington. They are one of the few teams that can outscore St. Louis and Washington without a Tampa Bay caliber defense to smother them. Keep an eye on them.
Detroit: Charlie Batch is a fine quarterback, whom I noticed before most did. His offensive line sucked last year, and he got brutalized by the Tampa Bay defense. I put him at about the sixth best quarterback for this year, slightly better than Aikman, Johnson/Flutie, Brunnel, etc. Time will tell.
Cincinnati: This could be another preseason bet. Smith and Warrick need practice-time together, and are much better than a lot of their preseason competition. Peter Warrick should have been the #1 draft pick, and so I'll bump Cinci up a bit for their potential, but only time will tell.
Cleveland: Tim Couch is awesome, maybe the sixth best quarterback of next season if not this one. Like Batch, Couch is the victim of a lack of an offensive line. It is inconceivable that Cleveland could stink as bad this year as last, given the additions to their roster. In the Browns-Jaguars game late last year, I took the Browns plus 14.5 and also on the moneyline for huge odds... the Browns looked like they were going to win it part way through the game, though they wound up losing by 10. Although it was a sandwich game for the Jags, and the Jags already had a playoff spot sowed up, it was still a potentially important game for the Jags as they were still fighting for the division. The Browns are better than you think, of this I am sure.
San Francisco: I still think you're underestimating the cuts in their roster. If you haven't looked at the cuts, then please do so. They are manning the ship with a skeleton crew. Garcia's backups are rookies from podunk schools, and Garcia is likely to get injured. They might do okay the first game or two, but there is no depth left in the roster and they'll be the worst team by the end of the season for sure. Most teams bounce back after sucking so bad, but the 49ers mortgaged their future long ago and are paying for it now.
In summary, the teams I feel will be underrated and make good bets are: New Orleans, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, Carolina, Oakland, Denver, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Cincinnati (you talked me into that one), in roughly that order. The teams I think will will be overrated and make good bets against are: Washington, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, and Miami, in roughly that order.
Thanks for your input, MDMAniac... I have updated several of my ratings as a result.
-Abdul
I agree about Tony Banks. Abdul could've QB'd that team to the Superbowl. One thing that I've yet to see is any comment on the Card's D. It is now completely shot. Maybe this will be the year that they finally get a running game, but maybe this will be the year the Suns get a big man too. Even tho I wanted to name my first-born Jake (vetoed by the missus in favor of Colleen), he has no reason not to expect an imploding pocket for 16 games. They're gonna be the 5th best team in the East. I take it by the -130 I see on nss that you can get 110 on the under 7. Take it. You can't make this bet in Phoenix. (just like every year).
JG
MDManiac,
Thanks for your response. You ask some very good questions that I would like to give my thoughts on.
First, where is your edge? That is what sports betting is about. What are your ratings taking into account that the linesmaker doesn't?
Most of the time, for most games, I believe you cannot beat the bookies lines in sports betting. Abdul's opinion concurs with mine (and yours) on this point. Occasionally, a situation occurs where you *can* beat, sometimes even slaughter the bookies line. Without the benefit of power ratings, researching the games, players, etc. I think it's extremely difficult to identify those huge edge situations.
Let me give you a few examples that occurred in the past couple of seasons:
Prior to the start of last season, the Colts were 125-1 to win last year's superbowl. We took the bet. (Now granted they didn't win or even go, but with a 13-3 record last year, it's tough to say that wasn't a positive EV bet.)
Two years ago, the Falcons were 130-1 to win the bowl at the start of the season. I took that bet. The Falcons went to the bowl (yeah, yeah, they didn't win). Again the fact that they went says it was probably a positive EV bet.
Last year in week 4 the Rams were still listed at 130-1 in a couple of places to win the bowl. Abdul and I both took that bet (hurrah, positive EV finally pays off). All totaled in three seasons we placed less than $100 on futures bets, and made several thousand. Futures bets stink this year, likely as a result of quite a few people making money on the Rams last year.
One other situation that occurred last year was in college betting. Texas was a 7 point favorite over Arkansas in a bowl game. An hour or so before gametime, a radio show announced that Texas had suspended three of their All Americans for some sort of violation of NCAA rules. The bookies are between a rock and hard place. They can't shift the line too much or they get middled. At game time the line was Texas -6. (Arkansas won the game outright by 17 points).
Most of the analysis that we do is geared toward finding the few situations where the big edge exists. I agree with you that most of the time their line is correct and therefore unbeatable.
Regards/
Here are my revised power ratings...
Team | Power | Home |
---|---|---|
Name | Rating | Field |
St. Louis Rams | 27.5 | 4 |
Washington Redskins | 25.5 | 5 |
Indianapolis Colts | 24.5 | 4 |
Jacksonville Jaguars | 24.0 | 5 |
Baltimore Ravens | 23.0 | 2 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 22.5 | 5 |
Denver Broncos | 22.5 | 5 |
Carolina Panthers | 22.5 | 3 |
Seattle Seahawks | 22.5 | 4 |
Oakland Raiders | 22.0 | 4 |
Detroit Lions | 22.0 | 4 |
Kansas City Chiefs | 21.5 | 5 |
Buffalo Bills | 21.0 | 4 |
Atlanta Falcons | 20.5 | 3 |
Philadelphia Eagles | 20.5 | 2 |
Dallas Cowboys | 20.0 | 4 |
New England Patriots | 20.0 | 4 |
Green Bay Packers | 20.0 | 5 |
Chicago Bears | 20.0 | 3 |
New York Jets | 19.5 | 4 |
Minnesota Vikings | 19.0 | 4 |
Pittsburgh Steelers | 19.0 | 2 |
New Orleans Saints | 18.5 | 1 |
New York Giants | 18.5 | 4 |
San Diego Chargers | 18.0 | 3 |
Miami Dolphins | 18.0 | 5 |
Arizona Cardinals | 17.5 | 2.5 |
Cincinnati Bengals | 17.0 | 2 |
Cleveland Browns | 16.5 | 3 |
San Francisco 49ers | 15.5 | 3 |
Team | Power | Home |
---|---|---|
Name | Rating | Field |
St. Louis Rams | 27.5 | 4 |
Washington Redskins | 25.5 | 5 |
Indianapolis Colts | 24.5 | 4 |
Jacksonville Jaguars | 24.0 | 5 |
Tennessee Titans | 23.5 | 4 |
Baltimore Ravens | 23.0 | 2 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 22.5 | 5 |
Denver Broncos | 22.5 | 5 |
Carolina Panthers | 22.5 | 3 |
Seattle Seahawks | 22.5 | 4 |
Oakland Raiders | 22.0 | 4 |
Detroit Lions | 22.0 | 4 |
Kansas City Chiefs | 21.5 | 5 |
Buffalo Bills | 21.0 | 4 |
Atlanta Falcons | 20.5 | 3 |
Philadelphia Eagles | 20.5 | 2 |
Dallas Cowboys | 20.0 | 4 |
New England Patriots | 20.0 | 4 |
Green Bay Packers | 20.0 | 5 |
Chicago Bears | 20.0 | 3 |
New York Jets | 19.5 | 4 |
Minnesota Vikings | 19.0 | 4 |
Pittsburgh Steelers | 19.0 | 2 |
New Orleans Saints | 18.5 | 1 |
New York Giants | 18.5 | 4 |
San Diego Chargers | 18.0 | 3 |
Miami Dolphins | 18.0 | 5 |
Arizona Cardinals | 17.5 | 2.5 |
Cincinnati Bengals | 17.0 | 2 |
Cleveland Browns | 16.5 | 3 |
San Francisco 49ers | 15.5 | 3 |
These look fairly good Abdul, I find only a few I don't agree with but so what, two people will never agree on something like this. Besides most of what we disagree on are just opinions and of course everyone has one.
One thing I do want to say is I don't know if I agree completely with your comparison of how you get your ratings and how the books get theirs. Of course to start with you aren't fighting Roxy anymore, but his organization as he is happily retired from the linemaking side of the business and took the big bucks selling out to DBC. When the powers that be decide on the ratings, they are just taking the public's opinion in mind. These are very sharp individuals that could put out a better line no doubt, but they have a job to do. Their customers want split action as much as possible and that is what they give them. I am sure it crossed their mind very early last year that the Rams should be higher ranked, however they also know that the idiots that dominate NFL betting wouldn't see it that way. To them this was the same old Lams team that would choke in a few games and be fodder for the 49ers. If they had gone out and said ok the Rams are one of the best teams early on in the season their customers would have been so one sided in action they would have moved them very close to the numbers they originally posted and their customers would have been pissed for making them risk so much. You are well aware of how paranoid some books are about risk these days. Booking is not an art anymore, its purely a science. Limit the bets, limit the exposure by moving numbers on air and getting runners barred from your books, limit your astute shoppers by closing phone accounts, etc. To this end LVSC, Roxy's operation, just puts out the numbers you reflect on, the numbers that are the reflection of the public which are fairly poor adjusters.
For those that believe its impossible to beat most lines, I assure you that you are wrong. I say it 100 times and people still don't listen. The linemaker is not out to set accurate lines, at least not in the way you think of it. He is there to set lines that reflect the public's very weak opinions. The reason why football is so hard to beat is very simple and yet totally unacknowledged by most people. Its the reason I don't bet it much. Its pure and simple: LUCK! Football is by far the luckiest sport of them all. If you look at it the luck factor is worst in football, then hockey, then baseball, then the least luck influenced basketball. Football has so many ways luck influences the pointspread and you all know it. With so few scoring plays in a game having just one thing go against you and leading to a score against you or a score that your team can't make, you can have the best side and still not get the win. We all can probably name 10 games we lost last year that we should have won, but thats the way it goes. Add to it a short season with small sample size and its real easy to have a losing season even if you are an expert.
As a couple of very astute handicappers have pointed out, here is why no one will ever go 65% in football over a season unless its a one in a million kind of year or he is making very very few plays. In a season say you make 100 bets. Now in these games, probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the games are going to have luck involved to where the game can be deemed "non-handicappable" for spread purposes. Fill in your reason, but the obvious ones are bad offical call, dropped pass by sure handed receiver, lucky tip that leads to a touchdown or interception, etc. Anyways say 40% are non-handicappable. That means in those you should expect to go 20/20. The remaining games you pick like a God! You go 40/20, a whopping 67%! Well for the season you did very well, 60/40, 60% a very good year indeed. Problem is that no one can pick 67% even in games they can call. It just doesn't happen, everyone makes mistakes. So you go 34/26, a very solid 57%, but overall that makes you just 54/46, a slight winner for the year, but probably a percentage that would make you say, "damn these lines are too tough to beat". There is why football should be treated like a recreation and not the main sports bet for most people. I personally bet only 2 or 3 games a week and play some teasers. Nothing serious and I have little expectations, just more than anything waiting for other sports with better expectations.
I agree completely. I don't bet much football anymore, just some teaser bets. I do think that there is more luck to basketball than to hockey or baseball(or at least baseball). Too many weird things happen in the last 2 minutes.
Wild Bill--
You know I respect your opinion bunches, but I gotta disagree somewhat. Football has the fewest number of scoring plays, but it's the one sport where emotion plays the biggest part and is handicappable. Betting on a team that cares about the game against a team that doesn't is as close to a sure thing as we will ever see.
That is true at least in the colleges. College football is about emotion pure and simple. I bet a lot of +30 underdogs each year that cover. Some don't, but a good number do. These games aren't decided by luck, because if a team is -30 and doesn't care, they could have all the luck in the world and they will never cover. Sometimes, they do care and I still cover. Sometimes, they both care and I lose cause of luck. Sometimes, I am dead wrong. These bets make up a good portion of my schedule each week. Usually, they are decided by my handicapping or information and not luck. This line of thinking has led me to focus most of my football bets on colleges, especially dogs.
Pro football is a whole different animal. The lines are a lot lower and the games do tend to be luck oriented in the fact that one play covers/doesn't cover the spread. Hell, I love the NFL, but I can't find that many playable games. Most of the ones I do bet are emotion based, but those are few and far between. The lines are the sharpest and luck plays the biggest factor: translation- step lightly.
College basketball is the best sport to bet on because the lines are the softest (at times) and emotion plays a huge role. Luck is big because the college game is so 3 pt. shooting oriented, but I try to take that into my handicapping. Again, you have some mammoth lines that are determined by emotion and not luck. AT least more than in my next subject...
The NBA. The NBA, to me, is a crapshoot. The game is determined by emotion, but it's tough to handicap. Somedays, guys feel like showing up, somedays they don't. The lines are tight and it's tough to bet. Playoffs is the only time I like to bet.
Baseball is tough to call. Games are luck oriented, in that one bad call, decision, etc. can decide the game. Pitching or lack thereof can overcome this though. I don't bet much bases, only futures, because I don't like a lot of statistical handicapping. I suspect that with so many games, luck can be overcome.
Basically, I bet mostly colleges and mostly good-sized dogs. For this reason. I don't want it coming down to luck. Most of my W's and L's, I can point to and say good job or here's what I missed. If I bet the NBA and NFL more, I wouldn't be able to. Often, it's about a free throw or field goal. Big sized dogs in colleges (FB and BB) are not about this (usually). The NFL and NBA usually are.
So, I do agree with you Wild Bill, but I think it can be overcome if you know where to focus your attention. And a note to Abdul. I agree with Bill, your ratings are good, I was just bantering opinion, not trying to trash your system.
Later,
MDMAniac
Oh nothing wrong with what you say, but my posting was intended for the NFL. Sorry if I didn't say that more clearly. Yes luck does make a lot less difference in college just by nature of the big numbers. Usually when we refer to a lucky play deciding a number its because the number is reasonable and within a score or two in a real game. If a team is favored by 20 or more, then its not really luck that decides the game. There still are last minute backdoors and teams that get a bounce or two to get the cover on the chalk side, but those are part of the factors you have to consider. No one thinks of a Nebraska game and considers the scenario of their opponent winning cause it just doesn't happen. In that game you have to judge the superior teams emotion and their level of dominance. How badly do they need to win big for polls is always in the mindset. In these cases the games are often down to the very simple test of how much you think a team wants to win big. I have generally avoided these games with one exception as of late. Bill Snyder ALWAYS wants to win big and K-State's points record when they are big favorites (25 or more) is astounding. It amazes me how I seem to pay a little more in points each year and still they cash one ticket after another for me. With a top 5 team this year, they will be paying a premium for points, but undoubtedly will cover more than they lose. Its just in the nature of the coach. Other coaches are a mixed bag to a degree. Some do run it up if they can, but none are as automatic as this one. Just the type of factor I am sure you look for when picking the college games.
I disagree with you (wildbill) about the very nature of the lines. You say the lines are intended to split the public opinion. I say the lines are intended to minimize exposure to betting syndicates. The guys who set the line do their best to set it correctly, i.e., a 50-50 chance of either outcome. To the extent that they fail, they try to correct their mistakes at a minimum cost via the lottery prior to opening the lines up to the public.
Splitting the action is just not achievable, and it's not what they try to do. If a casino has $100 times 1000 equals $100,000 in action on team A, and almost nothing on team B, and then a wiseguy walks up and bets $10,000 on team B, the line is going to be shifted afterwards to make team B more expensive. If that makes the public pile on team A to the tune of a million more in action, fine. The line is not going to move, except for big bets. Most of the time, the casinos wind up taking a stand, getting lopsided action, unable to equalize the action because the wiseguys are ready with big bankrolls to punish any mistakes.
Whatever the intent of the opening line, the final line of a book is based solely on the big bets, and so it really has little to do with public opinion. Monday night games and the Superbowl are two exceptions, times when the public opinion is reflected in the final line, when morons with big bucks overwhelm the input from the wiseguys.
-Abdul
I have to disagree Abdul. Maybe on some of the less popular sports, this is true. For example, I doubt there is that much interest on the WNBA. The only people betting it, I would surmise, are pure degenerates and wiseguys. I don't think there is enough of a fan base to justify a lot of split action. The degenerates are going to wash, but Vegas is most concerned about possible losses to wiseguys. So they might set a sharp line. These are the extremes, they apply to the less popular sports.
From there, you have things that are somewhat popular, but don't get a lot of action from the public. I am thinking of totals for everything but the NFL. College FB totals and College BB totals don't seem as interesting to the average schmuck. I see radical moves in these games, ostensibly, I assume, to deflect wiseguy action. It's amazing to see a college FB total go from 53 to 57 1/2 in an hour, I assume this is wiseguy money. There is public money, but they aren't that big. The line is set somewhere between splitting public action and stopping syndicates.
Then you have the most popular bets, sides for NFL, NBA, NCAA. I *would have to assume* that Vegas gets more action from the public than syndicates. (Not living in Vegas I don't know). Here, there interest is in splitting public action. I definitely see this as the case, just judging by the accuracy of the lines, especially in the colleges. The syndicates can't do as much damage as extreme public onesidedness, I wouldn't think.
Basically, I think it comes down to the popularity of the sports among the public. The most popular ones, also the ones we spend the most time discussing, I think are beatable for the reasons that Wild Bill gave.
I could be wrong
MDMAniac
Here's last year's results vs one set of lines plus Abdul's Power Ratings. FWIW
O/U NFL Stats 1999 VS 2000 LINES
TWIMC,
As Of Today 7/5/00.
1999 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE TOTAL REGULAR SEASON WINS
TEAM ---------------ODDS -----------OVER/UNDER-------Abdul's PR---Home
1)JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 11.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+1.5) 2000=11.5 -130/EV--23.5--4
2)MINNESOTA VIKINGS 11.5 OV -135-----UNDER--(-1.5) 2000=??--19--4
3)DENVER BRONCOS 11 OV -100-----UNDER--(-5.0)2000=9.5 -135/+105--22.5--5
4)GREEN BAY PACKERS 10.5 UN-130-----UNDER--(-2.5)2000=8.5 -160/+130--20--5
5)SAN FRANCISCO 49ers 10.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-6.5) 2000=5 -130/EV--15.5--3
6)NEW YORK JETS 10.5 OV -130-----UNDER--(-2.5)2000=8 +125/-155 --19.5--4
7)ATLANTA FALCONS 10 OV -120-----UNDER--(-5.0)2000=7.5 -130/EV--20.5--3
8)MIAMI DOLPHINS 10 OV -115----UNDER--(-1.0)2000=8.5 EV/-130--18--5
9)TENNESSEE TITANS 9 OV -120-----OVER--(+4.0)2000=10 -150/+120--23.5--4
10)PITTSBURGH STEELERS 8.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-2.5) 2000=6.5 -130/+EV--19--2
11)DALLAS COWBOYS 8.5 OV -115-----UNDER--(-0.5) 2000=8.5 +110/-140--20--4
12)TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 9 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.0) 2000=10.5 -120/-110--22.5--5
13)SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9.5 OV -115----UNDER--(-0.5) 2000=9 EV/-130--22.5-4
14)BUFFALO BILLS 9 UN -120-----OVER--(+2.0)2000=9 +110/-140--21--4
15)NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8.5 UN -140-----UNDER--(-0.5)2000=8 -115/-115--20--4
16)ARIZONA CARDINALS 8.5 UN -120-----UNDER--(-2.5) 2000=7 -130/EV--17.5--2.5
17)KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 8.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+0.5) 2000=8 -130/EV--21.5--5
18)NEW YORK GIANTS 8 UN -135-----UNDER--(-1.0) 2000=8 +140/-180--18.5--4
19)DETROIT LIONS 7 UN -140-----OVER--(+1.0)2000=7 -130/EV--22--4
20)BALTIMORE RAVENS 7 OV -125-----OVER--(+1.0) 2000=8.5 -115/-115--23--2
21)WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+2.5) 2000=12 +135/-170--25.5--5
22)NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 6.5 OV -150-----UNDER--(-3.5) 2000=6 -130/EV--18.5--1
23)ST. LOUIS RAMS 6.5 OV -140-----OVER--(+6.5)2000=11 -115/-115--27.5--4
24)OAKLAND RAIDERS 6.5 UN -160-----OVER--(+1.5) 2000=9 -115/-115--22--4
25)INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 6.5 UN -140-----OVER--(+6.5) 2000=11 +115/-145--24.5--4
26)SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5.5 OV -130-----OVER--(+2.5) 2000=6.5 EV/-130--18--3
27)CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 OV -115-----OVER--(+2.0) 2000=8 -130/EV--22.5--3
28)CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 OV -160----UNDER--(-1.0)2000=5.5 -150/+120--17--2
29)CHICAGO BEARS 5 OV -145-----OVER--(+1.0) 2000=8 +140/-180--20--3
30)PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 UN -145----PUSH---(0.0) 2000=6 -145/+115--20.5--2
31)CLEVELAND BROWNS 4.5 OV -160-----UNDER--(-2.5) 2000=4.5 -150/+120--16.5--3
Sections------Over------Under------Push
1-8------------1---------7----------0
9-16-----------3---------5----------0
17-23----------5---------2----------0
24-31----------5---------2----------1
--------------------------------------------
Totals---------14---------16----------1
(+/-)======(+34.5) =====(-38.5)=====0
=============Money===============
OVER/OV or UNDER/UN vs OV/UN or UN/OV
People Right (14) vs People Wrong (16) Push (1)
Total OVER/OV (9)
(1(-130)-9(-120)-12(-140)-20(-125)-21(-140)-23(-140)-26(-130)-27(-115)-29(-145))
Total UNDER/UN (5)
(4(-130)-5(-140)-15(-140)-16(-120)-18(-135))
Total OV/UN (11)
(2(+121.5)-3(EVEN)-6(+117)-7(+108)-8(+103.5)-10(+135)-11(+103.5)-13(+103.5)-22(+135)-28(+144)-31(+144))
Total UN/OV (5)
(14(+108)-17(+144)-19(+126)-24(+144)-25(+126))
Denver will win in a cake walk out west, Greise has another year under him and will lead the team to a divison title. Baltimore will will this divison, they came together real strong last year and banks has shown star qualities. ( I may be partial to them as I bet the over for total wins last year which they covered easily.) Miami will win the east, you missed on this one. Defense and ball control will get the job done. didn't lose much in going from JJ who didn't want to be there to DW as coach. KC had a solid year in 99 but always managed to under achieve. I agree with most other ratings, not much in the nfc to focus on.
snowman,
I realize that we are all just throwing opinions around and you are likely a Dolphin fan, but, but, but... (I understand; I'm a lifelong fan of another franchise which may not see greatness again in my lifetime.)
No Dan Marino (granted he wasn't playing too well but his replacement is a baby), no running game, and a new head coach to boot. This does not a championship season make. Perhaps you are forgetting about that rapidly jelling group of youngsters in the midwest with that funny horseshoe thing on their helmets?
Regards/
Or the team with the funny animal with them that often plays in the snow and gets little respect. I agree its quite a stretch to call for the Dolphins to win the division. I will say they have some talent and the factors people are focused on are a bit overdone. However the team is just too lacking in the passing game to get it done.
Miami's new offensive coordinator is Chan Gailey, former head coach and offensive coordinator of the Dallas Cowboys. This reminds me of an old wargame called Squad Leader, where there was one combat squad leader who was actually a detriment to the squad he was placed with. On the other hand, Chan's college coaching career at Troy State may actually be good preparation for coaching an NFL team with weak passing. Chan will certainly continue with Jimmy's run-the-ball, run-the-ball, run-the-ball philosophy. Jimmy was run-crazy because knew Marino was going to be gone soon. Chan was run-crazy with the powerful passing offense of the Cowboys because he didn't know how to do anything else.
Still, it's possible the Dolphins could be a force this year without an offense, if their defense improves even just slightly, as they could be another Tampa Bay. So, watch the Dolphins in pre-season and for the first couple of games to see if I underrated them.
Regarding betting huge underdogs in college football, I suggest caution. In general, dogs are good to bet. However, as I recall huge dogs (like +27 or more) in college football have not done well historically. This may be because the public tends to shift to the dog for such a huge spread, or it may be because there is a bit of a "nonlinearity" involved. When there is such a huge disparity in talent, it's got to be hard psychologically for the dog players from the moment they look up at their opposition towering over them, and also physically, they just lack the bulk to tackle their huge opponents.
-Abdul
I agree with Abdul. Preseason will tell against TB & GB they also play them in the regular season. If they bomb out in these two games Miami could be the best under bet of all at 8.5. Going thru their schedule I see about 4 sure wins @Minn, NE, @Cinc, and NYJ's giving them (+/- 2) would bring them up to 6 (+/-2) brings them up to 8 still under. Miami is going down this year and they will definitely loose to Seattle the first game of the year. IMO. Damon Huard sucks he will show his true colors this year because he benefited from Marino's offensive power that defenses were keyed up on.
paul
I don't see New england, Buffalo or the Jets as being a threat in the east, yes the colts with manning look good, however this is his 3rd year, teams will adjust to him and they lost some talent. Miami with defense and a don't lose the game for us offense will play some decent ball. I wouldn't bet seattle if i were you, stats show the fins as a 90+% winner on opening day historicaly. also the college teams giving 30+ points over the last ten years cover at a 70+% clip(a gravy train for me in that time frame) Stats.stats.stats just bet the stats, no place for personel feelings when your money's on the line. I'm not telling you to bet the house on them just remember you heard it here first when they give the colts a run for the east.
Snowman and others--
I can assure you that college faves of over 30 points do not cover the spread at a 70% clip. You may remember the glory days of Florida, Florida St., and Nebraska running up the score every week. They still didn't do it enough to make the system (overall) 70%. Nebraska had a two year period, where they went crazy, like 9 out of 10 in this spot. Then the last 4 years, they've slowly given those profits back. You might have started hot, but unless you had the foresight to stop (I doubt it) you've given the money back. That's the problem with blind systems. Unless you have a causal relationship that hasn't been considered by the linesmaker, you can't play the system. Here you have a causal relationship (sometimes) that is now reflected in the spread.
To expand, Last year FYI, 30 pt. faves in college ball went 22-23-1. Kinda what you'd expect from a blind system. I don't bet on games with those spreads involving those highest echelon teams, unless I'm reasonably certain they won't be running up the score. But on to a better example.
Consider teams that aren't so great favored by big spreads. My best example, Sept. 18th of last year. Pittsburgh -33 Kent. Pitt was not a great team LY, Kent was atrocious. Nevertheless, Pitt shouldn't be 33 point fave in this game. Plus, they were off heartbreaking loss to Penn St. the week before. Equals no motivation and a 7 point win. These are the games I like.
To clarify, I don't only play games with these spreads. Smaller spreads often provide the same kind of value, I was just illustrating a point in a different argument. 30 pt. favorites can win 52-0 and make me look stupid. More often, when I bet them, they win 42-20, playing just poorly enough to not cover. It takes a hell of an effort to cover those spreads. The key is finding when they won't give it.
Thanks,
MDMAniac
During the period of 1996-1998 in college football, dogs of 30+ points went 71-63 against the spread, so I guess I misremembered. Dogs of 20-29 points went 122-141 against the spread, so maybe that's where you should be cautious. Note that chopping the data this finely makes it likely to see some false trends, and these aren't statistically impressive trends even ignoring that problem. Overall, there are 1877 games in my database.
-Abdul
No one should go out and bet these games blindly. Big favorite games are decided by the coach and the situation mostly. Snyder runs it up, Osborne/Solich predictably run it up when they are in need of it because of the polls. Paterno tends to keep it down and despite his reputation gained from one year he was in the national title race, Spurrier has not really covered the big numbers all that well, and Bowden hasn't really covered big numbers too much because of the tough schedule he usually plays he isn't too worried about winning big. Very few teams play a schedule that gives them too many 30 point or even 25 point spreads. You will see almost no games each year this big in the Pac 10, Big 10, SEC and only rarely in the WAC/Mtn West, Big East, and ACC(other than FSU). When you see a spread this big in one of these conferences you probably have a good bet on the favorite because that would indicate a truly terrible dog. Be careful though betting these teams in non-conference games because they are playing a team that might be motivated playing a bigger conference school and on the flip side the bigger conference school has no interest in beating up a patsy in a scrimmage. Further these non-conference games are earlier in the season where the stronger team is filling in spots on the roster and isn't as worried about the polls yet. In the end though pay most attention to coaches, or if all else fails just bet K State when favored by 20 or more. Since 1995 when favored by 20 or more they are an incredible 22-2 with both losses in 1997. Bill Snyder is the coach you want when you are laying a lot of points needless to say and I don't think there is any luck involved in this, I am pretty sure he lays it on real thick and is probably one of the few coaches that plays to beat the spread figuring that is the surest way of having an "impressive" victory for the pollsters. This is why I figure it probably will continue this year even against inflated lines as he clearly has his best team ever with probably the best passing game he has had at his disposal and that will lead to lots of quick scores later in the game where other teams might just go to running almost every down.
As a rule, I usually avoid these types of games. However, I agree that a good place to take the +30 is after the favorite loses a close game against a Top 10 ranked team. This makes sense.
Miami has absoultely no chance, I like Buffalo.
The other day I decided to pop into IP to take a look at their early lines. I was really tired, so I decided to sleep on the line of Eagles to win over 6 games +140. A couple days later I went back and the line was Eagles over 6.5 -220!!! Drat!
That got me to thinking, how much did that line actually move? How much is a half game worth for this proposition?
According to my mathematical model, the value of extra games in this proposition is approximately as follows:
Extra       | Money |
---|---|
Games       | Line |
0.0 | EVEN |
0.5 | 150 |
1.0 | 320 |
1.5 | 445 |
2.0 | 600 |
2.5 | 925 |
For example, a zero vig sports book could offer the following fair bets, assuming a team will actually average 8 games won:
Over 7 -320, Over 7.5 -150, Over 8 EVEN, Over 8.5 +150, Over 9 +320
So, the line move of Over 6 +140 to Over 6.5 -220 was roughly the equivalent of a move from Over 5.5 EVEN to Over 7 EVEN.
-Abdul
Oh, actually I think the line may have started at Over 6 -145. Still, it was a big move to Over 6.5 -220.
-Abdul
Seems very high Abdul. Also this is one spot where the actual number plays a huge role in this calculation. If a team is slated at 8 wins, then 2.5 wins is quite a bit more difficult than a team at 4 or 5 wins. Further at say 12 wins, you are looking at next to impossible. Only time I would ever say a team deserves a money line of -925 though is if they are starting at 11.5 or more. Getting three more wins happens many times as long as the team is not on a clear downtrend. This year a team like Dallas would have a hard time getting an extra 3 wins over their total, but a team like Baltimore or Carolina is more likely to pull off the feat even though all have about the same totals to beat. In other words this is something I think it is crazy to think you could come up with a set percentage on. Too many factors from team to team and number to number. As for the Eagles line, wow, I might have to go bet the under. I could easily see that team going under 6.5 wins. I am getting almost 2-1 (I figure +185 at the IP for the takeback) and all they have to do is improve one game or less. Seven wins might be a bit much to ask for this year out of them. No matter how much they might have improved, there is an overlay on the under there.
If you like Phil UN now you'll love them more the longer you wait. I've seen them this week at 7.5 UN-125.
I would almost rather take the +85 though than +05. I think 7 wins is a fairly unlikely number for them although insurance is always nice. If its going up everywhere, I figure I might as well wait it appears all the sentiment is one way.
Are you willing to give me these odds? I might need to hedge a bet where the number has moved. For example, I might have UNDER 9 -150 and it has moved to 8 EVEN. Although I could bet OVER 8 -110, this only wins when I side the wager with exactly 8 or 9 wins. But if you could give me plus money like OVER 9 +300 then my profit is secured.
Unfortunately, the moderator for this site has vowed to censor any messages like yours.
-Abdul
Match Up | Opening | Current | Abdul's | Comments |
Cardinals | 36½ | |||
Giants | -3½ | -4 | -4 | |
Ravens | -2½ | -3 | -3 | |
Steelers | 36 | |||
Panthers | 50 | |||
Redskins | -9 | -10 | -7 | |
Bears | 37 | |||
Vikings | -4 | -3½ | -3 | |
Lions | -2 | -1½ | 40 | QB Batch out, Tomczak starts |
Saints | -2 | |||
Colts | -2 | -2½ | 42 | RB Lane murdered |
Chiefs | -1½ | |||
Jaguars | -11 | -11½ | -4 | |
Browns | 36½ | |||
49ers | 41 | |||
Falcons | -7 | -7 | -9 | |
Buccs | -3 | -3 | 30 | |
Patriots | -1 | |||
Eagles | 41½ | |||
Cowboys | -6½ | -6½ | -6 | |
Jets | 36½ | |||
Packers | -4 | -4½ | -6 | |
Chargers | 39 | |||
Raiders | -6½ | -7 | -7 | |
Seahawks | 36 | |||
Dolphins | -1½ | -1½ | -1 | |
Titans | 34 | |||
Bills | -3 | -3 | -1 | |
Broncos | 44 | |||
Rams | -6½ | -6 | -10 | |
Now I may be the worst handicapper in the world, but even I can see that you should take the dogs first week. The lines are bound to be off, like they were last year when the Rams were a dog to the Ravens first week. When a team that is estimated as good is playing a team that is estimated as bad, if the good team is misrated then it's probably worse than everyone thought, and if the bad team is misrated then it's probably better than everyone thought.
** Panthers +10... The Panthers with the amazing Tim B. are nearly unstoppable on offense, and he should be healthy for the first game. The Redskins should be in a state of anarchy with all the new players.
** Saints +1.5... As much as I like the Lions, the Saints line is too generous even with a healthy Batch in for the Lions, and since Batch is out it's a steal.
* Chiefs +2.5... Both Indy and KC have big home field advantages.
*** Browns +11.5... Ziggities. Somebody is way off on this one. Could be me. Best bet is actually to take the Browns on the money line. Go Rainbows! I mean Browns.
** Patriots +3... Pats are tough at home, and the Buccs are weak away from home. Although Bucc offense might be clicking by the end of the season, the first game should be rough for King.
* Titans +3... Am I underestimating the Bills? Well, at least I got the Titans at +3.5, and I'm sure that is a good bet.
** Rams -6... The Rams are still underestimated and they are returning nearly unchanged on offense. The Broncos' offense has a lot of potential this year, but should be shaky in the first game. This violates my "take the dogs" rule; if this is the only favorite that wins I'll look like a super-genius.
I did my lines before seeing the book lines, with the exception of the Saints-Lions game, which I originally put at PICK/42 before I learned Batch was out. The "opening" lines are actually just older lines, since I didn't have the opening lines handy.
-Abdul
I disagree with some of yours, but here's my thoughts. Won't go into much detail because I am following up on most of my opinions in the thread down the page.
I like AZ +4. Should be focused off last year's poor showing. Giants have little talent.
I guess I favor the Steelers, but not much opinion. Baltimore should have a little regression. Pitt should be up.
I have to take Panthers +10, but as Wild Bill said, I would be wary of Washington in game 1. Emotion should be high. Bet against them from then on.
No real feeling on Chi/Min. I would favor Chi, but teams with new QB's usually try hard in first game. Doesn't mean it'll work.
No real feeling on Det/NO
I liked KC initially, but be very wary. One of my best systems that I use to bet on is the dead player system. If a team has time to prepare (very important) a dead teammate serves as mucho motivation. These teams win at an insane clip ATS. Be careful.
I like the Jags -11. DD Road faves are trouble. But I see Jags trying to prove something early. Browns are just weak. Looks like the kind of trap where the public will take Browns.
I kind of like the 49ers +7. I will wait til it goes to 7 1/2, but it looks tempting. people expect big things from Falcs and nothing from 9ers. Two teams that were equally bad doesn't justify a big spread. Plus, new players on SF may suck but they will try hard in game 1.
I kind of lean towards Tampa in game 1. It's not a line I love, but I can't take Pats here.
Well, I love the Eagles in Game 1. Dallas is going to be bad. Young upstarts vs. bored veterans. I see 50/50 chance of an outright.
No real opinion on NYJ/GB
No real opinion on that thrilling OAK/SD game.
I don't have an opinion on SEA/MIA, but my intuition gives me good feelings for both sides. MIA should try hard, but SEA has playoff revenge and more talent.
I lean towards BUF, but revenge here is reflected in the line and I think it's a little jacked cause everyone will be on the Bills.
I love STL -6. Less than a touch for dominating SB champs against inexp. QB on the road. Send it in.
Anyway, these picks are based upon my very, as of yet, unrefined power ratings and unthorough emotional analysis. Better picks to come, but for now I would go with...
AZ +4 JAX -11 SF +7 PHI +6 1/2 STL -7.
I suspect better numbers coming on PHI and SF, so I would hold off.
Well I am not about to pick fights because I certainly think there are better investments than Week one of any season will ever offer.
That line you have on the Browns just seems like pure insanity. A team that won 14 games against a team that won 2 and you think they are only 4 points better on power rating? Come on even you have to admit thats a bit off. If the Jags were really raided that would be something, but thats not the case. I don't know if I would bet it at -11, but I know I would load up if offered minus 4 so would about 90% of Vegas. Hell Browns fans would bet the Jags at that price.
Other thoughts: well the Lane murder is not bound to stir up that much from the Colts, after all never really has been their player outside of mini camp. If anything its probably the Panthers game to respond. Also the Chiefs will be certainly saluting Derrick Thomas so the emotion in that game really all resides with the Chiefs. The Rams don't match up all that well with the Broncos. I think a physical team can give them trouble and no one is more physical than a healthy Denver team. Also remember last year even with a multitude of injuries the Broncos played some very tough road games and stayed close or won many of them. They don't figure to get blow out too often with the conservative game plan and one of the better defenses in the league, so laying over 3 against them is risky. The Bucs may struggle on the road a bit last year, but I think they will be confident and play strong on the road this year. Usually teams as they improve, winning on the road is the last step. Look at all the good teams of the last few years, teams like Denver, Green Bay, Dallas...all of them when they were up and coming had trouble winning away from home but had great home field edges. This might be the case this year with TB and Indy. The rest of the games dont' grab my attention. Maybe play a total or two, but won't be getting too involved.
The Jaguars are not only 4 points better in power rating in my scheme. I gave the Browns an extra amount equal to the average home field advantage of the Browns (3) and the Jaguars (5), i.e., 4 points. So, the Jaguars are an 8 point better team. In Jacksonville, my line would be Jaguars -12, whereas the book line would be Jaguars -19.5.
Yes, I was going to mention that about the deaths for the Chiefs/Colts/Panthers.
Your statement that the Rams have trouble against physical teams is interesting. I think you have to discount the Buccs game, because the Rams' lack of scoring was largely a coaching decision, I think (and a bad one.) And you have to discount the Eagles game, because the Rams didn't care at that point, whereas the Eagles did ("hey, we suck, but at least we beat the Superbowl champ!") The Lions and the Titans were the only other teams that gave the Rams trouble, so maybe. The Rams were hardly slowed by the formidable Ravens defense in week 1.
-Abdul
Call me goofy,
But how would I use these lines? If Abdul was actually using a time machine, should I bet on the Redskins? And is that 50 the over/under line? Are the Lions the right team to bet on as well?
thanks
I only started watching football and getting into sports betting two years ago, so I can understand your confusion.
The current line at the Imperial Palace sports book for the Redskins is -10. I put the line at -7. If my lines are based on the perfect knowledge gained via a time machine, then that means the Redskins will win by exactly 7 points. In this case, if you take Redskins -10, you will lose the bet (by 3 points), because the Redskins would have to win by more than 10 points to win your Redskins -10 bet. This kind of bet is called a "pointspread." The opposite side of the bet is Panthers +10. If you take Panthers +10, you will win (by 3 points) even though the Panthers will lose the game.
If you actually go to place this bet, note that Imperial Palace will make you lay $11 to win $10. This is where the formidable house edge comes in. Ties are pushes (money back.)
For the Lions, IP put the line at -1.5, but I put it at +2 (i.e., Saints -2.) If I'm right, then you should take IP's offer of Saints +1.5.
50 for the Panthers/Redskins game is my best guess at the over/under on the total number of points scored by both teams. The book over/under lines aren't out yet, but for example if a book were to put a line of 46 on that game, I would suggest going over.
The pointspreads are always listed for the favorite(though some sports books omit the minus signs), and the over/unders are always much larger in magnitude and have no sign in front of them.
-Abdul
"Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person engaged in a gambling business to knowingly use the Internet or any other interactive computer service (service) to ... send, receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager."
If I'm reading that correctly, after the bill passes, it would be unlawful (a federal crime? years in prison?) for me to explain here how to do legal sports betting. I guess most of the poker posts will be unlawful as well, at least those posted by professional gamblers that give directions to cardrooms or otherwise assist others in playing poker.
Helping others gamble is a doubleungood thoughtcrime.
-Abdul
I believe you mean doublePLUSungood thoughtcrime. See you at the Two Minutes Hate!
Don't believe the hype Abdul. The government would go wild trying to stop any of it. Thats why some legal experts are laughing at this whole attempt. Especially the part REQUIRING all internet providers to cut off access to you if you engage in such activities. Can you imagine that one working? Just think, first AOL would cut you off, are they then required to go file your name on the undesirables list for any ISP? Further what if you say ok, I won't go gambling anymore...are they still supposed to cut you off. In any case this whole concept is according to four attorneys that wrote on it a blantant disregard for first amendment rights and will get struck down real fast by the courts. In any case, there are an army of constitutional lawyers standing by to get an injunction on this law if it ever does get signed. They were hired by a consortium of offshore casinos and of all places, a secret unknown company that is an operator of Nevada casinos, but for obvious reasons does not want to have their name divulged. In other words despite all the wishes of these foolishly named "family councils" this law is going nowhere but into immediate legal trouble. Besides the whole Kyl bill is just poorly worded according to another expert. Until recent changes, it had things in there to protect the horse racing industry which I am sure you have heard got stripped out. Well in that part of the language, it basically had wording that said to the effect that any gambling form that is done in a place it is legal is allowed and any transactions are considered to occur in that state. If you take that into consideration, then it means that Nevada casinos could have sports betting with anyone in the country as long as its "closed-loop" as the wording put it. This was purely for the horse racing interests which use a closed-loop system, but nothing would stop Nevada companies from opening up bet shops and using a closed-loop system as well, at least according to a legal expert.
The whole thing is a mess and its not even likely that Clinton will sign it. He might sign it if it has no exemptions but fat chance of that because the Senate version already passed with many exemptions and many enemies will be found if it goes with no exemptions. All those horse racing states will suddenly oppose it, especially the powerful states such as California and New York. An extreme interpretation would make simulcasting from other states illegal if they used the internet to transport any information that is used for betting...such as the current odds. Imagine the lack of interest if you can only bet on races in your own state or if you could no longer bet the Derby except in Kentucky. That truly would be the end of racing on all but the smallest scales. I could go on and on, but from a practical standpoint this bill is just a stupid attempt to grandstand and protect the local gambling interests such as the lottery or land casinos. It won't stand up in court and with justice dept saying they won't even bother prosecuting, what good will it do?
All those claiming the offshore industry will die by the end of the year are just kidding themselves, the industry and its patrons will just ignore the laws much as they do now and find a way around any roadblocks thrown against them.
Wildbill has acknoeledged that offshore gaming enterprises have no respect for the law. In other words, they are crooks. Wildbill, thats the first absolutely truthful thing you have said in these posts
Oh? Last time I checked, the Mexican government doesn't honor US regulations w.r.t. factory pollution. Are they crooks too? Also, I have decided not to respect the Taliban's prohibitions on immodest dress. Does that make me a crook? People in foreign countries may well be crooks, but not because they fail to honor the laws of all municipailities everywhere.
JG
To you people that don't read the internet poker board this guy (good analysis) is an absolute idiot that has nothing to say but always finds a way to put in some virulent hateful message to me or anyone else that supports online gambling. Further showing his pure cowardice he can't even come up with a name and stick to it. Takes shots at others yet doesn't want any heat on himself. Sound like a winner to you?
I have a suspicion that wild bill's name is Gary Carson. Wildbill is the only individual I enjoy tweaking. That's why I posted on this board. I simply ask for offshore internet gaming to be regulated.
"WildBill" believes that the US Government is the great Satan, and that Chicago La Cosa Nostra run Vegas better than any legitimate enterprise. These are his expressed views. I enjoy making him squirm.
Sorry no one has called me Gary. Nice try. And don't exert yourself too much, I couldn't care less if you try to get under my skin, your responses are getting more comical every day. Especially the series of 5 or 6 you did in a row last week. I was laughing my ass off. Even better is that I told my friends in Costa Rica and they are reading you now. They thought what are you smoking? They are all more than willing to take any kind of regulation you want as long as its not outrageously taxed to the point they cant show a profit, much like what the wonderful government of Louisiana did to the New Orleans casino. They all miss home and would love to be back, but until the government stops threatening them with jail even when they are in a foreign land, they have no choice. You seem so sure they enjoy their status as pariahs or something but you fail to realize how bad Vegas has crippled its sports betting industry. They went offshore because it was either that or give up their livelihood. Guys with 20 good years of experience at something don't usually just give it up and start a new career you know...
And please for once and for all, give it up on the right wing crap. I don't believe in government conspiracies, I just think our senators and congress people are sell outs, thats all. They don't do whats best for the people any more, they do what they get paid for. I think most people on this board would wholeheartedly agree with that. I don't think any of us appreciate Congress banning an activity we all enjoy on a recreational basis. We all would very gladly welcome regulation but thats something that Congress doesn't even consider. That would just create competition for the people putting money in their war chests. And their ignorance is amazing. Patrick Kennedy said, "I think everyone is in agreement that lotteries are the best form of gambling in that they bring money in for the states and education." Now if that isn't a poster child of gambling ignorance I don't know what is. Guess he never came out to Nevada to see a state with no real other draw to it has been booming for 15 years and is the fastest growing year after year. Yeah gambling has done nothing for us, thats for sure.
Why should I give a rats ass if internet sites are organized cheats(which I believe is overwhelmingly evident.) As long as I never play them again, and the public knows the risks, then so be it.
Mexico historically has been one of the most corrupt society's on earth. The recent elections may show that progress has taken place. Time will tell. Currently, the Mexican syndicates are the most powerful in the southwest. They make the Italians look washed up, and impotent.
I don't see how anyone can pick NFL games 6 weeks in advance. Assuming nothing changes in terms of trades/deaths/injuries, I agree with your pick on New England. I do believe TB's offense will take about 10 games to gel. However, I would take Buffalo and Denver. Buffalo should have beat the Titans last year in the playoffs. The Titans were VERY lucky to get to the Super Bowl last year. I don't believe it will happen again. They are an above average team, but a healthy Denver would have beat them also.
Speaking of Denver, this is a team with something to prove! Brian Griese will improve and TD is back. TD is the key to the offense, as well as Gary did last year, TD is 10 times better. 7 pts is too much to lay, remember the Rams had almost everything go right last year. It will not happen again. In fact, the Skins and Tampa Bay will be better come playoff time than STL.
I heard Pat was barred from the Orleans this year. Why?
Bruce
Well, he wasn't barred from playing blackjack nor from betting sports nor from playing video poker, so this must be the wrong forum. Try "Other Topics" or "Tournaments."
-Abdul
Very funny!
Come on Abdul be nice to the new posters, we surely don't get enough of them here. To keep it short and simple, Pat Fleming got barred for stealing chips from a tournament ostensibly to use them in future play. It was proven with eye in the sky videotape. Word has it that he has been barred from quite a few tournament venues and the fact that I haven't seen him in any winners lists would seem to bear it out. If you want more, there was a lot written in Card Player last year when it happened, but I can't remember exactly when that was.
Thanks,
My intentions were not to be nosey and spread gossip via the web. However as a tournament participant myself and having played with/against Pat multiple times I think I do have a right to know what was going on to hopefully prevent this from happening in the future.
Bruce
Prevent what from happening in the future? Sounds like he got what he deserved...
Here are some of my thoughts on football. Feel free to contradict...
A passing game supports a running game. By spreading out the defenders, the running back has more room to run. Example: in the early part of the 1999 season, the Lions' running backs posted great numbers and people said, "Who needs Barry Sanders?", but when quarterback Charlie Batch was injured, the running backs were totally ineffective and lost their jobs after the end of the season. Also in the first Eagles-Cowboys game of 1999, Gailey did nothing but run Emmitt, one of the best running backs ever, and he got absolutely nowhere.
A running game supports a passing game. The threat of a strong running back forces the defender to blitz less often and less aggressively, and more generally to avoid over-pursuing the quarterback. Example: the 1999 Dallas Cowboys under Chan Gailey ran the ball excessively, so when they did open up with some passing it was usually tremendously effective.
Take it from the Lions' coach: "The pass supports the run, and the run supports the pass." - coach Foster of the Lewisville High School Lions, South Carolina.
The foundation of the offense is an effective offensive line. Whether the defense can overwhelm a team's offensive line is a key handicapping consideration. A team should build up its offensive line before getting a good quarterback, receivers, and running back. Example: Tim Couch is a fine quarterback, but spent most of his 1999 season on his back.
An offensive line is more than the sum of its parts. To assess an offensive line, you have to watch the games and observe how much it gets pushed back and punctured. Example: The 1999 Browns had a lot of fairly good veterans on their offensive line, but they just didn't play together and might as well have been high school players.
The center is almost the most important man on the field. You don't notice him when things are going right, but when he messes up, the whole team falls apart. Example: the Cowboys' Stepnowski had a bad last part of the 1999 season, probably due to playing slightly injured, and muffed some snaps that caused turnovers like in the Cowboys-Vikings game and likely cost games.
The referees are the most important men on the field. They have the ability to throw almost any game, and they don't get paid well by the league. Some crews are more penalty-crazy than others, and some crews keep making insane calls, so perhaps we should be handicapping the crews.
Even an adequate quarterback can look all world given a top notch receiver core, good running back, and sufficient protection from the offensive line. Example: Randall Cunningham and Jeff George both looked great, at times, with the help of Randy Moss and the rest of the incredible Vikings offense.
Rookie quarterbacks and running backs suck. With very few exceptions, rookie quarterbacks and running backs have a very rough first season. Example: Well, a counterexample: Marino was one of the few who had a good first year.
A team that can run up a big score has an obvious advantage against one that cannot. Historically, teams with strong passing games have done well against the spread versus conservative rushing teams. Example: Coach Chan Gailey turned the Cowboys into a conservative rushing team, and in 1998-1999 they lost several games to conservative rushing dogs like the Eagles that the Cowboys could have easily outscored if given the chance.
Stars are overrated. Relative unknowns can step up and perform well when called upon, and stars can become complacent. Frequently stars are as much a product of their environment, i.e., their teammates, as themselves. Example: Stephen Davis was formerly not considered a top notch running back, but he had a great season in 1999; it may have been as much because of the strong passing game and blocking of the Redskins' offense as it was his own talent, but he come through when called upon. And on the other side, Deion Sanders and Joey Galloway did not justify their multimillion dollar salaries during the 1999 season.
-Abdul
I agree with most of these Abdul, but a glaring mistake I feel regards rookie running backs. I think without a doubt that position is the easiest to succeed in as a rookie. QBs are in way over their heads as are most positions since the NFL game is much different than the college game. However at RB and at rushing LB or DL, the skills are less important as just the raw physical talents. You don't get any quicker or faster once you make the NFL, but you get smarter. Just look at last year who the two most dominant rookies were, Kearse and James and throw in Olandis Gary who had over 1,000 yards in essentially 11 games. In the recent past TD was a top player his first season, James last year, Fred Taylor was solid rookie season, you mentioned Emmitt he was a top player from year one, Barry Sanders was devastating his rookie season, and if you look at the greats of the league guys like Dickerson, Allen, Campbell, even going back to Jim Brown...that position is filled with fast starters, yet they burn out by year 7 or 8 from the pounding and more likely the slow deterioration of their speed and quickness that made them so good. Yes these players got better as years went on and didn't peak year one, but still in most cases they were almost up to speed during their rookie years and got better more than likely because the teams gave them the ball more and more. No other position has a history of such fast starters, its not even close.
I am just curious Abdul, how do you utilize these anyways? Seems like you are buried in numbers from what you post.
I'm glad you corrected me about the running backs. My wife had misled me on that.
The way I use these concepts is as additional evidence for (or against) a bet.
To start with, my power ratings put the base line at around Jaguars -4 for the Jaguars at Browns game. Given the book line of Jaguars -11.5, then I'm considering betting Browns +11.5.
Then I'd like to have independent "confirmation" from a statistical angle. I mentioned before the angle of 7+ point divisional home dogs, so that would apply to this game (though with a caution that the Browns are new and may not enjoy the advantage of most divisional home dogs.)
The concepts I mentioned are just further pieces of evidence. One concept I would consider is the conservatism of the Jaguars, making any big dog opponent of theirs an appealing bet, especially an opponent with a long bombing capability, which the Browns have if the offensive line can keep Couch on his feet for at least one down.
Combining all the pieces of evidence together I may be able to find a strong bet, whereas any one piece may have been too weak to use on its own.
-Abdul
Excellent and interesting post. I agree with Bill about rookie running backs. The only other thing I disagree with strongly is the part about the center being the most important man on the field (I pick the QB).
A couple areas I think you might explore further are:
1) You did discuss defense in terms of the pass rush. I would go further by developing more concepts about defense. For instance it could be argued that cornerbacks are the most important players on defense. Of course others would argue a good defensive line is more important. What about if a team has both? I think it is important to develop concepts about a defense's ability to stop the run as well.
2) You alluded to it in several places but coaching can make a big difference and I would think that some good concepts could be developed regarding coaches.
3) Special teams. Most teams have at least an adequate place kicker and punter. Most seems cover kicks fairly well although some are outstanding in this area. I believe that there are few guys in the league that are great at returning kicks (punts and kickoffs) but sometimes they affect games a great deal. When I take the time to handicap I always try to look at how the special teams play and make some sort of point assessment based on it.
One of the things I look at is how specific parts of the teams match up.
A strong passing game versus ineffective cornerbacks is obviously a plus for the strong passing team. A very weak passing game (QB can't hit the receivers on an empty field, receivers can't catch the ball when he does) versus ineffective cornerbacks is less obviously a plus for the ineffective cornerback team.
The Eagles' defensive line has shown it can squash top notch running backs like Emmitt Smith if there is no air threat and/or the opponent is predictable.
If a team relies on one top notch receiver as the QB's go-to guy (like the Buccs' Keyshawn Johnson) and its opponent has an ubercornerback (like the Cowboys' Deion Sanders), then that's a plus for the ubercornerback team. Size differential is a consideration, in addition to speed and talent.
If a team can blitz its opponents' quarterback at will, this is usually enough to win the game (and beat the spread) right there. I find this very hard to predict, which is frustrating. A team might be able to sack the quarterback 6 games in their first meeting but not so much as hurry him in their second rematch, or vice versa.
-Abdul
These edges are hard to capitalize on in the NFL as not only are they well known to us, they are well known to the coaches as well. If a team knows one player is in trouble they can give him help on every down and overcome much of that trouble. NFL is too much punching and then counterpunching to create huge individual edges. In college though the backup plans are almost always never as effective as sticking with your best players so if you find an edge there its likely to be there for your team all game long. NFL has too many talented athletes all over the field to allow single deficiencies to cost them a game against the spread. If you want some really good edges in picking these out in the colleges, listen to the Stardust Line show done every Sunday night in season. Arne Lang is one of the absolute best at spotting mismatches of this nature, even for schools such as Kent St. Few people could rattle off backup QBs at Kansas but he does. The show is worth untold amounts of profit and most of my betting on Saturday starts with what I hear on that show. It plays on the internet and on KDWN here in Vegas so everyone has no excuse to miss it as its archived for later playing if you need it.
"A passing game supports a running game"
No statistical study that I know of supports this.
"A running game supports a passing game"
No statistical study that I know of supports this.
"The foundation of the offense is an effective offensive line"
I like to say that a good offensive line is necessary but not sufficient to win a Super Bowl.
"An offensive line is more than the sum of its parts"
Absolutely. Just one weak link in an OL can destroy not just a play, but other offensive lineman.
I remember when Bubba Paris was let go from the 49'ers a few years ago. At one point he was with Colts. In consecutive weeks he sent a pair of offensive linemen to the DL(one for the rest of the season) because he moved in the opposite direction from the one called in the huddle.
"The center is almost the most important man on the field"
Once again, a good center is necessary but not sufficient.
"Even an adequate quarterback can look all world given a top notch receiver core, good running back, and sufficient protection from the offensive line"
Remember when the NFL first started fooling with the passing rules in the late 70's? The rules changes affected the kind of contact both receivers & offensive linemen were subject to. The real beneficiaries were QB's who had real problems under the old paradigm, like Lynn Dickey and Kenny Anderson. Once physical obstacles were removed, their mental abilities & experience allowed them to dominate.
"Rookie quarterbacks and running backs suck"
As everyone else has, I take exception with the reference to rookie RB's.
"A team that can run up a big score has an obvious advantage against one that cannot. Historically, teams with strong passing games have done well against the spread versus conservative rushing teams"
Based on my own research, I have generally found that conservative rushing teams tend to do well ATS-wise. But then you mentioned a *matchup*.
By some passing metrics I have found that strong passing teams do quite *poorly* ATS-wise. On others I can find the reverse. It depends on the lens you choose, I believe. But even when matched against a conservative rushing team I don't see too much ATS success for the strong passing offense. I must say I'd be interested in knowing which metrics you are using.
Since I don't have access to old passing/rushing statistics, I categorized the old teams by hand, based on what my wife said (since I didn't watch football years ago.) For example, the Patriots were classifed as a bombing team, whereas the Buccs were classified as a defensive rushing team. The time period was roughly 1991-1998.
Bombing teams have strong pass offenses with deep pass threats but are not balanced with equally impressive defenses: from 1999, the Panthers are a good example. Defensive rushing teams don't have much of a passing game and rely on their tough defenses to keep the scoring down to the point that their running game will suffice to win: from 1999, the Eagles are a good example.
It also may matter whether the teams are at home or away. The bombing teams may have more of a boost away, perhaps because they are able to remove the defensive rushing team's crowd from the game.
However, balanced teams don't enjoy this boost against defensive rushing teams. A balanced team's fine cornerbacks just twiddle their thumbs in such a game, so that might be why their effective strength is lower against a defensive rushing team than against most other types. Also, the bombing team's weak cornerbacks get to twiddle their thumbs in such a game, much to the relief of the bombing team's coach.
-Abdul
No CB is ever twidling their thumbs in the NFL. Every team passes the ball a decent amount and CBs are covering on every play. The two S are working less on the passing game in that case if a team has no deep passing threat or if a team has no receivers deemed to need constant double coverage. These S are still busy though because this is a running team as you note and they become like extra LB in that situation. Never can you say though anyone is totally underutilized. In some respects you can say some players are totally underutilized for another reason. When he is healthy almost no one throws to Deion's man. Same goes for Woodson's guy. These two guys almost never see the ball coming their way, so their talents of being able to cause an incomplete or pick off are not fully utilized. However it is the very nature of their hard work and tight coverage that makes them "non-factors". In other words football is truly a 11 man effort on each play and if anyone doesn't do a job and get it done a team will not succeed.
Surely you get my point. A top notch cornerback is much less assistance against the Eagles compared to the Rams. Although the cornerback will always be covering a man (or a zone) and not literally twiddling his thumbs, the Eagles are going to throw the ball less than the Rams, especially deep.
In the first game of '99, the Eagles rushed 27 times and passed 26 times (51% rushing), whereas the Rams rushed 26 times and passed 44 times (37% rushing.) The average yards per pass of the Eagles was 2.6, compared to 6.2 for the Rams. Most of the Eagles' passes were short passes to the sides, like to the tight end, so the cornerbacks weren't even of much use for those passes. Some of the Rams' passes were very deep, where you get burned if you don't have cornerbacks who can keep up with the speedy Rams receivers.
-Abdul
Well there you go Abdul. Over the years there is no better indicator of team's ability than Yards Per Pass. None is even close. A team with few pass attempts but a good stat in this category are equally as dangerous because they are effective when they do throw and they force the opponent to respect the pass. This was the real key to the Titans last year because when they had a good YPP number for the game they did very well. When they faced a team that had a good defensive YPP they did struggle. I think a majority of the time you can make a solid assesment of the games by just comparing this stat and taking it one step further by categorizing how each team did versus teams that were either strong, medium, or poor with this statistic. It won't make you crazy rich, thats for sure, but its probably the most reliable "simple" way I know of to handicap games. Of course other motivation factors play a huge role too, but for the lazy man this is in my opinion the best way to get it done in the NFL.
I assume you are talking about the NFL.
I disagree that rookie RB's suck. RB is probably the easiest position to play on offense, so rookies have a decent chance to contribute. I agree totally with your assessment of QB's.
The other things you say are accurate too. However, I still believe QB is the most important position. Center is the most difficult position in the offense with Left Tackle being second.
In terms of betting, the real trick is to bet against the public bias as often as you can.
I am a novice, recreational type sports bettor. I was wondering if anyone of the more serious players on this board have any thoughts in regard to DBC value lines. I find them posted free in the USA today website baseball section. The way I have been using them is of course to find games I like that also according to these lines represent an overlay. I guess my question is are these numbers decent, am I really getting any the best of it? My records are too short term to be meaningful. I am guessing the answer to this is that since everybody and their brother have these numbers they probably aren't worth much. The serious player/pro would I assume make their own better number and then work from that? thanks for any comments Oscar
For those who are wondering what the hell he is talking about, click on http://www.usatoday.com/sports/dbc/matchups/alindex.htm and then click on a game and scroll to the very bottom where you'll see "VALUE INDEX".
I don't know what it is or where it comes from. I wouldn't place any faith in it until I saw that it worked over a statistically significant number of trials. If it were valuable, you can be pretty sure that they would not post it and would instead just use it themselves and get rich that way. Same thing could be said for my lines, though I normally don't post my lines until I've got my action down and the parlay cards are printed, just in case I do know what I'm talking about.
-Abdul
No calculation of this type will ever make any kind of investment return above the smallest edges. Its their proprietary formula that is used. I have bought their Scorecast software during the last few NBA seasons just to save me the hassle of keeping stats. I have tried out many formulas using their software and none are really all that good. Baseball might be the closest of all sport though in terms of accuracy since there aren't the scheduling factors of the NBA nor the matchup factors of football. Furthermore I have noticed almost every index ends up with a very nelgible difference from the line, a difference that probably won't even overcome the vig.
See www.predictit.com for a free sports pick tally service. I'll be using it under "Abdul_Jalib" for NFL this season, and if some of you sign up maybe we'll have an informal competition. If there is sufficient interest, I'll try to write a script to download the results for each of us and post summary reports.
-Abdul
Mr. Jalib,
I will gladly take part in your idea for an informal competition. My predictit name is "oscar mc". It will probably be helpful to the serious/pro players like yourself to have an idea what the slow wittted, window salesman from Youngstown types, are betting. I look forward to making a fool of myself or maybe not. Oscar
Sure why not...I started doing it awhile back in NHL season and was going to mention we should all do this instead of give picks of any kind on this board since almost all picks were given without reasoning anyways. Then I caught myself at my worst time of the year I was 4-11 and didn't think anyone would be too hot to check out my picks so I forgot about it. Funniest damn thing though was someone did look because I got a check for $.01!!! I couldn't believe these people really mailed me a check for a penny. Its still sitting on my desk as a testament to waste...
Since Abdul did not mention it, this site pays you one cent for every unique viewer that looks at your picks each day. So if we all check out everyone's picks we should all make a couple of bucks too. The idea is that there is a top 10 or 50 list or whatever that comes up when open it. Therefore if you get to that list then you might have hundreds of viewers, at least that is the theory. Otherwise you can enter in names like Abdul or mine which I believe was WildBill and search for them.
Hey all--
Count me in too. mdmaniac is the code name.
Sounds good to me.
"Pheno" is my code name
paul
What is this you people are discussing. I love sportsbetting, and I love NFL. Let me know. I am always looking for good resources for pick assistance.
What are the key concepts in betting preseason NFL?
And does anybody have a database of preseason games handy?
-Abdul
Abdul--
I am guessing that Wild Bill knows a lot more about preseason handicapping than I do, but I do know that a lot of people are pretty successful. I don't think a database would be that helpful because stats are pretty meaningless. There are some helpful trends, but I think most are known by the public. For example, Parcells was a good preseason coach and Marv Levy wasn't. Their lines were jacked and I don't know how much value there is.
Basically, I would look for teams and coaches that are looking to try hard. I imagine that first year coaches probably try harder. If there are positional battles, where certain guys are going to try, I would look for that too. Later in the preseason, I would look for teams that are struggling to try harder. I think there's a good system about teams that are 0-2 tending to perform well the next game.
I think that information, whatever that means to you, would be valuable. QB rotations are generally released, but you want some idea of how much the starters are going to play and (more importantly) how hard they are going to try. This is much of how I handicap regular season, but there aren't as many clear definable systems for the regular season. If you can get that info, and most importantly, it isn't reflected in the line, I would bang it.
The preseason is tough if you approach it like it's easy, which is what many people profess it to be. If you do your homework, and I mean get good info and analyze, I would think it is profitable. I know a lot of successful handicappers do well. I'm sure others will have thoughts.
Later,
MDMAniac
Abdul, my best advice is to pass on it. To be quite honest, the only way I have attacked preseason before is to buy the picks on the games from Northcoast and Phil Steele. I used to get all the games for free for subscribing but now its only two weeks. No one I know of has done better except maybe for some very high level syndicates. In truth past stats are just about worthless as was stated. Preseason is nothing more than information, information, and even more information. Rotations are crucials for obvious reasons. So is understanding the mood of each team and even each teams cities. Its highly unlikely you can get the contacts and the information to beat this on your own. I was told this before embarking on what would have been my first real preseason betting. My friend told me to be very very careful in betting them because its a case where nothing that makes sense happens. I am sure there are little systems or concepts that might work in a very modest way. However in the end, you are fighting for a small scrap of edge as much of the time your concept is really overshadowed by the reality of a last minute bit of information much more accurately pointing at a winner. To top it all off, nothing will frustrate you more. If you do bet them I warn you to absolutely not watch any games you bet. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Nothing will piss you off more than this. Say you have a team with the ball down by 1 point that you gave 1 point on...in other words a FG will make you a winner. Then this team gets the ball on its 20 with 2:20 left in the game. Seems like here comes the 2 minute drill. WRONG! They don't have a 2 minute drill for the players that have no chance of making the team and the ball gets handed off and the QB throws 3 yard dink passes. They get two first downs and get to the 45 of the opponent with 13 seconds left. The QB goes back to pass and throws a 8 yard pass over the middle to the TE. He is tackled, no time out is called and the game ends. Yes you just got screwed by preseason football and will be pissed off like nothing other. Thats my biggest lesson, don't watch the games unless you have no money on it. Just go to check the scores after all the games are over and you will save your sanity.
I know a guy who does quite well with pre-season NFL.
He occasionally bets other sports; ie, when he sees a terrible number on the board, like today's 4th round matchup between Tiger Woods and David Duval (Woods -140?? He KILLS people he's paired with when he has the lead going into the final round. Undefeated this year.)
But this guy does very well with pre-season football, usually finding 3-5 plays per week.
How does he do it? (I can't believe that I'm about to release this information for free.)
He spend a lot of time on the internet. Reading newspapers.
He's bookmarked the sports pages from newspapers in every big city in the country (and a few in Canada, for hockey season). He spends his whole life either watching sports, or studying sports on the web. He's not doing it for the money; he's a sports nut, and he does it for FUN!!!!!
It will probably come as a shock to you that NFL head coaches routinely say the following things to beat writers:
"The starters will only play the first three possessions."
"We REALLY need a win going into the regular season."
"Tonight I'm sitting the starting QB. We're only gonna carry 2 QBs this season, so QB 'A' will play the first half, and QB 'B' will play the second."
"Today's game will be a dress rehearsal for Opening Day. It will look just like a regular season game." (This one means all starters, all the time.)
You get the idea.
There is actually a famous pre-season betting story. Marv Levy hated the pre-season. He thought it was too long, and that the only thing that could happen was an injury to a star player. His Bills would routinely go 0-for-the-pre-season.
One year, their last pre-season game was against Mike Ditka's Bears, a ferocious team. Levy wasn't going to let his star players NEAR the field.
Ditka, on the other hand, felt a win going into the season was crucial. He announced that his starters would play at least 3 quarters, and if the outcome was still in doubt, they'd stay in there until victory was assured.
The game went off at about pick'em.
Any questions?
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Well thats about what I said. Yes you do find those and those are also the lines you have to move about 3 points too Bobby. I know for books pre-season games are nightmares because at the last minute or sometimes early as this proves, some information comes out that absolutely tilts the game to one side. Motivation is key and finding this type of information does help. I don't doubt the guy wins, if I had the time to do it I would too and make some money.
Hi All.
I was wondering, what game is the "safest" game to choose to make a living from: Poker or BlackJack?? I both games you can't depend on winning every night. Even if you do everything right, you can't expect to win, either in poker or BJ. But if you should choose between Poker or BJ as a living what whould you choose??
Best, Daniel
I suspect poker would be better, as the swings are much less, you dont' have to worry about heat from the pit, and you can play for a long time.
I should say I have played only a little blackjack in casinos and play poker about every week. I coudln't handle the swings in blackjack, though in some sense it is easier than most poker games (or so i believe).
Do you know how to play both? how have you done if so?
The answer may also depend on where you talents lie but i tend to think poker to be more profitable w/ smaller swings.
Nowadays, almost certainly poker.
The bankroll required for blackjack is 3 or 4 times higher than poker for the same hourly win rate. The games are also getting tougher, and the casinos are getting better at catching and ejecting card counters.
Also, if you are playing high limits (and if it's you're living, you'll be playing high limits), then expect to spend a lot of time travelling and scouting games. You absolutely cannot live in one place and make a career of playing blackjack. All the big-money pros I know travel the world looking for games.
And because you have to travel a lot, your expenses are higher, and the number of hours you can actually play in a month is pretty low. Thus, to make the same annual income at blackjack as poker you'll probably need to earn twice the hourly rate, which means you'll need a gigantic bankroll.
Finally, there's a personality issue - a lot of blackjack players are 'outsiders' who enjoy the skulduggery of trying to outwit the casinos. They have assumed names, fake ID's, etc. You will be spending your career in a hostile environment. If that's your cup of tea, great. If not, poker is your game.
Blackjack is easier to learn at a professional level. I can teach someone to play winning blackjack in a weekend. Poker is a thinking game, and requires a lifetime of study. But the rewards are typically greater.
Hope this helps.
Excellent response. You can get the best of both worlds by playing poker mainly, but also being skilled at blackjack so that you can get free rooms/food in Vegas, have a change of pace, and also take advantage of blackjack promotions. I play blackjack, poker, and video poker, and I bet sports (though I'm not sure I have an overall edge on sports.)
-Abdul
Sounds like we're on the same plan. I still play blackjack. It's a nice change of pace, and it gives you a way to continue making income if you're on a waiting list for a game or there doesn't happen to be a game that day.
And, occasionally you'll find a great blackjack game with a big player advantage. Here in Edmonton, the casinos introduced Early Surrender to our 4-deck games, and were only cutting half a deck or even less. I diverted quite a bit of my poker play to blackjack, until a counter with more money than brains came along and burned out all the games by making a big hairy thing of himself. The games deteriorated, and I went back to poker.
If you're a professional gambler, you should be able to diversify. It's all about grabbing the small edges wherever you find them.
See Gambling for a Living and Gambling Theory and Other Topics for discussions of this topic. BTW, you should have these books if you are considering either avenue, let alone choosing one.
Gambling is a great business, because for relatively no investment, you can try it out and see if you really like it, love it, just tolerate it, or hate it, with no real commitment. Before building a huge gambling library, get a good blackjack book and teach yourself to play the hands and count cards. Find it enjoyable? Try it out in a casino at very low stakes games after scouting out a decent one. See if you enjoy it first.
Poker is the same - get a couple good books, get a home game with your friends, or try very low stakes casino games, either on-line or at a local card room. It will take you much longer to get good, but you can get ok for very low stakes games very, very quickly.
The reason I assume you are new to this is that you would have strong feelings about both games if you weren't, and would likely have read about this topic in the above-mentioned books, or other places. Good luck.
In the 1999 edition of my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics one of the chapters with the title of "Young Jack Black" is actually a pretty thorough comparison of poker and blackjack. This should answer many of your questions.
I personally think BJ is no way to make a living. I think Peter Griffin (maybe it was Snyder, cant remember for certain) wrote that he never understood how the poker pros were always driving around in expensive cars and all the big money BJ players he knew drove older Japanese compacts. He asserted that many of the best players were making $40,000/year tops. Thats about as compelling as you can get.
The overwhelming limiting factor here is player longevity. Simple math can show you that if you start at a bankroll of $500, and bet proportionally to your edge, you will be a millionaire very soon.
The reason there are so few people making big money playing blackjack is simply because they get barred. If an average card counter walks into a casino and tries to spread $500-$5000, he'll be shown the door the first time he hits a positive EV shoe and stacks his bets up. So, the real skill comes in being able to hide the fact that you are counting. This requires making certain camouflage plays that cut into your EV, hitting and running, travelling, etc. This increases your bankroll requirements and expenses, and still doesn't guarantee that you'll survive as an advantage blackjack player. Even the best get barred on occasion.
A typical evening for a high-limit blackjack player might be something like this: Hit casino A, and scout the games. Tables too crowded, too much being cut off tonight. Spend half an hour there, and wander out to Casino B. Before you go in, check your notebook for which dealers cut the least cards off the shoe, which pit boss was giving you heat last time, etc. Wander in, and sit down at a decent-looking game. Buy in for $5000, order a drink (gin and tonic), and start placing minimum bets. Shoe stays -EV for half an hour, and you're down 10 units. Shoe goes really bad, so you take the opportunity to notice a slot machine that is 'hitting'. Wander away from the table with your drink, drop a buck in the slot, glance over at the pit. Boss is looking the other way. Wander into the washroom, and dump your drink and re-fill with water. Wander back out, and sit down at your game.
Next shoe finally starts to go positive. You double your bet size, and uh oh, the pit boss is looking at you. He wanders over and makes some small talk with you, while watching the game. You don't dare change your bet size now. Play the good shoe with a flat bet, take even-money on a blackjack for cover, and boss walks away. But now he's on the phone. It might be about you, it might not. Perhaps he recognized you from your trip a month ago. Time to leave. You cash out, and head out for the casinos across town. Half the evening gone. While you're in the cab, dig our your notebook and record the pit boss's name and shift. Next time you go back to that casino will be in the morning when a different floor shift is on.
Repeat ad nauseum. Hit a good shoe, make some bucks, and run. After you've made the rounds of the casinos in town on all three shifts, pack up and head for the next town.
The bottom line is that serious blackjack play is HARD WORK. Most gamblers are averse to hard work, or they'd be making more money working as engineers or accountants or something.
x
This scene is exactly what ran me off BJ. There is no edge to counting if the bosses will not let you play your best game when the deck is positive. In poker, you don't have to deal with this garbage.
In fact, I had similiar experiences even playing for a 25-250 spread in Reno, let alone 500-5000.
Troy won't have none of that wussy crap...
I wonder whatever happened to him? His big lawsuit appears to have fallen flat with a dull thud, and I haven't seen him in a Casino in Edmonton for some time.
Either he's on the road, probably still burning through every casino he sits in, or he gave it up and decided the world is against him and it's ever-so-unfair. Given his personality, that wouldn't surprise me.
That is an excellent essay. I highly recommend it for a good comparison of the games.
Wasn't "Young Jack Black" also in an edition of Blackjack Forum?
David
Right David,as I said in my post on this subject (poker or blackjack) on the Hold'Em board,it was in Snyder's Mag first. It is also some of Mason's best stuff.
Good Luck
Howard
Both! I'ved played Blackjack for many years. I've never been barred. I do not play in joints which I know easily bar. I play only the places that will take my action. I don't get greedy. Playing SD at a 1-4 spread green I've averaged about $50 hr. I don't attempt black action anywhere. I tip, but small, a buck here or there and only when I have the advantage. I DON'T WONG. And i'm friendly to the personel. Can I make a living playing BJ like this? Yes, but not as good a one as I'd like. I'm also a professional who can choose his hours so I have something to fall back on. You should too. It's hard psychologically, physically (you must search out those good games), and financially to play BJ. To offset the trying side of Blackjack I turned to Stud about a year ago. Excellent. A consistent money maker If you've got the drive to study, think about, and play the game the way it should be played. Not an easy game. But well worth it. Many states have poker rooms, gaming boats, or cardrooms where a good game can be scouted out. In short, if you want to make money gambling, you need to be able to identify "the best of it " in any gaming situation. Asking questions like which is best is a good start. Be sure to check out Masons'excellent article of 5/5/00 on this site and, without sounding like a "brown nose" - buy the books. No serious thinker of the game would go without them. LOL
betelgeusebetelgeusebetelgeuse
I recently reread your IG article on parlays. I was curious - do you ever use 3 team parlays, and should some who's about a break - even sports better (thus correct about 52.5% of the time) use them? In other words, as your rate gets above 50%, is the situation changed?
I am assuming others here have read the article and might appreciate an answer from "the source". Thanks.
Yes and yes.
Profit for 3 -110 breakeven bets: 3*(.5238*(1+.10/11)-1)=0 (approximately)
Profit for a 3 team parlay (6 to 1 odds) at above win rate per team: .5238^3*(1+6)-1=.00599
It's only $59.90 on $10,000 in action, but I mention some other reasons to do parlays in the article. There was, by the way, an error in the article. Can you spot it?
-Abdul
Abdul--
I am interested in reading this and any other sports betting articles you've written, could you post them or a link to where I can read them. Forgive me for not knowing "IG."
Later,
MDMAniac
Since you are the parlay master, I had a question for you. Have you mastered a chart to determine how much edge you need to gain an edge betting on parlay cards? In other words if I see a chance to take three NFL games with a 1 point edge each over the board, how much do I gain? I remember many many years ago (I think it was 1991) I was going down to Portland for a party. I saw the lines they had for their lottery and compared them to the latest line in the Seattle newspaper. I saw three games that were far from the latest line, 2.5 points each, and one that was 3.5 points off! Now the Oregon lottery always seems to just have the most screwed up lines and its not unusual to see it off 2 points, but these seemed outrageous. I remember reading you have approximately a 4% edge for 1 points in the NFL although it tends to fluctuate. All these games were under 7 point spreads so I figured the bonus points were greatly useful. The only thing is the Oregon lottery offers about the biggest sucker lines. If I remember right its 4-1 for picking 3 teams and 8-1 for 4 teams although that might be wrong. I did the math and figured out even with high takeout this was still an overlay if the 4% number is right as I was looking at games with at least 10% edge. So when down there I bet the 4 possible 3 teamers and a 4 teamer just hoping to get lucky. Well lucky I was indeed as all 4 hit and 1 of them hit within my bonus 2.5 points. I cashed a big payoff even when getting crappy odds. Was my assesment correct though? Thats something I have not really studied even though in Vegas I have an assortment of parlays available with much better odds. So this year I was thinking of at least being better versed in the math so I can take advantage of any opportunities that might exist.
I have created many such tables that you would love to get your hands on. I consider the information too valuable to publish.
-Abdul
Abdul--
Did you arrive at these figures just using frequency charts of what games ended on and line movements? Or did you use some obscure mathematics that I wouldn't grasp anyway? I doubt that this board is monitored by oddsmaking personnel.
Later,
MDMAniac
Some of the tables are just pure math. For the sorts of things wildbill was asking for, those tables are built using a mathematical model fitted to historical data. The model smooths out the noise, but more importantly it allows you to ask obscure questions for which there might not be enough historical data to answer that way.
Suppose you find a parlay card with stale lines, a teaser parlay, or a pointspread proposition (i.e., a combination line like -7 +220) that you think would be worth taking. If you'd like me to estimate the expected value, send me email. The price will simply be that I'll want to know what the bet is and where I can make it. Right now I can only do NFL and college football.
-Abdul
Just kidding! Considering the trash that some touts give out Abdul's service would be worthwhile...
Well I am not that terribly concerned about it to tell you the truth, I just am bored with football. I don't have a huge edge on the game, but I watch it closely since I am a typical American male after all. Football is the closest thing to gambling for me in terms of sports betting. Over time I would estimate I do no better than 53-54%. Since I use my most controversial betting method that actually gives me decent profits, but I still risk 5 times as much money betting hockey and baseball. This would branch me out giving me a pure mathematical angle to use on the games. Think of it like a company like Worldcomm/MCI looking out and seeing that I don't have a piece of the cellular business so I go out and attempt to acquire it. Gives myself some diversification since I rarely make any plays such as Abdul does where I am just completely considering the math of the situation. Hopefully that part could run well when my regular selection methods are running cold.
All I really want to know Abdul is am I close at saying a point is worth 3-4% in return when its an NFL game and the line is 7 points or less?
It depends on the total and the exact pointspread, but for a 40 total, the average value of one point for pointspreads of in the range -7 to +7 is 3.4%, in terms of win probability past 50%, according to my model, assuming the original pointspread was approximately correct. It varies pretty dramatically when you look at each pointspread, though, i.e., there are key numbers and dead numbers.
-Abdul
Well that I knew about the dead numbers and I am sure your chart is very valuable from a number to number standpoint. So as a rule of thumb, how many points do you think one should get from each game to get a fair return on a parlay card that obviously pays less than 6-1. Take a pretty normal card, 5.5-1 pay for 3 teams, 1/2 points so no ties...how many points minimum would you say I should get compared to the line on the board to make it a positive EV as long as I stick purely to NFL games? How about if I venture into college games where the line is 14 or less. I know college games tend to have less valuable points since the games tend to be much more high scoring.
I am not looking for a perfect formula, just a ballpark idea of what I should demand so that if I see it I will place a small wager on it. If I spot any that are particularly juicy I will write it to you but since you are the parlay king of Las Vegas I don't think I will be giving you any news doing that...
Breakeven for a 3 team parlay with 6.5 to 1 payoff is 53.6% on each team. 1 point off/onto/over a pointspread of 3 or 7 will suffice or 2 points for any pointspread except when moving off/onto/over zero.
-Abdul
Abdul--
I have never bet parlays and teasers. I have certainly never tried to exploit parlay card lines that are off. Let me ask you a question. Let's say that the line on a game is St. Louis -7. On the card it is St. Louis -5 1/2. Under your system, would you include the game in your parlay card? Would you do it blindly or only with games you handicap as correct at that line? I would assume that the math is only correct if the line actually is "right." Just because a line is -7, doesn't mean a hill of beans, the line has to be pretty accurate doesn't it? Maybe I'm putting too much stock in individual handicapping, but I think this would have to be true otherwise it's just a guess.
Later,
MDMAniac
Tell me if I am dead wrong or in the ballpark.
Well I would say it depends. You see what I am asking for is a blind system so to speak. If we are all to believe that the line is generally close to correct then this error in the line leads to an advantage. However what you are asking for is the handicapped advantage which is totally different. When I said I wanted a purely mathematical approach this is it. I already do some analysis of the games and make straight bets off of that, but this is purely playing the math that the line is correct. Of course the line isn't necessarily correct, but the fact that the line moved this much indicates that some fairly big money has moved in on the one side so you are in a way following the money and hoping it leads you to an edge. Whether it works isn't that important, I won't bet more than $50 on one of these cards anyways. Its just a different angle.
As for Abdul, well he can answer but I would doubt he would ever bet a parlay just because the line was off a point or two on the parlay card for 3 games, unless it was a particularly juicy difference. Then again those types of differences lead the management to post the familiar "61 and 62 are off on all parlay cards..."
The short answer is that if the current board lines average out to the lines that Allah would set, even if the board lines tend to be a bit off you'll have only a slightly lower EV for your stale card lines than you would if the current board lines were always equal to Allah's lines. Be careful about systematic errors as opposed to random errors; for example, you're usually laying an extra point or so to take the favorite.
For teaser parlays you are effectively laying odds, and so you really need the current board lines to be very close to Allah's lines.
Of course you can combine handicapping and mathematical analysis at the same time, taking only those mathematical bets that also agree with your handicapping.
-Abdul
I have been playing at Paradise for a total of 432 hours now, playing the 2/4 Stud game(just learned and taking it slow), and am up approx $2300. I can see where people get their different opinions of cheating or collusion. I have no proof either way so I am staying neutral(plus if there is cheating/collusion by players, it won't be at my 2/4 game). I have heard people say that online is tougher than casino action at the same levels. If that is true, casino action must be pretty weak(I have only played a couple times in a casino so I am not qualified to say that casino action is harder or softer). Granted it is the 2/4 game, but I have seen many many bad players. They stay with hands I couldn't even imagine anyone in their right minds staying with, sometimes they suck you out on the river, but they lose it all before it is done, so I can see where people think there is nothing going on. Just lately though, I hit a stretch where I can understand how people can think there is cheating/collusion going on(I guess not really collusion because they couldn't get help from anyone else on these hands). In a span of a half hour, I lose 5 hands holding either a straight or a flush. All were drawn on the river. 2 didn't really bother me(besides losing), because they were in with a solid hand or solid drawing hand and it was the obvious thing to do. The other 3, they had no business even staying after the first 3 cards, or continuing after the 4th card. I understand that streaks, both winning and losing, happen, and I am not crying about them, but I understand how people would think something is going on when hands like that come up so much over a short period of time. But the kicker happened at the end of that session yesterday.
I had KQ hidden with a K showing. I raised and everyone left but one person, who re-raised showing a Jd. I called and my 4th street card was an A and his was an 8c. I bet, and he called. My 5th street card was another A, his was a Jc. I bet, he raised, and the raising went to the cap. 6th street, I get another A, aces full of kings, he gets a Jh, I bet, he raises and the raising went to the cap again. On the river, I get a meaningless card, I bet, and the raises go to the cap again. I flip over my full house and he flips over 4 Jacks, drawing another one on the river. I was shocked, and not so much at losing, but that he played the hand that way. I stared at it to see if there was anything I could pick out that made him stay. I saw nothing, he had 3 clubs but drew the third one on the river. Collusion wouldn't have helped him, I was showing trip aces on 6th street and representing the biggest full house(raising on 3rd with a King showing). I don't see why he stayed from the start, especially re-raising with nothing at all, even knowing how bad some of the players are on there who stay with shit. I just wrote it down to one idiot getting a lucky draw.
Like I said though, I have no proof and I am not trying to show proof, just showing how two different people with good common sense can think two completely different things. I can see both sides, those hands look interesting even if you can't prove anything with 6 hands. You lose a few hands like this and it is common human nature to wonder, especially if you have never seen it happen before. Was it without a doubt cheating? Was it without a doubt not cheating and just luck? since I have no proof either way, I will take the neutral stance and say it was one stupid lucky player who probably thinks he knows what he is doing and is in for a rude awakening in the future. Can't wait to see him again. :)
x
Could anyone tell me if there or what system would be could to use. I see so many out there but don't know which one is the best?? I deal roulette and see alot of different way's people play but I don't think there is a sure fire system. Any help would be great
There are no betting systems that get an advantage over an negative expectation game. I implore you to take some lessons in Probability and Statistics.
CV
Hmm, well, a roulette system I've seen used in Europe is simply to wait until the ball is firmly entrenched in its final resting place and then place a big bet on that number. (Past-posting is not something that I would do, and I strongly recommend you don't do it either, at least not in Nevada unless you want your kneecaps realigned.) I saw it happen about 8 times in not many more spins, and it was paid off in 2 of those cases, and rejected with only the mildest of scolding the rest of the time.
There are at least two other winning roulette systems.
-Abdul
Clocking systems are highly illegal in Nevada and you have to think there is a reason why. Without a doubt if you had a top quality clocking computer then you should make a serious return on your money. Even if you could virtually eliminate 5 numbers you would have a huge long term edge on the house. From what little I have watched of roulette its very rare for a ball to take a very bad bounce and end up on the exact opposite side of the wheel from where it first hit. Some casinos offer the bet where you bet a series of numbers on the wheel. This would be very easy to beat with a clocking computer, but then again the house would probably catch your scheme fairly fast. If you have to bet it the old fashioned way with chips on the regular 1-36 it would be quite difficult to get every bet in a 10 number sequence down in time but then again every bet you did get down should be a positive EV bet.
Thats not a system, thats cheating. Any game can be beat by a cheat. Don't get this person confused that there maybe a betting system that can turn the odds around.
CV
Two other roulette systems:
1) betting just before the ball falls when bets are still allowed (optionally with the use of a computer where they are allowed, otherwise using your brain as the computer after much experience)
2) finding biased wheels.
-Abdul
A third system collating data on a dealer's throw or "signature". A dealer with a very consistent throw velocity could theoretically give enough of a prediction advantage for a disciplined player to achieve a small positive expectation. In practice I doubt there are many dealers with that level of regularity, but combined with a little wheel-watching the idea may have merit.
This is a myth.
A typical roulette ball travels about 12-13 times around the rim, which would translate to about 120 feet of travel.
When a world champion pool player lags his ball for a break, he usually misses his target (the head rail) by an inch or so. The cue ball travels about 16 feet.
Are you telling me that a roulette dealer is able to hit a moving target over a 120 feet distance within a few inches accuracy with a flick of his fingers?
Duh!
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
There are advocates of dealer signature concepts who claim that there are dealers who can make the ball fall on a predetermined arc - or at least, that there are players who can predict on which arc the ball will land (which, of course, if true, can provide the player with a huge advantage).
The advocates of those systems forget, or choose to forget, that the ball will always leave the rim at exactly the same speed! Irrespective of whether the dealer throws the ball weakly or strongly, as long as the ball, through the centrifugal forces exerted on it, is making a round on the rim, its speed at the moment that it leaves (escapes) its rim trajectory and starts descending towards the numbers area is constant.
Hmmm. Assume a tilted wheel (with a machine you *always* assume a tilted wheel). If the ball falls towards the numbers at apogee it surely is going slower than if it falls when heading towards perigee (the former being much more likely than the latter, which is why wheel tilt is popular.
Ever see those eXtreme Sports skateboarders doing tricks on a U-shaped court? The skater will accelerate towards one end of the U and then coast to the top. Finally his board passes the lip of the U and reaches a pinnacle, at which point his velocity is zero. He is then accelerated at the gravitational constant for the remainder of his journey back to the bottom and thus is moving much faster when he reaches the pit of the U.
On a tilted roulette wheel the "rising" ball is more likely to fall "down" (towards the rotor) when it is being accelerated in that direction by gravity and has little kinetic energy left (due to friction and again gravity decelerating it) whereas when heading down the ball will pick up speed and thus tend to remain deeply on the track.
Mebbe I am missing something...
A tilted wheel will exhibit a 'capture zone', and the ball will in fact tend to fall off the high side. But this isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about being able to predict where a ball leaves a perfectly level wheel, based on the consistency of a dealer's throw.
In the case of a limp-wristed dealer and heavy tilt, doesn't this idea get seem a little more plausible?
I am not quite sure why you think your extensive catering experience qualifies you to comment on this particular thread but a few points:
1) American pool players are frankly not very good. They are not in the same league as the best billiards players and certainly not in the same league as a snooker professional. There is no such thing as a world champion pool player, the rest of the world does not give a shit about the game. So, don't use your inferior indigenous sportsmen as a yardstick for anything, you pillock.
2) The contention is not that a dealer can throw the ball with 100% accuracy, merely that he exert some small influence. Thats how advantage play works. A subtle shifting of percentages. Change the odds from 1/37 to 1/34 and you have an edge.
Oooh, I have to take this one up... What makes you think that American Pool players are 'not as good' as snooker players?
The world 9-ball championships just wrapped up, and only one snooker player (Steve Davis) made it to the quarter finals. And he did that by playing over his head (and admitted it). Jimmy White was ousted in the qualifying rounds. After the tournament, Steve Davis raved about 9-ball. He plays snooker because the money is much, much better, but 9-ball is his passion. He plays it a lot, and has nothing but raves for the best 9-ball players in the world.
Snooker and Pool are very different games. Snooker requires extreme potting accuracy and consistency. Pool requires extreme cueball control under adverse conditions (using heavy spin on the cueball while shooting accurately). No male snooker player who has tried his hand at 9-ball or straight pool has made it into the top ten, and no pool player has ever made it into the top ten for snooker. Allison Fisher successfully transitioned from being the best female snooker player to the best 9-ball player, but it took her several years of practice and losses before she learned the game well enough to make it to the top.
The best overall player in the world is Efren Reyes from the Philippines. He plays mostly 9-ball, but he'll play money games with anyone in snooker, 3-cushion billiards, straight pool, 8-ball, or whatever else you want to play. He's beat the best players in the world at all of these games.
Okay my post was a unneccessarily jingoistic simplification of the truth. The guy got me pissed as you say.
Undoubtedly in certain areas pool players are superior, and as you correctly point out cue control is one of them.
However, as you probably know, Davis and White, while phenomenal talents in their heyday, are now 17 and 16 in the world respectively and falling. White has undergone a protracted period of cocaine abuse. So, I doubt they could compete effectively with the top pool players, and I would not judge the relative merits of the two sports on the performance of these players. I agree with Davis, 9-ball is a great game, way more accessible and fun than snooker, but that was not the question.
My suspicion, and I think this should be resolved in some kind of tournament where players compete at each others code, is that the very top level of young snooker pros have no equal. Stephen Hendry dramatically raised the standard of snooker. It is astonishing to watch him and now that a single long pot in an open game will virtually guarantee him the frame. His best performances have been virtually superhuman. From what I have seen of the cream of the American game, no pool player could live with him, or the young guns that followed his standard of excellence, notable John Higgins.
I'm intrigued by the multi-disciplinary concept (its always a fruitful avenue to pursue with gambling research). I have never heard of this Efren Reyes character. Is he effectively a hustler? Why has he not played pro snooker? Tell me more.
With all respect, it seems clear to me that you are offering an opinion in a subject that you do not understand. If you have never heard of Efren Reyes, you haven't watched or played much 9-ball.
The reason you have the perception of snooker players as being so great is because A) they play on much larger tables, and B) their games look incredibly skillfull because of of the long runs of shots. 9-ball looks somewhat haphazard, and there are a relatively large number of misses, which makes you think that the 9-ball players aren't as skillful.
In truth, while the snooker tables may be larger, the vast majority of shots are quite short, due to the method in which the reds are potted. When a snooker player has a 10-foot shot down the table, he often misses. Second, as I said before, most 9-ball misses are due to the requirement for heavy 'side' on the cueball, which complicates the shot enormously. When you see a 9-ball player miss a simple cut shot into a corner pocket it may look like he was playing badly, but what you couldn't see was the fact that he had the cueball loaded up with so much spin that he had to compensate for a half-inch of squirt in one direction, followed by a curving cueball and a throw of the object ball of 2 degrees, while hitting a contact zone of perhaps 1/16" on the object ball. These shots are incredibly difficult.
Snooker players are weak in many areas required for 9-ball. They aren't good at bank shots (and btw, a top class pro like Reyes will account for things like humidity in the air when making bank shots). They don't have hard breaks. They can't use side english very well. They don't know the strategy of the game. In the world 9-ball championships, Efren Reyes was left safe by Steve Davis. He had no way to hit his ball other than by banking the cueball around 2 rails. Not only did he make the 2-rail hit, but he played the shot to actual make the object ball across the table in the opposite corner, and did just that. I've seen him do things like that a dozen times. I've seen him run the cueball off of five rails and put it through a 3" gap to hit a hidden object ball. He's simply amazing.
I have nothing but respect for Steven Hendry and Alex Higgins. Both are immensely talented, and I'm sure that both could be in the top ranks of 9-ball if they spent a few years working on their 9-ball games. But if you want to put Hendry up against Reyes or any of the other top 5 9-ball players in the world tomorrow, In a race to 13 games I'll give you 3-1 on your money. If you want to put Hendry up against Steve Davis in 9-ball, I'll give you 2-1, simply because Davis knows the game much better. This assumes that Hendry isn't already practicing 9-ball.
BTW, my regular pool playing partner for several years was an ex-snooker player of world quality. He had three perfect 147 breaks in competition. He has beaten Cliff Thorburn in competition (being Canadian, he never played the British Snooker Tour). He's now rated in the top 15 on the men's senior 9-ball tour. I've had many such conversations with him on 9-ball vs snooker.
With all due respect, you don't see too familiar with the modern snooker game (thats Ste I'll admit I'm not familiar with the other table games as I'd like to be, there is just no way to see most of it in Britain even if you have satellite and cable. I imagine you don't have the luxury of the comprehensive snooker coverage we get here in the states either.
For what its worth I never meant to imply that a snooker player just could just turn up for a game of 9-ball and cream the world elite. Obviously extensive training would be required before a snooker pro would be competitive. I meant that snooker players probably have the greatest all-round skill, a statement which has the advantage of being very difficult to disprove conclusively.
I would love to see Hendry turn his hand to 9-ball and try and best this Reyes fellow. As a seven times snooker world champion his motivation is gone and he desperately needs a real challenge. And it would enthrall both sides of the Atlantic.
We can agree on your last wish, that Hendry join the ranks of 9-ball players. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen unless things change drastically, since the amount of money available to snooker pros dwarfs that of 9-ball players.
The pay for professional pool players is just pathetic. Winning a major 9-ball tournament might earn you $7500. The top player of the year probably won't crack $100,000 in total earnings. Yet snooker players make hundreds of thousands in a single tournament. As long as that disparity exists, I don't think you'll see the top snooker players moving into 9-ball.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 12:35 a.m.
Its cheating only in the minds of the casino people. How about all the casino bosses that call counting cards cheating, do you agree with them too? Using a computer to guess where a ball falls is really no different you are using an action that is free for you to view, ie the ball and wheel spinning and judging where it will land. The computer can do it more accurately but there are supposedly a few people who do this without a computer. The thing is for the house they will spot it rather fast because roulette is such a rip off game that anyone that wins even somewhat consistently is bucking serious odds here. When you give up 5.26% of each dollar your chances of winning over even 10 or 15 decent length sessions is very slim. Not that the house is too worried about this possibility but since there are so few regular winners its bound to raise some suspicion eventually.
As for wheel bias, its terribly impractical to keep track of and considering the technology available now, I would highly doubt any newer wheels will have any kind of a perceptible bias over the long run. Older wheels without the benfit of laser measurements to 1/1000th of a millimeter could have been off just a bit, but I doubt it now.
It does piss me off that American "00" Roulette is such a Sucker game. At least give the gamblers a decent chance to win once in a while. Roulette has always been my favorite non-beatable game. It was the first table game I ever tried and even though the house took my $40 in no time flat I still remember it was fun. Note: I never play it now without a +EV coupon.
CV
As for wheel bias, its terribly impractical to keep track of and considering the technology available now, I would highly doubt any newer wheels will have any kind of a perceptible bias over the long run. Older wheels without the benfit of laser measurements to 1/1000th of a millimeter could have been off just a bit, but I doubt it now.
Having a high tolerance on pocket size is just one of a myriad of problems for a designer/engineer trying to keep a wheel unbiased. Most biased wheels were manufactured perfectly but develop the bias over time through bad maintenance practices.
There are a lot of myths about wheel bias. But if you speak to anyone (past or present) who has actually tried to clock a wheel, they will be able to give you several instances of statistically significant bias.
How many wheels did it take to find your first wheel that was off? How many hours did you clock it before you felt confident it was off?
< How many wheels did it take to find your first wheel that was off? How many hours did you clock it before you felt confident it was off? >
5 wheels. I clocked it for 5,000 spins and an octant was past five sigma. I had help clocking.
How long did that cash cow remain there for until they closed it up? They must have been getting suspicious when you guys were winning regularly betting the same numbers right? Like I said before thats the problem with Roulette, the game is so in favor of the house they just aren't going to see many regular winners and would be bound to get suspicious before you could really clean them out.
We lasted several days. I left because of commitments elsewhere rather than a barring. This was European roulette which is much better than the double-zero American version, bettors on the even chances face a disadvantage of only 1.35%, so winners are not that uncommon.
I imagine they would get suspicious, like they do when you count cards in blackjack, so we used extensive cover, betting on numbers with no bias, using the high-rolling drunk act etc.
We won a great many units, but unfortunately the table was 25 pounds (about 37 dollars) so it was not much in absolute value. I guess they would take more care with a high stakes table.
betcha it was at charlie chesters
http://planetpoker.com/mikecaro/mc_carosroulette.htm
So you spent somewhere between 160 and 200 hours EACH clocking 5 wheels? Right. If it takes 5,000 spins to detect a bias, that bias is NOT exploitable against a 5.26% house advantage.
It doesn't matter who spins the ball, nor how hard they spin it, the ball will fall from the track when it no longer has sufficient speed (more correctly, momentum) to maintain its orbit. That speed is dependent on the weight of the ball and the coefficient of friction; it is independent of initial velocity.
SO FAR NO ONE HAS GIVEN ME THE ANSWER THAT I AM LOOKING FOR ( Roullette System )?????????
Because you don't listen to us. You are chasing the fools paradise, that you can take a game with a terrible negative disadvantage and make you a winner. This is an especially bad game since you have such a huge hill to climb. Slots in Vegas have better return than this game does.
Ah. Now your request is clear. You just want to buy a system, right? Here is an easy method you can use to evaluate the different systems on the market:
$Expectation without a system = $Wagered - ($Wagered * 0.0526)
$Expectation with a system = $Wagered - ($Wagered * 0.0526) - $Cost of System
"Expected value" means "average result."
The expected value of one negative expected value bet is negative. The expected value of several independent negative expected value bets is also negative, no matter how you size your bets. There is no system to beat roulette when you place your bets before a fair wheel is spun. The lowest house edge you can get is a little over 1%, betting red/black on a European style single zero with the en prison rule.
-Abdul
You're math is off a bit. You didn't take into account the fact that the sucker is usually willing to bet 3 times as much armed with a system because he figures he is going to win. Add to that they will continue to fight the battle long after a normal person would have given up hope since after all with a system they can't lose!
The best system for playing roulette if you enjoy the game is to go to a table, take out a $20 bill, play for the smallest chip size possible, order a few drinks, and enjoy the game. If you enjoy the game the amount you give up in house edge is probably worth it. If you only like winning well then the best system is to go to one of the online casinos and get their game downloaded and play it with play money....
This weekend I heard about the corporations or groups of people who invest together to bank pan 9 and blackjack. I understand they will pay a non gambler $20/hour to play the house way. I was told one group made $9 million last year. The bankers are sometimes drug money. Any truth in this? Is there easy money to be made in banking?
Yes, there is some truth to it. Given that there is big easy money to be made in banking, then there is big easy money to be made muscling competitors out of the business, which is indeed what sometimes happens. There's also a significant risk of being hunted down and killed for anyone who flashes large amounts of money in LA cardrooms.
-Abdul
Bankers are what make the California games side of the room go. They insure there is a bank for the players to play against. What few people realize is not only are these banks making money off the house edge, also they are getting paid to be there! Smaller cardrooms pay the established banking corporations (yes they are all incorporated) to be there 24/7 with a banker. The going rate is about $25/hour so they really are making money just off being there. There are some people that form their own banks and attack the games and do make money, but not to the degree of the corporations mainly because they don't get the hourly fee to be there. If you want to see these corporations in action go to any non-Indian room in CA and look for the people with a rack of large chips in front of them. Odds are very good they are just employees of the corporation.
It's not quite the same thing as in Cal but I banked 21 games in New Mexico when the casino's first offered class II gaming. I made a fair amount of money but the swings were wild and I did get a little paranoid about carrying around so much cash. In fact my wife and I decided we would have to hire some protection or just get out. We had some big winning days and some huge losing days.
The don't have a cage there Tom? Few in CA walks in and out with that amount of money other than very occasionally. They use a box or a players bank don't they?
They don't have it anymore. I was banking at Camel Rock in Teseque which is few miles north of Sante Fe. We bought chips and paid them out. When we ran out we bought more. At the end of the day we converted to cash. The first day I asked a floorman about a safe deposit box and he told me that getting the money out was my problem not his.
Lovely customer service there. Well almost all casinos have them. Only thing is they have to oversee all the government regulations involving cash. You are not supposed to have over 10,000 in transactions without filling out that form. I suppose if you were banking a game of any kind of limits you would do this quite often, maybe daily. The follow home robberies and other thefts created such a fear in southern California that any card room with that kind of attitude would get no action other than lower limits.
Am I missing something here...?
Here in Bermuda, they have a strange game called Crown and Anchor that everyone loves playing while at cricket matches in the summer. Everyone stands around in the heat bouncing money back and forward off the tables and shouting and laughing, while drinking themselves silly. (...I'm not immune to this either...).
Basically: 3 identical dice, each with a heart, spade, diamond, club, crown and anchor on the faces are thrown. You bet even money on what comes up. ie you bet 1 dollar on the club, then the house gives you back 2 dollars if a club shows on one of the dice (ie you win a dollar). Likewise, you win 2 dollars off the house if 2 of the three dice show clubs, etc.. So where's the house edge?
Hypothetically, say the general public bet $1 on each symbol (heart, spade, anchor...), then the house loses $3 whatever shows up, and loses $3 at the same time - exactly even money.
They make a bundle - these guys stand around throwing the dice and waving fistfuls of money all afternoon, with the bundles getting larger and larger all the time.
Are they just relying on fluctuations? ie joe punter turns up with $50, wins some, loses some, wins again, then hits a bad run; his fifty's gone, so he stops. Have I overlooked something, assuming there's no scam.
Anyone got any light on how this wacky game works?
Graham
If six players are each betting on a different symbol, see what happens when two or three dice come up with the same symbol. Here is where the house makes all its money.
Got it - I was dense - thanks (nt)
Not to mention a game like this could be offered at true odds if it got people to come in all the time and drink up a storm. Never forget outside of casinos, bars are one of the best cash businesses around as long as you get people in the door and keep them there.
...these guys give you free beer when you play at their tables. They compete with each other for punters (about 20 tables under one tent) and dole out beer from a huge cooler under the table. Below, Cyrus explains how they can afford it.
G
"If six players are each betting on a different symbol, see what happens when two or three dice come up with the same symbol. Here is where the house makes all its money."
This is offset by the bets on the winning symbol. We cannot assume that the players betting on the losing symbols are more numerous than the players betting on the winners - nor can we assume that there're bigger bets made on the losers than on the winners. We cannot have all the players having zero theoretical disadvantage and, at the same time, the house having a theoretical advantage! "It doesn't compute..." - while it should also be obvious that the house could not be relying on variance for its profit, in the first place.
The probability of losing your bet on the Club in all 3 dice is (5/6)^3 = 0.5787037 or 57.8%. That's the probability that the Club does not come up at least once and you lose your $1.
You have a probability of 1 - 0.5787037 = 0.4212963 to win $1, ie when the Club comes up once. You have a probability of 0.02341481 to win $2, with exactly two clubs showing, plus, finally, a probability of 0.0046296 to win $3, with all dice showing up the Club.
This means
(0.5787037)*(-$1) + (0.4212963)*(+$1) + (0.02341481)*(+$2) + (0.0046296)*(+$3) =
-$0.5787037 +$0.48201472 =
-$0.09668898.
You're having more than 9.5% the worse of it. Those guys serving the drinks, in Bahamas, have done their homework.
Your calculations are flawed. The sum of the probabilities of the four possible outcomes should be 1.0
The probability of losing in all 3 dice which I gave is correct, but the probabilities I gave for the wins are wrong. [MJS is right, I screwed the calculation. I thought it was more trivial than it really is.]
Here's what I get:
There are 6*6*6=216 possible outcomes of the 3 6-sided dice. The Club will appear exactly once with probability 75/216=0.3472222, exactly twice with probability 15/216=0.0694444, while all 3 dice will show Clubs with probability 1/216 (there's only 1 set-up for each outcome of 3 Crowns, of 3 Spades, of 3 Clubs, etc) or 0.00462962.
The player, therefore, throws a winning roll with probability
0.3472222 + 0.069444 + 0.00462962 = 0.4212963
The rest of the time, the player loses because the Club does not appear anywhere, which has a probability of 125/216=0.5787037 or 57.8%.
[Check: 0.4212963 + 0.5787037 = 1.00]
Those numbers are consistent with my calculations, and result in a house edge around 7.87%
A game that is offered in many casinos in Vegas, as well as Foxwoods (I've seen the table for it there, but never noticed it in action).
Basically, there are 216 ways to roll 3 dice. Of those, 1 will be a triple win, 15 a double win, and 75 a single win, with 125 being losers. This adds up to a loss of 125 and a win of 108 per 216 rolls, or a net loss of 17 per 216, or a house edge of 7.87%. This is even worse than roulette, and should be avoided, unless you just are really desperate to get into the drinking fun of it all. If so, make sure you only bring a little cash, no credit cards, and don't have a credit account set up at the house.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm sorry, by Football I mean Soccer! It's the Yanks' terminology vs the world's and the world wins.
There are actually a lot of similarities between the two games: Both have long periods where nothing seems to be happening but where the keen observer will see a lot of things. In BB, even when a person is walking to take his turn at bat, there can be things to see and be entertained by and get an insight from. In Soccer, these long score-less periods, you get to see the athletes (not marathon men, Poker Amateur, they're actually both sprinters and 10km runners) creating things.
Both games have that characteristic of long periods of seemingly not much happening between instances of extremely intense excitement. The buzz one gets from those instances (and also the anticipation of them) is carried over to the rest of the game. These 2 games are quite unlike American Football with its discrete set pieces of action, the only sport worthy of the chess metaphor.
BB and Soccer differ in that one involves for the huge majority of the action's factors 2 persons, the pitcher and the batter, while the rest of the players have peripheral roles. In the other game, no one is immune to all-important action; perhaps the goalkeeper of a team who's always attacking could be said to be out of it - but possession stats show that a goalkeeper can never really rest (possession always ranges between 60 and 40% for any match-up).
About stats: the fact that BB's action is, for most of the time, so concentrated and involves the same set of basic motions, it makes for a statistician's paradise! Hence, all those tomes of stats, worthless or not. On the other hand, the total fluidity of Soccer action precludes but the most basic, if not obvious, stats, like shots at goal, etc.
-- By the way, I have never played Baseball but came to appreciate the beauty of it after reading up on Roger Angell and that book by the '86 Mets first baseman. I greatly enjoy Soccer. The future of both games though looks bleaker by the day: too much money. Something's gotta give.
HUH?
I am not going to comment on your comments about soccer because I made my opinions clear on how boring I think soccer is, but your comments about baseball are off base.
Baseball uses the same set of motions and the action is concentrated while soccer is total fluidity? You obviously haven't seen the greats of the game play. Watch a tape of Alomar and Vizquel, Andruw Jones, etc etc etc and tell me they use the "same set of motions". The only sports where action is not concentrated is hockey and basketball.
"BB and Soccer differ in that one involves for the huge majority of the action's factors 2 persons, the pitcher and the batter, while the rest of the players have peripheral roles. In the other game, no one is immune to all-important action; perhaps the goalkeeper of a team who's always attacking could be said to be out of it - but possession stats show that a goalkeeper can never really rest (possession always ranges between 60 and 40% for any match-up). "
What player in baseball is immune to the action? It can happen any pitch. You can't just stand around every pitch, because the first pitch you take off will be the pitch someone hits a piss missile at you. The only sport that is as mental as baseball is golf, but that is an individual, not an entire team(A hockey goalie is a mental position). Swinging a bat seems like something so common, but try doing it right. Then try doing it right for an entire season, then a 15 year career. I had a teammate who was a top major league prospect, had a terrible doubleheader, and totally lost his swing. One day ruined his career. For the next 2 years, he would go up to the plate with a different stance almost every at bat, trying to find out how he used to hit. I played with Mark Wohlers as well. He totally lost it because of personal problems and stupid pitch selection in the World Series. It took him awhile to finally get back to the show. You get in a slump, and everything you do feels weird, feels wrong. It can start as easy as having a ball drop in front of you that you think you should have caught, a ground ball that you should have fielded, or a pitch you should have drilled. The mental aspect is a killer, especially over the length of a season.
"About stats: the fact that BB's action is, for most of the time, so concentrated and involves the same set of basic motions, it makes for a statistician's paradise! Hence, all those tomes of stats, worthless or not. On the other hand, the total fluidity of Soccer action precludes but the most basic, if not obvious, stats, like shots at goal, etc. "
Most stats are worthless and some stats are worthless for fans but not for teams. No one cares(or should care) about pitch counts but coaches. When many games are taken, you can tell when certain pitchers start to tire. That's all it is good for, nothing more. In basketball, touches mean nothing to a fan, but for a coach, they can tell if their offense is being run through the stud enough. More things happen in a baseball game that can be tracked than a soccer game, or else they would keep them. There are enough total stat geeks out there to do that.
My post was not belligerent. I'm trying to get across that totally different sports, like so many things in life, can be appreciated by different people. An example for me is golf, which is another sport I haven't ever played and looks utterly stupid to me but which I have come to respect and have studied, in order to comprehend the facscination it holds for its fans. It pays to start from the premise that "50 million fans can't be wrong"...
My remark about Baseball's concentrated action does not mean that the other players are not involved in the pitcher-batter battle. I made that clear. The remark of the other players, though, having a peripheral role (meaning they are not the protagonists) has been said by Keith Hernandez, among many. It doesn't "lower" the sport's value in any sense. On the contrary, it brings out a very intense entertainment value.
As to my description of the action's basic motions, again I borrowed it from the sport's great writers: when something, a sport or a game, has simple rules but is difficult to master, then it must be something of great value. Baseball is like that. Soccer is also like that, if not simpler: that's why it's the easiest game to play in the street. All you need is a ball, or even a makeshift ball (we used some crazy things back then when to kick about) and two markings for the goalposts!
Anyway, I envy you having played Baseball because that makes your understanding of the game much deeper than mine, and I wish you keep an open mind about seemingly boring things. It's a victory in itself to be pleasantly surpised with a new thing or even fascinated with a discovery, even a little one.
I wasn't trying to be belligerant either. I had made my opinion known as a reply to someone who had the same opinion in an earlier thread. In no way did I rip on the fans of the game or people who like soccer. I tried to watch it a while back but I just couldn't get into it, just like there are people who can't get into baseball. In saying that though, I am a baseball purist, and I think the game has gone down some, partly due to what brought people back to baseball, the home runs. They are a joke. The major problem, which helped fuel the first problem, is the pitching. It is pathetic. It is a lost art. Even some of the so called good pitchers don't know how to pitch. One thing I laugh at is players now, as a whole, are bigger, stronger, and faster, but there are too many pussies now. Pitchers are scared to throw inside(and don't learn to in college because of the aluminum bat), if they do and miss and hit someone, they charge the mound or stare at them. Getting hit is part of the game, and not many are intentional. I was hit intentionally, that I knew, 4 times, once I looked at him because it was up at my head, the other 3 were back and ribs, I just went to first, didn't even give him a look. All the other times I was hit, I just went to first without even a glance. There is no reason to even acknowledge the pitcher, just like when a pitcher strikes someone out, the good ones just turn their back on the hitter and wait for the ball to be thrown around, the assholes stare the guy back to the dugout. Those are the guys you sit in the box and watch a bomb on(the ONLY guys).
Well not to be obvious, but the problems aren't the game itself, its the structure its played in. Look at the playoffs as they stand now. You have big cable money teams in New York and Atlanta and Chicago (to a degree), new stadium teams in Seattle and San Francisco, and one old school team in a city that loves baseball in St. Louis. Not exactly a fair field. The reality isn't so much the game that is turning off most fans, its the condition where only a few teams can really compete for anything are the winners. Rebuilding is fine if it leads to a future but look at Florida, a team blessed with lots of great promise for the future. Problem is that in a year or two the future will be here and those promising players will be shipped off. To save baseball (so to speak) its obvious what needs to be done. There just needs to be fewer games, simple as that. Yes those old records of decades past will lose meaning, but if baseball reverted to a basketball or hockey like schedule the game would be revitalized. All those bad pitchers would lose jobs as only 3 starters would be needed. Days off between games mean only 3 or 4 pen pitchers would be needed. Days off mean that players don't need to take a day off every now and then and 4 bench players would be sufficient. Just think how much better the game would be if a team was only 18 players? The very cream of the crop would be in the game, the fans wouldn't bore because of the endless season because you could avoid the cold of April games and end the season in September before football takes all the press and the games are played in near freezing conditions at times. Games are on TV only 3 or 4 nights a week in most cases as it is so it shouldn't make any difference in rights fees, if anything it could increase them due to better ratings since there might only be half as many games going on that specific night. It seems like it would be a win for everyone except the players who act like the world owes them everything and will never give an inch of anything to make the game better. Yeah so what if two hundred undeserving guys don't make the big leagues, am I supposed to feel sorry for them? I don't know, I like to bet baseball just for the profit but I really don't enjoy the game like I used to and it gets worse every year. I don't think anyone has come up with a better idea than mine, but I know its never going to gain any acceptance. It will take an armageddon like event to restore baseball to even close to its past glory I am afraid. The NBA seems to have figured out this concept a bit, but I don't see MLB every getting the idea. People will always watch the game, but it will never be that popular in its current declining form brought on by greed from both sides.
They went out and redid almost the entire team with trades and free agents. Hentgen, Kile, Benes, and Edmonds, etc, in one year. That really sounds like an old school team to me.
Your right that no one cares about kids that dont make it, the kids that get payed crap. They only care when they mke it through the politics and dog eat dig minors and start getting payed for real. Do they deserve 10 million a year? Maybe not, but other "celebrity" jobs are overpaid as well. You talk about the NBA, well look at an NBA roster, 2 or 3 guys make up over half the teams payroll. I find that, for the MOST part, people who whine about players salaries are jealous. Money isn't the issue, only for fans. The issue is the fundamentals(teams will draft players with athletic ability even if they have never played, or hardly played baseball before, and try to make them ball players), and pitching, lack of it due to not knowing how to, the aluminum bats in college keeping pitchers from learning to throw in, and pitchers just not throwing in period. Hitters dive over the plate and then cry if they are thrown in. Well, you shouldn't be diving in anyways(that's coming from a hitter, not a pitcher).
I meant it in that they have a devoted following and its a baseball town. Yes they definitely redid the team, but still even when the Cards are bad they still draw the fans in their old aging stadium (by current standards). Add to it the owners are like Murdoch in terms of being outrageously rich and having a business purpose for having a team. These factors make a medium sized market like St. Louis able to compete at a big market level.
As for the rest of your posting, I don't quite get it. I am talking about a radical change in the game to make it more marketable and palatable to the vast majority of the public and you start talking about how players dive in at pitches??? Yeah that has something to do with making better players in the long run, but I am just saying that baseball's format sucks. Too many games and all but the most die hard fans will agree with me on this. If you asked the public would they rather have a MLB with say a 100 game schedule and a shorter season I am absolutely certain the public would agree with that. The problem lies in the purists who can't imagine anyone touching their game and the players union of course who eventually will go down as the biggest idiots in history. Even the Teamsters wouldn't be out to extract what the players union wants in their next contract from an obviously weak business franchise. The majority of the franchises are losing money and the game is getting further ignored every year by fans who are sick of seeing the Braves and Yankees at the top of the league with no end in sight. The players offer no relief because they have a greedy mentality and have no long term sense.
As for the NBA players, why don't you look at what they have done. Their minimum salary is far higher than the MLB and their union just accepted fairly stiff wage caps on their players. Yes they are still making tons of money, but could you ever see the MLB union saying ok we will hold down salaries of the top players and hold down the rise in salaries over the future? Of course not. Don't you think Grant Hill and Tim Duncan could easily get more than $11 million/year on the open market? In baseball's system a team like San Antonio basically would have waved goodbye to Duncan at the end of the year knowing they couldn't keep him. Instead because of the caps all teams have a good shot at keeping their players. Most teams that can't get or keep good free agents have that problem because their franchises suck and no one wants to play for them (ie, the Clippers and the Bulls right now). The Lakers if unfettered could have just gone out and signed Duncan, jacked up ticket prices like they did when they signed Shaquille and guarantee themselves crown number two since fans would still pay even more exorbitant ticket prices just to watch the champs. Instead they have to worry that the Spurs are hungry and out after their title and this obviously improves the interest in next season. I mean the examples are obvious to almost any sports fan. No having all the money doesn't guarantee a championship, but it sure helps. Not having any money almost guarantees no playoffs and no hope and all of this is ruining the game. The kids of today could become better players in any way you mention but it won't save the game from major problems without an overhaul. For the game's sake I hope everyone involved wakes up and realizes these conditions can't go on forever. My idea I think would certainly make the chances of survival a lot better especially considering your belief that the quality of players is just going to get worse and worse.
I agree St Louis does have a great fan base, so do the Cubs but I wouldn't call them old school. I give St Louis credit, they know they don't have much of a minor league system so they make their fans happy the only way they can, with trades. The Cubs dont care because they know people will keep showing up.
The salary cap has its good and bad parts. It does keep a team from buying a title, but there are always some kind of a loophole in soft caps, and you know it will be a long long time before a players union votes for a hard cap, if ever. The NBA has a higher starting salary because they dont have as much overhead. They pay 12-14 players, not 24 plus 4 minor league teams. Even with the cap in the NBA, the top salaries in the NBA are close to MLB. Didn't Jordan get 25 million his last year? What about those 125 million dollar contracts out there in the NBA? Obviously their cap is too high. Orlando could have signed Duncan and Hill for 10 million each. With a cap that high, what would baseballs cap be in proportion to the NBA's? The Yankees may be the only team above it right now. You think the Brewers or the Pirates could afford to pay two players 10 million each. No one twisted the owners back to throw this money out. Look at Larkin, the Reds say no we cant afford it, he vetos a trade because it wouldn't do him any good to go to New York for 2 months because the Mets say they won't extend his contract, and then the Reds turn around and throw the money his way. Then the Mets trade for Bordick and say they want to sign in long term. The GM's are the problem, they have no clue, they need the cap more than the players, to keep them from being complete idiots. There are some greedy players, but if someone calls and says that will pay them 10 million a year, should the player say no, only give me 5? No one in their right mind would do that.
I brought up the problems with baseball in response to you saying the problem is money. The problem isn't money, that is only a problem with people who aren't real fans, or people who are jealous. The problem is the level of play, and their fundamentals. No one bitches about an actor who gets 20 million for one movie, even if it is bad. There are a small percentage of athletes who can play their particular sport at a level where people want to pay to watch, smaller than any other profession.
Hello,
Ive just recently become aware of the kelly criterion betting scheme and I have a few questions. Please excuse my ignorance of statistics, im not a smart man.
First, is kelly criterion the most optimal betting scheme for sports booking? With a bankroll of say $50,000 and an advantage of 5%, the best "bet size" would be $2500. Is this correct? Are there any complicating factors involved with sports booking that would change this equation? The risk of ruin is zero as long as its continuously readjusted, correct?
Second, how should I handle simultaneous bets? For example, if I have twenty different wagers of $2500 apeice going at the same time, with the same bankroll and advantage, does this change anything? Should i subtract the amount wagered from my total bankroll and recalculate after each wager is made?
Thanks in advance. Dan T.
In theory the Kelly Criterion is the best method to use for betting sports (or anything), but I don't feel that it is too useful here. The reason is that you can never be certain of your advantage. At BJ, with a true count of 5, you can be relatively sure of your advantage and make a Kelly smart play. At sports betting, you can never be sure. If you have statistically significant results, you could say that each game you bet has a 5% advantage, but I think it is tough to say for sure because it is such an inexact science. Some people use it, but I would never use it by betting 1 game at 4%, 3 others at 2%, etc. because how can you ever be that sure of your edge unless you have a really complex objective system. As for question two, I am sure it has to do with covariance, not my expertise. If Abdul reads this, I am sure he'll know what to do.
Later,
MDMAniac
Look at this from the vantage point of the booky, not the bettor. For a booky, I beleive the advantage is 5%. Unless a particular bettor is good enough to win more than half his bets (there arent too many of these)this 5% edge should be rock solid.
thanks.
I have come out many times before in opposition to the Kelly criterion for sports betting for almost the exact reasons as the Maniac stated. Bet edge is so uncertain in sports and fluctuates from season to season and even week to week. Good handicappers are in "stroke" as poker players call it about 10 days a season and thats it. In other times they are not quite with it, but still good enough to beat the game. You reach stroke when you confidence is high, you are aggressive in your bets taking shots at numbers you feel confidently you have the right side on, and most of all you are just very very efficient. I know the mathematician won't agree when it comes to edge and all, but sports betting is much more psychological than math or stats. For this reason you are really playing with fire assuming you have any certain edge unless you are shooting far under it.
I always say if you have a decent size bankroll worth protecting, try not to bet over 2% per play, 3% only if you are really willing to risk it. Well I would estimate most solid players edge between 8-12% and most marginally successful players at 4-7% so this fills in the need for requisite conservatism. Remember that even amongst the best blackjack pros, the standard bet sizing method seems to be half-Kelly bets. These guys rarely make mistakes so they can very accurately tell what their percentage edge is, yet they intentionally show conservatism and bet a half-Kelly which is essentially half the amount the Kelly criterion suggests. My biggest reason though for avoiding any kind of Kelly scheme is that it goes counter to how sports generally runs. Like I say when you are in stroke you are hitting a high percentage, but it doesn't last long. You win and win, raising your bets all along, then you hit a cold streak and you are losing your way back down. For this reason I don't understand Kelly being used at Blackjack, since that game is very streaky as anyone that plays it knows, but I am not the blackjack expert so I will let that one go. However I do know sports and I know as sure as you have a streak where you win over your expectation, you are sure to have a down draft that brings you closer to the expected number. To sum it up, always remember this is true, I call it the Wild Bill proverb: in using Kelly over a liftime, your smallest bet is ALWAYS a winner and your largest bet is ALWAYS a loser. Yes you could lose your first bet and never bet again, or you could win your last bet and die (or retire, yeah right who does that?), but I think that makes the shortcoming of Kelly quite clear. You will tend to win your smaller bets and lose your bigger bets. The best way to bet sports is to plateau, where you flat bet a certain amount until you win enough to graduate to the next plateau, being careful not to promote yourself if you have had a lucky streak. Other than that if you have a small amount try the Wild Bill method I gave earlier. Much more risky and meant for smaller stakes.
As for the bookie, he theoretically has 4.55% ($1 per $22 bet) edge on the players when the player is laying 11-10 against a pointspread. In truth though, most bookies have a higher edge because they tend to take less action from knowledgeable players whereas the biggest shops, the Nevada books, and the offshore guys have under a 4.55% edge as they are a recipient of the vast majority of this type of action. Bookie math is quite different though from bettor math. Bookies need to keep much more capital on hand because they cannot afford to go broke like a player. If a player goes broke, he can take a few weeks off pick up some paychecks and have a small stake and be back in action. The bookie that goes out of business has lost his tap maybe forever. A player could be willing to accept a 1 or 2% chance of ruin, or even 10-20% if he has a decent job and can get a stake in time. A bookie should probably accept no more than 1 in 1,000 chance in ruin since bookies have it so good financially as long as they aren't broke. The problem is that the price gets very expensive to guarantee lower chance of ruin the closer you get to zero. To cut your chance of ruin from say 20% to 10% can be very cheap, maybe 5 or 10 bets. To cut from 10% to 5% gets much more expensive, maybe 20 bets. Getting from 5% to 1% can be very high unless you are very successful. Then just as seemingly insignificant drop such as 1% to .5% can cost double a bankroll. So you see the spot where a player might accept 5% risk since its recreation to get it down to a good bookie level like .2 or .1% can cost 5-10 times as much money! This math by the way does in MANY MANY wannabe sports bettors. They forget that pro sports betting is a battle over time. Maybe they have never lost 40 units in a stretch over their career, but it only takes it happening once to cause immeasurable pain and often times a career change. To them though, the cost of betting half as much a game is too much for them to handle especially when it only reduces their risk a few percentage points. I have lost 32 units in my worst stretch, yet I still keep about 70 units just in case. I really don't know if I ever will need it, but I don't even want to go there and worry about it. Even in a bad run of -20 units which happens about once every 9-10 months, I still have close to 50 units or more to fall back on. I don't panic and my larger bankroll helps me. So I will say it again, its not the lack of picking skill that does in most wannabe sports betting pros, its other things and it starts with the bankroll. Don't make a mistake with that because its much more costly than anything else, besides of course just being terrible and not being able to pick high enough percentage.
John the Milkman was carrying his milk into town in 2 cans, each one of them full to the brim and containing exactly 10 gallons, or 40 quarts, of fresh country milk. That's when he run into trouble, or rather two lady customers, Anna and Maria. You see, each one of them ladies asked John for exactly 2 quarts of milk.
John would very much like to oblige them but he noticed the cans the ladies were carrying and was horrified! Anna had a 4 quart can and Maria a 5 quart can. And there was no other measuring device in sight to use, whatsoever, except for the cans the Milkman and the ladies were carrying.
"Ooooh shit", thought John the Milkman, "that must be one of them juggling fills and switching-milk-between-cans sorta puzzles! Better go and ask some help from the clever folks at Twoplustwo.com!"
- - So, how is the Milkman gonna get 2 quarts of milk in each of the two ladies cans?
Actually, I was not very generous wirh that 0.5% figure. Let's make it 5% ('cause I like you).
---
Izmet Fekali (don't forget, it's a moving target!)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
"Dick polisher", huh?
I'm sure you're a cool and expert player, in every other respect, though. Nice going.
- - Now, about your balls:
"[Snooker players] hit their ball pretty much on the vertical center axis, as accuracy diminishes with adding left or right English."
I don't know if all that name-dropping is true and if you have been playing for the Slovenian team or not but if you have been playing snooker without much faltso, you must have lost a shitload of moolah all this time! Do you seriously suggest that the snooker cue ball is pretty much supposed to go on some straight and forward path after hitting its target?
Elaborate, please, before you're made to eat some humble pie along with those kadayifi...
- - Oh, and one more thing, before you bust my balls: I happen to also believe that Green Baize Vampire's claim is not doable. Way too far out. About the roulette balls, I mean. So, just concentrate on my English question, for now.
The snooker balls move off the collision on a tangent to the contact point, just like every other elastic collision. After that, they'll bend forward if they have follow, or bend back away from the tangent line if they have draw on them.
What snooker players don't do nearly as much as pool players is put 'side' on the cueball for purpose of controlling its movements off the rails. When you use left or right english ('side') on the cueball, you increase the difficulty of making an accurate shot by orders of magnitude. For one thing, if your cue is not completely level you will masse' the cueball, causing it to swerve off line. Second, the ball will tend to squirt off the cue tip in the direction opposite the contact point. Third, when a spinning cueball hits an object ball, it tends to 'throw' the object ball off line in the direction of the spin, due to friction between the balls. The amount of 'throw' is very hard to predict, because it varies depending on how dirty the balls are, and if the cueball contacts the object ball on the point that had chalk from the cuetip on it, the throw is severe.
For these reasons, snooker players tend to hit the cueball on the vertical axis along the center line. 9-ball players can't afford this luxury, since they have to shoot the balls in a fixed order, and this often requires extreme english to move the cueball around the table. At the highest levels, almost all missed shots in 9-ball are due to the shooter having to use english.
When pool players play straight pool, which is much more akin to snooker in how you move the cueball around, they often pot 70-150 balls in a row. I have on tape several matches to 150 points where the first player ran 150 balls and out to win the match. The highest run on record for straight pool is 562 balls, by Willie Mosconi.
I played in the VNEA championships in Vegas in 1992. That year, a team of snooker players from England won the 8-ball event (8-ball being much more similar to snooker in how you move the cueball). However, not a single one of them placed in the top 25 in the 9-ball event.
. . .English. Looking again at the text of Monsieur Fekali, I see he wrote in very clear English "[Snooker players] hit their ball pretty much on the vertical center axis, as accuracy diminishes with adding left or right English."
I had in mind back English, which makes the ball reverse, after hitting its target ball. Which is an absolutely legitimate, if not mandatory, skill in snooker. Can't clear out the table w/out it! However, this is consistent with Fekali's statement, about the vertical axis.
After seeing his "dick polisher" remark, my English must've gone a bit off...
Very few if any billiard players, in any form, use the word "English" when referring to "draw". "English" is almost always preceded by words, top, right or left.
My remark was a feedback to the snappy remark in Mr. Vampire's post. No more, no less.
---
Izmet Fekali
Clit Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Dan Hanson elaborated on this and is very correct. He obviously knows his stuff.
Let me put it more simply: adding left or right english on the cue ball diminishes the accuracy of any shot significantly, due to the effects described by Dan. Snooker players avoid those kind of shots like plague (and rightly so), the main reason being those ridiculously small pockets. Frankly, they are seldom needed in that game. When you see a snooker player move his cue ball around too much, you see a loser.
However, 9-ball players cannot survive at all without constantly putting juice on the ball. To do this succesfully, they enjoy the advantage of wider pockets and smaller playing field. There is no way to run a 9-ball rack without going multiple rails at least once per inning. Playing position in 9-ball is often a matter of spinning the baldy off a rail (or killing the speed of the rail using sidespin).
To answer your question, the snooker cue ball is supposed to move as little as possible after hitting the object ball. Same with the game of straight pool (but even here top shooters use a fair ammount of sidespin on certain shots, while in snooker it is doable, but rare). It's a game of patterns.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
First, I'm not sure that this is the right forum.
Second, I came up with a different answer, but my way saw a lot of milk dumped out onto the ground. A LOT of milk. So go with JayNT's answer.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Everyedge.com has links to local college and pro sports newspapers.
Or you could be a little less lazy and go to Yahoo and type in the city or state followed by newspapers and get more newspapers than you could possibly read in a day. In any case, I think most people reading these will be wasting time because for every gem of information you find, you will have put in a good 50-100 hours of less useful reading to find it. I am not about to discourage people from reading these, just want people to know its not that easy to get insider info just because you read local papers.
This analysis haa all the earmarks of something written by a Mafia Don. Feel better now?
Maybe its time to change careers for me David? Gee I never have killed anyone or ordered anyone killed...can that skill be learned as easily as check raising with the second best hand to improve my chances at winning a pot???
"this board has been overtaken on subjects I know NOTHING about, milkcans and billiards"
When the old man died in Arabia, in a atribe where it was matter of survival and dignity for every man to have camels, he left as inheritance to his 3 sons all his camels. The 3 sons, after reading their father's will carefully, it didn't take them long to start bickering and fighting. Before any swords and knives were drawn, their fellow Arabs hastily intervened and took them to Abdul Al-J'haleeb, the wise man of the tribe. Abdul asked them what was the problem:
- Well, replied the eldest, our father left me half his camels and he left another third to my second brother here and then to our youngest brother, whom we all love but is not yet old to grow a mustache, he left one ninth of his camel flock.
Abdul Al-J'aleeb was puzzled.
- You should not fight, boys!, he said. Don't argue and respect your father's wishes, even if you think that they're not fair.
- But it's not that, oh wise Abdul, responded the eldest. We do respect our beloved father's last wishes. It's that our beloved father had 17 camels! And we cannot agree how to split them, except short of slaughtering some camels in halves or whatever...
Abdul laughed heartily and showed his nicotine-yellow tooth.
- No need for that!, he said. Is that whay you're arguing?! Come, I'll take you to my house and we'll sort things out.
. . . Some time later, the three brothers were leaving the wise man's home, each one herding his share of their father's camels and everyone smiling.
How in the name of the Prophet did Abdul manage to execute the father's will and have the sons all satisfied??
Doesn't this post belong on the Other Topics board? I will lend you a camel if you move it over there. Does Abdul really have a nicotine-yellow tooth?
Please visit Mauroder's Haus to find all the links you need for sports betting . http://expage.com/steve914 Mauroder is nice,dice and vice !
After looking this mail, I've come to stay on the NFL topic and give you my over/under picks.
StL 11 +10 (12-4) They should win 12 games.
TB 10.5 -40 (12-4) This is MUST over bet.
Buf 9 +40 (11-5) Another must over bet. Will win AFC east.
Den 9.5 -40 (10-6) Over here too.
Miami 8.5 +60/-200 (5-11)A MUST under play.
Dal 8.5 +40 (6-10) Another under play. Too many holes.
Det 7 -20 (10-6) This could win 10 games, over
SF +1.5, line will go down.
Other Gambling Games
July 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo