[mebaran]

I remember someone starting a thread like this, but I can't find it..so I'm revamping that idea. I was kind of working this out in my head. My idea revolves around picking -1000 moneyline favorites (anything around -1000, but trying to average it to that).

My train of thought was this: If less than 1 in 10 of these picks loses you make money in the long run.

Just as long as you scout the teams beforehand just to make sure the line is correct and you are getting value. This seems like it would work pretty well in the NFL and NCCAF because a team that is favorited by that much rarely ever goes down. Does this actually work out mathematically to our advantage though? I'm not sure...

I started doing a 'soft' experiment (no actual money bet) yesterday during college ball. Will continue to keep track just to see where this goes.

On a side note: If anyone has any relevant numbers or input please share it here!

[mebaran]

First two picks were yesterday:


Ohio State -900 $450 to win $50 Won $50
Southern Mississippi -1100 $550 to win $50 Won $50


Today:

New England Patriots -1000 $500 to win $50 Pending...

[mebaran]

New England up a score already..this one could get real ugly like last week's Pats game

[mebaran]

New England Patriots -1000 $500 to win $50 Won $50

3-0-0 +$150.00

[wal66]

The reason anyone will tell you this is a bad idea is even if you hit 3 more in a row and then lose just 1 you're in the hole. At an average of $550 to win $50 you would have to hit 12 in a row to show a profit that exceeds the risk of losing just one game. Not impossible but certainly leans to the improbably side of things. You are off to a good start though and I can understand that it looks fairly easy. It's also your money to do what you wish with and no-one has the right to tell you that you can't.

[polson22]

i'd also say it's almost impossible to get any idea if it's a good idea........ so your breakeven is 1 loss in 11 games (for example). so after 70 games, it makes a huge difference if there have been 5, 6, 7 or 8 crazy results. very volatile.

a couple of things.

i think they were referring to bigger favorites, but another forum called these "bridge jumpers". nice 3% guaranteed return (on the biggest favorites) but you're jumping off a bridge if you lose (i hope figuratively)..... mike tyson over buster douglas was probably classic.

i've also add this to show you that these things aren't guaranteed. i don't pay for this service so i only results after the fact.

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/picks/

and the pattern is pretty similar every week. usually a big loser or two towards the top of the "chance of winning" stat.... one thing i will say about this last weekend's results is that Texas A&M and Iowa State (huge upset teams) were in some minds quality opponents. washington state, tulane, new mexico state and hawaii (partial hindsight on this one) weren't quality opponents.

[mebaran]

The reason anyone will tell you this is a bad idea is even if you hit 3 more in a row and then lose just 1 you're in the hole. At an average of $550 to win $50 you would have to hit 12 in a row to show a profit that exceeds the risk of losing just one game. Not impossible but certainly leans to the improbably side of things. You are off to a good start though and I can understand that it looks fairly easy. It's also your money to do what you wish with and no-one has the right to tell you that you can't.

Appreciate the input. As I stated in my first post though, this is NOT real money. I'm kind of just playing around with it to see where I can take it.

[mebaran]

i'd also say it's almost impossible to get any idea if it's a good idea........ so your breakeven is 1 loss in 11 games (for example). so after 70 games, it makes a huge difference if there have been 5, 6, 7 or 8 crazy results. very volatile.

a couple of things.

i think they were referring to bigger favorites, but another forum called these "bridge jumpers". nice 3% guaranteed return (on the biggest favorites) but you're jumping off a bridge if you lose (i hope figuratively)..... mike tyson over buster douglas was probably classic.

i've also add this to show you that these things aren't guaranteed. i don't pay for this service so i only results after the fact.

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/picks/

and the pattern is pretty similar every week. usually a big loser or two towards the top of the "chance of winning" stat.... one thing i will say about this last weekend's results is that Texas A&M and Iowa State (huge upset teams) were in some minds quality opponents. washington state, tulane, new mexico state and hawaii (partial hindsight on this one) weren't quality opponents.

Thank you so much for the link, it's exactly what I was looking for. I understand that there is low risk of losing and a high risk of losing big. But if you were to take the "top ten" valued plays on their list from each week, you would only lose 5 times. Thats 75-5. Obviously the variance here is tricky because it could have just as easily been 75-8 (or could it? that's what I'm trying to figure out), in which case you lose money.

In any case, thanks again for the info. Feel free to drop in and have a look from time to time.

[polson22]

glad you liked it, those are teamrankings.com forecasts of winning percentages... i'm not sure but i doubt texas tech was the second biggest favorite last week..... anyway, you can look thru past weeks to get an idea.

yeah, that was my thinking. you can be doing great for weeks and weeks and then get hit a couple times in a month and it's all over........ anyway, as i said and you understood, hard to say how well you're actually doing

[mebaran]

That's also true. There's no real "barometer" for how well you're running. But my thinking is that by sticking to odds of around -1000 I'm limiting the amount of money I'm laying and not really sacrificing that much in win percentage.

[mebaran]

The next play for this experiment will be tonight's football game. Again, these plays are not real money, just a means of publicly displaying this and getting input.

Virginia Tech to beat UNC -800 --- $450 to win $50 Pending...

For the record, this will probably be the closest game I will pick for a while. -16.5 is almost too small of a favorite for the needs of my experiment. I'm trying to pick teams that have virtually no chance of losing, yet have value despite their high juice. This one is cutting it close. Good thing is if it loses it's not a monster favorite (like betting $1000 to win $50).

[tblues2005]

good luck there mebaran.

[topgame85]

I personally would rather pick my spots on +800 plays than -1000 but I see why many people do the big faves thing, it feels good winning almost all the time and can reel off 30 in a row occasionally but i think you will end up where most of us do in - $ long term but I wish you nothing but the best

[reno cool]

yeah, don't waste your time. Try to think of something more creative. This has all been tried before. Not only is it bad because you have a negative expectancy, but also your chances of winning due to volatility are low.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It's one of the worst things you could possibly do against an efficient line.