[BettorBob]

Before football season started last year, I came up with an "unders" system. Basically, I discovered a way to detect certain situations where scoring is unlikely to occur, which means one should bet on the under for the game total. I backtested it using all of the data I had available (I only have reliable NFL data going back to 1993, and only for the regular season).

+------+---------+
| year | record |
+------+---------+
| 1993 | 10-5-0 |
| 1994 | 17-10-0 |
| 1995 | 10-6-0 |
| 1996 | 12-8-0 |
| 1997 | 12-7-0 |
| 1998 | 11-18-1 |
| 1999 | 17-9-0 |
| 2000 | 22-14-0 |
| 2001 | 14-17-0 |
| 2002 | 29-16-0 |
| 2003 | 25-17-0 |
| 2004 | 20-14-0 |
| 2005 | 22-11-0 |
| 2006 | 23-9-0 |
| 2007 | 23-13-0 |
+------+---------+

In the 2008 season I forward-tested it and ended up 2-1-0 in the preseason, 22-18-2 in the regular season, and 1-1-0 in the post season (combined 25-20-2). So, the system has an all-time record of 292-194-3 (just over 60%) going back to 1993.

I should mention that although the system can find low-scoring games, it can't be "reversed" to reliably find high-scoring games... that is, it never picks the "over". So I found it to be rather boring and frustrating to actually sit down and watch the games, as I was sitting there basically hoping that nothing would happen. It's not much fun rooting for the clock.

Anyway, in this 16-year timeframe, a flat bettor risking $110 to win $100 on each game would be up $7,860, although this would clearly be sub-optimal. The best betting strategy, of course, would be to use the Kelly criterion. If we assume a 60% chance of winning each wager, then we should risk 16% of our bankroll per bet. So, a $1,000 starting bankroll in 1993 would have turned into about $340,186 by Super Bowl 2009 (although, again, I only ran this system on the regular season games for 1993-2007 since that's all the data I have).

Even with such a strong record, the system has had 2 losing years (1998 and 2001), so it's not exactly perfect. I'm not planning to offer the system or its picks for sale until I can do a couple more years of forward-testing, but if anybody's interested I can post the picks on the forum once the season begins.

[Dark Horse]

Your system is 25-20-2. Calculations beyond that are fantasy.

Sorry.

[Crash]

so wuts the system?

[BettorBob]

Originally Posted by BettorBob

I'm not planning to offer the system or its picks for sale until I can do a couple more years of forward-testing, but if anybody's interested I can post the picks on the forum once the season begins.

.

[xyz]

Bob, don't worry about lack of fun in watching those games. Making money should be the only objective. When your system discovers a low scoring game, does it give an estimate on what the total should be? If so, how much lower is it to the actual line? I am trying to get an idea how big of an edge your system sees in the games it picks. Thanks.

[BettorBob]

Originally Posted by xyz

Bob, don't worry about lack of fun in watching those games. Making money should be the only objective. When your system discovers a low scoring game, does it give an estimate on what the total should be? If so, how much lower is it to the actual line? I am trying to get an idea how big of an edge your system sees in the games it picks. Thanks.

It doesn't produce a number to compare the actual line to... it's just a binary yes/no. Though I guess I might be able to formulate some sort of an algorithm for that (i.e. to look back at similar situations in past games and compare to those games' resulting totals).

[Bossman]

Well I am new to site but planning on moving to vegas before season starts and would like to see you post games on here

[Afrot69]

I think that there are no systems that work to beat the system of betting. Everyone has their own system and luck would have to play a little into it

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by Afrot69

I think that there are no systems that work to beat the system of betting. Everyone has their own system and luck would have to play a little into it

Maybe not a handicapping system, but in an efficient market where favorites and underdogs are about 50/50 based on the closing line, you will win if you consistently get a better line than the closing number.

Obviously, the problem here is actually being able to pull it off.

[billhat]

i have a better sysyem playn your team

[1]

Even with such a strong record, the system has had 2 losing years (1998 and 2001), so it's not exactly perfect. I'm not planning to offer the system or its picks for sale until I can do a couple more years of forward-testing, but if anybody's interested I can post the picks on the forum once the season begins.[/quote]

Bob - I would be interested in following your system. I would venture to add that starting a thread and posting the plays prior to the games regardless of interest would document and produce credibility to your system via a public forum. - 1

[andywend]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Your system is 25-20-2. Calculations beyond that are fantasy.

Sorry.

Dark Horse is 100% accurate here.

I can provide trends with winning records that would boggle the mind but they have no relevance.

Backward testing is meaningless.

[DukeJohn]

Originally Posted by andywend

Dark Horse is 100% accurate here.

I can provide trends with winning records that would boggle the mind but they have no relevance.

Backward testing is meaningless.

I agree and disagree... I agree with you that data mining for a system, as you suggest, is useless, however thinking of something and back testing does have some merit as long as you do not tweak it as you go... However, as Dark Horse stated, it is still a fantasy until forward testing begins and actual money is placed.

[PickingPros]

Back testing isn't meaningless. If you have a good number of variables in your formula it should have consistency in further years. Something I would worry about is the seasons are very inconsistent. Work to getting a system with a more consistent win% otherwise the bankroll could be heavily depleted with a bad streak.

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by PickingPros

Back testing isn't meaningless. If you have a good number of variables in your formula it should have consistency in further years. Something I would worry about is the seasons are very inconsistent. Work to getting a system with a more consistent win% otherwise the bankroll could be heavily depleted with a bad streak.

I think it's just the opposite, the more variables you add while strictly back-fitting, the LESS predictive the formula is.

[kroyrunner89]

i'm a bit unclear on how you went about developing this system, which way you did it makes all the difference in the world.

if you put a system together, tracked it going forward, then backtested it to get more results, you might be on to something.

if you used seasons since 1993 to try to develop an unders system that would perform well, then tracked it the 2008 season, your record is 25-20.

either way i'll be sure to check your stuff out this year and see how it goes. good luck

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by kroyrunner89

if you used seasons since 1993 to try to develop an unders system that would perform well, then tracked it the 2008 season, your record is 25-20.

Sounds to me like it was this.

[floridagolfer]

Until you shed some light on exactly what the system is, this entire discussion is worthless. For all anyone knows, you're throwing darts.

If details are provided, then someone can examine it and, everyone hopes, prove its value.