Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrecktangle
So what does this mean to you? Well, for one, you can throw all those statistical tests out the window as they are mostly based on the Gaussian dist.
Ain't nothing in this biz easy.
|
thank you sir. and was most definitely not easy. it is almost as if the NFL doesn't want you to know refs exist. finding the stats on each one took hours, for each individual ref.
i was using it because the time period i researched had the home teams covering 49.8% or some number damn close to 50%. therefore i knew the system that the refs operate in, comprised of the compiled records of each ref. so i should assume that, given enough games, the number of home covers for each ref would trend toward being 50%. same thing with totals. games went Over the total slightly more than 50% of the time.
so then i needed to assign values to each ref to determine what constituted a potential or definite bias. i didn't even explore possible reasons for the bias, merely if one could possibly exist. again, given a large enough sample size for each ref i would expect the numbers to be near 50%. i used binomial dist so that i could use the total number of independent events (all records), the sample size (each ref), the number of successes (ATS win or Over). i wanted to assign a probability to each record for each ref.
so i ran all the numbers and most refs did not display abnormal results. Hoculi was actually the best as his numbers most closely mirrored the expected results.
in the end, i was unsure how to proceed anyway. i had no way to determine if a bias existed, was it intentional or merely random. if i thought it was intentional, i would continue to bet for similar results. if i felt it was random, i would expect results to slowly work their way back to the norm.
and i've never seen a study that attempted to assign value to the impact ref have on the outcome of a game. that is why i asked the second question in this thread. i wonder if oddsmakers factor in the ref at all when considering the spread or total.
sorry for that meandering, barely coherent reply. but if you could make any sense of it, would you suggest an alternative to binomial?