[Peep]

Actually, two picks.

And, as is Tank tradition, I am even going to give a (brief) mathematical explanation for each. We like to justify our guesses with numbers in the think tank.

1st--Brownies to score 1st +170 (available most anywhere). Home doggies of +9 or more have historically scored 1st 39% of the time over 158 games I have on db, which would make them around +155 true value. Throw in the weather (hell, anything can happen in a blizzard) and you have what we fondly call an "ev+ bet".

2nd--Clev win first half, Pitt win game at +750 (Jazz group). Over these 158 games with the big home dogs, the dogs have won the first half/lost the game 27 times (17%). So +750 is more than "fair value", which would be closer to +490.

Will either of these picks win?

Probably not.

My picks mostly suck like everyone else's.

Have fun, enjoy the game!

[SpiderMonkey]

Actually, two picks.

And, as is Tank tradition, I am even going to give a (brief) mathematical explanation for each. We like to justify our guesses with numbers in the think tank.

1st--Brownies to score 1st +170 (available most anywhere). Home doggies of +9 or more have historically scored 1st 39% of the time over 158 games I have on db, which would make them around +155 true value. Throw in the weather (hell, anything can happen in a blizzard) and you have what we fondly call an "ev+ bet".

2nd--Clev win first half, Pitt win game at +750 (Jazz group). Over these 158 games with the big home dogs, the dogs have won the first half/lost the game 27 times (17%). So +750 is more than "fair value", which would be closer to +490.

Will either of these picks win?

Probably not.

My picks mostly suck like everyone else's.

Have fun, enjoy the game!

Nice pull.

[jellobiafra]

Great post. Good luck.

[mcbaseball10]

Great info! I should hang out at the Havaad bah with the smaht kids more often.

[lyon804]

Very insightful Peep. Please help out us mathmatical neophytes more often!! GL

[tblues2005]

very interesting. Thanks!

[Sam Odom]

Who needs this shitt

Where is Fishhead ?




























j/k Thanks Peep !

[mr. leisure]

Good stuff peep ,hope you sweep

[wal66]

Peep, I as well appreciate this but if you have the time and more imprtantly the patience help me understand something. You said your database shows that Dogs of +9 or more score first 39% of the time. Now I am trying to understand how a 39% potential risk is better than a 61% chance of winning?

I don't argue Cleveland scoring first I am just trying to grasp the mathematical justification based on two very simple numbers of 39% do and so obviously 61% don't.

I may regret this question when I see the answer but I live by that creed of "No Stupid Questions".

[Peep]

LOL.

We have two Universities in our home town. One, Waterloo, is ranked tops in Canada for Math/computers. The other, Wilfred Laurier, is known as a party school.

My son is quite good/interested in computer science. I talked him into the party school (three girls to every guy on top of that), he seems very happy with his choice so far. Donno if he is learning much, but his ability to party seems to be increasing.

Got to enjoy life while you can.

I am mostly the dumb kid in the Think Tank, I look like a smart kid over here. Who knows? In football especially, the ball takes funny bounces, anything can happen and usually does.

Glad you guys liked the post though. I did actually do bet these strange things, who knows, nice thing about betting moneyline longshots, you don't need too many to hit to show a profit.

[Peep]

Peep, I as well appreciate this but if you have the time and more imprtantly the patience help me understand something. You said your database shows that Dogs of +9 or more score first 39% of the time. Now I am trying to understand how a 39% potential risk is better than a 61% chance of winning?

I don't argue Cleveland scoring first I am just trying to grasp the mathematical justification based on two very simple numbers of 39% do and so obviously 61% don't.

I may regret this question when I see the answer but I live by that creed of "No Stupid Questions".

It is simple stuff, unless I got it wrong, which happens quite a bit too.

In this case, Pitt historically will score first 61% of the time. So at a -110 bet, they would obviously be the play.

BUT... 61% translates out to -155 for their chances. So at +170 for Cleveland, I am OK. IF Cleveland were "only" +150, Pitt would be mathematically the better play (based on the data I have available).

[lyon804]

Peep, I as well appreciate this but if you have the time and more imprtantly the patience help me understand something. You said your database shows that Dogs of +9 or more score first 39% of the time. Now I am trying to understand how a 39% potential risk is better than a 61% chance of winning?

I don't argue Cleveland scoring first I am just trying to grasp the mathematical justification based on two very simple numbers of 39% do and so obviously 61% don't.

I may regret this question when I see the answer but I live by that creed of "No Stupid Questions".

Wal, what he is giving is a +EV bet of +115. He is saying fair value would be +155 for this bet yet the books are offering us +170. I think that's what you were asking. If not sorry for wasting your time.

[lyon804]

Sorry, peep. see we both answered at same time.

[wal66]

This is why I will never be successful on the same scale as others. Cause I understand what you are saying about fair value and the +EV but my mind works totally differently. I see +170 being a great hit for the dollar but the 61% being the safer bet for the buget.

Not being a prick or even sarcastic just explaining how different the approaches are. My way requires more winning percentages and your way requires greater value for the dollar.

[rm18]

It is simple stuff, unless I got it wrong, which happens quite a bit too.

In this case, Pitt historically will score first 61% of the time. So at a -110 bet, they would obviously be the play.

BUT... 61% translates out to -155 for their chances. So at +170 for Cleveland, I am OK. IF Cleveland were "only" +150, Pitt would be mathematically the better play (based on the data I have available).

peep the total is so low here I do not think this data matters. With the total at 32.5 Cleveland is only projected to score about 1/3 of the points in this game. If the total was 50 then the 9.5 point dog would be projected to score over 40% of the points.

[Peep]

peep the total is so low here I do not think this data matters. With the total at 32.5 Cleveland is only projected to score about 1/3 of the points in this game. If the total was 50 then the 9.5 point dog would be projected to score over 40% of the points.

Agree the low total hurts the play.

But think the weather helps the randomness of the scoring, which helps anytime you are +170.

Hopefully the two balance out.

[Bread]

I love Peep. Good peeps.

[Richkas]

Actually, two picks.

And, as is Tank tradition, I am even going to give a (brief) mathematical explanation for each. We like to justify our guesses with numbers in the think tank.

1st--Brownies to score 1st +170 (available most anywhere). Home doggies of +9 or more have historically scored 1st 39% of the time over 158 games I have on db, which would make them around +155 true value. Throw in the weather (hell, anything can happen in a blizzard) and you have what we fondly call an "ev+ bet".

2nd--Clev win first half, Pitt win game at +750 (Jazz group). Over these 158 games with the big home dogs, the dogs have won the first half/lost the game 27 times (17%). So +750 is more than "fair value", which would be closer to +490.

Will either of these picks win?

Probably not.

My picks mostly suck like everyone else's.

Have fun, enjoy the game!

This is like saying if a person historically picks 35% winners at the track, he shouldnt bet anything under 2/1.

[Mudcat]

The theory/methodology behind these picks is solid enough. The sample however is quite a bit too small to call those angles predictable long-term trends (to my way of thinking).

I personally would not consider that sufficient to justify a full sized bet.

But good luck.

[rm18]

I think it is still a good play because I like Cleveland but would rather take points.

[smitch124]

Are there any head coaches that consistently defer receiving the ball in the NFL when winning the coin flip?

[rm18]

Are there any head coaches that consistently defer receiving the ball in the NFL when winning the coin flip?

patriots

[Richkas]

Home doggies of +9 or more have historically scored 1st 39% of the time over 158 games I have on db

See Peeps, when you get +155 or better in this situation you like to wager because it will show a profit long term over 100 or so plays. Personally, I am so good, I can handicap which 39 times the dog scores first and can make the same amount of money faster. Your way is too slow. But to each their own.

[Bread]

See Peeps, when you get +155 or better in this situation you like to wager because it will show a profit long term over 100 or so plays. Personally, I am so good, I can handicap which 39 times the dog scores first and can make the same amount of money faster. Your way is too slow. But to each their own.

This smugness is EXACTLY why us Think Tank guys don't share plays with you bozos.

[Peep]

This smugness is EXACTLY why us Think Tank guys don't share plays with you bozos.

LOL Bread.

For a guy who claims he is wanting the Tankers to post plays, he didn't seem very receptive did he?

Well, as we say in the tank..."That's Richie for you".

[MBENZ]

See Peeps, when you get +155 or better in this situation you like to wager because it will show a profit long term over 100 or so plays. Personally, I am so good, I can handicap which 39 times the dog scores first and can make the same amount of money faster. Your way is too slow. But to each their own.

I've seen your picks,you couldn't predict the 39 dogs that score first if you had tommorows newspaper today for the next year.Let an actual gambler have his say,Peep doesn't say much often but when he does,the results are pretty goddamn good.

[MonkeyF0cker]

See Peeps, when you get +155 or better in this situation you like to wager because it will show a profit long term over 100 or so plays. Personally, I am so good, I can handicap which 39 times the dog scores first and can make the same amount of money faster. Your way is too slow. But to each their own.

Really?

Phuck this, I'm done..........

I cant take the daily grind no more. It feels like there is nothing in life. The same shit day after day. And for what. To lose phucking money. The sad part about it is, I will wake up at 10am because there's no reason to get up early, and do the same shit. Gamble my ass off. I am a sick phuck. I am a ignorant phuck

[Bread]

[LT Profits]

This is why I will never be successful on the same scale as others. Cause I understand what you are saying about fair value and the +EV but my mind works totally differently. I see +170 being a great hit for the dollar but the 61% being the safer bet for the buget.

Not being a prick or even sarcastic just explaining how different the approaches are. My way requires more winning percentages and your way requires greater value for the dollar.

Think of it this way:

If you make this play 100 times, you would win 39 and lose 61, but remember you are getting +170. So, 39*1.70= +66.30 for the wins, meaning you would win +5.30 units every 100 plays (66.30 - 61), making it a +EV play.

The 61% play may seem "safe", but it is a long term loser at -200 or so.

[wal66]

Peep, 39% paid off. Nice

[jellobiafra]

Looking good so far Peep.

[rm18]

bet cleveland 2nd half peep, Steelers are not coming back.

[Bread]

Nice hit so far Peep. Good job.