SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks Recommended Books
1. Pinnacle Sports SBR Rating A+ Pinnacle Sports Review
2. The Greek Sports Book SBR Rating A+ The Greek Review
3. BookMaker SBR Rating A+ BookMaker Review
4. BetJamaica SBR Rating A+ BetJamaica Review
5. LegendZ Sports SBR Rating A+ LegendZ Review
SBR Posters' Poll - August 2008 View Complete Results
1. Matchbook 195 total points Matchbook Review
2. BetJamaica 182 total points BetJamaica Review
3. The Greek Sports Book 160 total points The Greek Review
4. Pinnacle Sports 130 total points Pinnacle Sports Review
5. 5Dimes 125 total points 5Dimes Review
Go Back   Sports Handicapping, Betting & Picks - SBR Forum > Sports Betting, Sportsbooks & General Discussion > Players Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-05-2007, 12:40 PM   #1 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,813
Ganchrow is offline
Default Half-point Calculator beta test

All comments, questions, and criticisms welcome:



Note that you can use the push probability estimates embedded in the calculator or can enter your own.

Currently supports:
NBA, NFL, NCAA BB, and NCAA FB Sides and Totals
MLB Totals
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 12:48 PM   #2 (permalink)
zootiehead
SBR MVP
 
zootiehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-09-06
Posts: 1,644
zootiehead is offline
Default

Looks nice. Why doesn't it work with MLB spreads?
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:01 PM   #3 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,813
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zootiehead View Post
Looks nice. Why doesn't it work with MLB spreads?
Because that works a little a differently than spread/totals in other sports. Specifically, the marginal value of half-points in MLB spreads is considerably more sensitive to the level of total than in other sports and also depends on whether the favorite team is playing at home or away.

MLB spreads will certainly be included in an upcoming version, but in the meantime I'm really just trying to get users' opinions and feedback on the current state of the interface and features.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:06 PM   #4 (permalink)
Santo
SBR MVP
 
Santo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-08-05
Location: England
Posts: 1,494
Santo is online now
Default

It looks very usable at the moment. Speaking personally I prefer to keep these things in excel spreadsheets than web tools because of the speed differential.

I haven't checked all your numbers with my spreadsheets, but before I do I'll ask whether you believe them all to be accurate, or are just "placeholders" so to speak.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:21 PM   #5 (permalink)
flyingillini
SBR MVP
 
flyingillini's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-06-06
Location: Santa Barbara/Huntington Beach
Posts: 3,803
flyingillini is offline
Default

Great and I like it. I will use it!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:30 PM   #6 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,813
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Santo View Post
I haven't checked all your numbers with my spreadsheets, but before I do I'll ask whether you believe them all to be accurate, or are just "placeholders" so to speak.
We'll say I believe them to be fairly accurate.

The MLB totals you can take to the bank.

The NFL spreads are very accurate except for the fact that they don't adjust for the relative magnitude of the totals.

The NBA and NCAA BB totals are currently the figures in which I have least confidence.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:33 PM   #7 (permalink)
vanzack
SBR Sharp
 
Join Date: 12-16-06
Posts: 381
vanzack is offline
Default

Ganchrow - most of the time you talk way above my head (that is a compliment in case you are confused) but in simple terms what data are you using?

For example, how many years of NFL data go in to determining that a 6.5 point fav has a 5.7% chance of pushing a 7 point spread?

Thanks in advance.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:37 PM   #8 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,813
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanzack View Post
Ganchrow - most of the time you talk way above my head (that is a compliment in case you are confused) but in simple terms what data are you using?

For example, how many years of NFL data go in to determining that a 6.5 point fav has a 5.7% chance of pushing a 7 point spread?

Thanks in advance.
MLB goes back to 1999.
NBA goes back to 1990.
NFL goes back to 1990.
NCAA BB does back to 1997.
NCAA FB goes back (in theory) to 1990.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:40 PM   #9 (permalink)
vanzack
SBR Sharp
 
Join Date: 12-16-06
Posts: 381
vanzack is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
MLB goes back to 1999.
NBA goes back to 1990.
NFL goes back to 1990.
NCAA BB does back to 1997.
NCAA FB goes back (in theory) to 1990.
So my first question / comment to you is can we assume that the NFL game has remained constant since 1990 and in 2008 is it prudent to use statistics from the 90's? (I dont know the answer to this, throwing it out as discussion...)

Are the years weighted in importance, and if so / not what is the best way to weight the statistics?

Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:47 PM   #10 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,813
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanzack View Post
So my first question / comment to you is can we assume that the NFL game has remained constant since 1990 and in 2008 is it prudent to use statistics from the 90's? (I dont know the answer to this, throwing it out as discussion...)
That's the assumption. Examining the data, it does indeed appear to hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanzack View Post
Are the years weighted in importance, and if so / not what is the best way to weight the statistics?
No.

Here's how I footnoted the relevant chart on the NFL forum:
  • The push frequency for a given point spread was determined by the percentage of games with a closing spread within 2 points of the spread in question ending with a favorite margin of victory equal to that spread. For example, the push frequency of a spread of 3 was determined from all games with a closing spread between 1 and 5.
  • This is based on Stanford Wong's methodology as described in Sharp Sports Betting.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
vanzack
SBR Sharp
 
Join Date: 12-16-06
Posts: 381
vanzack is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
That's the assumption. Examining the data, it does indeed appear to hold.

No.

Here's how I footnoted the relevant chart on the NFL forum:
  • <span style="font-size: 11px;">The push frequency for a given point spread was determined by the percentage of games with a closing spread within 2 points of the spread in question ending with a favorite margin of victory equal to that spread. For example, the push frequency of a spread of 3 was determined from all games with a closing spread between 1 and 5.</span>
  • <span style="font-size: 11px;">This is based on Stanford Wong's methodology as described in Sharp Sports Betting.</span>

Thanks, and thanks for the efforts on the calculator.

I would be curious to hear others thoughts on the validity of using non-weighted stats since 1990.

I dont have any evidence one way or the other but think it would be an interesting discussion.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:57 PM   #12 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,813
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanzack View Post
Thanks, and thanks for the efforts on the calculator.

I would be curious to hear others thoughts on the validity of using non-weighted stats since 1990.

I dont have any evidence one way or the other but think it would be an interesting discussion.
Testing a data set for stationarity is not difficult.

If you're interested on the underlying mathematics, see the Wolfram entry on the stationary of time series.

Code:
	1990s				2000s	

Spread	n	p		Spread	n	p
0	312	0.00%		0	195	0.00%
1	901	2.55%		1	780	2.44%
2	1,105	1.99%		2	917	1.96%
3	1,210	9.67%		3	1,006	9.94%
4	1,233	3.41%		4	1,038	2.50%
5	1,278	1.64%		5	1,159	1.73%
6	891	3.93%		6	726	2.75%
7	824	5.83%		7	628	5.57%
8	772	1.94%		8	627	2.39%
9	618	0.81%		9	490	1.02%
10	417	4.80%		10	276	5.07%
11	343	2.33%		11	243	2.06%
12	279	0.72%		12	179	0.00%
13	202	0.99%		13	105	1.90%
14	164	4.88%		14	81	4.94%
15	135	2.22%		15	70	0.00%
16	79	3.80%		16	36	2.78%
17	43	4.65%		17	23	4.35%
__________________

Last edited by Ganchrow : 08-05-2007 at 02:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 09:08 AM   #13 (permalink)
ProlinePlayer
SBR Rookie
 
Join Date: 05-03-07
Posts: 15
ProlinePlayer is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganchrow View Post
MLB goes back to 1999.
NBA goes back to 1990.
NFL goes back to 1990.
NCAA BB does back to 1997.
NCAA FB goes back (in theory) to 1990.
I don't really know if it makes much of a difference, but for this kind of thing I prefer to use a cutoff of 1994 for the NFL.

The year the 2-point conversion was introduced. I would suspect that the probabilities around the key numbers may be somewhat different before/after that change.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 12:33 AM   #14 (permalink)
Ganchrow
Moderator
 
Ganchrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: Forest Hills, NY, Home of the Blitzkrieg Bop
Posts: 4,813
Ganchrow is offline
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProlinePlayer View Post
I don't really know if it makes much of a difference, but for this kind of thing I prefer to use a cutoff of 1994 for the NFL.

The year the 2-point conversion was introduced. I would suspect that the probabilities around the key numbers may be somewhat different before/after that change.
Certainly a good point.

In reality, however, it doesn't make much of a difference. Stanford Wong's apparent assessment is that the increase in sample size makes up for the slight regime change that may have coincided with the reimplementation of the NFL 2-point conversion in the 1994-95 season. Wong's data set, however, stretches all the way back to the mid 80s.

For what it's worth, with my particular (and to be blunt, somewhat arbitrary) choice of data set years, the figures barely hiccough if you exclude the four pre-1994 seasons. In reality, the sampling is pretty noisy to begin with, and it's probably even more disingenuous of me to take those percentages out of to 3 decimal places. (Of course the tiny sample sizes are probably a big part of why I personally don't much bet the NFL to begin with.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 01:50 AM   #15 (permalink)
Bill Dozer
Administrator
 
Bill Dozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-12-05
Posts: 5,874
Bill Dozer is online now
Default

This is a very cool tool that takes line shopping to the next lext level. I think this will be the most popular tool hands down.