Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log
 

Week 1

Oakland Raiders +7 +106 $47.17 to win $50 (1 unit) Pinnacle 8/30/05

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Week 1

Oakland Raiders +7 +106 $47.17 to win $50 (1 unit) Pinnacle 8/30/05

[/ QUOTE ]

You really should have bought the half point and layed -104.

craig

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

Quick note - Please comment if you would like to do so. I have no problem with commenting (and encourage it) but it may make auditing of my picks more difficult for those who haven't followed them from Week 1 if the commenting is not done correctly. Going forward, I will post to make this thread more readable in threaded view.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quick note - Please comment if you would like to do so. I have no problem with commenting (and encourage it) but it may make auditing of my picks more difficult for those who haven't followed them from Week 1 if the commenting is not done correctly. Going forward, I will post to make this thread more readable in threaded view.

[/ QUOTE ]


Tech said he didn't want a bunch of different threads from one capper. And you can do threaded mode if you want. Why would we care. It doesn't effect us.

craig

p.s. Why didn't you buy to 7.5?

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

I think what he means is that threaded mode makes it really easy to follow from week to week if anyone has trouble following the trail of picks.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think what he means is that threaded mode makes it really easy to follow from week to week if anyone has trouble following the trail of picks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think what he means is that threaded mode makes it really easy to follow from week to week if anyone has trouble following the trail of picks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is fine. But, knee caps are getting broken unless i find out why he didn't buy to 7.5 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ...especially for -104. I don't don't know what side is right on this game (yet), but I know that you should have bought to 7.5. If anyone disagrees with me I am more than willing to listen. And I am just trying to help.

craig

p.s. Or you might have been able to wait until the line moved to 7.5...the line generally move towards the favs.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

The Pinnacle line was at -107, not -104. I will be happy to do the math for you (though I'd rather not have to do this every time), as sure as you are I did the wrong thing:

Probability the Raiders lose by 8 or more: 46.11%
Probability the Raiders lose by exactly 7: 5.36%
Probability the Raiders lose by 6 or less or win: 48.53%

Win calculation based on +7.5 -107 -- ($50)*(.5389)+(-$53.50)*(.4611)=+$2.28

Win calculation based on +7 +106 -- ($50)*(.4853)+(0)*(.0536)+(-$47.17)*(.4611)=+$2.51

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

I agree with the EV math, but i'd argue the percentages. I think the pats will cover 7 or tie about 61 percent of the time.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

Well that analysis is certainly a lot different than "The Pats are going to murder oakland. Not even going to be close. Pats win by a minimum of ten points." Most people with statistical systems are rarely so cocksure about their picks, let alone a game covering 60% of the time.

Anyway, this is the first of hundreds of my picks. No need to analyze all of them in depth, let alone a 1 unit play.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Pinnacle line was at -107, not -104. I will be happy to do the math for you (though I'd rather not have to do this every time), as sure as you are I did the wrong thing:

Probability the Raiders lose by 8 or more: 46.11%
Probability the Raiders lose by exactly 7: 5.36%
Probability the Raiders lose by 6 or less or win: 48.53%

Win calculation based on +7.5 -107 -- ($50)*(.5389)+(-$53.50)*(.4611)=+$2.28

Win calculation based on +7 +106 -- ($50)*(.4853)+(0)*(.0536)+(-$47.17)*(.4611)=+$2.51

[/ QUOTE ]

Sygamel, what I like about you is how you have dealt with the bullsh&* people on this forum have thrown at you and that you have the confidence of your conviction. I don't know if its smart, but I'm going to be following your plays all season, and putting a lot more money on them than you. We'll see how we do. I may be the sucker, but I just don't have the ability to cap games myself. If you do well, I'll do well, and there may be a little reward for you at the end. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

For both of our sakes, I hope the system maintains its success of the past. I have the courage of my convictions because I've enjoyed success continuously to this point. Only bet what you are comfortable with -- I suggest using a number of different credible sources for your wagering.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
For both of our sakes, I hope the system maintains its success of the past. I have the courage of my convictions because I've enjoyed success continuously to this point. Only bet what you are comfortable with -- I suggest using a number of different credible sources for your wagering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will line shop aggressively. The amount I risk will be small compared to my overall gambling (poker) bankroll. Do not feel any (much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) weight on your shoulders.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

I wagered 572 units last season (for me, 1 unit=$50). Plan accordingly.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
you have dealt with the bullsh&* people on this forum have thrown at you

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide an example of this?

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

I think by bullsh&* he meant skepticism

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

OK. That's a lot different. Skepticism and discussion is normal and healthy. This forum could use more of it.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think by bullsh&* he meant skepticism

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there's been some bullsh&* too....Don't want to look too far but here's one quote:

"So you just wanted to know if you can sell a flawed or unproven system on E-Bay? Let me steal your thread for a second to ask 2+2ers if I can sell (swamp) I mean beautiful Florida property on E-Bay and if they buy today I'll through in a bridge or two."

MasterShakes and some others skepticism has been great.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

Exactly how well has this system done for you in the past in terms of units? You've said it has increased every year but I didn't see exactly how well it did year by year. For example it would be nice to see something like:

1997: +X units
1998: +X units
1999: +X units

and so on through 2004.

Past results explained
 

My records are poorly documented from '96 (first lean prototype, pre-Excel) to '01. Bets were rarer and my bankroll was small, being both in college and not long out of college; however the system was a small and consistent winner throughout. The over/under system began in '02, teasers in '03 and money line underdogs in '04. The same basis of fundamentals has been used for pointspread games since '96 with many refinements since then.

In addition, I only started using online casinos last season so the vig taken in previous years was 10%. The volume of my bets would have been larger, pre-'04, had I been able to get favorable vig prices. Why? Because a bet occurs in the system when the probability of a bet winning exceeds the cost of the bet by a certain minimum threshhold. Such occurrences were rarer when the lower half of the threshhold was 52.38% (10% vig) than under other circumstances, many of them fluid (5% vig is 51.22% for ex.)

2002 +11.7 units among 106 units transacted (meaning absolute value sum of win and loss transactions); with 5% vig, +13.9 units among 104 units transacted

2003 +9.3 units among 201 units transacted; with 5% vig, +13.7 units among 196 units transacted

2004 +34.8 units among 580 units transacted

This is the best documentation I can do for you. I am posting my picks for free consumption and debate, you can do whatever you want with them, even call me a liar if you want. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But really, all I can say is I have total confidence in my ability to interpret mathematical NFL trends to forecast future results. Someday the levee of fundamentals that have worked well for so long may break down a bit, but I won't have any regrets about how I arrived at my intrepretations even if I end up in a losing season.

Going forward
 

All picks will be located at SYGamel's NFL Picks as well as on this thread. I will likely post picks on the website before getting them in here.

Tech, feel free to eliminate the link above; however, I am not selling anything on the website. All picks are free.

Week 1, post 1
 

Oakland Raiders +7 +106
$47.17 to win $50 (1 unit)
Pinnacle 8/30/05

Tennessee Titans to win +275
$36.36 to win $100.00 (2 units)
TradeSports 9/8/05

Note: +275 is the lowest number to play for a 2 unit bet on this game. +225 is the lowest number to play for a 1 unit bet.

All free picks cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks

Week 1, post 2
 

Baltimore Ravens to win +131
$38.17 to win $50.00 (1 unit)
Pinnacle 9/9/05

Note: +130 is the lowest number to play for a 1 unit bet on this game.

All free picks cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't don't know what side is right on this game (yet), but I know that you should have bought to 7.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to razz you too much craig r but I would've been out an extra $6 had I followed your advice. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Hopefully you agree (somewhat) now that giving points does make sense in the right situations.

I will do my best to make amends on Sunday.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't don't know what side is right on this game (yet), but I know that you should have bought to 7.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to razz you too much craig r but I would've been out an extra $6 had I followed your advice. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Hopefully you agree (somewhat) now that giving points does make sense in the right situations.

I will do my best to make amends on Sunday.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the Pats won by 10 doesn't make it wrong to buy the hook on or off the 7 for the right price. Not to razz you, but using the same philosophy, you're out your whole bet by being on the wrong side.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

Well no sh*t MS lol I specifically wrote right after that I'd try to make amends on Sunday or did you not see that? It's one small play of hundreds, I'm not worried.

Craig r and I had a nice discussion going (hardly heated) about buying points so I wanted to make the example that giving points to reduce price and payment in the event of a loss is sometimes a smart play.

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log (No Replies Please)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well no sh*t MS lol I specifically wrote right after that I'd try to make amends on Sunday or did you not see that? It's one small play of hundreds, I'm not worried.

Craig r and I had a nice discussion going (hardly heated) about buying points so I wanted to make the example that giving points to reduce price and payment in the event of a loss is sometimes a smart play.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, this is being very results oriented. Which is what I think Shakes was trying to say. Yes, you would have been out another $6 THIS TIME. But, hindsight is 20/20. It is no different in poker; if the move is +ev, you can't worry about the result. I would not have made a post if NE would have won by exactly 7 telling you "this is why you buy the half point". Because, I know in this instance that it just happened to end that way.

craig

Re: Sygamel\'s 2005 NFL Regular Season Picks Log
 

[ QUOTE ]
But, hindsight is 20/20...I would not have made a post if NE would have won by exactly 7 telling you "this is why you buy the half point". Because, I know in this instance that it just happened to end that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and point taken. But it's not 20/20 hindsight. The idea of giving points for a better price when the algebra works is that you don't have to pay as much when you lose. Without stating so, that was my assertion in the beginning and I am trying to reiterate that now. (I believe I said this specifically in the Trends '92-'04 thread.) Unless you bet with 100% confidence, and I've never had a game rated higher than 75%, minimizing unnecessary loss in the long-run is smart strategy when the math for giving points is with you.

Hey you started out thinking I was dead wrong to give the half-point so at least I've made some progress. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Week 1, post 2.
 

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] sy:

nice website; and nice records over 3 years; you'd be amazed at how many top pickers one year cannot even break .500 the next; i like your doggie approach; especially early in the season

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Re: Week 1, post 2.
 

Thanks scalf, I appreciate it. I am a constant dog picker -- I'd guess only around 15% of my picks are faves. Thanks for checking out the site also.

Week 1, post 3
 

Tennessee Titans +7.5 -114
$57.00 to win $50.00 (1 unit)
Tradesports 9/11/05

Note: -118 is the highest number to play for a bet at +7.5.

All free picks cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks

Week 1, post 4
 

Dallas Cowboys +4.5 -103.6
$51.80 to win $50.00 (1 unit)
Tradesports 9/11/05

Note: -110 is the highest number to play for a bet at +4.5.

All free NFL picks cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks

Week 1, post 5
 

San Francisco 49ers +6 +103
$48.54 to win $50.00
Pinnacle 9/11/05

All free NFL picks cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks

Week 1, post 6
 

Dallas Cowboys to win +185
$27.03 to win $50.00
Pinnacle 9/11/05

Note: +165 is the lowest number to play on a bet for this game.

All picks cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks

Re: Week 1, post 6
 

Note 2: If you can find +195 or better, Dallas to win is a 2 unit play. (that is 1.03 to win 2.00)

Week 1 wrapup
 

New England 30-20

I actually didn't watch a whole lot of this game. I suppose the easy answer is to say the Raiders still have a good offense and no defense...so why not.

Oakland +7 -$47.17

Pittsburgh 34-7

I had the misfortune of watching this blowout. It started well -- behind Chris Brown's strong running, McNair led an efficient TD drive on the first possession of the game. From there, the downhill fall was steep. Tennessee's defense is truly terrible or Willie Parker is the next Walter Payton. You decide.

Tennessee to win -$36.36
Tennessee +7.5 -$57.00

Dallas 28-24

A very satisfying game to watch. Parcells' team was never down by more than 7 and looked like a playoff-caliber team (for the NFC, mind you).

Dallas to win +$50.00
Dallas +4.5 +50.00

San Francisco 28-25

There's very little more fun in NFL wagering than betting against the Saint Louis Rams. I know, I've done it more than a dozen times the last two seasons. The media darlings and bettor's favorites ("That offense is unstoppable" etc.) get heavy play at sportsbooks and probably will for some time to come.

Back to this week and reality -- they got their arses handed to them on the road by a previously 2-14 team. At one point, the invincible Rams were down 28-6.

San Francisco +6 +$50.00

Indianapolis 24-7

Indy's D looked fantastic. Granted, no one thinks Kyle Boller is going to pass over and through anyone even with Derrick Mason and a healthy Todd Heap as newish options, but Jamal Lewis and Chester Taylor weren't able to muster much of any attack against the Colts.

Baltimore to win -$38.17

Weekly and Season Total: -0.57 units on 6.57 units transacted.

I probably won't be doing many detailed wrapups going forward. Any week with under 10 units played (average will number over 30) results in just a handful of games wagered and hence more time to look closely at each game.

Cross-posted to SYGamel's NFL Picks

Week 2, post 1
 

Chicago Bears to win +106.6
$46.90 to win $50.00 (1 unit)
Tradesports 9/13/05

Note: +104 is the lowest number to play for a bet on this game.

Week 2, post 2
 

Carolina Panthers to win +147.5
$33.90 to win $50.00 (1 unit)
Tradesports 9/13/05

Note: +145 is the lowest number to play for a bet on this game.

Re: Week 2, post 2
 

Maybe I missed it in another thread, but would you mind doing running YTD updates after every week, for both picks and units?

Re: Week 2, post 2
 

No prob, it's 3-4 posts up in the thread -- Week 1 wrapup.