NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

One game for Thursday.

YTD: 14-15

(13) UCLA
California -1

Season is winding down. Looks like it wont be a winner this year. Sorry guys. I'm on California.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

Nothing to apologize for, NoChance.
The system is a longterm proven winner.
I'll be back next year with you as well. One losing year (or winning year for that matter) does not a system make.

Thanks for taking the time to post these all season. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

PS: I'm on Cal too, if that wasn't obvious, if anyone cared.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

[ QUOTE ]
if anyone cared.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care. I care deeply. I care lovingly. I care....

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

ugh. 14-16 compared to last year's results is pretty far off. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

If this continues next year, maybe you will have to add in analysis of the game in question, to see if you can stave off some of the losses. That seemed to work earlier in the year for some games, when 2+2 BB cappers rejected some of the games.

Or maybe it's just a freaky year.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

[ QUOTE ]
maybe it's just a freaky year.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we take NoChance's word (and I do), then it appears that it is a freak year. Think of it this way: if NoChance had come to this board last year with this system and it was a winner over the season (I don't remember it's record from last year), everyone would downplay its success and he'd get a million "sample size" responses. Why not treat this year as the outlier, given the system's track record?

[ QUOTE ]
If this continues next year, maybe you will have to add in analysis of the game in question, to see if you can stave off some of the losses

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm don't bet on sports, but isn't this when systems break down? I thought the whole idea of systems is just that you bet any game that qualifies, and once you start picking and choosing your spots, you get in trouble.

-McGee

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

The documented record here over two years now is 28-23. I have had success with it for years and will continue to play them next year. If it truely was not as good as I have tried to explain many times, there would have been no reason to continue posting the games this year. This year, while not great, has not been that bad either. Tons of these games went into overtime and lost this year. you would think OT gives the home team an advantage. It just didn't happen this year. Stuff like that happens. Again, my ways will not change next year. I will bet every one of them again.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

Late to these forums, I guess. What is this system?

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why not treat this year as the outlier, given the system's track record?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where I'm leaning right now. However, a few things make me nervous:

- bridgejumper picks for the NFL. He had posted a 60%+ record for his A picks, and this year it got so bad he stopped updating his site.

- I worry a bit that the system was developed pre-Internet and now there may or may not be more information, more quickly available, that the books may have adjusted somewhat.

We'll know more next year.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the whole idea of systems is just that you bet any game that qualifies, and once you start picking and choosing your spots, you get in trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

A coinflip system works the same way, doesn't it? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

I'm sure NoChance is tired of me pestering him about the system this year [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] but I'm just trying to get myself in line with the reasoning (home favs only, as opposed to all home unranked, etc)

I've never been a blind system betting person, which is why the BSPs drove me so crazy at first this year, in the "3+1". When natedogg revealed that it wasn't as blind-guessing as it seemed, I felt better about his "hold your nose and bet 'em" system.

I'd feel better if a "close eyes and bet" system could be used as a foundation for further handicapping, rather than the be-all of the betting. Betting against the public, and fading alongside the books somewhat, certainly has a strong appeal.

I may just need to learn to overcome my aversion to that concept and just close my eyes...

[i] or, maybe this is just my jealous backlash against NoChance, for the 3+1 results this year. Yes, envy is probably it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

EZ,

Even if NoChance is tired of discussing it, I think it's interesting to try to break down this system and I'll play along with you.

Personally I like the idea of this system. It seems to be based on sound principles, that is the betting public overvalues ranked teams just because they're ranked. They may be even more inclinded to bet them if they're getting points, perhaps taking the naive view that "heck, I'm getting points so that cancels out any home court advantage" even if they're only getting a point or two which we know doesn't overcome HCA. This might explain why unranked favs are preferred. The linesmakers know that they're going to get a lot of action on ranked dogs, so when they put one out there, they want to make sure the ranked dog is the WRONG side.

The thing is, I've been looking at these games all year and I just haven't seen any of the value you'd hope to be getting. Using power rankings, RPI, Sagarin rankings, my own assessment of the teams, common opponents, everything I've looked at there hasn't systematically been any value on the unranked favorite. Indeed, more often than not I've found value on the ranked dog, and I've bet against the system quite a bit this year.

The only thing I can come up with is that it is some sort of intangible motavation factor, which could also make sense. Teams are especially motivated to beat ranked teams, particularly at home. The crowd is going to be fired up for a game against a ranked team. So I could understand why the stats and rankings might not tell the whole story.

But if this was the reason, it seems, as you've suggested, that home unranked dogs would fit the scenario just as well. The unranked dogs might even fit better since the ranked team might overlook a game in which they're the favorite and might be looking ahead to a tougher game. The ranked team is unlikely to overlook a game in which they're a dog.


I do think it's important to continue to evaluate the system, not because of the results this year -- they're statisically insignificant and the system may be working as well as ever, but as you point out EZ things may have changed. Perhaps a lot of people (or a few big bettors) are following this system hence the books have removed some of the value from the unranked favs. Maybe the betting public is better informed. These days even a pretty unsophisticated bettor may take a look at the RPI ratings and may think twice when they find out the unranked team is as strong as the ranked team. This might not have been the case even a few years ago as, until recently, the RPI was just some secret formula the committee used for NCAA tourney seeding, but now I think most sports fans are aware of it and can easily find it on the internet. Maybe the poker craze had has brought a lot more analytically minded people into sports betting and betting public as a whole doesn't follow the "square" mold quite as well as they used to. Who knows, but I do think one should at least consider these ideas before blindly following a system.

Anyway, I've enjoyed following the system even if I don't entirely buy into it and I hope NoChance continues to bring the games to our attention. Definitely worthwhile no matter what the results.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

i want to post more on this, and will weigh back in at some point, but don't have the time right now.

But i want to say this before the discussion goes too far.

This trend was published in two major general interest publications this year.

This alone may have been enough to kill the trend.


A (--------------------------------)completely uneducated gamblers
B (-----------------) "moderately literate" i.e. basic intenet, general interest mags, etc
C (------) "educated" gamblers
D (---) decent handicappers
E (-) "sharps" / pros

it used to be A+B > C+D+E
(we want to be on the "less than" side)

this year it swung to A < B+C+D+E thanks to the key swing votes of B moving to our side.

The combined weight of the semi-literate betting public moved the value out of these unranked teams thru the publication of our "system".

This is also why the favorites killed in the NFL this year (group B swung to the traditional underdog lines thus betting out the value of the other side).

just a hypothesis obviously not qualitiative.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

Thanks Performify, I wasn't aware that the trend had been published and widely read. You're right that alone could kill it as there's no way the books are going to let bundles of complete newbies who read some article in a magazine/newspaper beat them with a simple system. But it all depends on how many people (and dollars) are following it.


And I think your general assessment of the "betting public" may very well be accurate, I like the way you presented it. I was going to mention the run of NFL favs as further support, but thought my post was too long and unfocused as it was.

Anyway, look forward to your additional thoughts.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

I would compare this to fish in the poker room though. There are plenty of books out there but not everyone is reading them or beliving them to be right. Same goes with these articles. I can't imagine too many people would stick with it long term without proof. They may try it for a few games and then just forget about it, no? I just think it was one of those years. As already mentioned, it was a strange year for the NFL also.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

That's absolutely a valid comparison and a good point. Definitely there are always going be a lot of really bad sports bettors out there. The problem is that, unlike poker, you can't just play against the bad sports bettors by playing small stakes, you play against everybody. Actually, you're playing against everybody weighted by how much they bet and on average the big bettors are going to be better. If just a few big bettors have adopted your system, it could take most of the value out of it.


To continue the comparison, I think the proliferation of information has, on average, made online poker much tougher than it was 2 years ago. Sure you can still find plenty of fish but the average player is much better. If the same thing has happened in sports betting, it could mean sports betting will become difficult to beat, particularly with straight-forward, well-publicized angles. For example, we may have seen the death of the NFL home dog. Even if a whole lot of squares are still putting in their $50 bets on the road favorites, there are now SO many sharps and even not-so-sharps who know about the home dog angle who are just waiting to pour in their money on any home dog that it seems unlikely there will be much value there in the future.



I'm not saying that any of this is really occurring. I really don't have any data to back it up nor enough experience to make a judgement call. I'm also not critisizing the system, as I said previously it seems to be based on reasonable principles and of course going slightly under .500 over 30 games this season doesn't even begin to prove the system isn't working. I just think it makes for an interesting discussion and even serves as a platform to discuss the bigger issue of whether traditional sharp angles will continue to remain effective as sport-betting information becomes more-and-more available.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

As I was going through these new replies, I was thinking about the dangers of sharing sports information and comparing it to poker.

Continuing your "poker vs. sports betting" knowledge transfer, I think sharing information is a lot less dangerous in poker than it may be for sports betting systems. Poker play requires a [/b]lot[/b] of information and even more discipline to properly implement it. Therefore, I posit that it is less 'dangerous' to share poker information.

[ QUOTE ]
I just think it makes for an interesting discussion and even serves as a platform to discuss the bigger issue of whether traditional sharp angles will continue to remain effective as sport-betting information becomes more-and-more available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something else to discuss- does a bettor get more help from others' input, when sharing over boards such as this one, that he or she loses by the knowledge becoming more public?

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

[ QUOTE ]

just a hypothesis obviously not qualitiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one reason that I'm not keen on blindly following any system without analysis. If the fundamental underpinnings start changing, you'd want to re-evaluate the system before you get sucked in to a long-term losing trend that has changed.

As to what may be your main point, Performify, do we stop sharing information, at least publically? I can't believe that our 2+2 discussions resulted in this:

[ QUOTE ]
This trend was published in two major general interest publications this year.

This alone may have been enough to kill the trend.

The combined weight of the semi-literate betting public moved the value out of these unranked teams thru the publication of our "system".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you are saying that others have also known about this trend and figured it out on their own (though it may be good for NoChance's ego to think that he is the master of the NCAA universe [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )

I think the books have some of the best resources to pick up trends, since that's what they do for a living. Hopefully, they may not be able to do that much about it, due to public betting patterns.

Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 03/02
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you are saying that others have also known about this trend and figured it out on their own (though it may be good for NoChance's ego to think that he is the master of the NCAA universe [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )


[/ QUOTE ]

Not enough time for a full response, but this trend existed and was shared before NoChance. I was aware of the trend and already betting it before NoChance started posting it on here. If you go back to his first couple threads on it when people started questioning it, you'll see me jumping in communicating from the side of someone already aware of the trend.

I first heard about it from my sports betting mentor about six years ago.

When i talk about the trend being published, the worst case was that it was published in a major mens general interest publication which probably has 500k subscribers, a vast percentage of which would fall in to the exact group we're worried about.

I don't believe we stop sharing information on 2p2. The analogy to poker information is correct, a small percentage of people are going to make their way here. however exactly like your poker analogy, with sports betting its much easier to apply the information (following a pick is a lot different from employing a poker technique).