|
|
#2
03-02-2006, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#4
03-03-2006, 11:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
03-03-2006, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#6
03-03-2006, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
03-04-2006, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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]
|
|
#9
03-04-2006, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
03-04-2006, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
