Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Alright friends, I'm doing it. Diving in headfirst. Added bankroll to the ol' account to make it possible. Over at sbrforum, they had a breakdown of moneyline underdogs and their records broken out in each spread class and compared winning percentages. The data is from 1985-2007, and I will be updating it every week. They also included the "BE," or break even, odds you'd need to ... yes, break eve.

So, after talking to MT2R via PM, I decided that for every game where I find even the smallest edge, I'm putting a unit on it. He advised I wait until the latest possible time to place the bet, due to the theory that we'd get the best information throughout the week, and a more correct ML. He advised I do kelly betting for this, but because I do happen to like action, I'll play every edge. So, the schedule each week should be:

For Thursday games: make wager at 4pm PST on Thu
For Friday games: make wager at 4pm PST on Fri
For Saturday games: make wager either late Friday night or early Saturday morning

I happen to drink a bit almost every Friday night, so I'll have flexibility here. I'll post the plays for Week 9 in this thread, and start a new one for Week 10 next week. If a mod would rather me keep them all in one thread, let me know. Oh, and all odds from Bookmaker.

So, even though I'm not placing the wager for another 4 hours, here's an example for tonight.

<u>Dog (Spread) - Win % - ML (BE) Edge</u>
Boston College (+3) - 37.54% - +135 (+166) -31

Air Force (+6) - 37.54% - +205 (+166) +39


So, by using this procedure, I'd place 1 unit on the Air Force moneyline, and nothing on the BC moneyline. As was pointed out before, there can be a flaw here, because, is a 3 pt dog the same as a 6 pt dog? No. It's a flaw. However, I truly believe this is going to be profitable longterm, but I'm doing the experiment to find out.

I'll check back at 4pm PST to make the official wager.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

So your system is just to bet every ML &gt; +166?

I'm confused.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]


I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Pirate- I think you should either compile the data yourself somehow (I know that's a tall order) or send a message to the guy who wrote the article to get his data. If you consider +166 as BE for all the teams between +3 and +6.5, you're going to be betting all of the +6.5 games and none of the +3 games. Or...at the very least estimate what the BE points are for each spread.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Also, I mentioned this before but... Why are you restricting the experiment to dogs only? (I would pose the same question to the author of the article.) If +166 is the BE point, you should be betting any favorite that is below -166. Right?

FWIW, I have found that dog MLs get worse as the week goes on. That may just be a sample size thing with the ones I have looked at, but it is something I have noticed. You should really track that as well.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

4th(?)ing the shock of acting as if +6.5 dogs have the same chance of winning as +3 dogs. I really hope this is some sort of error in my understanding/comprehension and not your actual betting method, for your sake.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
So your system is just to bet every ML &gt; +166?

I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's just coincidence that the 2 dogs tonight fall in the same point spread range in the table created by sbrforum.

For instance, a 10 point home dog has a different win % historically than a 3-6.5 point away dog.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Here is an example to help:

Utah State is a 2.5 point underdog at home. Historically, home teams getting up to 2.5 points win 48.2% of the time, thus you'd need +108 odds to break even on the ML. You can get Utah State at +120 right now on Bookmaker, giving you a positive EV on the play.

SMU is a 13.5 road dog, and road dogs of 10-13.5 have a 22.2% win rate, so you'd need +351 on the ML. SMU is at +425 at Bookmaker, so nice edge there.

An example of a negative EV play would be UTEP at home as a 4 point dog. They win at 37.1%, meaning you need +170 to break even. UTEP is at +150, so it's a negative expectation.

Hope that helps.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

I started something similar last week. Probably missed a few games. Went 3-5, +3.9U thanks to Pitt and Stanford winning. Missed one by 2 pts and one by 3 pts. 8 games is nothing to judge by but I'm going to stay on it this week at least. I'm intrigued so keep us updated [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
I started something similar last week. Probably missed a few games. Went 3-5, +3.9U thanks to Pitt and Stanford winning. Missed one by 2 pts and one by 3 pts. 8 games is nothing to judge by but I'm going to stay on it this week at least. I'm intrigued so keep us updated [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

you were likely riding the same games I was

San Diego St's fumble late in the 4th up 4 in New Mexico territory was a killer as the Lobos came back and won in the final minute

gah

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

oh yeah...your ranges are too large pirateboy

that article is somewhat misleading

like a 3 to 4 point road dog wins SU about 40% of the time
however, 6 to 7 is slightly less than 30%

to put 3.5 to 6 in the same category is not good

13.5 point dogs have only won SU 15.74% of the time in 108 games since 1993

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

MT2R, do you have an easy table for that info made or can link?

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Tonight we have one play that falls into the experiment:

Air Force +235 @ New Mexico - risking 1u to win 2.35u

Break even ML would have been +166.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

You do realize that you're basically just going to be betting the point spreads which fall into the upper half of your bounds when you have sizes like that...right?

Good luck man...

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

OK first off here's a link to the article.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/college-footba...l-mls-read.html

I took a look at these this week too Pirateboy and, as others have hypothesized, all the dogs fitting the criteria are catching points at the upper ends of the groupings.

Examples (from notes,lines may have changed):
Air Force +6 ML +210
Colorado +13.5 ML +450
C Fla +2.5 ML +125

So is there really value? Maybe. What I've been thinking of doing is placing the BE point in the middle of the range and then calculating a corresponding BE ML for each 1/2 point at the high end of the range utilizing the differences in the BE points from the original chart. It's not exactly linear but it may be closer to actually determining value.
Something like this(home teams)
Range 1-2.5.........3-6.5.......7-9.5
BE +108..........+170........+262
Midpoint 1.75.......4.75........8.25

There is a $62 difference in BE ML's for the first two ranges and there are six possible spreads involved. So we'd need to add ~$10 for each full 1/2 point which would make BE for +2 $113 and for +2.5 it would be $123.

For the next two ranges the difference is $92 and there are seven spread points involved so we'd need to add ~$13 to each full 1/2 point at the upper end. This would set the BE's at $177 for 5, $190 for 5.5, $203 for 6 and $216 for 6.5.

Now admittedly I may be completely off on this but these adjusted BE's seem to match up with posted ML's pretty well.
Feedback anyone?

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

No value on the Fresno ML on Friday night, so here are the Saturday plays:

Connecticut +170

North Carolina +200

Pittsburgh +330

Texas A&amp;M +140

UNLV +10

USC +130

Arizona +150

EMU +175

Georgia +255

Maryland +145

NC State +155

Ohio +240

South Carolina +125

Northern Illinois +145

Penn State +150

Cal +135

ULM +215

Arkansas State +160

North Texas +425

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK first off here's a link to the article.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/college-footba...l-mls-read.html

I took a look at these this week too Pirateboy and, as others have hypothesized, all the dogs fitting the criteria are catching points at the upper ends of the groupings.

Examples (from notes,lines may have changed):
Air Force +6 ML +210
Colorado +13.5 ML +450
C Fla +2.5 ML +125

So is there really value? Maybe. What I've been thinking of doing is placing the BE point in the middle of the range and then calculating a corresponding BE ML for each 1/2 point at the high end of the range utilizing the differences in the BE points from the original chart. It's not exactly linear but it may be closer to actually determining value.
Something like this(home teams)
Range 1-2.5.........3-6.5.......7-9.5
BE +108..........+170........+262
Midpoint 1.75.......4.75........8.25

There is a $62 difference in BE ML's for the first two ranges and there are six possible spreads involved. So we'd need to add ~$10 for each full 1/2 point which would make BE for +2 $113 and for +2.5 it would be $123.

For the next two ranges the difference is $92 and there are seven spread points involved so we'd need to add ~$13 to each full 1/2 point at the upper end. This would set the BE's at $177 for 5, $190 for 5.5, $203 for 6 and $216 for 6.5.

Now admittedly I may be completely off on this but these adjusted BE's seem to match up with posted ML's pretty well.
Feedback anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like it kdog. Not perfect, but seems like a good approximation. I definitely like it much. much better than just using a single number across a wide range (no offense pirateboy).

Will be interested to see your results!

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
No value on the Fresno ML on Friday night, so here are the Saturday plays:

Connecticut +170

North Carolina +200

Pittsburgh +330

Texas A&amp;M +140

UNLV +10

USC +130

Arizona +150

EMU +175

Georgia +255

Maryland +145

NC State +155

Ohio +240

South Carolina +125

Northern Illinois +145

Penn State +150

Cal +135

ULM +215

Arkansas State +160

North Texas +425

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I don't understand, but it seems you are going against that article now. You have a lot of bets there on teams that are 3-6.5 point dogs, but you aren't getting the +166 necessary to qualify for your experiment. NC State, Penn State, Cal, Maryland...

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I don't understand, but it seems you are going against that article now. You have a lot of bets there on teams that are 3-6.5 point dogs, but you aren't getting the +166 necessary to qualify for your experiment. NC State, Penn State, Cal, Maryland...

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's the point of his "fine-tuning" the spirit of the article, as explained above. It really doesn't make sense to treat +3 and +6.5 dogs interchangeably and use the same cut-off, so interpolation seems sensible and consistent.

In other words, I'm sure someone could go back and perform the same analysis with a smaller spread range than 3.5 points, and my guess is that the "cut-off" for +3 would be different from the one for +6.5.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

silentbob- I don't think he has fine-tuned it. Or at least he hasn't mentioned it here. Are you talking about kdog's post?

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Yeah, sorry. I thought you were responding to kdog. Under the fine-tuned system, the only ones betting (based on my approximations) are:

Maryland (although I can only find +140 right now)
Ohio (available at +250 some places)
N. Illinois
North Carolina
North Carolina State

I bet a couple of these for other reasons.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

As others have pointed out, the problem with this approach is that the ranges used are too broad; there is a huge difference between a +3.5 dog and a +6 dog. I ran the numbers for road underdogs since 1996 and got the straight-up W/L record for each individual line. I think this illustrates the problems with using broad ranges.

NCAAF Road Underdogs since 1996
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Line Wins Losses Win % Breakeven ML
+1 57 47 0.548 -121
+1.5 46 39 0.541 -118
+2 28 32 0.467 114
+2.5 79 63 0.556 -125
+3 112 141 0.443 126
+3.5 55 82 0.401 149
+4 40 66 0.377 165
+4.5 28 82 0.255 293
+5 21 41 0.339 195
+5.5 48 65 0.425 135
+6 40 79 0.336 198
+6.5 44 98 0.310 223
+7 59 126 0.319 214
+7.5 40 104 0.278 260
+8 20 44 0.313 220
+8.5 23 80 0.223 348
+9 18 40 0.310 222
+9.5 23 84 0.215 365
+10 35 94 0.271 269
+10.5 14 67 0.173 479
+11 21 36 0.368 171
+11.5 17 37 0.315 218
+12 13 40 0.245 308
+12.5 22 53 0.293 241
+13 17 70 0.195 412
+13.5 23 88 0.207 383
+14 23 112 0.170 487
</pre><hr />

These numbers are interesting, but they also show that you can't use extremely narrow ranges (exact lines) for this type of analysis, either. For example, +5.5 dogs performed *better* than +4.5 dogs by a huge margin. Does that mean we should blindly bet all +5.5 dogs and all -4.5 faves? Probably not. Much more likely that it is just a random effect, even over these fairly large sample sizes.

A better option might be to use a range size in between the two extremes, say +/- half a point, so the ranges would be +1..+2, +1.5..+2.5, +2..+3, +2.5..+3.5, and so on. The line for a particular game would fall into three of these ranges, so if the moneyline showed value for all three, it would probably be a good bet. I'll post these numbers in a bit.

Regardless, I think that the most important thing to get out of this is that these numbers should not be your sole reason for placing a bet. However if you already like a particular road underdog, the fact that the moneyline is better than typical for the given spread would be another factor to consider, that adds a little to your already expected edge.

The exception is with road dogs &lt;= +2.5, which as we've discussed in some other threads, have actually won straight-up 53.7% of the time. I think that, particularly in games expected to be low-scoring, these are good enough to blindly pick unless there are extenuating reasons to pick against them. (Other than cases like Akron this week where they are a dog on the spread but ML is -105.)

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

mogwai- I assume you have that data in an XL spreadsheet. What fields to you have to make it easy to sort? The raw data I downloaded has DATE, VISITOR, VISITOR SCORE, HOME TEAM, HOME SCORE, LINE. I obv. need to create a column for who covered and for who won the game straight up. Do you have the team names in those columns, or Home/Visitor? I'm just wondering which would make it easier to sort. Any other fields that you have?

(anyone else feel free to chime in as well.)

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]

A better option might be to use a range size in between the two extremes, say +/- half a point, so the ranges would be +1..+2, +1.5..+2.5, +2..+3, +2.5..+3.5, and so on. The line for a particular game would fall into three of these ranges, so if the moneyline showed value for all three, it would probably be a good bet. I'll post these numbers in a bit.


[/ QUOTE ]

NCAAF Road Underdogs since 1996
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Line Wins Losses Win % Breakeven ML
+1..+2 131 118 0.526 -111
+1.5..+2.5 153 134 0.533 -114
+2..+3 219 236 0.481 108
+2.5..+3.5 246 286 0.462 116
+3..+4 207 289 0.417 140
+3.5..+4.5 123 230 0.348 187
+4..+5 89 189 0.320 212
+4.5..+5.5 97 188 0.340 194
+5..+6 109 185 0.371 170
+5.5..+6.5 132 242 0.353 183
+6..+7 143 303 0.321 212
+6.5..+7.5 143 328 0.304 229
+7..+8 119 274 0.303 230
+7.5..+8.5 83 228 0.267 275
+8..+9 61 164 0.271 269
+8.5..+9.5 64 204 0.239 319
+9..+10 76 218 0.259 287
+9.5..+10.5 72 245 0.227 340
+10..+11 70 197 0.262 281
+10.5..+11.5 52 140 0.271 269
+11..+12 51 113 0.311 222
+11.5..+12.5 52 130 0.286 250
+12..+13 52 163 0.242 313
+12.5..+13.5 62 211 0.227 340
+13..+14 63 270 0.189 429
+13.5..+14.5 46 200 0.187 435
+14..+15 23 112 0.170 487

</pre><hr />


As an example, my lines on UNC today were +5.5 ATS and +200 ML. +5.5 falls into the ranges +4.5..+5.5, +5..+6, and +5.5..+6.5. The break-even moneyline values for these three ranges are +194, +170, and +183, so +200 is likely a good value on the moneyline. However this line is pretty close to the anomalous +4..+5 range, which has a BE ML of +212. In any case, since I already felt that UNC had greater than a 1/3 chance of winning the game, this data added to my belief that the +200 ML bet had a significant edge.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
mogwai- I assume you have that data in an XL spreadsheet. What fields to you have to make it easy to sort? The raw data I downloaded has DATE, VISITOR, VISITOR SCORE, HOME TEAM, HOME SCORE, LINE. I obv. need to create a column for who covered and for who won the game straight up. Do you have the team names in those columns, or Home/Visitor? I'm just wondering which would make it easier to sort. Any other fields that you have?

[/ QUOTE ]

My data does have several more columns, but they aren't too relevant here - what you have should work just fine. First filter out everything except road underdogs (or whatever subset you want to look at). I made a column "SU Result" that has a value of 1 if the road team won and -1 if the road team lost. I made a cell that did subtotal(9, ) of that column. Then I can just autofilter on the line or range of lines I'm interested in, and autofilter on the SU Result column for 1 to get the wins count and -1 to get the losses count. I'm sure there are ways to automate it even more, but this works for me.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

I just placed a bet on UNLV +350. They are a 10 point dog on the spread but you have to go all the way to +13..+14 before you see a break-even ML worse than +350.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No value on the Fresno ML on Friday night, so here are the Saturday plays:

Connecticut +170

North Carolina +200

Pittsburgh +330

Texas A&amp;M +140

UNLV +10

USC +130

Arizona +150

EMU +175

Georgia +255

Maryland +145

NC State +155

Ohio +240

South Carolina +125

Northern Illinois +145

Penn State +150

Cal +135

ULM +215

Arkansas State +160

North Texas +425

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I don't understand, but it seems you are going against that article now. You have a lot of bets there on teams that are 3-6.5 point dogs, but you aren't getting the +166 necessary to qualify for your experiment. NC State, Penn State, Cal, Maryland...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have since received an even better data set, thus, I can get far more specific.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

I noticed I put "UNLV +10" which is obv wrong. It was +350.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No value on the Fresno ML on Friday night, so here are the Saturday plays:

Connecticut +170

North Carolina +200

Pittsburgh +330

Texas A&amp;M +140

UNLV +10

USC +130

Arizona +150

EMU +175

Georgia +255

Maryland +145

NC State +155

Ohio +240

South Carolina +125

Northern Illinois +145

Penn State +150

Cal +135

ULM +215

Arkansas State +160

North Texas +425

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I don't understand, but it seems you are going against that article now. You have a lot of bets there on teams that are 3-6.5 point dogs, but you aren't getting the +166 necessary to qualify for your experiment. NC State, Penn State, Cal, Maryland...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have since received an even better data set, thus, I can get far more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Thursday through Saturday 7-12 +.6u

I actually think this week was a bad week for the experiment, and I'm still up on it. I think UCF is a play tonight, but waiting til closer to gametime.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think this week was a bad week for the experiment, and I'm still up on it. I think UCF is a play tonight, but waiting til closer to gametime

[/ QUOTE ]

UCF became a non play for this system when the line moved to +3.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Pirateboy,

Austiger asked earlier in the thread if you'd be applying the same principles to favorites who were below the break even ML but I think it got caught up in the rest of the questions going on. Anyway I think its an important point seeing that it should be an exact reflection of what you're doing as long as you're following the same principles. I know you could start another thread on this but I am just reitterating Austiger's question from earlier. Will you be trying this also?

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think this week was a bad week for the experiment, and I'm still up on it. I think UCF is a play tonight, but waiting til closer to gametime

[/ QUOTE ]

UCF became a non play for this system when the line moved to +3.

[/ QUOTE ]

no...it was still a play
Pirateboy is working off a more refined data set now and UCF was still a clear play tonight

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
no...it was still a play
Pirateboy is working off a more refined data set now and UCF was still a clear play tonight

[/ QUOTE ]

Mind shooting me a copy of this? I bet UCF at +3 about an hour before KO and ML was +135 which is not even close to the BE's we have been talking about.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

re. range of pointspread groupings:

to begin with, are they really that broad? the difference between 4.5 and 6.5 is an extra point, basically. you'd need to factor in the relative frequencies of the various data points if you want to seriously quantify differences between them, else you may be making errors in your refinement that are greater than that posed by the ranges selected by the author. you could end up compounding the impact of -EV events by assigning them a valence too great, given the universal set of which they are a part. in a general way, when attempting to quantify data of this kind, it is always better to err on the side of the less precise and more robust than your instincts might think. i bet another sport that is heavily stat based, and i have found it difficult, when creating ranges like this, to quantify overly nicely. you kind of have to accept fringe events, since there is insufficient evidence with which to make calculations that will accurately represent them. by that i mean, with a given range, say you have sufficient data to make a strong correlation, 99% confidence; when assigning value to the exceptions, or individual points in the data set, you will have nowhere near that kind of confidence, and in application will experience volatility in your results.

besides, the author may have examined this issue prior to publication, and found it insignificant. why don't you contact him and ask what the reasoning behind his separation of the data and if he considered the problems involved in making them so wide?

tlt

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Well, as you've seen, the original groupings are set around the key numbers. 1-2.5, 3-6.5, 7-9.5, etc. So other than the 4 it's really not too bad. And truthfully I can't think of a better way to break it down and still have enough data points for relevance.

I've compared my breakevens to two weeks of ML's now and find most all to be quite close. Since I agree with your statement "in a general way, when attempting to quantify data of this kind, it is always better to err on the side of the less precise and more robust than your instincts might think." (Proceed with caution in other words.)I'm looking for a minimum difference between ML and my breakeven of greater than 5 before I place a bet. That seems like a good place to start.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

I'm going to keep all my picks in this one thread, as to not clutter.

As MT2R said, I have a very refined data set, so those original groupings have now become halfpoint specific. UCF was a play, but I couldn't get to a comp fast enough, and I didn't want to post a play I didn't make.

That being said, our first Week 10 play is tonight:

Virginia Tech +120 (about a 4.5 cent edge)

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

Saturday plays with edge in cents in parenthesis

Rutgers EV (2)
Cincinnati +195 (14)
Maryland +125 (9)
NC State +345 (21)
Duke +650 (115)
Navy +140 (19)
Alabama +240 (12)
Arizona State +250 (10)
Buffalo +215 (2)
Michigan State +160 (10)
Idaho +140 (5)
New Mexico +145 (18)
Stanford +140 (5)
EMU +260 (5)
UAB +355 (69)
Florida State +235 (5)
San Diego State +155 (17)

Like I said, that's the edge in cents on a dollar.

Re: Pirateboy\'s NCAAF ML Dogs Experiment - W9
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saturday plays with edge in cents in parenthesis

Rutgers EV (2)
Cincinnati +195 (14)
Maryland +125 (9)
NC State +345 (21)
Duke +650 (115)
Navy +140 (19)
Alabama +240 (12)
Arizona State +250 (10)
Buffalo +215 (2)
Michigan State +160 (10)
Idaho +140 (5)
New Mexico +145 (18)
Stanford +140 (5)
EMU +260 (5)
UAB +355 (69)
Florida State +235 (5)
San Diego State +155 (17)

Like I said, that's the edge in cents on a dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that this was based on road dogs, which would make more sense given the historical percentages - yet you have Duke and Alabama which are both at home.