|
|
#4
01-24-2006, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 01/24
I think this is an easy pick. Call me a sucker, but Iowa is 9-10 against the spread this year and has been playing way too inconsistantly to give up 2 points to any ranked team.
|
|
#6
01-24-2006, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 01/24
Line's moving the other way, Iowa -2.5 now.
|
|
#7
01-24-2006, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 01/24
I am sticking to my guns and there are tons of people who will back me on this. I wanted to respond to a couple people after the last game lost but I let it go. One comment was along the lines of "I think this has become too public and people have caught on". Now, I realize that it wasn't a poke at me or the system. It is simply what they are observing. However, you could have made that statement each of the last 20 years and this would be the first year it would be correct. In other words, I still say you will not find a better trend to follow in any sport. Again, those that know will back me on this.
The way I see it, people have 3 choices: 1. Ignore these posts (nobody is forcing anyone to bet) 2. Go against the picks (you would be doing pretty good this year) 3. Stick with it (It's been solid for years) I am choosing option 3. Hell, if 4-6 is terrible, I'm fine with that. It has made me plenty of money over the years. I still wish someone would dig up the data on this or find a link somewhere on the net that will back it up with proof. I'm too lazy. I have nothing to prove to anyone. This sports forum didn't exist prior to last year. I promise everyone that this is the first time I have seen it losing this late in the season. Actually, documented between last year and this year, it's still 18-13 which is a winning percentage. I replied to Easy E only because it was the last post in this thread. It is in no way an attack on him (or anyone else for previous comments) and please don't take it that way. What he posted was absolutely correct. Nobody can deny that. I just had to get a few things off my chest before everyone gives up on it. Someone with time please do the research. You will be surprised at the results. As long as I am at it, I do want to mention something that has been bothering me about the NCAA the past couple years: I think the conferences getting bigger has hurt the number of games that fit this trend. It used to be that there were between 25 and 30 games each year that fit. Last year there was only 21 and this year seems like about 20 will also be the max. I think one reason for this is the larger conferences and the fact they have unbalanced schedules. I think we as bettors benefit from teams seeing each other a second time where coaches can make adjustments. The public seems to look at the previous game and play accordingly without understanding that coaches do indeed adjust. [/end soapbox] Comments welcome as always.
|
|
#8
01-24-2006, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 01/24
[ QUOTE ]
I am sticking to my guns and there are tons of people who will back me on this. I wanted to respond to a couple people after the last game lost but I let it go. One comment was along the lines of "I think this has become too public and people have caught on". Now, I realize that it wasn't a poke at me or the system. It is simply what they are observing. However, you could have made that statement each of the last 20 years and this would be the first year it would be correct. In other words, I still say you will not find a better trend to follow in any sport. Again, those that know will back me on this. The way I see it, people have 3 choices: 1. Ignore these posts (nobody is forcing anyone to bet) 2. Go against the picks (you would be doing pretty good this year) 3. Stick with it (It's been solid for years) I am choosing option 3. Hell, if 4-6 is terrible, I'm fine with that. It has made me plenty of money over the years. I still wish someone would dig up the data on this or find a link somewhere on the net that will back it up with proof. I'm too lazy. I have nothing to prove to anyone. This sports forum didn't exist prior to last year. I promise everyone that this is the first time I have seen it losing this late in the season. Actually, documented between last year and this year, it's still 18-13 which is a winning percentage. I replied to Easy E only because it was the last post in this thread. It is in no way an attack on him (or anyone else for previous comments) and please don't take it that way. What he posted was absolutely correct. Nobody can deny that. I just had to get a few things off my chest before everyone gives up on it. Someone with time please do the research. You will be surprised at the results. As long as I am at it, I do want to mention something that has been bothering me about the NCAA the past couple years: I think the conferences getting bigger has hurt the number of games that fit this trend. It used to be that there were between 25 and 30 games each year that fit. Last year there was only 21 and this year seems like about 20 will also be the max. I think one reason for this is the larger conferences and the fact they have unbalanced schedules. I think we as bettors benefit from teams seeing each other a second time where coaches can make adjustments. The public seems to look at the previous game and play accordingly without understanding that coaches do indeed adjust. [/end soapbox] Comments welcome as always. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that people who are pointing to the 4-6 record and doubting the system because of that are being short-sighted. But, results aside, I think that it is reasonable to question the system for other reasons... I was listing to the Stardust line the other day (Dave Cokin and Alan Boston were hosting), and Boston was talking about how much sports betting had changed in recent years. It is his belief that sports betting is getting tougher to beat due to the more complete information that both the books and the players have access to, and that, between the linemakers and the sharp money, the lines get to around where they should be very quickly and very reliably. That's not to say that you can't have an edge or that every line is sharp, but in general, the state of sports betting today is very different from what it was, say, ten years ago. Is it possible that the market is more efficent than it used to be? Is it possible that books can no longer taylor their lines to maximize their edge against squares for fear of being pounded by sharp money? A high-volume sport like the NFL might be different, but is there enough volume from squares on your average weeknight, mid-season college basketball game to really dwarf the sharps? Looking at the lines for the system, I don't think that very many have been "better" than they should have been if one team didn't have a number next to its name (frankly, I think that there have been a few where the line looks to be shaded AGAINST the unranked team). Also, if you look at the line moves, most lines have moved AGAINST the favorites in system plays so far this year. As I understand it, the value in this system lies in the extra point or two that players get by virtue of one team being ranked and the other not. Are we certain that we are getting that value? Just some food for thought... ML4L
|
|
#9
01-24-2006, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 01/24
Thoughts on South Florida +15 at home against Villanova? South Florida sucks, Nova is #6, but South Florida is 11-7 against the spread and has only lost by single digits at Georgetown, at Syracuse, and at home against W. Virginia. I would expect this line to move more in South Florida's favor too.
|
|
#10
01-24-2006, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAAB Unranked vs Ranked 01/24
I would like to add Notre Dame -2 as a "recommend".
It does not fit the trend, but Georgetown is ranked in the AP poll and coming off the Duke upset. I think this qualifies as a special situation where more money could be on Georgetown based on the last game they played. Best to go against.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
