Here is the corrected writeup that I posted Sunday on my page. Thanks again to the readers who helped me correct the statistical errors.
A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF AN NFL GAMBLER
I would hesitate to call myself an excellent NFL handicapper, but I humbly submit myself as at least above average. The average NFL gambler fails to even hit 50% of his ATS wagers and generally loses at least as much money as is budgeted every NFL season. While I have personally had poor NFL seasons the last two years (losing a few hundred dollars in both 1999 and 2000 after winning substantially each of the three prior seasons), I still feel strongly that my NFL handicapping methodology is relatively sound.
Therefore, in absence of actual games to handicap this weekend, I will simply go over how I personally go about handicapping NFL games. For those of you who have struggled to make money in the past, perhaps some of my methods will help. For those of you who have been succesful in the past, hopefully this will at least be interesting reading on an otherwise dull Sunday.
I generally star by glancing at the matchups for the upcoming week on Sunday night after the ESPN game finishes. I feel that looking at matchups before seeing actual betting lines is a healthy practice if done properly. One thing I try to avoid during this time is placing ?my lines? on games. I feel that if I make up my own lines for games, it may get me emotionally attached to a certain game too early before I consider all factors. For example, if I put a +4 on a game and it shows up on the board at +6, I may fall in love with that play too quickly. Truth be told, I believe that is why I erred so greatly in playing Washington at the seemingly generous line of +3 in week 1.
Though I try avoid assigning possible lines to games, I do generally earmark plays that are likely to be made. For example, I knew before I ever saw a line for week one that I was playing Miami on Sunday night and Denver on Monday night (I ended up taking the moneyline on both plays). In my offseason research I knew that Miami had arguably the top defense in the NFL while Tennessee would be hurt by the loss of Lorenzo Neal to block for George. I knew in Denver?s case that the Giants were a mediocre team with little chance of matching up in such an emotionally charged invironment. They were summarily trounced, but not before making a run at covering the spread, making the moneyline choice the proper move in my view.
Generally my Sunday night once-over will net me one or two plays for the next week. This may seem like lax research, and heck, maybe it is. My justification for this method is that I am an NFL junkie and my overall knowledge of schemes, depth and matchups allows me to see certain matchup advantages that will be to my advantage regardless of the line that comes out later in the week.
For the majority of games, my instinct is not enough to produce consistent winners. Therefore, my next step is to take a look at the lines on Tuesday. I look at sides before totals, underdogs before favorites and overs before unders. The reason I look at sides is simply that I have faired better on sides in all sports. The reason for underdogs is that I strongly endorse moneylines over spread bets, and underdogs generally provide better value on moneylines. The reason I like overs is because, well, I guess it?s just because I?m a mark who likes action, baby.
So now I am looking at underdogs. Generally I look at large underdogs first. If a team is a large underdog, that means just by dry matchups, we seem to have a mismatch. Certainly the large week 1 lines like Dallas vs. Tampa, Baltimore vs. Chicago and Minny vs. Carolina looked that way on paper. In large lines, I like to first look for large home dogs with the possibility of the favorite overlooking their opponent.
Why would a large road fave overlook the home team or otherwise come in unprepared? In my opinion coming off a home win puts a team in this situation. The better team is confident, and it becomes easy to look at possible winning streaks before the games are played. A bad team views the game as their Super Bowl while the good team is leaving the comfort of a weekend at home as well. Secondarily, a team could overlook the home dog if they have a big game the following week. Perhaps we should have seen this coming with Tampa in week one, who played poorly on offense against Dallas with 2000 playoff opponent Philly looming in week 2.
I then look to see if there is some matchup problem the big dog can exploit. Can Chicago?s run defense neutralize Baltimore?s handicapped rushing attack? If they can do it while dropping linebackers and safeties, perhaps they could keep the game close enough to cover. These are the types of things I look for. In week 1, it turned out the Carolina offensive line was too aggressive for the patchwork Vikings front seven and a solid running game left Carolina in control from start to finish. That is the kind of matchup you look for that can keep an inferior team close.
Generally if I can?t find a reason to think the fave will overlook the large dog or a matchup advantage that can be exploited all game long, I pass on games with large spreads.
Next I look at small spreads, as I tend to find medium sized spreads (say, 4 to 7 points) the toughest spreads to handicap. With small spreads I generally try to find an overall talent advantage in the underdog. This generally leads me to taking road teams.
One thing I want to emphasize here is that I am looking at the UNDERDOG in these small spreads with the better team. If a team is a road favorite, even a small road favorite, as the better team, I feel there is little value there in most cases.
Lastly, I look at medium sized spreads. Though these games give me more stress than any others, they also give me more money. Moneyline dogs in the 4-7 point range can be incredibly profitable. I rarely play the pointspread in these scenarios. Mainly that is because if I am betting the team, it is because I think they are going to win, so I want the extra money that the moneyline gives me.
The problem with these spreads is that my methods are very fluid. I struggle to pin down certain things I look for. I always check injury reports to make sure the key guys are available. I check stat comparisons to see if a team?s scoring or defensive proficiency is accurately reflected in their yardage performance, or if there is untapped potential (a perfect example is last year?s 49ers, who showed a superb yards per pass attempt early on in bad losses. They kept up the impressive passing stats and became a great team to bet as well as a solid over play much of the time).
After checking injuries and stats, I generally look side by side at depth charts to try to find possible matchup advantages. For instance, if Warren Sapp is matched up with undersized Mark Stepnoski, you can pretty much surmise that Dallas is going to have a tough time doing anything in the middle of the field. After that, i check a team?s red zone and turnover performance to look for problem cases that are to be avoided. For instance, last year I paid the price playing New England a couple of times because while their statistical totals looked to give them value, they were so poor in the red zone that they ended up being a consistent loser.
After I take all of that into consideration, generally I can then revisit the lines and find out where I have value. I always look at underdogs first, but I also will play a limited number of favorites, often on the moneyline, that look like mistmatch situations. I rarely lay low numbers of points because most of those games are not mismatches, and therefore the favorite has little value. It is the same reason I really only like to play -140 or higher faves in baseball. I want a mismatch if I am laying chalk at any number.
Now it is time to look at totals. Totals are tough for me. I can?t really play them on feel with any kind of success. I suppose the thing I look for first is matchup problems on defense that could lead to overs. You know the Jets can?t cover Edgerrin James, so an over in that game could be worthwhile based on the Colts likely scoring all day. You know the Giants can?t stop a good rushing attack, so a play on the over Monday night was probably the right side. This part is tough, though, because sometimes good defensive coordinators will come up with a great sceme that an offense will struggle to overcome.
Next I look at recent point production. If a team is struggling to score 20 and the total is in the mid forties, you bet your ass I am looking at that under. Same situation if a team can?t keep the opposition under 20 and the total comes in under 40.
Lastly, I try to get a feel for things like how red zone percentage, turnovers and coaching styles will affect totals. Again, I play very few totals, so my methods for handicapping them are hardly refined.
Once I have selected the plays that I am going to play or consider in a given week, I then have to decide when to play them. Common protocol is to play overs and favorites early in the week and unders and underdogs late in the week because of the public?s propensity to bet faves and overs. Really, though, it depends on the game. If you watch enough ESPN and read enough media reports, you can generally get a feel for which side the public will be on. It also helps to check with a number of books, that way if the line moves at one or more books against you, you can quickly bet at the best price you can find before all books move against you.
Hopefully this has been insightful. In my opinion money management and avoiding placing make up bets are even more important factors in long term handicapping success. Hopefully, you all already know that, so i figured I would offer up how I actually analyze games.
As far as resources, check out local media outlets in the Mad Jack?s Football Resources section, CNNSI.com for easy depth charts and stats comparisons and ESPN.com for good all around NFL coverage. There are many other places to look, but those happen to be the ones I use most frequently.
As far as gimmicks or angles to look at, I think duplicating large offensive numbers is very tough for most teams. If an average offensive team has an above average output one week, look for them to come back down to earth next time out. Also, i believe coming home after a road win is a good spot for many teams. If you can find a home dog coming off a road win, look at that scenario strongly.
There are a couple of other things I look at, but frankly, I?d rather not discuss them publicly. They are just things that friends have pointed out to me and asked me to keep quiet, so I will respect their wishes. For my friends at Mad Jack?s, I wish you all luck the rest of this season and for seasons to come.
A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF AN NFL GAMBLER
I would hesitate to call myself an excellent NFL handicapper, but I humbly submit myself as at least above average. The average NFL gambler fails to even hit 50% of his ATS wagers and generally loses at least as much money as is budgeted every NFL season. While I have personally had poor NFL seasons the last two years (losing a few hundred dollars in both 1999 and 2000 after winning substantially each of the three prior seasons), I still feel strongly that my NFL handicapping methodology is relatively sound.
Therefore, in absence of actual games to handicap this weekend, I will simply go over how I personally go about handicapping NFL games. For those of you who have struggled to make money in the past, perhaps some of my methods will help. For those of you who have been succesful in the past, hopefully this will at least be interesting reading on an otherwise dull Sunday.
I generally star by glancing at the matchups for the upcoming week on Sunday night after the ESPN game finishes. I feel that looking at matchups before seeing actual betting lines is a healthy practice if done properly. One thing I try to avoid during this time is placing ?my lines? on games. I feel that if I make up my own lines for games, it may get me emotionally attached to a certain game too early before I consider all factors. For example, if I put a +4 on a game and it shows up on the board at +6, I may fall in love with that play too quickly. Truth be told, I believe that is why I erred so greatly in playing Washington at the seemingly generous line of +3 in week 1.
Though I try avoid assigning possible lines to games, I do generally earmark plays that are likely to be made. For example, I knew before I ever saw a line for week one that I was playing Miami on Sunday night and Denver on Monday night (I ended up taking the moneyline on both plays). In my offseason research I knew that Miami had arguably the top defense in the NFL while Tennessee would be hurt by the loss of Lorenzo Neal to block for George. I knew in Denver?s case that the Giants were a mediocre team with little chance of matching up in such an emotionally charged invironment. They were summarily trounced, but not before making a run at covering the spread, making the moneyline choice the proper move in my view.
Generally my Sunday night once-over will net me one or two plays for the next week. This may seem like lax research, and heck, maybe it is. My justification for this method is that I am an NFL junkie and my overall knowledge of schemes, depth and matchups allows me to see certain matchup advantages that will be to my advantage regardless of the line that comes out later in the week.
For the majority of games, my instinct is not enough to produce consistent winners. Therefore, my next step is to take a look at the lines on Tuesday. I look at sides before totals, underdogs before favorites and overs before unders. The reason I look at sides is simply that I have faired better on sides in all sports. The reason for underdogs is that I strongly endorse moneylines over spread bets, and underdogs generally provide better value on moneylines. The reason I like overs is because, well, I guess it?s just because I?m a mark who likes action, baby.
So now I am looking at underdogs. Generally I look at large underdogs first. If a team is a large underdog, that means just by dry matchups, we seem to have a mismatch. Certainly the large week 1 lines like Dallas vs. Tampa, Baltimore vs. Chicago and Minny vs. Carolina looked that way on paper. In large lines, I like to first look for large home dogs with the possibility of the favorite overlooking their opponent.
Why would a large road fave overlook the home team or otherwise come in unprepared? In my opinion coming off a home win puts a team in this situation. The better team is confident, and it becomes easy to look at possible winning streaks before the games are played. A bad team views the game as their Super Bowl while the good team is leaving the comfort of a weekend at home as well. Secondarily, a team could overlook the home dog if they have a big game the following week. Perhaps we should have seen this coming with Tampa in week one, who played poorly on offense against Dallas with 2000 playoff opponent Philly looming in week 2.
I then look to see if there is some matchup problem the big dog can exploit. Can Chicago?s run defense neutralize Baltimore?s handicapped rushing attack? If they can do it while dropping linebackers and safeties, perhaps they could keep the game close enough to cover. These are the types of things I look for. In week 1, it turned out the Carolina offensive line was too aggressive for the patchwork Vikings front seven and a solid running game left Carolina in control from start to finish. That is the kind of matchup you look for that can keep an inferior team close.
Generally if I can?t find a reason to think the fave will overlook the large dog or a matchup advantage that can be exploited all game long, I pass on games with large spreads.
Next I look at small spreads, as I tend to find medium sized spreads (say, 4 to 7 points) the toughest spreads to handicap. With small spreads I generally try to find an overall talent advantage in the underdog. This generally leads me to taking road teams.
One thing I want to emphasize here is that I am looking at the UNDERDOG in these small spreads with the better team. If a team is a road favorite, even a small road favorite, as the better team, I feel there is little value there in most cases.
Lastly, I look at medium sized spreads. Though these games give me more stress than any others, they also give me more money. Moneyline dogs in the 4-7 point range can be incredibly profitable. I rarely play the pointspread in these scenarios. Mainly that is because if I am betting the team, it is because I think they are going to win, so I want the extra money that the moneyline gives me.
The problem with these spreads is that my methods are very fluid. I struggle to pin down certain things I look for. I always check injury reports to make sure the key guys are available. I check stat comparisons to see if a team?s scoring or defensive proficiency is accurately reflected in their yardage performance, or if there is untapped potential (a perfect example is last year?s 49ers, who showed a superb yards per pass attempt early on in bad losses. They kept up the impressive passing stats and became a great team to bet as well as a solid over play much of the time).
After checking injuries and stats, I generally look side by side at depth charts to try to find possible matchup advantages. For instance, if Warren Sapp is matched up with undersized Mark Stepnoski, you can pretty much surmise that Dallas is going to have a tough time doing anything in the middle of the field. After that, i check a team?s red zone and turnover performance to look for problem cases that are to be avoided. For instance, last year I paid the price playing New England a couple of times because while their statistical totals looked to give them value, they were so poor in the red zone that they ended up being a consistent loser.
After I take all of that into consideration, generally I can then revisit the lines and find out where I have value. I always look at underdogs first, but I also will play a limited number of favorites, often on the moneyline, that look like mistmatch situations. I rarely lay low numbers of points because most of those games are not mismatches, and therefore the favorite has little value. It is the same reason I really only like to play -140 or higher faves in baseball. I want a mismatch if I am laying chalk at any number.
Now it is time to look at totals. Totals are tough for me. I can?t really play them on feel with any kind of success. I suppose the thing I look for first is matchup problems on defense that could lead to overs. You know the Jets can?t cover Edgerrin James, so an over in that game could be worthwhile based on the Colts likely scoring all day. You know the Giants can?t stop a good rushing attack, so a play on the over Monday night was probably the right side. This part is tough, though, because sometimes good defensive coordinators will come up with a great sceme that an offense will struggle to overcome.
Next I look at recent point production. If a team is struggling to score 20 and the total is in the mid forties, you bet your ass I am looking at that under. Same situation if a team can?t keep the opposition under 20 and the total comes in under 40.
Lastly, I try to get a feel for things like how red zone percentage, turnovers and coaching styles will affect totals. Again, I play very few totals, so my methods for handicapping them are hardly refined.
Once I have selected the plays that I am going to play or consider in a given week, I then have to decide when to play them. Common protocol is to play overs and favorites early in the week and unders and underdogs late in the week because of the public?s propensity to bet faves and overs. Really, though, it depends on the game. If you watch enough ESPN and read enough media reports, you can generally get a feel for which side the public will be on. It also helps to check with a number of books, that way if the line moves at one or more books against you, you can quickly bet at the best price you can find before all books move against you.
Hopefully this has been insightful. In my opinion money management and avoiding placing make up bets are even more important factors in long term handicapping success. Hopefully, you all already know that, so i figured I would offer up how I actually analyze games.
As far as resources, check out local media outlets in the Mad Jack?s Football Resources section, CNNSI.com for easy depth charts and stats comparisons and ESPN.com for good all around NFL coverage. There are many other places to look, but those happen to be the ones I use most frequently.
As far as gimmicks or angles to look at, I think duplicating large offensive numbers is very tough for most teams. If an average offensive team has an above average output one week, look for them to come back down to earth next time out. Also, i believe coming home after a road win is a good spot for many teams. If you can find a home dog coming off a road win, look at that scenario strongly.
There are a couple of other things I look at, but frankly, I?d rather not discuss them publicly. They are just things that friends have pointed out to me and asked me to keep quiet, so I will respect their wishes. For my friends at Mad Jack?s, I wish you all luck the rest of this season and for seasons to come.
