Granted, a man who hasn't handicapped an NFL game all season has little right to tell others how to place wagers, but please pay no attention to Hank Goldberg on ESPN.
He touted five plays this morning on Sportscenter, all backed up by classic square analysis like:
-They are (X) wins,(Y) losses in their last (X+Y) games ATS.
-They have covered (X) in a row on the road at today's opponent.
-They have covered (X) in a row in this situation.
If you are handicapping using parameters like that, just save yourself some heartache and paypal some money to Henry & Co. None of those factors have one darn thing to do with today's games. Those are stats that take into account a sample where the nature of teams (coaches, players, etc.) have changed dramatically. For example, included in Indy's ATS success at K.C. is a game coached by Tony Dungy and largely authored by Dominic Rhodes running on a wet field against a defense with almost none of the same personnel as today's game. That type of handicapping may result in some wins from time to time, but ultimately it results in failure.
In the interest of full disclosure, Goldberg at least offered analyis focused on today's game when he pointed out that Jacksonville is playing their third straight on the road while Houston is coming off a bye. Of course, those are old, hokey parameters like, "bet the loser of the first game of a baseball doubleheader in the second game," that often mean nothing long term (Joe Morgan quoted that gem at 80%, while the actual numbers reflect a LESS THAN 50% winning percentage over the last three years).
The conclusion here is that Hank Goldberg is yet another example of a square being branded a handicapping expert by the national media just because he got lucky over a short period of time using square handicapping techniques. The same thing happened with Jimmy the Greek, Norman Chad and Phil Mickelson, and surely the same thing will happen with the next person willing to "lower" themselves to giving ATS predictions and analysis to a national audience. Viewer, beware.
He touted five plays this morning on Sportscenter, all backed up by classic square analysis like:
-They are (X) wins,(Y) losses in their last (X+Y) games ATS.
-They have covered (X) in a row on the road at today's opponent.
-They have covered (X) in a row in this situation.
If you are handicapping using parameters like that, just save yourself some heartache and paypal some money to Henry & Co. None of those factors have one darn thing to do with today's games. Those are stats that take into account a sample where the nature of teams (coaches, players, etc.) have changed dramatically. For example, included in Indy's ATS success at K.C. is a game coached by Tony Dungy and largely authored by Dominic Rhodes running on a wet field against a defense with almost none of the same personnel as today's game. That type of handicapping may result in some wins from time to time, but ultimately it results in failure.
In the interest of full disclosure, Goldberg at least offered analyis focused on today's game when he pointed out that Jacksonville is playing their third straight on the road while Houston is coming off a bye. Of course, those are old, hokey parameters like, "bet the loser of the first game of a baseball doubleheader in the second game," that often mean nothing long term (Joe Morgan quoted that gem at 80%, while the actual numbers reflect a LESS THAN 50% winning percentage over the last three years).
The conclusion here is that Hank Goldberg is yet another example of a square being branded a handicapping expert by the national media just because he got lucky over a short period of time using square handicapping techniques. The same thing happened with Jimmy the Greek, Norman Chad and Phil Mickelson, and surely the same thing will happen with the next person willing to "lower" themselves to giving ATS predictions and analysis to a national audience. Viewer, beware.
