Matchup handicapping styles..

[abc]

Just curious how you guys go about capping. I don't want to give away all of my tricks or links that I use but I'll start it off. First thing I do is look over the field. I look more for fades than I do for guys to back. I have an injury list and try to bet against those guys heavily. I'll look at recent form next to see who is playing well and who isn't. I try not to fade anyone who is coming off good events.
I honestly don't look all that much on prior course history. It is important, I mean obviously some guys play well on some courses, but I think stats can be misleading. I think there has to be at least 4 or 5 prior events played there before you can call the stats relevant. I mean Trahan mc twice in 2 tries at the Hope, then he wins. After I see matchups that have the fades, I then go back and then compare prior history, how guys perform on a course, on certain greens and in certain states. It's important to understand a courses history as well. Go back and look at box scores. Like this past week, putting was key. Driving Accuracy and distance meant very little. IMO. It's also important to read transcripts and as many articles as you can to see a players mindset entering events.
So in importance, I would rank..
Health
Current Form
What type of player plays well at its particular tourney
Prior History on the course
as my keys to capping... Interested to hear how others go about narrowing down plays.

 

[abc]

Good stuff :0corn

 

[Stanley]

Interested to hear how others go about narrowing down plays.

Quite simply, I have a statistical model that churns out expected scores (plus standard deviations) for each player. Once I have a manageable list of players/matchups, I look at them more closely, especially non-statistical angles as those are already covered by my model. The stats are out there, it is just a case of overload if we try to process them manually ourselves so we end up simply selecting the few that appear important and that can be problemmatic (see later).


But that answers the question: "how do I narrow down plays?" In terms of making wagering profitable on golf, that can be quite a separate thing altogether. For example, in futures we are not simply trying to predict the winner, we are trying to compare our prediction of the probability of player A winning with that of the odds compilers.

Example: Woods tees up; we use current form, course form etc.; we predict Woods wins; do we back him at -200?

It's a similar thing with matchups. Woods should have easily beaten Damian McGrane in their 3rd round matchup on Saturday, but was unbackable IMO at -800 (ties void) as that corresponded roughly with my calculation of the true odds. On Sunday though, he was -400 in the same matchup and so was backable IMO as I made him closer to -1000.

So, in terms of finding the most likely player to win tournaments or matchups, then current form, course form, etc. are all important to varying degrees. The aim of profitable wagering is to find those angles that either the compilers don't put enough weight upon or put too much weight upon.

For example, a compiler typically doesn't have the time to research every player in the field as he has to offer prices on virtually all of them, not just cherry-pick like tipsters. So, there should be a very good return to researching player news. Conversely, compilers typically put a great deal of weight upon current form and thereafter course form, so it will be profitable to look elsewhere and especially not at current form if you want to find value in the odds.

Just my thoughts.

 

[abc]

Good stuff Stan. See we have different methods obviously. Being able to create your own line is definitely beneficial. I definitely fall into the tipster category since I wait for lines and go from there. I'm not one for stats like in his last 3 3rd rounds he has shot 75. If there is substantial evidence for a few years that a guy struggles post cut then yes I think its valid.

I also find it interesting comparing how the books rank outrights with who they put together in the matchup betting.

 

[Stanley]

I'm in the Dave Tindall camp in terms of the stats approach re: public tipping ... the stats that we give in terms of our plays are there to "dress up" our plays, they don't cause them.

I said that I use stats analysis to provide a shortlist, nothing more. Furthermore, my primary point was that if we depend too much on standard stats when determining plays, we will find very little value in the odds.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

IMO Bottom line can be improved easist by what not to do then what to do.

Matchups
When had full slate of books would arrange them in order--with most euro books or others with the ties lose or only 3 ball offers on top. After tourney started would not look at them again to avoid temptation. If you bet ties lose--you fight an uphill battle.

3balls--was time you could find some value on occasion--if they had extremely weak throughout included--but those have gotten fewer through the years. avoid generally.

Outrights Don't bet win often generally place only which most of best opps have disappeared.Not a bookies fav betting option--why you can place 3 wagers on same tourney and win them all at given odds.
If you place 3 win tickets at say all being 20/1
Your true return odds are only 10/1 on each and you've cut any value in half--as you forfeit 2 of your wagers automatically.Some are good enough to overcome this adversity focusing on live long shots--and as been to my surprise-with consistency. I have often wondered what their results would have been had they wagered place only on all selections.

 

[Cantona7]

Open Bottle of Wine, pour first glass

Study current form

Pour another glass...

Study course form

Pour another glass...

Look at course suitability/regional performance

Pour another glass....

Forget what I've just looked at and end up backing Robert Allenby or Adam Scott!! :142smilie

 

[Stanley]

:mj07:

 

[CANADA MAN]

For matchups I use a combination of stats, but I mainly go with recent play. I look up necessary stats based on what players will need to do well on a given course. If they've been playing well in general, and the course fits nicely with their stats, I think I've found value. If they've done well on this course in the past - even better. I strongly believe in trusting your gut instinct and not overdoing it with the stats - it can melt your brain. Golf is a crazy game and as you all know, the outcome of 1 round can have a million different outcomes. I try not to look at the lines too much - if I like a play, I like it for a reason and not really for the price. I'm not afraid of the juice if I feel my play is strong, and I welcome a dog who I think can win. I'm still learnin' and I'll always be learnin' so threads & forums like this are a good thing! I guess to sum it up I'd say don't overanalyze too much and go with your gut - it's right more often than you realize!!


:canada1

 

[abc]

Open Bottle of Wine, pour first glass

Study current form

Pour another glass...

Study course form

Pour another glass...

Look at course suitability/regional performance

Pour another glass....

Forget what I've just looked at and end up backing Robert Allenby or Adam Scott!! :142smilie

:mj07: :mj07: Robert Allenby and Adam Scott.. 2 classic underachievers that look great on Paper. Last year I fell into the Anthony Kim and Pat Perez trap :scared

 

[abc]

For matchups I use a combination of stats, but I mainly go with recent play. I look up necessary stats based on what players will need to do well on a given course. If they've been playing well in general, and the course fits nicely with their stats, I think I've found value. If they've done well on this course in the past - even better. I strongly believe in trusting your gut instinct and not overdoing it with the stats - it can melt your brain. Golf is a crazy game and as you all know, the outcome of 1 round can have a million different outcomes. I try not to look at the lines too much - if I like a play, I like it for a reason and not really for the price. I'm not afraid of the juice if I feel my play is strong, and I welcome a dog who I think can win. I'm still learnin' and I'll always be learnin' so threads & forums like this are a good thing! I guess to sum it up I'd say don't overanalyze too much and go with your gut - it's right more often than you realize!!


:canada1

I for one am key on articles.. I have a few links on my blog to places to find information ( including stans place). I think that is so key. To hear that a player is really rusty, or has some nagging injury is definitely an advantage over the books when placing a bet.

 

[phar.lap]

Quite simply, I have a statistical model that churns out expected scores (plus standard deviations) for each player. Once I have a manageable list of players/matchups, I look at them more closely, especially non-statistical angles as those are already covered by my model.

Similar methodology (although I suspect my model is not quite so complex as yours Stan).

I think volatility (standard deviation) is an important element. If you kind find a clear difference between players with relatively low scoring volatility, then you are half way there. If there is a similar difference but higher volatility then it becomes borderline (subject to price). Fairly basic stuff but sometimes not priced into markets.

After that I will look at less tangible issues.

 

[Tommyjay]

The Friday before the tournament, when the field gets posted, I look that over and select by feel, 5 guys to back and 5 guys to fade. This starts the process of checking stats and past performance, and all other pertinent information for those ten or so guys.

The idea of limiting the study group to 10 is strictly to keep it at a manageable level. Besides my "feel meter" is pretty right on anyway. I know who is doing well and why. I also know who is not.

The stats will sometimes eliminate 3 or 4 guys from backing or fading. Sometimes I go back to square one and get a few new ones to work over, and sometimes I just go with less.

I rate my plays for the most part, in this manner.
50% current form--last 10 weeks or so
10% course form
10% age height and weight
10% rest time, work time
10% attitude
10% Sunday results

There are some who are on perminant fade. Els, DLIII, Daly, Singh all come to mind. They will consistantly give value to whomever they play that day or are matched up with.

I never bet my heart. I like Fred Couples, I won't back him just because I like him. I don't like Herron. I won't fade him because of that either.

Should I come upon little known or secret information, I will post it, no problem.

I used to have more and better golf outs. It's harder now. You can't seriously bet golf without Betfair.

More later.

 

[abc]

Like i said guys the key is hard work. Sure you could be a math wizard and run all of these formulas but its about connections in my opinion as well. I'm friends with a few tour insiders and I hit them up on email lookin for the goods each week.
Look at the injury report last week. Toms, Quigley and Immelman all were making their tour debuts coming off long injuries, all 3 miss the cut, 2 of the matchups cashed easily the third push only due to a double bogey on the last hole.

That being said i have some big info this week.. that i will bang once my book releases a line. :shrug:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The more intangibles you can get the better--especially with most accessing same #'s.

--on the #'s
believe just as important if not more if there are factors that back up the #'s or are they random.

If you have course form history of 2 years--and 1st year it rained all week-next year winds blew all week--and this year weather is perfect--do your past 2 years give you any indication at all of what will occur this week?

a very good read each week-is last years thread on tourney--Have seen one other that does this (LIA) that I can tell. Can always pick up something important along the intangible lines.

Keep 2 sets of books--Jot down notes for player tendencies ect that you think are prelevant per their and others quotes and stats and one (the bible) that you transfer the player data after you have confirmed it to be true.

Heres a handy little link with interesting data on player vs player--the data in the detail at bottom inparticular.
http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/65/67/comparison/

 

[ShortGrass]

ABC, what's the link to your blog? I would be interesting in checking it out.

 

[Cantona7]

Scott in great form....

Course he has won previous.....

Resist that final glass man before it's too late and your money's gone!!

Too late! :142smilie

 

[Dr. Fade]

http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/65/67/comparison/[/url]

Nice find on that link. Thanks for the post

 

[abc]

I'm on the Allenby Bandwagon again.. what a **** tease. Amazing card he had today.. :shrug:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

--anybody else hate this years golf channel website?
Last year I spent more time there than pga.com--had an incredible live inrunning stats section which is no where to be found this year (unless I can't locate it in new format)