Willy, thanks for your suggestion.
I assure you I have given a great deal of thought to this matter.
However, my decision is final.
I am not going to continue to put in the time and effort into the individual game handicapping when I see break-even or a negative return-on-investment. It does not serve me well. And, it does not serve the public well.
There are some handicappers who do very well with sides betting and individual game recommendations. I went through a stage of about five seasons, where the sides I recommended hit in the 55-60 percent range. Everyone from the old AOL days remembers those results. That's how Jack and I first met.
But times have changed. Just like teams fire coaches to make way for new ideas, I too must change with the times. It's either that, or stay with the same old ideas that are failing and lose money. Worse, losing other people's money. That is unacceptable. That makes me tear my fuwking hair out. And if you don't believe me, sit with me inside a sportsbook one afternoon where you will hear every profane word in the English language and then some.
Over the last two seasons, I have seen diminishing returns. That's a fact. Not only for the NFL, but for other sports, too. The NFL this season was the final straw for me -- breaking my balls every week to look at results and records, player matchps, and weighing evidence. I have seen "contrarian" methods get completely hammered -- when this approach used to be my bread and butter. I watched in horror this weekend as every square in the universe was on teams like Philadelphia, Tennessee, and so forth (popular road favorites), or laying a shetload of points with teams like Green Bay and Oakland. A few years ago, those types of bettors -- people who had no concept of handicapping -- would be broke by the end of the day. Now, I sometimes find these roles reversed.
These are not bitter grapes. I have no anger inside me about my decision (okay, so I do want to blow up the NFL Referees office). Sometimes, change is necessary. It is good. It is constructive.
My mission is to do three things:
1. To provide information and knowledge.
2. To entertain
3. To provide reliable game analysis.
I am confident that I am successful on the first two points. At least, I hope I am. However, anyone that has looked at recent results in the NFL (mine) can see that the game analysis has been very unreliable. Again, this is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to readers.
I stand by my knowledge and W-L record when it comes to totals. I believe if I were to concentrate even more in this area, I may even increase the win percentages. Incredibly, other than one season in the NHL, I have not had a losing season for any sport in betting totals. That shows the importance of keeping a database of your bets -- so you can see your strengths and weaknesses.
My betting angles also speak for themselves. While we have seen some "mean regression" in recent weeks (which I predicted), these angles have performed extraordinarily well. Were it not for angles, instead of being ahead for the year, I would have lost money. So, I will stick with this pursuit and will try to expand upon it. My only question is -- how much information should be made public?
I very much appreciate the vote of confidence. But I am not looking for any support or words of kindness here. This is a business. It's about winning and losing. It's about money. I have an OBLIGATION to readers to do the very best I can -- and to provide information about games,
However, I am not putting out any games unless I PERSONALLY bet them. If I put my money down, then I feel confident in releasing the play. Right now, I have decided it is no longer worthwhile and want to be totally honest with readers about that.
Of course, exceptions will be made in the NFL playoffs -- which must be handicapped simply as a routine. The changes I am instituting will take effect after the new year.
Thank you again for caring enough to write.
Nolan Dalla
PS -- I'm not suggesting bettors who had the wisdom to bet OAK, PHIL, GB, and TENN were wrong of course -- only that these were very PUBLIC plays, polyester plays if you will.