STL - An 80% system play

[Never Caught Up]

I'm going to primarily focus on dogs again this week . . . they are more than overdue . . . but there is no way the Rams are going to kick me in the nuts two weeks in a row. If I play any favorites this week the Rams will be one of them. Here's why.

Play on Home Favorites of 7.5 to 13.5 (St. Louis) after scoring 17+ first half points in their previous 2 Games.

This system is 20-5 ATS (80%) last 25 occurances according to one handicapping database.

[This message has been edited by Never Caught Up (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

interesting stats...

thanks for the share.

 

[pepin46]

good stuff. something to do with:

if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

they have the weapons to do it, and it makes a lot of sense. if a team can do that back to back, they must have some strong offense, and shadows a (perceived) small line.

in a different way, or rather, coming from a different angle, i am thinking the same way.


pep

 

[Never Caught Up]

That is a good analogy, pep.

The way I interpreted it was that they have the horsepower to go from 0 to 17+ in 30 minutes without having to warm up the engine.

 

[count zero]

Not trying to challenge anybody, but I can't reproduce the results mentioned for this concept using my database. For home favs by 7.5 to 13.5 inclusive that have scored 17 or more in the first half each of the last 2 weeks, I get the following results since 1983:

Year W-L To Date

1983 1-1 1-1
1984 0-1 1-2
1985 1-1 2-3
1986 0-4 2-7
1987 1-5 3-12
1988 2-1 5-13
1989 2-1 7-14
1990 0-2 7-16
1991 1-1 8-17
1992 1-0 9-17
1993 0-1 9-18
1994 2-1 11-19
1995 8-1 19-20
1996 5-2 24-22
1997 1-2 25-24
1998 4-1 29-25
1999 2-1 31-26
2000 1-1 32-27
2001 0-0 32-27

You can get 23-9 if you start counting in 1994. Guessing that's what whoever thought this up did, with the diff between 20-5 and 23-9 being attributable to different lines. But see no reason to arbitrarily toss out the results that don't turn out the way you want.

Hope anyone planning on relying on this concept will take the time to hand-check a few of the teams picked by this method against their own records. Not saying I have the absolute right numbers, as programming errors on my part are certainly a possibility. Here are the picked teams as per my database:

1983 9 PIT 17 tb 12 wdf10.5 u44.0 Dnc
1983 14 WAS 37 atl 21 wcf10.0 o50.0 Cov
1984 10 SF 23 cin 17 wdf10.0 u43.0 Dnc
1985 5 DEN 31 hou 20 wcf10.0 o43.0 Cov
1985 15 SD 20 phi 14 wdf 8.0 u51.0 Dnc
1986 3 DAL 35 atl 37 ldf 8.0 o43.0 Dnc
1986 8 NYJ 28 no 23 wdf 8.5 o39.5 Dnc
1986 9 NE 25 atl 17 wdf 9.0 o39.0 Dnc
1986 13 OAK 27 phi 33 ldf11.0 o36.5 Dnc
1987 9 SF 27 hou 20 wdf 9.5 o45.0 Dnc
1987 10 WAS 20 det 13 wdf13.5 u42.0 Dnc
1987 11 WAS 26 la 30 ldf 9.0 o41.5 Dnc
1987 12 SEA 14 oak 37 ldf 9.0 o42.5 Dnc
1987 13 CLE 7 ind 9 ldf 9.0 u43.0 Dnc
1987 13 DEN 31 ne 20 wcf 8.0 o46.5 Cov
1988 7 MIA 31 sd 28 wdf 9.5 o39.0 Dnc
1988 13 CHI 16 gb 0 wcf13.0 u33.0 Cov
1988 14 CIN 27 sd 10 wcf13.5 u44.5 Cov
1989 3 NYG 35 pho 7 wcf 7.5 u42.5 Cov
1989 4 MIN 17 tb 3 wcf 8.0 u43.5 Cov
1989 12 MIA 14 pit 34 ldf 7.5 o41.0 Dnc
1990 10 CHI 30 atl 24 wdf 8.5 o41.0 Dnc
1990 12 SF 17 la 28 ldf11.0 u46.0 Dnc
1991 3 WAS 34 pho 0 wcf 9.0 u40.5 Cov
1991 13 WAS 21 dal 24 ldf13.5 o43.5 Dnc
1992 17 DAL 27 chi 14 wcf11.5 o38.0 Cov
1993 17 SF 7 hou 10 ldf 9.0 u48.0 Dnc
1994 7 DAL 24 phi 13 wcf 8.0 u40.5 Cov
1994 14 SF 50 atl 14 wcf13.0 o47.5 Cov
1994 16 GB 21 atl 17 wdf 8.5 u42.0 Dnc
1995 3 MIA 23 pit 10 wcf 8.5 u40.5 Cov
1995 3 SF 28 ne 3 wcf11.5 u48.0 Cov
1995 6 OAK 34 sea 14 wcf10.0 o39.5 Cov
1995 13 GB 35 tb 13 wcf10.0 o39.0 Cov
1995 14 DEN 31 jac 23 wdf13.0 o42.5 Dnc
1995 14 GB 24 cin 10 wcf11.0 u46.0 Cov
1995 14 MIN 31 tb 17 wcf 8.0 o43.0 Cov
1995 15 MIN 27 cle 11 wcf 9.5 u44.0 Cov
1995 16 DET 44 jac 0 wcf13.5 u46.5 Cov
1996 3 GB 42 sd 10 wcf 9.0 o44.0 Cov
1996 3 MIA 36 nyj 27 wdf13.5 o40.0 Dnc
1996 6 DET 28 atl 24 wdf10.0 o45.0 Dnc
1996 12 PIT 28 jac 3 wcf10.5 u40.5 Cov
1996 13 BUF 35 nyj 10 wcf 9.5 o41.0 Cov
1996 15 NE 34 nyj 10 wcf13.0 o42.0 Cov
1996 17 SF 24 det 14 wcf 9.5 u41.5 Cov
1997 3 DAL 21 phi 20 wdf 9.5 u42.0 Dnc
1997 9 MIA 33 chi 36 ldf 8.5 o39.5 Dnc
1997 14 DET 55 chi 20 wcf 8.0 o44.0 Cov
1998 11 MIN 24 cin 3 wcf11.0 u47.0 Cov
1998 12 DEN 40 oak 14 wcf11.5 o44.5 Cov
1998 14 DEN 35 kc 31 wdf13.5 o47.0 Dnc
1998 16 MIN 50 jac 10 wcf13.5 o48.5 Cov
1998 17 SF 38 stl 19 wcf13.0 o45.0 Cov
1999 10 JAC 6 bal 3 wdf13.0 u36.0 Dnc
1999 15 STL 31 nyg 10 wcf10.0 u47.0 Cov
1999 17 CAR 45 no 13 wcf 8.5 o46.5 Cov
2000 4 TB 17 nyj 21 ldf 7.5 o36.5 Dnc
2000 12 BAL 27 dal 0 wcf 8.0 u37.0 Cov

 

[Never Caught Up]

I got this from a capper unknown to this forum whom I highly respect. I am sure there was a go back to date involved that I didn't record because he just took the last 25 times the situation occured according to his database, but let's just look at your numbers which vary slightly (probably because of different lines). 23 - 9 since 1994 is 72%.

Are you going to play into that?

 

[Never Caught Up]

Also, the variable I posted was 17+. Rerun your database search using more than 17 and not (17 or more) and see what you get. I think that could be the difference since 17 could be a key number.

 

[count zero]

Yes I am. Or rather would, if I bet favorites. I certainly wouldn't play the Giants on the basis of 31 trials of anything. Wouldn't you agree that the world's worst blackjack player could easily be slamming the house after 31 hands? The z-score (statistical measure of reliability) for this result (23-9) is a tiny 2.5, representing about a 70% chance of reliability --and that's in the unchanging world of physics. In the real world, what statisticians call "sociological" applications, it's almost worthless. In fact, angles with so few trials can be worse than worthless, as they tend to be desperate stretches that are primed and ready to regress to the mean.

 

[kosar]

Count Zero,

You may just be talking into the wind here, but don't get discouraged. It's good to see you finally make your way over to MJ's.

 

[Never Caught Up]

Not to offend you count zero, but this type of hair splitting corrective post is why I am posting less and less. I have never posted anything on here that I just dreamed up without some basis. The variation between one databse and another to the tune of 72% or 80% of 25 or 50 games between a look back of ten years or twenty years is really irrelevent in my opinion. You are right in that I should have said 20 - 5 last 25, but I am only trying to help, not prove I know more than someone else.

I respect the fact that you are trying to prove this for yourself, but to try to make my figures look bad (which can only be done using those games from 1982 to 1991 which in my opinion are not very relevant today) just leaves me not wanting to share anything anymore.

There are several of us on here who make our living wagering on sports that have had private conversations about taking our communications private among ourselves because of this very reason.

I think your intent is to help as well, but I am sure you can understand why I find it a bit humiliating to have someone attempt to make me look uncredible in a public forum like this. I don't need it. I have more important things to do.

[This message has been edited by Never Caught Up (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[count zero]

NCU -- Would never try to make someone look bad, especially on a board where I'm a newbie who'd like to be accepted. But the truth is the truth, and all any reasonable person wants is to know what it is. I'm sure you wouldn't want your friends to bet on this system and then later find out it wasn't what they thought. If you disagree that the earlier results matter, at least let them be posted so everyone can decide for themselves, no?

I had to write new code for this. I acknowledge the possibility of a programming error, and it would help me a lot in terms of checking my procedures if the results were looked at by someone else. Chances are probably about 50-50 that you're right and I'm wrong. Please don't be upset.

kosar -- hey, great to see you here. Trying to wean myself away from Talksport, which is basically not happening anymore. Hope you'll be around. Also enjoying your occasional post at M-W. By the way, got into a private group similar to what we discussed. Will propose you if you have any interest (one blackball = out, so hope you don't have any enemies, lol). About a dozen guys, UBB w/ no ads, not readable by the public at large. Board donated by an all-around good guy who runs a public forum as well.

[This message has been edited by count zero (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[Never Caught Up]

No big deal, count zero.

I know your intentions are the same as mine. I think the results of the database searches are really pretty close regardless of whose numbers are used. The difference is the way we look at those numbers . . . and that becomes a topic we could both expand on for hours. I'm just an old hippie ex bookie that put myself through college many years ago gambling. Been doing it for the most part my whole life. Worst grades I ever made were in accounting and statistics . . . areas I somehow feel you are highly skilled in. I respect your knowledge and look forward to learning from you.

Best wishes.

NCU

 

[kosar]

"kosar -- hey, great to see you here. Trying to wean myself away from Talksport, which is basically not happening anymore."

Basically? lol...that place is a cesspool and when I do stroll through there, I am always shocked that you still somewhat linger on there....you're too good for that, man..

"Hope you'll be around."

I'm always around here, man, even if I don't post that much...

" Also enjoying your occasional post at M-W."

I've slowed down there a bit, but it can be amusing. Pavlov's dog syndrome that applies to the posters there and all...too easy/too funny


"By the way, got into a private group similar to what we discussed."

E from SD and I briefly discussed this, but I basically told him that I wanted to know who was in it before I committed. Kinda the tail wagging the dog.

"Will propose you if you have any interest (one blackball = out, so hope you don't have any enemies, lol)."


LOL- well, I might have a few(enemies), but E never told me exactly who was in this group because at the time it was just you, him and two others...it goes back a couple of months...

"About a dozen guys, UBB w/ no ads, not readable by the public at large. Board donated by an all-around good guy who runs a public forum as well."

That's how E described it, or at least the vision of it at that time.

We need to take this off-line. Are you still at blownup canine @ screw you .com?

 

[djv]

How about the info above can be added to. St Lou is at home in there nice noisey dome. but not when they have the ball. And there speed may show how slow NY is. St Lou 31-17.

 

[count zero]

Hey, NCU, amazing, I'm an old (really old) hippie too. Hard to believe there's still a few of us around. Thanks for smoothing things out, hope to learn from you as well.

kosar -- yup, still the same e-mail. Will be talking to you.

 

[Junior44]

LMAO@blownup canine!!

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

CZ,

Thanks for checking those stats and emphasizing the point that while 70% is worth looking farther into, I'll take a 57% system over 250 games over an 80% system over 20 games every time.

Last point - If your making a play based on a system or a news story, always double-check it if you can. It will make you be sure of the system as it did above.