EDITING this because the lines were way out of wack . Was going to just delete it, but I'll leave it just to see how it woulda done.:0corn
USE THIS POST FOR :em38:
4th post (down from here) has the corrected lines and corrected plays for Saturday. Note that almost all the plays have changed now that the correct lines are used.
Sorry for the problem; there is an explanation of what happened below also.
Sorry I don't track my record but the ole bankaroo sez that following the "sheet" is working.
Just a little misc. stuff before I list this week's plays:
- added data (from last week's results to my "Calculate the line" project and it is looking EXCELLENT. Lands right on the line in some cases where the line is like + or - 17 and even hits the nail on the head for bigger nos. as well sometimes. I'm putting more weight on this calc. line thingy when I filter the Cruncher's STRONG picks.
- After adding last week's data, I checked out the "formulas" between the newest one and the one we used last week (and also vs. the one we used the week before). I'd really like to see the new one look very close to the older one (based on less data, BUT STILL WORKED quite well). Unfortunately that ain't happening - newest formula is a little too much different than the older ones. The object of this silly project IS to find out which of the MANY factors (stats) are really the most important and which ones are really negligible. More specifically - "exactly" how much weight to put on each factor. So far, the Cruncher keeps changing it's mind a little about the answer to this huge question :shrug:
- I didn't mess around with the sheet (you know, like try to tweak it). But, I AM now able to use TWO formulas (actually - equations) to get my picks now instead of just the latest one. I get it's rating from the
formula that used data from weeks 4,5, and 6 and also get it's rating based on the formula using data from weeks 5,6, and 7. Only the picks that are rated as STRONG PLAYS from BOTH equations get filtered (I wrote how I do that in one of my previous posts) and after passing the filter steps it becomes a play for this week.
Here thems are:
Central Mich. +4: BARELY made the STRONG PLAY rating. I like the fact this team should have no problem putting points on the scoreboard. Hell, they put up more pts. vs. Mich St. than B.G. put up vs. Ball St. BTW, the Falcons get DOWN graded (Statfox ratings) when I do the filtering thingy cause I've seen them play and they ain't poopies.
South Fla +4: NICE play methinks.
So. Carolina -4: Be careful cause this is one them "looks too easy" plays.
Nebraska -4
N. Illinois +4: This one won for me as a bestest bet a couple of weeks ago and I expect the same today. (UT oh... .. :scared believe I wrote that about New Mex. State last week). I never got to actually see them play, but I did go over each of their games pretty close like and the Huskies get UPgraded in my figures. They lost several key players from last yr's. defensive squad but apparently thats not affecting their play this year. Watch for Coffman to pick at least one this Sat.
Rice +10 (git the hook and make it 10 1/2): NO the Cruncher didn't blow a fuse when it picked this college football team wannabe. The first thing I saw when filtering this one was the level of competition they faced vs. who their opponent's faced so far this season. That was enough for me to make them a real play. They did cover vs. Okie State in week 3 BTW. One HUGE problem though is that Fanuzzi (Rice QB) is questionable and Rice relies on the air ball game. Still, they're returning home vs a so/so team and I got a good feeling about this game with 10 1/2 points in my pocket at the get-go.
This one's MY pick:
FIU +10 1/2: Ever hear of em? :142smilie I bet there really are some that haven't. This team has improved to TERRIBLE and that status can handle Ark. State I think ESP. with a 10 1/2 point head start. I've seen them play and believe a LOT of people would know who their QB is if he only had some big team receivers to work with. He is very good. And how bout a player named Jason Frierson - third best (avg.) punt returner IN THE COUNTRY.
Wanna forget the checkmark on yer scorecard and play along?? Playing them all, even for only one stinkin unit, has been working all but one week or.. .. .... .. . just pick a red one, make sure YOU think they gotta shot, and go a little heavier.
G.L.
USE THIS POST FOR :em38:
4th post (down from here) has the corrected lines and corrected plays for Saturday. Note that almost all the plays have changed now that the correct lines are used.
Sorry for the problem; there is an explanation of what happened below also.
Sorry I don't track my record but the ole bankaroo sez that following the "sheet" is working.
Just a little misc. stuff before I list this week's plays:
- added data (from last week's results to my "Calculate the line" project and it is looking EXCELLENT. Lands right on the line in some cases where the line is like + or - 17 and even hits the nail on the head for bigger nos. as well sometimes. I'm putting more weight on this calc. line thingy when I filter the Cruncher's STRONG picks.
- After adding last week's data, I checked out the "formulas" between the newest one and the one we used last week (and also vs. the one we used the week before). I'd really like to see the new one look very close to the older one (based on less data, BUT STILL WORKED quite well). Unfortunately that ain't happening - newest formula is a little too much different than the older ones. The object of this silly project IS to find out which of the MANY factors (stats) are really the most important and which ones are really negligible. More specifically - "exactly" how much weight to put on each factor. So far, the Cruncher keeps changing it's mind a little about the answer to this huge question :shrug:
- I didn't mess around with the sheet (you know, like try to tweak it). But, I AM now able to use TWO formulas (actually - equations) to get my picks now instead of just the latest one. I get it's rating from the
formula that used data from weeks 4,5, and 6 and also get it's rating based on the formula using data from weeks 5,6, and 7. Only the picks that are rated as STRONG PLAYS from BOTH equations get filtered (I wrote how I do that in one of my previous posts) and after passing the filter steps it becomes a play for this week.
Here thems are:
Central Mich. +4: BARELY made the STRONG PLAY rating. I like the fact this team should have no problem putting points on the scoreboard. Hell, they put up more pts. vs. Mich St. than B.G. put up vs. Ball St. BTW, the Falcons get DOWN graded (Statfox ratings) when I do the filtering thingy cause I've seen them play and they ain't poopies.
South Fla +4: NICE play methinks.
So. Carolina -4: Be careful cause this is one them "looks too easy" plays.
Nebraska -4
N. Illinois +4: This one won for me as a bestest bet a couple of weeks ago and I expect the same today. (UT oh... .. :scared believe I wrote that about New Mex. State last week). I never got to actually see them play, but I did go over each of their games pretty close like and the Huskies get UPgraded in my figures. They lost several key players from last yr's. defensive squad but apparently thats not affecting their play this year. Watch for Coffman to pick at least one this Sat.
Rice +10 (git the hook and make it 10 1/2): NO the Cruncher didn't blow a fuse when it picked this college football team wannabe. The first thing I saw when filtering this one was the level of competition they faced vs. who their opponent's faced so far this season. That was enough for me to make them a real play. They did cover vs. Okie State in week 3 BTW. One HUGE problem though is that Fanuzzi (Rice QB) is questionable and Rice relies on the air ball game. Still, they're returning home vs a so/so team and I got a good feeling about this game with 10 1/2 points in my pocket at the get-go.
This one's MY pick:
FIU +10 1/2: Ever hear of em? :142smilie I bet there really are some that haven't. This team has improved to TERRIBLE and that status can handle Ark. State I think ESP. with a 10 1/2 point head start. I've seen them play and believe a LOT of people would know who their QB is if he only had some big team receivers to work with. He is very good. And how bout a player named Jason Frierson - third best (avg.) punt returner IN THE COUNTRY.
Wanna forget the checkmark on yer scorecard and play along?? Playing them all, even for only one stinkin unit, has been working all but one week or.. .. .... .. . just pick a red one, make sure YOU think they gotta shot, and go a little heavier.
G.L.
Last edited:
