Golf Forum Recap

[Stanley]

Outrights Leaderboard
-------------------------

c20916 ... 1-1; +6.00 units [Casey 7/1 1st]



Matchups Leaderboard
-------------------------

Stanley ... 22-10; +11.09 units

AK2009Masters ... 2-0; +2.00 units

Sharky17 ... 1-0; +1.00 units

Chip Hilton ... 2-1; +0.85 units

Tommyjay ... 2-2; +0.20 units



2009 HALL OF FAME (ytd)

Outrights

1. JimmyTime +120.00 units
2. PGS +24.38 units
3. c20916 +23.00 units
4. Another Steve +15.00 units
5. Tommyjay +10.00 units
6. Lostinamerica +8.42 units


Matchups

1. Stanley +29.99 units
2. DerrickTulips +12.84 units
3. AK2009Masters +11.75 units
4. c20916 +11.20 units
5. Pharlap +8.90 units
6. BUCSnotYUCKS +2.05 units
7. BOBBYW +2.00 units
7. LDB +2.00 units
9. Djouweu +1.65 units
10. jr11 +1.05 units
10. Mastermind Law +1.05 units
11. Sam +1.00 units
11. Sharky17 +1.00 units
11. Toto +1.00 units
14. Glfrboy21 +0.80 units

 

[DerrickTulips]

Outrights Leaderboard
-------------------------

c20916 ... 1-1; +6.00 units [Casey 7/1 1st]



Matchups Leaderboard
-------------------------

Stanley ... 22-10; +11.09 units

AK2009Masters ... 2-0; +2.00 units

Sharky17 ... 1-0; +1.00 units

Chip Hilton ... 2-1; +0.85 units

Tommyjay ... 2-2; +0.20 units



2009 HALL OF FAME (ytd)

Outrights

1. JimmyTime +120.00 units
2. PGS +24.38 units
3. c20916 +23.00 units
4. Another Steve +15.00 units
5. Tommyjay +10.00 units
6. Lostinamerica +8.42 units


Matchups

1. Stanley +29.99 units
2. DerrickTulips +12.84 units
3. AK2009Masters +11.75 units
4. c20916 +11.20 units
5. Pharlap +8.90 units
6. BUCSnotYUCKS +2.05 units
7. BOBBYW +2.00 units
7. LDB +2.00 units
9. Djouweu +1.65 units
10. jr11 +1.05 units
10. Mastermind Law +1.05 units
11. Sam +1.00 units
11. Sharky17 +1.00 units
11. Toto +1.00 units
14. Glfrboy21 +0.80 units

Of course I bet 4 plays this week but the one i post loses.. the other 3 win. Doesn't matter.. sick effort by Stan. I actually wanted to fade Calc but the books didnt put lines up.. he pulled that same wd stunt last week as well. Onto the masters

 

[phar.lap]

Great stuff Stan. Made me some nice dollars over the weekend.

 

[Stanley]

Cheers guys

Actually had some spare time last week ... term finished for Easter :00hour ... so went through as many 18-hole matches as I had recorded since the start of last year. Basic result was that I would have won a fortune had I played every one that my 'model' flagged up, but since it flagged up as many as 25 matches per day on the PGA Tour, I'd been setting a very high threshold to bring the number of posted plays down to a handful each day ... and they weren't doing any better than my discarded plays. I was also playing a disproportionate number of small dogs, which makes no sense from a 'longshot bias' perspective.

So from Saturday onwards, I decided just to post the top-5 from the 'big list' every day. It means I'm playing a lot more favourites, which is never good for the nerves :lol:

 

[DerrickTulips]

Cheers guys

Actually had some spare time last week ... term finished for Easter :00hour ... so went through as many 18-hole matches as I had recorded since the start of last year. Basic result was that I would have won a fortune had I played every one that my 'model' flagged up, but since it flagged up as many as 25 matches per day on the PGA Tour, I'd been setting a very high threshold to bring the number of posted plays down to a handful each day ... and they weren't doing any better than my discarded plays. I was also playing a disproportionate number of small dogs, which makes no sense from a 'longshot bias' perspective.

So from Saturday onwards, I decided just to post the top-5 from the 'big list' every day. It means I'm playing a lot more favourites, which is never good for the nerves :lol:

It's hard now a days with the books laying 30 and 40 cent juices. It's hard to get + money on matchups. That being said, Im still amazed how you guys can follow all of these tours. The only time I delve away from the pga is when an injury surfaces..

 

[phar.lap]

Cheers guys

Actually had some spare time last week ... term finished for Easter :00hour ... so went through as many 18-hole matches as I had recorded since the start of last year. Basic result was that I would have won a fortune had I played every one that my 'model' flagged up,........

Interesting that Stan.......I have been meaning to do the same thing with my model (i.e. go thru all flagged plays each weekend and see the result). I think I am leaving a lot on the table by keeping it to just a handful of plays each weekend.

 

[DerrickTulips]

Interesting that Stan.......I have been meaning to do the same thing with my model (i.e. go thru all flagged plays each weekend and see the result). I think I am leaving a lot on the table by keeping it to just a handful of plays each weekend.

Sounds like we all cap differently. Mine is not statically based. First thing I do is check to see if any of my fades are in the matchup list (i.e. Mike Campbell). Then I go matchup by matchup and see if there are any glaring differences with recent and course form. The books obviously have those stats, so the lines are relatively tight, thus you need to find other angles. I guess I go on feel more than anything. Like I know a guy like Quiros would be awful at a shotmakers course, I dont need stats to prove that..

 

[Stanley]

Sounds like we all cap differently.

And that is why golf is such a good sport to bet on. Not only do different bettors look for different things, but there are so many golfers in each tournament. The compilers cannot study every player in-depth, which is why there should be a good return to those punters who put in a lot of work researching the 'news' about each player.

Conversely, ever since the bean counters (plus Betfair and the odds comparison sites) came to dominate bookmaking, compiling has become almost exclusively about balancing the liabilities on all players in the field/matchup. So that means that the compilers stick to what the majority of golf punters look at ... current form & course form. If punters can be even a little more sophisticated in their 'modelling', they can pick off the weak lines as they appear.

I, for one, am very happy if compilers put a lot more emphasis upon (i) a player's performances in recent weeks than over the longer term (class vs. form); and (ii) a player's past performances on that week's course ('horses for courses' only really exists on a handful of courses IMO and there are less and less truly unique courses on the PGA Tour these days).

Dave Tindall says this as well ... the reasonings that we give for our plays will centre upon highlighting current & course form as that is what the readers want to read. Our reasons for actually picking these players may be quite different and we don't want to air them too often, else we become predictable to the compilers (as I did in 2005-06 on my outright plays).

 

[phar.lap]

Of course, studies have proven that recent form is a statisitically significant predictor of performence, and not simply white noise. So ignore it at your peril I would suggest. Nonetheless, you do need to look beyond this one factor to gain an edge.

Completely agree about the PGA Tour courses....a load of generic rubbish most of them.