Oct 9th-11th Calculated Line Plays
- Thread starter Mick Onofrio
- Start date
with all this attention on MINN
with all this attention on MINN
are we missing a Bunny with TCU, the cream of the C-Usa Crop, getting 3 now???
with all this attention on MINN
are we missing a Bunny with TCU, the cream of the C-Usa Crop, getting 3 now???
Played Minnesota
Played Minnesota
Minnesota +3 as a Calculated Line Play with a Strength of Play rating of 0.97 which ranks it as the 13th strongest play of the weekend 55 to make 50. Good Luck,
Mick
Played Minnesota
Minnesota +3 as a Calculated Line Play with a Strength of Play rating of 0.97 which ranks it as the 13th strongest play of the weekend 55 to make 50. Good Luck,
Mick
This gets me Mick. I am using the Sagarian rating system and I am geting pretty much numbers you are getting. Do you use spreadsheet. I was using the average line figures but I went to the rating section Sagarian and got his ratings for NFL last week and plugged them into a spreadsheet and subracted the team rank from one another home team minus visiting team and then applied the vegas line to that difference and if it popped negative on a home dog they usually covered. It went 7-1 last week is this a coincedence? Furthermore I try to plug college into it but i am confused on rather I enter my Vegas Book line as a negative number or a positive number. how do you do it?
I tried to type an example here but it didnt work....it just got confusing. just tell me how you enter the Vegas Line( positive or negative) or positive for home dog and negative for favored home?
I tried to type an example here but it didnt work....it just got confusing. just tell me how you enter the Vegas Line( positive or negative) or positive for home dog and negative for favored home?
What's amazing is:
What's amazing is:
Minn +3.5 would have made this the 4th strongest play of the week, while 3 made it only the 13th strongest play. It shouldn't have mattered anyway. The defensive co-ood. should be fired for playing his LB's and Safety's in a soft zone. Vegas mad their money on TCU with all that money squeezing the line from TCU opening as a 1-point fav, all the line moves in between, and finally seeing a South Florida team giving 3. At least I got a push, well I won't take credit, my calculations saved me with a push, and The Calculated Line plays go to 16-7-3...should have been a win though.
What's amazing is:
Minn +3.5 would have made this the 4th strongest play of the week, while 3 made it only the 13th strongest play. It shouldn't have mattered anyway. The defensive co-ood. should be fired for playing his LB's and Safety's in a soft zone. Vegas mad their money on TCU with all that money squeezing the line from TCU opening as a 1-point fav, all the line moves in between, and finally seeing a South Florida team giving 3. At least I got a push, well I won't take credit, my calculations saved me with a push, and The Calculated Line plays go to 16-7-3...should have been a win though.
Ballerboy
Ballerboy
I do things very different. Yes I do factor in Sagarin because out of 20+ Predictor Methods I find his to be one of the more accurate. But I don't flat out use his numbers. Instead I disect it, taking his two predictor methods, 1. Elo-chess, 2. Pure Points, and I factor in their weight separately. I compare the two but when you add them up you always get something different from what Sagarin has. So he does some tweaking of his own. If you take the Sagarin ratings alone I think they are useless because they are public knowledge. If everyone went to the Sag Ratings and did the addition and subtraction everyone would win, right? And Vegas would know about this and pay Jeff Sagarin millions to keep quiet. What do is hard to explain. I disect all the numbers from the ranking systems and make them mean someting to me personally. I turn other people's rankings, because I don't have that kind of time to create my own, and make my own out of theirs. I know this sounds confusing but to explain it I would have to do it in an e-mail so I could really put all the numbers out their in a way they would make sense to you.
Ballerboy
I do things very different. Yes I do factor in Sagarin because out of 20+ Predictor Methods I find his to be one of the more accurate. But I don't flat out use his numbers. Instead I disect it, taking his two predictor methods, 1. Elo-chess, 2. Pure Points, and I factor in their weight separately. I compare the two but when you add them up you always get something different from what Sagarin has. So he does some tweaking of his own. If you take the Sagarin ratings alone I think they are useless because they are public knowledge. If everyone went to the Sag Ratings and did the addition and subtraction everyone would win, right? And Vegas would know about this and pay Jeff Sagarin millions to keep quiet. What do is hard to explain. I disect all the numbers from the ranking systems and make them mean someting to me personally. I turn other people's rankings, because I don't have that kind of time to create my own, and make my own out of theirs. I know this sounds confusing but to explain it I would have to do it in an e-mail so I could really put all the numbers out their in a way they would make sense to you.
correction
correction
Minnesota +3.5 would have been the 5th strongest play, not the 4th. And at +3 they were the 13th. I will be back in the AM to update which plays are still on and which one's are off. What sticks out to me is the plays with Whole Number Strength of Play Rankinks (1.00+) seem to be covering at a higher percentage. While numbers less than 1.00, as Minnesota +3 was 0.97. Minnesota +3.5 was 1.04. I know it's probably just strange coincidence since this is one big experiment but I still find it odd.
correction
Minnesota +3.5 would have been the 5th strongest play, not the 4th. And at +3 they were the 13th. I will be back in the AM to update which plays are still on and which one's are off. What sticks out to me is the plays with Whole Number Strength of Play Rankinks (1.00+) seem to be covering at a higher percentage. While numbers less than 1.00, as Minnesota +3 was 0.97. Minnesota +3.5 was 1.04. I know it's probably just strange coincidence since this is one big experiment but I still find it odd.
Clemson vs Virginia
Clemson vs Virginia
Clemson is now a play...
Virginia at Clemson
AL: VU -5
CL: CU -0.49 thru VU -3.69
ACL: VU -1.75
Play on Clemson ALV 3.25 LVR 1.31 thru 5.49
Strength of play rank: 0.78 which ranks it 15th.
Clemson vs Virginia
Clemson is now a play...
Virginia at Clemson
AL: VU -5
CL: CU -0.49 thru VU -3.69
ACL: VU -1.75
Play on Clemson ALV 3.25 LVR 1.31 thru 5.49
Strength of play rank: 0.78 which ranks it 15th.
MY ACTUAL PLAYS
MY ACTUAL PLAYS
Now that all the numbers are in place and values have been established, here is the most difficult part...Picking and Choosing the plays I want to make, here are my 10 Plays:
Syracuse +19 LOSS
Miami +7 WIN
Clemson +5 WIN
Tulsa +22.5
Arkansas State +26.5 LOSS
Duke +28
UCONN +16 WIN
Baylor +20.5 LOSS
Rutgers +18 WIN
Memphis +4.5 LOSS
Nevada +18 WIN
Added:
IOWA STATE +18.5 Late addition
TENNESSEE +2.5 Non-program play
WISCONSIN +2.5 Non-program play
STANFORD +21.5
All are $55 to make $50
Plays that have dipped in value and have become no plays:
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Kent State
Oregon
Navy
I have taken these out of the program because at their current lines there is very little value.
Lots of early action, will have a clear picture by 230 if later games will become plays.
MY ACTUAL PLAYS
Now that all the numbers are in place and values have been established, here is the most difficult part...Picking and Choosing the plays I want to make, here are my 10 Plays:
Syracuse +19 LOSS
Miami +7 WIN
Clemson +5 WIN
Tulsa +22.5
Arkansas State +26.5 LOSS
Duke +28
UCONN +16 WIN
Baylor +20.5 LOSS
Rutgers +18 WIN
Memphis +4.5 LOSS
Nevada +18 WIN
Added:
IOWA STATE +18.5 Late addition
TENNESSEE +2.5 Non-program play
WISCONSIN +2.5 Non-program play
STANFORD +21.5
All are $55 to make $50
Plays that have dipped in value and have become no plays:
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Kent State
Oregon
Navy
I have taken these out of the program because at their current lines there is very little value.
Lots of early action, will have a clear picture by 230 if later games will become plays.
Last edited:
adding Texas
adding Texas
Adding Texas as a non-claculated play, 33 of 36 wagers through a friend have been on Oklahoma. Either he and his partners will lose big or Joe Average will. I'll put myself in his shoes today.
Texas +6.5, but I'm waiting to get the best number. Will lock it in by 2pm
$55 to make $50
adding Texas
Adding Texas as a non-claculated play, 33 of 36 wagers through a friend have been on Oklahoma. Either he and his partners will lose big or Joe Average will. I'll put myself in his shoes today.
Texas +6.5, but I'm waiting to get the best number. Will lock it in by 2pm
$55 to make $50
I think I'm screwed today
I think I'm screwed today
I locked in Syracuse too soon, Rutgers was a dumb play, Miami is a sucker line. Sometimes I trust this program too much and don't pay attention to line moves and overall feeling of the games.
I think I'm screwed today
I locked in Syracuse too soon, Rutgers was a dumb play, Miami is a sucker line. Sometimes I trust this program too much and don't pay attention to line moves and overall feeling of the games.
Syracuse is down but not out
Syracuse is down but not out
it's the beauty of getting 19 points. After the miracle special teams plays I'm only down 2 points and Va Techs Off is getting cold because they aren't on the field. If Syracuse score 14-17 it will be a cover. Last year they were down 21 I think and forced OT but that was in Syracuse.
Syracuse is down but not out
it's the beauty of getting 19 points. After the miracle special teams plays I'm only down 2 points and Va Techs Off is getting cold because they aren't on the field. If Syracuse score 14-17 it will be a cover. Last year they were down 21 I think and forced OT but that was in Syracuse.
