Info is this Thread is Somewhat Misleading!!
Info is this Thread is Somewhat Misleading!!
Yes I know I am a first Time poster, although I have been reading Madjacks for a long time, and know most of these posters are excellent cappers. However I have had this info checked out by (2) other Cappers and the info presented is somewhat misleading. Chenker claims that you can make alot of money by playing the dog's in college football by using the spreads he listed, this is nowhere near the truth. (when I first read this I thought this is the Holy Grail) I have copy and pasted (2) response to this method as listed below. he left out about 175 games THAT DID NOT COVER. although his figures and the ones listed below are quite close, College Games where left out, and these were not accounted for.
In 2002 (my numbers differ a little probably because of lines, etc.) 129 teams (as dogs of less than 11) won the game SU, while another 51 covered but did not win. That translates to about 71.7% winners. There were also another 175 teams who did not cover, which means, overall, 36.3% of all dogs of less than 11 won the game su. I believe, that's the important number - 36.3%. Unless, you or someone else knows before hand, which teams will cover the spread.
I also broke it down between dogs of three or less, more than three but seven or less and more than seven.
Using that data, I then tried to determine what our money line price would have to be to return, on average, 20% of our investment (ROI).
If the overall average is 36.0%, that means a true moneyline would be 1.78. For us to see an average of a 20% return, we would only want to play moneyline dogs of 2.35 or higher.
For dogs of three or less, the average is 49.2%, which means we would want to play moneyline dogs of 1.45 or higher.
For dogs of more than three but seven or less, the average is 34.6%, which means we would want to play moneyline dogs of 2.50 or higher.
For dogs of more than seven, the average is 25.3%, which means we would want to play moneyline dogs of 3.75 or higher.
Of course, this could differ even more or less by home/away, etc. Also, if you have some type of methodical way of picking winners, you could compare only games which your methodology picks (for dogs of less than 11) and you might come up with different money lines.
But, to simply say over 70% of these teams win the game SU, I believe, is a little misleading because we don't know before hand, which teams will cover the spread.
==============================================
Well:
As the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!!
I have just run a quick check, alphabetically, from Air Force to Iowa St, 40 teams, about 1/3 of the NCAA for the year 2002.
Alphabetically, from Air Force to Iowa St, those teams were +1 to +10.5 dogs in a combined 122 games in 2002.
The SU record is 48-74. The ATS record is 67-55. My guess would be that if I did the other 70 to 80 DIV-I teams, that this trend would follow the same pattern.
