Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NFL Blowout Formula

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NFL Blowout Formula

    Nov 16: BROWNS (-6) 44, Cardinals 6

    Nov 16: BRONCOS (-8) 37, Chargers 8

    Dec 14: COLTS (-7') 38, Falcons 7

    Dec 28: PACKERS (-9) 31, Broncos 3


    Wow. Talk about Blowouts.

    A few weeks ago I began my usual pre-season studies for new stuff. The results above are from a New Total Net Yardage Formula that I recently put to the test versus last year's NFL games. In it's strictest criteria category it produced a 6-0 mark, four of which are listest above. The other two games were Underdog Plays--both of which won straight up:

    Nov 02: TEXANS (+6') 14, Panthers 10

    Dec 28: LIONS (+11') 30, Rams 20


    This is not to be confused with my original NFL Yardage Formula. My original formula is 109-63 ATS the last 3 years with a 3-year breakdown as follows:

    2001: 48-18 ATS
    2002: 38-23 ATS
    2003: 23-22 ATS

    As you can see, the original (63.4% last 3 seasons) is due for a rebound this year after last season's 23-22 mark. I like the formula, but it has some weaknesses. Namely, it does not consider strength of schedule. That being said, I still have no reservations about the original one; and I am still expecting a nice rebound this season.

    In contrast, my New NFL Yardage Formula is quite different in structure and technique. It also incorporates strength of schedule. It's weakness--if you can call it that--is that it takes a full 6 games under the belt before it releases a game. The earliest a game could develop would be week seven. Frankly, I'm not even sure that could be considered a weakness.

    What I want to point out in those four blowouts is the complete domination on the field in Total Yardage output--an indication that the Yardage Formula is getting the desired results:

    Cleveland 481, Arizona 187
    Denver 448, San Diego 96
    Indianapolis 465, Atlanta 154
    Green Bay 366, Denver 216

    That is total and complete domination. I'm about as excited about this Yardage Formula as anything I've ever developed and am already sold on it because I know what it is made of.

    In it's virgin form it is 31-14 ATS. The strictest criteria mentioned above is 6-0. The second strictest is 5-0. Taking away the 11-0 from the 31-14 leaves only a 20-14 record. It is notable that out of that 20-14 record, teams which have lost 4 or more games in a row are only 4-6, leaving a respectable 16-8 record, or 27-8 altogether.

    There is also a flip-flop version with this formula. In it's virgin form it is 26-9 ATS. I have not done any further research regarding the flip flop version. I am still in the process of breaking down the New Yardage Formula game by game. What I can tell you is that I consider it the best thing that I have ever personally developed, and that I will be using it this season.

    Another thing I'm excited about is to put it to the test in the College ranks. It will be tedious since I do all my work by hand, but I'm excited to see the results. Because of the concept behind the formula, I do not expect the differences between College and Pro Football, namely, parity vs non-parity, to be a factor.

    In fact, if it can produce those kinda' blowouts in the Pros, I'm eager to see how it does with strong college teams fitting the same criteria. My original Yardage Formula is basicly useless in college, but I knew that ahead of time because I understand what it is made of. My new one is much different in structure and should work well because of its reasoning and its concept. We'll see.

    The obvious drawback to the New Formula is the number of plays. Since it only picks games starting week 7, it would average 7 picks per week for the final 10 weeks if using the flip flop version too. In any event, I will keep the thread updated on my game by game breakdown of the NFL Picks and also on how it does in College.

    dave

  • #2
    keep it comin', man--i'm lovin' your stuff !!...hope to contribute as well, but you're on top of this, imho...nonigoji

    Burnin' Media To The Max!

    Comment


    • #3
      Dave - with all the free databases available is there
      a reason you do all your work by hand?

      Comment


      • #4
        Blowout Formula-NCAA

        Okay I've started my College research. Remember that the formula had three levels of criteria. I'm not talking sub-divisions like home/road and stuff like that. I'm referring to the formula itself. The Stronger the numbers, the better the winners; both in win % and in the degree of cover. Or so it seems.

        The three levels were the Blowout Level (6-0), the Second best (5-0), and then the rest (20-14). You'll remember that I broke down the 20-14, eliminating bad teams (or cold teams) that had lost 4 straight.

        For the time being, I am not going to do that because the research in and of itself is tedious and time-consuming enough already. So I'll be listing the plays simply as:

        Blowout Level
        Mid Level
        Standard

        I'm doing the NCAA in alphebetical order. Thus far I have completed Air Force. I have only one play from their Schedule. It is a standard play as most of them will be, and it is a play AGAINST them:

        -October 16: COLORADO STATE (-5') 30, Air Force 20 Win

        -CSU outgained AF by 134 yards

        Blowout Level 0-0
        Mid Level 0-0
        Standard: 1-0

        We'll see how this thing holds up in College. Especially eager to find some blowout level plays...

        dave
        Last edited by Warrior; 07-23-2004, 12:45 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          bigbill...

          ...I would be interested in a database. I've been looking for one to query for a couple years, but I usually cannot find what I'm looking for. I'd like something like what ******* uses where you can query things like this:

          How do NFL underdogs do if they allowed 220> yards rushing last week?

          Last year they were 8-2 ATS and most were straight up winners.

          How do NFL Faves do if they did that?

          They were 2-8 last year ATS.

          That's 16-4 ATS last year. That's great, but a search on a database would give us a larger sampling.


          That kinda' stuff is neat, and I'd like to know how that example has done over 5 years and 10 years.

          But a lot of my stuff cannot be queried that way. Atleast not that I know of. It is too complex. A program could be easily written, but I'm not sure there is a database per se that already can do what I do with my formulas...

          dave

          Comment


          • #6
            ADD...

            OCT 25: ALABAMA (+3) 43, TENNESSEE 51 Lose (standard)
            UT outgained TIDE by 19 yards


            SO FAR...

            OCT 16: COLORADO STATE (-5') 30, Air Force 20 Win (standard)
            CSU outgained AF by 134 yards

            OCT 25: ALABAMA (+3) 43, Tennessee 51 Lose (standard)
            UT outgained TIDE by 19 yards


            Blowout Level 0-0
            Mid Level 0-0
            Standard: 1-1

            dave

            Comment


            • #7
              ADD...

              OCT 25: GEORGIA (-29) 16, ALA-BIRM 13 Lose (standard)
              UGA outgained UAB by 139 yards


              SO FAR...

              OCT 16: COLORADO STATE (-5') 30, Air Force 20 Win (standard)
              CSU outgained AF by 134 yards

              OCT 25: ALABAMA (+3) 43, Tennessee 51 Lose (standard)
              UT outgained TIDE by 19 yards

              OCT 25: GEORGIA (-29) 16, ALA-BIRM 13 Lose (standard)
              UGA outgained UAB by 139 yards


              Blowout Level 0-0
              Mid Level 0-0
              Standard: 1-2

              dave

              Comment


              • #8
                When going over these games, I noticed an interesting thing that had nothing to do with my formula.

                I noticed that so far in College this tidbit is 6-0 ATS. One of those winners would've been ON Alabama-Birmingham +29 over Georgia.

                This of course would've canceled out the formula play on Georgia. Atleast theoretically. I went back and checked out this extra sidenote in the NFL last season and it was 16-6 ATS.

                With that thought in mind, I'll start tracking it along the way. In fact, I might as well track the "flip flop" along the way while I'm at it.

                I have no idea how any of these will work out in the College Ranks, but it'll be fun to track them and post them here. Whatever the results in the NCAA are, it will not change my confidence in how they perform in the Pros.

                I'm banking the Pros this year with this Total Net Yardgage Formula. It blows away my old formula in every way. Should be a good season since I fully expect a rebound from my old formula while at the same time some good strong BLOWOUT plays and MID-LEVEL plays from my new one.

                The verdict is still out on the STANDARD plays. Although they were 16-8 last season, I want to do a more complete game-by-game analysis of the formula and its results before I make a judgement. But I'm already sold on the blowout and mid-level plays.

                I cannot overstate how excited I am to dig further into this formula. To see what else it produces. I"ve yet to scratch the surface in my breakdown. I've put it on hold while I check out how it did last year (in its virgin form) in the college games. Especially interested in finding out how the blowout version did.

                I'll keep you posted. Right now I'm off to dinner with the fam...be back later to post those 'tidbit' games and also start tracking the flip flop games. Make take a while over the next few days as it is time consuming to back track; but once I'm done with the virgin stuff, I'll start a breakdown in the Pros and then a breakdown in the college ranks. Keep ya' posted...

                dave

                Comment


                • #9
                  Warrior, glad your back and keep up the awesome posts and keep us all updated.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Will do. Gonna' have to put the NCAA on hold though. I only developed the Formula in the last couple of weeks and there's so much I want to do with it regarding the Pros.

                    It's really exciting. I'm just scratching the surface. I cannot believe as a 25-year veteran that I'm just touching on this. Right now I'm applying my old formula scale to the new formula numbers and the results are mind boggling. It's the perfect mix if there is such a thing.

                    And I haven't even started the disecting. I cannot even fathom what that will turn up. Right now the virgin numbers without any disecting are 25-10 ATS (mixing the old scale with the new numbers) and I'm not yet half through. Once I get those virgin results, I'll lay my bottom dollar that the disecting process will turn up unfathomable numbers.

                    The old formula turned up good numbers too, but it had some weaknesses. The remarkable thing is that even with the weaknesses it still churns out the winners. If the old is hitting over 63% with its glaring flaw (namely, that it does not consider strength of schedule), I cannot imagine what the new one will do now that (after 25 years) I've nailed it.

                    The blowout results speak for themselves. And there are more games to come. Like double digit dogs winning straight up by double digits. I'm just getting into it deeper. It's exciting but there's no way I have time to investigate college right now. Just the Pro research alone is holding my attention fast.

                    As soon as I get it disected I'll post some results. They won't be believable I can tell you that. Then again I've posted other stuff in the past that seems incredible also, only to not have it live up to the same standards. This is different. Way different. I think I nailed it with this one. This one's gonna win this season going forward, not just looking back. Watch and see.

                    dave

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X