Tweet
tue aug 02: giants -140
more: http://pro-edge.tripod.com
In 1981 I was a Senior in High School. One day in Geometry a guy was going over a purple parlay sheet. Although I had grown up loving football and even playing it in grade school, I had never seen a parlay sheet. He sat right behind me and we were already friends so he explained things to me about the parlay sheet, sports services, tipsheets, and stuff like that. He was a runner for a bookie. I was intriqued.
I got a sheet and went over sports scores from the past few weeks and hit 11 of 14 games correctly. He explained to me that I shouldn't do ALL the games, but just 3-5 games. But I would pick every game anyway and turn them in. I never hit that 14-teamer, but after 4 or 5 weeks Mark (his name) brought to my attention that I was hitting an unusual number of games against the spread and that I should "flat bet" them. I didn't even know what he was talking about. But when he explained to me what flat betting was, my eyes lit up because I knew I was picking more winners than losers consistently.
I had a knack for going over the scores from the last few weeks--no stats--and finding teams that I figured to "bounce back" or "let down". That was my natural thinking on how to pick the games, and it was working. I remember one time we got together one Sunday morning to bet some games and watch them together. He was really high on the St Louis Cardinals -5 playing at Buffalo, but I had the Bills pegged as my best bet--the one I felt the most sure about using my natural inclination to go contrare.
When we were calling in our games that morning, Mark figured we would just bet each other and save the juice. Bills won Straight Up 24-0. I can still remember his reaction like it was yesterday. He kept on and on about "How did you figure THAT one???". To me, being green, I was as confused about his lack of understanding my way of picking as he was about how I did it. I didn't understand at the time that the betting public did not think in a way that, to me, was the obvious way to think through a game.
And so began my career as a handicapper. I was a "technical" handicapper, or more accurately a "contrare" capper, always trying to get inside the emotional state of given teams and calling the shots from there. As recently as the late 90's that worked well for me, but somewhere down the line (blame it on salary caps, free agency, sharpies & cellphones, or, heck, blame it on the moon) that style began to become less and less effective. Perhaps sharper lines. I don't know.
And so for the first time in [now] my 25th year as a capper I am capping by the numbers--a whole new arena for me. I purchased Excel about 7 or 8 months ago, then a 2003 Excel for Dummies book, and learned enough to put in a program what has been in my head for years but was unable to compute by hand due to its complexity. When I completed this program, I ran the numbers from last season's NFL campaign. It's important to understand that I did not build a program around last year's numbers. No. I built a program period. Then I ran the numbers.
As I was running the numbers from last year, I cannot count the number of times I would blurt out to myself, while sitting at the computer, "You've GOT to be kidding me!!!". That was my response when I would see some of the bad lines that are put up on the board each week in the NFL. Ironically this kinda' eye-opening revelation is handicapping 101 for anyone that's done it for more than a few months. How ironic. It took me over 2 decades to discover the obvious. But I'll say one thing, number crunchers took back seat to technical cappers for a long time while the public was a sure go-against.
And so it is that I have abandoned the old and have brought in the new--new to me that is. My program keys in on various statistical areas, but particarly those that I believe matter the most and speak the loudest. Seven in particular: Net Points Scored, Net Turnovers, Penalties (says a lot about the discipline of a team), Rush Yards For, Rush Yards Against, Pass Yards Per Pass Attempt (perhaps the most telling), and Pass Yards Per Pass Attempt Allowed.
With the abandoned old style, their is no reason I cannot share some of my old stuff. The Spread Report Online--my now defunct football tipsheet--began in 2001. The concept was simple: Why do tipsheets charge EXTRA for their best picks? Hey, why not give all they have right there in the sheet itself. While the concept was noble and the sheet got off to a fast start every year for 4 straight seasons, in the end it was my contrare style that let me down too many times and led to an utter and complete change in my Handicapping Ideology.
Each year I would add more stuff to the sheet. In 2002 I added the Yardage Formula Picks--a formula I developed during the off-season that had gone 48-19 (or something like that) in 2001. The Yardage Formula held its own in 2002 going 38-23 ATS in its first year against virgin numbers. It's important to remember that the Yardage Formula and ALL my stuff introduced in the Spread Report was grounded--albeit soundly--in CONTRARE LOGIC. In it's 3rd year the Formula was a few games over .500 for a virtual break even season. Then, last season I hyped it as a potential breakout year, but it once again came in at just over .500.
With each passing year I would introduce new stuff, and most of it went 50/50. Last Season my lastest thing was the BLOWOUT FORMULA which had incredible numbers from the previous season. Now, I have received a number of inquiries as to why I have abandoned the Blowout Formula after only 1 season. To me, the answer is simple:
when I am asked candidly about ANY of my stuff over the last few years, I have replied by saying, in so many words, "This is a Formula that I have complete confidence in. It's logic is sound. I do NOT expect this formula--due its solid rationale--to have a disasterous season."
In other words, it is worth playing because I expect--at worst--that the formula would be 50/50 (a small juice burner), but meanwhile you have the chance at it having a breakout year like 2001 when it went 48-19 ATS. To me that was logical. It was worth the risk because I firmly believed that this particular formula was too solid in logic to have a bad year. To me, a bad year would be break-even, which is a worthy risk in view of the potential gain of a breakout year. Having said all that, the Blowout Formula FAILED to live up to that criteria coming in at about 40% ATS last season. That's unacceptable to me. What it tells me is that there is something fundamentally flawed in its logic.
Contrast that to my other Formulas in the SRO which, year in and year out, did as I projected: Namely, they either were a winner (even if small) or they were virtual break-even propositions. The Yardage Formula, the Turnover Formula, the L.O.P. (level of play) Line, and the ASR (average spread ratings) all held their own for 3 straight years by not having "bad" years. It was only a matter of waiting for that breakout season. The Blowout Formula lost my trust and I fully accept that there is a flaw there, and so I move on.
Of all the things I have put in the SRO the last few years, the one that I believe has the best chance, by far, of yet STILL having a breakout season with minimal risk is the Yardage Formula. By "minimal risk", I simply mean that I believe it is the least likely to have a bad year: break even at worst imo.
With all those thoughts in mind and leaving my former style behind, I want to share the Yardage Formula. But before I do, let me first post this other quick system. I post it every year at the forums and simply call it: The Greatest NFL System in the World:
It doesn't come up often, but when it does, it wins. In fact, I don't think it's come up in a few years. I don't believe it's lost since the Baltimore Colts-Minnesota Vikings game in 1977 or something like that. Please correct me if I am wrong:
*GO AGAINST an NFL team that scored 30 or more points in EACH of their last 2 games...AND...allowed only 10 points or less in those same two games...IF....they are now playing a team OUTSIDE of their division.
DAVE'S NFL YARDAGE FORMULA (developed summer of 2002; numbers from 2001 48-19 ATS; went 38-23 ATS in 2002; a cut above 50/50 since)
*Remember that this formula is grounded in CONTRARE LOGIC...
1.) For each team you will find their NET YARDAGE from the previous game and multiply it by three.
2.) For each team you will find their NET YARDAGE from 2 games back and multiply it by two.
3.) For each team you will find their NET YARDAGE from 3 games back.
4.) COMBINE these numbers.
5.) For each GAME find the DIFFERENCE between the teams COMBINED NET YARDAGE.
6.) EARMARK each matchup in which there is a DIFFERENCE of 300> yards.
At this point you have a POTENTIAL play. You're looking to "go the other way". Suppose the Broncos (+544) are playing the Bengals (-240). The DIFFERENCE is 784. Because the number is 300 or greater, you EARMARK that game as a POTENTIAL play. If this game meets the rest of the criteria, you will be going WITH the Bengals (contrare).
The remaing criteria:
Were the Broncos a GO AGAINST last week according to the Formula? Meaning, did they fit ALL of the Criteria as a legit go-against PICK?
If not, then they are a potential go-against this week pending if the Bengals meet the requirement.
If they WERE at go-against pick last week, then did that pick win ATS? Meaning, did you win ats by going against them last week?
If yes, then you can stop right here. Why? Because the formula has already handed down the winner.
If the pick did NOT win last week, then they are a go-against THIS WEEK provided that the Bengals meet the same logical criteria.
Were the Bengals a "go with" last week? Yes. Okay, by going with them, did you win ats? Yes. Then no play. No. Then you have a play on the Bengals over the Broncos.
SCENARIO #1:
Broncos were NOT a go-against last week according to the yardage formula...AND...Bengals were NOT a go-with last week according to the Yardage Formula: It's a PLAY on the Bengals.
SCENARIO #2:
Broncos were NOT a go-against last week...AND...Bengals WERE a go-with...AND...
a.) BENGALS FAILED to cover last week: It's a Play on the Bengals.
b.) BENGALS COVERED last week: NO PLAY.
SCENARIO #3:
Broncos WERE a go-against last week...AND...Bengals were NOT a go-with last week...AND...
a.) Pick against Broncos FAILED to cover last week: It's a play on the Bengals.
B.) Pick against Broncos COVERED last week: NO PLAY.
SCENARIO #4:
Broncos WERE a go-against last week...AND...Bengals WERE a go-with last week...AND...
a.) Pick against Broncos FAILED to cover...AND...Bengals FAILED to cover: It's a play on the Bengals
b.) ANY other: NO PLAY
This Contrare Yardage Formula and it's Criteria is not as difficult as it first appears once you understand the logic. I'll be tracking it myself this season and will post the games here at bettorschat. Please feel free to ask questions and correspond. Good luck and have fun...
dave
http://pro-edge.tripod.com
NFL PRO-EDGE Excel Program: Why it will continue to work...
My Excel Program is not based in contrare logic. It is grounded in solid stats. The Program will key in on superior teams which are statistically sound and are now underdogs or small faves over and against their outmatched opponents. It will exploit bad numbers and false faves. For more info go to: http://pro-edge.tripod.com
more: http://pro-edge.tripod.com
In 1981 I was a Senior in High School. One day in Geometry a guy was going over a purple parlay sheet. Although I had grown up loving football and even playing it in grade school, I had never seen a parlay sheet. He sat right behind me and we were already friends so he explained things to me about the parlay sheet, sports services, tipsheets, and stuff like that. He was a runner for a bookie. I was intriqued.
I got a sheet and went over sports scores from the past few weeks and hit 11 of 14 games correctly. He explained to me that I shouldn't do ALL the games, but just 3-5 games. But I would pick every game anyway and turn them in. I never hit that 14-teamer, but after 4 or 5 weeks Mark (his name) brought to my attention that I was hitting an unusual number of games against the spread and that I should "flat bet" them. I didn't even know what he was talking about. But when he explained to me what flat betting was, my eyes lit up because I knew I was picking more winners than losers consistently.
I had a knack for going over the scores from the last few weeks--no stats--and finding teams that I figured to "bounce back" or "let down". That was my natural thinking on how to pick the games, and it was working. I remember one time we got together one Sunday morning to bet some games and watch them together. He was really high on the St Louis Cardinals -5 playing at Buffalo, but I had the Bills pegged as my best bet--the one I felt the most sure about using my natural inclination to go contrare.
When we were calling in our games that morning, Mark figured we would just bet each other and save the juice. Bills won Straight Up 24-0. I can still remember his reaction like it was yesterday. He kept on and on about "How did you figure THAT one???". To me, being green, I was as confused about his lack of understanding my way of picking as he was about how I did it. I didn't understand at the time that the betting public did not think in a way that, to me, was the obvious way to think through a game.
And so began my career as a handicapper. I was a "technical" handicapper, or more accurately a "contrare" capper, always trying to get inside the emotional state of given teams and calling the shots from there. As recently as the late 90's that worked well for me, but somewhere down the line (blame it on salary caps, free agency, sharpies & cellphones, or, heck, blame it on the moon) that style began to become less and less effective. Perhaps sharper lines. I don't know.
And so for the first time in [now] my 25th year as a capper I am capping by the numbers--a whole new arena for me. I purchased Excel about 7 or 8 months ago, then a 2003 Excel for Dummies book, and learned enough to put in a program what has been in my head for years but was unable to compute by hand due to its complexity. When I completed this program, I ran the numbers from last season's NFL campaign. It's important to understand that I did not build a program around last year's numbers. No. I built a program period. Then I ran the numbers.
As I was running the numbers from last year, I cannot count the number of times I would blurt out to myself, while sitting at the computer, "You've GOT to be kidding me!!!". That was my response when I would see some of the bad lines that are put up on the board each week in the NFL. Ironically this kinda' eye-opening revelation is handicapping 101 for anyone that's done it for more than a few months. How ironic. It took me over 2 decades to discover the obvious. But I'll say one thing, number crunchers took back seat to technical cappers for a long time while the public was a sure go-against.
And so it is that I have abandoned the old and have brought in the new--new to me that is. My program keys in on various statistical areas, but particarly those that I believe matter the most and speak the loudest. Seven in particular: Net Points Scored, Net Turnovers, Penalties (says a lot about the discipline of a team), Rush Yards For, Rush Yards Against, Pass Yards Per Pass Attempt (perhaps the most telling), and Pass Yards Per Pass Attempt Allowed.
With the abandoned old style, their is no reason I cannot share some of my old stuff. The Spread Report Online--my now defunct football tipsheet--began in 2001. The concept was simple: Why do tipsheets charge EXTRA for their best picks? Hey, why not give all they have right there in the sheet itself. While the concept was noble and the sheet got off to a fast start every year for 4 straight seasons, in the end it was my contrare style that let me down too many times and led to an utter and complete change in my Handicapping Ideology.
Each year I would add more stuff to the sheet. In 2002 I added the Yardage Formula Picks--a formula I developed during the off-season that had gone 48-19 (or something like that) in 2001. The Yardage Formula held its own in 2002 going 38-23 ATS in its first year against virgin numbers. It's important to remember that the Yardage Formula and ALL my stuff introduced in the Spread Report was grounded--albeit soundly--in CONTRARE LOGIC. In it's 3rd year the Formula was a few games over .500 for a virtual break even season. Then, last season I hyped it as a potential breakout year, but it once again came in at just over .500.
With each passing year I would introduce new stuff, and most of it went 50/50. Last Season my lastest thing was the BLOWOUT FORMULA which had incredible numbers from the previous season. Now, I have received a number of inquiries as to why I have abandoned the Blowout Formula after only 1 season. To me, the answer is simple:
when I am asked candidly about ANY of my stuff over the last few years, I have replied by saying, in so many words, "This is a Formula that I have complete confidence in. It's logic is sound. I do NOT expect this formula--due its solid rationale--to have a disasterous season."
In other words, it is worth playing because I expect--at worst--that the formula would be 50/50 (a small juice burner), but meanwhile you have the chance at it having a breakout year like 2001 when it went 48-19 ATS. To me that was logical. It was worth the risk because I firmly believed that this particular formula was too solid in logic to have a bad year. To me, a bad year would be break-even, which is a worthy risk in view of the potential gain of a breakout year. Having said all that, the Blowout Formula FAILED to live up to that criteria coming in at about 40% ATS last season. That's unacceptable to me. What it tells me is that there is something fundamentally flawed in its logic.
Contrast that to my other Formulas in the SRO which, year in and year out, did as I projected: Namely, they either were a winner (even if small) or they were virtual break-even propositions. The Yardage Formula, the Turnover Formula, the L.O.P. (level of play) Line, and the ASR (average spread ratings) all held their own for 3 straight years by not having "bad" years. It was only a matter of waiting for that breakout season. The Blowout Formula lost my trust and I fully accept that there is a flaw there, and so I move on.
Of all the things I have put in the SRO the last few years, the one that I believe has the best chance, by far, of yet STILL having a breakout season with minimal risk is the Yardage Formula. By "minimal risk", I simply mean that I believe it is the least likely to have a bad year: break even at worst imo.
With all those thoughts in mind and leaving my former style behind, I want to share the Yardage Formula. But before I do, let me first post this other quick system. I post it every year at the forums and simply call it: The Greatest NFL System in the World:
It doesn't come up often, but when it does, it wins. In fact, I don't think it's come up in a few years. I don't believe it's lost since the Baltimore Colts-Minnesota Vikings game in 1977 or something like that. Please correct me if I am wrong:
*GO AGAINST an NFL team that scored 30 or more points in EACH of their last 2 games...AND...allowed only 10 points or less in those same two games...IF....they are now playing a team OUTSIDE of their division.
DAVE'S NFL YARDAGE FORMULA (developed summer of 2002; numbers from 2001 48-19 ATS; went 38-23 ATS in 2002; a cut above 50/50 since)
*Remember that this formula is grounded in CONTRARE LOGIC...
1.) For each team you will find their NET YARDAGE from the previous game and multiply it by three.
2.) For each team you will find their NET YARDAGE from 2 games back and multiply it by two.
3.) For each team you will find their NET YARDAGE from 3 games back.
4.) COMBINE these numbers.
5.) For each GAME find the DIFFERENCE between the teams COMBINED NET YARDAGE.
6.) EARMARK each matchup in which there is a DIFFERENCE of 300> yards.
At this point you have a POTENTIAL play. You're looking to "go the other way". Suppose the Broncos (+544) are playing the Bengals (-240). The DIFFERENCE is 784. Because the number is 300 or greater, you EARMARK that game as a POTENTIAL play. If this game meets the rest of the criteria, you will be going WITH the Bengals (contrare).
The remaing criteria:
Were the Broncos a GO AGAINST last week according to the Formula? Meaning, did they fit ALL of the Criteria as a legit go-against PICK?
If not, then they are a potential go-against this week pending if the Bengals meet the requirement.
If they WERE at go-against pick last week, then did that pick win ATS? Meaning, did you win ats by going against them last week?
If yes, then you can stop right here. Why? Because the formula has already handed down the winner.
If the pick did NOT win last week, then they are a go-against THIS WEEK provided that the Bengals meet the same logical criteria.
Were the Bengals a "go with" last week? Yes. Okay, by going with them, did you win ats? Yes. Then no play. No. Then you have a play on the Bengals over the Broncos.
SCENARIO #1:
Broncos were NOT a go-against last week according to the yardage formula...AND...Bengals were NOT a go-with last week according to the Yardage Formula: It's a PLAY on the Bengals.
SCENARIO #2:
Broncos were NOT a go-against last week...AND...Bengals WERE a go-with...AND...
a.) BENGALS FAILED to cover last week: It's a Play on the Bengals.
b.) BENGALS COVERED last week: NO PLAY.
SCENARIO #3:
Broncos WERE a go-against last week...AND...Bengals were NOT a go-with last week...AND...
a.) Pick against Broncos FAILED to cover last week: It's a play on the Bengals.
B.) Pick against Broncos COVERED last week: NO PLAY.
SCENARIO #4:
Broncos WERE a go-against last week...AND...Bengals WERE a go-with last week...AND...
a.) Pick against Broncos FAILED to cover...AND...Bengals FAILED to cover: It's a play on the Bengals
b.) ANY other: NO PLAY
This Contrare Yardage Formula and it's Criteria is not as difficult as it first appears once you understand the logic. I'll be tracking it myself this season and will post the games here at bettorschat. Please feel free to ask questions and correspond. Good luck and have fun...
dave
http://pro-edge.tripod.com
NFL PRO-EDGE Excel Program: Why it will continue to work...
My Excel Program is not based in contrare logic. It is grounded in solid stats. The Program will key in on superior teams which are statistically sound and are now underdogs or small faves over and against their outmatched opponents. It will exploit bad numbers and false faves. For more info go to: http://pro-edge.tripod.com
dave
Comment