Karl-Anthony Towns has had a down season after dominating as a sophomore, thanks mostly to a decrease in usage of 4.5 percent. He has picked up his play recently, however, averaging a Plus/Minus of +5.81 over his past 10 games. His matchup against the Lakers is one of the best of the day regardless of position, evidenced by an Opponent Plus/Minus of +6.67. If he sees the ball on a consistent basis – which unfortunately isn’t always a guarantee – he could be in line for a massive day
OKC took it. Game was close the whole way. They won by 5 but that was misleading. Was actually glad to have those extra 2 points because I didn't want to sweat the -2 thing.
Go Wolves (but don't score too much).
3-2, but high juice only eeks out tiny profitOriginally Posted by jsearles22
All my lines moved against these. Nonetheless I took all of them except Cook which was OTB
Foles Under 242.5
Lynch under 47.5
Ertz under 57.5
Smith under 26.5
Smith under 2.5
It's hilarious that we as a society think everyone can be a dr, a lawyer, an engineer. Some people are just fucking stupid. Why can't we just accept that?
Have been busy with family stuff and cooking all weekend, so no time to look at the sportsbook and handicap. Too bad as the GSW/CLE game played out largely how I expected, though I didn’t see Love dropping 30+. Back to work tomorrow and the office should be empty, so hopefully time to handicap.
What a fucking troll if you took the Eagles...
How can you not kick the XP there?
MIN/LAL is an awful game, but the TNT crew commentating is
I’ve never liked the rule of having to run a play with 0:00 on the clock after a score. But that being said if I had the the Eagles at -9.5 I’m not sure which I’d be more pissed about. Not trying the XP and taking a knee or missing it.
Under is toast with Minnesota.
Up by 10 with a few mins left, hopefully they cover and I go 2-1 for the day.
Thing with the rule change a few years back where you can return a blocked XP or INT/fumble on a 2 point conversion they have to make the attempt at 0:00...before that rule change, yeah didn't make any sense...I’ve never liked the rule of having to run a play with 0:00 on the clock after a score. But that being said if I had the the Eagles at -9.5 I’m not sure which I’d be more pissed about. Not trying the XP and taking a knee or missing it.
Think it's more gut wrenching to take the knee...at least if you try dude has an 80% shot to make it...
2-1 day brings me to 87-55-2
For awhile, I've been wondering whether or not I've just been getting lucky with the NBA.
I have posted 144 picks on this site. Two were ties, so we will throw those out.
Of the remaining 142, I won 87 and lost 55.
How possible is it that I simply ran well and achieved those extra 32 wins thanks to dumb luck?
Fortunately, since just about all of my picks are sides, it's basically equivalent to a coinflip. That is, if it were not for the house juice on both side, I would be paid even money for winning.
There are a few exceptions to this, such as picks where I get -115 instead of -110, as well as two or three -125/-120 type moneyilne picks, but I also had my share of -105 lines in there (which cancel some/all of those out), so I believe this is mostly negligible, and I will ignore it.
So the grand question becomes: In a "coin flip" situation where you're basically picking one side or the other, both of which pay the same, what are the chances of getting 87 out of 142 correct?
I ran this through a coin-flipping calculator and found that the chances are very small 0.18%.
This means that there's a 99.82% chance that I have achieved this NBA record through at least some degree of handicapping skill.
I hope you have, but it will be more impressive when the sample size is 100 times bigger.
HILLARY WON
Unfortunately that will take about 40 years.I hope you have, but it will be more impressive when the sample size is 100 times bigger.
Actually, I screwed up. Forgot to calculate it as "at least 87 wins" rather than "exactly 87 wins", which is a big difference.
But it doesn't change all that much.
The chance of at least 87 wins due to luck is 0.45% (not 0.18%), but that's still a 99.55% chance that I did this with at least some amount of skill.
Interestingly, if we turn 9 (about 10%) of my wins into losses by claiming I got lucky 9 more times than I got unlucky, we're still looking at an 86.24% chance that my record was at least somewhat due to skill.
Anyone who wants to play with the calculator, go here: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
Enter 0.5 in the first box (indicating a coin flip), then the number of non-tie picks in the second box, and the number of wins in the 3rd box.
The bottom result given is the probability that you would have achieved that number of wins (or better) by good luck alone.
While I think what you are doing making your picks certainly involves skill I'm not sure how you are calculating the the skill element is correct but I will admit I did not go in and break down exactly how you came up with luck vs skill factor.
Bottom line is you have a 142 game sample and are hitting about 61 % which is very good. The NBA season is about 1/3 of the way through. If you continue making picks at the pace you are then sometime around the end of the playoffs you will have a 400 game sample or somewhere in that range. Continue betting at this pace for 5 years and you have a 2000 game sample (faster if you count other sports).
You will probably know whether you are a winning or losing bettor before you hit this 2000 game sample but you will have more of an idea of what % clip your true win rate is.
Example, if you broke even from now until the end of the season making 300 more picks going 150-150 you would be sitting @ 53.6 % which is still a winning bettor but as sample size increases it gets harder to raise that winning %
Only way to really know is to keep making picks and see how you do vs the spread.
As someone who sports bets a lot I tend to agree with Druff. If he was just flipping coins the chance he would be so far ahead at this point is tiny. I would guess he has legitimately been +EV so far in NBA this year. Whether this continues I don’t know. I am pessimistic. But give credit where it is due.
WV +7 -110. Is Utah even the better team? THis line seems weird. WV must have some injury or someone sitting for the draft. Meh.
Their Star QB is out, and the backup has played 6 quarters and has been horrible
Most people I trust liked Utah at -6.5. I found a site earlier that I could get WVU +7 so I went with that for a small amount of $$.
Play of the day for me is Duke -5.5 allthough this admittedly is a #Staleline.
Fair enough. That would explain it. Now that you mention it I vaguely remember Grier breaking a finger. Hopefully all the practice is good for the backup.Their Star QB is out, and the backup has played 6 quarters and has been horrible
There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 14 guests)
Reply With Quote
