4-1 sides
1-8 totals
Another interesting phenomenon this year, Ed moving sides
in conference east of the Colorado River ...
We've been moving lines and beating the close on non west coast sides for quite some time, and 5 and 9 game samples sizes shouldn't be that interesting.
aside from 2009-2010 your edge in conference (totals) is nothing to write home about.
Heading into this season, and not counting Jan 2011 when we were limited to TV totals only, we were 321-242 (over 57%) on CBB totals from Jan 1st to end of season since starting our totals service in 2007-08.
That may not be something to write home about to you, but no one making their picks known to the public has done better or even come close under comparable conditions.
Heim is both a bulldog and a watchdog.
We've been moving lines and beating the close on non west coast sides for quite some time, and 5 and 9 game samples sizes shouldn't be that interesting.
Not so much that just telling it straight..I believe TCU/USC was 106.5 at Galen last month....there is no way you'd see a total that (correctly) low 5 years ago
in a non-conference game with teams that know little about each other.
Come on Ed the market is completely different now......you got buried last year with the new and improved market (conf) numbers. Not realistic to say 56% five
years ago converts to 56% now.....
The market is obviously tougher, and edges on average start to get smaller as the season progresses, but you have to account for the fact that our team and resources have continued to evolve and improve also.
I did not intimate that we would hit 57% going forward in conference play, I simply was debunking your assertion that we haven't done well on CBB totals after Jan 1st in the past, when in fact we have done very well.
The thing you keep ignoring about last season is that totals on all games were not WA enough (only TV games were) to release on the service until the last few days of January. Yes, the market improved, but this more than anything else is what made things tougher last year. On a card like tonight you would have 5 totals to choose from, instead of 48. That is a huge difference.
We went 77-71 in Feb & March last year (after all totals were WA), and 108-65, 88-77, 48-29 after Jan 1st the three seasons before that. That is how I got the 321-242 (over 57%) number.
This year totals on all games have been WA from day one, and we are hitting 58.33% on them, which is above our 3 year win rate on totals coming into the season.
No one can accurately predict their edge going forward to a tee, but I am confident that our edge is still significant on CBB totals, even in the current market, and in conference play.
We also are not charging "more money for the 2H", we haven't even offered a service beyond Jan 15th, and if we do, it will be for significantly less money than the first half of the season.
Toughness of 'market' and all that nonsense is just that, nonsense. If you can pick a winner it doesnt matter what the market is like.
wantitall4moi said:in basketball I would say if he makes any money it would be a good year. But more than likely probably down 10 units.
That is like saying it doesn't matter what the line is on a game when you bet it. Obviously wrong.
If openers are better, and more people firing into the market know what they are doing, then by the time full limits become available, it is clearly tougher to win.
That is like saying it doesn't matter what the line is on a game when you bet it. Obviously wrong.
If openers are better, and more people firing into the market know what they are doing, then by the time full limits become available, it is clearly tougher to win.
Not so much that just telling it straight..I believe TCU/USC was 106.5 at Galen
last month....there is no way you'd see a total that (correctly) low 5 years ago
in a non-conference game with teams that know little about each other. Ed has
changed the whole landscape yet he still quotes records from 4-5 years ago
which imo are obsolete. Granted I used a non-conference game as an example
but you get the picture. The lines are way tighter now and tougher to beat in
conf play.
I wasn't referring to using the market as a tool for handicapping/betting at all.
I am simply stating that it is clearly possible (if not likely) for any market to be tougher to beat now than it was in the past. There is nothing nonsensical about it. It is an obvious fact and very basic concept.
"What the market is like" determines what kind of number and/or limit you are going to get on a game, essentially defining your edge and +EV. It very much matters.
Heading into this season, and not counting Jan 2011 when we were limited to TV totals only, we were 321-242 (over 57%) on CBB totals from Jan 1st to end of season since starting our totals service in 2007-08.
That may not be something to write home about to you, but no one making their picks known to the public has done better or even come close under comparable conditions.
We also are not charging "more money for the 2H", we haven't even offered a service beyond Jan 15th, and if we do, it will be for significantly less money than the first half of the season.
While I respect what RAS does (and, IMO, they do I much more honest job of keeping records versus the rest of their peers) I guess I don't understand why these would not be included...
Seems like you are casting out data that is bad for you unless you saying you wouldn't have made these if you were giving a full board of chooses (which would seem rather disingenuous to the people who paid for these picks thinking they were getting standard plays when what they were getting would basically amount to filler because of the lack of options)...
Ed- I like you but you can't throw out a month. If you won, it would have been counted.Heading into this season, and not counting Jan 2011 when we were limited to TV totals only, we were 321-242 (over 57%) on CBB totals from Jan 1st to end of season since starting our totals service in 2007-08.
That may not be something to write home about to you, but no one making their picks known to the public has done better or even come close under comparable conditions.
Of course that month counts, and is permanently recorded in our archives, but for the purpose of predicting future results, it wouldn't be wise to include a subset that had entirely different conditions than what we have currently. That was the point I was making.
Even including that month, we're 346-277 (55.6%) after Jan 1st since starting the totals service, with most of the volume coming in the last two seasons.
now that the books and the linesmakers put more time into making these totals he isn't winning like before and wants to pull the old "The market got tougher" crap.
No the market didn't get tougher. The Linesmakers and books adjusted and made better numbers (lines) like they should.
The obvious conclusion to this is that your EASY/WEAK market on these small college basketball totals (and football I'm sure) is over. Completely OVER.
Using the weak small conference totals.
And they are not weak anymore.
That is the change