There's one caveat here to be careful of. Extremely careful.
UW plays their best games at home and near the start of the season. This is one case where season averages can skew a prediction. Injuries are not factored in as to WHEN the stats were generated. Just look at their play and game results in September compared to the rest of the season and you will see my point. Last year Jake Locker was hurt I believe in W3 or W4. Big big difference after that happened. Locker can "prosper" against anyone. From where I sit, 21 looks way too big and for that matter, so does 17.
Conan
I agree with that. By the same token even his best may be too little here. That is one reason I am waiting on a line. I did not list all of my considerations because that was just a sample of what I am trying to do with the numbers. The real problem however is going to be the Wash defense vs. the LSU offense. I also have not taken special teams into account yet and I may have others to account for. I think that Washingtons best chance would have been for the game not to be on national TV and catch LSU off guard. That is highly unlikely now and they have some really good coaches spending much of their summer time watching films of Locker at his best. Just better athletes all over, a focus game, and it all depends on the spread. I can see Washington hanging, etc. and I can see that Locker could look good but that the overall performance of the team may offset his performance. It will be about puting points on the board and I will take LSU's defense in the red zone over Washingtons. Good point though and worth considering. Like I said the rhetoric I used was really a sample and not my final analysis.
I agree with that. By the same token even his best may be too little here. That is one reason I am waiting on a line. I did not list all of my considerations because that was just a sample of what I am trying to do with the numbers. The real problem however is going to be the Wash defense vs. the LSU offense. I also have not taken special teams into account yet and I may have others to account for. I think that Washingtons best chance would have been for the game not to be on national TV and catch LSU off guard. That is highly unlikely now and they have some really good coaches spending much of their summer time watching films of Locker at his best. Just better athletes all over, a focus game, and it all depends on the spread. I can see Washington hanging, etc. and I can see that Locker could look good but that the overall performance of the team may offset his performance. It will be about puting points on the board and I will take LSU's defense in the red zone over Washingtons. Good point though and worth considering. Like I said the rhetoric I used was really a sample and not my final analysis.
There is no question in my mind that Locker will NOT be enough. However the point is that he will be more than expected according to the numbers.
The other issue that is relevant here in this particular instance is conditioning. Typically UW faded late in games. (See their home game vs OSU.) There was quite a broohaha over this one issue. TW was called on this several times. His OL's were bigtime BigMac and french fry eaters. Now once again this year, attention was brought to bear on Sarkisian's training and conditioning program and by all accounts the situation has improved. Whether I should believe this or not has yet to be proven to me, but the fact that it came up again could mean more than it meant in the past, especially with a new coaching staff in control up there.
Also, keep in mind that Nick Holt, regardless of what has been said against him, is a motivator and he also just happens to have been Pete Carroll's right hand man running the highly regarded USC defense last season. So in spite of what they say about Holt, he is definitely an upgrade. On the downside, I don't see much of a change or an improvement in personnel other than some added depth. But also bear in mind that Holt knows some things about Crowton's offensive style from his days when he coached the Oregon offense. How all this will play out is yet to be seen. But it's not as simple as just a numbers game. If anything, that could be misleading. So if you are looking for an edge against the line, there it is.
The strategy will be to act or not act on the opening line. If it's low, bet LSU and get yourself a nice middling opportunity if the line moves up a few points. If it's high, jump on the mutts and middle it if it drops a few points. If it's somewhere in between, forget about it.
11-15 shine it on.
<11 take LSU and middle it if the points go up past a critical number like 13 or 14.
>16 take the mutts and middle it if the points drop past a critical number.
Something like that. I'm sure there will be cause to make adjustments between now and then.
Special teams
I just finished a compilation taken from 4 different lists from Steele's 2009 preview. I will share this because this is soemthing that was not spoon fed and maybe even not that important. Only six teams return either a punter, kicker, punt returner, or a kick returner that made Steele''s top list of 25 or so. They are:
UCLA - (K, PR, KR)
Wisconsin - (K, PR, KR)
Boise St - (K, P, PR)
California - (P, PR, KR)
Florida - (P, PR, KR)
Notre Dame - (P, PR, KR)
He does have a separate listing where he predicts the top 33 2009 special team units. I will mention that Boise St is no. 1.
I just finished a compilation taken from 4 different lists from Steele's 2009 preview. I will share this because this is soemthing that was not spoon fed and maybe even not that important. Only six teams return either a punter, kicker, punt returner, or a kick returner that made Steele''s top list of 25 or so. They are:
UCLA - (K, PR, KR)
Wisconsin - (K, PR, KR)
Boise St - (K, P, PR)
California - (P, PR, KR)
Florida - (P, PR, KR)
Notre Dame - (P, PR, KR)
He does have a separate listing where he predicts the top 33 2009 special team units. I will mention that Boise St is no. 1.
Conan
The line could be in as high as 18 to 22 imho. I agree that the Washington coaching staff has ability and a lot of potential and over the long haul will be good for UW. But, first game out, Locker or no Locker, it is a lot to ask of a coaching staff and the players to have a new system and team that may lack confidence to go up what is at this time superior and proven coaching at all levels and superior athletes. I know I am full of Steele lately (or worse) but when the #8 team goes against #75 there is disparity all over the place. I love Locker and he will have his days but probably that day will not be one of them. If the Washington Defense can come up with some stops or TO's they could pull some points. I am open on the game until a real line comes out but I lean towards LSU right now.
How good are Washingtons special teams, that could be a factor also.
The line could be in as high as 18 to 22 imho. I agree that the Washington coaching staff has ability and a lot of potential and over the long haul will be good for UW. But, first game out, Locker or no Locker, it is a lot to ask of a coaching staff and the players to have a new system and team that may lack confidence to go up what is at this time superior and proven coaching at all levels and superior athletes. I know I am full of Steele lately (or worse) but when the #8 team goes against #75 there is disparity all over the place. I love Locker and he will have his days but probably that day will not be one of them. If the Washington Defense can come up with some stops or TO's they could pull some points. I am open on the game until a real line comes out but I lean towards LSU right now.
How good are Washingtons special teams, that could be a factor also.
LSU opens at -21. I think they run all over the Huskies. I don't know about the LSU defense this year, so that keeps me wondering if they'll keep Wash under 20 points for the game.
It won't be as bad as the 55-14 blowout win the Sooners had at Washington last year, but 41-17 wouldn't really surprise me at all.
It won't be as bad as the 55-14 blowout win the Sooners had at Washington last year, but 41-17 wouldn't really surprise me at all.
Well y'all have decided to use Oklahoma as your template for comparing this game to another opponent, I picked OSU. What does that imply? Blowout or spirited game with some measure of success?
I would be careful of expecting UW to pick up where they left off last season. WSU perhaps but not UW. The mutts will come into this game healthy. Locker is a force... that is a certainty. The question is not if they can win the game or not. The question is will they keep it respectable? Will LSU have any reason to let up? What would they be risking if they didn't let up? Who are they playing the following week and who did they play the previous week? I'm not interested in overthinking everyone's strengths and weaknesses. Just the pertinent ones that will have a direct impact on the game. The rest of it is bullshit that won't answer any of the questions about this game from a situational perspective. Furthermore, belaboring that would degenerate this discussion into a typical petty argument over this shit and that shit once again Russ. So are you going to do the same thing you've always done here and expect a different result? Prove that you can live by your own words.
Now, what team that they've played before represents a more accurate opponent for comparison sake and why? If you can look at that objectively, and not do your usual defensive posturing, I will listen. But if you go cherry picking looking for a way to support your assumptions, I won't even read it and will read a lot less of what you wish to say in the future.
Prove yourself Russ. This would be a good time to do it. Show everyone for once that you can look at both sides objectively and decide what really is relevant and what isn't. Then support that with some proof that rings true. Go beyond your box full of numbers since you are all for thinking outside the box. So prove it. I would like to see what you can do.
I'll do my own investigation when I decide it's time. But by all means, be my guest. But one word of caution, the "obvious', especially from a public point of view (such as which team is better -- obviously) is not insightful in the least way. If you'd ask me, I'd say the mojo is in Seattle... but will that matter? An honest question that takes a little more than obvious rankings and obvioius statistics to understand. That thinking may give you a line but it won't provide an edge against a line. Personally I think you'll miss the boat. Prove me wrong with an analysis that shows more than numerical comparisons. Show some understanding and insight of the teams involved. Prove unbiased objectivity. I doubt you will because you've already taken a stand... now prove me wrong about that.
And just for the record. I don't think Sarkisian is UW's answer in the long haul. I think his presence will have more impact NOW provided that they have the personnel to pull something off. I see his time window to succeed shrinking if nothing happens fairly soon. There is no such thing as eventually in Seattle. You should understand the reasons for that and understand why Sarkisian is expected to deliver. Patience is not a virtue in Washington and for good reason.
I would be careful of expecting UW to pick up where they left off last season. WSU perhaps but not UW. The mutts will come into this game healthy. Locker is a force... that is a certainty. The question is not if they can win the game or not. The question is will they keep it respectable? Will LSU have any reason to let up? What would they be risking if they didn't let up? Who are they playing the following week and who did they play the previous week? I'm not interested in overthinking everyone's strengths and weaknesses. Just the pertinent ones that will have a direct impact on the game. The rest of it is bullshit that won't answer any of the questions about this game from a situational perspective. Furthermore, belaboring that would degenerate this discussion into a typical petty argument over this shit and that shit once again Russ. So are you going to do the same thing you've always done here and expect a different result? Prove that you can live by your own words.
Now, what team that they've played before represents a more accurate opponent for comparison sake and why? If you can look at that objectively, and not do your usual defensive posturing, I will listen. But if you go cherry picking looking for a way to support your assumptions, I won't even read it and will read a lot less of what you wish to say in the future.
Prove yourself Russ. This would be a good time to do it. Show everyone for once that you can look at both sides objectively and decide what really is relevant and what isn't. Then support that with some proof that rings true. Go beyond your box full of numbers since you are all for thinking outside the box. So prove it. I would like to see what you can do.
I'll do my own investigation when I decide it's time. But by all means, be my guest. But one word of caution, the "obvious', especially from a public point of view (such as which team is better -- obviously) is not insightful in the least way. If you'd ask me, I'd say the mojo is in Seattle... but will that matter? An honest question that takes a little more than obvious rankings and obvioius statistics to understand. That thinking may give you a line but it won't provide an edge against a line. Personally I think you'll miss the boat. Prove me wrong with an analysis that shows more than numerical comparisons. Show some understanding and insight of the teams involved. Prove unbiased objectivity. I doubt you will because you've already taken a stand... now prove me wrong about that.
And just for the record. I don't think Sarkisian is UW's answer in the long haul. I think his presence will have more impact NOW provided that they have the personnel to pull something off. I see his time window to succeed shrinking if nothing happens fairly soon. There is no such thing as eventually in Seattle. You should understand the reasons for that and understand why Sarkisian is expected to deliver. Patience is not a virtue in Washington and for good reason.
Conan
I will begin by saying I do not have to prove myself to you or anyone else but I will throw out some of my points of view on the game just for drill.
Secondly, although I put on that LSU/Washington game stats/analysis it was just a sample that I picked at random not even necessarily a game that gets my interest much less my money. I hate to waste your time, my time, or the time of anyone who reads this trying to reason my way through it. I will say this about that game and in fact I have already said it. I think that since that game recently got picked up for national TV it takes it from a game that could have gone unnoticed by many to a game that will demand full attention from LSU. They will come ready to play and to make a statement and when you have a coach that is as greedy as Miles there is no telling when and if he would call off the Tigers. Now it is also LSU's first game of the year and fairly long trip to boot. I think Washington was better suited to play an easy foe and have a chance to build some momentun, kind of like medicine for a long off season hangover. Locker is a nice athlete and an ample QB, damn straight. I know Washington will be trying but I don't think their defense can take the physical game that LSU will throw at them. Psychologically, if it begins to unreel and the Washington coaches don't show poise and patience I think the players will relapse and it could be dejavu all over again. From what I can find LSU will have the advantage in every area including special teams. You are right about the fact that it is not about Washington pulling off the upset it is really about pulling points. I can see LSU winning by 28 or so. Things like weather conditions, the long trip, Locker igniting the team are factors that could keep Washington under the line. If this game was being played at LSU then we probably would be talking a whole different story. At the same time, the homefield adavantage and Locker are just one pair against a full house. LSU has a full house on the first deal, pat hand. Like I said at the beginning this is not a game I feel good about or feel that strongly about but those are factors (without numbers) that I can see play into the pointspread outcome.
As it stands the games I am really scrutinizing are OU/BYU, Oregon/Boise St, Central Michigan/Arizona, Maryland at California, Tulsa/Tulane, and Illinois/Missouri.
One thing that you should keep in mind is that while you have concentrated on the Pac 10 and the West Coast, I have spent a lot of time analyzing all 120 teams. It is a lot to wrap your mind around. I do know one thing, I am not going to spend all summer getting in pissing contests over who, what , when, where, and why I do or say anything.
I have shared a lot of information on here and that was my intent in the first place. Whether any body appreciates what I have done or whether or not they agree with anything or everything I have put on here, it is all opinion on everyone's part at this point. I have been posting since January and many are just now joining in. I did what I set out to do and came up with a spreadsheet and I now have a new tool to play with. I am more prepared than ever before and I feel like a guy who could always hit the driver but finally got his putting down pat. I am a very successful handicapper and I plan to do this full time when I retire in a couple of years. I can assure you that to this point I have spent no less than 200 hours doing research and that does not include time on the forum. I am serious about it to a fault.
I will begin by saying I do not have to prove myself to you or anyone else but I will throw out some of my points of view on the game just for drill.
Secondly, although I put on that LSU/Washington game stats/analysis it was just a sample that I picked at random not even necessarily a game that gets my interest much less my money. I hate to waste your time, my time, or the time of anyone who reads this trying to reason my way through it. I will say this about that game and in fact I have already said it. I think that since that game recently got picked up for national TV it takes it from a game that could have gone unnoticed by many to a game that will demand full attention from LSU. They will come ready to play and to make a statement and when you have a coach that is as greedy as Miles there is no telling when and if he would call off the Tigers. Now it is also LSU's first game of the year and fairly long trip to boot. I think Washington was better suited to play an easy foe and have a chance to build some momentun, kind of like medicine for a long off season hangover. Locker is a nice athlete and an ample QB, damn straight. I know Washington will be trying but I don't think their defense can take the physical game that LSU will throw at them. Psychologically, if it begins to unreel and the Washington coaches don't show poise and patience I think the players will relapse and it could be dejavu all over again. From what I can find LSU will have the advantage in every area including special teams. You are right about the fact that it is not about Washington pulling off the upset it is really about pulling points. I can see LSU winning by 28 or so. Things like weather conditions, the long trip, Locker igniting the team are factors that could keep Washington under the line. If this game was being played at LSU then we probably would be talking a whole different story. At the same time, the homefield adavantage and Locker are just one pair against a full house. LSU has a full house on the first deal, pat hand. Like I said at the beginning this is not a game I feel good about or feel that strongly about but those are factors (without numbers) that I can see play into the pointspread outcome.
As it stands the games I am really scrutinizing are OU/BYU, Oregon/Boise St, Central Michigan/Arizona, Maryland at California, Tulsa/Tulane, and Illinois/Missouri.
One thing that you should keep in mind is that while you have concentrated on the Pac 10 and the West Coast, I have spent a lot of time analyzing all 120 teams. It is a lot to wrap your mind around. I do know one thing, I am not going to spend all summer getting in pissing contests over who, what , when, where, and why I do or say anything.
I have shared a lot of information on here and that was my intent in the first place. Whether any body appreciates what I have done or whether or not they agree with anything or everything I have put on here, it is all opinion on everyone's part at this point. I have been posting since January and many are just now joining in. I did what I set out to do and came up with a spreadsheet and I now have a new tool to play with. I am more prepared than ever before and I feel like a guy who could always hit the driver but finally got his putting down pat. I am a very successful handicapper and I plan to do this full time when I retire in a couple of years. I can assure you that to this point I have spent no less than 200 hours doing research and that does not include time on the forum. I am serious about it to a fault.
My bad. I shouldn't have asked you to prove anything. What I should have asked for was for you to disprove what you've already proven.
Nevermind then. I'll just go by what I've already seen.
But I do have a question or two for you. You can prove what you wish later which would be advisable if you expect to be read or taken seriously. I say this because you have only been posting here since January. Others that have shown up since you arrived have been posting here for years. So this is not for them.
What was your W/L record last season ATS?
Is the same to be expected on an average or usual basis? I ask because you've alluded to being successful but I would like a clearer definition of the success you claim. A little ambiguity has its place but this isn't one of them.
It is customary for people here to post their selections prior to kickoff. Those that don't get ridiculed and branded a liar when they fail to show proof in a timely manor. It is also expected that you track your selections either here in this forum on a weekly basis or at least in the official selection record keeping forum.
Criticizing someone for a bad pick is not allowed unless they were critical of you about the same pick earlier. Those that stick their necks out are protected from ridicule, especially from those that don't post their picks. All of your claims to success mean nothing other than something that you are expected to prove. Your record and your proven knowledge mean everything. Your ups and downs mean less than your accountability.
Nevermind then. I'll just go by what I've already seen.
But I do have a question or two for you. You can prove what you wish later which would be advisable if you expect to be read or taken seriously. I say this because you have only been posting here since January. Others that have shown up since you arrived have been posting here for years. So this is not for them.
What was your W/L record last season ATS?
Is the same to be expected on an average or usual basis? I ask because you've alluded to being successful but I would like a clearer definition of the success you claim. A little ambiguity has its place but this isn't one of them.
It is customary for people here to post their selections prior to kickoff. Those that don't get ridiculed and branded a liar when they fail to show proof in a timely manor. It is also expected that you track your selections either here in this forum on a weekly basis or at least in the official selection record keeping forum.
Criticizing someone for a bad pick is not allowed unless they were critical of you about the same pick earlier. Those that stick their necks out are protected from ridicule, especially from those that don't post their picks. All of your claims to success mean nothing other than something that you are expected to prove. Your record and your proven knowledge mean everything. Your ups and downs mean less than your accountability.
Conan
I guess what you are getting at is that you think all I do is look at numbers and nothing else. Let me try to clear this number thing up for you. When I started in January I went through the roster of every team I studied, which at that time was 64, and personally crossed off every senior and all players who put in for the early draft to come up with my own personal returning player list. So I literally knew who was leaving.
I then eliminated those not returning from the LY's statistics and went through every depth chart to see who was returning and the effect LY's statistics would have if you eliminated them from the statistics. So that got me to returning players and how many points they scored LY. So I looked at 64 rosters knew who was leaving, who was returning (not just starters but the entire depth chart) and how many points those returning players accounted for LY. If you stop to realize that I literally scanned or focused on 64 rosters in something like 45 days you can see that I familiarized myself with names as well as numbers. That also included all of the coaching changes for all of those teams which I had to research separately.
At some point Steele put out a list of returning starters and I began to see their were discrepencies between his list and mine and later that Rivals was occassionally showing something different. By this time I had expanded to include all 120 teams in my study although I was not really interested in a few of the minor conferences. So I eventually scanned the depth chart of all 120 teams and personally crossed off players not returning and revised all of their LY statistics to elminate players not returning and to include only players who were returning.
So I started with a list that boiled down to offensive points scored LY, TD's scored LY by players returning this year, how many players were returning on off, def, and spt, and I even listed the positions that needed to be filled in (say OU needed 4 OL, 2 safeties, etc) except I did it for every team (120 of them). Those were my original basic ratings.
Although that research is recorded in terms of numbers the compilation of that rersearch was a hands on analyzing of every team, coaching staff, and players (those returning and those leaving). So when you see that team A was losing 3 players, I had researched who they were and what positions they played. Now why would I do that, because there is more to the whole picture than just numbers. I was putting faces to the numbers.
The next thing I did was totally numbers. I went to the NCAA statistics and made a ready list (which I had never seen before) so that I could overlay and compare vital statistics for rushing, passing, total offense and defense, and total scoring - offense and defense. I manually posted them to a spreadsheet individually category by category (at least 40 hours of work). I then reserached T.O. margins from LY and went back 5 more years and looked for T.O. margins looking for trends and teams who showed a consistency one way or the other. Why did I go to this much trouble. Because if you do the research yourself, post them to the spreadsheet themselves, and look at that many sets of statistics you begin to see things that you would never see unless you did those very things. This is precisely where you and I cross paths. I have learned not to ignore the numbers but I kind of inherently have them imbedded in my mind because I have spent so much time compiling them. When you say a name, I see a face and some numbers. Yes I know he was hurt much of last year, I know his potential, I know the team would not have played as poorly overall had he been healthy and played full time. Many teams are in the same boat as Locker and Washington. That is why I added the ratings from Steele's Power Poll 120. On that poll he has Washington rated number 75 in the nation, a significant upgrade from where they were last year which was near the bottom. So you shrug your shoulders and say big deal. I scratch my head and say why did they move down so much. Locker is back, improved coaching, yadda yadda yadda, nothing to do specifically with numbers but a combination of things that will put more numbers on the board. So those tangible factors while not in and of themselves numbers are reflected in numbers and are in fact the cause for adjusting Washingtons ratings because they indicate positive numbers (improvement).
The bottom line is that you have not been where I have been. That is why I have more of an appreciation for guys like Steele who study film, crunch numbers, scrutinize personnel, and compare teams in a way that a one man band can't do. What is more he does it for people who won't or don't have the time to do it. But one thing is certain, for guys like Steele and in fact for the guys in Vegas it comes down to numbers. It is the only concrete and unbiased way to make logical comparisons. Is there a magic chart, one path to follow, no. That is why Steele does as many as nine different rating combinations because he knows there is not one answer.
Now for Arizona. The only reason I mentioned Arizona was that their numbers were shocking, much higher than Oregon, Oregon St., and Stanford, etc. I was not thinking about who the coaches were and I was aware from the getgo that Tuitama (a legend) was leaving. But I was focused on what was returning (30 rushing TD's) etc. Thus the never ending pissing contest fro hell.
I told you from the geto I was new to online forums, that I was expanding my horizons and getting more into numbers. I had depended on others for quick references I wanted to check it out. Do you or any others on here have 200 hours to devote to checking out what I have personally checked out. Probably not and even if they did they probably wouldn't do it. I am a personally motivated person. I am an ex-athlete who competed at the top level of softball until I was 42. I am in a hall of fame. Was I always that good, hell no. I lifted weights back in the sixties and developed a year round fitness program that I still follow to this day. Now what does that have to do with betting football. I paid a price to do my research, I did something very few people ever do. I gathered raw info and statistic, organized it, and went one step further, I shared it and will continue to share it so that others can hopefully benefit from my work. Why would I do that? Because I am sick and tired of hearing about people, mostly compulsive people, losing hard earned money to people who prey on them.
Finally (yes in the ultimate sense) I am much more comfortable putting the numbers out there then I am in trying to influence someone how to bet.
What you asked me up above was to come up with a reason to make a bet and it is not my intention to influence people in that way. Now in the end I want to bring things to peoples attention that they may or may not want to even consider (like Arizona), but once you get to the point where you are preahing to the choir it is probably just time to shut up. And that is what I am finally going to do. So what does it all boil down to. We are all filling up this forum and why, because we are waiting on "numbers" from the casinos. Yes in the end it is all about numbers.
I guess what you are getting at is that you think all I do is look at numbers and nothing else. Let me try to clear this number thing up for you. When I started in January I went through the roster of every team I studied, which at that time was 64, and personally crossed off every senior and all players who put in for the early draft to come up with my own personal returning player list. So I literally knew who was leaving.
I then eliminated those not returning from the LY's statistics and went through every depth chart to see who was returning and the effect LY's statistics would have if you eliminated them from the statistics. So that got me to returning players and how many points they scored LY. So I looked at 64 rosters knew who was leaving, who was returning (not just starters but the entire depth chart) and how many points those returning players accounted for LY. If you stop to realize that I literally scanned or focused on 64 rosters in something like 45 days you can see that I familiarized myself with names as well as numbers. That also included all of the coaching changes for all of those teams which I had to research separately.
At some point Steele put out a list of returning starters and I began to see their were discrepencies between his list and mine and later that Rivals was occassionally showing something different. By this time I had expanded to include all 120 teams in my study although I was not really interested in a few of the minor conferences. So I eventually scanned the depth chart of all 120 teams and personally crossed off players not returning and revised all of their LY statistics to elminate players not returning and to include only players who were returning.
So I started with a list that boiled down to offensive points scored LY, TD's scored LY by players returning this year, how many players were returning on off, def, and spt, and I even listed the positions that needed to be filled in (say OU needed 4 OL, 2 safeties, etc) except I did it for every team (120 of them). Those were my original basic ratings.
Although that research is recorded in terms of numbers the compilation of that rersearch was a hands on analyzing of every team, coaching staff, and players (those returning and those leaving). So when you see that team A was losing 3 players, I had researched who they were and what positions they played. Now why would I do that, because there is more to the whole picture than just numbers. I was putting faces to the numbers.
The next thing I did was totally numbers. I went to the NCAA statistics and made a ready list (which I had never seen before) so that I could overlay and compare vital statistics for rushing, passing, total offense and defense, and total scoring - offense and defense. I manually posted them to a spreadsheet individually category by category (at least 40 hours of work). I then reserached T.O. margins from LY and went back 5 more years and looked for T.O. margins looking for trends and teams who showed a consistency one way or the other. Why did I go to this much trouble. Because if you do the research yourself, post them to the spreadsheet themselves, and look at that many sets of statistics you begin to see things that you would never see unless you did those very things. This is precisely where you and I cross paths. I have learned not to ignore the numbers but I kind of inherently have them imbedded in my mind because I have spent so much time compiling them. When you say a name, I see a face and some numbers. Yes I know he was hurt much of last year, I know his potential, I know the team would not have played as poorly overall had he been healthy and played full time. Many teams are in the same boat as Locker and Washington. That is why I added the ratings from Steele's Power Poll 120. On that poll he has Washington rated number 75 in the nation, a significant upgrade from where they were last year which was near the bottom. So you shrug your shoulders and say big deal. I scratch my head and say why did they move down so much. Locker is back, improved coaching, yadda yadda yadda, nothing to do specifically with numbers but a combination of things that will put more numbers on the board. So those tangible factors while not in and of themselves numbers are reflected in numbers and are in fact the cause for adjusting Washingtons ratings because they indicate positive numbers (improvement).
The bottom line is that you have not been where I have been. That is why I have more of an appreciation for guys like Steele who study film, crunch numbers, scrutinize personnel, and compare teams in a way that a one man band can't do. What is more he does it for people who won't or don't have the time to do it. But one thing is certain, for guys like Steele and in fact for the guys in Vegas it comes down to numbers. It is the only concrete and unbiased way to make logical comparisons. Is there a magic chart, one path to follow, no. That is why Steele does as many as nine different rating combinations because he knows there is not one answer.
Now for Arizona. The only reason I mentioned Arizona was that their numbers were shocking, much higher than Oregon, Oregon St., and Stanford, etc. I was not thinking about who the coaches were and I was aware from the getgo that Tuitama (a legend) was leaving. But I was focused on what was returning (30 rushing TD's) etc. Thus the never ending pissing contest fro hell.
I told you from the geto I was new to online forums, that I was expanding my horizons and getting more into numbers. I had depended on others for quick references I wanted to check it out. Do you or any others on here have 200 hours to devote to checking out what I have personally checked out. Probably not and even if they did they probably wouldn't do it. I am a personally motivated person. I am an ex-athlete who competed at the top level of softball until I was 42. I am in a hall of fame. Was I always that good, hell no. I lifted weights back in the sixties and developed a year round fitness program that I still follow to this day. Now what does that have to do with betting football. I paid a price to do my research, I did something very few people ever do. I gathered raw info and statistic, organized it, and went one step further, I shared it and will continue to share it so that others can hopefully benefit from my work. Why would I do that? Because I am sick and tired of hearing about people, mostly compulsive people, losing hard earned money to people who prey on them.
Finally (yes in the ultimate sense) I am much more comfortable putting the numbers out there then I am in trying to influence someone how to bet.
What you asked me up above was to come up with a reason to make a bet and it is not my intention to influence people in that way. Now in the end I want to bring things to peoples attention that they may or may not want to even consider (like Arizona), but once you get to the point where you are preahing to the choir it is probably just time to shut up. And that is what I am finally going to do. So what does it all boil down to. We are all filling up this forum and why, because we are waiting on "numbers" from the casinos. Yes in the end it is all about numbers.
No, I didn't ask about any of that
.
Some of what I said was said for the purpose of cluing you into how things are done around here, since you are new to the online forum thing.
You appear to have read way more into what I wrote than what was really said. Records are a quantifiable way of determining success which is what you have claimed. All I asked for was your W/L record ATS... just a little accountability for starters.
.
Some of what I said was said for the purpose of cluing you into how things are done around here, since you are new to the online forum thing.
You appear to have read way more into what I wrote than what was really said. Records are a quantifiable way of determining success which is what you have claimed. All I asked for was your W/L record ATS... just a little accountability for starters.
Conan
Last football season I started off by tripling my bankroll (deposit) in Sept. I pulled my winnings and left in my original deposit. I doubled that in October and again pulled out everything except my original deposit. November was about the same as October with the exception that I did some local stuff and pocketed that cash off the record. Mid Dec I pulled everything except one half of my original deposit and bet bowls and Pros (which I do very little of), and lost that. I have never kept track of wins and losses and as I have said before I do bet parlays based on the bet a little to win a lot theory. That is where I go off the beaten path is with parlays.
My reluctance to come online and join in a forum was because anybody can be anybody online. All I can tell you is that I have been betting for 40 years, I had ups and downs when I was younger and especially when I was going through a divorce, but in the last five years I have done well. I have done well enough that I am probably going to do this for a living when I retire. I began doing all the extra homework to prepare me for that and to see if I had the discipline to do the extra homework involved. I did it and I am better off for it. It should improve my handicapping and in the end the more self reliant I become the better.
As far as posting my picks on here I will probably post five teams a week if anyone is interested and I myself will bet them but I will never divulge any amounts wagered.
I know this is hard to believe but once the season begins I will be dropping to the back ground and doing more reading than posting. I wanted to develop a ready reference spreadsheet and by posting that desire on here it helped motivate me. It may or not be of much use to anyone else but it actually exceeded my expectations and I now have one more live round in my arsenal. I am 64 and still learning things and as you probably know live by the credo:
If you always do
What you always did
You will always get
What you always got.
Onward and upward, and it applies to handicapping as well as anything else in life.
Last football season I started off by tripling my bankroll (deposit) in Sept. I pulled my winnings and left in my original deposit. I doubled that in October and again pulled out everything except my original deposit. November was about the same as October with the exception that I did some local stuff and pocketed that cash off the record. Mid Dec I pulled everything except one half of my original deposit and bet bowls and Pros (which I do very little of), and lost that. I have never kept track of wins and losses and as I have said before I do bet parlays based on the bet a little to win a lot theory. That is where I go off the beaten path is with parlays.
My reluctance to come online and join in a forum was because anybody can be anybody online. All I can tell you is that I have been betting for 40 years, I had ups and downs when I was younger and especially when I was going through a divorce, but in the last five years I have done well. I have done well enough that I am probably going to do this for a living when I retire. I began doing all the extra homework to prepare me for that and to see if I had the discipline to do the extra homework involved. I did it and I am better off for it. It should improve my handicapping and in the end the more self reliant I become the better.
As far as posting my picks on here I will probably post five teams a week if anyone is interested and I myself will bet them but I will never divulge any amounts wagered.
I know this is hard to believe but once the season begins I will be dropping to the back ground and doing more reading than posting. I wanted to develop a ready reference spreadsheet and by posting that desire on here it helped motivate me. It may or not be of much use to anyone else but it actually exceeded my expectations and I now have one more live round in my arsenal. I am 64 and still learning things and as you probably know live by the credo:
If you always do
What you always did
You will always get
What you always got.
Onward and upward, and it applies to handicapping as well as anything else in life.
Back to the Future
Sometimes you can get a grasp on a team by looking back to the future.
Here the 2009 season is still too far away and we are so focused on it that we forget that college football is a world of its own and it is evolving 24/7/365. As we study for next year there is recruiting going on to bring in players for the 2010 freshman classes. If you stop to consider that these are future players you might ask what does the have to do with the past and present.
You can get a grasp on the direction a program is going by the numbers and the quality of recruits that they are attracting. These potential 2010 freshman will be playing with upper classmen and part of the reason they may choose a certain team over another has a lot to do with those upper
classman, their attitudes, and the buy in factor that those upper classmen carry around with them. Recruits talk to the players and interact with them, they get a feel for what direction a program is headed. How does that help us in 2009. Well consider that good recruiting could mean things are going up at a certain school. It could mean they might perform at a higher level than anticipated or expected right now, in 2009. If a school is not attracting good recruits it could mean things might go the other direction and that school might under perform or struggle.
Recruiting is a good indicator of the direction a program is headed. Texas already has a bunch of recruits locked in and so do others. But if you read the attached article you will see that teams like Utah are now able to open doors that they never could before which gives them a chance to get into the reload mode instead of the rebuild mode more often than not.
Question 2: With Utah coming off an unbeaten season, are the Utes getting a recruiting push? And with schools such as Boise State and TCU getting more national attention, are mid-major schools in general getting better reactions on the recruiting trail?
<!--Start Image--><SCRIPT language=Javascript>document.write(insertImage('/IMAGES/Coach/PHOTO/1111-UTKYLEWHITTINGHAM_250.JPG', '', 0, 300, 250, 1, 'Kyle Whittingham is winning on the field and on the recruiting trail.', 'Rivals.com', 1242958416000, '', 1014, 'Align=Right'));</SCRIPT><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=258 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=6 rowSpan=3>
</TD><TD width=252>
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=3>
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Kyle Whittingham is winning on the field and on the recruiting trail.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- End Image-->Jeremy Crabtree's answer: There is no question Utah is able to walk into more high schools and homes and get instant name recognition. When I talked with Kyle Whittingham last month, he said the type of reception they're receiving now is simply amazing. They can now beat out top-flight Pac-10 and Big 12 teams for top players. Last year's class was the top class from outside the "Big Six" conferences, and I don't expect that to change. I also fully expect TCU to remain up there with Utah because of the amazing natural recruiting base the Horned Frogs have in Texas. I also marvel at the job that Boise State does with their evaluations. Broncos coaches find prospects who just end up being great players three years later; that staff projects as well as any in the nation.
Barry Every's answer: TCU has been recruiting well for more than five years; it is not uncommon for the Horned Frogs to outrecruit Texas Tech or Texas A&M. They really put a lot of effort into identifying, then working kids in the state of Texas. Utah surprises people even though the state actually produces more top-level athletes than the general fan would think. Boise State is the school that has to really hit the recruiting trail hard because Idaho is basically void of D-I talent. I think Boise does a great job of identifying kids who may be a tad short or slow for "Big Six" schools to go after, but these same kids are legit, hard-nosed football players. A good football player with the desire to succeed will beat out a star athlete every time if the star athlete does not find the motivation to get better.
Mike Farrell's answer: I think the mid-majors are starting to get more attention and respect from players, but I don't see any of them cracking the top 25 in recruiting even though you could argue that some of them have as good or better a chance to play in a BCS bowl than many "Big Six" schools.
Jamie Newberg's answer: I think it's bigger than the three programs mentioned. The WAC and Mountain West, as a whole, are recruiting better, led by Utah, TCU and Boise State. League teams certainly are signing better prospects and playing better ball and gaining more and more traction each recruiting year.
Barton Simmons' answer: An undefeated season and a BCS bowl win over a program with the prestige of Alabama certainly is going to give Utah a recruiting boost, and players are taking notice. Programs such as Utah and TCU always seem to make the most of whatever advantages they have on the recruiting trail, but they're still going to do most of their damage getting the players who are a little bit under-recruited. Until the Mountain West is considered a "Big Six" conference, it will be hard to break through on the truly elite prospects.
Question 3: Any surprise teams thus far in recruiting?
<!--Start Image--><SCRIPT language=Javascript>document.write(insertImage('/IMAGES/Coach/PHOTO/JIMHARBAUGH250.JPG', '', 0, 300, 250, 1, 'Jim Harbaugh is assembling an impressive group of recruits.', 'Rivals.com', 1242958466000, '', 1014, 'Align=Left'));</SCRIPT><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=258 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=252>
</TD><TD width=6 rowSpan=3>
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=3>
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Jim Harbaugh is assembling an impressive group of recruits.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- End Image-->Jeremy Crabtree's answer: I have to look at the job Jim Harbaugh has done at Stanford. It's still a building process there in Palo Alto, but the type of prospects that staff reeled in last year was amazing. They're off to an even better start this year. I think they could really position themselves to be a force to deal with in the Pac-10 in the next couple of years, and it all starts with Harbaugh's ability to recruit.
Barry Every's answer: Texas A&M is coming off its second-worst season since 1972, finishing 4-8; the season started with bad loss to Arkansas State and ended with a 40-point loss to in-state rival Texas. Still, the Aggies currently have 16 commitments, including 13 from Texas.
Mike Farrell's answer: Minnesota is off to a great start. Tim Brewster and his staff are recruiting at a high level and have a chance to make waves in the Big Ten this year. I also think North Carolina State will have a big recruiting year; the Wolfpack are in good position for a lot of top players.
Jamie Newberg's answer: In terms of commitments, there aren't too many surprises right now. But I think there could be quite a few come this fall and winter. My sleeper surprise is Syracuse. I think Doug Marrone was a great coaching hire. He is an outstanding recruiter, and he also assembled a good staff. I expect the Orange to finish in the top third of the Big East in recruiting, which should put them in the top 40 nationally. That would be huge for them and a big step in the right direction. Auburn is something of a surprise; the Tigers have made a lot of noise early. Out west, I like Washington to be the big surprise.
Barton Simmons' answer: I really like what Texas A&M has been able to do thus far. Mike Sherman and his staff have a big hill to climb in closing the talent gap between A&M and Texas, but things are off to a great start for 2010. The Aggies have secured a great group of offensive linemen and some good options at quarterback; they've really focused in on talent-rich but under-recruited Louisiana with some nice early pickups.
Talk about it in the Message Boards
So teams like T A & M that run under the radar might perform better this year and deserve to be watched as a team that might exceed expectations. Food for thought.
Sometimes you can get a grasp on a team by looking back to the future.
Here the 2009 season is still too far away and we are so focused on it that we forget that college football is a world of its own and it is evolving 24/7/365. As we study for next year there is recruiting going on to bring in players for the 2010 freshman classes. If you stop to consider that these are future players you might ask what does the have to do with the past and present.
You can get a grasp on the direction a program is going by the numbers and the quality of recruits that they are attracting. These potential 2010 freshman will be playing with upper classmen and part of the reason they may choose a certain team over another has a lot to do with those upper
classman, their attitudes, and the buy in factor that those upper classmen carry around with them. Recruits talk to the players and interact with them, they get a feel for what direction a program is headed. How does that help us in 2009. Well consider that good recruiting could mean things are going up at a certain school. It could mean they might perform at a higher level than anticipated or expected right now, in 2009. If a school is not attracting good recruits it could mean things might go the other direction and that school might under perform or struggle.
Recruiting is a good indicator of the direction a program is headed. Texas already has a bunch of recruits locked in and so do others. But if you read the attached article you will see that teams like Utah are now able to open doors that they never could before which gives them a chance to get into the reload mode instead of the rebuild mode more often than not.
Question 2: With Utah coming off an unbeaten season, are the Utes getting a recruiting push? And with schools such as Boise State and TCU getting more national attention, are mid-major schools in general getting better reactions on the recruiting trail?
<!--Start Image--><SCRIPT language=Javascript>document.write(insertImage('/IMAGES/Coach/PHOTO/1111-UTKYLEWHITTINGHAM_250.JPG', '', 0, 300, 250, 1, 'Kyle Whittingham is winning on the field and on the recruiting trail.', 'Rivals.com', 1242958416000, '', 1014, 'Align=Right'));</SCRIPT><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=258 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=6 rowSpan=3>
Barry Every's answer: TCU has been recruiting well for more than five years; it is not uncommon for the Horned Frogs to outrecruit Texas Tech or Texas A&M. They really put a lot of effort into identifying, then working kids in the state of Texas. Utah surprises people even though the state actually produces more top-level athletes than the general fan would think. Boise State is the school that has to really hit the recruiting trail hard because Idaho is basically void of D-I talent. I think Boise does a great job of identifying kids who may be a tad short or slow for "Big Six" schools to go after, but these same kids are legit, hard-nosed football players. A good football player with the desire to succeed will beat out a star athlete every time if the star athlete does not find the motivation to get better.
Mike Farrell's answer: I think the mid-majors are starting to get more attention and respect from players, but I don't see any of them cracking the top 25 in recruiting even though you could argue that some of them have as good or better a chance to play in a BCS bowl than many "Big Six" schools.
Jamie Newberg's answer: I think it's bigger than the three programs mentioned. The WAC and Mountain West, as a whole, are recruiting better, led by Utah, TCU and Boise State. League teams certainly are signing better prospects and playing better ball and gaining more and more traction each recruiting year.
Barton Simmons' answer: An undefeated season and a BCS bowl win over a program with the prestige of Alabama certainly is going to give Utah a recruiting boost, and players are taking notice. Programs such as Utah and TCU always seem to make the most of whatever advantages they have on the recruiting trail, but they're still going to do most of their damage getting the players who are a little bit under-recruited. Until the Mountain West is considered a "Big Six" conference, it will be hard to break through on the truly elite prospects.
Question 3: Any surprise teams thus far in recruiting?
<!--Start Image--><SCRIPT language=Javascript>document.write(insertImage('/IMAGES/Coach/PHOTO/JIMHARBAUGH250.JPG', '', 0, 300, 250, 1, 'Jim Harbaugh is assembling an impressive group of recruits.', 'Rivals.com', 1242958466000, '', 1014, 'Align=Left'));</SCRIPT><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=258 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=252>
Barry Every's answer: Texas A&M is coming off its second-worst season since 1972, finishing 4-8; the season started with bad loss to Arkansas State and ended with a 40-point loss to in-state rival Texas. Still, the Aggies currently have 16 commitments, including 13 from Texas.
Mike Farrell's answer: Minnesota is off to a great start. Tim Brewster and his staff are recruiting at a high level and have a chance to make waves in the Big Ten this year. I also think North Carolina State will have a big recruiting year; the Wolfpack are in good position for a lot of top players.
Jamie Newberg's answer: In terms of commitments, there aren't too many surprises right now. But I think there could be quite a few come this fall and winter. My sleeper surprise is Syracuse. I think Doug Marrone was a great coaching hire. He is an outstanding recruiter, and he also assembled a good staff. I expect the Orange to finish in the top third of the Big East in recruiting, which should put them in the top 40 nationally. That would be huge for them and a big step in the right direction. Auburn is something of a surprise; the Tigers have made a lot of noise early. Out west, I like Washington to be the big surprise.
Barton Simmons' answer: I really like what Texas A&M has been able to do thus far. Mike Sherman and his staff have a big hill to climb in closing the talent gap between A&M and Texas, but things are off to a great start for 2010. The Aggies have secured a great group of offensive linemen and some good options at quarterback; they've really focused in on talent-rich but under-recruited Louisiana with some nice early pickups.
Talk about it in the Message Boards
So teams like T A & M that run under the radar might perform better this year and deserve to be watched as a team that might exceed expectations. Food for thought.
Conan
I think I made a connection that had not made before about why I rely on numbers so faithfully. My ex-neighbor was a thoroughbred horse trainer and owned some. I knew nothing about horses or racing and he taught me how to read a racing form, took me to the backside at the track, and introduced me to owners, trainers, and vets. On saturday mornings I would wake up at the crack of dawn and go watch the horses work out. As I got to know the horses, the trainer, etc. I began to visualize the horses as I studied the form. As you gain confidence you begin to treat the forms as a great source for statistical information that would be impossible to ignore and although they provide a great resource did not necessarily make it easier to pick a winner on a spedific day. I was good at the numbers, he was good at reading a horse and we became a pretty dynamic duo and had a lot of success. Anyone who handicaps horses has the propensity to do the same with football but the facts and figures are not always at your fingertips. Anyone who has handicapped horses can convert some of those same skills to football and other sports.
I guess that is why am inclined the way I am. I have always been pretty good at reading a racing form and if nothing else I developed an ability to feel pretty good about a race that might be wide open. That is the kind of races I bet. And that is where I got into exactas and trifectas and probably why it was a logical progression to convert that into picking parlays in football. That is my ace in the hole is using parlays to give me the opportunity to bet small and to win big. It is not for everyone but it has worked out well for me.
Maybe now you can see a little better where I am coming from. I use the numbers to give me a framework but I always go to the paddock on Saturday morning and check out the teams in person.
I think I made a connection that had not made before about why I rely on numbers so faithfully. My ex-neighbor was a thoroughbred horse trainer and owned some. I knew nothing about horses or racing and he taught me how to read a racing form, took me to the backside at the track, and introduced me to owners, trainers, and vets. On saturday mornings I would wake up at the crack of dawn and go watch the horses work out. As I got to know the horses, the trainer, etc. I began to visualize the horses as I studied the form. As you gain confidence you begin to treat the forms as a great source for statistical information that would be impossible to ignore and although they provide a great resource did not necessarily make it easier to pick a winner on a spedific day. I was good at the numbers, he was good at reading a horse and we became a pretty dynamic duo and had a lot of success. Anyone who handicaps horses has the propensity to do the same with football but the facts and figures are not always at your fingertips. Anyone who has handicapped horses can convert some of those same skills to football and other sports.
I guess that is why am inclined the way I am. I have always been pretty good at reading a racing form and if nothing else I developed an ability to feel pretty good about a race that might be wide open. That is the kind of races I bet. And that is where I got into exactas and trifectas and probably why it was a logical progression to convert that into picking parlays in football. That is my ace in the hole is using parlays to give me the opportunity to bet small and to win big. It is not for everyone but it has worked out well for me.
Maybe now you can see a little better where I am coming from. I use the numbers to give me a framework but I always go to the paddock on Saturday morning and check out the teams in person.
That was a little more information than I wanted.
What does all that translate to in W/L ATS?
For an average week. For the season?
You are not the only one that requires numbers to make decisions. In here that specific number is one of the most important things to know about anyone that provides picks, opinions too. Accountability first. Everything else after that.
Wager amounts are as you mentioned, nobody's business any more than expecting someone to tell you what's in their bank account. But the value you place on games normally expressed in units is also a worthwhile thing to know about someone's opinion in the sense that it helps weigh out the size of bets relative to a person's means. It's a way of assigning strength to a play. 1 unit, 2 units etc. If you want to add that information to a W/L ATS record that's fine but it's optional. (e.g. 3 unit games 5-2, 1 unit games 4-3, etc etc.) but not as important as the overall unless it's worth noting. Like you said, the focus here is on winning money and that's one of the best ways to evaluate what someone brings to the table.
W/L ATS? That would suffice. You can look up anyone here you've been talking to and find out theirs. Those numbers are available if you do a search. I'd be glad to post links that prove mine. You are not being asked for that much, of course. Your word FWIW will do for now.
W/L ATS records are important because everyone in here goes by that when they decide whether or not to base their thinking on another posters picks and opinions, and for that matter a lot of what they have to offer, especially if their presence here is big. Seniority, reputation and time also help and I understand your position so I wouldn't expect those things to be a factor in your case. But regardless, to a lot of people here, a posters W/L ATS record is a valuable and necessary thing to know about them.
W/L ATS?
What does all that translate to in W/L ATS?
For an average week. For the season?
You are not the only one that requires numbers to make decisions. In here that specific number is one of the most important things to know about anyone that provides picks, opinions too. Accountability first. Everything else after that.
Wager amounts are as you mentioned, nobody's business any more than expecting someone to tell you what's in their bank account. But the value you place on games normally expressed in units is also a worthwhile thing to know about someone's opinion in the sense that it helps weigh out the size of bets relative to a person's means. It's a way of assigning strength to a play. 1 unit, 2 units etc. If you want to add that information to a W/L ATS record that's fine but it's optional. (e.g. 3 unit games 5-2, 1 unit games 4-3, etc etc.) but not as important as the overall unless it's worth noting. Like you said, the focus here is on winning money and that's one of the best ways to evaluate what someone brings to the table.
W/L ATS? That would suffice. You can look up anyone here you've been talking to and find out theirs. Those numbers are available if you do a search. I'd be glad to post links that prove mine. You are not being asked for that much, of course. Your word FWIW will do for now.
W/L ATS records are important because everyone in here goes by that when they decide whether or not to base their thinking on another posters picks and opinions, and for that matter a lot of what they have to offer, especially if their presence here is big. Seniority, reputation and time also help and I understand your position so I wouldn't expect those things to be a factor in your case. But regardless, to a lot of people here, a posters W/L ATS record is a valuable and necessary thing to know about them.
W/L ATS?
W/l ats
Even the fact that someone posts their picks W/L ATS and posts them here does not document that they actually plopped down some dough.
I can see that there would be some fantasy football type action on here. That thought first struck me when BS posted saying he was a documented 13-3 first week of the season LY. My first thought was if anybody actually put down any sizeable amount on 16 games on the first week of the season he is a freaking moron. So what if it is documented or not. Had he gone 3-13 he wouldn't even be referencing week one LY. I can tell you up front I am never going to bet that many games on week one. Not individual straight bets. So there is fact and there is fiction, we both agree on that. This is the same guy who belittled Randizzle who had 26,000 hits on his thread and he didn't even see that. As far as numbers go 2 + 2 = 4. If BS didn't catch on to that one, being new on here myself, his credibility with me went straight to zero.
Another thing is that I did a lot of second half betting LY, really for the first time, and how do you document that. I mean there was times when that was like taking candy from a baby. I also made some first half only bets LY on some big minus teams that were really easy.
I will post on here if people want me to but all I want is the money. I am not here to impress any body or to get in any more pissing contests. I also have some backers (investors) this year and if they say they don't want me to post my picks I will honor their wishes. Like I said I will be doing this for a living in a couple of years so I have long term goals that far supercede trying to impress any body on here.
I have dealt out a lot of pertinent info on here and the games on my circle/revenge thread alone are worth taking note of.
All bets have consequences if you really bet the jack. Sometimes they are good and sometimes they are bad.
As far as credibility goes, when I started saying good things about Arizona, Illinois, S. Miss nobody paid any attention and some even scoffed. Now that the magazines are coming out and some online sites are on record, it turns out that these teams really were worth considering.
You cannot tell me that you are not shocked that Arizona was ranked on any poll ahead of Oregon. I figued that out myself, on my own. So I am an independent thinker but without your approval or other outside substantiation I have always been held guilty until proven innocent.
So credibility is a two way street with a fork in the road at the end. You either go the right way or you go the wrong way. Like Frank said a long time ago no matter what "I did it my way."
Even the fact that someone posts their picks W/L ATS and posts them here does not document that they actually plopped down some dough.
I can see that there would be some fantasy football type action on here. That thought first struck me when BS posted saying he was a documented 13-3 first week of the season LY. My first thought was if anybody actually put down any sizeable amount on 16 games on the first week of the season he is a freaking moron. So what if it is documented or not. Had he gone 3-13 he wouldn't even be referencing week one LY. I can tell you up front I am never going to bet that many games on week one. Not individual straight bets. So there is fact and there is fiction, we both agree on that. This is the same guy who belittled Randizzle who had 26,000 hits on his thread and he didn't even see that. As far as numbers go 2 + 2 = 4. If BS didn't catch on to that one, being new on here myself, his credibility with me went straight to zero.
Another thing is that I did a lot of second half betting LY, really for the first time, and how do you document that. I mean there was times when that was like taking candy from a baby. I also made some first half only bets LY on some big minus teams that were really easy.
I will post on here if people want me to but all I want is the money. I am not here to impress any body or to get in any more pissing contests. I also have some backers (investors) this year and if they say they don't want me to post my picks I will honor their wishes. Like I said I will be doing this for a living in a couple of years so I have long term goals that far supercede trying to impress any body on here.
I have dealt out a lot of pertinent info on here and the games on my circle/revenge thread alone are worth taking note of.
All bets have consequences if you really bet the jack. Sometimes they are good and sometimes they are bad.
As far as credibility goes, when I started saying good things about Arizona, Illinois, S. Miss nobody paid any attention and some even scoffed. Now that the magazines are coming out and some online sites are on record, it turns out that these teams really were worth considering.
You cannot tell me that you are not shocked that Arizona was ranked on any poll ahead of Oregon. I figued that out myself, on my own. So I am an independent thinker but without your approval or other outside substantiation I have always been held guilty until proven innocent.
So credibility is a two way street with a fork in the road at the end. You either go the right way or you go the wrong way. Like Frank said a long time ago no matter what "I did it my way."
Russ...I can tell you that SoonerBS did go 13-3 in the first week of the season. All of his picks were made before the games and documented at another site, of which I am a Moderator. He is always the best prepared capper in the first week of the season than anybody that I've seen. And come June or July he'll come in here and give us the games that he thinks will be good plays in the first week and after. He is a very good situational handicapper. Which is also mainly what I am, along with maybe a few more numbers thrown in from my "running dogs" system. I can tell you that it's not all about the spreads with me and BS. We both also like playing totals. And much of that 13-3 number were totals. I can't speak for BS, but I can tell you that I've always done better in the first month of the season than anytime thereafter. We both have a pretty good feel for who we think will be underrated or overrated and then go from there.
Gs
I actually never doubted the fact that he did go 13-3, it is putting your money where your mouth is part that left doubts. You can post something, not actually bet them (or at least all of them), and still take credit if they hit and not pay a price if they don't. So posting picks is better than not posting them and then coming back with claims that at least cannot be substantiated. Still a fine line for me. I too started well in Sept LY but I did not document it because it really did not serve a purpose. But that was then this is now, and that is what gambling is all about. I prefer college football to other sports including horse racing because there are more variables, more things can go wrong or at least not the way you envisioned it and you can still win a bet. I have found a little more of an edge betting it than anything I have tried.
One clarification, the 28 year old, we do not live together and she has two kids who demand a lot of attention. We both like our space and I am definitely getting the better end of that deal.
I actually never doubted the fact that he did go 13-3, it is putting your money where your mouth is part that left doubts. You can post something, not actually bet them (or at least all of them), and still take credit if they hit and not pay a price if they don't. So posting picks is better than not posting them and then coming back with claims that at least cannot be substantiated. Still a fine line for me. I too started well in Sept LY but I did not document it because it really did not serve a purpose. But that was then this is now, and that is what gambling is all about. I prefer college football to other sports including horse racing because there are more variables, more things can go wrong or at least not the way you envisioned it and you can still win a bet. I have found a little more of an edge betting it than anything I have tried.
One clarification, the 28 year old, we do not live together and she has two kids who demand a lot of attention. We both like our space and I am definitely getting the better end of that deal.
Please Russ, all I want is a direct answer to a simple question. Please tell me what your W/L record ATS is.
People post their picks here in a spirit of cooperation and sharing. It is what others who bet on sports need and want to know most. That's why we do it that way. This is not Conan's opinion, it's the way things are done. Records are imortant so people can make fair judgments. Certainly you can see that.
You can break it down to sides, 1st half wagers, 2nd half wagers, totals, any way you like. In a public forum like this, such things are not kept secret by members who post in good faith. How can the average person know who's a fraud and who isn't? How can anyone know who is hot and who is cold? You can see why it's important. It goes directly to the accountability issue.
We expect records to be posted and kept in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation with everyone here who wants to use this place for the purpose of getting some help in winning. You are either honest and transparent or you have something to hide. No two ways about it.
As far as your "investors" are concerned. There is nothing to worry about. If you have a service, you have not published what that service is. You compromise nothing. You are anonymous. Furthermore it has nothing to do with my question.
Please stop beating around the bush and respect me with a simple straight answer. I am not interested in anything at present but your W/L ATS record regardless of what you wager on, sides, totals, 1st halfs, 2nd halfs, I don't care. I have posted all of those types of wagers in my weekly picks threads too so there's no reason for that to confuse the issue. But if you prefer to break it down into different types of wagers, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. My strengths and weaknesses are there for all to see.
I try to be honest and transparent. My credibility is in my accountability. I speak for everyone else here who is honest and transparent and credible and that covers most of us and virtually all of us that are courageous enough to lay our plays out there for everyone to see. The only people that post now but don't post much during the regular season have their own websites we can visit, so even they are accountable. Lurkers, loudmouths, losers and frauds are the only other exceptions.
Why are you making this so difficult? A simple straight answer is all I ask. That would be appreciated.
