NFL

[authorbytrade]

Loves2kickass,
keep posting these and we can track some results I think you will find interesting when all is said and done.

Group 1:

2W 3L = +4 TO's, +7 points

Group 2:

2W 3L = -1 TO's, +0 points

One could argue that you caught some bad luck in Group 1 as your advantages in positive randomness should have resulted in a net win scenario for you about 58% of the time. Interestingly, Group 2 is your first grouping with essentially a net zero in terms of randomness. This would suggest these 5 games were played to "true" results despite the small sample size.

You are now +.6 TO's per game and +.83 ppg in random scoring over 30 games which is still fantastic and, if continued, will lead to very good results.

 

[Loves2kickass]

Loves2kickass,
keep posting these and we can track some results I think you will find interesting when all is said and done.

Group 1:

2W 3L = +4 TO's, +7 points

Group 2:

2W 3L = -1 TO's, +0 points

One could argue that you caught some bad luck in Group 1 as your advantages in positive randomness should have resulted in a net win scenario for you about 58% of the time. Interestingly, Group 2 is your first grouping with essentially a net zero in terms of randomness. This would suggest these 5 games were played to "true" results despite the small sample size.

You are now +.6 TO's per game and +.83 ppg in random scoring over 30 games which is still fantastic and, if continued, will lead to very good results.

Ok i will. Yes, I appreciate you doing that. Yeah i felt like i had some bad luck in group one.

 

[Loves2kickass]

Loves2kickass,
keep posting these and we can track some results I think you will find interesting when all is said and done.

Group 1:

2W 3L = +4 TO's, +7 points

Group 2:

2W 3L = -1 TO's, +0 points

Interestingly, Group 2 is your first grouping with essentially a net zero in terms of randomness. This would suggest these 5 games were played to "true" results despite the small sample size.

Very, very interesting and makes sense. Group 1 are my side that have the largest edge and Group 2 the smallest edge.

 

[Loves2kickass]

WEEK 4

GROUP 1
NO +1.5 -110
LAC +8 -110
BUF +2.5 +100
TB +2 -110
PIT -1.5 -110

GROUP 2
NE +10 -110
CLE +1 -110
MIA -1 -110
LAR +3 -120
WAS +3.5 -120

 

[authorbytrade]

Thanks for sharing. Best wishes on these.

I love to see dedicated people put out plays so that I can try to deduce why, deductive reasoning is the fun part of sports capping to me. I have two entries into these types of contests too but I crossover quite a few plays and my wagers are not always reflective of my contest plays. I've found that I'm just not good enough in the NFL to try and win more than 5-6 sides a week, so without crossover wagers I just can't come up with enough of an advantage in these contests. Seems I always pick the wrong crossover games though! Last week I had solo wins on Baltimore, LA Rams, Philly, and Indy but a crossover loss with Jacksonville.

I had pegged you as a YPP differential type of guy but looking at these selections now I don't really see that. Means you are truly doing your own work to come up with numbers, which I respect. I like bottom up capping, I think it takes more talent.

 

[Loves2kickass]

Thanks for sharing. Best wishes on these.

I love to see dedicated people put out plays so that I can try to deduce why, deductive reasoning is the fun part of sports capping to me. I have two entries into these types of contests too but I crossover quite a few plays and my wagers are not always reflective of my contest plays. I've found that I'm just not good enough in the NFL to try and win more than 5-6 sides a week, so without crossover wagers I just can't come up with enough of an advantage in these contests. Seems I always pick the wrong crossover games though! Last week I had solo wins on Baltimore, LA Rams, Philly, and Indy but a crossover loss with Jacksonville.

I had pegged you as a YPP differential type of guy but looking at these selections now I don't really see that. Means you are truly doing your own work to come up with numbers, which I respect. I like bottom up capping, I think it takes more talent.

Without crossovers I'm hoping one of my strategies comes out ahead. Plus, I don't like losing in 2 contests with the same pick lol. The only thing I'm worried about this week is selecting a couple teams with labored or hurt QB's but I went with them regardless. I'm fascinated with your analysis so thank you for doing that each week.

 

[JohnnyMags]

You lost me a long time ago ... I'm in group 10

 

[Loves2kickass]

Thanks for sharing. Best wishes on these.

I love to see dedicated people put out plays so that I can try to deduce why, deductive reasoning is the fun part of sports capping to me. I have two entries into these types of contests too but I crossover quite a few plays and my wagers are not always reflective of my contest plays. I've found that I'm just not good enough in the NFL to try and win more than 5-6 sides a week, so without crossover wagers I just can't come up with enough of an advantage in these contests. Seems I always pick the wrong crossover games though! Last week I had solo wins on Baltimore, LA Rams, Philly, and Indy but a crossover loss with Jacksonville.

I had pegged you as a YPP differential type of guy but looking at these selections now I don't really see that. Means you are truly doing your own work to come up with numbers, which I respect. I like bottom up capping, I think it takes more talent.

72% (11-4, 10-4-1) win percentage with 10 games a week and no crossover will be a hard trend to continue but I'll give it my best shot. Week 3 hurt me a little for any short term payout. Group one could have easily finished 4-1 last week but didn't have that luck factor.

 

[JohnnyMags]

Good Luck

 

[jd95]

L2K have you followed up on the numbers and qualifications for the system which chooses the teams for the Super Bowl. I completely 4got about that goodfella's system and I 4got his name but he's the one who wrote the book and passed away. I followed the system for quite a few years and came up with some interesting results but I need the numbers that were final 2023-24 season to begin this season.. I wish I had a copy of his book, I thought his Daughter was going to have some more published. Sorry to bother you but if you have numbers that are current I would really really appreciate it, I know I'm a newbie here, didn't join until after CM closed, joined in 2004 there but lurked here more for years, some good cappers here I followed. Sorry for long post but felt I had to explain the situation.. and Thank You if you read it all

 

[authorbytrade]

WEEK 4

GROUP 1
NO +1.5 -110
LAC +8 -110
BUF +2.5 +100
TB +2 -110
PIT -1.5 -110

GROUP 2
NE +10 -110
CLE +1 -110
MIA -1 -110
LAR +3 -120
WAS +3.5 -120

Group 1:

2W 3L = +1 TO, -14 points

Group 2:

1W 4L = -3 TO's, +0 points

This week you were on the wrong end of some randomness. Being +1 TO's in Group 1 should have been slightly beneficial and on 105 total possessions, in this grouping, been worth about .25 wins. However, all of your -14 random points occurred in a single game AND in the single game with just 19 possessions, maximizing their influence. In Group 2 you had your first severe negative TO margin (-3) and it produced your worst grouping record YTD (1W 4L)

You are now +.38 TO's per game and +.28 ppg in random scoring.
You are 4W-2L when you win the TO battle within your grouping
You are 0W-2L when you lose the TO battle within your grouping
You are 3W-1L when you are + random points within your grouping
Your are 1W-3L when you are - random points within your grouping

From the above limited data it would seem that your record for Group 2 (11W - 9L) is nearly identically on par with expectations for your TO and positive random point differential. Meaning "handicapping" has had minimal effect on the W/L results. Your record in Group 1 (13-6-1) has exceeded the results expected from the TO and random point differential advantages and considering a bit of poor randomness in Week 3 and the -1.25 wins pulled from a -14 random point game in a .5 ATS loss in Week 4, suggest that your "handicapping" is effecting the result in Group 1 and that those are stronger plays. Small sample size, and lots of noise in these early numbers, but this would seem to echo the results I think you would expect since you stated Group 1 were stronger plays. This is small sample validation for that hypothesis.

 

[Loves2kickass]

WEEK 4

GROUP 1
NO +1.5 -110
LAC +8 -110
BUF +2.5 +100
TB +2 -110
PIT -1.5 -110

GROUP 2
NE +10 -110
CLE +1 -110
MIA -1 -110
LAR +3 -120
WAS +3.5 -120

Group 1:

2W 3L = +1 TO, -14 points

Group 2:

1W 4L = -3 TO's, +0 points

This week you were on the wrong end of some randomness. Being +1 TO's in Group 1 should have been slightly beneficial and on 105 total possessions, in this grouping, been worth about .25 wins. However, all of your -14 random points occurred in a single game AND in the single game with just 19 possessions, maximizing their influence. In Group 2 you had your first severe negative TO margin (-3) and it produced your worst grouping record YTD (1W 4L)

You are now +.38 TO's per game and +.28 ppg in random scoring.
You are 4W-2L when you win the TO battle within your grouping
You are 0W-2L when you lose the TO battle within your grouping
You are 3W-1L when you are + random points within your grouping
Your are 1W-3L when you are - random points within your grouping

From the above limited data it would seem that your record for Group 2 (11W - 9L) is nearly identically on par with expectations for your TO and positive random point differential. Meaning "handicapping" has had minimal effect on the W/L results. Your record in Group 1 (13-6-1) has exceeded the results expected from the TO and random point differential advantages and considering a bit of poor randomness in Week 3 and the -1.25 wins pulled from a -14 random point game in a .5 ATS loss in Week 4, suggest that your "handicapping" is effecting the result in Group 1 and that those are stronger plays. Small sample size, and lots of noise in these early numbers, but this would seem to echo the results I think you would expect since you stated Group 1 were stronger plays. This is small sample validation for that hypothesis.

Thank you my friend, much appreciated.

 

[Bozzie]

Very interesting thread.

thanks

 

[Loves2kickass]

WEEK 4

GROUP 1
NO +1.5 -110
LAC +8 -110
BUF +2.5 +100
TB +2 -110
PIT -1.5 -110

GROUP 2
NE +10 -110
CLE +1 -110
MIA -1 -110
LAR +3 -120
WAS +3.5 -120

Group 1:

2W 3L = +1 TO, -14 points

Group 2:

1W 4L = -3 TO's, +0 points

This week you were on the wrong end of some randomness. Being +1 TO's in Group 1 should have been slightly beneficial and on 105 total possessions, in this grouping, been worth about .25 wins. However, all of your -14 random points occurred in a single game AND in the single game with just 19 possessions, maximizing their influence. In Group 2 you had your first severe negative TO margin (-3) and it produced your worst grouping record YTD (1W 4L)

You are now +.38 TO's per game and +.28 ppg in random scoring.
You are 4W-2L when you win the TO battle within your grouping
You are 0W-2L when you lose the TO battle within your grouping
You are 3W-1L when you are + random points within your grouping
Your are 1W-3L when you are - random points within your grouping

From the above limited data it would seem that your record for Group 2 (11W - 9L) is nearly identically on par with expectations for your TO and positive random point differential. Meaning "handicapping" has had minimal effect on the W/L results. Your record in Group 1 (13-6-1) has exceeded the results expected from the TO and random point differential advantages and considering a bit of poor randomness in Week 3 and the -1.25 wins pulled from a -14 random point game in a .5 ATS loss in Week 4, suggest that your "handicapping" is effecting the result in Group 1 and that those are stronger plays. Small sample size, and lots of noise in these early numbers, but this would seem to echo the results I think you would expect since you stated Group 1 were stronger plays. This is small sample validation for that hypothesis.

2 mediocre weeks in Group 1 cost me 66k in the quarterly payout Circa contest but I'm only 3 pts back from the leaders. Group 2 I need a few great weeks to get back in contention.

 

[Loves2kickass]

WEEK 4

GROUP 1
NO +1.5 -110
LAC +8 -110
BUF +2.5 +100
TB +2 -110
PIT -1.5 -110

GROUP 2
NE +10 -110
CLE +1 -110
MIA -1 -110
LAR +3 -120
WAS +3.5 -120

Group 1:

2W 3L = +1 TO, -14 points

Group 2:

1W 4L = -3 TO's, +0 points

This week you were on the wrong end of some randomness. Being +1 TO's in Group 1 should have been slightly beneficial and on 105 total possessions, in this grouping, been worth about .25 wins. However, all of your -14 random points occurred in a single game AND in the single game with just 19 possessions, maximizing their influence. In Group 2 you had your first severe negative TO margin (-3) and it produced your worst grouping record YTD (1W 4L)

You are now +.38 TO's per game and +.28 ppg in random scoring.
You are 4W-2L when you win the TO battle within your grouping
You are 0W-2L when you lose the TO battle within your grouping
You are 3W-1L when you are + random points within your grouping
Your are 1W-3L when you are - random points within your grouping

From the above limited data it would seem that your record for Group 2 (11W - 9L) is nearly identically on par with expectations for your TO and positive random point differential. Meaning "handicapping" has had minimal effect on the W/L results. Your record in Group 1 (13-6-1) has exceeded the results expected from the TO and random point differential advantages and considering a bit of poor randomness in Week 3 and the -1.25 wins pulled from a -14 random point game in a .5 ATS loss in Week 4, suggest that your "handicapping" is effecting the result in Group 1 and that those are stronger plays. Small sample size, and lots of noise in these early numbers, but this would seem to echo the results I think you would expect since you stated Group 1 were stronger plays. This is small sample validation for that hypothesis.

I missed last week's games due to my son having a serious neck injury in his high school football game. I'll be back up and running this week with picks.

 

[authorbytrade]

Football wagers pale in comparison. Please wish my best to both your son and your family. High school athletics are great and so beneficial, hopefully your son will recover speedily and be okay.

 

[dillydog]

Same best wishes for your son...hope things turn out well

 

[brendanjack]

I missed last week's games due to my son having a serious neck injury in his high school football game. I'll be back up and running this week with picks.

hope your son is well.

 

[LuckysBoy]

Always appreciate your posts and knowledge L2KA. Thoughts and prayers for your boy and your family with his injury.

 

[indiana]

Kick A.........hope your son is better buddy....
prayers are with your and family for a speedy recovery.......indy