The Sports Cruncher's Week #9 NCAA Football Thread

[BigDipper]

Cruncher--do you have a limit on the number of plays you're willing to make in a given weekend? I understand that if certain criteria are met a play becomes a play but is there ever a point where you've had to pull back? I've been a high-volume player for many, many years and I'm beginning to rethink the strategy so I'm eager to hear if there are any flags you heed or hints you've noticed that cause you to pare down at all.

Again, thanks for your keen insight and for sharing your hard work.

 

[BigDipper]

Sorry, one more thing:
If I'm reading the spreadsheet correctly, picks that moved opposite to your expectation went 1-4 ATS (looking only at whole game straight bets). These data could be meaningful if they hold over a decent period of time and, if I remeber correctly, I think you said that historically the numbers that move against you tend not to win with regard to the initial wager you derive from them. In other words, have you, perhaps inadvertently, uncovered another set of parameters to produce winners?

 

[Numbersguru]

Cruncher I know you have a set number value for this game. However, Cincinnati is going to win this game by between 16/21 points or more. I attend all Cincinnati home games and have followed both teams for years and SFLA plays totally different on road as opposed to at home. Keep up the good work and BOL on your games played.

 

[TheComputerGroup]

I see some plays I really like, good luck man...........

 

[sjcolumbus]

I have no line for BC game, Auburn is -17.5 now and Wyoming only getting 18 at my book....cause they just got the stupid lines up today....guess no plays on those for me.

 

[tmader7]

I have no line for BC game, Auburn is -17.5 now and Wyoming only getting 18 at my book....cause they just got the stupid lines up today....guess no plays on those for me.

You would have had all of 30 minutes after the line was offered to grab 14. Cruncher must have been watching his computer like a hawk to get that low number.

~T~

 

[thecruncher]

Cruncher--do you have a limit on the number of plays you're willing to make in a given weekend? I understand that if certain criteria are met a play becomes a play but is there ever a point where you've had to pull back? I've been a high-volume player for many, many years and I'm beginning to rethink the strategy so I'm eager to hear if there are any flags you heed or hints you've noticed that cause you to pare down at all.

Again, thanks for your keen insight and for sharing your hard work.

That's funny, I've actually incorporated a "Flagctor" (sic) system to look at how teams have performed against top 50 or bottom 50 teams. A team gets a green flag for an above-average performance versus a top 50 opponent's averages, and a red flag for a below average performance versus a bottom 50 team's averages. I tracked how teams fared against the spread with a Flactor of 2+ versus their opponent this past week...and it was a terrible indicator, going 4-7 ATS, lol. Another metric I've recently tried is looking at the sum difference between the (my) Power Ratings of opponent's played. That one did better, going 4-2 when the difference exceeded a certain (arbitrarily set) threshold. The biggest PR gap in last week's games occurred, funnily enough, in the first game of the week, ULL @ TXST. ULL has played a somewhat tougher than usual average opponent, while TXST had played the softest schedule of any team. My numbers alone leaned TXST in the game, but ULL clearly dominated. Getting their one big playmaker back definitely seemed to help, but even without him ULL most likely would have dominated, as they had to do almost nothing in the 2nd half to secure the win. The other PR gap winners last week were TCU, GAST and LSU. The losers were NW and AFA.

Because I just got back into this a couple weeks ago, I haven't been sure if my old cutoff thresholds (the gap between my line and the actual line) were still about what I wanted to make every play good EV. I feel pretty comfortable with the volume on side plays, as those have been doing really well. On totals, I'm working on developing some other "quick look" metrics I can use to help me decide whether to pull the trigger or not on a total play when the lines are posted. In hindsight, some of the total plays haven't passed the smell test when looking further into the data, and those are the ones I want to weed it with the additional metrics. I said it last week, but I'm surprised how much tighter the totals lines are then they were a couple years ago.

 

[thecruncher]

Sorry, one more thing:
If I'm reading the spreadsheet correctly, picks that moved opposite to your expectation went 1-4 ATS (looking only at whole game straight bets). These data could be meaningful if they hold over a decent period of time and, if I remeber correctly, I think you said that historically the numbers that move against you tend not to win with regard to the initial wager you derive from them. In other words, have you, perhaps inadvertently, uncovered another set of parameters to produce winners?

Would that amount to just betting the way the market goes on every play, lol? The problem is that in the instance of being on the wrong side of a line move is that I'm already on the wrong side of a line move. Betting the other way just sets up the chance for a Polish middle. I look at those cases as "paying the vig" for beating the market on the other 90% of the plays I've made. That being said, if those RLM plays hit at higher than usual rate against the closing #, then yeah, that would be an intriguing way to produce more winners by doubling down on the opposite side. At the very least it should have saved me from dumping another 1/2 unit on Rutgers when the number went above 21 last week, but on the whole I'm not brave enough to start firing big against my lines on a few plays every week where there is RLM to see if they win! lol. Just track the results over time first, I hear you say...

 

[thecruncher]

I have no line for BC game, Auburn is -17.5 now and Wyoming only getting 18 at my book....cause they just got the stupid lines up today....guess no plays on those for me.

I'm showing value on AUB even at the higher number, though obviously the better number the better. I have the final score pegged in the 47-17 range. WYO at the current # is just a 1/2 unit marginal play.

I caught the openers at BetOnline right when they were being released, thankfully, unlike the week before. Not many numbers moved that quickly out of the gate, actually, only a couple. Truthfully, not a single line move so far has surprised me on the entire board, and none have gone against posted plays. There was only one play I was monitoring, delving a little deeper into, that ended up moving later in the day too quickly for me to get the opener still, and that was on WIS -10. I still like it at -11.5, but with dead numbers around now I'm just going to wait and hope to get something better at some point.

 

[thecruncher]

Cruncher I know you have a set number value for this game. However, Cincinnati is going to win this game by between 16/21 points or more. I attend all Cincinnati home games and have followed both teams for years and SFLA plays totally different on road as opposed to at home. Keep up the good work and BOL on your games played.

USF was one of the most marginal plays I've added this week, as it was actually just below the threshold I usually use for making a play. With USF's improving passing game a small factor affecting my line, I have the final scored pegged at USF 27 -- CIN 34.

 

[Donkwin47]

Great stuff, Crunch. Some sick value on your 2 unit plays. Miami from +2 to -3, WVU from +4 down to +2.5. Great work.

 

[sjcolumbus]

I'm showing value on AUB even at the higher number, though obviously the better number the better. I have the final score pegged in the 47-17 range. WYO at the current # is just a 1/2 unit marginal play.

I caught the openers at BetOnline right when they were being released, thankfully, unlike the week before. Not many numbers moved that quickly out of the gate, actually, only a couple. Truthfully, not a single line move so far has surprised me on the entire board, and none have gone against posted plays. There was only one play I was monitoring, delving a little deeper into, that ended up moving later in the day too quickly for me to get the opener still, and that was on WIS -10. I still like it at -11.5, but with dead numbers around now I'm just going to wait and hope to get something better at some point.

I will play the auburn line then! Thanks sir!

 

[thecruncher]

Thx.

Adding for 1/2 Unit: MICH +17 (-115) @ MSU

Michigan a bit undervalued currently. 17 is a lot of points to lay in a low-scoring game.

 

[thecruncher]

Tuesday night action play (meaning there's less value on the play than I usually wager on, but it's the only game that night, so I'll roll with slimmer value, lol)

1/2 Unit: ARST -2 @ ULL

ULL gets to play on a second straight Tuesday, and last week they dominated the awful TXST, giving them a nation wide moment in the Sun (Belt). Arkansas State is a big step up in quality.

Final score prediction ARST 35 -- ULL 28

 

[thecruncher]

Zoinks, just saw that the totals for the weekday games are up as well.

Adding for 1.5 Units: ARST @ ULL Over 54. This number will go up, and I may buy back the extra 1/2 unit as a middle hedge. ULL will be without one of their top WRs, Jamal Robinson, but they have some depth at the position.

 

[thecruncher]

Adding for 1 Unit: CONN @ ECU Under 55

This has the makings of a "Crush n' Cruise" game -- ECU gets out to a big lead and then later in the game runs it into the strength of CONN's defense. CONN doesn't have a very good pass defense, ECU will definitely get theirs through the air in the first half. CONN's offense is abysmal. ECU plays fast but most teams slow down with the lead in the 4th Q. CONN plays incredibly slow, win or lose, which helps the Under. Wait a second, they always lose, lol. They just like to run out the clock late to avoid losing by an even bigger margin.

 

[indiana]

Mr./C..........as always your quick out of the gate with great #'s and position..........BOL with all your action this week and thank you for the great write ups...........indy

 

[thecruncher]

Adding for 1 Unit: MIA @ VT Under 52

Showing excellent value on the total for the first 3 games on the board! lol. Not so much the 3 after that, don't get worried that I'm going to be playing them all.

VT has had their last 6 games play to 52 or below, and that included games against UNC (good offense, bad defense), ECU (good offense, average defense). Miami is clearly an undervalued team with their 4-3 record. The line move on them clearly shows what the sharps think of them. I rate them to have the 19th best defense, VT 14th best. I rate MIA's offense 12th best, VT...well below that. All in all it adds up to a game played into the 40s. I should also mention that MIA's in-season statistics are trending positively for them both offensively and defensively, while VT is trending negatively in both.

Final Score prediction MIA 31 -- VT 14

 

[thecruncher]

Thx, all!

I guess I'll also mention that I expect the USF @ CIN total to go up from 58. After further analysis it looks like CIN's pass offense should have a field day in this contest. I thought I'd looked at that when I made the small USF play, oh well. I wouldn't play it now, and the market is on the side of CIN with the line up to -11.5 many places. Ah heck, with USF's improved passing game, I think I just talked myself into it...

Adding for 1/2 Unit: USF @ CIN Over 58

I think the ORE/CAL number will drop a little from 77, but I'm not touching the Under on that game, not with CAL involved, lol.

 

[thecruncher]

I fixed a bug in my pass % projections effecting one team in each match up, and made a semi-drastic update to the pass % projections as well. It doesn't have a drastic effect on the overall lines, but it has tightened them up even more to the actual lines. Only the weekday totals are up, I'll test the new formula versus the old formula to see they compare to the full board of totals once they're up.