Saturday, 28 April 2012

Simple Genius

I wrote about the Golden State Warriors 'needing' to lose their last game of the season a few days ago, and their 'surprise' late collapse on Thursday night put them into a tie with Toronto. I am pleased to report that their (lack of) efforts were not in vain, as they won the draw earlier today guaranteeing them at least a seventh draft pick in the first round, assuming they do not win a top three pick via the lottery, for which the odds are against them. Probability of first pick = .036, a second pick = .042 and third pick .049. The Warriors also have a second first round draft pick, so expect them to make a playoff run next season. I jest. The Charlotte Bobcats (.25) and Washington Wizards (.199) have the best odds to win the lottery, but the 'top' two have only won seven times in 22 lotteries.

Hard to turn such trivia into money, but the playoffs started today with no surprises so far. The Chicago Bulls took care of the Philadelphia 76ers, (although Derrick Rose's injury has seen the Bulls drift from 5.0 to 6.0+ for the title), and the Miami Heat (backed -8.5 at 1.98 for a small bet) are all over the New York Knicks at the time of writing.

I have Miami to win it all this season, with the Thunder runner-ups - and I have the latter -7.5 at 1.99 later.

A couple of Extended XX Draws came in tonight in Serie A at 3.25 and 3.4, although the 2-2 draw at Roma v Napoli was not one I take too much pleasure in identifying. Not quite a fluke of Geoff proportions, but close.

Finally, perhaps it's human nature to gain pleasure from trying to belittle the efforts of others, while offering nothing constructive yourself, but as thick-skinned as I am, it's something which is beginning to get a little tiresome. The latest troll is BigAl, uncannily reminiscent of the infamous Anonymous, whose IP address I finally had to block. He seems to enjoy visiting this blog - he's a very frequent visitor - and he's back again, with his latest negativity. He dismisses the profitable draw selections (and they have been profitable for three years now, so hardly a flash in the pan) with:
Now, as I understand it, your somewhat simple system of backing draws essentially identifies matches where the supremacy is low. Genius.
Yes, it's really that easy, except it rather misses the point that the 'genius' part is in identifying the matches where the supremacy is low. One would think that if it were really that 'somewhat simple', everyone would be doing it, but of course, it's not that simple. It takes a few hours each week to enter in the numbers from each round of matches, and then enter the upcoming matches to identify the qualifiers, and while those tasks are time consuming, if not particularly difficult, determining the formulae behind the scenes is the real key, and making adjustments if necessary.

A suggestion for BigAl - add something of value to your comments, and they will be taken seriously, continue with talking in riddles about Blackjack or entire defences being injured shortly before kick-off and you will be ignored. I enjoy comments that give me something to write about, but your theme is getting old. The other day, someone asked if you have a blog. If you do, please share the link. You are clearly far more successful and knowledgeable than I could ever hope to be, but as a natural cynic, a little supporting evidence of your talents would be great. Plus, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested in reading your thoughts and ideas, and if there is a god (or gods).  


Tony said...

Maybe Big Al could contibute sections to your tipster table for next season? My money is on Cassini v Al to finish a draw :-)

Cassini said...

Very amusing Tony!

Harry Haller said...

If you select draws based on low supremacy, wouldn't it be interesting to try the opposite too, i.e: lay the draws where the supremacy is high, perhaps above a certain threshold? Could this be a 'safe' approach to LTD? Have you ever tried any such thing?

Also, is there any 'simple' way to calculate supremacy? I'd love to try some of those calculations myself, but you're approach sounds pretty involved...

Thanks in advance!