Saturday, 8 October 2016

Small Road Dogs In The NFL

Martin's a bit happier with me after the College Football Small Road Dog findings earlier today. He Tweeted:

I'm sure some of us can, but most readers will have little interest in a system for a niche sport like College Football, and few bettors have the patience and discipline to follow such systems.

Having found what looks like a promising strategy in the somewhat haphazard world of College Football, I thought it might be worth taking a look at the professional version of the game, and other than finding it to be profitable from the 2.5 point line (2.5 is the average [mean] spread in NFL games) to the 5.5 point line, the results were fairly similar. The NFL System has an ROI of 8.5% (from 750 bets) while the NCAAF's figure is 7.1% from 1,008 bets).

With greater parity in the league, NFL games are typically much closer than College games, which have an average line of 13.3 (since 2006).

Here are the numbers, again from the 2006 season onward, and again using Pinnacle's standard 1.952 as a guide.
As with the College Football System, just the one losing season since 2006, although a more costly one, and just one line (the 4.5 line) showing a loss, albeit a small one of -1.63 points from 68 bets.

Interestingly, the 3 and 3.5 lines are where the biggest profits come from - limiting yourself to these two lines would have resulted in a record of 206 - 145 - 19, +51.11 points, and an ROI of 13.8%.

A couple of comments from James to address, one somewhat serious, the other rather rude and not really suitable for the family audience this blog is intended for.

The second comment first was this:
'I ended the previous post with "For the record, I am on the Nationals at 2.38" but as their price drifted, I doubled up on my usual stake at 2.52.'
Is Cassini (a supposed mathematician) advocating the Martingale?
http://www.betfairprotrader.co.uk/2013/04/martingale-and-other-madness.html
While my great-great-great something Uncle Giovanni was indeed an esteemed mathematician, this Cassini makes no such claims, other than an 'A' Level in Pure Mathematics With Statistics, a subject which was rather fortuitously chosen at the last minute after a previously mentioned incident with a screwdriver and a History teacher. This has been good enough to see me through life, and as I am no longer eligible for the Fields Medal, my interest in the subject is unlikely to advance much further.

I should probably update the 'screwdriver' story, as my partner in crime is no longer running a restaurant / coffee shop in Dumfries, but is now managing a pub in the delightful city of Exeter, where I had the pleasure of meeting him again a couple of years ago.

Anyway, back to Martingale, and to allay James' concerns, no - Cassini is certainly not advocating the Martingale. He simply felt that a price of 2.5+ on a home underdog with a strong pitcher was excellent value, especially given the lack of outings from the Dodger's Clayton Kershaw after a couple of months out with injury, and his likely lower pitch count limit. Short-term, value doesn't always mean winning - long-term it does.

James' earlier comment was this one, and if you are under the age of 18, please stop reading now:
"In the tropical paradise where I live, the women all wear grass skirts, so being handy with the mower is a useful skill to have."

I always thought you were a bit of a bushman, waving your massive weapon in front of the ladies.
I'm not sure who James has been talking too, Mrs. Cassini certainly denies any dealings with him, but it is actually a fact that the size of a certain appendage of mine is a matter of public record as it was mentioned by the defence in a murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2001 - along with the size of my car and wallet!

Finally, hot off the press as I wrap up this post, and the above James has named his latest post after the aforementioned Uncle Giovanni, more specifically his discovery of the gaps between Saturn's rings, now known as the Cassini Division.

James makes much of my expectation that the Brexit vote would be for Remain, but aside from that, and I was hardly alone, my record on Political betting is pretty good, especially in US Presidential Elections where I have a 100% winning record! OK, so sample size is small, but the key is to look at the polls from the handful of swing states.

I wrote in 2012:
There is hope for the world, and after four more years of Obama, I am hoping Hillary will run in 2016. The Republicans are becoming more and more marginalised, and their message is not popular. Old white men are declining in importance, religion is declining and the future for their selfish policies is bleak. Opposition to same-sex marriage is an old person thing, and old people are dying. The planet is getting warmer - that's a fact - and the demographic sands are shifting, but the future for the Democrats and decency looks bright. Thank god. (That's the one true god of course. Apparently he's not Mormon).
How perceptive of me. Hillary Clinton is now as short as 1.27 and that 1.6 tipped less than two weeks ago was a pretty good one, if I do say so myself. The second debate is imminent, and the smarter, better prepared Clinton, with real policies rather than a 'trust me' line (why would anyone trust him?), should win again and barring a disaster, go on to win the White House comfortably next month.

James' views on Brexit differ from mine, and I'm not sure that will change, but there is still money to be made from trading the uncertainty surrounding if, when and how a Brexit might actually happen. Sadly for the UK, no one seems to have any idea, which means volatility and opportunities!    

1 comment:

Martin Ortiz Zawadzky said...

Cassini, you tell us in previous posts that you collect the data from http://www.football-data.co.uk/ , for example. In the case of MLB, NBA, NFL and NCAAF , where you got that spreadsheets ?

PD: is me , @martinortizz