When would you buy off of a number on a game?

[Fishhead]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The MD Kid:
I can't believe I've been doing this calculation wrong all this time. Holy Jeez, what a maroooon I am.

By the way fella's, here's a great study done on the topic of buying points in the NFL http://www.thelogicalapproach.com/key_numbers.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GOOD TO HEAR MD KID...finally making progress!!!!!

Your link is good and am very familar with it.............

Two observations I want you to make here!!!

The data compliled is from 1982-1998.

This is FIVE years of not taking into account what the 2-point conversion has meant to these statistics.

Looking at these statistics, look at what happens when you buy from 6.5 to 7!!!!!

It was almost worth it to pay 10 cents for the 7 but not quite..........BUT MY NUMBERS PROVE THAT IT IS NOW WORTH buying the +6.5 to +7 and also quite possibly even the +9.5 to +10 which is real borderline since the inception of the 2 -point conversion.

This is what I have been saying for quite some time in this forum.

BUY THE +6.5 TO +7.0 in the NFL.........only if you cannot find the +7 by shopping.

If you can buy +6.5 to +7 for 10 cents, YOU SHOULD NEVER TAKE +6.5 in the NFL ever again.

 

[JudgeWapner]

One of the best threads I've seen in a long time.

 

[BillyB+]

fish- you can't use that chart........ you have to know when the spread is 7 what % of the time 7 hits....................... that chart shows when 7 comes in if the spread is for all numbers 1 and up........... you'll find it's lower than sited in chart which seems illogical but is true.

 

[Fishhead]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Billy B:
fish- you can't use that chart........ you have to know when the spread is 7 what % of the time 7 hits....................... that chart shows when 7 comes in if the spread is for all numbers 1 and up........... you'll find it's lower than sited in chart which seems illogical<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BILLY B.-- SCROLL DOWN THE CHART.

 

[Fishhead]

BILLY-

A 7 POINT in the NFL lands on SEVEN more than 5% of the time now!!

 

[BillyB+]

quit looking at the chart guys..........I can't get in ...............DOS attack

 

[BillyB+]

thanks Fish I see the whole chart now........let me look it over

 

[picasso]

Good stuff here. Would love to see more threads like this. Thanks guys.

 

[BillyB+]

buying from -2.5 to -2 is profitable according to chart.............that seems strange

 

[Fishhead]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Billy B:
buying from -2.5 to -2 is profitable according to chart.............that seems strange<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not reading the chart right sir.

 

[TheGeneral+]

In NBA, I would never lay .10 for a half

In NFL, I may very well lay .10 for the half onto a 7

We can chart and math all day, but this just seems sensible to me.

 

[BillyB+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Buying Underdogs up from + 2 ½ to + 3, + 3 to + 3 ½ and + 9 ½ to + 10 have all resulted in profits. Likewise, buying Favorites down from - 2 ½ to -2, - 3 to - 2 ½, - 3 ½ to -3 and - 10 ½ to -10 have all resulted in bettering the bottom line.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
according to their figures

 

[TheMDKid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Two observations I want you to make here!!!

The data compliled is from 1982-1998.

This is FIVE years of not taking into account what the 2-point conversion has meant to these statistics.

Looking at these statistics, look at what happens when you buy from 6.5 to 7!!!!!

It was almost worth it to pay 10 cents for the 7 but not quite..........BUT MY NUMBERS PROVE THAT IT IS NOW WORTH buying the +6.5 to +7 and also quite possibly even the +9.5 to +10 which is real borderline since the inception of the 2 -point conversion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fish,
I agree, the last five years have seen an explosion of 2 point conversion attempts (most of the time used unwisely, IMO, but that's another topic). This will indeed skew these numbers. But HOW will this info skew the data?? My contention is that because the 2 point conversion is successful quite a bit LESS than 50% of the time, numbers like 3 and 7 will occur LESS than they use to (not to mention numbers like 2, 4, 6, and 8), and numbers like 1, 9, and especially 5 will occur MORE often. Note that these are the numbers that result from missed 2 point conversion attempts. 5 occurs two ways ... Missed 2 point attempt by team attempting to go up by 7, and missed 2 point attempt by team attempting to cut deficit to 3. It would be interesting to see updated figures for the last 5 years on this stuff. Is that what YOUR NUMBERS are Fish? Last 5 years of data?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>buying Favorites down from - 2 ½ to -2, - 3 to - 2 ½, - 3 ½ to -3 and - 10 ½ to -10 have all resulted in bettering the bottom line.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Billy B,
I saw that too. Doesn't seem to make sense logically. My guess is that its because the sample size was not big enough to eliminate strange occurences like that. This probably also explains why their results show that its better to buy points off of 10 than 7. Probably wouldn't happen with a bigger sample size.

 

[Fishhead]

These are my personal statistics for the last 6 Years(your getting way to much out of me for what your paying me)

HOWEVER, this includes ALL games. I have figures that I cannot properly paste here because of it complexity, but as you see from this chart, the number 7 falls at a 8.2% clip. BUT, this does not show you the what % of those games were close to spread of -6.5 AND SEVEN........which on the chart I CANNOT show you here....is OVER 5% OF THE TIME.

Hope this helps you guys more.

Year Tot Games Played Games by 3 Games by 7 Games by 10 #Critical Games %Critical Games

2002 259 39 25 12 76 29%
2001 259 40 21 16 77 29%
2000 259 42 20 11 73 28%
1999 259 35 22 17 74 28%
1998 251 31 28 14 73 29%
1997 251 41 14 13 68 27%

TOTALS 1279 Games 189 Games (14.8%) 105 Games (8.2%) 71 Games (5.6%) 365 Games 28.5%

 

[TheMDKid]

Fish,
Many thanks for offering this nice info. My only quibble with your analysis is that I wonder if the sample size your using is sufficient to make the conclusions you are making. In other words, lets say in these six years the number of times the spread was -6.5, -7, or -7.5 was only about 200, with 10 of them resulting in FAVORITES winning by 7. Taking another sample for the next 6 years you could easily come up with only 7 or 8 successes. This would indicate a success rate of only 3.5 or 4%. Point I'm making is if the sample size isn't large enough, you can easily get skewed data like Logical Approach got when noting that it was advantageous to buy -2.5 down to -2.

 

[Fishhead]

MD-
Yes, good point and I agree with you.

Like so many topics like this, lots of times nothing is ever clear cut and dry......and even more so on this particular topic because the edge to be gained, if any, is so small.

My conclusion, after looking at my numbers, and using my own understanding of the NFL, that it is the right thing to do.

There are also some other underlying reasons as to why I believe it is too, but thats another 3-week debate.

 

[wilheim]

...