NCAABB Unranked vs Ranked 11/29

Believe it or not, I'm a fan of this sytem. I like it because I like the reasoning behind it. So when the reasoning that the system uses is applicable to a particular matchup, I'll use the system's advice. But even the best system in the world won't make the right play every time. There are some games in the system where the reasoning doesn't apply. And when that happens you are only doing yourself a disservice if you blindly follow the system.

[NoChance]

Are you still here bragging about 1 win? I already said this thing has never gone undefeated. I also said I have never lost with it over an entire season. Yes, I will take them all blindly. I have never done my self a "disservice" by doing so.

Oh, and the reasoning did apply to the Illinois/UNC game. You said it yourself that 81% (I think) were on Illinois. The line dropped and we got our value. It just didn't come in. Can't win em all. You keep capping the games and I will blindly follow this treand. I have no proof that I have won every year blindly following this trend but I do have it documented here for last year and one game this year so far. Grand total is 14-8. I'm done defending it. People made the same comments last year when it lost and then it went on a tear.

For the last time, Vegas knows the public is going to bet on the ranked team. Do you honestly think they made UNC a favorite and said, "Merry Christmas, here's some money for you to start the year off"? I don't think so. UNC simply lost. That's all there is to it.

Good Luck!

[MyTurn2Raise]

I know of only one underdog in theACC/Big10 Challenge that won the game

I-L-L

[ QUOTE ]
Are you still here bragging about 1 win? I already said this thing has never gone undefeated. I also said I have never lost with it over an entire season. Yes, I will take them all blindly. I have never done my self a "disservice" by doing so.

Oh, and the reasoning did apply to the Illinois/UNC game. You said it yourself that 81% (I think) were on Illinois. The line dropped and we got our value. It just didn't come in. Can't win em all. You keep capping the games and I will blindly follow this treand. I have no proof that I have won every year blindly following this trend but I do have it documented here for last year and one game this year so far. Grand total is 14-8. I'm done defending it. People made the same comments last year when it lost and then it went on a tear.

For the last time, Vegas knows the public is going to bet on the ranked team. Do you honestly think they made UNC a favorite and said, "Merry Christmas, here's some money for you to start the year off"? I don't think so. UNC simply lost. That's all there is to it.

Good Luck!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I was bragging about 2 wins [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] but then I saw that you didn't count Nevada so that's fine. Good call. Anyways, you're not the one I'm trying to convince. I know you're going to live and die by this system. But I'm just trying to give an alternative viewpoint to others that are maybe not as sure where to put their money and are trying to decide. That's allowed right? Then they can choose if they want to follow the system blindly, or maybe take some other factors into consideration. Good luck with the system this year.

[20Five]

dont sweat it NoChance.. Ive never been able to consistently win very much handicapping games, but I was with you and won last year so your dam right Im going to be here again this year!!

Hopefully we get a couple on 12/3.. gl!

I suppose this will happen all year. The 40% of the time people beat this trend they will brag about it. These "I told you so" posts are so pathetic. By the way, looking at a line and saying "the better team is getting points" is not capping a game. There are not very many people that can beat sportsbetting solely by handicapping, without any sort of system of fading. It is easy to see why 93% lose money betting sports.

[MyTurn2Raise]

I just think many of us are trying to dissect the deeper meaning of the trend
a) partly cuz it's so stupid that something so simple works--seems like an inefficient market to me
b) wish to improve upon it further--Is there a better profit line that isn't so simple?

[20Five]

(22)Wake Forest @ Elon 12/3
(9)Memphis @ Cincinnati 12/3
(15)Arizona @ Houston 12/3
(20)Nevada @ Pacific 12/3


none of these providing us with any oppurtunity

[MCS]

Alright, fine. A bunch of knowledgable and respected sports bettors on this board have disagreed with you. If I were you, that would be a signal that I was probably not understanding something. I think it is INCREDIBLY unlikely that they are all wrong in the same way on multiple occasions.

However, you are of course free to bet however you want, and you seem like a pretty nice guy. So good luck to you, except for when we are on opposite sides, which given our approaches, will probably be fairly frequent. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Like I've said many times, I like the reasoning of the system. I think it's solid. But when the reasoning doesn't apply, then why make the bet? There's nothing magical about the system that suddenly makes every bet a good bet. The system is only good because for most of the plays under the system, you can apply the reasoning. Now, I also understand that people prefer more simplistic approaches because it is less work, and that they may not have the time to do additional anaylsis or for whatever reason, just following the system is "good enough". That's fine and I respect that. But how can you argue with someone just trying to give some additional insight?

Anyways, enough of repeating the same argument, for those that are not just blindly following the system, here's a play that doesn't fall under the "system" but follows the same strategy. Evansville -1 vs Purdue (Matchbook). Purdue is the "brand name" school. Purdue is 2-2 and Evansville is 1-2. Evansville somehow is favored. Before everyone jumps on me, let me say that I'm just throwing it out there. Do whatever you want with that information (and for those who care, I have a play on Evansville).