All-Time Record

I'm going to post this in Las Vegas, also, as I have never seen a record like this in a forced-choice (six games per week) NFL contest. The YouWager NFL contest, with just 228 entrants, had a guy go 71-31 ATS.

Boz and mickey will know how remarkable this is, but I thought it worthwhile to mention it in the LV heading as I have never seen a record like this in my life. I was 59-43, which I would take every year, no questions asked, and I was not close to cashing.

This was an all-time mark. I had a college mark similar but not quite as good for one year back in 1979 or thereabouts, and I saw one guy who used mostly college totals have a similar record about 12/13 years ago in a public competition. But that was not NFL forced-choice.

This was an all-time record.

Redietz,

That's basically what we had happen in the WoV Picks game, which is five picks per week (based on Thursday lines) with an optional, "Confidence Pick," that can count as two wins or two losses:

The winner, JohnZimbo, finished with a record of 71-36 to second place RidetheEdge at 67-34. In addition to the potential for pushes, RidetheEdge took his optional Skip Week and JohnZimbo did not, hence the difference in games picked.

Personally, I went 54-47 this year, so average year for me...but basically respectable. It's a bit simplified, but if we look at it as:

(5400 * 100/110) - 4700 = 209.090909091

Which is to say that my Picks would have been profitable had I been betting them...but nothing outstanding, obviously. I also went 5-1 Week 18, which is the better part of my record to the good.

2019 Record: 47-39

2012-2017 Record: 258-226

2018: I basically was just making Default Picks that year because I knew a few players' Picks in advance of them making them, so I just played a Default Strategy. There was also a side prize that required me to look at other peoples' picks before making my own, which is obviously something I wouldn't normally do.

2020: There was no game.

Thus:

258-226
47-39
54-47

LIFETIME: 359-312

(35900 * 100/110) - 31200 = 1436.36363636

I don't know how many pushes I had, but I'm going to call 0.53502235469 a nice little winning percentage when you consider that it's over the course of 671 decisions. I'm not going to go as far as to say that it's strong, but I'm satisfied that it is a better than average lifetime win rate...and all of the Picks are posted (with record) in advance of the games kicking off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Redietz,

That's basically what we had happen in the WoV Picks game, which is five picks per week (based on Thursday lines) with an optional, "Confidence Pick," that can count as two wins or two losses:

The winner, JohnZimbo, finished with a record of 71-36 to second place RidetheEdge at 67-34. In addition to the potential for pushes, RidetheEdge took his optional Skip Week and JohnZimbo did not, hence the difference in games picked.

Personally, I went 54-47 this year, so average year for me...but basically respectable. It's a bit simplified, but if we look at it as:

(5400 * 100/110) - 4700 = 209.090909091

Which is to say that my Picks would have been profitable had I been betting them...but nothing outstanding, obviously. I also went 5-1 Week 18, which is the better part of my record to the good.

2019 Record: 47-39

2012-2017 Record: 258-226

2018: I basically was just making Default Picks that year because I knew a few players' Picks in advance of them making them, so I just played a Default Strategy. There was also a side prize that required me to look at other peoples' picks before making my own, which is obviously something I wouldn't normally do.

2020: There was no game.

Thus:

258-226
47-39
54-47

LIFETIME: 359-312

(35900 * 100/110) - 31200 = 1436.36363636

I don't know how many pushes I had, but I'm going to call 0.53502235469 a nice little winning percentage when you consider that it's over the course of 671 decisions. I'm not going to go as far as to say that it's strong, but I'm satisfied that it is a better than average lifetime win rate...and all of the Picks are posted (with record) in advance of the games kicking off.

---

Mission, that is solid as a rock. Nothing wrong with that. As I say often, there are people who, lifetime, win between 54 and 55% in the NFL, but nobody over the long-term really cracks 55%. That's why this season is such an anomaly and should be analyzed and discussed for a while.

Personally, I'm right at your number for sides over that time, but with far fewer plays, so what you've done is more impressive. Now counting totals (I do more totals than sides), I'm a bit ahead of you, but not a lot.

More later.

I have to say this. I have spent 40 years singing the praises of anyone who can win 53-55% of the time in the NFL. Reality is a harsh mistress.

This is one reason I have so little respect for Shackleford allowing MDawg to paint the town with nonsense at WoV. It debases people who have sweated out a living gambling. it makes a mockery of them, and it makes a mockery of WoV. It turns all of precise gambling into a kind of joke, and at a site that one would think would go out of its way to preserve some sense of mathematical reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I have to say this. I have spent 40 years singing the praises of anyone who can win 53-55% of the time in the NFL. Reality is a harsh mistress.

This is one reason I have so little respect for Shackleford allowing MDawg to paint the town with nonsense at WoV. It debases people who have sweated out a living gambling. it makes a mockery of them, and it makes a mockery of WoV. It turns all of precise gambling into a kind of joke, and at a site that one would think would go out of its way to preserve some sense of mathematical reality.

---

You and I have talked about this before. Hitting 53% of picks over a season is an accomplishment and it takes time, work shopping lines and more. But some people are always looking for shortcut and easy money, and don’t use their head telling them it’s impossible. It’s why the guys in the 80’s and 90’s (and still today in some cases) got away with their 70% or better claims. And it’s why scum like Christopher Mitchell continues to find suckers to give him money.

As for MDawg, he has run out of readers to follow his nonsense and it has to be killing him. So the claims get larger and larger with little reaction. As he was never selling anything that we know of, it never made sense other than from the “look at me” standpoint. And Shack fell right for it and by reports it appears they hang out regularly now. Assuming everything is on MDawg’s dime in the classic example of a rich guy buying friends. And Shack was never one to pass up a free meal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

As for MDawg, he has run out of readers to follow his nonsense and it has to be killing him. So the claims get larger and larger with little reaction. As he was never selling anything that we know of, it never made sense other than from the “look at me” standpoint. And Shack fell right for it and by reports it appears they hang out regularly now. Assuming everything is on MDawg’s dime in the classic example of a rich guy buying friends. And Shack was never one to pass up a free meal.

---

There is no doubt that as fewer people believed him, Mdawg began "escalating" his claims to get the attention and reaction he craves. As far as "look at me". Spot on! The self lable "Pope of Las Vegas" tells you all you need to know.

Regarding Shackleford, I think you have some of it right and some wrong. I communicate with and have been critical of Mike both publicly and privately. I don't think they are the buddy's that Mdawg wants you to believe. A year ago, fairly early in the Mdawg debacle, they agree to talk and phone numbers were exchanged however that worked. That provided Mdawg an avenue of communication that most don't have.

Anyway, NOT revealing anything Mike has said to me privately but from things said both publicly and privately, I am pretty convinced....stronger than that really, lets say "certain' that Mike doesn't believe Mdawgs claims at all and is not really a fan of this whole thing. As a matter of fact he pretty much said that in the post (public so not revealing anything) that Mike made that Mdawg made him retract because of the NDA.

Now that NDA is a problem. I think we all know why Mdawg wanted it, just so Mike couldn't say what he said that one time. the question is why in the hell would Wizard agree to it. That I simply can't answer. Being who he is, people were depending on him for his honest opinion of what he witnessed.

One of the things I have argued strongly with Mike, both publicly and privately is it is his responsibility to call this shit out. He absolutely doesn't see it that way, which is inexplicable to me. The mission statement of the forum was something along the lines of "helping people be better gamblers and make better bets based on the math". To that and based on the forum still having his name and likeness (characture) attached, he ABSOLUTLY has to call out the BS claims that defy math or are extremely unlikely. And if he can't do so, he must allow other members to do so, even if some of that "calling out" gets heated and crosses some forum rules and lines.

He is recognized as THE gambling math expert and to allow that shit on his forum is IMO the same as him endorsing that voodoo crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Redietz,

That's basically what we had happen in the WoV Picks game, which is five picks per week (based on Thursday lines) with an optional, "Confidence Pick," that can count as two wins or two losses:

The winner, JohnZimbo, finished with a record of 71-36 to second place RidetheEdge at 67-34. In addition to the potential for pushes, RidetheEdge took his optional Skip Week and JohnZimbo did not, hence the difference in games picked.

Personally, I went 54-47 this year, so average year for me...but basically respectable. It's a bit simplified, but if we look at it as:

(5400 * 100/110) - 4700 = 209.090909091

Which is to say that my Picks would have been profitable had I been betting them...but nothing outstanding, obviously. I also went 5-1 Week 18, which is the better part of my record to the good.

2019 Record: 47-39

2012-2017 Record: 258-226

2018: I basically was just making Default Picks that year because I knew a few players' Picks in advance of them making them, so I just played a Default Strategy. There was also a side prize that required me to look at other peoples' picks before making my own, which is obviously something I wouldn't normally do.

2020: There was no game.

Thus:

258-226
47-39
54-47

LIFETIME: 359-312

(35900 * 100/110) - 31200 = 1436.36363636

I don't know how many pushes I had, but I'm going to call 0.53502235469 a nice little winning percentage when you consider that it's over the course of 671 decisions. I'm not going to go as far as to say that it's strong, but I'm satisfied that it is a better than average lifetime win rate...and all of the Picks are posted (with record) in advance of the games kicking off.

---

Mission, that is solid as a rock. Nothing wrong with that. As I say often, there are people who, lifetime, win between 54 and 55% in the NFL, but nobody over the long-term really cracks 55%. That's why this season is such an anomaly and should be analyzed and discussed for a while.

Personally, I'm right at your number for sides over that time, but with far fewer plays, so what you've done is more impressive. Now counting totals (I do more totals than sides), I'm a bit ahead of you, but not a lot.

More later.

---

Thank you very much; I genuinely appreciate you saying that.

The funny thing is that you would think it would cause me to be more inclined to get actual money down, but it actually makes me less inclined. If you flip just eight results and make me 351-320:

(35100 * 100/110) - 32000 = -90.9090909091

I would be losing if playing the same amount on every game. With that, I'm 47 games over .500 and would still be 31 games over .500, but monetarily, I would be losing.

Beyond that, the numbers in my other post would have me roughly $1436.36 ahead if betting $100 per game over 671 games. Not counting pushes (mostly because I have no idea how many games I pushed) that would be 1436.36/67100 = 0.02140625931 which is to say profits of 2.141% of all monies bet...which really isn't very good at all in that amount of time and compared to the risk level. Granted, betting $1,000/game and picking the way that I have might be, "Worth it," from a financial standpoint, but obviously my financial standing in life (i.e. bankroll) and 2.141% perceived advantage makes it not worth the risk.

I'm also not even that sure my picking is that good, even though it's good. Here are some arguments for me and against me:

AGAINST:

1.) Stale Lines.

-My picks are always being made based on Thursday's lines, but are often made at some point after Thursday.

2.) Win Rate.

I'm basically calling heads every time and heads has come 359 out of 671 attempts, which means a blindfolded monkey picks as well, or better, than me about 3.7843% of the time just randomly in 671 decisions. In other words, I have picked well and have been remarkably consistent over several years (I never deviate too far from my average), but my performance is not 3SD+, or anything, which means it could still just be an effect of variance.

ARGUMENTS IN MY FAVOR:

1.) Stale Lines Caveat

-I could be playing line moves or news, but if you'd believe me, I'm not and almost never do. You could probably look at closing lines v. lines I've picked and I would imagine that you would find no bias towards line movement in my picks whatsoever, overall.

2.) I Don't Even Really Try

-I just observe the games, look at the stats, have a fundamental understanding of how football works and mostly just pick based on what I think is going to happen from my observations.

-I spend an average of five minutes deciding my five picks for the week. The only time I really do anything is I have a little formula based on Points Differentials that I sometimes do if I can't get to five games just on what I, "Like."

3.) I MUST pick five games per week:

-This is the biggest argument in my defense. Quite frankly, if my record is what it is ONLY picking the games that I like absolutely the best, then I'd be a little bit embarrassed!

OVERALL:

Overall, I really appreciate what you said, but I'm not so impressed with myself that I would ever get money down unless ALSO taking advantage of a promotion that swings the expectation WAY in my favor (or, better still, makes it impossible NOT to profit) because I think I'm just pretty good at making Picks...and the math says it could still just be, "Luck," as roughly 1 in 26 do as well (or better) blindly.

I would have a lot of difficulty believing your picks weren’t beating the closing line to hit 53% in a sport as efficient as NFL sides. Even if you’re not choosing specifically to bet into stale lines. I could be wrong but on NFL sides I thought you’d pretty much have to beat the closing line to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Redietz,

That's basically what we had happen in the WoV Picks game, which is five picks per week (based on Thursday lines) with an optional, "Confidence Pick," that can count as two wins or two losses:

The winner, JohnZimbo, finished with a record of 71-36 to second place RidetheEdge at 67-34. In addition to the potential for pushes, RidetheEdge took his optional Skip Week and JohnZimbo did not, hence the difference in games picked.

Personally, I went 54-47 this year, so average year for me...but basically respectable. It's a bit simplified, but if we look at it as:

(5400 * 100/110) - 4700 = 209.090909091

Which is to say that my Picks would have been profitable had I been betting them...but nothing outstanding, obviously. I also went 5-1 Week 18, which is the better part of my record to the good.

2019 Record: 47-39

2012-2017 Record: 258-226

2018: I basically was just making Default Picks that year because I knew a few players' Picks in advance of them making them, so I just played a Default Strategy. There was also a side prize that required me to look at other peoples' picks before making my own, which is obviously something I wouldn't normally do.

2020: There was no game.

Thus:

258-226
47-39
54-47

LIFETIME: 359-312

(35900 * 100/110) - 31200 = 1436.36363636

I don't know how many pushes I had, but I'm going to call 0.53502235469 a nice little winning percentage when you consider that it's over the course of 671 decisions. I'm not going to go as far as to say that it's strong, but I'm satisfied that it is a better than average lifetime win rate...and all of the Picks are posted (with record) in advance of the games kicking off.

---

Mission, that is solid as a rock. Nothing wrong with that. As I say often, there are people who, lifetime, win between 54 and 55% in the NFL, but nobody over the long-term really cracks 55%. That's why this season is such an anomaly and should be analyzed and discussed for a while.

Personally, I'm right at your number for sides over that time, but with far fewer plays, so what you've done is more impressive. Now counting totals (I do more totals than sides), I'm a bit ahead of you, but not a lot.

More later.

---

Thank you very much; I genuinely appreciate you saying that.

The funny thing is that you would think it would cause me to be more inclined to get actual money down, but it actually makes me less inclined. If you flip just eight results and make me 351-320:

(35100 * 100/110) - 32000 = -90.9090909091

I would be losing if playing the same amount on every game. With that, I'm 47 games over .500 and would still be 31 games over .500, but monetarily, I would be losing.

Beyond that, the numbers in my other post would have me roughly $1436.36 ahead if betting $100 per game over 671 games. Not counting pushes (mostly because I have no idea how many games I pushed) that would be 1436.36/67100 = 0.02140625931 which is to say profits of 2.141% of all monies bet...which really isn't very good at all in that amount of time and compared to the risk level. Granted, betting $1,000/game and picking the way that I have might be, "Worth it," from a financial standpoint, but obviously my financial standing in life (i.e. bankroll) and 2.141% perceived advantage makes it not worth the risk.

I'm also not even that sure my picking is that good, even though it's good. Here are some arguments for me and against me:

AGAINST:

1.) Stale Lines.

-My picks are always being made based on Thursday's lines, but are often made at some point after Thursday.

2.) Win Rate.

I'm basically calling heads every time and heads has come 359 out of 671 attempts, which means a blindfolded monkey picks as well, or better, than me about 3.7843% of the time just randomly in 671 decisions. In other words, I have picked well and have been remarkably consistent over several years (I never deviate too far from my average), but my performance is not 3SD+, or anything, which means it could still just be an effect of variance.

ARGUMENTS IN MY FAVOR:

1.) Stale Lines Caveat

-I could be playing line moves or news, but if you'd believe me, I'm not and almost never do. You could probably look at closing lines v. lines I've picked and I would imagine that you would find no bias towards line movement in my picks whatsoever, overall.

2.) I Don't Even Really Try

-I just observe the games, look at the stats, have a fundamental understanding of how football works and mostly just pick based on what I think is going to happen from my observations.

-I spend an average of five minutes deciding my five picks for the week. The only time I really do anything is I have a little formula based on Points Differentials that I sometimes do if I can't get to five games just on what I, "Like."

3.) I MUST pick five games per week:

-This is the biggest argument in my defense. Quite frankly, if my record is what it is ONLY picking the games that I like absolutely the best, then I'd be a little bit embarrassed!

OVERALL:

Overall, I really appreciate what you said, but I'm not so impressed with myself that I would ever get money down unless ALSO taking advantage of a promotion that swings the expectation WAY in my favor (or, better still, makes it impossible NOT to profit) because I think I'm just pretty good at making Picks...and the math says it could still just be, "Luck," as roughly 1 in 26 do as well (or better) blindly.

---

Undoubtedly you would benefit from "shopping 'til you drop," and your record would be better, even if just a couple of games. Now although NFL shopping is not nearly as important as college football (or college hoops) shopping, it's still a factor.

One of the reasons "Tipsters or Gypsters?" became unpopular with handicappers as opposed to other monitors was that McCusker (the publisher) locked everyone into a Friday line from Leroy's (3 PM, I think). Everyone was graded with the same lines, which does a disservice to those folks who time their wagering and shop 'til they drop. McCusker's rationale was that his books were read by the general public, and the general public did most of their wagering from Friday on into the weekend. I understood his reasoning, but I know it cost me at least 2% average over the course of a season. That is actually a big deal. So handicappers who managed, say, 55% with McCusker for a season were actually in the 57/58% range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

I would have a lot of difficulty believing your picks weren’t beating the closing line to hit 53% in a sport as efficient as NFL sides. Even if you’re not choosing specifically to bet into stale lines. I could be wrong but on NFL sides I thought you’d pretty much have to beat the closing line to win.

---

That's a fair point; thank you for saying so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Undoubtedly you would benefit from "shopping 'til you drop," and your record would be better, even if just a couple of games. Now although NFL shopping is not nearly as important as college football (or college hoops) shopping, it's still a factor.

One of the reasons "Tipsters or Gypsters?" became unpopular with handicappers as opposed to other monitors was that McCusker (the publisher) locked everyone into a Friday line from Leroy's (3 PM, I think). Everyone was graded with the same lines, which does a disservice to those folks who time their wagering and shop 'til they drop. McCusker's rationale was that his books were read by the general public, and the general public did most of their wagering from Friday on into the weekend. I understood his reasoning, but I know it cost me at least 2% average over the course of a season. That is actually a big deal. So handicappers who managed, say, 55% with McCusker for a season were actually in the 57/58% range.

---

57-58% would be amazing and would probably be about where I'd want my LIFETIME to be before being confident enough to recreationally get money down. Say what you want about the guys who bet big money on sports...but you can't take away that they have nuts the size of grapefruits! You'll never see me betting NFL without something else in place...margin is too low and advantage realization is too unreliable in the short-term for my liking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

I would have a lot of difficulty believing your picks weren’t beating the closing line to hit 53% in a sport as efficient as NFL sides. Even if you’re not choosing specifically to bet into stale lines. I could be wrong but on NFL sides I thought you’d pretty much have to beat the closing line to win.

---

That's a fair point; thank you for saying so!

---

Yeah, I didn't catch this. There are no "stale" lines per se. If you can bet it, it counts. This season was a mess with lines swinging all over the place in the NFL, especially down the stretch, but in general, in the NFL, if you are beating the lines, you are beating the lines.

Up until the last month, big NFL line moves on sides had actually been losing. The last month they were correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

I would have a lot of difficulty believing your picks weren’t beating the closing line to hit 53% in a sport as efficient as NFL sides. Even if you’re not choosing specifically to bet into stale lines. I could be wrong but on NFL sides I thought you’d pretty much have to beat the closing line to win.

---

That's a fair point; thank you for saying so!

---

Yeah, I didn't catch this. There are no "stale" lines per se. If you can bet it, it counts. This season was a mess with lines swinging all over the place in the NFL, especially down the stretch, but in general, in the NFL, if you are beating the lines, you are beating the lines.

Up until the last month, big NFL line moves on sides had actually been losing. The last month they were correct.

---

I was referring to the contest, where I thought he said they’re using Thursday lines but can bet after before Sunday. Obviously if you can get the bet in at a book the moment you bet it it’s not stale.