I think that there is a lot to be said for using maths and statistics as a baseline for handicapping, but as FairWarning says, you do need to be looking at the other intangible factors as well, and I think the ideal scenario is to work out your lines mathmatically first and then adjust for whatever relevant factors you feel will make a difference.
I had always been more of a "feel" handicapper, but recently myself and a couple of friends decided to focus more on the maths and statitistics based approach to capping NBA Totals, which is starting to bear some fruit. We spent the first part of the season purely working on the theory, tracking results, tweeking things where necessary, and then back testing it for the last few years, and I was confident enough in it to start betting (small stakes only) since the All-Star Break.
So far since then, purely using the maths it is hitting around 56% with a record of 90 wins, 70 losses and 1 push (+13 Units assuming a standard -110 line, but better if using the likes of Pinny).
Admittedly, this is a rather small sample size still, but our back testing does suggest a 56% record over the last 3 years, rising as high as 59% if we make a few more restrictions to the criteria needed for a bet, though that 59% does come from quite a few less bets. In terms of pure profit, having a higher number of bets at a 56% clip would have generated more profit over the last 3 years than fewer number of bets at 59% if we assume the exact same stakes, though this is something that could likely be changed if we were to assign a higher stake value to the higher percentage results.
It is still a work in progress but the more we work on it, the more we seem to be getting a better result on the maths and the long term plan is to figure out the best way to then use this mathematical guideline and then try to factor in the intangibles to try to further improve the results...though there is the danger of over-valuing certain factors and subsequently ending up with a worse record.
Anyway, the point of all this is that it has made me realise how important it is to approach handicapping in a much more organised way, and also the importance of keeping much more detailed records on your bets, including making a note of any specific contributing factors to why your bet won or lost (whether OT was a factor, a key player picking up and early injury, a pure dumb luck!).
I had always been more of a "feel" handicapper, but recently myself and a couple of friends decided to focus more on the maths and statitistics based approach to capping NBA Totals, which is starting to bear some fruit. We spent the first part of the season purely working on the theory, tracking results, tweeking things where necessary, and then back testing it for the last few years, and I was confident enough in it to start betting (small stakes only) since the All-Star Break.
So far since then, purely using the maths it is hitting around 56% with a record of 90 wins, 70 losses and 1 push (+13 Units assuming a standard -110 line, but better if using the likes of Pinny).
Admittedly, this is a rather small sample size still, but our back testing does suggest a 56% record over the last 3 years, rising as high as 59% if we make a few more restrictions to the criteria needed for a bet, though that 59% does come from quite a few less bets. In terms of pure profit, having a higher number of bets at a 56% clip would have generated more profit over the last 3 years than fewer number of bets at 59% if we assume the exact same stakes, though this is something that could likely be changed if we were to assign a higher stake value to the higher percentage results.
It is still a work in progress but the more we work on it, the more we seem to be getting a better result on the maths and the long term plan is to figure out the best way to then use this mathematical guideline and then try to factor in the intangibles to try to further improve the results...though there is the danger of over-valuing certain factors and subsequently ending up with a worse record.
Anyway, the point of all this is that it has made me realise how important it is to approach handicapping in a much more organised way, and also the importance of keeping much more detailed records on your bets, including making a note of any specific contributing factors to why your bet won or lost (whether OT was a factor, a key player picking up and early injury, a pure dumb luck!).
hno:That's why systems can work short-term- as long as it's relevant.
I'm not talking Poker or BJ. Anyone can sit at a table with $1000 and a cheat card and play all day at BJ. I'm only interested in sports where there is a human element involved. I believe they are no better capping-wise.
Dead on. The best approach uses both math and situational approaches, but if a person had to choose between the two I'd take all of about three seconds to choose math. Analyzing situations and "intangibles" requires making assumptions and decisions based on gut feel, and study after study have confirmed that people simply aren't very good at things like that. Again and again certain things are overestimated or underestimated.
There's a book called "Super Crunchers" that does a much better job of explaining those concepts than I could.
So why don't more handicappers use an approach based more on math and statistics? I think the reason is simple: Putting together a math model is hard. Depending upon how fancy a person gets it can be very, very hard. Going with "gut feel" is easier and faster and, in a small sample size, can be as effective as math.
In the long run, though, math will always come out on top.
