When friends get behind my picks and rally:
+ Week 4 Plays --
Colorado (+21) - Washington St
Akron (+34) - Tennessee
Miami FL (+14.5) - Georgia Tech
Wyoming (+1.5) - Idaho
TCU (-17) - Virginia
Vanderbilt (+16) - Georgia
//
Biggest Line Moves
Monday through Thursday. (Home Team, old line, new line)
North Carolina, -14.5, -17
Washington State, -18.5, -21
Iowa, -17, -14.5
UCLA, -10, -7.5
9 comments :
Are these plays in addition to your picks on Monday or are Mondays nullified and these are now your plays?
#imaSquid
In addition. On Monday, I'm attacking the opening lines. By Thursday, many lines will shift, especially early in the season with so much uncertainty around the values of each team. Hopefully they will shift in my favor but some won't; for example you can now get a better line on the MSU game compared to what I bet on Monday.
Of the 6 new games, 3 were on the cusp of being bet Monday and 3 didn't have lines released until Tuesday.
PS I don't think you can get the UMASS line from Monday. And if you can't I would stay away. So if you haven't laid any bets yet, my model recommends 16 plays. (17 minus UMASS)
Whats the universe for biggest line movers? All college games or games picked up by your model?
All college games this week from Monday to Thursday.
On the Sunday overnight lines, UCLA opened -12 against Oregon State. By the time I placed bets on Monday, it was down to -10. By Thursday, -7.
Those 4 games just show the biggest line movements. I'm not playing any of them. Though I would bet something large if I was offered the Beavers +12.
Conversely, wouldn't it make more sense to take UCLA -7? Oddsmakers set the line as Bruins being a 12 point favorite, the public causes the line to drop (excluding injuries, suspensions, etc,) down 5 points to -7. I would lay action on UCLA, because hypothetically, the game should finish with a UCLA win around 12 (+/- a point or two) points.
Not necessarily. I handicapped the game around UCLA -7. In a way, my model was more accurate than Vegas. Since the line shifted towards my fair value, I did not recommend this game.
If the true value of the line was -12, then that theory would make sense. However unlike a game of blackjack with defined odds, we never know the true value of a line. For a comparison, let's use another market without defined odds, the stock market. And let's apply your theory. Facebook opened at $38 and the public caused the value to drop to $21. Would you buy Facebook stock because the public caused the price to drop? For sure not.
I see what you are saying, I didn't realize your model had UCLA as a 7 point favorite. Makes perfect sense now.
Also, kudos on the facebook analogy, what you are saying is if you would have purchased facebook short at 38 or bought put options, you'd be rolling in it right now. This is a similar thought process to you getting on a dog line early in the week. You could call yourself a bear investor expecting that line to drop (or a downward shift in the market) I'll save this finance lesson for another time.
Keep the picks coming! I'm digging the site.
Hypothetically speaking if UCLA goes to -3 and you have it valued at -7 is it a recommendation? The FB analogy is missing what you have it valued at. If it falls from 38 to 21 and you have the valuation at 30 you're buying, no?
In my model it depends on a few factors. I would consider buying UCLA -3.
In theory your FB example is perfect. The model finds price discrepancies and exploits them. Would buy at 21 if I valued the stock at 30.
Post a Comment