Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some notes I dug up that are dusty and old!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some notes I dug up that are dusty and old!

    Holy **** I found this! Thought it was lost!!!!! Thanks UC! LOL

    Chris sent this to me 5 years ago and I still wish I new who wrote it! I always wanted to pick there brain! Anyways just thougth I would share it! Feel free to add anything or if your the one who wrote it, enlighten us with the plays!

    Thanks

    I have used that same system for the regular
    > season as well. While the system has worked better than average for most
    > regular seasons, it has been outstanding during the
    > tournament. During the past seven NCAA Tournaments, there have been 443
    > games played. My system has predicted the correct
    > over/under in nearly 56% of those games, going 238-190-5 ats. There were
    > ten games where my system predicted the total exactly
    > to the line. When my system has differed by at least 3.5 points, it has
    > predicted the correct over/under in 58.3% of the games,
    > going 176-126-3. That's 69% of all the games being played turning into
    > over 58% winners. Further research has allowed me to
    > uncover certain situations which excel and the farther my line is off
    > from the total, the better the results, only enhancing how well
    > this system has performed. I don't always know when the plays will
    > click, only that they will click. During those seven seasons,
    > they have only failed to produce a substantial profit in one year, going
    > 24-25 three years ago on the totals and losing -7.9% in both
    > sides and totals for that year. Every other year has produced at least a
    > +10% profit, including going 44-28 +48.15% two years ago.
    > Four years ago, I started out of the gates going 21-6 during the first
    > two days. Two years ago it was about even after the first two
    > days and then went 9-0 on the 3rd day. Last year I was down about -17%
    > after the first day and was ahead by Sunday, the fourth
    > day, winning each of the next three days. Bottom line is I recommend
    > playing all or none of the games. I expect to have around 25
    > plays during the first two days. If you are not comfortable playing that
    > much bankroll, I recommend playing less per play but play
    > ALL of the plays. I don't always know which plays will win, only that
    > they will win in the long run.
    >
    > During the first round the unders have come in about 56.5% of the time,
    > going 126-97-3 since 1996. Overall for the whole
    > tournament the unders have gone 224-202-9 52.6%. The top four seeds have
    > gone 63-47-2 57.3%. During the first round, number 1
    > seeds with a total of 150 or higher are 6-2 to the under, with a total
    > of 145 or higher are 10-5 to the under.
    >
    > Also during the first round teams getting 18 points or more and NOT
    > facing number 1 seeds, are 20-12-1 ats since 1991. Those
    > teams this year are Wagner (Pittsburgh) and Sam Houston State (Florida).
    > Minor conference teams (teams Vegas doesn't set a
    > line on normally) are only 38-59-1 since 1991 when not receiving at
    > least 18 points. If they are receiving 8 or less points they are
    > only 10-24 ats. Those teams getting less than 18 points this year are
    > Holy Cross (Marquette) and Troy State (Xavier). There are
    > none receiving eight or less points.
    >
    > In the number seven seed versus the ten seed, the team with more wins is
    > now 42-23 SU. Number ten seeds with less than 20
    > wins are just 2-11 SU. There is also a subset of that 42-23 record that
    > is 23-5 SU for the number seven seed. The teams that fit
    > that subset are Indiana, Memphis and St. Joseph's. Those teams are all
    > laying short numbers and should be considered for betting
    > purposes.
    >
    > Number 1 seeds are 9-2 ats if they are laying less than 25 points. That
    > applies to Oklahoma here.
    >
    > Teams playing in their home states are now 54-26 67.5% SU since 1985.
    > Those teams this year (Notre Dame-Indiana,
    > Oklahoma-Oklahoma, and Florida-Florida,. Watch for Texas and Syracuse
    > if they advance to the Sweet Sixteen. Those same
    > teams are 45-28 61.6% ats since 1991. If we don't count the first round,
    > they are 26-11 70.3% from the second round on. Counting
    > the first round again, if we only use dogs of less than eight or
    > favorites of 18 or less, our numbers rise to 37-16 69.8%. Take away
    > the first round again and we get 24-8 75.0%. ND, Oklahoma and Florida
    > could be very solid plays if they make it to the second
    > round.
    >
    > As with all situations, they are only profitable plays if there is value
    > to go along with the plays. You would never want to play a
    > game because there is value on the game if there is a strong situation
    > going against it and you would never want to play a game
    > just because there is a strong situation supporting it if there isn't
    > any value on that team. An exaggerated example would be we all
    > know number 1 seeds are 72-0 SU when facing number 16 seeds in the first
    > round. If the line in these games was around a pick
    > 'em this would be an outstanding opportunity to take the number 1 seed.
    > But we all know the lines are usually around 25-35 points
    > and therefore the 72-0 is somewhat meaningless. The situations above
    > fall into the same theory. If you find yourself getting value
    > along with the strong situations that apply above, you have yourself an
    > excellent wagering opportunity.


    > Teams playing in their home states are now 54-26 67.5% SU since 1985.
    > if they advance to the Sweet Sixteen. Those same
    > teams are 45-28 61.6% ats since 1991. If we don't count the first round,
    > they are 26-11 70.3% from the second round on. Counting
    > the first round again, if we only use dogs of less than eight or
    > favorites of 18 or less, our numbers rise to 37-16 69.8%. Take away
    > the first round again and we get 24-8 75.0%.


    sweet 16 over L4 yrs (ats records):

    DDFav= 1-3

    won as dog in rd 1 & 2= 2-7

    covered spread in rd 1 & 2= 13-18-1 (if both teams did, Fav is 2-6)

    off su dog win= 7-14 (if both are, Fav is 0-4)

    Fav -2 & less= 1-6
    Fav -2.5-5.5= 8=5=1
    Fav -6-9.5= 5-2
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

  • #2
    This **** is from last year but wanted to copy it and crunch the numbers!
    Wanted to get my **** and get out asap!

    Point to Witchita St and Uconn to both cover!
    Witchita number 7 seeds are 3-0 L3 straight up
    Not showing a advancement L3 on a 11 seed straight up

    Uconn number 1 seed 9-3 L3 years straight up
    No number 5 in the L3 years straight up

    Now the two other games I don't know

    Would have to lean on Flo since GT coming off a lose (was leaning on GT) Going to have to look at the money!

    GT 7 seed 3-0 L3 years straight up
    Flo number 3 5-3 L3 years straight up

    BC and Villanova Who the **** knows! I hate BC after the killed my largest wager of the Tourney with double OT over Pacific!

    BC number 4 are 3-1 L3 Straight up
    Nova number 1 9-3 L3 Straight up

    If the seeds played yeserday I updated them.

    the rest of this is from rounds 1 & 2 &3 this yr:

    higher seed records of rd 1&2 so far: 37-15 su/ 22-29-1 ats

    SU winners are 37-14-1 ats (13 dogs won su)
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    Comment


    • #3
      NCAASweet16 (Thurs/Fri)

      Number 7 seeds are 3-0 L3 years in SSixteen with a average win of 5! Last 3 years no number 11 has ever won!

      Memphis number 1 seed are 8-2 this round with a average win of 8.5. No number 13 has ever won L3 years!

      Public on W. Virginia and with the movement so far this year it is 1-4 in W. Virginia favor! Not to mention aveage win for number 2 is 11.5

      Let me see what else can I dig up

      Uconn number 1 seed 8-2 L3 years and have won by 8.37 points number 5 seeds (Wash) are 1-6

      Sort of like Georgetown in this spot! number 7 seeds are 3-0 with the number 3 seed winning by 2.5 points

      Well thats it for now!
      Texas ML
      Memphis ML
      Witch +2
      Conn ML
      Georgetown +3.5 (Bought half)
      Nova ML
      300 gets you back a nice return of 40K
      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

      Comment


      • #4
        NCAA Tourney Any Round:

        #1 Seeds are 84-0 SU vs #16 Seeds... #2 Seeds are 76-8 SU vs #15 Seeds... Only once since 1988 has a #12 Seed failed to beat a #5 Seed... Favorites that finished less than .500 in their conference are 3-9-1 ATS... favorites of 7 > points who have won and covered each of their previous three games are 9-23 ATS vs. a foe off a SU Win... Favorites of < 12 & 4 > points playing an opponent off BB SU dog wins are 30-12-2 ATS... Underdogs of > 3 points, playing off an underdog win of +6 > points, are 20-40-2 ATS.

        NCAA 1st Round Notes:

        #1 Seeds off BB SU wins and favs < 25 are 8-1 ATS... #3 Seeds off a SU favorite loss are 22-1 SU & 16-6-1 ATS... #7 Seed dogs are 11-5-1 ATS... Conference Tournament Champs in this round: ACC 5-10 ATS, Atlantic Ten 10-4 SU & 7-7 ATS, Big West 5-1 ATS, Colonial Athletic 10-3-2 ATS (9-2 ATS favs off a SU Loss), Conference USA 5-2 ATS, Missouri Valley 6-2 ATS on a 3-0 SU & ATS run, Mountain West 0-6 SU & 1-5 ATS, Sun Belt 3-0 ATS DD Dogs... Best Team SU records in this round: Kentucky 20-0, Kansas 15-1, Connecticut 13-0, Stanford 10-1, Duke 9-0, Purdue 8-0, Illinois 8-0, Iowa 7-1, Maryland 7-0, Florida State 4-0 and New Mexico 4-1. Worst Team SU records in this round: Nebraska 0-5, BYU 0-4 George Wash 0-4... Best Team ATS records in this round: Tulsa 8-0, Southern Illinois 5-0, Stanford 4-1, Illinois 6-2, and Iowa 6-1... Worst Team ATS records in this round: Mississippi 0-5, Nebraska 0-5, Georgia Tech 1-4, Maryland 0-4 ATS & UMass 0-4... Best Conference records in this round: ACC 19-1 SU last four years... Worst Conference records in this round: Colonial Athletic Association 4-11 SU last 13 years... Missouri Valley 1-6 and the Mountain West 4-10.

        NCAA 2nd Round Notes:

        #8 Seeds are 16-5 ATS S'95... #13 or worse Seeds are 3-21 SU & 6-17-1 ATS S'91, including 2-8 ATS vs #1 Seeds... Teams playing in their same state are 52-27-1 ATS from 2nd round out, including 2-4 ATS last season... Overtime winners are 12-23-1 ATS during the 2nd and Sweet 16 rounds (0-1 ATS last season)... Best Team SU records in this round: Duke 7-0, UCLA 6-0, Michigan State 5-0, Kansas 4-0, Arizona 8-1, Connecticut 7-1, and Oklahoma State 5-1... Worst Team SU records in this round: Alabama 1-4, Boston College 0-4, Charlotte 0-4, New Mexico 0-4, Cincinnati 1-6, Iowa 1-6, Stanford 1-5 and Xavier 1-5... Best Team ATS records in this round: Kansas 6-0, UCLA 7-1, Connecticut 7-2 and Oklahoma State 5-1... Worst Team ATS records in this round: Wake Forest 0-7, Stanford 0-6 and Cincinnati 1-6... Best Conference records in this round: Big Twelve 23-11, and Big East 6-1 ATS off DD SU Win vs. foe off SU Dog Win... Worst Conference records in this round: Colonial Athletic Conference 0-4 SU & 0-3-1 ATS last four years, PAC Ten 23-13 ATS, and Conference USA 2-10 off DD SU Win
        "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

        Comment


        • #5
          March Madness Tournament Notes

          ________________________________

          Seed Matchup Results

          #1 vs. #16: The #1 seed is 28-0 SU & 17-11 ATS. 14 of 24 totaled games went UNDER.

          #2 vs. #15: #2 seeds are 27-1 SU but just 12-16 ATS. 16 of 24 totaled games went UNDER.

          #3 vs. #14: This matchup has been owned by the #3 seed, 26-2 SU & 16-12 ATS. OVER/UNDER is 9/15.

          #4 vs. #13: The #4 seed is 12-6 SU & 14-13-1 ATS vs the #13. The OVER/UNDER ratio is 14/10.

          #5 vs. #12: 5th seeds are 17-11 SU & 11-16 ATS vs the #12ís. The OVER is 15-9 in the series.

          #6 vs. #11: #6 seeds have fared well straight up, going 20-8 & 15-13 ATS. 14 of the 24 games went UNDER the posted total.

          #7 vs. #10: As mentioned earlier, the #10 seed is 15-13 SU & ATS in this matchup. The UNDER is 14-8-2.

          #8 vs. #9: This has been a close series, with #8 holding a 15-13 SU & 14-14 ATS record. O/U is 13/11.

          __________________


          #1 Seeds off BB SU wins are 19-10 ATS.

          #3 Seeds off a SU favorite loss are 19-1 SU & 14-6-1 ATS.

          #4 Seed favorite of 9.5 or less points are 16-8 ATS.

          #7 Seed dogs are 11-4-1 ATS.

          #13 Seeds with a win percentage of .600 or better are 13-18 ATS.

          - ACC champs are 7-18 ATS and also 5-14 ATS as favorites -9 or more points.

          - Favorites in this round are 207-198-6 ATS, including 1-5 ATS when playing off a SU home loss as a favorite.

          - The best team SU records in this round are Kentucky 19-0, Kansas 15-0, Connecticut 12-0, Stanford 10-0, Duke 8-0, Purdue 8-0, Illinois 7-0 and Maryland 7-0.

          - The worst team SU record in this round is Nebraska 0-5, BYU 0-4 .

          - The best team ATS record in this round is Southern Illinois 4-0, Stanford 4-0 and Illinois 6-1.

          - Worst Team ATS records in this round: Mississippi 0-5, Nebraska 0-5, Georgia Tech 0-4, Maryland 0-4 ATS and Massachusetts 0-4.

          - Best Conference SU records in this round: ACC 12-1 SU last three years, BIG 10 11-2 last three years and PAC 10 14-5 last four years.

          - The worst conference SU record in this round: Colonial Athletic Association at 2-10 in the last twelve years
          "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

          Comment


          • #6
            The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Monday about how the seeds have fared since 1985 (when it moved to the 64 team format). These records are SU. No. 6, No 10, and No 12 all have better recods than the seeds immediately above them.

            No1 281-72 = .796
            No2 202-80 = .716
            No3 148-82 = .643
            No4 128-83 = .607
            No5 98-84 = .538
            No6 110-83 = .570
            No7 71-84 = .458
            No8 58-83 = .411
            No9 50-84 = .373
            No10 56-84 = .400
            No11 39-84 = .317
            No12 42-84 = .333
            No13 20-84 = .192
            No14 16-84 = .160
            No15 4-84 = .045
            No16 0-84 = .000

            The aticle aslo noted,

            Of the 21 national champions since 1985, the number won by No.1 seeds = 12
            Championships won by No.2 seed since 1985 = 4
            Championships won by No.3 seed since 1985 = 2
            Othe seeds to win championships since 1985, No.4, No.6, No.8
            "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

            Comment


            • #7
              I dont know where it is on the Web, but I have a book that I just got that has some facts.

              Number 8 vs 9 have been 10-10 SU and ATS

              The 5 seeds have not done well against the 12 seeds the past 5 years. The 12 seeds have won 9 of the past 11 games outright. The 5 seeds rebounded for a 3-1 mark in the first round action last season, with only wisconsin-Milwaukee pulling the upset.

              number 11 seeds are just 1-13 SU against number 6 seeds in the first round.

              number 15 seeds have lost 15 of 16 SU, but 13-7 ATS, and where a perfect 4-0 last year

              There has only been one 14 seed to when SU in the last 5 years.

              A number 16 seed has never knocked off a number one but they are 9-5-1 ATS in the last 4 tournaments.

              If I see more I will post, hope this helps!!


              3 vs 14

              SU 3 seeds 19-1
              SU 14 Seed 1-19
              ATS 3 seed 9-10-1
              ATS 14 seed 10-9-1

              4 vs 13

              SU 4 seeds 15-5
              SU 13 seeds 5-15
              ATS 4 seed 8-12
              ATS 13 seed 12-8

              5 VS 12
              SU 5 seed 11-9
              SU 12 seed 9-11
              ATS 5 seed 9-10-1
              ATS 12 seed 10-9-1
              "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

              Comment


              • #8
                SI INFO 2006


                this is the 2nd round results of teams that won SU as Dog in 1st round:
                '05= 1-5 su/ats
                '04= 2-2 su/3-1 ata
                '03=2-7 su/4-5 ats

                now taking a closer look into numbers from last yr, find that the 5 losses all had the majority of total wagers, and the only win was not. here's the teams that won as dog in 1st rd and the bet%'s from 2nd rd game:
                Nev-52%
                Pac-62%
                UAB-58%
                Vmt-63%
                Buck-59%
                WMil-24%- only team to win su or even cover spread.

                so yesterday the same "trend" continued, these teams won su as dog in 1st rd and shown is their 2nd rd bet% and result:
                WMil-61%-L su/ats
                Mont-55%- L su/ats
                Bama-37%- L su/ w ats- like last yr the only team to even cover was not the "public" team.
                today games:
                Bradley 18%
                Buck 41%
                GM 20%
                NWST- 32%

                ok, these are the numbers from this year's 1st round (thurs&fri):

                -Public % 13-17-1 ats (2-4 ats if on dog)
                -Dog 60%+ on SI= 0-1 (syr)

                -SU winners were 23-8-1 ats (7 dogs win su)

                -Fav -3.5 & less were 8-2-1 ats
                -Fav -4-9.5 were 6-6 ats
                -DD fav were 2-6 ats

                -when both teams at-large bids, the higher(better) seed was 6-3 ats (losers were #7,#7,#6 seeds)

                -records of higher seeds (su/ats):
                1- 4-0/1-3
                2- 4-0/1-3
                3- 3-1/1-3
                4- 3-1/2-2
                5- 2-2/2-2
                6- 2-2/2-2
                7- 2-2/2-2
                8- 3-1/2-1-1

                -Conf tourney champs 14-14 ats
                -conf champ vs at-large 7-7-1 ats

                -wagerline % 13-18-1 ats, if dog 1-3, 70%+ 3-5

                -team with better ytd scoring margin 16-15-1 ats (if dog 7-5)

                -Dogs with 60%+ (using SI%, including sat games)=1-2 su/ats

                these are the 1st rd line moves in relation to side that had higher %(51%+)
                w=with,a=against,no=no move
                .5w = 3-1
                .5a =1-3
                2.5w= 0-3
                3+a =0-6
                NO =4-0

                here's numbers broken down into % ranges from 1st rd:
                80%+
                -with=0-1
                70%'s
                -W 0-2
                -A....1-2
                -NO..1-0
                60%'s
                W=1-1-1
                A=2-4
                NO=1-0
                50%'s
                W=2-1
                A=3-6
                NO=2-0

                % on DOGS
                W=1-0
                A=1-4

                here's only thing that really matters 2nd rd last year:

                all teams with higher bet% were 2-12-1 ats
                ----------------------------------------

                couple other things:
                no at-large #13 or #14 seed ever made sweet 16

                #1 seed over L5yrs in 2 rd:
                17-3 su
                avg margin in wins=14.8 pts/gm
                11 by double digits
                8 by avg margin or more
                16 by 7+pts

                #2 seeds= 11-8 su
                avg margin in wins=14.5 pts
                7 by DD
                2 by 5 or less, rest by 8 or more

                couple things from yesterday:

                public % was 2-6 (1-3 on dogs)

                su winner was 6-2 ats(2 dogs su)

                when both teams were at-large bids, higher(better) seed was 0-3 ats
                "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok Lets Get To Work!
                  "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks Billy....I'm gonna print that thing out and file it! Love this stuff...:beerbang:
                    Batman: "If you can't spend it, money's just a lot of worthless paper, isn't it?" :phew:

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X