kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 179
  • Posts: 3278
March 21st, 2013 at 9:51:14 AM permalink
I have enjoyed startling success since the first of the year betting college basketball, up over 6 grand making $200 wagers. It's about the only success I have had this year as my BJ numbers have been in the red since day 1 of 2013 and an agreement on a home purchase fell through last week. The college basketball wagering is based on power ratings. Finding power rating differentials that are significantly off from the betting lines.

I have been reluctant to post about it or publicize any picks because I figured that would be my kiss of death. But what the hell...It's march madness. I found 9 first rounds plays and wagered $550 on each. One was a play-in game tuesday night (St Mary's -3) which won. 5 are today and 3 tomorrow. Today's games: Butler -2.5, marquette -3, Oklahoma State -1.5, Michigan -11.5, Arizona -4. Friday's games: Oklahoma +3, UCLA +3.5, Temple +4.5.

Now, one difference in the tournament games from regular season is the home court adjustment to power ratings. No home court, so it's more pure power ratings. Oddly enough, during the regular season, this method identified many more dogs than teams laying points. more than 75% of picks where teams + points. Here in the tournament 6 or my 9 picks are laying points. That bothers me a little. 5 minutes to game 1, Butler. We will see how it goes.
Just say no to 6:5 Blackjack, Continuous shuffle machines and Blackjack the Forum. All are Negative expected value.
MakingBook
MakingBook
Joined: Sep 19, 2011
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 496
March 21st, 2013 at 11:48:02 AM permalink
St Mary's -3 WON +$500
Butler -2.5 WON +$500
2-0 +$1,000 with 7 bets pending.

Nice job kewlj!
"I am a man devoured by the passion for gambling." --Dostoevsky, 1871
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 119
  • Posts: 3667
March 21st, 2013 at 12:03:54 PM permalink
Did you take into account the key injury suffered by ucla?
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 179
  • Posts: 3278
March 21st, 2013 at 12:18:39 PM permalink
Yes. The basis of the picks is an UNEXPLAINED margin between the line and power ratings differential. I am aware of the UCLA situation. However the flaw in this system is that it is based solely on statistics and doesn't account for match-up problems. So most true handicapper would cringe at not examining different player match ups. But I am not a professional handicapper. I am a professional blackjack player. Sportsbetting usually in much smaller amounts than I wagered today is my 'entertainment'.
Just say no to 6:5 Blackjack, Continuous shuffle machines and Blackjack the Forum. All are Negative expected value.
DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 2165
March 22nd, 2013 at 6:24:37 PM permalink
So who had the Eagles tonight? My local stations (Fort Myers) will treat this game on the level or just below of Armageddon!
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 102
  • Posts: 5961
March 23rd, 2013 at 5:05:45 AM permalink
Quote: DeMango

So who had the Eagles tonight? My local stations (Fort Myers) will treat this game on the level or just below of Armageddon!



Georgetown apparently had lost to teams seeded 5 or more slots below them the previous 3 years. Florida Gulf Coast was an easy pick! (teasing)

My son, a Mizzou student, said he thought his team had little chance against Colorado St. on a neutral court. He said Mizzou does poorly away from home, and poorly against good rebounding teams. He was surprised to find Mizzou a 3 1/2 point favorite. They were never in the game. I didn't listen to him and picked Mizzou.....

  • Jump to: