For those of you who purchased the newsletter, I hope you took the advice.
Arizona traveled to Hawaii, and as predicted in the letter they not only didn’t cover- they straight up lost. The final score of the game was 38-45 for Hawaii; the cfb51-LINE prediction was 41-45 Hawaii… Not too bad, huh?
That would have made a nice little seed money to carry week two for you, if you would have heeded the advice.
Enough of that. I realize we must gain your trust, and one game doesn’t accomplish that. What I’d like to discuss with you one more time is the ‘method’. The Method works. You should be able to run your own numbers using it, and use the lines posted by the house simply as a reconciliation. We’re not dumb enough to suggest the houses don’t know what they’re doing. They’ve been at it a long time. What we ARE suggesting, is the mechanism that ‘pushes’ the line is flawed, and based on emotion OR it’s based on statistical mechanics that simply don’t hold consistent throughout even a game, much less a season. Our hope- check that- MY hope is that you gain from our relationship by developing your own metrics based on our Method, and you become a contributor in the forum where we collect a bunch of y’all and literally Take Down the House.
Leave your calculators and keyboards alone. We’re going to surmise you know the teams you’re contemplating for a wager. That’s pretty much all you need. Here is how we do it:
Observations of team A’s Offense will offer you keys. The one’s of value are surrounding the components. Does this team run primarily? Pass? Play Action or RPO? What is their Offensive scheme? The most important element and the cipher for pegging blowouts: Does this team have an individual who provides imbalance or could one or two individual players be removed and alter their entire approach?
Observation of team B’s Defense will offer you expectations, too. Are they balanced? Do they rely on one or two decisive players? Removing those players, how do they look? How does the inclusion of team B’s ‘decisive Defensive players’ stack against team A’s decisive Offensive players?
This seems elementary. However, it’s part of the blocks that must be arranged when gauging a specific team against another specific team. It doesn’t carry over to the next week. We’re not looking at numbers on the board or points out of a box- not exactly, anyway. We’re taking indicators from individual players, what value they bring to the team, and comparing them directly to their counterparts on the opposing team. Offense to Defense, Defense to Offense. You’ll be astounded how easily deficiencies are spotted when you look at the most elementary elements that comprise the overall product.
Then… Intangibles. result: intangible points. They happen all the time- and can likely be blamed on the strange shape of the ball more often than not, and gaining some sort of predictive measure on which way it’s going to bounce. There is some witchcraft in this sector, and presented under the label ‘psychology’. Which team is hungry? Which team is prone to dead ball infractions? Which team lacks physicality to the point it will impact the game (if the opposition plays physical)? …. Is there complacency from either side? Is there anger, which drives young men to do things off the field considered ‘crazy’? It’s fortunate that ‘intangibles’ aren’t deciding factors. However, they DO factor.
The manner we exercise our metrics, now that you know the basics, is (and you’ll often see this rambling in the weekly newsletters containing the Group of Twelve Evaluation, which is intent to test and reward you for doing this well), is like this:
Team A’s Offense should be able to hang 21 to 31 on Team B’s D.
Team B’s defense is capable of disrupting Team A’s offensive flow, slowing Team A to a .7 scale of their capacity if they were operating unimpeded.
Team B’s Offense is capable of scoring from 28 to 41 on Team A’s Defense.
Team A’s Defense has a positive individual matchup and is capable of holding Team B’s Offensive threat (due to that one matchup other teams Team A has played have lacked) in check, keeping them in the lower range of their capability- perhaps to a .5 scale.
Team A- 21-31, Team B- 28-41.
Mean: Team A: 26; Team B:35
intangibles: Travel: Team A is crossing two time zones. Rivalry: non factor. Special Teams: Team A has returner to be considered, gaining field position if not a return. +7 Team A. Team B has a Linebacker that can cover Team A’s penchant for dump screens, streaks, or trap/draws, rendering that tool a low threat. -7 Team A.
cfb51-LINE prediction:
Team B will win 35 to Team A’s 28.
Now, you can giggle thinking this is oversimplified- but it does require you pay attention to the components, the tendencies, and the environmentals of each match-up. You will discover, as we have, this simple matrix works time and time again.
We hope to see you around!!!
Powered by WPeMatico