Forums

Forums
Where sports bettors talk!

Official Reporting Thread: Pick Promotion Questions

Official Reporting Thread: Pick Promotion Questions
blooney44135
Joined: 06/09/2014
Posts: 26
Practice Squad
Not Ranked

blooney44135

blooney44135

bk76

Gooner81

Thanks for the response, Dave. As you said, the Deadspin data has you at +32.65u for regular season CFB from 2011-2015 (this is all without fees). But that includes some misgraded parlays/teasers. After correcting for those, I'm getting -18.95u for those plays.

Wow. The 0.1% can affect long term promotion. Great use of this thread guys, the transparency really is second to none!

Since it seems to be a bit of an open issue, and I was curious, I went through the rest of Dave Essler’s football record since the start of the 2011 season, checking for typos or system misgrades in either direction. Here’s a summary of what I found.

There were four plays where the unit size of the play was different than what was entered into the system; the intention for the play to be bigger or smaller than what was entered is clarified in the writeup. The ID numbers for these plays are 143578, 147258, 180106, 184704.

There are three plays where there appears to be a typo on the spread that was entered into the system. For each of these, the spread mentioned in the writeup is different, and after checking the line history, it appears the writeup spread is indeed correct. The ID numbers for these plays are 97804, 100079, 144323.

There was one instance of a parlay graded as a win, but it looks like the second leg lost: 145863.

There are forty-one instances of teasers that appear to be misgraded. For each of these, it seems like the play was just graded based on the result of the first leg of the teaser, but the result of the second leg was different, causing the system to grade it incorrectly. The ID numbers for these plays are 96858, 97777, 100886, 102817, 123566, 124512, 124913, 127340, 128368, 128680, 128856, 128932, 129023, 129413, 142295, 144312, 144782, 145720, 145759, 145974, 146049, 146368, 146542, 147252, 148463, 148513, 149263, 150134, 165099, 165257, 165389, 165895, 166538, 167157, 168090, 168186, 180950, 182387, 183143, 183469, 184719.

There are ten instances where the teaser price is -110 in the system, but a different price is used in the writeup; I guess maybe the system just defaults to -110? The ID numbers for these are 99972, 101746, 104159, 121596, 127412, 127556, 127716, 128160, 128249, 145625.

Finally, fifteen plays were not graded at all. I’m not sure why this would be the case, but it’s not like they’re showing as pushes or anything, there’s just nothing. The ID numbers for these are 94292, 94293, 94432, 94433, 94463, 94989, 95960, 97044, 97087, 97103, 97412, 97478, 97499, 97698, 98098.

I hope that is everything, I tried to be thorough and include anything that might affect Dave’s record in either direction.

A lot of these still have not been corrected; I'm not sure why that would be the case?

Also, the package promotion here is not accurate once these corrections are taken into account:

 Dave has NEVER had a losing NFL season at Pregame and has won 4 out of last 5 college football regular seasons (up over 35 units)!

Dave has NEVER had a losing NFL season at Pregame.

After incorporating the changes, it looks like, for NFL:

2011: Preseason +0.65u, Reg Season -2.25u, Postseason -9.10u, -10.70u overall

2012: Preseason -1.85u, Reg Season -24.65u, Postseason +8.65u, -17.85u overall

2013: Preseason +3.20u, Reg Season -6.90u, Postseason +1.20u, -2.50u overall

2014: Preseason -14.80u, Reg Season -13.10u, Postseason +8.40u, -19.50u overall

2015: Preseason +9.85, Reg Season -7.00u, Postseason +2.40u, +5.25u overall

Total: Preseason -2.95u, Regular Season -53.90u, Postseason +11.55u, -45.3u overall

CASEYWARD420
Joined: 01/31/2008
Posts: 32719
Rank NA
Top 10 Contributor

blooney44135

blooney44135

blooney44135

bk76

Gooner81

Thanks for the response, Dave. As you said, the Deadspin data has you at +32.65u for regular season CFB from 2011-2015 (this is all without fees). But that includes some misgraded parlays/teasers. After correcting for those, I'm getting -18.95u for those plays.

Wow. The 0.1% can affect long term promotion. Great use of this thread guys, the transparency really is second to none!

Since it seems to be a bit of an open issue, and I was curious, I went through the rest of Dave Essler’s football record since the start of the 2011 season, checking for typos or system misgrades in either direction. Here’s a summary of what I found.

There were four plays where the unit size of the play was different than what was entered into the system; the intention for the play to be bigger or smaller than what was entered is clarified in the writeup. The ID numbers for these plays are 143578, 147258, 180106, 184704.

There are three plays where there appears to be a typo on the spread that was entered into the system. For each of these, the spread mentioned in the writeup is different, and after checking the line history, it appears the writeup spread is indeed correct. The ID numbers for these plays are 97804, 100079, 144323.

There was one instance of a parlay graded as a win, but it looks like the second leg lost: 145863.

There are forty-one instances of teasers that appear to be misgraded. For each of these, it seems like the play was just graded based on the result of the first leg of the teaser, but the result of the second leg was different, causing the system to grade it incorrectly. The ID numbers for these plays are 96858, 97777, 100886, 102817, 123566, 124512, 124913, 127340, 128368, 128680, 128856, 128932, 129023, 129413, 142295, 144312, 144782, 145720, 145759, 145974, 146049, 146368, 146542, 147252, 148463, 148513, 149263, 150134, 165099, 165257, 165389, 165895, 166538, 167157, 168090, 168186, 180950, 182387, 183143, 183469, 184719.

There are ten instances where the teaser price is -110 in the system, but a different price is used in the writeup; I guess maybe the system just defaults to -110? The ID numbers for these are 99972, 101746, 104159, 121596, 127412, 127556, 127716, 128160, 128249, 145625.

Finally, fifteen plays were not graded at all. I’m not sure why this would be the case, but it’s not like they’re showing as pushes or anything, there’s just nothing. The ID numbers for these are 94292, 94293, 94432, 94433, 94463, 94989, 95960, 97044, 97087, 97103, 97412, 97478, 97499, 97698, 98098.

I hope that is everything, I tried to be thorough and include anything that might affect Dave’s record in either direction.

A lot of these still have not been corrected; I'm not sure why that would be the case?

Also, the package promotion here is not accurate once these corrections are taken into account:

 Dave has NEVER had a losing NFL season at Pregame and has won 4 out of last 5 college football regular seasons (up over 35 units)!

Dave has NEVER had a losing NFL season at Pregame.

After incorporating the changes, it looks like, for NFL:

2011: Preseason +0.65u, Reg Season -2.25u, Postseason -9.10u, -10.70u overall

2012: Preseason -1.85u, Reg Season -24.65u, Postseason +8.65u, -17.85u overall

2013: Preseason +3.20u, Reg Season -6.90u, Postseason +1.20u, -2.50u overall

2014: Preseason -14.80u, Reg Season -13.10u, Postseason +8.40u, -19.50u overall

2015: Preseason +9.85, Reg Season -7.00u, Postseason +2.40u, +5.25u overall

Total: Preseason -2.95u, Regular Season -53.90u, Postseason +11.55u, -45.3u overall

Mr Leonard Welcome back to pregame, glad you could entertain us again!

wafflemaker
Joined: 12/07/2010
Posts: 59
Practice Squad
Not Ranked

SleepyJ  continues to use -110 for 7 pt teasers. They are -130 to -140. Also this play needs to be graded correctly to a loss.  http://pregame.com/pregamepros/picks/archive.aspx?id=198837

This 7 pt teaser is also being used at -110 instead of the -130 to -140. This play also needs to be graded as a loss. It is showing as a win.

http://pregame.com/pregamepros/picks/archive.aspx?id=198470

sleepyj
Joined: 11/01/2012
Posts: 32712
Rank NA
Top 10 Contributor

wafflemaker

SleepyJ  continues to use -110 for 7 pt teasers. They are -130 to -140. Also this play needs to be graded correctly to a loss.  http://pregame.com/pregamepros/picks/archive.aspx?id=198837

This 7 pt teaser is also being used at -110 instead of the -130 to -140. This play also needs to be graded as a loss. It is showing as a win.

http://pregame.com/pregamepros/picks/archive.aspx?id=198470

Those were sent to tech, I believe i said that in my pro page thread a few days ago. BOL Waffle, enjoy your holiday.

**32-19** (61%) All-Time GOY    

Follow Me On Twitter : @SleepyJ_Pregame     

Click Here - Today's Premium Play             

  

 

sleepyj
Joined: 11/01/2012
Posts: 32712
Rank NA
Top 10 Contributor

I see they have been corrected. Thanks Tech and Waffle for the good work.

**32-19** (61%) All-Time GOY    

Follow Me On Twitter : @SleepyJ_Pregame     

Click Here - Today's Premium Play             

  

 

JoeD
Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 538
Pro Draft Prospect
Not Ranked

Pregame -

There is a discrepancy I would like to see investigated. Today in Spartan's dedicated thread I pointed out that according to his home page his January numbers were:

Free plays  7-10

1* plays  0-0

2* plays  33-37 for -15.5 units

3* plays  6-6 for -1.8 units

Total paid for plays  39-43 for -17.3 units

I arrived at those numbers directly from his home page. I double checked the math and am confident that the numbers I posted are correct.

Spartan came into the thread 25 minutes later and said that my calculations were wrong and that he was actually -9.7 units for the month of January.

That is a very large discrepancy and warrants a third party calculation.....in my humble opinion. That's what this thread is for, right? Correcting discrepancies?

Thanks in advance for looking into this.

Awaiting resolution -

Joe D

ComptrBob
Joined: 08/20/2013
Posts: 857
Pro Draft Prospect
Not Ranked

JoeD

Pregame -

There is a discrepancy I would like to see investigated. Today in Spartan's dedicated thread I pointed out that according to his home page his January numbers were:

Free plays  7-10

1* plays  0-0

2* plays  33-37 for -15.5 units

3* plays  6-6 for -1.8 units

Total paid for plays  39-43 for -17.3 units

I arrived at those numbers directly from his home page. I double checked the math and am confident that the numbers I posted are correct.

Joe D

I did a quick check of Spartan's listed results for Jan. 2017. I get almost the same as Joe D. with one discrepancy: 2 stars: 33-36 for -13.10 units, total was 39-42 for -14.90 units.

JoeD
Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 538
Pro Draft Prospect
Not Ranked

Thank you Bob, I stand corrected. I had a mistake on Jan 22nd in my tabulations. So we agree, Spartan was 39-42 in January for -14.9 units. This is a cut and paste from his response in his dedicated thread.....

"Thirdly, your numbers are wrong. But why should that be a shock to anyone. Yes, january ended up down. Minus 9.70 units. Not the 17.30 you show."

Pregame - It's February 5th, one of your pro handicappers is claiming a monthly record that is pretty far off from the record indicated on his home page. In an effort to be transparent and accurate, this should be cleaned up quickly and efficiently so we can all make informed decisions going forward.

Thanks in advance for your time and effort -

Thanks Bob for stepping in -

spartan
Joined: 06/21/2006
Posts: 19218
All Pro
Top 25 Contributor

I will be glad to step in here. Tom can follow up and verify our conversation. The primary difference when examined closely is quite simple. And resulted in a four unit swing. Here is the deal. On Jan 16 I had an NBA side Doubke star release on the Phoenix Suns +6 hosting the Utah Jazz. The line was entered into the system manually incorrectly at Suns +3. Anyone can check back or perhaps even recall the line was never 3. Well I won the bet as the Jazz prevailed by 5. But obviously in the system it was graded as a loss. I even recall the next day on my pro page that it was shown as a loss but what was most important was the fact we knew we had actually cashed the bet. In hindsight now I obviously wish I had alerted a tech of the issue so he could make the correction in the system. So nothing sinister involved. I honestly just didn't want to bother the home office with it. With that being clarified I am perfectly fine with anyone from the office running the corrected numbers as accepting the results. My clients know I do care about accuracy. They know the countless times I have edited a release to make it crystal clear whether a play would be graded as a rabid dog release. I've been diligent about that. JohnnyMo or Ivybettor or pro all have seen this countless times through the years and could also verify that. I do hope this helps.

Spartan: Best Bets | Free Picks | Blogs
Called "#1 NFL Capper in world" by Columbia Daily Tribune
Pick Virgins: $25 FREE! Buyers: 10% rebate!
I am a Pregame.com Director of the Boards!
Tom Patterson
Joined: 06/22/2006
Posts: 6118
All Pro
Top 150 Contributor

Spartan's record had a couple mistakes,
but so did JoeD's calculation.

The correct number is 40-41 for -10.70 Units.

Note that Spartan had the Suns on 1/16 but entered the wrong line. So that 2* is showing as a Loss when it is a Win (screen shot of play with wrong line below). I will be sending this to our Tech Team to get corrected.

This goes to prove how much you can trust the Pro's records - cause the rare times they make a mistake, the thousands watching will catch it!

Tom Patterson
Pregame Customer Advocate

Trying Harder for YOU
Tom@Pregame.com

Free Picks | Best Bets$25 of picks FREE! | Pregame Rewards!

Rate This
  • 504 replies
  • 40 subscribers
  • Postedover 3 years ago