Rob Crowne

HOW TO BET PRE-PLAYOFF GAMES

Rob Crowne — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:04:00 GMT

HOW TO BET THE FINAL WEEKS BEFORE THE PLAYOFFS

By Rob Crowne

NFL Playoff time is almost here again. Sports bettors always seem surprised by some of the results in the final 2-3 weeks before the playoffs. Just this past Sunday, for example, New England, one of the best teams in the NFL this season, was favored by 14 points but struggled to beat one of the worst teams in the NFL, Jacksonville.

The Pre-Playoff month in the NFL cannot be handicapped and bet in the same way as the rest of the season. There are certain rules that should be followed rigorously if you want to be successful in the pre-playoff period.

RULE 1: NEVER BET ON A TEAM THAT DOES NOT NEED THE GAME TO CLINCH A PLAYOFF SPOT OR TO WIN THEIR DIVISION..

That includes teams that are eliminated and teams that have already clinched. If the team doesn't need the game for one of the two purposes, don't bet on it. Be careful, though. Don't bet on a team at any line only because it needs the game (See Rule 2).

One of the mistakes bettors make is to bet on a team because it needs a game for the home field. Many teams simply don’t care about the home field. If they can get it fine, but avoiding injury is generally more important to the players and the teams than having the home field.

RULE 2: BET ONLY ON TEAMS THAT HANDICAP TO COVER THE SPREAD WITHOUT REGARD TO PLAYOFF STANDING. NEVER BET ON A TEAM JUST BECAUSE THEY NEED THE GAME AND THEIR OPPONENT DOES NOT.

The public believes that a team is more likely to win because it needs the game, particularly when playing against a team that has been eliminated. The line-makers are aware of that belief and normally skew the line against the team that needs the game and will therefore be most likely going to be bet by the public.

A team that needs the game can only play up to their ability. Needing the game does not give the QB a stronger arm, or make the running backs faster, or increase the strength and quickness of the defensive line. Thus, although you will only bet the team that needs the game because the other team might not be trying, the team that needs the game must be able to cover the spread if the opponent is trying. While it is true that there is no limit to the extent that a team that has been eliminated or that has already clinched can lay down, you can't bet against them only for that reason unless you know for sure that they won’t come to play up to their full abilities.

Remember, the line will probably be skewed against the team that needs the game. If they handicap to cover the spread anyway, make the bet. Pass if the team that has clinched or that has been eliminated handicaps to cover. Absent an announcement by the team, if you bet on or against a team because you believe they will or won't come to play you will only be guessing. The smart money doesn't gamble. They invest based on knowledge and research. That means the smart money never depends on guesses.

SUMMARY: Bet only on teams that need the game to clinch a playoff spot or to win their division when they handicap to cover the spread. Only then can you be certain that the team will not lay down, will come to play, and has the ability to win.

THE WISEGUYS & THE 2012 HALL OF FAME GAME

Rob Crowne — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 23:11:19 GMT

The Wiseguys & the 2012 Hall of Fame Game

C. Robert Crowne Assoc. August,2012

You can’t follow the wiseguys by relying on after-the-fact betting action statements from the bookmakers.

If the bookmakers are correct in their assessment of the side chosen by the smart money, then you will be too late. Once the bookmaker tells you the smart money has bet a side, the books have already been hit and have moved the line. The edge in sports betting is very small – too small for you to try to win with an almost 10% disadvantage betting the underdog when the number moves from +3 down to only +2.5.

Even worse for those relying on bookmaker information, more times than not the early action is not the actual side the syndicates want to bet. Often enough, they will make a splash betting one side in order to move the line off a key number such as "3" and then they will come back and bet under the radar and for much more money on the opposite side. The next thing you hear, the bookmakers will tell you that the public money is going the other way. What the books are really seeing is wiseguy money coming back in bigger on the siopposite side with bets disguised as public money.

That is the case with this year’s Hall of Fame Game. There are articles around the Internet quoting bookmaking sources as saying that early wiseguy action came in on the underdog Arizona Cardinals. Betting early is the perfect time to move the line. The total amount of betting is thin, and amounts that might not make a dent on game day have an exaggerated effect on the early line. Obvious smart money betting had the desired effect and moved the Hall of Fame Game line down to +2.5 from an opening at +3. That allowed the smart money to come back and bet the team they really liked, New Orleans at a line that gave them a 10% advantage over the opening number. Today, game day, the books are proclaiming that the public is heavily weighted toward the favored New Orleans Saints.

From everything I can find out, Arizona was never the actual smart money side. The money that came in on Arizona was merely a line manipulation. The books were suckered by the smarts, as is often case. If the books couldn’t be fooled, the smart money could never make money.

The money that was bet earlier on Arizona sets up a potential side, and the excess on New Orleans sets up the potential profit. If New Orleans wins by more than 3 points, the wiseguys will lose the Arizona money and win the equalizing New Orleans money for a loss of the vig, and then win all the excess bets on the Saints. If Arizona covers the +3, then the wiseguys lose their New Orleans excess plus some extra vig on the Arizona-New Orleans equal portion. If, however, the game lands on exactly the Saints by 3 points, as it will 10% of the time, the wiseguys win all of their New Orleans bets including the bets that equalized the bets on the Cards, and the bets on Arizona will push. It’s like hitting the daily double.

There is a rule that will help you to know what is going on in the Preseason NFL wiseguy betting.

RULE: In the Preseason, the early wiseguy betting rarely reflects the side the wiseguys may actually like. It is money either attempting to set up a more advantageous bet on the other side, or money aimed at simply setting up a middling opportunity in which both sides are bet evenly at different lines.

The reason smart money rarely bets the real money early in the Preseason is that winning in the Preseason depends almost entirely on late player decisions, and announced coaching intentions. That information simply isn’t available early. Even the coaches don’t necessarily know on Tuesday or Wednesday exactly what they will be doing on Sunday. The smart money waits for the information before making the real bets.

The point, however, is that you can’t follow the proclamations of the books if you want bet with the syndicates. I have had access to information before the betting starts for two decades. I don’t have it for every game, but I do get it. You can get my NFL Preseason and regular season selections by clicking HERE. http://pregame.com/pregamepros/pro-bettor/bettor.aspx?id=4441#capper

A REAL ALL STAR GAME

Rob Crowne — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 22:48:58 GMT

Enough of meaningless all star games that look more like Harlem Globetrotter exhibitions than actual games. Enough of the showboating and pretending to play. Why even call what goes on in the NBA and NHL All Star silliness a game?

At last, we once again have the MLB All Star Game . It may not be quite the same as a real game, but at least you know the pitcher won’t be throwing powder puffs so the batter can look good, and the runners won’t be doing jigs to taunt the other side just before stepping on each base, and the catcher won't be doing his "throw the ball up and catch it in his hat" trick while the runner is sliding into home.

Since 2003, the result of the All Star Game has determined the home field advantage in the World Series. Granted, home field means less in baseball than in basketball or football, and free agency has done a good job of destroying any team and league pride or loyalty. In addition, there will be players on the field from teams that are already virtual impossibilities for the World Series and who therefore likely won’t have any interest whatever in the World Series home field edge.

I have to believe, however, that even the most disloyal or disinterested player will feel some responsibility to the others in his league. Players from teams that are contenders should have a definite interest in the All Star Game result.

Whatever the level of intensity the World Series home field prize brings about, it is certainly better than no incentive to win the All Star Game at all. No player wants to be criticized for simply showboating the way they do in the NBA, instead of working to help his league.

Sure, the best record is the best way to determine home field edge, but it was never that way in baseball. Before 2003, the leagues simply alternated home field edge from year to year. Using the All Star Game to determine home field is certainly better than that.

Kudos to Major League Baseball for turning the All Star Exhibition into a much more interesting All Star Game in which the players must at least pretend to be playing to win.

Speaking of the All Star Game, I've come back off vacation for my MLB FIRST HALF GAME OF THE YEAR going tonight after 10 PM Eastern Time. It carries my full personal money management 2.5 UNIT GAME OF THE YEAR LEVEL RISK. It's the first and only play I've put up for sale this year. After this I'm planning to go back to my hammock, so grab this winner while you can. It's just $25 and you can get it by CLICKING HERE or by copying the following and pasting it into your browser address bar:

http://pregame.com/pregamepros/pro-bettor/bettor.aspx?id=4441#capper

Martingale System Betting

Rob Crowne — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 07:03:00 GMT

Martingale System Betting
© Robert Crowne & Assoc., March 29, 2012

A Martingale system is a money management system that increases the amount wagered after a loss. The classic Martingale System involves doubling your bet after every loss.

The Martingale System was originally developed for even-money propositions in roulette -- black/white or odd/even. The attraction of the Martingale System is that it guarantees you must win over the long term. If you keep doubling your bet, in the long term a 50% proposition will have 50% wins for both sides of the bet, and thus, in the long term the bettor will eventually get an equal number of wins and losses. When one doubles, every win makes up for all the prior losses and gives you a profit of one minimum bet.

The problem with the Martingale System is that, in mathematics, the long term is defined as infinite. Red is only guaranteed to win 50% of the time in an infinite number of spins. Thus, to be guaranteed you will win, you must have an infinite bankroll. Not even The Donald has an infinite bankroll. Even if you are like the U.S. Government, and you can keep printing an infinite supply of your own money, the casinos are way ahead of you. They put maximum bet limits on the tables to stop the very rich from continuing to double.

If, for example, the minimum bet is $5 and the table maximum is $1000, as it is in many casinos, you will bump into the table maximum after just 8 losses in a row. If the table maximum is $3000 you will be stopped after 10 losses. The probability of an even money proposition losing 8 times in a row is 255-1, and 10 times in a row is 1023 -1. That means you will hit the table maximum and be unable to make up your losses once in every 256 Martingale Series at a table with a $1000 maximum, or once in every 1024 Martingale series if the table maximum is $3000.

Some bettors may go a long time before they have that inevitable losing series. But there is no guarantee it won't happen to you on the first try. When you are blocked by a $3000 maximum at a $5 table, your total loss will be $2555. That's tough to ever get back winning just $5 on every winning series.

Next, we'll examine Martingale Betting with other casino games and with sports and race betting to see if the advantages and disadvantages change.

Martingale Betting on Other Casino Games

Some people have tried to use the Martingale System at blackjack or craps. In those games, however, the Martingale System prevents the bettor from using the most advantageous game strategies.

In blackjack, two of the greatest player advantages lie in doubling and splitting. If you are sitting at a $5 table and have lost the prior 7 bets in a row, your bet is $640. To double or split, you must put up an additional $640 out of your pocket. If you lose, you will need to add the extra $640 loss to the normal double bet of $1280 for a total bet of $1920 on the next hand. Then, what if you get another doubling or splitting situation, or you are able to split again after the first split, or double after a split? If your hand requires a split, then a resplit, and then two doubles you could end up with $9600 out on the table. A loss on the hand would be much higher than the table maximum, and your unrecoverable loss would be much higher than otherwise expected.

At craps, one of the biggest player advantages is to make no-house-edge odds bets with each pass or don't pass bet. If, for example, 3x odds are permitted, the odds bet would be three times the bet on the board. Thus, if the table minimum is $5, your pass line bet after the come-out roll would be $20. If you lose, the next bet on the line must be $25 instead of just $10 at the roulette wheel, and with odds that becomes a total of $100. Lose again, and your next bet with odds will be $500. Lose three in a row, and you will need to stop if the casino has a standard $1000 maximum bet at a $5 table. Even if the casino has a $3000 limit, you will be required to stop after only the 4th loss in a row, and you will be down over $3700. Anyone who has ever played craps knows that winning or losing four rolls in a row is a frequent occurrence.

Martingale Sports Betting

The Martingale System cannot be used in points-line sports betting because the 11-10 odds you must lay will very quickly exceed the amount you can win at the end of the winning series of bets. For example, if you start by betting $5, and keep doubling your bet after each loss, after four losses your cumulative loss will be $75 and your next bet will be $80. At 11-10 odds, the win on an $80 flat bet is only $73. Obviously, the $73 win will not make up for your prior $75 of losses, and that situation only gets worse the higher your bet goes before you win.

The same problem that exists with points-line sports betting prevents the Martingale System from being usable in any situation in which you must lay more than even money on the bet. Martingale can be used, however, in any situation in which the bettor is getting even or plus odds on the money line.

Betting money-line underdogs in sports actually provides several advantages over using the Martingale System with roulette.

Advantages

1. The potential profit for a winning series when betting money-line underdogs increases with the bet size. When betting at even money, your potential profit on any win is only one starting bet. To illustrate, if you play +120 underdogs, and you have lost 4 in a row, your 5th bet would be $80. At roulette if the 5th bet wins, your profit after subtracting the $75 of prior losses will only be $5. If you are betting +120 underdogs, the profit if you win the 5th bet will be $80 x 1.20 = $96 minus the $75 you lost on the prior bets, leaving you with a net profit of $11. The plus odds situation makes the Martingale System a bit more attractive by increasing the potential profit.

2. The maximum bet limit is much higher, thereby greatly increasing the number of losses than can be endured before the Martingale System crashes. Every bookmaker has a maximum bet, but you can bet the same team at many different bookmakers. When using the Martingale System for betting money-line sports, the limit is one's own bankroll. Still, there is no guarantee you won't run out of money or available bookmakers before you get a winning underdog and a profitable series.

3. Sporting events can be successfully handicapped, thereby giving you a positive expectation along with the positive odds.

Martingale Pari-mutuel Betting

Pari-mutuel betting is a form of betting in which the amount of the final pay out the bettor receives is determined by the amount of money bet on each proposition in the wagering pool to the entire pool. Pari-mutuel betting is the form of betting used at racetracks and Jai Alai. The horse with the race upon which the most money is bet has the lowest odds and therefore the lowest payout, and the horse with the least amount of money bet has the highest odds and payout.

As when betting underdogs in sports, the Martingale system used at the race track, when betting Jai Alai, or when the odds are positive in other multi-bet pari-mutuel situations provides a few extra advantages over using the Martingale with casino games. There is, however, a counterbalancing disadvantage.

Advantages

1. Because of the comparatively high positive odds, there is the potential for a huge profit at the end of a winning Martingale series. Let's assume you decide to bet the second favorite in each race starting with a $2 bet. If you lose 6 races in a row, doubling after each loss your next bet will be $128, and your cumulative prior losses will total $126. If the odds on the second favorite are, hypothetically, 4-1 for your $128 bet, a win will provide a profit of $512, minus the prior $126 of loss for a net profit of $386. Compare that to the potential $2 net profit at roulette.

2. Pari-mutuel betting theoretically has no maximum bet, although there is a natural limit, which is the main disadvantage.

3. As with other types of sporting events, those bet with a pari-mutuel system can be successfully handicapped, but see the "Disadvantages" section below.

Disadvantages

1. The biggest disadvantage to using the Martingale System when pari-mutuel betting is that as your bet increases you will be decreasing your own odds and payout. It would not be unusual for the second favorite in our example above to fail to win for one entire day of 12 races. When that happens, your next bet the following day must be $4096. That size bet can cause your second favorite to become the favorite in most races on most days at most tracks. Lose two more races, and at many tracks, and in some lesser-bet races at the largest tracks, your system bet of $16,000 will cause your horse to be odds on. As we discussed, when the odds are negative, the Martingale System guarantees losses. Thus, the number of bets you can lose when pari-mutuel betting is naturally limited by the nature of pari-mutuel betting.

2. The larger number of possible winners in most pari-mutuel situations decreases the frequency at which you can expect to win, even if you handicap. The potential for longer losing streaks becomes a prohibitively negative factor when combined with the natural bet limit in pari-mutuel wagering.

Conclusion

The casinos are littered with bettors who were ruined by increasing their bets after a loss. The Martingale System is so dangerous that the stories about breaking the bank at Monte Carlo involved a team that pooled their money and forced the Casino to play the Martingale System at a time when Monte Carlo used to have no limit except the money in the table bank. The team, the story goes, simply reversed the Martingale System and doubled up on wins instead of losses at the roulette wheel until they finally hit a streak of wins large enough to break the bank. Of course, an equally large string of losses would have cost the team a great deal of money, but not close to as much as they stood to win, and not close to the amount that a double after losses would have cost

Realistically, the only area in which using the Martingale System of Money Management should ever be considered at all is when betting money-line underdogs in sports. You should not, however, even attempt to use the Martingale System betting underdogs without a 6-figure bankroll and unless you can handicap the sport well. You must also be sure that you have enough places to bet to be able to place a single bet equaling 50% of your starting bankroll.

Starting with a $5 flat bet, a $160,000 bankroll will last through only 16 losses. A +120 underdog has a 55% chance of losing. The odds against losing 16 in a row with a 55% chance of losing are 14285-1. Sound like it can't happen? I am a 58% handicapper and I've had a 19-0 winning run, and several 16-0 winning runs. If a 58% probability of winning can create 19 wins in a row, then a 55% chance of losing can create 16 losses in a row during your betting lifetime.

If you are not lucky enough to avoid that 0-16 losing run for your entire betting life, then, when it comes you will have a $160,000 catastrophe. Betting at odds of +120, your long-term expected average win per successful series of bets will be just $8. That means you will need to have 20,000 winning series just to break even from a single losing series. But the odds say you will lose another $160,000 before you get to 14,285 winning series. You see the problem.

If, by handicapping, you can increase your probability of winning each +120 underdog to 55% in favor of winning, you will not run out of money until you have 18 losses in a row, and your probability of getting to 20,000 winning series before a losing series increases to 21-1 in your favor.

Remember, however, that even in the most favorable situation, the Martingale System will only guarantee that you win if you have a no-limit infinite bankroll with which to bet, and someone to bet with who has a no-limit, infinite ability to pay you when you win. Otherwise, it may take a very long time, or even several lifetimes, but the Martingale System guarantees that eventually you will lose it all, and nothing says it won't happen long before you accumulate enough wins to equal a replacement bankroll. Disaster could could strike on the very first try.

Unless repeatedly risking $160,000 to win an average of $8 is your idea of a great time and easy road to riches, the best advice is: AVOID ANY SYSTEM THAT INCREASES YOUR BET SIZE BASED ON PRIOR LOSSES.

NY GIANTS ARE UNDOCUMENTED "FOREIGNERS"

Rob Crowne — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:44:00 GMT

NY GIANTS ARE UNDOCUMENTED "FOREIGNERS"

by Rob Crowne

© Rob Crowne Assoc., February 7, 2012

New Jersey has never had a good reputation, and the Super Bowl Champ Giants are out to prove it.

The Giants deserted New York in 1976 to move to a fancier stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, but for the next 35 years they continued to claim to be the NEW YORK GIANTS.

Today, the Giants victory parade will proceed up Broadway in New York City, and not in East Rutherford. The mayor of East Rutherford didn’t make a bet with the mayor of Boston on the outcome of he Super Bowl. It was the Mayor Bloomberg of New York City who made a bet with the mayor of Boston.

What other State is so bad that their sports teams want to pretend they are from someplace else? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie offered to pay for a Giants Victory Parade, but the Giants gave Christie the same answer that the Gov gave the Republican Party when they begged for him to enter the Presidential race – “Thanks but no thanks.” My attitude is that if the Giants want to play in New Jersey, let them parade through the swamp in the home of the Toxic Avenger, “The First Super Hero From NJ.”

In 1987, NYC Mayor Koch refused to use NYC taxpayer money to pay for a Giants Victory Parade, declaring the Giants to be “foreigners.” Koch had the right idea. New Jersey gets all the tax money from ticket sales, all the tax money from stadium food and souvenirs, all the property tax money from the Stadium, and all the income taxes from the Stadium, the team, the players and the personnel, not to mention that New Jersey gets all the jobs at Giants Stadium. The Giants organization doesn’t contribute anything to the City of New York. All they do is steal New York’s name and reputation. So why should the taxpayers of New York pay the estimated $400,000 expense for a parade?

It doesn’t matter if you won the Super Bowl. If you are not from the Big Apple, then you’re nobody. The Giants have spent long enough as New York wannabes. It’s about time they built a stadium in New York if they want ticker-tape parades in New York, and if they want to use New York’s name.

Notice, I didn’t say anything about the taxpayers in New York paying for or subsidizing the stadium. That sort of thing should be left to municipalities that need a team. The Big Apple doesn’t need the Giants; the Giants obviously need New York.

The Giants are a profit-making business. They charge the fans so much money that the average family can’t afford to go to a game, even if there were tickets ever available for a game. There are no tickets to be had except from people scalping season tickets in the parking lot on the day of the game. There is no reason for the taxpayers to be providing welfare to the Giants organization.

I won’t be attending any victory parades for the Giant deserters until they either move back to New York, or Eli Manning marries Giselle and takes her along in the parade.

A TALE OF TWO SUGAR BOWL TEAMS

Rob Crowne — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:45:00 GMT

"It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." -- Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

It was the best of games, it was the worst of games. If you're watching it should be a good game. For bettors, it's the worst of games.

The Sugar Bowl matches two very equal teams. Both should be happy to be there and trying hard to win. Michigan is 10-2. Virginia Tech played an extra geme and is 11-2. Tech has the better quarterback, but not by much. Va Tech averages 40 more yards per game through the air, but Michigan averages 47 more yards per game on the ground.

The two teams are exactly equal in defensive yards allowed per game. Michigan has averaged 6 more points per game, but that doesn't mean much in college football. Va Tech has managed slightly more sacks per game on the oppostion quarterback.

Va Tech has been intercepted fewer times, but Michigan has intercepted the opposing quarterback more often. Michigan has the edge in fumbles forced by less than one per game. Michigan's offense has been penalized 16 yards less per game on average, but Va Tech's defense has been penalized 26 fewer yards per game.

The above 10 yard advantage for Michigan in penalties and the fumble advantage is balanced by Virginia Tech's slightly better special team numbers.

Michigan is favored by 3. So,in an equally matched game we should take the points, right? Wrong. I can't recommend a play at all. The problem is that the game can't end in a tie. That dissolves much of the advantage of the extra 3 points. If everything plays out as it should, the winner of this game will be the team that scores last. To a great extent, that it is a matter of luck, as is whether the final score is a field goal or a touchdown. Field goals have lesser importance in college ball than in the NFL. A line of 3 pushes just half as often in the NCAA as in the NFL, and less often than the numbers 7 and 10.

Luck is the enemy of the skilled handicapper. There is simply not enough edge for a play on either team.

WHAT'S A BEEF 'O' BRADY'S?

Rob Crowne — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:31:00 GMT

What’s a Beef ‘O’Brady’s?

No sooner did I finally figure out what a Chic-Fil-A is, then along comes the Beef O’Brady Bowl. I figure if all Beef ‘O’ Brady’s could sponsor was a minor bowl, they must be a minor business. It turns out that’s exactly what they are -- an Irish Pub-type place that caters to the minors in your family.

If you’ve never heard of a Beef ‘O’ Brady’s, you probably don’t live within shouting distance of Disney World. I live in the Big Apple, and the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s locator map tells me that my nearest Beef ‘O’ Brady’s is about 350 miles away in Frederick, Maryland. Great! I think I’ll load the kids in the car and take the family to dinner this Sunday.

By the way, the single quote marks around the ‘O’ are not a typo. That’s the way the Beef ‘O’ Brady folks spell the name. They probably got the idea from E*Trade spelled with an asterisk.

So what’s so special for kids at Beef ‘O’ Brady’s? There’s a “Kids Menu” that is as non-descript and unimaginative as Marshall and Florida International -- the two teams in this year’s Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl. If I asked you to tell me what’s on the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Kids’ Menu, you’d probably be able to guess the whole thing sight unseen. There’s grilled cheese, mac & cheese, small burgers, hot dogs, and chicken nuggets. Every kid’s entrée comes with one side. Choices include fries, mashed potatoes, and pub fries. You were expecting maybe Tourchon Fois Gras and Rabbit a la Moutarde with a side of Pommes Dauphine?

Mac & Cheese with pub fries on the side – yummy. Can you say, “Early onset of Type 2 diabetes?” In deference to the modern health food craze, there are healthy choices like broccoli (yuck) and celery sticks (even more yuck). Do the Beef ‘O’ Brady people really believe that broccoli and celery sticks are the two vegetables kids most desire? Even the President of the U.S. won’t eat those vegetables. My best bet for the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl is that Beef ‘O’ Brady’s restaurants don’t have any broccoli or celery in the kitchen at all and nobody knows the difference. In fact, to all you kids out there, if your parents take you to Beef ‘O’ Brady’s and then order celery sticks for you, there are lawyers who will sue to get you a new set of foster parents.

Beef ‘O’ Brady’s does give the kids free refills of milk or juice, instead of free refills of soft drinks like all those other guys. That’s a nice touch for which I must give Beef ‘O’ Brady’s credit.

As you can imagine, any place that caters to kids is guaranteed to be so noisy and obnoxious that it will make anyone over the age of 18 to lose their appetite. If your girlfriend suggests that you take her to Beef ‘O’ Brady’s for dinner this Saturday Night you better start reading between the lines.

Naturally, Beef ‘O’ Brady’s knows that any family silly enough to go to dinner with the kids wants nothing more than to get the rid of the kids they just intentionally dragged along. For that reason, Beef ‘O’ Brady’s adds to family togetherness at meals by providing a game room where your kids can disappear and give all the money you designated for betting the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl to Beef ‘O’ Brady’s by feeding it into the game-machine slots. Wave bye-bye to the betting bankroll.

TIP: Here’s a tip for preserving your bankroll while eating at Beef ‘O’ Brady’s. Tell your kids that you can’t afford to give them any money for the game room. Then let them run amuck in the aisle of the restaurant juiced on all those carbs from the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Kid’s Menu. Eventually, either the restaurant manager or the people at the surrounding tables will point out to you that there is great game room. At this point you know that their kids are in the game room and therefore they are defenseless. They have no kids around to harass you and get revenge. When they suggest that you send your kids to the game room, put on your saddest face and tell them you’d love to, but you’re unemployed and this is the first time all year that you have been able to save enough from odds jobs to take the family out for the special occasion of your wife’s birthday.

Either the manager will give your kids free coins for the game room to get them out of the aisles, or the surrounding patrons will take up a collection to send your little monsters to the game room to keep their little monsters company.

Conclusion: Your kids get to play in the game room, you get an hour of peace and quiet over your desert and coffee – unless the people at the next table have also read this tip – and you can still make a bet on the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl.

Important: If your table neighbor puts on a sad face and says he can’t afford to send his brats to the game room, DO NOT contribute to the collection. Instead, insist that the manager send the food-fighting little gangsters to the game room for free or you and your family will get their weekly dose of excess cholesterol somewhere else from now on. You can also claim the restaurant has violated the implied warranty of peaceful dining, and refuse to pay for the meal, which will give you even more money to bet the bowls.

When it comes to betting the bowls, the bowl games are the strongest, most reliable and most formful part of the year for handicapping. We’ve been burning up the gridiron with and incredible 61% bowl winners over the entire 20-year history of the Crowne Club.

Stop wondering where the beef might be. It'll be on your bookmkar's balck eye that you give me with my “WHERE’S THE BEEF PACKAGE” up right now with the winning side and total in the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl.

If your tastes run more to chateaubriand than sliders and fries, then you can get the same selections plus everything else we put out on the remaining 32 games and 64 playable propositions in the Bowls with my FULL BOWL PACKAGE that gives you every play, the big and small, all the way through the BCS Bowl in January. Get either today’s package or the Full Bowl Package by CLICKING HERE.

http://pregame.com/pregamepros/pro-bettor/bettor.aspx?id=4441#capper

BIG PLAYS & THE HANDICAPPER'S JOB

Rob Crowne — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 03:18:07 GMT

BIG PLAYS AND THE JOB OF THE HANDICAPPER

"A one year record is totally irrelevant to me. Give me someone’s five-year record or lifetime record that’s what’s really significant. Take a coin and flip it 80 times and you’ll be shocked how often you get 50 tails and 30 heads.” -- Fezzik after winning the Hilton Supercontest twice in a row

I keep reading posts in the various sports-betting forums from people who seem to believe that if a handicapper is any good then his or her big plays must win. Nothing could be further from correct. Handicapping is not about guarantees; it is about probability.

Handicappers do not lose games. Teams lose games. I don’t know a single professional handicapper who goes onto the field or court and plays the game. A team can lose even though the handicapper correctly calculates the probability and predicts a win. The handicapper does not pick absolute, can't-lose teams; he picks teams that he calculates to have a better probability of winning than the posted odds. The farther away from the posted odds, the bigger the play, but that does not guarantee a win. Evaluating a handicapper takes more than a mere calculation of wins and losses.

To accurately evaluate a handicapper based on wins and losses requires looking at a series of between 500 and 1000 selections all in the same subdivision of the same sport and all similarly rated. To evaluate a handicapper in less than 500 to 1000 selections in a sport requires evaluating the methods used by the handicapper. If the methods used should accurately calculate the probabilities, a win. A poster recently wrote, “I don’t care how smart you are, you are not a winning ‘capper.” Such a statement is an oxymoron. If the methodology is correct the wins and losses will eventually reflect it.

As a practical example, let’s take a look at Fezzik. He was the first Hilton contestant to ever win two years in a row. Both years his final record was over 64%. People hailed him as a football genius. Some told me that Fezzik was the living proof that I was wrong when I said that no one could consistently win over 59%. To his everlasting credit, Fezzik himself attributed his high percentages to an incredible amount of luck. Then in the third year Fezzik finished the contest at just below 50%. This year, after 12 weeks, he stands at 45.6%. After winning over 64% on approximately 165 selections, he is now well below a coin flip on the last 130 selections.

So which is if? Is Fezzik a football genius or, in the words of the critic posted above, is Fezzik “not a winning ‘capper?” The answer is that unless Fezzik reveals how he handicaps the NFL, we simply don’t know. The run on the first 160 games, and the run on the next 130 games, and the whole group of 290 games together are simply not sufficient to make a judgment. Come back after another four years of selections and I’ll tell you if Fezzik accurately calculates NFL probabilities. Right now, he’s on schedule to be below the 59% limit on handicapper wins. I suspect he’s neither a genius nor a loser, but somewhere in between.

When speaking about handicapped probability, I always use the same example regarding black balls and white balls in a bag. This time, however, I'm going to change it slightly. Suppose you have three bags, each with 10 balls in it. The first bag has 1 white ball and 9 black balls. The second bag has 3 white balls and 7 black balls. The third bag has 5 white balls and 5 black balls.

Now let's imagine that the posted spreads and money lines on picking a black ball out of the bag are:

Bag 1: -850 (9 black balls and 1 white)

Bag 2: -200 (7 black balls and 3 white)

Bag 3: + 150 (5 black balls and 5 white)

All of the above bets provide an edge, but which play would get the top rating as the BEST BET OF THE DAY? The handicapper's job is to go into each bag, count up the black and white balls, calculate the probability of a black ball being the first one picked, and compare that to the posted odds.

Bag 1 Obviously, in the bag with 9 black balls, the probability is the highest that a black ball will be picked, but that bet is the worst of all of them. The true odds of picking a black ball from that bag are 9-1 in the bettor’s favor, but he or she must lay 8.50-1. That's an edge, but a very small one. If a bettor makes 10 picks from Bag 1, and bets $8.50 to win $1 on black each time, he or she will win $1 nine times, and lose $8.50 once for a mere $0.50 profit on $85 risked.

Bag 2 With Bag 2, the odds of picking a black ball are only 2.33 - 1 in the bettor’s favor. The odds the bettor must lay ARE 2-1. That means that if you bet $2.00 on 10 picks from the bag, you will win $1 seven times for a total of $7, and lose $2.00 three times for a total profit of $1 on an investment of $20.

Bag 3 Even though there is only a 50-50 chance of picking a black ball out of Bag 3, you will get +$1.50 every time you do it. That means if you bet $1 on each of 10 picks you will lose the $1 five times, but you will also win $1.50 five times for a profit of $2.50 on a risk of only $10.

Obviously, if the handicapper is doing his job, the bag with a 50-50 chance of picking a black ball will be his best bet, even though the likelihood that any one pick from that bag being black is the worst.

Note that just because there is only one white ball in Bag #1 does not mean that black MUST win on the first draw. If the posted odds are raised from –850 to –950, the bet on black would have a negative expectation and the bag with the most black balls should not be bet at all. If, however, the odds were reduced to 11-10, the bet would probably become the Best Bet of the Year with a break even of 52.4% measured against a 90% probability of winning..

So how did moving the odds around change the probability that a white ball would be the first one picked, and the handicapper’s Bet of the Year would lose? It didn't. So long as there is a white ball still in the bag, there is always a chance the white ball will be the first one picked out of the bag, and that chance stays the same no matter what the posted odds. You need to make hundreds of picks from the bags before you can determine if the handicapper has accurately calculated the probability of each bag.

The probability of a win from a bag with a fixed number of black and white balls does not change when the posted line changes. Only the quality of the bet will change with a change in the odds or spread. A loss on the first pick of a ball from the bag can occur despite the handicapper being absolutely correct in his calculations. If the first ball picked is replaced into the bag and another pick is made, a loss can occur a second time, and the same thing can happen again a third time in a row if the bettor keeps doing the same thing. Each loss will be an independent event. The balls in the bag for the second pick don’t know that a white ball appeared from the first bag. If there are 7 black balls in a bag of 10 balls, a white ball will be picked a second time in a row with the same frequency as it will be picked the first time.

In sports, a 70% chance of winning is about as good as it ever gets. The likelihood that two games correctly handicapped with a 70% probability of winning is once in every 11 pairs of picks. In other words, it happens. Given that, what does two or three losses on big plays say about the quality of the handicapper? Absolutely nothing.

You can, however, make judgments based on the handicapper’s methodology. For example, a handicapper who opens the bag and counts the balls is likely to be more accurate than a handicapper who says to bet black because black has won 10 times in a row without counting the balls in the bag.

The reason a bettor will be a winner betting on accurately handicapped 70% propositions is not because he will never lose. The reason he will be a winner is that he will have seven wins for every three losses. He will win two in a row 49% of the time, and lose two in a row only 9% of the time. The rest of the time he will split. At the end of the season that spells W-I-N-N-E-R.

In sports betting, there is never a zero chance of a loss, even in fixed games. In fact, if a handicapper accurately calculates the probability that a proposition will win to be a huge 70%, then, at the same time he is telling you that the game will lose three times in every 10 bets, which is once in less than every three bets. If you are foolish enough to over bet a selection just because it is labeled a big play, and then it loses, don’t blame the handicapper. There is a good chance your big loss is your fault for bad money management, not his fault for a bad handicap. Money management is no less important than accurate handicapping.

NFL HALF-TIME RANT

Rob Crowne — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:56:34 GMT

NFL HALF TIME RANT

In the NFL, there are exactly 13 minutes from the time the teams start to walk off the field to the time they kick the ball for the second half. I suspect the timing of the break at the half is regulated by the NFL since every game, except the Super Bowl, is exactly the same 13 minutes almost to the second.

A mere 13-minute break makes no practical sense whatever. Given that it takes the teams a minute or two to get back to the locker room, sometimes the players or coach are delayed another few minutes by the media, and it takes another 2-3 minutes for the teams to get from the locker room back on the field and line up for the kick, there is barely enough time for the players to relieve their bladder and change their shirt. Important to handicappers is that there is virtually no time for the coaches to make adjustments or discuss problems and adjustments with the team.

The NFL has certainly not dictated such a short break for the benefit of the media or the fans in the stands. College half-time breaks can last as long as 30 minutes, and the media do just fine filling in the time. In fact, the more space for commercials the better.

Further, the teams make a great deal of money from the concessions. If you've ever been to a packed stadium, you know that you can barely get from your seat to the urinals and back in 13 minutes. If you want a hot dog and a beer you may need to wait on line well beyond the second-half kick off. All you need to do is to watch the fans jumping off the concession line because the team just kicked to realize how much money the short break costs the concessions. There is definitely no time to go to the rest rooms, buy a souvenir for the kid, and get some refreshments.

What, then, is the logic to making the break so short? The only reason I can imagine is to inconvenience half-time bettors and bookmakers.

I make a great deal of money hetting at the half. I am so successful at betting the second half that I have often considered not betting any game until the half. The player has huge advantages at the half. All game time decisions are known. The game plans are known. How the teams are matching up becomes known. Questions about the performance of injured players or second string players coming in for an injured starter are known. The player can use such information to make his prediciton more accurate, but the bookmakers cannot use the information to make the line more accurate. The half-time line is limited, in most instances, by the bookmaker's need to avoid more than a 10 point middle on game bets.

The whole thing just doesn't balance out. Betting the second half can keep fans interested, in the seats, and watching the commercials on TV in blow out games. Even if there is some advantage to NFL in preventing half-time betting, that advantage doesn't balance the damage to the game, the inconvenience to the non-betting fans, and the loss of money to the concessions. It's time the owners themselves spoke up and brought the NFL out of their fog of stupidity.

To get the Sunday night side & total for November 13, 2011 OR my first college basketball play of the season, simply CLICK HERE

http://pregame.com/pregamepros/pro-bettor/bettor.aspx?id=4441#capper

CALCULATING the HILTON CONSENSUS AND THE MONDAY TOP PLAY

Rob Crowne — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:40:00 GMT

                                                                                    The Hilton Consensus
                                                                             “Everything is relative.” -- Albert Einstein

This past week Minnesota was selected by 145 contestants. Only 16 contestants picked against Minnesota by selecting Arizona. Despite the 129-contestant differential between those picking Minnesota and those picking Arizona, Minnesota did not make it into the Top 5 Consensus posted around the net. Instead, Tennessee was installed in 5th Place in the Consensus with 148 contestants picking Tennessee, and 72 contestants picking against Tennessee, for a differential of only 76 contestants. The reason Tennessee was installed above Minnesota in the Consensus is that Tennessee has 148 contestants pick the team, while three fewer contestants picked Minnesota. Which would you say was the stronger true public pick?

The number of contestants picking a team, without consideration of the number of people selecting the opposite side of the game, measures popularity of the game, not consensus of public handicapping opinion. The line is set in the hope of splitting public opinion. What those who want to go with or against public opinion are seeking are those games in which the public believes that one team is significantly more likely to cover the spread than the other.

If the line does it job and splits public opinion, we learn nothing except that the line is accurate for bookmaking purposes. There are 516 entrants in the Hilton Contest this year. Of those, 220 made a selection in the Tennessee vs. Pittsburgh game. Only 161 contestants made a selection in the Minnesota vs. Arizona game. That tells us that the Tennessee game was more popular than the Minnesota game. We are NOT, however, seeking the more popular game. We are seeking the more popular team compared to its opponent. Tennessee was picked by 67% if those choosing to make a selection on the game. Minnesota was picked by a huge 90% of those choosing to make a selection on that game. That tells us that, even though neither line is as accurate in splitting public sentiment as it should be, the Tennessee line is doing a much better job than the Minnesota line.

If you were a bookmaker, which line would you believe needs a bigger adjustment? It would be Minnesota, of course. If you use the consensus for information the games you are looking for are the games in which the line is doing the worst job. Consensus exists in relation to the teams playing in the individual game, and NOT in relation to all the games on the board. A game in there is a 90% consensus on a single team should not have been off the Top 5 consensus list, it should have been up at #1 with its 90% consensus to one side of the game.

The method to be used to calculate the correct and most useful consensus is to subtract the highest number of picks in each game from the lower number of picks on the opposite side. The greater the differential, the stronger the public consensus is on that team.

Below is the Consensus List as it existed in the 5th Week of the regular season NFL and the true Consensus List calculated correctly:

POSTED CONSENSUS LIST
(the number next to each team is the number of contestants selecting that team)

1.   Philadelphia (174) –2.5 over Buffalo (18) Consensus: Philadelphia 90.6%
2.   Cincinnati (162)    +2.5 over Jaguars (46) Consensus Cinci 77.9%
3.   Jets (158) +9 over New England (51) Consensus: Jets 75.6%
4.   Atlanta (157) +6 over Green Bay (91) Consensus: Atlanta 63.3%
5.   Tennessee (148) +3.5 over Pittsburgh (72) Consensus: Tenn 67.3%

TRUE CONSENSUS LIST

1.   Philadelphia (174) –2.5 over Buffalo (18) Consensus: Philadelphia 90.6%
2.   Minnesota (145) -2.5 over Arizona (16) Consensus: Minnesota 90.1%
3.   Giants (115) –9.5 over Seattle (32) Consensus: Giants 78.2%
4.   Cincinnati (162) +2.5 over Jaguars (46) Consensus: Cinci 77.9%
5.   Jets (158) +9 over New England (51) Consensus: Jets 75.6%

The result on both lists was 2-2 with a push at the Hilton line or a loss at the line most people got of only +7.5 on the Jets. The results are not necessarily the same every week. If you are someone who uses the public consensus to predict line movement, or to make your plays for or against, it is important to use the true consensus.

It is my belief that the public will neither win nor lose often enough to create an advantage. The bookmaker earns his profit from the vig, not from beating the bettors. The bookmaker makes a profit from the vig because the public consistently wins less than the 52.5% rate required to beat the bookmaker’s commission. You are no better off betting against the public than betting with them. You will lose the vig on both sides.

The public consensus from the Hilton Contest is important, however, as a predictor of the direction in which the line is likely to move. In fact, there is some evidence that one of the purposes of the Contest for the Hilton is the perfection of their line. Accurately predicting line moves is important to a determination as to whether to bet earlier or wait, and as to the probability of a middling opportunity.

The lines in the Hilton Contest come out early in the week. Philadelphia moved from –2.5 up to –3. Minnesota moved from –2.5 all the way to –3.5, with the all-important #3 in the middle. The Giants moved from –9.5 up to the key number of –10. The Bengals moved down to +1, although late information sent it back to +2.5. The Jets moved from +9 all the way down to the key number of +7 in many places. The Jets lost by exactly and the move meant the difference between a push and a loss. The books do not base their line moves on the number of people playing on a game compared with other games, but rather on the imbalance of action within the game itself. Bookmakers love popular games with action on both sides, but they hate games with extreme one-sided action.

                                                This Week’s Monday Night Game

The Monday Night game between Chicago and Detroit is the third most accurate line in the Contest as far as public opinion is concerned. Detroit was picked by 133 Contestants, but Chicago was picked by 91, for a difference of just 42 contestants and a consensus of just 59% toward Detroit. As if to confirm the closeness of contestant opinion, the entrant currently ranked #1 after Sunday’s selections has picked Detroit –5 ½, while the current #2 in the Contest likes Chicago +5.5. The line is currently –6 ½ or –7, and will likely be at –7 by game time. Whether or not the top contestant, Sans Souci still would like Detroit at –6 ½ or –7 is unknown, but the current second place contestant, SamWins must now love Chicago even more. Public opinion, however, seems to be well split, with a normal bias toward the favorite.

BATTLE OF THE BAY & THE PRESEASON ADMONITION

Rob Crowne — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:15:00 GMT

The Preseason Admonition warns against using Preseason NFL performance to handicap the regular season.

As with almost every admonition, however, there are exceptions. One of those exceptions occurs in cases in which a team tries to win in the Preseason, but can't beat an opponent that is simply going through the motions.

One of the most important factors in handicapping NFL exhibition games is the intention of each coach. Coaches often hint at their intent before the game.

As a general rule, the coach that wants to win a Preseason game will win when matched up against a coach whose primary goal is something other than winning the game.

The above rule will produce winners a very high percentage of the time. Following coaching intentions in Preseason games is similar to picking stocks based on purchases by a top executive. Who better to know if a company's stock will increase in value than the men on the inside whose responsibility it is to run the company? Likewise, who better to know if his team will be trying to win and has the ability to win an exhibition game than the guy whose responsibility it is to run the team?

The biggest problem in applying the rule is accurately gauging the intentions of the coaches. Coaches rarely, if ever, lie about their intentions, but they often don't state them clearly. Handicappers must read between the lines, and it is at that point that errors occur.

Thus, built into most preseason handicaps is an error factor based in a possible misinterpretation of a coach's statements. In the rare circumstance that both coaches make clear and unequivocal statements about their intentions, the possibility of misinterpretation as a source of error is eliminated. Clearly stated coaching intentions add a great deal of accuracy to a preseason prediction, and serve to greatly increase the probability of an accurate prediction. Under Kelly betting principles, an increased probability of accuracy allows for a safe increase in the amount that can be invested in relation to total bankroll or, in other words, a stronger play.

The annual preseason meeting between the Oakland Raiders and the San Francisco 49ers has come to be known as the "Battle of the Bay." Two weeks ago, the 2011 Battle of the Bay not only determined bragging rights between two San Francisco Bay area teams, but provided evidence of the overriding principle that applies to every sport, every investment, every type of handicapping, every type of fundamental and technical investment analysis, and every type of prediction that can be made based on information, analysis and handicapping. That is:

NOTHING WORKS ALL THE TIME.

New coach of the Oakland Raiders, Hue Jackson, lost his first game of the Preseason played at Oakland. Most new coaches want to win the first Preseason home game in order to garner favor with the fans and management. Oakland was on he road for the Battle of the Bay, but they weren't far from home, and winning bragging rights could be considered more important than the first home game. The Raiders and the 49'ers are in such close proximity geographically that winning or losing the Battle of the Bay could have an effect on ticket sales for the season.

San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh is also in his first year. Theoretically, his desire to win the Battle of the Bay game should have been equal to that of Jackson. Add to that the fact that it was San Francisco's first home game, and that San Francisco lost its first game of the season, played at New Orleans.

Both coaches should have wanted to win the match, resulting in a game that is an unpredictable no play in the preseason. Instead, the game turned into what I believed to be the best investment opportunity of the entire Preseason. The reason was based in the occurrence of something very unusual. Prior to the Battle of the Bay, the coaches of both teams made statements about their intentions that were absolutely clear and unequivocal.

Coaches rarely state outright that they intend to win. Rather, they only allude to it in order to leave room for saving face if their desire to win does not translate into the final score. For that reason, if a coach states an unequivocal intent to win a preseason game, it demonstrates extreme confidence in his team's ability to do so. If the team fails to win a preseason game after the coach declares clearly that he intends to win, the coach appears to be incompetent. That is particularly true if his team is matched against a team whose coach has declared that it will simply be going through the motions.

In his two press conferences before the Battle of the Bay, Raiders coach Hue Jackson said that he wanted to win the game not just once, but an amazing six times. During his final press conference before the game, Jackson said specifically,

"I don't like to lose. This is the Battle of the Bay. We're going to San Francisco to win. Our goal is to win."

In case that wasn't clear enough, Jackson continued, "We're not paying the toll on the bridge just to play. We're making the trip to win."

Still not content that he made his intentions clear, Jackson said, "After the game I want to walk into one of those great San Francisco restaurants with all eyes on me, and feeling pumped."

I don't think I've ever heard a coach make such a strong statement of intention. The only thing Jackson could have added to make his desire clearer would have been to actually predict the final score.

San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh, on the other hand, said before the game, "After all the sacks last week we'll be emphasizing protection of the quarterback and avoiding injury. This is the preseason, we're not out to kick anybody's teeth in."

Thus, we had Oakland with a coach that said six times, "I want to win," playing against the Niners with a coach whose intent was to protect his players and not "kick anybody's teeth in." Statements like that create a huge probability of a win by the coach that wants it. There was virtually no possibility that the intentions of the coaches had been misunderstood. The biggest error factor in handicapping a preseason game -- possible misinterpretation of the intent of the coaches -- was eliminated.

To make matters even better for an investment on the Raiders, they were installed as an underdog. The close proximity of the teams made any home field advantage for the Niners negligible. Oakland appeared to be a very high probability play at a bargain price, and a dream investment.

Nevertheless, Oakland, the team that was "not crossing the bay just to play," managed to score only 3 points in the fourth quarter, and lost badly to a team that was merely trying to protect its players and "not trying to kick anybody's teeth in." It was a lesson in why money management is so important, no matter how certain a predicted game result may look.

Rather than walking into an excellent San Francisco eatery feeling pumped, Hue Jackson probably hid in the car while his driver ordered Big Macs to go. If he did show his face at a real restaurant, Jackson walked in looking like a complete fool, and likely wearing sunglasses . Not only did his team lack the talent and plays to win, but they were not even competitive on offense.

Jackson's knowledge of his team's abilities was faulty, and the inability of the coaching staff to call winning plays against a team that is not playing hard indicates a mind-boggling degree of incompetence

The 2011 Battle of the Bay did, however, more than make up for the loss of a single strong bet by providing an insight into the Oakland Raiders that can result in future profits far in excess of the loss. The reason that preseason results normally cannot be used as a basis for regular season handicapping is that the best team may lose in the preseason simply because it is not trying, and poor teams may look terrific simply because their opponents are lying down.. In the Battle of the Bay, however, we can be certain of the intention of the coaches. Had Oakland won, it would have meant little because San Francisco was not trying. But if a team trying hard to win loses to a team that is merely going through the motions, it provides a very accurate measure of a bad team and poor coaching.

It was no surprise that Oakland went on to lose once more in preseason Game 3, again with coach Jackson saying he would be trying to win. Amazingly, in his press conference before tonight's Game 4, Jackson was still proclaiming his desire to win. The following exchange took place with a reporter:

“Q: What are you looking to accomplish in this last preseason game?

Coach Jackson: Another dress rehearsal. You know obviously I like to play to win and I haven’t won yet so it is pissing me off. That might be why I am pissed, but other than that I think it is another opportunity for us to get ready before the season starts. I think our players understand that, at least they know that and that is what we need to do.”

We know what happened in the Game 3 dress rehearsal, and in the Battle of the Bay. It is not obvious that Jackson likes to win, but rather that Oakland can’t win. Don't count on Oakland winning tonight either, although the game is best avoided because Seattle coach Carroll's intentions are unclear in this final game, and.there is no limit to the extent that Seattle might lay down.

Remember the Raiders preseason performance when the regular season begins next week. At least until all of the starters are back from injury, Oakland will be one of the few exceptions to the maxim that the preseason should be ignored when handicapping the regular season. Once the first team fully returns, watch one game to see if there is any difference in performance. If not, Oakland may be one of the surest go-against teams ever to play in the NFL.

NEW NFL PRESEASON FACTOR

Rob Crowne — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:14:00 GMT

Information about team and coach intentions, rotations, and readiness is the only thing the handicapper has to work with in the Preseason. This year, a new dimension has been added in the early games that has made obtaining information even more important than normal.

Due to the lockout, the teams have barely had enough time to get their starters in shape to play. That has created a situation in which there has been less time to evaluate or prepare the new players.
This situation has caused a great deal of debate about what it will mean to the Preseason games. There is no single answer. Various coaches are handling the matter differently, and it is important to winning in the opening round of games to know how what each coach will be doing.

To no one's surprise, Packer coach Mike McCarthy has said that the starters will play even less than normal to avoid injuries due to being out of shape, and that he will be primarily looking at the younger players in tonight's game.

New coach Ron Rivera of Carolina says that he will be giving the young players little time to show what they can do, and that he will keep the first and second stringers on the field longer because they need more work than might normally be the case.

Buffalo Bills coach, Chan Gailey says that trying to evaluate the young players will be his primary goal in tonight's game, because there has been less time than normal to evaluate them in camp. Of course, that Gailey will be doing nothing that may cause his team to win a Preseason game (or a regular season game either for that matter) is nothing new.

St. Louis coach Steve Spagnuolo will have his starters in only for one drive in order to avoid injury to players who still are not up to speed physically or mentally.

The other coaches tonight have said that the short training camp will not change what they normally would do in the first game of Preseason.

Knowing what the coaches will do in this new situation can give a strong clue as to their team's performance tonight. Ignore it at your peril.
__________________

THERE'S MORE TO BASEBALL THAN PITCHING AND STREAKS

Rob Crowne — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 21:23:00 GMT

Normal 0

THERE'S MORE TO BASEBALL THAN PITCHING AND STREAKS

Normal 0

I am forever amazed at how many baseball bettors rely solely on pitching statistics to make their selections. Then, when the better pitcher loses, those same bettors wonder why.

Like every other sport, baseball has an offense as well as a defense, and a team behind the pitcher. The best pitcher in the league won't win if his team can't get the bat on the ball, or if his team commits fielding error after fielding error, or if his team can't run the bases well. All those factors make up 5o% of the game, and pitching is no more than the other 50%. Looking at a few pitching statistics is easy. Anybody can pick the best pitcher. Still, most people don't win over the course of the baseball season.

The public tendency to treat the pitcher as if he were 100% of the game, instead of just 50%, is one of the biggest reasons for public losses in baseball, and it is the basis for much of the advantage the smart money has in baseball.

The linemaker's job is to split public opinion. It is well known that the public treats pitching, along with streaks and won-lost records, as the most important betting factors in baseball, and the lines are set accordingly. Baseball lines reflect pitching statistics, with some adjustment for team and pitcher streaks. and perhaps a slight adjustment for won/lost records. Knowing that the best pitcher is not 100% of the game gives the true full-team handicapper a huge edge over the faulty line.

BELMONT STAKES: Does the Post Matter? + (Added Comment)

Rob Crowne — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 01:49:00 GMT

Normal 0

BELMONT STAKES: Does the Post Matter?

The post position draw for this Saturday's Belmont Stakes took place Wednesday, and final jockey assignments were announced. Here are the results:

1	Master of Hounds	10-1	Garrett Gomez	Aidan O'Brien
2	Stay Thirsty	20-1	Javier Castellano	Todd Pletcher
3	Ruler On Ice	20-1	Jose Valdivia Jr	Kellly Breen
4	Santiva	15-1	Shaun Bridgmohan	Eddie Kenneally
5	Brilliant Speed	15-1	Joel Rosario	Tom Albertrani
6	Nehro	4-1	Corey Nakatani	Steve Asmussen
7	Monzon	30-1	Jose Lezcano	Ignacio Correas IV
8	Prime Cut	15-1	Edgar Prado	Neil Howard
9	Animal Kingdom	2-1	John Velazquez	H Grahm Motion
10	Mucho Macho Man	10-1	Ramon Dominguez	Kath Ritvo
11	Isn't He Perfect	30-1	Rajiv Maragh	Doodnauth Shivmangal
12	Shackleford	9-2	Jesus Castanon	Dale Romans

Animal Kingdom was installed as the 2-1 morning line favorite and Schackleford's odds were set at 9-2, despite Shackelford having beaten Animal Kingdom just three weeks ago in the Preakness. The morning line odds are set by the track racing secretary, and are the closest modern equivalent to the odds that were set by on-track bookmakers before the advent of parimutuel wagering. Once parimutuel betting starts to have an effect, Shackleford's draw of the #12 post may work to increase the gap in odds versus Animal Kingdom.

The inside posts in the Belmont Stakes are thought to have an advantage, and the outside posts are thought to have a disadvantage. The reasoning is based on Belmont's main track being exactly 1 ½ miles around, and the Belmont Stakes being a 1 ½ mile race. As a result, the race starts at the finish line, which is only a short distance from the Clubhouse turn. The proximity of the start to the turn is believed to allow the horses leaving from the inside 1-3 posts to save ground, while causing the horses leaving from the far outside 10-12 posts to travel a longer distance into the turn and exert themselves more than the inside horses in order to gain good position.

The theory of post-position bias is often supported by a statistic showing that Post 1 has produced 22 Belmont stakes winners, while only 6 horses have won from Post 12. The number of wins attributable to Post 1 is almost double the number of wins from any other post. Posts 3 and 5 stand tied for second with 13 wins each. Post 2 has 11 wins. The number of wins for horses breaking from Post 12 is half the number of wins from Post 2,3,or 5.

Based on the above theory, breaking from Post 1 would benefit Master of the Hounds. Despite that, the NYRA Racing Secretary, P.J. Campo, set the odds on Master of the Hounds at 10-1. Before the post positions were assigned, Mike Watchmaker estimated the odds on Master of the Hounds would be 8-1. Obviously, Master of the Hounds does not seem to have been given any credit in the morning line for his rail position.

Perhaps the NYRA racing secretary knows that the post position bias attributed to Post 1 is not what it is generally believed to be. In fact, the effect of any post position bias has been exaggerated, and the statistics used to support the theory are faulty.

The theory of a post position bias fails to take into account an intentional track bias designed to negate the effect of the greater distance that the outside horses must run. The track at Belmont slopes inward toward the rail. Being able to run downhill to the rail compensates for the extra distance that must be run to get there. The wide profile of the clubhouse turn also lessens the negative effect of the turn.

The problem with the cited statistics is that they are based on every Belmont Stakes race since 1867, including 40 races run at different tracks during the years 1867 to 1904, and 1963 to 1967. The statistics also include 15 races from 1905 to 1919 that were run in the opposite direction. Further complicating the situation, in 1958 the track shortened the far turn by 96 feet, and in 1990, to accommodate the Breeders' Cup, the track widened the clubhouse turn. Finally, the very low number of wins from Post 12 can be attributed more to the fact that many races did not have 12 entrants. Post 12 can't win a race in which there is no Post 12.

Eliminating the years in which the race was run on different tracks, and the years in which the race was run clockwise instead of counterclockwise, we find that Post 1 has won 16 times in 87 races (18.3%). Even though that was still the highest number of wins among the post positions, the general distribution of wins in these 87 meaningful races begins to look more like it is attributable to luck than to a bias. The next highest number of wins in these races comes not from the inside posts, but from Posts 5 and 7, in the middle of the field. Those posts had 13 wins each. Post 3 had 11 wins, but, strangely, post 2 failed to follow the pattern of the posts on either side of it. Surrounded by post 1 with 16 wins and post 3 with 11 wins, post 2 only had 7 wins. Strangely again, even though posts 5 and 7 each had the second highest number of wins at 13, post 6 between them had a mere 4 wins. The failure of the win statistics for each post to follow a predictable inside vs. outside pattern suggests that luck, and not track bias is at work.

The only clear statistical trend that appears in the 87 meaningful races is that odd number posts win much more often than even numbered posts. Posts 3,5.and 7 produced 37 winners, while posts 2,4, and 6 were responsible for a mere 22 winners. If we compare instead posts 1,3,and 5 as the odd numbered posts, we get 40 winners from odd numbered posts, compared to 22 winners from even numbered posts. The difference between odd and even results defies any logical explanation. The various post position win results over the meaningful 87 years appear to be random, perhaps with a very slight bias to post 1.

Since 1991, after Belmont widened the clubhouse turn, the inside posts appear to have lost any remaining hint of an advantage. Posts 1-3 accounted for a mere 5 wins combined in the 20 years through 2010, whichi is exactly equal to the number of wins produced by posts 5-7 combined. The posts with the most wins from 1991 to the present have been Post 4 and 7 with 3 wins each. Between those two, posts 5 and 6 produced just one win apiece. Posts outside of Post 7 accounted for 35% of all wins. The number of wins for all posts over the 1991-2010 period is very close to random expectation. The individual win statistics for posts 8-14 have not been considered because those posts did not exist in every race, but the combined statistics can be deduced from the total wins of posts 1-7, and those combined statistics do not present any statistically significant aberration.

One more factor should be discussed. There is a predicted 50% chance of thunderstorms for Saturday. The rail at Belmont becomes very slow and deep when the track is wet. Jockeys familiar with the track attempt to race all the way out in the four or five path when the track is sloppy. No matter how much extra distance must be run around the turns, the disadvantage is not as great as the disadvantage experienced by attempting to run in the deep bog at the rail. Should the track come up wet, the rail horse will experience a significant hardship on the break, and will need to run uphill to get off the rail.

WORLD ENDING BET OF ALL TIME IN PREAKNESS

Rob Crowne — Sat, 21 May 2011 20:25:00 GMT

“A 10-hour party to celebrate a two-minute race.” -- Kegasus, Lord of the Pimlico Infield.

The race may only be about two minutes long, but everything from 2:30 PM on is televised on VS. and then on NBC. Nothing is more exciting than watching your horse battling down the stretch in race after race. At least that’s usually the case. But this Saturday there will a grand finale that even tops your horse battling to a photo finish win at odds of 50-1.

Fundamentalist Christian Preacher and radio show host, the 89-year old Harold Camping, who has had more wrong end-of-world predictions than Newt Gingrich has had bad marriages, this time predicts the coming of the Apocalypse will be timed to coincide with the horses hitting the finish line in the Preakness. Now that’s real excitement. (Eat your heart out Kentucky.) This time, Camping is sure he’s correct. His reasoning is that, according to the Old Testament, God told Noah, "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

So how does that relate to this Saturday at 6:20 PM Eastern? It seems the Bible also says, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."   That could simply mean that God is infinite and timeless, but Camping gives it a much more literal interpretation. According to Camping, when God spoke to Noah, He could have meant either 7 actual days or 7000 years. No one, after all, beats God when it comes to speaking imprecisely, except maybe the Gypsy fortune-teller lady above the deli near my office.

The flood occurred in 4990 BC. Exactly 7000 years later to the minute, we come to the scheduled finish of the 136th Preakness. Wait!   Don’t we know God meant 7 actual days and not 7000 years because he instructed Noah to build an ark and gather the animals, and presumably God knew that Noah wouldn’t be around to do that in 2011?   The Bible also tells us that the promised flood actually occurred seven days later back in the time of Noah. That’s fairly strong evidence that God did not mean 7000 years. But hey, why quibble? What’s a bit of logic and evidence compared to the $14 million in contributions Camping has raised for himself with this latest end-of-world prediction, and the $70 million fortune he has amassed with all his incorrect pronouncements combined?

Camping and his followers apparently interpret the Bible statement about a day being as 1000 years to God to mean that God lacks the intellectual capacity to tell the difference, and will do the whole world destruction thing all over again this Saturday just to be sure he wasn’t ahead of schedule the first time. Plus, after 7000 years, God has probably forgotten all about Noah and the first destruction of all living things. After all, 7000 years may be like 7 days to God, but its still a long time when it comes to memory. We remember Noah because we keep reading the story in the Bible. But the Bible was written by God for men, and not men for God, so God doesn’t read it.   Thus, expect God is going to do the Noah thing all over again as the horses hit the finish line in the Preakness.

Forget about global warming. It’s global raining that will be the real problem. If the track is sloppy, we’re all in trouble.

But there is a bright side to all of this. Despite what the great god Kegasus, Lord of the Infield, says, the last day of life on earth makes a much better excuse than a mere 2-minute race to throw a final knock-‘em-dead blast.

And what better to top off a great Last Party, than going out a winner? This is truly your last chance to get even. With that in mind, you’ll want the surest pick you can get today. To help you, below is my analysis of the Preakness pretenders and contenders, followed by my WORLD ENDING BET OF ALL TIME.

PREAKNESS ANALYSIS

You can’t pick winners without recognizing the losers. Identify the losers, and the winners will take care of themselves. I list the Pretenders first, followed by the Contenders, all in no particular order, and concluding with the piece de resistance, my WORLD ENDING BET OF ALL TIME.

NO SHOT

1. NORMAN ASBJORNSON                                                                                                                         No, that’s not the name of the jockey. It’sthe name of the horse. I can’t wait until the track announcer has to give this horse a call. Picture this one in a stretch duel running head to head with one or more other contenders:

“ Coming to the wire, across the track, nothing between them, in a full out drive, it’s Animal Kingdom, Dialed In and Norman Asa. . Asba. . .Azerbajan. . . er Ahmadinejad. . . oh hell, it’s a photo finish, too close to call between Animal Kingdom, Dialed In and Norman.”

That stretch call will never happen. The fix is in. The track announcer is a union member. This horse will be nowhere in the stretch unless they change his name before the race.

So who is the real Norman Asbjornson?    He’s the CEO of an air conditioning and refrigeration company. What else would you expect for a guy with a Scandinavian last name? See how smart gambling can make you? I’ll bet there isn’t a single graduate in the past 10-years from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke or MIT who knows what Norman Asbjornson does for a living.

The real question: When will RJ part with $200,000 from pocket change, buy himself a couple of good- looking colts at Keeneland, name them “Pregame” and “RJ Bell,” and win the Triple Crown? Just think of the publicity. RJ could become even more famous than Norman Asbjornson.

2. ISN’T HE PERFECT?                                                                                                                               NO, he isn’t! That is, unless you consider that he’s grown up to be a perfect embarrassment to his parents.

3. SWAY AWAY                                                                                                                                              The name says it all. Swayed away from the Kentucky Derby by insufficient graded stakes earnings, he should have stayed away for this race.

4. CONCEALED IDENTITY
This homebred Maryland specialist has a great pedigree. Pimlico is his home track. That’s no small advantage. Thoroughbred horses are notoriously skittish, and they don’t like travel or new surroundings. Unfortunately, this horse doesn’t seem to have inherited the super talent of his father, Smarty Jones, and his home-court edge alone won’t be enough for him to beat this bunch. The downside of being at home is that it will hard for the horse’s connections to conceal their identities when the race is over.

On the upside, maybe we’ll get to see him prance around when they play the new, hip version of “Maryland, My Maryland,” written by Jay Z, originally recorded by Jay Z and Alicia Keys, and now sung this Saturday by the 16-year old niece of somebody in power at Pimlico, before the TV viewers are saved by a cut to commercial in the middle of the song. (Take that, Belmont)

5. KING CONGIE
Another one with insufficient graded stakes earnings to qualify for the Derby, this race won’t help that record any. His problem is all in his name. If they had named him “King Crowne” he’d be a champ.

6. MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE
The horse with the sexy name and hot trainer. He finished 16th in the Kentucky Derby beating only 2 out of 18 opponents. Sure Baffert is a great trainer, but Baffert isn’t the one running around the track. Don’t forget, Baffert also trained him two weeks ago when he was in a race for last. For a better chance at a midnight interlude, take the money you would have bet on this one, buy your favorite hottie a gift, with it, and see what develops. If you don’t have a favorite hottie, try renting a hotel room, lay the money on the bed, wait until the maid comes in, and then run naked at her from the bathroom. The latter idea may not have a great history of working, but it’s still a better shot than a bet on the nose of this horse.

7. MR. COMMONS
He finished third, just 2 ½ lengths off the winner in the Grade 1 Santa Anita Derby. Unfortunately, the winner was Midnight Interlude (see above). Breaking from the #14 slot on a track with tight turns removes any doubt this one won’t lose.

THE CONTENDERS
(Again in No Particular Order)

1. ANIMAL KINGDOM
Will have a huge drop in odds from the Derby, he’ll probably one of three favorites along with Dialed In and Shackelford. Bred to run on grass, this colt’s first race on dirt was the Kentucky Derby. The closest he came to a dirt track before Kentucky was a synthetic course victory at Turfway Park. The big question: Was his Derby performance due to the fact that he does better on dirt despite his breeding, or simply racing luck in a 19-horse race?

2. DIALED IN
The favorite in the Kentucky Derby, he lost all chance when getting off to a slow start and running at the back of the huge Derby field before rallying to finish 8th. His time for the final half-mile in the Derby was the best of the entire field, however. A better start, a smaller field of horses, and an expected faster pace than the Derby could find him running the way everyone expected two weeks ago. He beat Shackleford in the Grade 1 Florida Derby..

3. SHACKLEFORD
This front runner led from the gate into deep stretch in the Derby, before finishing fourth, only 3 ½ lengths behind the winner. Dialed In caught him by a head in the Florida Derby. He drew a great post for this race, and he’ll definitely be part of the stretch call. If he can avoid a speed duel with Dance City and Flash Point, he could hold on to win. If he gets pressed at the front, however, he may fade again.

4. DANCE CITY                                                                               This front-running speedster keeps getting better. If the track comes up sloppy on Saturday, he’ll be able to handle it. Has a definite chance to surprise at a price that will have you dancing at the cashier’s window, but he’s got to avoid contesting the pace with Shackelford and Flash Point.

5. MUCHO MACHO MAN
This guy was in traffic all they way in the Derby, had to go five wide, and still closed despite the slow pace to finish 3rd. He’s improved greatly as a 3-year old and the smaller field could see him giving those with a win ticket a gay finish.

By the way, did you see how old the Village People looked on Derby Day? Anyway, at least they didn’t call this contender Queen.

6. ASTROLOGY
He’s a Gemini. That means he could be good or bad on Saturday. If Libra is in the house of Leo, this one could roar, but, if she’s in the House of Kegasus, somebody may get screwed.   Probably won’t win, but could be in the exotics.

7. FLASHPOINT
This one has looked like a champ from his first lifetime start until he could do no better than 4th in the Florida Derby, eight lengths behind both Dialed In and Shackleford. He appears to need to run on the lead, but it was Shackelford who got the lead in the Florida Derby. If he gets into a speed duel, he’ll probably come out the worst of it again, but if they let him get the lead watch out.

The other question mark for Flashpoint is a change of trainer from Rick Dutrow, Jr. to Wesley Ward. This will be the horse’s first race since the trainer change. A change of barns can make a huge difference in the way a horse performs. It could be better and it could be worse.

WORLD ENDING BET OF ALL TIME

FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE in a no finish
I’m taking every dime out of the bank, adding it to everything I can borrow, and making the bet of my lifetime that the FOUR HORSEMEN are either scratched before the race or breakdown before the finish line. It’s a win-win situation. If I’m wrong, and those four guys do win the race, my losses won’t matter, and I’ll never have to pay back the debts. If I’m right, on the other hand, I’ll have an even larger fortune than Harold Camping. Either way, I’ll be in heaven.

If your banker isn’t offering odds on the Four Horsemen, then your best chance of enjoying the party will be to stay away from the pretenders and pick among the contenders listed above, or you might consider boxing all seven contenders in 10-cent Superfectas and root against Animal Kingdom. .