Sharky's NFL play-o-the-weak 2016

[Sharky]

For those who are not familiar with my picks, I handicap the NFL games each week and post 1 “play” each week here on “tape”. For the record…I do put my money where my mouth is as I bet the same amount on each play each week… I have had great success using the same technique over the past 30 or so years….I started posting my picks on the old BJInfo discussion thread and continued offering them here (Thanks, Norm!) ...it is my ‘giveback’ to you cats

“Tape” allows me review my picks….and opinion of teams at the time....take week 1 last year…I recall being SO high on that week’s play…Vikings -3 @ SF…only to have them promptly get waxed 20-3 on that 2^nd MNF game….so even though I lost that bet, my system “won the war” IMO as justice was eventually served…in the very wise words of the now late, always great Dennis Green, “they are who we they were, that’s why we took the damn field!” (lol….it never gets old)…..Minnesota went on to 11-5 record and won their division, while 49ers went 5-11 and “were who we thought they were”….point is 1.) how any given Sunday….and 2.) what a difference 1 game makes…(10-6 vs 9-7)

My “tape” on this site the past 3 years indicates records of 11-8, 14-6, and just 9-7 last year….for an impressive – if I do say so myself – 34-21 record….that’s a documented 62%...sure hope I didn’t just jinx myself..lol. ..keep in mind, of course, past results are no guarantee…
Stay tuned for my play this week….I know who it is…just haven’t put in the bet yet…like to get it in b4 posting here changes the line…joking

GOOD LUCK,

Sharky

PS: before I get asked again this year…”weak” is not a typo, or poor grammar…some 20 or so years ago a bookie friend of mine called my plays “weak”….LOL…but to this day…he still calls every week to ask for it…least it keeps us in touch

[JackDeuceNine]

What's with such a low volume of plays?

[DSchles]

While what you've written is surely true, the problem is that there has to be some balance, in handicapping, between overall win percentage and volume. Taken to the absurd extreme, you could choose your Game of the Year, hope to win it, and then boast 100% winners, at 1-0!

Going 14-6 is quite wonderful, but playing a whole year of the NFL (almost five months) to generate (at -110) 7.4 winners averages to, well, 1.5 net winners per month. So, to make any serious money, you have to be betting huge amounts on each game, which, for some, may be problematic. And, of course, the variance is enormous.

The Westgate contest requires five picks per week, and, of course, although there are different winners each year, and last year's hero is this year's bum, the 2015 winner went 59-23 (for 33.7 net winners), picking 72.0%! The year before was even more remarkable, at 64-20 (42 net winners!) and 76.2%.

And yes, I know very well that they get to pick on Friday against Tuesday's lines, but that isn't what makes a guy go 76.2%!!

So, the bottom line is that, while one game per week is fun, and can be profitable, no one gets rich that way, even betting 10 dimes a game (last year would have grossed Sharky $1,300 for five months' work), so don't quit your day job. 64-20 at $10K per game? Well, that's an entirely different story! :-)

Just sayin'.

Don

[Sharky]

...no one gets rich that way, even betting 10 dimes a game (last year would have grossed Sharky $1,300 for five months' work), so don't quit your day job....

in my parts, a "dime" is $1k...and an academia citing a subset of data???...why not use the whole enchliada?...or cite the 14-6 year => $74k over 5 months - not chump change to a lot of people.

just sayin'

Sharky

ps: i would not advise anyone quitting their day jobs, or AP, either.

[DSchles]

My point was that this is what would be required to make decent money and that, once again, this would be "problematic" for many people.

I did quote your 14-6 record. But, you don't do that every year, and so I was simply pointing out that, in the years you won't pick 70% -- which is virtually all of them! -- people betting lesser amounts are not going to make anything meaningful, no matter how good your picks are.

Don

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I will be relaxing at Saratoga Race Track today with some friends.

There its a 12 race card. I will be betting between 3 and 5 races.

Like Game / Table / Dealer Selection in blackjack, eh ?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Good luck Flash."

I had not been to the track in a long time.
I live close enough to Saratoga Race Track.
I took friends, including my best buddy
(since 1989), a true genius, as he had
never been to a racetrack although he is
>40 yrs. of age. In a matter of minutes
he saw opportunities to arbitrage the
place and show pools. He immediately
watched changes in money wagered
relative to the horse's win odds, while
I generated ratios of money wagered
between horses with similar win odds.

We played more races than we didn't
and only one horse was favored.

We lost on 2 races. We won on 6 races.
We left the track. It was a 12 race card.

We did real well.

There were sequential years when I earned
more money than I was earning as a medical
professional. It was pre-personal computers
and it was pre-internet as well. The extensive
paper work and travel simply burned me out.

[Fiestastation]

That MIN/SF game was one of the stranger results of last season, when looking at the season as a whole. Really the only time SF looked like a real professional football team.

[Bodarc]

Hey guys, let's not hijack Sharky"s thread. Start a horse racing thread.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Yeah, you are right about this. I must apologize.
I am 'guilty' of an egregious unintentional "hijacking"

[DSchles]

I understand all of that. But that's just the point. Trying to extrapolate that to the entire year makes the endeavor very, very difficult.

Don

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Betting the favorite (in the NFL), something that I rarely do,
I certainly prefer the Money Line to the Point Spread !

[Three]

I would much rather get points than lay points for the reason Drunk stated (except for a point or 2). As for money line the book I was using seemed to use it to balance the action at a certain point. That made the line movement predictable if you correctly assessed the imbalance in action. The window was usually a brief few hours before they had enough action to suit them. It was on the morning of the game if I remember right. I often found moneyline value during this window. I am not sure that this was universally a practice by books or just a peculiarity associated with that book. If you pay attention to the lines you will spot trends like this one that may help you get the best lines for the week.