Joe Duffy ( It\u2019s no secret that the public had a sensational year last There are few certainties in life, but one is that This is not to suggest one go to the other extreme and Those of us who believe in systems, and many sharp players However, even the long-term proven systems are still We believe unless he has a change of heart before the year The famed scorephone Tailgate Party moves to Online Gamblers Should Chalk Up Last Year as an Anomaly Joe Duffy (JoeDuffy.net) It\u2019s no secret that the public had a sensational year last year in the NFL as favorites covered at an unprecedented pace. Far from luck, we had our highest number of favorites ever last year, but still fell short of our unparallel … Continue reading NFL Betting Advice for 2006-07<\/span>
\nyear in the NFL as favorites covered at an unprecedented pace. Far from luck,
\nwe had our highest number of favorites ever last year, but still fell short of
\nour unparallel standards. After many a discussion with experienced handicappers
\nand professional gamblers, I am even more convinced sharp players should stay
\nthe course. <\/span>Among our Golden Rules of
\nsuccessful sports betting: never forget the oddsmakers are one step ahead of
\nthe masses. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nJoeybagofdonuts will love betting chalks more today than yesterday, but not
\nhalf as much as tomorrow. He will be very happy to oblige and press his luck. Sportsbooks
\nwill very likely need underdogs to cover more than ever and one of the most
\noverlooked realities in sports betting is that oddsmakers know the betting
\ntendencies of the public and that very much factors into the point spread. <\/p>\n
\nblindly bet underdogs or even consciously pick a disproportionate number, but
\nlast year\u2019s results in no way represent a new trend. Our advice is simple: stay
\nthe course. <\/p>\n
\ndo, generally have a similar basis for weighing the reliability of data.
\nhow much money you would have won betting a system at one-unit per play) or
\nz-score (accepted mathematical formula that measures sample size and
\npercentage). We then see how it holds up over time: that is most of us agree a
\nsystem with a 4.7 z-score over 15 years is better than one with the same or even
\nslightly higher score over eight years if the latter system is not sustained
\nover ten or 15 seasons. <\/p>\n
\nslanted a bit on recent performance as to compensate for changes in the game
\nthat may strengthen or weaken the effectiveness of an angle. But I raised a red
\nflag when one of the top experts in artificial intelligence in sports betting
\ntold me he would slant even more credence to very recent data, believing
\noutdated, but still statistically significant systems cost him last year.<\/p>\n
\ngets into full swing, he may rue that decision.
\n<\/span>Simply put, the oddsmakers need the dogs to rebound\u2014and they set the
\nline. <\/span>The sportsbooks more times than
\nnot get what they want. <\/span>Last year was a
\nmajor exception. We find the chances of it happening two years in a row very
\nremote. <\/p>\n
\nseason. Early week, we have news, notes and computer trends, then on game day
\nwe give online bettors late breaking injuries, weather, sports service plays
\nand more all FREE at
\n