The 3-Star Best Bet on Denver -5 ½ started slowly with the Broncos down 7-21 but Denver came back with 28 unanswered points to take a 14 point lead before Kansas City scored a late touchdown for a 35-28 final score. Denver outgained Kansas City 538 yards at 8.5 yards per play to 452 yards at 6.7 yppl and covered the spread despite having a kick off returned for a touchdown by the Chiefs and being -1 in turnovers.
The 2-Star Best Bet on Cincinnati -1 won 17-10. The Bengals outgained the Chargers 356 yards at 6.0 yppl to 324 yards at 5.1 yppl, so they were certainly the better team. Cincy was +1 in turnovers but they also took two knees with 1st and goal from the San Diego 3 yard line at the end of the game so they could have won by more than 7 points if they needed to. That was a pretty solid play.
For the season Mike O'Connor's NFL Best Bets are now 28-25-3 and -3.9 Stars but as I’ve pointed out his level of handicapping has actually been as good or better than his 58% Best Bet percentage over his 8 years as a public handicapper (316-227-16). Mike's performance this season cannot be judged on his record, which is actually pretty good considering how unlucky he's been this year as an average handicapper would be at 40% with the kind of luck Mike has endured.
I have always kept a ledger to grade my Best Bets honestly and over time my graded percentage is the same as my actual winning percentage because the luck tends to even out over a longer time period. However, there are seasons in which variance plays a role in making a handicapper's record considerably better than it should be or considerably worse. I’m not handicapping the NFL personally this season but I keep a log of Mike O’Connor’s NFL Best Bets and grade those games too. You probably already realize this if you’ve been paying attention, but Mike’s record should be much better than 28-25-3 given the bad luck he’s had this season, as his handicapping has been just as good as it’s been over his 8 years hitting 58% while his results this year have been heavily influenced by negative variance.
I have 29 of Mike’s games graded as being on the right side and he’s 24-5 on those games, which is 5 unlucky losses. I have 16 of Mike’s games graded as being on the wrong side and he’s 1-14-1 on those games, so he’s had just 1 lucky win and a lucky push. I have 11 of Mike’s games graded as toss up games that could have gone either way and he’s just 3-6-2 on those games rather than the 50% that he should be. The complete list of lucky wins and losses and toss up wins and losses is listed below if you want to verify my grading.
The net of it is Mike’s handicapping has graded out at 13 games above .500 yet he’s only 3 game above .500. If he won the 29 games that he was on the right side of, lost the 16 games he was on the wrong side of and split the 11 toss-up games then he’s be 33-20-3 rather than 28-25-3. I grade Mike’s handicapping at 61.6% this year, which is actually better than his long term average, but he’s simply had horrible luck this season. I know you're not getting paid on what Mike's record should be but rather on what his record is, but the point I tried to make a couple of weeks ago is that you should not lose faith in Mike's methods given how good they've been for 8 years and how solid his handicapping has actually been this year despite his 53% record. And, since I gave that message Mike has been 6-1-1 on his Best Bets the last two weeks with no unlucky results.
The lesson is to not judge a handicapper solely on his short term record, but rather on his long term record and the circumstances of his short term record should be taken into account, as short term results are subject to variance, both positive and negative, while the variance evens out over time. The season Mike is having reminds me a lot of my 2011 College season, in which I suffered a great deal of negative variance with fumbles (-19) and close games (won just 30%) and finished just 1 game above .500 rather than being 58%, which is what I graded myself at that year. The very next season I was 58.5% handicapping at the same level I did in 2011 but without the negative variance. Variance works both ways and there are years in which Mike or I have won at a higher rate than we handicapped at.
Check back on Thursday for a Week 14 Update
Check back on Thursday for a Week 14 Update
No comments:
Post a Comment