From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: JGH computer predictions - week 7!
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 14 OCT 92 22:11:02    

In article <1bi4tlINN2dt@crcnis1.unl.edu>, mgleason@cse.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes...

>heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
> 
>>Predictions for week 7:  (The number after the game is the amount the
>>                          home team is expected to win or lose by.)
> 
>>Last week:  9-2!  (Cumulative: 54-21 72%)
> 
>>Falcons      17 Dolphins     21    8 +
>>Eagles       17 Chiefs       24    1 +
>>Cardinals    21 Giants       31    5 +
>>Steelers      9 Browns       17   -1 -
>>49ers        24 Patriots     12   -8 +
>>Seahawks      0 Cowboys      27   13 +
>>Bills         3 Raiders      20   -5 -
>>Oilers       38 Bengals      24   -3 +
>>Jets          3 Colts         6    4 +
>>Rams         10 Saints       13   10 +
>>Broncos       3 Redskins     34    3 +
> 
>C'mon now, you know as well as I do that these numbers don't mean anything.
>For one, you seem to be picking the winners only.  Big deal, my Grandma could
>do just as well by looking for the line in the sport section line and picking
>all the favorites.

Well, why doesn't your grandmother just write a program that does 
better than my program then.

>If you want to rate a football predictor, you should do it against the spread.
>Your program gives you a point spread, so you can do this without too much
>effort.  For example, if your program thought Kansas City would beat
>Philadelphia by 1 point and the spread for that game was Philly by 2.5 over
>Kansas City, your program would have picked Kansas City and it would have won
>that pick.  However your program thought the Redskins were only going to win
>by 3 over the Broncos, but the Redskins were a 8.5 point favorite.  So your
>program would have advised you to put your money on Denver and you would have
>lost that bet.
> 
>Here's how you _really_ did this week:
> 
>Philadelphia      2.5      KANSAS CITY  17 24    (kc +1) = kc = +
>San Francisco    16.5      NEW ENGLAND  24 12    (sf +8) = ne = +
>DALLAS           15.0          Seattle  27 0     (dl +13)= se = - 
>MIAMI             7.5          Atlanta  21 17    (mi +8) = mi = -
>NY GIANTS         7.5          Phoenix  31 21    (ny +5) = ph = -
>Pittsburgh        3.0        CLEVELAND  9 17     (pt +1) = cl = +
>Buffalo           8.0       LA RAIDERS  3 20     (bf +5) = la = +
>Houston           7.0       CINCINNATI  38 24    (ho +3) = ci = -
>NY Jets           2.5     INDIANAPOLIS  3 6      (in +4) = in = +
>NEW ORLEANS       9.0          LA Rams  13 10    (no +10)= no = -
>WASHINGTON        8.5           Denver  34 3     (wa +3) = dn = -
> 
>So your picker was 5-6 last week.  Had you put $10 on each game you would have
>lost $16 total (5 * 10 - 6 * 11).  If you can find a formula which wins against
>the spread more than 52.38% of the time (11/21) you have a good formula.

Actually, I don't agree with your method of measuring success.  The 
metric I prefer is comparing my results to those posted by other 
netters with their programs and with the entries in Dave Wood's pool.  
I wish I had enrolled my program in the pool so it would be easy to 
assess the success but I didn't think of it until recently.

The main reason that the spreads generated by my computer can't be 
compared to the Las Vegas line is that I have made no attempt to 
calibrate them yet.  I just kind of eyeballed it at the start of the 
season.  Think of the spreads my program generates more like a 
sureness factor - like the numbers you tack on to your picks in Dave 
Wood's pool.  I'll be sure to make this clear on future postings.

PS. You got too much spare time on your hands.  :-)

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro