Skip to content


Yesterdays game was another loss.  Now 157-132 for the season, 13-10 in NBA.  The NBA picks have turned bad just as quickly as they started to work.

It seems the same teams are starting to pop up now all the time.  For the most part I don’t think that is a good thing.  Does anyone follow Massachusetts and know why they always pop up?  By my count today is my 11th time picking them.  They are 6-4 in the first 10.

NCAA: Massachusetts -11, Buffalo -0,  Connecticut  -14.5

NBA: Charlotte +7.5, Sacramento +6, Portland +9.5



  1. Cap'n wrote:

    i think its because they are a Sr. laden team and the oddsmakers like them, but they have really been a bit of a disapointment this year SU. I also have had N Colo and LA LAF come up many times. I have given up on LA Laf. Maybe things will loosen up once the conference playoffs start.

    Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
  2. KD wrote:

    Echo your thoughts on UMASS. Each time they have popped up for you other models agree. Ken pom and GA Techs LMRC seem to agree with your picks on them. Don’t have any data on how frequently this has happened, but its an observation I have noted on several occasions. Perhaps someone who follows Umass regularly can chime in.

    Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
  3. Blake wrote:

    I have noticed that a large number of your picks feature games with a significant player missing. Just blindly picking games with no player information has to result in close to half of all picks being uninformed. That would mean half your picks are coin flips. If that’s true, your record is actually really impressive and means that the win% on the other picks must be high.

    Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
  4. Joe wrote:

    When you switch from non-conference to conference play, you’ll see different results. Underdogs didn’t work well in non-conference play, so I’d play much more conservatively heading in to conference games.

    I think your system is working better than you’re giving it credit for. After nearly 300 games, you’re in the green, and that’s very unlikely to be a fluke, no matter what some bubblehead poster might say. You have an aggressive system that assumes ‘dogs and faves will have the same “win zone” when observation doesn’t seem to indicate that. I’d pick a more conservative approach, possibly even omitting ‘dogs. Then start playing aggressively again next year during non-conference play.

    Saturday, February 15, 2014 at 2:01 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.