FREE FOOTBALL PICKS

HANDICAPPER'S CORNER

Coaches on the Hot Seat

Count on it-several college football coaches will be cut loose after the upcoming campaign. There's nothing really newsworthy about that statement of fact. After all, coaches are dismissed every season. But shrewd handicappers are well-advised to examine this annual occurrence closely, for in it could lie the difference between a winning and losing wagering campaign.

The reason? Identifying just a few of the "go with" or "go against" pointspread performers each season can have a decidedly positive impact upon a handicapper's bankroll. And, inevitably, some of the most-lucrative go against propositions can be found on the list of teams with coaches on the proverbial "hot seat."

It's not too hard to figure out why. Once a team starts losing and it becomes apparent that the head coach won't be returning the next season, the domino effect usually begins. Coaches on staff begin networking, hoping to line up another job when their current assignment ends. Players, too, assess the situation, and can be expected to make their own "contacts" as they weigh up the consequences of a possible transfer. The result, repeated numerous times in the past, is an almost unavoidable distraction and loss of focus in the ongoing campaigns, often resulting in a string of pointspread defeats.

Looking for a recent example? Try Kansas a year ago. The Jayhawks began to deteriorate near the midpoint of the season for under-fire HC Terry Allen, and their season quickly spun out of control. KU wasn't just losing, it was getting hammered as the campaign progressed, dropping 6 in a row straight up and against the line at one point (and outscored 199-20 during one four-game stretch). Allen, ostensibly a lame duck as the slump continued, was even forced to walk the plank before the season concluded. On the other hand, there are a few tales of coaches pulling themselves away from the approaching abyss. It's hard to believe now, but Virginia Tech's Frank Beamer, wildly successful the past few years, was definitely on the hot seat as late as 1993. More recently, Iowa State's Dan McCarney was under the gun before leading the Cyclones to a pair of bowls the past two seasons (their first back-to-back postseason appearances since 1977-78).

Consider, too, that precious few coaches are truly "safe" in this age of college football. Pressure to produce wins and bowl trips (and not just any bowl trip) have never been greater for coaches at athletic departments that can easily become awash in red ink if the football program doesn't win. Indeed, almost any major college coach will find himself on a hot seat of varying degrees with as few as two consecutive subpar campaigns.

And, of course, the truly elite programs tolerate even less. The likes of Notre Dame (Bob Davie, canned after a poor 2001, which was on the heels of a BCS Fiesta Bowl trip in 2000) and Alabama (Mike DuBose, dogged by off-field issues, ousted after a subpar 2000, which came just one year after an Orange Bowl visit) were removed quickly on the heels of only one disappointing campaign. That's why, despite their various successes, it's reported that the likes of Texas A&M's R.C. Slocum, Arkansas' Houston Nutt, Clemson's Tommy Bowden, Michigan State's Bobby Williams, and even Syracuse's Paul Pasqualoni have to keep their eyes peeled just in case their respective teams experience downturns this season.

How does the "hot seat" look for 2002? Not quite as crowded as it has at times over the past two seasons, when the bloodletting was especially severe. But a few coaches are definitely looking over their shoulders entering 2002. Following is a look at those coaches feeling the most heat as we head into September.

Carl Franks, Duke...Duke doesn't expect its football program to win ACC crowns or even get to bowl games these days. But the Blue Devils expect something better than 0-11, which is all that Franks (a former Steve Spurrier assistant at Florida) has delivered the past two years. Franks has to at least coax a few wins and some competitive efforts out of the Blue Devils to have any hope of returning in 2003. And if Duke's current 23-game losing streak stretches past Virginia's all-time ACC mark of 28 straight losses (set in 1958-60), Franks likely won't last the campaign.

Kevin Steele, Baylor...The Baylor program has been in decline ever since Grant Teaff retired at the conclusion of the 1992 season. And Steele, entering his 4th year, has yet to provide much hope as the team continues to serve as the Big XII's whipping boy. He's still looking for his first-ever conference win (the Bears are 0-24 during his watch in loop play). Waco sources indicate many influential Baylor boosters are ready to concede that Steele isn't the man to lead the program back to respectability. If the Bears don't show some noticeable signs of progress this season (a Big XII win would be nice), Steele is unlikely to return in '03.

Vic Koenning, Wyoming...True, he's only been on the job two full seasons. But no Mountain West wins and just 3 overall Ws in two seasons are hardly the sort of numbers to endear Koenning to the Cowboy faithful, who were used to far more representative seasons regularly delivered by predecessors Paul Roach, Joe Tiller, and Dana Dimel. Besides, Koenning was an influential member of Dimel's staff, so he's not totally off the hook with the boosters because of the bare cupboard he inherited (at least partly, some boosters believe, his doing). Like Steele at Baylor, regional sources indicate Koenning can ill afford another 0-fer in loop play if he hopes to be back in 2003.

Dana Dimel, Houston...Speaking of Dimel, it's hard to remember a coach whose star has fallen as quickly as has Dimel's. Considered an up-and-comer during his aforementioned, mostly-encouraging stint at Wyo, the ex-Kansas State assistant (believed at the time by many to be the man to eventually replace the highly-successful Bill Snyder in Manhattan) has endured nothing but headaches since an apparently ill-advised move to Houston two years ago. Dimel is 3-19 since and saw his Cougars slip to non-competitive status a year ago (a trend that began late in the 2000 campaign), and handicappers will note his 6-16 spread mark since moving to UH. His reputation has been further tarnished by the fact that he apparently left a barren squad for his successor at Laramie, the beleaguered, aforementioned Koenning. Anything resembling LY's 0-11 debacle would be hard to overcome.

Bob Toledo, UCLA...Pac-10 sources indicate the 7-season Toledo era in Westwwood is in jeopardy if this year's Bruins continue to produce the sort of on-field collapses and off-field shenanigans that have dogged the program since late in the '98 campaign. Remember, UCLA was once on a 20-game win streak and ranked No. 2 in the country for Toledo near the end of that campaign before a season-ending loss at Miami sent the Bruins spinning. UCLA is 17-19 its last 36 games, and the 2001 season that proved a microcosm of sorts for Toledo's career (BCS and Heisman Trophy teases followed by another on-field collapse and more off-field problems). Influential Bruin boosters are said to be fed up, especially after that no-show effort vs. hated Southern Cal last November (a 27-0 loss). That's a big no-no at UCLA. And with a new AD (Dan Guerrero) in the fold, Toledo has little room for error.

Tommy Tuberville, Auburn...A coach can go from the penthouse to the outhouse in quick order down on the Plains (just ask Tuberville's predecessors Terry Bowden & Pat Dye). And SEC sources indicate Tuberville has stirred the ire of Auburn's most-influential alum(s) with last season's late-season fade that included a galling 31-7 loss to hated Alabama-at sacred Jordan-Hare Stadium, no less. Tuberville was forced to make some staff changes (including a parting of ways with longtime, and respected, o.c. Noel Mazzone) and approaches a fork-in-the-road this season. Don't underestimate the importance of Tuberville getting the upper hand on the hated Crimson Tide, which Auburn supporters envision being left in the rear-view mirror now that NCAA sanctions have been imposed in Tuscaloosa.

HANDICAPPING THE NFL PRESEASON

Most professional handicappers know NFL preseason games can be quite rewarding. But bettors also know they must be selective. NFL exhibitions are, after all, just glorified practice games for the billion-dollar league. The key is betting on the teams that “want” a game more than the other side, or betting on the side that will use the far better personnel that day.

THE FORMULA

No, not a handicapping formula. But a coaches’ “preseason progression formula” has emerged in the 1990s-00s. It’s something like this. Use the starters for the first couple of series or the first quarter in Game One, then the backups for a quarter-plus, then the reserves. In Game Two, starters go 1-2 quarters, then the backups one-plus quarters, then the reserves. Game Three is really the dress rehearsal for the regular season, with starters usually going into the third quarter, often trying some of the new stuff they’ve added in training camp; backups might go the rest of the way. Most of the time in the Final Game, the starters play only briefly (unless they need the work), or not at all, with backups and reserves going most of the way, with special focus on players who are “on the bubble” to make the roster.

THE COACHES’ AGREEMENT

There is a general “Gentlemen’s Agreement” among coaches in the NFL preseason, kind of like this: “I will play my starters only against your starters, my backups vs. your backups, reserves vs. your reserves, and I’ll limit blitzes and kick blocks to obvious situations in the first two games.” Fortunately for handicappers, not all the coaches agree to this agreement all the time. Many coaches get “steamed” after a bad performance, or two straight losses. Some coaches (such as Bill Cowher or Tom Coughlin) like to blitz any time they feel like it. A few will sometimes re-insert starters late in a game in order to lock up a win!

SOME EDGES

Biggest Edge of All. The use of better personnel in that game, either due to injuries, competition, or quality depth, especially at QB. Most first-time NFL QBs will struggle late in games when working with reserve personnel, often producing more points for the opposition than for their own team.

Teams with a Game under Their Belt. Such teams did well last year when facing teams playing their first exhibition, going 7-2 vs. the spread. However, “belted teams” are only 13-14 vs. the spread the L6Ys; 24-23 the L8Ys.

Teams off to an 0-2 Start. Coaches get very antsy when their teams are 0-2, partly because the last game of the preseason is often a “throwaway,” with coaches focused primarily on the upcoming reg.-season opener. 0-2 teams (when not facing another 0-2 team) were 4-1 vs. the spread last year, 8-6 the L2Ys, 23-15 the L6Ys, and 60% the L17Ys.

Jets vs. Giants. They won’t say so, but this is not “just another exhibition” when these two meet, at least to the Jets, who have covered the last 10 meetings! (Wow!)

TOTALS

Do the “Unders” Rule in Early Exhibitions? Sometimes, such as last year, when there were only 5 “overs” vs. 13 “unders” in the combined prelim week and full Week One of the preseason schedule (and only 7 “overs” vs. 26 “unders” the first 2+ weeks, by the way). However, the “overs” still lead the “unders” 69-61 in the first 1+ weeks over the L7Ys.

IT IS THE NATURE OF MOST NFL EXHIBITIONS THAT THE PERSONNEL TO BE USED IS NOT FINALIZED UNTIL LATE IN THE PRACTICE WEEK. SO IF YOU ENJOY THE PRESEASON BUT DON’T HAVE THE TIME TO SEARCH OUT THE QB ROTATIONS, COACHING EMPHASIS, INJURIES, ETC., SIGN UP FOR THE GOLD SHEET’S PRESEASON LATE TELEPHONE SERVICE, AND LET US DO THE HOMEWORK FOR YOU.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR NATIONWIDE SYSTEM OF SCOUTS BY CALLING 1-800-798 GOLD (4653) AND GET THE WINNING EDGE.

^TOP

GROWING PAINS, RUTHLESS COMPETITION STUNT GROWTH OF OFF SHORE BOOKS

  Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. That overworked axiom is an apt description for the spectacular growth and development the offshore sports betting industry has enjoyed over the past 10 years.
    Back in the early 1990s, the concept of offshore sports books servicing U.S. bettors from foreign jurisdictions, where wagering on sports was not illegal, was just getting a toehold among prospective customers.
    American bookmakers, weary of problems with law enforcement, discovered that setting up an office with a toll-free phone number and a room full of clerks to handle the betting action was an appealing alternative to doing business in the States.
    Working independently of each other, several early innovators opened up shops in the Caribbean and Central America. Later, British and Australian companies entered the arena.
    This brave new world of bookmaking was not for the timid. The pioneers had their mettle tested regularly. Obtaining cheap 800 numbers was not easy. A limited local labor pool meant expensive staffers had to be imported, and absorbing the cost of transferring funds came directly out of the bottom line.
     Despite hardships and a few casualties along the way, the demand by U.S. sports bettors for a modern alternative to illegal bookies was too strong. Offshore sports books was an idea whose time had come.
     What the first offshore shops wished for and have finally achieved is credibility. Early on, bettors needed some prodding to send funds to an third-world country with the expectation that winnings would be promptly dispatched.
     Once it became apparent that offshore books indeed paid off customers as a matter of routine, the trickle of business became a gushing torrent. Betting syndicates and wiseguys abandoned Las Vegas, with its low limits and mountains of red tape.
     Then bookmakers discovered a weapon that heretofore had been denied them in their previous operations throughout the U.S.: marketing!
   With the magic of advertising now available, these boys went to work hyping the glories of betting with their offshore shops.
    But it didn't take long for increased competition to change the ground rules. The introduction of Internet gaming opened the technological floodgates.
    Whereas offshore books had initially embraced advertising as a cost-effective way to attract business, gradually the law of diminishing returns set in as an influx of new books enters the market every year. Now there is a pervasive problem that is hurting profitability and damaging long-term prospects of an industry that insists on being competitive, even if some companies compete themselves right out of business.
     This competition is healthy, especially for bettors. But there is a downside to unchecked, undisciplined growth in which shops essentially buy new business at an exorbitant cost.
     Essentially, the books are poaching customers from each other rather than expanding the offshore market, where the rate of growth has slowed down.
     We think offshore books need to take a look at the larger picture and take appropriate action. We are referring to implementing an institutional ad campaign like the, "Got Milk?" effort by the dairy industry to increase milk consumption. How about a cooperative effort by the books to cite the advantages of betting offshore compared with illegal bookmakers?
     There is a huge community of regular bettors who are comfortable with their local stores because they don't know any better. Many casual players would jump in if someone told them the benefits. It's up to offshore books to get out the word.
     Offshore bookmakers working together to grow an industry rather than their own individual shops would pay off in ways they can't imagine.
     Who will make the first move?
^TOP

BREAKING EVEN SHOULD MAKE YOU A WINNER!

The few experienced and successful sportsmen we knew firmly believe that if you break even in 100 predictions you should wind up a winner. That's not because 50-50 is considered spectacular. Rather, considering the streaks that are inevitably involved in each season, a sensible wagerer will press a winning streak (without getting out of control) and back off from a losing trend.
We realize this strategy is much easier said than done, and if you're not a serious follower of a sport, you might as well forget it. The uneducated wagerer is at a tremendous disadvantage here. The reason? Successful streak following is a matter of feel and intuition. A thorough knowledge of yourself as a wagerer and of the teams is essential. When you are going good, step up the pace. It does take a certain amount of courage to press your normal wager or number of plays, but a winning streak must be exploited. If your luck begins to run bad, retreat and use caution. If you don't have a good flow going, there's no reason to push it.
When can you spot a streak coming on? It probably shouldn't be a set number of consecutive wins or losses that triggers you into action. Even if you're a sound handicapper, if your top selections are accompanied by lingering doubt, don't force it. On the other hand, if you've been doing fairly well and can almost visualize the final score in the next day's newspaper, the positive vibes have grabbed you and you should press forward. By using streaks to your advantage, you should be able to capitalize and make the most of your hot hand (and not get destroyed by a cold streak).
^TOP

KEEP YOUR RECORDS STRAIGHT!

Sports wagering is no different than business...you must keep accurate records to be successful. Most all of the notable sports bettors keep detailed, accurate records. These should include:

. The $ amount of each wager;
. Who was bet on (home favorite, home dog, etc.);
. Type of wager (straight, parlay, etc.);
. A chart of teams you went with�and against.

If you wish to go one step further, visual aids (graphs and charts) can prove even more enlightening.
You records should be quite revealing. They should uncover your most fertile wagering areas, as well as your most troublesome spots. After those trends are apparent, you'll be more inclined to focus your wagering activity in the profitable areas.
Also, it's a good idea to keep track of how your "last minute," "heat of battle," or "just watching" wagers have performed. Again, the key is to isolate your most profitable wagering areas.
Granted, all of this record keeping can be time consuming. If nothing else, however, you'll become a more intelligent wagerer. If you're already successful, it should make you even better!
^TOP

QUANTITY VS. QUALITY

When are 60% winners better than 70% winners? Not often.
When managing money, however, we want the most money to manage, and that will often mean wagering on numerous games.
There are two divergent schools of thought on the number of games to wager. Some believe in highly-selective wagering, playing as few as 3-5 games per week. Others believe in playing every game on the board, reasoning that if you know your stuff, why hold back?
In truth, the best range lies somewhere in between, though probably closer to the lower example. If one played every game, the exposure to luck (both good and bad) will probably have too much effect on the selections. Besides, the vigorish ("juice") will eat one alive. On the other hand, if someone rigidly holds to 3-5 games per week, and a card appears with 10-12 attractive plays, how is the list to be trimmed? Inevitably, after honing down a list, one will often discover that many winners were left off.
This isn't to say that you should play games you don't like. Rather, play the games you like based on the parameters you've set for yourself.
This is vitally important when considering quantity vs. quality. Your goal should be to attain the most positive units at season's end. Of course, picking 70% on all of the games would be sensational, but it's not realistic. A goal of 60% winners is difficult, but it's attainable, and it can be more profitable�as well as more practical.
So, how can less be more (60% vs. 70%) ? If you were selective and played five games per week for 16 weeks (80 games), and managed the near-impossible trick of 70% winners, it would calculate like this; 56 winners, minus the 24 losers, equals +32 units. With the "juice" calculated, that's roughly +30 units. On the other hand, if you played 15 games per week for 16 weeks (240 games), and connected on 60% of those wagers, you'd be +48 units (144 minus 96), and after the "juice" would be approximately +38 units�far ahead of the previous scenario.
^TOP

EXOTIC WAGERING

Webster's defines exotic as "strikingly or excitingly different or unusual." And that's the reason most gamblers get involved with exotic wagers�excitement�and the chance to make a "big score."
Exotic wagering includes betting cards, parlays, teasers, round robins, ad infinitum in the sports area. One might as well include bingo, keno, slot machines, and lotteries in this group, since the odds of winning are roughly the same. Simply put, most knowledgeable handicappers avoid those types of wagers. Even sports book administrators admit they aren't good wagers, but they'll gladly accept that money from the customer for the same reason.
The most commonly wagered exotic plays are teasers or parlays. A parlay is when one bets a multiple of teams (2 or more) at once and that all must win or the wager is lost. A teaser allows one to subtract between 5 and 7 points from the favorite or add the same number of points to the underdog. The odds payoff is lower as you subtract or add points. You must play at least two teams, usually three.
It's difficult enough to pick the pointspread winner of any game at a proficient level over the long run. 60% winners qualifies one as an expert. So, knowing that the odds are not stacked in your favor at the outset with the exotic wagers, why on earth dig yourself into that ditch?
^TOP

MORE EXOTIC WAGERING

The chart below details the facts about parlays�the harder it is to pick winners, the less proportionate the payoff. Simply put, parlays don't offer payoffs at true odds.


     Winners        True Odds      Parlay Odds         Takeout

     2 for 2        3:1            2:1                 33%
     3 for 3        7:1            5:1                 28%
     4 for 4        15:1           10:1                33%
     6 for 6        63:1           19:1                69%
     8 for 8        255:1          149:1               42%

Parlay cards require that one plays the odds listed on the card. There's no advantage of being able to shop for numbers, as one might playing one game at a time. True, shrewd handicapping can reduce your odds to better than pure mathematical chance, but the parlay payoff cards are still too hard to consistently beat.
Do teasers look more appealing? Keep in mind that in the NFL, the pointspread normally affects between only 10-15% of the games played. So, if one can pick the winner of a game straight- up, the points won't usually matter one way or the other. The spread comes into play more often in college football, but the payoff odds are still a disadvantage.
Many books also mislead the bettors in their methods of stating the odds. For example, in a two-team parlay the odds might be stated at "3 for 1" on the card, leading some to believe that they're receiving 3:1. In truth, "3 for 1" translates into 2:1, because one only gets back 3 units�two of theirs, plus the unit wagered. That's a significant difference from 3:1, in which one gets back 4 total units�three from the book, plus the one unit wagered.
^TOP

WORDS FOR THE WISE

There are three key components of sports wagering:

Selection of pointspread winners at a profitable ratio.
Shopping for value when attacking the line.
Proper money management.

As in most endeavors, success in sports wagering requires dilligence, savvy, and discipline. At the beginning, be sure that your record-keeping techniques be utilized. Detailed, accurate records of your past activity can provide you with clues as to where your most profitable areas lie, and equally as important, where the most failure is encountered. Concentrating on more "fertile" areas should improve your chances for success.
It's also important to be flexible in the number of game syou play. Don't lock yourself into a set number of games per week. How often have you made up your mind to play only three games when eight or nine spots have looked attractive, only to end up losing the few you played? On the other hand, if you're set on playing ahigh number of games, you'll inevitable end up forcing plays you don't like and suffering the consequences. Don't be as concerned about picking a high % of winners, either; rather, llok for quality in your selections and strive to get ahead as many units as possible.
^TOP

THE KELLY CRITERION PART I

The Kelly Criterion is a complex math treatise first presented by a Bell Telephone engineer. Several years ago, it was adapted to sports wagering by a respected Las Vegas writer, computer analyst and handicapper, Huey Mahl. At that time, he was one of the chief advocates of using optimal betting methodsspecifically the Kelly Criterion in sports wagering.
This method presents a formula to determine what proportion of your bankroll to wager (risk) on each game in order to realize the maximum possible profit with the smallest probability of loss. This formula holds regardless of the order or sequence of wins and losses (with certain limitations). The Kelly Criterion is a method to help you compound a greater amount of interest on your bankroll than the "simple" interest gained by using a flat bet method.
In using this method to determine a proper wagering amount, you must first have the confidence that you can beat the pointspread at a reasonable winning percentage. If this reasonable winning percentage is 60% winners (tough, but achievable), the Kelly Criterion is calculated thusly:
60% (winners) minus 1.1 x 40, or 60 minus 44=16.
The number gives us the "Kelly Advantage," or optimum betting amount for maximizing return. You apply this betting % to your bankroll to determine the amount of your wager; if your bankroll is $3,000, your wager would be .16 x $3000, which equals $480 (this includes the vigorish, so your actual expected return on a winning wager would be .91 x $480, or $436.80).
^TOP

THE KELLY CRITERION PART II

Let's refresh your mind and again provide the formula for the "Kelly Advantage," a formula used to derive the optimal interest from your bankroll.
60% (projected winners tough, but achievable) minus 1.1 x 40, or 60 minus 44=16.
Apply that betting pct. (16%) to your bankroll to determine the amount of your wager. If your bankroll is $3000, your wager would be .16 x $3000, or $480.
Keep in mind that to make the "Kelly Advantage" work, it requires that you project a reasonable % of winners. Please, be realistic projecting anything above 60% winners and calculating it into your "Kelly Advantage" is inviting disaster. With the Kelly Method, you're able to take advantage of winning streaks by betting more. When you're on a losing streak (as everybody will be on occasion), following the Kelly System automatically reduces the $ amount of your wager.
True, there are negative aspects of the Kelly Criterion. Since all of your wagers are based on a set % of your bankroll, you are, in effect, always losing your biggest wager and winning your smallest. Many handicappers are not enthralled with the time involved in calculating the "Kelly Advantage." If you're on a hot streak and play an inordinate number of games on one days, you're risking a large % of your bankroll at one time. A higher winning % is required to break even.
There are, however, benefits to be derived from this system. By hitting your estimated or higher winning %, your bankroll will grow geometrically as opposed to arithmetically in straight flat betting. This "compound interest" will manifest itself in a relatively short period of time. Also, it automatically sizes your bet when trying to catch up and reduces the wagers when ahead.
^TOP

% OF BANKROLL

Respected sportsman and handicapper Lem Banker has said, "Never bet more than you can comfortably afford to lose." This is essential to remember when determining the size of your bankroll and the amounts of your bets. Whatever method or system of money management you have chosen for yourself (flat betting, Kelly Criterion, etc.), it's a must that you set aside a specific amount that you can comfortably afford to lose and stick by it. You should never wager any amount that would change your lifestyle�win or lose.
After determining the amount you'll have to wager, your next step should be dividing it up into segments or parts that you believe will provide the best chance of staying in action when you hit that inevitable losing streak. You may want to put more emphasis on a part of the season�perhaps the first month or the last month�in which you have traditionally had the most success. Don't risk too big a % of your bankroll at one time�you might go broke and be out of action altogether. The risk is too great, considering the mental and physical strains you would encounter when vainly trying to catch up.
Once you have determined the dollar amount that you'll use as a bankroll, a good rule of thumb is never to risk more than 25% of that amount on any one day or session. If you find that there is an abnormal number of games to be bet so that your regular wagers would result in going over your allotted % of bankroll, it may be a good idea to reduce the size of your bet on each game so as to not exceed the total amount allocated.
^TOP

FLAT BETTING

The term "flat betting" describes a very simple money management system�your amount wagered on each game is the same, depending on the % of bankroll you're wagering at a particular time.
There are distinct advantages to this system. Flat betting eliminates the need to assess a rating system on each wager. In truth, many who rate games by assigning them numerical values or probabilities are doing so arbitrarily and without real logical reason. Some merely assign differing values to the games based on past history or feelings they have. The degree of emphasis they put on a particular event can hardly be measured other than by their arbitrary assignment of a chance of winning. In reality, what are the real chances of that single event winning? Is a "lock" game 100% sure of winning? If it were, we'd never need to make another play in our entire lives. Of course, no game can be a "lock," and the basis of flat betting insures the player that he won't be conned into going broke on any of these picks.
Another problem that flat betting eliminates is that of the psychological aftereffects that often come when preferring one game over another. For example, if you bet three games and win two, you're at 67% and plus one game if flat betting. On the other hand, if you bet the same three games but double the wager on of the contests, you could still pick 67% but end us a loser if the double-up game ends as a loser. Such a situation can be devastating to your psyche, as a good job of handicapping is negated by poor money management.
Flat betting makes it easier to stick to specific rules you may have set up for yourself, such as avoiding road favorites or bucking certain systems you believe are strong. Also, you won't find a play that looks good enough to play more than a single unit�all of your wagers will be the same. In the long run, you'll probably end up betting the same amount of games, but letting your winning % grind out a nice profit.
^TOP

DOUBLING UP PROCEED WITH CAUTION!

There are some in the wagering community who advocate the practice of "doubling up" on bets to catch up when behind, reasoning that one isn't likely to lose two games in a row. Some even believe in continuing to double up until you've recouped your losses. Some believe this approach similar to a coach that takes to the passing game when behind allows one to "catch up" the quickest.
There are, however, numerous problems with this style of betting. First of all, when you're losing and begin to push yourself for more plays to "double up" and catch up, your psychological state isn't conducive to intelligent handicapping. Forcing bets just to catch up can be an easy way to play yourself out of a season. Second, when doubling up it takes only three consecutive losses to fall seven units behind. To then catch up, you'd have to risk 7 units 8 to go up one unit and that's not worth the risk. Not doubling up would have created a more manageable deficit. Cold streaks can spell disaster when doubling up. It's much healthier for you and your bankroll to wager the same amount on each game ("flat betting") and let your winning % grind out a profit. Unfortunately, greed dooms most gamblers and their bankrolls somewhere along the line..
There are also those who advocate doubling up when ahead in order to take advantage of hot streaks. Again, this could be a quick way to turn a celebration into a wake you're putting more emphasis on a game or set of games than you normally might, for no other reason than avarice. Sure, it's a good idea to step up your wagers when ahead, since you're evidently handicapping the games well or riding a hot streak. But doubling up could lead to ruin just as fast when winning as losing, since you only need to lose half as many games to wipe out your earnings. And this again will lead to problems with your psyche and ability to handicap games with a clear mind.
^TOP

THAT WINNING FEELING!

Playing an integral part in prudent speculating is the "winning feeling" articulated by Maxwell Maltz in his best-selling book in the 60s, Psycho-Cybernetics. Dr. Maltz writes:
"The 'winning' feeling itself does not cause you to operate successfully, but it is more in the nature of a sign or symptom that we are geared for success. It is more like a thermometer. which does not cause the heat in a room but measures it. However, we can use this thermometer in a very practical way. Remember: When you experience that winning feeling, your internal machinery is set for success."
But what about the "losing feeling" that can encroach on the best of analysts? An integral part of wise money management is consistent handicapping. Often, the first thing a person does when a slump hits is to doubt his handicapping acumen, submitting himself to a psychological browbeating while perhaps using the second-guess copout of the "born loser." Take heed: You only perpetuate a losing streak if you twist or disregard the winning principles contained in sound handicapping techniques. If brief success is experienced while ignoring these principles, all the worse. panic is not the solution; you put yourself completely out of phase. A veteran pitcher doesn't abandon his best pitch after several bad turns!
^TOP

GIVE YOURSELF THE BEST OF IT!

It is fundamental in this business never to get the worst of the line. The shrewd gambler always shops for the best available price. Value! The difference between a half-point here and a point there may be an important one. Games are handicapped so accurately that the player who grabs every possible pointspread advantage can end up winning 10 to 20 games more a season than the player who accepts the worst of the numbers. Winning the close ones will more than likely determine the bottom line of your profit-and-loss statement.
Winning players must shop carefully to avoid getting the worst of any price or line on a game. If you're serious about this, you owe it to yourself to get the best of the line. While the pointspread may make the difference in no more than 15% of the NFL games, shopping for value in the numbers makes common sense. Each football weekend, several college and NFL pointspread decisions may be decided by 1-point or less from the consensus Las Vegas line. That's why a shrewd pointspread shopper has a distinct advantage, especially with so many close games being played.
Let's also not forget that the smart wagerer manages his (or her) money in a sensible manner, so as to capitalize on a hot hand. Self-discipline is the secret. Without it you can pick 65% winners and end up in the hole. With it you can bat /500 and never get hurt!
^TOP

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A WINNER EVERY WEEK!

We have always thought this quote, made years ago by the owner of a Las Vegas hotel, pretty much summed up the plight of most wagerers: "The typical gambler will permit himself to lose far more than he will permit himself to win. This is the biggest edge the house owns." If you analyze the traits of most players, you'll probably find that most don't make a real attempt at winning big until they get behind! As many wagerers find out, this is usually a quick route to a busted bankroll, since you're forcing many more picks (and for larger amounts) than you normally might.
Self-discipline (or lack thereof) and unrealistic expectations can also contribute to this problem. What many don't realize is that there is no rule stating that you must be a winner every week. A few losing weeks shouldn't destroy a wagerer. One should have enough sense to realize that there are ebbs and flows in this exercise and that everybody who wagers will lose nearly as many as he wins�and that's only if he's a good wagerer! Don't place yourself in a position where lady luck can knock you out of business. To do this, keep cool and don't wager more than a designated bankroll on any given day. By staying in action continuously you up your chances for encountering success, but when the tide is against you stay calm so you'll be able to play another day when the fats turn in your favor. Never try to recoup all of your losses in one day!
^TOP

BREAKING EVEN SHOULD MAKE YOU A WINNER!

A GOOD "BYE"?

We're two weeks into the series of NFL Sundays when four teams each week will get the weekend off. Thus, it's a good time for us to take a look at a popular misconception.

The conventional thinking on "bye teams" goes something like this. The in-season week off allows time for players to heal their bumps & bruises, and for coaches to get a little sleep, rejuvenate their creative "juices," and develop a few surprises for upcoming opponents. With healthier players with rested legs, armed with some new schemes, teams coming off their bye week figure to have some nice edges when facing a team that had to play the previous week.

Not so fast, mein freund.

Over the past three seasons (1999-'02), "bye teams" facing "non-bye teams" are only 30-46-1 vs. the spread (39.5%). And the worst offenders are the home favorites (8-24 vs. the number!). Home dogs were 6-6; road favorites and picks 7-6; and road dogs 9-10-1.

So far in the 2002 season, "bye teams" vs. "non-byes" are 5-3 vs. the spread (home favorites 3-12; home dogs 1-1).

My thinking on the previous non-success of the bye home favorites goes something like this. Most coaches give their players several days off during their bye week, with the players taking full advantage, taking mini-vacations, going hunting or fishing, visiting family/friends who they haven't seen since the start of training camp, and/or often showing up on the sidelines of their college teams to lend support and encouragement.

In taking this time off from the regular grind of the long season, the players not only rest their bodies, but they also rest their minds. It's no surprise they lose a bit of their hard-earned "edge," and also no surprise they have trouble regaining their previous rhythm once the "bullets start flying" again on their next game day. Meanwhile, their non-bye opponent is usually in its regular practice routine, with many teams eager to rebound from a loss the previous week.

The numbers of the past three years show that a word to the wise should be sufficient. Generally speaking, pointspread-wise it's better for an NFL team to have its regular rhythm than the extra rest.

^TOP

<<BACK