Jeff Haney debunks claims of 'scamdicappers,' who try to fleece sports bettors looking for an edge
By Jeff Haney
Fri, Jan 25, 2008 (2 a.m.)
As the premier single-day sports betting event of the year, the Super Bowl generates an annual last-ditch advertising blitz by football "scamdicappers" - touts who sell their worthless sports predictions to suckers with credit card numbers.
A sure sign of a scamdicapper is a claim that he owns a long-term record of making picks against the point spread of 60 percent, 70 percent or higher.
If you're tempted to believe such nonsense, consider a public challenge just put forth by Fezzik, the one-name professional gambler from Las Vegas.
Fezzik says he is willing to bet anyone up to $100,000 that he or she cannot pick NFL winners against the point spread at a rate of 57 percent or better.
The basis for the person-to-person wager, according to Fezzik, would be the challenger's performance in next season’s Las Vegas Hilton "SuperContest," in which entrants select five NFL games a week against the spread for 17 weeks. A record of 49-36 in 85 selections would meet the 57 percent threshold in the contest, which carries a $1,500 entry fee.
"Anyone who claims he has an expectation of hitting 60 percent against widely available (betting) lines going forward is flat-out wrong," said Fezzik, who estimates 55 percent is the best record that even a pro sports bettor can expect to achieve. "Against certain prop bets, or against overnight lines with small limits, it might be possible, but not in a sport like the NFL."
The winner of this season's Hilton contest hit 65 percent. Although that's a wonderful accomplishment and a $205,200 score for the winner, Fezzik said, it doesn't prove anything except that in a field of 300-plus contestants, a few can be expected to exceed 60 percent.
Fezzik opted to go public with his challenge not only because he believes he has "the best of it" - meaning he'd be favored to win such a bet - but also to expose as frauds touts who make outrageous claims about their records.
"If anyone takes me up on it, I guarantee I'll have people practically begging to get a piece of the action - on my side of the bet," Fezzik said.
Irish revenge?
College basketball bettors should circle Saturday, Feb. 9, on their calendars for a classic revenge spot in the Big East, local sports handicapper Matty Baiungo reports.
Notre Dame lost to Marquette, 92-66, on Jan. 12 as an underdog of just 6 1/2 points. The 26-point loss, which came in Notre Dame's first true road game of the season (the Irish played Georgia Tech in the Virgin Islands), was Notre Dame's most lopsided defeat in its 109-game series against Marquette, according to Baiungo. It also came after 10 consecutive straight-up victories.
Notre Dame (13-4 straight up, 7-7 against the point spread) has since cruised past Cincinnati at home and lost to Georgetown on the road. The rematch against Marquette at the Joyce Center will air on ESPN.
Accountability corner
(In which accurate predictions made in past columns are righteously praised, and the ugly details of inaccurate predictions are rehashed.)
Sports handicapper Joe D'Amico went 1-1 in two bowl game selections. He recorded a winner with Kansas, which won outright as an underdog against Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl, and a loser with Ohio State, which failed to cover the point spread in its loss to LSU in the BSC title game.
D'Amico (online at allamericansports.info) has been contributing football picks to the Sun periodically this season, compiling a record of 15-10 (60 percent) against the spread.
My recommendation to bet that the first score of a Colts-Chargers playoff game would be a touchdown was a winner.
The betting line on that prop was minus-185 (risk $1.85 to win $1), however. So either (a) I should be credited with just .54 of a win, or (b) I should have been prepared to take 1.85 losses if the bet went down in flames. Otherwise you’re practicing the kind of sloppy and misleading record-keeping in which bets on heavy favorites are simply counted as a single win or a single loss. Taken to its (not so) logical extreme, this could result in a handicapper playing nothing but minus-200 baseball favorites, for example, and hitting 60 percent winners yet losing a ton of money.
(c) Las Vegas Sun, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Big Ten crew under cloud of suspicion
Referee Stephen Pamon is at center of controversy.
By Lonnie White, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 20, 2007
Although there has not been any evidence linking Big Ten Conference referee Stephen Pamon to gambling on games, Las Vegas oddsmakers are leery of game-fixing at the college football level.
Two games from the 2007 regular season have come into question regarding Pamon, an officiating crew chief with a history of bankruptcy and gambling: Penn State's victory over Purdue on Nov. 3 and Illinois' upset win over Ohio State on Nov. 10.
"Both games had disproportionate money bet on the teams that benefited from the objectionable calls in those games in Penn State and Illinois," said RJ Bell of Pregame.com.
"On average, 70% of teams end games within one touchdown of the Las Vegas spread," Bell said. "Which means that a single corrupt call that results in one touchdown -- or a touchdown denied to an opponent -- would allow a gambler to win 70% of his bets."
It will be interesting to see the fallout regarding Pamon, whose officiating crew made several questionable calls in both games.
The 32-game bowl season will start tonight with the Poinsettia Bowl, featuring Utah (8-4) against Navy (8-4) at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium.
On Dec. 3, the Utes opened as 9 1/2 -point favorites on the Las Vegas Hilton sports book, but that line has slowly dropped to eight points.
Money has flowed in Navy's direction ever since coach Paul Johnson left for Georgia Tech and was replaced by Ken Niumatalolo earlier this month. According to theSpread.com's betting chart, the Midshipmen had received 63% of the bets against the point spread as of Wednesday afternoon.
Navy, one of nine teams playing in a bowl game that will have a coaching change next season, has won four games in a row behind a high-scoring option running attack. Led by quarterback Kaipo-Noa Kaheaku-Enhada, the Midshipmen averaged 39.9 points and 351.5 rushing yards during the regular season and outscored their final five opponents, 245-192.
But Navy has a shaky history when it comes to covering the line. The Midshipmen were 4-7 against the spread this season and are 2-7 against the spread in their last nine nonconference games.
With six consecutive postseason victories, Utah has the nation's second-longest active bowl winning streak and has covered the spread in five bowl games in a row. The Utes, 7-5 against the spread, are also 7-1 in their last eight games overall and have covered the last four times they've played as favorites.
Pro football
At first glance, tonight's NFL game between Pittsburgh and St. Louis looks very lopsided in favor of the Steelers.
Pittsburgh sits on top of the AFC North with a 9-5 record and is listed as a 7 1/2 -point road favorite over St. Louis, the NFC West's last-place team with a 3-11 record.
But the Steelers have been anything but a lock for bettors lately.
Pittsburgh is 7-7 against the spread, including a weak 2-4 record on the road. The Steelers also have failed to cover the line in five of their last six games overall and are 1-4 against the spread in their last five games as a favorite.
Note: St. Louis is 0-7 against the spread in its last seven games against a team with a winning record.
lonnie.white@latimes.com
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
Jeff Haney on the New England Patriots and the highest betting line of the modern NFL era
When the New England Patriots settled in as 231/2 -point favorites against the Philadelphia Eagles in Sunday's game in Foxboro, Mass., it was the biggest point spread in an NFL game since at least 1980.
New England, 10-0 straight up and 9-1 against the point spread, opened as a slightly shorter favorite Monday at several Las Vegas sports books, including the Hilton and all Station Casinos properties, after thumping the Buffalo Bills 56-10 Sunday.
The Patriots were quickly bet up to 23 1/2 by gamblers who figure the Pats will essentially be able to name the score against a mediocre Philadelphia team that's 5-5 straight up and against the spread.
Other sports books elected to keep the game "off the board," or unavailable for betting, because of the uncertain status of Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who has a swollen thumb and a sprained ankle. McNabb sustained the injuries in Sunday's 17-7 victory against the Miami Dolphins.
Early estimates by oddsmakers at Las Vegas Sports Consultants had the Eagles 18-point underdogs with McNabb or 22-point underdogs without McNabb. Bettors who made the Patriots 231/2-point favorites are projecting another blowout victory, with or without McNabb in the game.
Las Vegas sports betting analyst R.J. Bell, whose research dates to 1980, proclaimed the Patriots the biggest NFL favorite in the modern era, surpassing the San Francisco 49ers, who were 23-point favorites against the Cincinnati Bengals on Dec. 5, 1993. The 49ers won, 21-8.
The second-highest NFL point spread before this week, according to Bell's research, came when the 49ers were favored by 201/2 points against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Dec. 19, 1992. The 49ers won, 21-14.
Since 1980, only five NFL games have had a point spread of 20 or more, according to Bell (online at pregame.com). Of more than 6,700 games in Bell's sample, 112 (1.66 percent) had lines of 141/2 points or higher, and five of those 112 underdogs won their games outright.
The biggest underdogs to win the game outright were the Washington Redskins, who beat the Dallas Cowboys 24-17 as 171/2 -point underdogs Dec. 3, 1995.
This year's biggest underdogs were the Bills, plus-161/2 against the Patriots on Sept. 23, a game New England won 38-7. This past Sunday's game closed at 16 at most Las Vegas sports books, although it hit 161/2 at a couple of spots in town.
The early Las Vegas Super Bowl line has the AFC favored by 151/2 points against the NFC, a number that reflects a probable clash between the Patriots and the Cowboys.
If the Patriots reach the Super Bowl and play a lesser NFC team, they could challenge the record for the highest postseason NFL betting line: the 49ers' minus 19 points against the San Diego Chargers in Super Bowl 29 on Jan. 29, 1995. The 49ers won and covered, 49-26.
The Patriots are expected to be favored by double digits in each of their remaining regular-season games, according to oddsmakers at the Hilton, who offer early betting on selected NFL games. A possible exception could be their season finale on the road against the Giants, a game that could have playoff implications for New York.
Accountability corner
(In which accurate predictions made in past columns are righteously praised, and the ugly details of inaccurate predictions are rehashed.)
Las Vegas sports handicapper Joe D'Amico went 6-2 against the point spread in eight NFL and college football predictions in his most recent appearance in this space. D'Amico (online at allamericansports.info) was 3-1 in college and 3-1 in the pros. In another recent column, handicapper "Fairway" Jay Ginsbach split on a pair of NFL picks, going 1-1 against the spread, and went 0-1 on a college selection.
Election note
When TV sports prognosticator Wayne Allyn Root officially filed with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for U.S. president, he used the occasion to plug his sports handicapping service.
"I'm on a six-week, 31-8, 79 percent documented and time-stamped streak in NCAA football," said Henderson's Root, running as a Libertarian. "Now that's something I'll bet no presidential candidate has ever said."
Well ... yes, that's probably true.
Jeff Haney can be reached at 259-4041 or at haney@lasvegassun.com.
All contents (c) 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
Clemson vs South Carolina College Football Betting Preview
Kris Lazaro, expert handicapper at NFLSystems.com, has written a detailed prediction on the outcome of the Clemson vs South Carolina college football game on Saturday.
The battle for South Carolina will resume its 105th rendition this Saturday as the South Carolina Gamecocks host the Clemson Tigers. The Tigers have been pegged as 3 point road favorites in this matchup, mainly due to South Carolina's recent 4 game losing skid.
South Carolina's last game was two weeks ago when it was smoked by the Florida Gators 51-31. After starting out the season 6-1, the Gamecocks have suddenly slid to a mediocre 6-5 record-and while they are bowl eligible, there is no guarantee that they can even make it to the postseason. There are currently 10 SEC teams that also have 6 or more wins, and with the SEC only having 8 bowl tie-ins, there is no guarantee that all 10 teams will go bowling this winter.
The game between Clemson and South Carolina has some interesting trends that one can analyze. Clemson is a surprising 8-2 straight up and 7-3 against the spread against South Carolina during their last 10 meetings. Although both teams are coming off a loss, Clemson is 4-1 in its last 5 games, while the Gamecocks are 1-4.
Copyright 2007, TransWorldNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Colleges need policy on injuries
Thursday, October 25, 2007
AUBURN -- One day before Auburn's Oct. 13 game at Arkansas, I received an e-mail from a person purporting to be a huge Auburn fan who was urgently concerned about whether injured defensive end "Quentin Graves" would be able to play.
I had no idea if Groves would play, and I told my correspondent as much.
But I had a pretty good idea that this "fan" was far more interested in the point spread than SEC football. He may have been hoping for a last-minute nugget of inside information as he debated whether to take Auburn and the points, or put money down on the home Razorbacks.
It's not the first questionable e-mail I've received, and it probably won't be the last.
The point isn't to moralize about gambling (although it's worth noting that betting on sports is illegal virtually everywhere except Nevada) but to emphasize that information can be valuable.
It's why Dennis Franchione's insider newsletter at Texas A&M has caused such a controversy. And it's why the secretive, inconsistent injury policies employed by most college coaches often contribute to the problem.
When he was at Alabama, Franchione would announce injuries publicly only if the player in question was out for the season. If the player was likely to return, he offered no speculation about the length of time the player would be out. The policy meant Franchione was never forced to be dishonest when discussing player injuries. But it also increased the value of the injury information.
Today, many coaches are known to release misinformation as a way to gain a competitive advantage.
LSU's Les Miles has said he is "deceptively honest" when releasing injury news and has chastised reporters who sought injury information from sources other than him.
Auburn's Tommy Tuberville is forthcoming with injury news, but most reporters and fans have learned to take the information with a grain of salt. Recently, he has prevented injured players from speaking with the media.
Although Franchione has been deservedly criticized for his newsletter, he's not the only coach who shares inside information. Insiders, ex-players, big donors and "friends of the program" often have access to information that no one else has. Maybe they get to watch practice when it's closed to everyone else. Maybe they speak with the coach regularly. Maybe they have a friend or relative on the team.
Most of the time, passing along "secret" information is simply a way for a coach to let a booster feel important. That was probably Franchione's idea, even though he should have known better than to "sell" the information in newsletter form.
But if insiders use the information for nefarious means -- like gambling, or simply passing information to gamblers -- coaches have no way of knowing.
That's why college football should consider an NCAA- or league-mandated injury policy, much like the NFL's. List the injured players. Identify them as probable, questionable, doubtful or out. Make coaches adhere to it. Punish those who don't comply.
It's not a perfect system in the NFL, and it wouldn't be in college. But it would decrease the likelihood of gamblers exploiting the inconsistencies and half-truths in coaches' injury reports for monetary gain.
Contact Evan Woodbery at:
ewoodbery@press-register.com
He covers the Auburn Tigers for the Press-Register. His column appears Thursdays in SEC Extra.
(c) 2007 Alabama Live LLC [al.com and gulflive.com] All rights reserved.
Bet on It, I Think?
By Kenneth B. Lourie
October 18, 2007
I'd be crazy not to, if I believe even one tenth of what I hear rapid-fired at me over the sports-talk radio stations. And what it is that I'm hearing that sounds so enticing, so potentially life changing, are the multitude of "sports-book" betting operators/prognosticators opining their point-spread pontification concerning the National Football League and college football.
Based out of Las Vegas and/or off-shore where such "sports books" are legal and/or beyond the reach of American jurisprudence, the opportunities to make money by following their occasionally "guaranteed plays," "for free, this week only" abound with every breath. The more they talk (more like barrage you with words), the more reasons, both statistical (win-loss record, road vs. home, conference vs. conference, injuries, tendencies, weather conditions, type of field, team history, style of offense vs. style of defense, coaching, etc.) and emotional (number of winners they've picked year to date, numbers of parlays they've parlayed, etc.), are given that their "plays" sound almost like a sure thing.
But it can't be a sure thing, can it? I mean, it's still gambling, no matter how you spin it. And when you look the word gambling up in the dictionary, it doesn't say, "sure thing." It says, according to the Merriam-Webster New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (a gift I gave to my mother for her birthday in 1988), and I quote, "an act or undertaking involving risk of loss." Now I don't know much, as has been proven countless times in this space but, a "sure thing" doesn't mean "risk of loss," unless losing is the risk I'm sure about.
But listening to these radio-experts reason their explanations as to why team "A" will "cover" or "upset" or "push" really is quite fascinating. What they all say, and typically what I seem to hear, on Saturday and Sunday mornings before the official pre-game shows begin - and obviously before the actual games themselves begin, make so much sense and seem to consider so many factors that a "sports guy" like me can understand and appreciate, that I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I've been investing in the wrong places.
Granted, one shouldn't bet more than he can afford to lose. But, the more I listen, and so far that listening hasn't been deliberate, the more I'm tempted to call one of their 800 numbers and place a bet. What's one bet? What harm could it cause? So what if I lose some money, it's not like it's a slippery slope and losing once will cascade me and my money immediately down the drain. I'd like to think I'm experienced enough to know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em. I understand that there is no such thing as a "sure thing" any more than there's a "free lunch."
Moreover, I am a grown man who has been raised to understand and accept the consequences of my actions. However, I am also a man who is not worrying about saving for retirement because I am "investing" three dollars a week into a lottery group at work that when our randomly assigned numbers match, will solve a multitude of financial problems. So I understand my limits (but perhaps not my limitations) and I'm clear on my risks.
What I'm not clear on, however, are my tendencies. If I win, will I walk away with my winnings or get greedy and bet again? And if I lose, will I swallow my pride (and put away my credit card) and chalk it up as experience or will I double-down, so to speak, and attempt to recoup my losses by "re-investing" and risk even greater exposure?
It all sounds so easy, though; so logical, so likely to outcome in a positive way; shouldn't I take a chance, just this once, it's only money, right?
(c)2003 Connection Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.
Who wants to be a spread-beater?
Originally posted: October 14, 2007
Where "Suvivor" meets "American Idol" meets "The World Series of Poker" meets your office betting pool we find "Leroy's Money Talks Invitational," a winner-take-all football-wagering tournament now underway in Las Vegas.
Thirty-two contestants pay $5,000 for a spot on the bracket hosted by American Wagering, a chain of bookmakers in Nevada. They pit their predictive powers against each other one-on-one, picking the winners of seven pro or college games, with the most prescient pronosticator moving to the next round. (see the rules)
The event (this current tournament is the fourth one ever) is broadcast on the radio in Nevada and also on the Internet.
I'd never heard of such a contest until a grade-school chum, Dave Hochman, mentioned in an email that he was playing this year.
He wass the perfect contestant if you like drama -- a sports nut from way back who makes a modest living umpiring and coaching school baseball teams, going up against a field of contestants that includes a number of professional handicappers and high rollers.
The thing -- the sobering thing, the inspiring thing -- is that expertise only gets you so far in sports gambling.
"If you can pick winners (against the spread) 55 or 56 percent of the time, you're going to win this contest," said Jimmy Vaccaro, the oddsmaker for American Wagering and occasional co-host of LeRoy's Sports Hour, the Friday afternoon radio show where the tournament unfolds.
The human drama is palpable. Can gamblers in Vegas put money on this tournament? Not yet, said Vaccaro, but that's on the horizon, as are 64-player tournaments with fatter grand prizes.
This weekend, Hochman went up against "The Wiz of Odds," Larry Trusley. (see their picks below; Hochman was mathematically eliminated on Saturday night, having lost all five predictions for Saturday games; even if Tusley goes 0-for-Sunday and Hochman wins both his picks, Trusley will advance because he won his "best bet" game and Hochman lost his)
At his site, Trusley, who bills himself as "the world's most honest sports handicapper," pointed out that the sixteen contestants who have gone before him and Hochman have gotten 52 picks right and 54 picks wrong, slightly worse than pure chance would indicate. He also admits that he has had four consecutive losing weekends.
This tells me that the betting on sports is a mugs game and that the chimpanzee who plays the stock market ought to enter this contest next time around. But it also tells me that this could get exciting if an average guy got hot, knocked off the experts and won it all.
This weekend's picks. For the uninitiated, here's how to read these picks: On the first line, for example, Hochman says that Illinois' final score minus four points will beat Purdue's final score. And, on the third line, he says that the combined point total in the Cincinnati vs. Louisville game will be more than 66 points.
chicagotribune.com
|
