Category Archives: Reports

Guest: founder Tom Anichini

When I first started, I kept looking for other sources I could learn from. I found and followed it throughout the years. It seems like their win probabilities were pretty accurate, and I’ve always wanted to find out if there was a way to incorporate it into our picks here. 

This year, I saw a post that was no longer offering up picks and instead the founder, Tom Anichini, was going to release a book. I jumped at the chance and ordered the book right away. I was lucky enough to get a hold of Tom to ask him about the site and his analysis of confidence pools.… >>read more>>

My “OFF” mistake

Last week, I had my picks all ready to go… Decided to with Washington all-in as my money pick. Made my picks, just like in the instructional video, clicking down the Favored column, except for Washington, which I flipped and picked 16:


But alas, there is a mistake here… Can anyone spot it?


Oakland wasn’t actually the pick! Base picks was supposed to be Baltimore for 14 (I moved them down to 11 because I was implementing the round and then reverse win prob method). The Oakland and Baltimore game was officially listed as “Off” on Yahoo Pick ‘Em, and Oakland was randomly listed under the “Favorite” column.… >>read more>>

2014 Retro Analysis – Magic number and Moneyline accuracy

It’s a new season! And with that, I took a look at the results from the 2014 season with two questions to answer:

  1. How well would you have done sticking to base picks and no “Money” picks?
  2. How accurate are the Moneyline implied win probabilities?

[Review what Money picks and Moneyline implied win probabilities are]

Recall I ran the same analysis in 2013, and got 1456 total points with base picks only.  Also, the Moneyline implied win probabilities were pretty accurate. For this year,  going with only base picks would’ve gotten you:

Total Base Pick Points: 1488

The analysis of Moneyline win probability versus actual win percentage showed that the Moneyline probabilities were pretty accurate.… >>read more>>