I agree with all your comments, except for comparing it to the roulette wheel. Each roulette spin is independent, and the ball has no memory of what number or color it last landed on. As a former player, you know that there are a lot of factors that determine individual or team performance. A player might have a sore wrist, which isn't significant enough to report, but knocks his scoring down a couple of points, and that could account for being under the past few games. I'm only saying each game is not an independent event like a roulette spin. You are 100% correct that the sample size is way too small to be meaningful. And I agree that more factors go into the equation than what these sheets provide. On their own, these sheets are garbage. If one uses them, they would only be one of many items to take into account. Thanks again for another great video providing the truth about sports wagering.
There is also no human factor in roulette wheels. Player performance can be highly affected by ups and downs in emotion, energy levels and motivation which is a big factor in sports outcomes. Games played before and even after can play a factor unlike a plastic ball or a coin flip. That is why streaks have some value in sports. I see it a lot. That doesn't mean you can just use streaks or a consistency sheet to profit but that they are one factor to consider.
@@stinger0772 Absolutely! Teams can get on a roll and momentum can propel them to several wins in a row. Also, teams can get down after several games, dislike the coach, have issues in the locker room, etc., that can affect future games.
NBA player props are my jam. Recent history and averages are important - but they definitely aren't the be all and end all. If you try to bet with them alone, I'm almost certain you'll lose money long term. Ha, as I was typing this you mentioned about "you can't only look at one variable". Absolutely! If you could boil sportsbetting down to single variables then everyone would profit from it (or it would be so refined that the odds would never have edges concealed within them). Also, out of curiosity I looked - Kuzma went under in his, but Horf went over in his. 50-50 - what you'd expect from line bets.
Per what William mentioned in the video, if the books themselves probably ran a monte carlo simulation of 10k,100k or even 1m games for that matter and got to the avg where they set their lines to, would it make sense to then assume that the stat over the last X amount of games would revert to the mean eventually (although how many it would take is unknown in the short term). But the idea would be that since it is probably "due" sometime in the future and the more recent games would have a higher weightage. If I were to run an experiment say, by monitoring these sheets and then see how the lines move as the season progresses (i.e a rolling average from the books) I can then "smooth" out these variances in the short term?
