Thursday, September 3, 2009
The football season is upon us, which means...what, exactly?
It means that I'm going to gamble on a whole bunch of games, of course...and win you some money in the process.
Yes, the Brian Vickers System is back for year two! (By the way, please click the link if you want the ensuing words to make any sense.)
And as successful as it was last season, I'm promising better results this time around. Why? Minor tweaks, my friend. Minor tweaks.
Craig and I (henceforth known as we), although winning gamblers in the 08-09 gambling season, didn't win enough. Sometimes we just threw money away when we knew better-----and sometimes we didn't wager nearly enough on games with head-scratching pointspreads (which is the same as throwing money away).
In the first year of our experiment we wagered $50 on every game; didn't matter if it was a slam dunk or a borderline bet. Too often, that strategy burned us. This time around we have a weighted scale.
Important side note: Craig and I once again loaded a healthy sum of American dollars into an online account and when I post our wagers on this very decent website, it means that we've done precisely the same in our online account. If we win, you win. If we lose, I blame Craig.
Craig and I are breaking our bets into three groups: $50, $100 and $150. I know, I know, it seems difficult.
And a fourth group: $300.....this is reserved only for the most confident of picks (i.e., Our 10-Star Lock of the Millennium!)
Essentially, we'll wager $50 on the games we like (but don't love)...$100 on the games we really really like (but can't pull the trigger on more than $100)...and $150 on the games that jump off the page.
It's hard to say how many $300 Locks of the Millennium we'll have, but my guess is somewhere around once every two weeks.
If that seems preposterous, just remember: I'm trying to make money here...and I'm desperately trying to gain notoriety for myself and this website. It makes sense for me to win as much as possible.
When I first thought the Vickers System needed minor tweaking, I instantly assumed we would reduce the number of wagers for a particular week. On second thought, nope. All we needed was to scale down the dollar amounts for some bets. We might wager on fifteen college football games on a particular Saturday, but only five of them might see us plunking down more than the minimum of $50. This system simply makes more sense.
One thing we learned last year is that the Vickers System -- by simply betting $50 each game -- is bulletproof. You'll either win money over the long haul or come close to breaking even.
At worst, the new system guarantees the same (I think), only this time with a greater potential for a handsome profit.
Either way, you're sinking or swimming with us.
In '01, '03 and '06 I destroyed the college football gambling world. I knew what was going to happen, and it did. I wasn't using the Vickers System (or even a precursor to the Vickers System); I was merely watching a ton of games and betting on what I knew. Trust me, it's possible.
Which is why I have veto power when Craig and I are eyeballing Monday morning pointspreads. What we try to do is think along with the public and go the other way. But the public is correct every now and again, and it's my job to figure out when that's going to happen.
So, when Craig and I each agree that Pointspread X is maybe a touchdown off -- and, on the surface, a game we should be wagering $150-$300 -- it will be up to me to determine if it's too good to be true. Let's say this happens twenty times over the course of the year, and let's say I'm 13-7 in said games. Boys and girls, I just saved you a lot of cash. (Note: I will do my best to alert you to the games I veto each week.)
Finally, I will document not only our seasonal record, but our actual account balance-----and it will be updated every week. This will show you that, as impressive as our W-L record was last season, it wasn't nearly as impressive as the money we would have earned had we weighted our bets.
I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but I have all year to address any changes we've made to the glorious Brian Vickers System.
Besides, games start tonight, and so does the hot betting action!
Math: Reduced week one schedule = fewer games for Lord Brian to attack...
Boise State (-3) vs. Oregon
Words: Oregon is the sexier team; the more talented team; the better team. They send guys to the NFL, and Boise doesn't. And yeah, yeah, I know about the Smurf Turf and all that, and I love Boise's QB Kellen Moore...but this puppy opened with Boise as a six-point favorite. Nonsense, I tell you! Nonsense! It was no surprise the public jumped all over the Ducks, betting this sucker down to three (and reinforcing my initial thoughts). Boise is Thursday's play.
Louisiana Tech Lady Techsters (+13.5) at Auburn
Words: I know Auburn has fallen off a bit of late, but they're still Auburn, you know? And the last time the Lady Techsters were relevant Tim Rattay was prominently involved. Had Vegas made Auburn a 17-point favorite I wouldn't have flinched. But 13.5 seems like they're begging me to back War Eagle. Not this time, friend-o!
Washington Husky Dogs (+17.5) vs. LSU Tigers (or as George Grande undoubtedly calls them, "The Bayou Bengals")
Words: Let's see, Washington was winless last year and starts over with a new coach (again), while LSU (just like each of the past six seasons) has top five talent to go along with a lofty preseason ranking. This is too good to be true.
Memphis State (+18) vs. Old Mississippi
Words: Didn't the media just spend the entire offseason blowing Jevan Snead and the Old Mississippi Runnin' Rebels? Aren't they a top ten team? Yes. Yes. Then why isn't this spread higher than three touchdowns?
Okay, my people, there you have it for week one.
Good luck to you all.
-Brad Spieser (Brad@TwinKilling.com)
Posted by Twin Killing dot Com at 8:04 AM