So, for each possible combination of factors (12 x 6 x 5 = 360) there is a separate confidence level for each game. For example, this week with Pittsburgh, the confidence level ranges from .922 all the way down to .691. There are six cases where the confidence level is > 0.90, and sixty cases where it's > 0.85. But there's really no succinct way to report all that information. The printable sheets (nobody seems to be clicking on those, unfortunately) have the weighted number of picks; I didn't add those to the tables because it's essentially the same information as in the $ amounts. Since 90% cases are rare, I always mention it in the tables when it turns up, but I'm not sure what more I should add that wouldn't clutter up the house too much. I suppose I could add the maximum confidence level to where I mention the bet type; instead of Flip – 90% it would become Flip – 92.2%. What do you think?

Like a $40 bet is obviously better confidence than at $1 bet. But how does that match your confidence level? It would be good for you to put the confidence level up too, like you mention in this passage:

“But at a confidence level of 90%, that win percentage is up to 57.6%. And if the computer feels 95% confident about a game, on average it’s right a staggering 71.6% of the time.”

thanks

So, for each possible combination of factors (12 x 6 x 5 = 360) there is a separate confidence level for each game. For example, this week with Pittsburgh, the confidence level ranges from .922 all the way down to .691. There are six cases where the confidence level is > 0.90, and sixty cases where it's > 0.85. But there's really no succinct way to report all that information. The printable sheets (nobody seems to be clicking on those, unfortunately) have the weighted number of picks; I didn't add those to the tables because it's essentially the same information as in the $ amounts. Since 90% cases are rare, I always mention it in the tables when it turns up, but I'm not sure what more I should add that wouldn't clutter up the house too much. I suppose I could add the maximum confidence level to where I mention the bet type; instead of Flip – 90% it would become Flip – 92.2%. What do you think?

Like a $40 bet is obviously better confidence than at $1 bet. But how does that match your confidence level? It would be good for you to put the confidence level up too, like you mention in this passage:

“But at a confidence level of 90%, that win percentage is up to 57.6%. And if the computer feels 95% confident about a game, on average it’s right a staggering 71.6% of the time.”

thanks

So, for each possible combination of factors (12 x 6 x 5 = 360) there is a separate confidence level for each game. For example, this week with Pittsburgh, the confidence level ranges from .922 all the way down to .691. There are six cases where the confidence level is > 0.90, and sixty cases where it's > 0.85. But there's really no succinct way to report all that information. The printable sheets (nobody seems to be clicking on those, unfortunately) have the weighted number of picks; I didn't add those to the tables because it's essentially the same information as in the $ amounts. Since 90% cases are rare, I always mention it in the tables when it turns up, but I'm not sure what more I should add that wouldn't clutter up the house too much. I suppose I could add the maximum confidence level to where I mention the bet type; instead of Flip – 90% it would become Flip – 92.2%. What do you think?

Like a $40 bet is obviously better confidence than at $1 bet. But how does that match your confidence level? It would be good for you to put the confidence level up too, like you mention in this passage:

“But at a confidence level of 90%, that win percentage is up to 57.6%. And if the computer feels 95% confident about a game, on average it’s right a staggering 71.6% of the time.”

thanks