DogbiteWilliams

Good luck.  Even though I hate laying that many points, I did make a small wager on PHL.  WAS's DEF is just so weak, but they can still grab a back door cover.

Good luck.  I love that WAS TT Under 20.5

WAS's DEF has been pretty weak consistently.  While Hurts's injury should allow WAS to concentrate more on Barkley, this query makes WAS's prospects look dim:

PO = 1 and tS(o:points < 16.5, N = 7) < 1.5 and po:points > 26.5   7-19-1/26.9%/18.9/28.5

ATS:  6-20-1 (-8.9, 23.1%)

In the playoffs teams whose DEF held just 0 or 1 of their last 7 opponents to less than 17 points while allowing their last opponent to score 27 points or more cover just 23.1% of the time.

Good luck everybody.

Good luck.

I don't bet much baseball, but anybody who does should read up on Bill James.  The Oakland A's were one of the first teams to adopt his principles.

Not football.  Usually lighthearted mystery series + Doctor Who or movies.

Many congratulations and continued best wishes.

Good luck.

I will start with this basic query (In the PlayOffs, WAS is an Away Dog off a Win as an Away Dog):

PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD   16-43/27.1%/19.7/26.2

I will post four set of figures in this order: SU W-L/SU %/OFF points/DEF points.  The ATS results are not that stark; the differences in SU results underscore just how unusually efficient WAS has been.

PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD and p:points/p:rushes > 0.92   3-17/15.0%/18.9/28.4

PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD and p:points/p:passes > 1.25   1-8/11.1%/15.6/23.9

I omitted "p:WAD" in this next query to generate a much larger sample size and investigate AD's off a high-scoring game for at least one team involved in the AD's previous game.

PO = 1 and AD and (p:points > 36.5 or po:points > 28.5)   13-39/25.0%/17.8/27.5

Since I have no idea how hampered Hurts will be by his injury, I just bet WAS's team total Under.

WAS TT Under 20.5/-115 (1.5 units)

I am logging off for eating dinner and watching DVDs so I will not be responding for hours.  Good luck everybody.

I don't put much stock in queries with few query results, but for those that do this query says to fade BUF:

season = 2024 and po:team = Ravens and p:W

SU:  2-3 (-4.8,40.0%)

ATS:  0-5 (-11.3,0.0%)

In this season teams coming off a win vs. BAL are 2-3 SU and 0-5 ATS (failing to cover by 11.3 points).

Good luck.

Lots of stats and trends here - so many that they support and fade all four teams.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/nfl/nfl-conference-championship-betting-trends-stats-notes-action-network-betting-preview

Thank you, Action Network.  I love reading stuff like this even though I usually ignore it all.

BUF vs WAS.

Good luck.

Yeah, one you can sink your teeth into.

For those of you having trouble copying and pasting queries into the Reply field, I suggest trying this:

Copy the query, then enter the Reply field.  Type a few characters and, without moving your browser, right click and choose "Paste as plain text" and then delete those few added characters.

I uses Chrome and that nearly always works for me.  Good luck.

I was able to post that query from Comment #32 using my preferred SDQL at GTD:

PO = 1 and p:PY < 150 and A and -4.2 < line < 4.2

ATS:  15-5-0 (3.1, 75.0%)

Good luck everybody.

[Quote: Originally Posted by Indigo999]18)  A playoff away dog that passed for less than 150 yards the previous game.....29-17 ATS (+1.9), 19-27 straight up (-2.9).....if instead the line is between -4 and +4 this moves to 15-4 ATS (+3.4), 12-7 straight up (+2.4).......Bills   query text.......playoffs=1 and p:passing yards<150 and A and -4

Great query.  I strongly favor BUF and appreciate the extra support.

Dan Campbell became the DET coach in the 2021 season.

season > 2020 and po:team = Lions and p:WAD (SU 3-2) (ATS 2-3).  No decisive edge there.

season > 2020 and po:team = Lions and p:WAD and AD (SU and ATS 0-1).  One result is meaningless, so I don't think WAS is hopeless.

season > 2020 and po:team = Lions and p:WAD and p:margin > 6.5 (SU and ATS 1-0).  One result is meaningless, so I don't think WAS is a lock.

WAD teams probably did not get physically manhandled. Of course 5 takeaways may have made WAS look stronger than they really were; DET outgained WAS by 40 total yards.

I haven't found anything yet worth acting on.  The way this season has been going that's probably a good thing.

Good luck.