Posted:
#26
CFL plays:
Adding:
3) UNDER 43 Bombers/Roughriders
____________________________________
2) Stampeders +105
1) OVER 46 Redblacks/Lions
0
C week 6
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by bold27:
Good luck brother
Good luck brother
Thanks buddy....
Another play:
4) The really rough Roughriders +1
_____________________________________
3) UNDER 43 Bombers/Roughriders
2) Stampeders +105
1) OVER 46 Redblacks/Lions
This game I'm not loving, ok?, but the numbers and the situation are a tell on Saskatchewan. The true line in this game should be the Bombers -4 as the season performances so far shows the Bombers have been a point per game better, and then the home field advantage of 3 points should be added on.
So, what gives, are Bombers' fan boycotting the game?....have they decided to play the game in Nova Scotia or Siberia, or what?
The linemaker knows what the true line should be and he is doing two things....he is giving 3 points to the revenging teams this week, and he is trying to attract money to those teams that won last week who are obviously playing the same team.
I don't like taking teams that the bookmaker is trying hard to make me take...another example this week is that based on season-to-date performance, the Lions should be 16 point favorites, and I nearly blew a gasket when it was around 7 at the openers. Sure enough, the line is moving up to -8, and bettors are on the Lions at a "bargain".
If things go exceptionally well this Saturday, I may take a flier on the Redblacks on the moneyline.
0
Posted:
#32
The number of points scored per game this season is a little more than 41 points per game....41.3 to be exact.
We can calculate the average amount of points scored and make our own totals based on the season-to-date stats.
The calculated total for each of this week's games are as follows:
1) Ottawa/BC.....41.3, the actual total is 46
2) Sask/Wpeg....33.7, the actual total is 43
3) Cal/Ed..........39.3, the actual total is 46
4) Ham/Tor.......39.7, the actual total is 47
Here are the calculations using mean scoring averages.
Saskatchewan's average amount of points scored this season has been 41 points per game or -.3 points per game less than the average of the CFL average points scored per game.
Winnipeg's average points per game scored 34 points per game or -7.3 points per game less than average.
We add those two figures to get an average of points per game of 7.6 points LESS than the league average. Soooo, we take the league average of 41.3 and subtract 7.6 points to get an expected amount of points scored of 33.7 points.
So, eureka!....we've found the secret method of making millions, right?!!!, we just go with our calculations and we'll get rich!
No you dunderheads!! I have been hammering at you that Vegas has PhD math people who calculate this kind of thing in supercomputers that take about 3 1000ths of a second, what took me about 20 minutes. They know the expected points scored and you should know by now that they want to entice you into making sucker plays.
As I said in an earlier thread, the true line is totally different than what Vegas puts out....they are making things very attractive so that you buy something that is gonna be very disappointing to you later. They have billion dollar buildings and we don't, right? Do you think casinos give you free alcohol because they are such swell people and want to make us all very happy?....or are they doing things to get us to reach into our wallets to give them lots of money?
The much better approach is to do the opposite of what Vegas wants you to do. Scoring has been historically low this season so far, but by the end of the season, things will have regressed to about what they always have been, or maybe scoring will be even higher than average. Last week remember?,........ OVERs went 3 and 1.
Just to be very sure you are following this....if Vegas has a total of 47 points for Hamilton/Toronto game tonight and the average expected points based on season's results so far is 39.7....we would logically want to take the UNDER, which is the incorrect play....we would want to consider OVER unless there is some very strong other information that we are using.
I am using an angle mentioned in an earlier post in the Sask/Bomber game to play UNDER, so there is conflicting data on that game....the calculations say take the OVER, and the historical data says take UNDER.
0
Posted:
#37
Here is some random technical NFL information I got from ML's newsletter.
New Orleans under Payton is 45-23 ATS as underdogs, 25-9 ATS with revenge. Winston has been 15-9 ATS in his career as a dog of over 3 points......ON Saints
Teams that won all six of their divisional games the prior season have only been 8-17 ATS as favorites week 1.....VERSUS Buffalo.
Teddy Bridgewater is 36-14 ATS in his NFL career as a starter, 26-5 ATS in non-divisional games. I think it was a mistake that Carolina thought Sam Darnold is a better player or a better leader than Bridgewater
Away teams that made the playoffs last season with 9 or less wins have been 1-13 ATS ATS in week 1.....VERSUS Bears
Teams that had their last two preseason games on the road and then open on the road in week 1 have only been 5-10 ATS......VERSUS Jaguars, Ravens......1-8-1 if that team missed the playoffs last season....VERSUS Jaguars.
Monday Night favorites game one have been 19-38 ATS since 1980.....VERSUS Ravens
0
Posted:
#38
NFL weeks 1, 2, 3
An away dog with an even or negative turnover margin from the year before has hit 70% (133-57 ATS), if their next week's line is stronger than their present opponent.
https://www.footballdb.com/stats/turnovers.html
Three teams qualify week 1.
1) Arizona's turnover margin last season was 0 and their week two line is -2.5 versus the Vikings and Tennessee's is +3.5 at the Seahawks.
2) Philadelphia's turnover margin last season was -4, and they are +4 versus the 49ers week 2, and Atlanta's week 2 line is +8 at Tampa Bay.
3) Bears' turnover margin last season was -4....they are -4' week two versus the Bengals and the Rams are -3 at Indianapolis.
0
Posted:
#42
College football
6) Rice Krispies +8...loser, (very badly) they snap, crackle and popped their way into scoring a whole 7 points.
3) Texas State +1..winner, I played them moneyline at +115
4) Toledo +17......winner
5) Georgia Southern +7.......loser, thank God you don't have to pay more if your bet loses by 30+ points
1) Rutgers -2.............winner, Rutgers has got a slow motion offense with a slower than molasses qb.....lots of UNDERs with them this season
2) Buffalo +13'.........loser and not even close, they spent the whole 4th quarter attempting 50 yard field goals instead of going for it on 4th and 3.
3-3 for the week, I think I might be 6-7 ATS for the season....too depressed about it to check. Two pretty close wins and three demolition-type losses today...usually I am better than this.
0
Posted:
#43
My first five picks below are my contest picks, and number 6 is a personal play............as many of you know, one must play 5 games exactly every week against their spread for the contest.
1) Arizona +3
2) Eagles +3'
3) Chargers +1 (I played them at +100 moneyline)
4) Browns +6 (I haven't played them yet, and I'll probably get them at +5')
5) Patriots -3 (I got them a couple of months ago at -1')
6) Steelers +6'
For you action junkies out there, there is an angle that says to take the UNDER in games where there is a week 1 away favorite who didn't make the playoffs last season.....UNDER San Fran, Minnesota, Broncos, Jacksonville.....it is something like 17-7 to the UNDER.
0
Posted:
#46
Ah!....found a site with NFL "expert" picks!!
We'll see how we go by tracking them at CBS Sports.
They've kinda chickened out as they haven't explicitly said, "we are picking against the spread".
Doesn't matter, you (and I) would've made a truckload, or maybe a moving van full of cash by betting against the CFL experts who were picking teams to win outright.....I doubt that these experts are any smarter, and they may probably be worse than their friends to the north.
I'll list the games where at least 6 out of the 8 total experts are on one team.
1) 7 out of 8 are on the Texans
2) 7 out of 8 are on the the Washington Football Team....I feel better about my Chargers play.
3) 7 out of 8 are on the Vikings
4) 7 out of 8 are on the Seahawks
5) 8 out of 8 are on the 49ers
6) 6 out of 8 are on the Browns......OH NOOOOOOOOOO!!!
7) 8 out of 8 are on the Broncos
8) 8 out of 8 are on the Patriots......eek!!
9) 6 out of 8 are on the Ravens
0
Posted:
#48
I looked it up.....my NCAA football picks are 7-7....trash, but would hope things get better as college football has always been my best sport to handicap....and I am not too proud to tail very good cappers if I don't get better.....here's looking at you Spottie.
That leaves my combined record here in this thread at 29-17 ATS, 63%.
Spottie's percentage is at 62% if I calculated correctly and it would be rare if you found much better percentages anywhere after 6 or 7 weeks of plays.
To win the superbook contest I will have to hit over 65%.
Games start in 20 minutes in the NFL.....NFL week 1 the last couple of seasons has not gone according to past history.....would be nice to get off to a good start.
0
Hot Forum Topics
